over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
wishes intercessions Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead and did it as we saw above for the reasons there mentioned viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope and demonstration of their affection and the like And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers as we hinted above out of the Cardinal acknowledging as much Lastly it was a private opinion but notorious and held by many That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Prayers of the Church a private opinion or misapplication That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be recovered out of their Pains or at least have them mitigated And to these the Prayers for the Dead which begged forgiveness ease or release were I do not say referred by the Church but applied or rather misapplied by many Origen gave occasion first to this Error for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments and his Error was as Vincentius notes a great temptation to the Church by reason of the wit and parts of the Author Aug. Enchirid cap. III. Frustra quamplurimi aeternam damnatorum poenam miserantur affectu and St. Aug. tels us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion Very many saith he do commiserate through humane affection the eternal sufferings of the damned and do not believe it will be so c. Of these also in other places especially in his work Of the City of God l. 21. c. 17 18 19 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion refuting them all Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tainted with that merciful opinion and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apology against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Council of Florence for that * Nyssen in orat Deus omnia in ommbus Idem in orat le Mor. tuâ—s pag 1067. Mixtam clementi sententiam Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation and in another place speaks of the purging of some and their turning to God after death who were impure in their lives And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa 66. ult which the Cardinal misapplies to Purgatory for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians does shew some tincture of that merciful opinion Now it is plain that Chrysostoâ—e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead to such sinners And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers did not the importunity of the Romanists force us to shew the misapplication of them to Purgatory I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip. The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for are in several Homilies towards the End of them thus set forth by him One saith he that daily offended God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that lived every day to his own pleasure One that died in his riches and never used them to the benesit of his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupted and lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of whom he saith Hom. 32. in Mat. If God had seen he would have changed he would not have cut him off before his Repentance Such as these the Romanists will not say that they go to Purgatory but to Hell yet of these he saith Let us mourn for such a one but that avails not Let us help him as we can How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prayers and alms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things must be done which may bring some comfort and ease to him To this tenour he speaks in all the places above cited but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts Shall we not try saith he of one that lived to himself and the Devil to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is a way if we will to make his punishment lighter and this by making prayer for him and almsdeeds and these saith he so much the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was guilty of the more sins And this he takes to be doctrine sutable to the loving kindness of God towards man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though we be not vertuous our selves yet let us get friends that will do this for us when we are gone Then presently follows * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblations are not in vain nor Supplications nor Almsdeeds All these things the Spirit has ordained willing or commanding that we should help one another Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith It is not the Minister simply or only that praies so for those that are faln asleep in Christ It is not he only that sends forth that voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Spirit He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands c. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembred and the power and efficacy of Christs death then represented Where we may observe that this saying of his The Spirit has ordained all these things which the Romanists do much urge as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit relates to the help of one another by Prayers Oblations and Almsdeeds which in general is true so far as we are capable to be helped by them But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of it makes nothing for the Romanists for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins but if it be applied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist as he seems here to intend it it makes nothing still for them or against us for we allow that Ancient practice of remembring there and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ The intent and purpose of those prayers he expresses in the close of his speech that they and we saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may obtain the good things promised through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ A place parallel to the former he hath in his third Hom. on the Epist to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Oblations with respect to the Dead These things Chrys in Phil. hom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he were not in vain ordained by the Apostles that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries For when all the people stand and the company of Priests with their hands stretch'd out toward heaven and the great sacrifice lies
Angels worship him might receive this answer it is a religious worship of the inferiour rank such as may be given to the most excellent creatures and doubtless the Arrians would have made use of this distinction had the Church of Rome then taught this doctrine so then either the Apostle was mistaken in his argument or the Church of Rome is in her distinction And if we be mistaken in our argument from this Scripture then was their Gregory the great mistaken who against Image-worship urges the same text Gregâ— ep l. 9. ep 9. quia scriptum est dominum Deum odorabis soli servies because saith he it is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve To conclude Peresius a Romish writer moved with what the Scripture and St. Aug. saith against this cultus servitutis this worship of service given to the creature acknowledges as * Bel. de Beat. Sanctorum l. 1. c. 12. the Cardinal relates it and checks him for it that he did not approve the name of Dulia to signifie the worship of Saints for we are not servants of the Saints but fellow-servants Rev. 22.8 9. See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant worship God Here as elsewhere he needlesly multiplies mistakes Of worship refused by the Angel and by St. Peter repeating what he had above of Angels receiving worship from Lot and of men receiving worship as Elias and Elisha though Peter refused it from Cornelius Act. 10. and affirms the worship of Elias and Elizaeus to be the very same with the worship which by Roman Catholicks is given to Saints and Angels pa. 35 36. How all this comes short of the purpose both as to the worship which the Church of Rome gives by many moe expressions then prostration or bowing of the body which is all the worship that his places of Scripture and instances concern and also as to the term religious which in his large sense comes not home to the question I say how far all this falls short was abundantly shewen above Now for the Text Revel 22. That which we gather from it against their Angel-worship does not arise from the bare prohibition of worship but rather from the reason of it for I am thy fellow servant and so from St. Peters reason for I am a man which shews some undue worship was given yet not as to a God but too much entrenching upon that which was due to God The Romanists feign two reasons of this prohibiting or refusal of worship first * Bel. Post Christi adventum prohibuisse ob reverentiam humanitatis Christi de Beatit Sanctor cap. 14. that the Angels refused after Christs coming in the flesh to be worshipped of men for the reverence of the humanity of Christ But if they did right in refusing it then must the Romanists think they do ill in giving it to them for we men are bound to have as great a reverence and respect to Christ as the Angels are and note the Cardinal saith not only that they refused the worship but forbad it prohibuisse saith he Secondly because John took the Angel for Christ but we may ask how did the Angel know what St. John thought Besides it was improbable that he took the Angel for our Saviour Christ for this is the second time that he thus worshipped neither do we find that our Saviour in all the visions appeared to him after such a manner But this falling down at the Angels feet shews it was in St. John a transport of joy for the revelation of such things as the Angel brought and thereupon an expression of that more then beseeming reverence to the messenger and it is evident the Angel conceived he gave some undue reverence for which he admonishes him to give none but what befits a fellow servant which ought not to be a religious worship or service entrenching upon any thing due to God the very reason that * Aug. de vera religioone cap. 55. Honoramus Angelos charitate non servitute St. August gives to exclude all such worship by the word service or servitude We honour Angels saith he in charity not service and immediately before insinuated God is communis Dominus our common Lord Lord of Angels and men that is as the Angel said we are fellow-servants So we need not contend so much what the Angel thought as look to what he said whether he thought St. John took him for our Saviour which this Author strives to make probable is uncertain but the reason the Angel gave is clear and enough to exclude their Angel-worship So that which St. Peter refused Acts 10. was not a Divine worship and therefore refused for this Author grants pa. 38. that Cornelius could not suppose him to be a God nor was it a due bounded worship and refused only out of humility as he supposes here for then he would not have given this reason I am a man The Protestants are not bound to say as he thinks they must pa. 37. one of the two either that Cornelius gave him divine worship as to a God or that St. Peter refused it out of humility For though the Protestants acknowledge there was humility in this refusal for humility is seen in refusing not only due but undue honour too yet have they cause to say it is evident that Cornelius gave him some undue worship exceeding his condition and entrenching upon something due to God and therefore St. Peter gives him the reason of his refusing it for I am a man as the Angel for I am thy fellow-servant Col. 2.18 Worshipping of Angels He will have us here mistaken because this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels How far the Romanists agree with those worshippers of Angels whereby they are made equal to Christ or that Christ is depending on them which Roman Catholicks saith he condemn as injurious to Christ pa. 43. His reason is because the Apostle adds not holding the head by which it appears such a worshipping of Angels is forbidden as destroyes the belief of Christs being soveraign head of the Church pa. 44. to which he subjoyns as a proof the Testimonies of several Fathers witnessing that Simon Magus and other ancient Hereticks broached such phansies of the Angels pa. 48. That there were ancient Hereticks that held strange phansies about Angels is very true but that these worshippers of Angels were such as held such a phansie of making them equal or superiour to Christ cannot be proved that they were not such appears rather for the Apostle first tells us this was done in a pretence of voluntary humility now what humility is there in going to God by any equal or superiour to his Son therefore they went to God by Angels as inferiour mediatours and they of the Church of Rome have a pretence not unlike in their applying to God by the mediation of Saints and Angels Secondly the Apostle in this chapter speaks
taken away in the use of them This is easily said and pretended but what boots it when people are taught contrary to the commandment to bow down and worship and to direct and secure them in it do hear a company of distinctions * Vid. supra in introduct ex Bel. they understand not Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be examined we may without rash judgement which this Author layes to our charge pa. 72. challenge the Church of Rome for so needlesly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatrie or superstition in this and other points of worship The first Protestant position saith he is That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness and the Scripture is Deut. 4.15 16. This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome Of picturing God the Father pa. 75. Before we ask his reason note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point * Bel. de Imagin l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non recte fieri the Cardinal acknowledges some of his Catholicks Abulensis Durand Peresius and others to be of Calvins opinion herein that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome specially since the Jesuites arose and multiplied yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians who had no Images of God as Minutius Foelix and other ancient writers affirm Now see this Authors reason why that Scripture is mistaken and misapplied by us First because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly that is to signifie he is of a figure or shape like that Image pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say they did so represent their Gods by their Images Again we represent God saith he only historically as he appeared to the prophets as Dan. 7. the ancient of dayes neither is it forbidden to represent him as he pleased to represent himself pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the representing of a Vision and of an History Difference in picturing of a Vision and History to represent a vision in which God Almighty pleased to shew himself to the eye is tolerable but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty as appears by the decree set down by this Author pa. 72. of figuring * Historias narrationes Sacrae Script Conc. Trid. Sess 24. histories and passages of Scripture in which God did not shew himself to the eye under any kinde of figure thus also in the story of our Saviours baptisme they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds when as they only heard a voice saw no shape so in the story of Creation they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand and without reference to history they figure the Trinity God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand Holy Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand His Hieroglyphical figuring of Gods attributes as of providence by an eye and the figurative speeches of Scripture attributing hand wings feet to God Almighty I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argument but only some semblance for representations of God for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emblematical expressions they will not prove innocent Images which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves The second protestant position saith he is That no Image ought to be worshipped The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1 Exod. 20.4 5. Here he makes as they do all in this point a great noise about the words and translations The pretended distinction of Idol and Image to amuse the Reader in examining the thing it self spending thirty pages upon the words Idol graven-image likeness and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial for saith he no word in the first Text signifies Image and that which we render graven-image out of the Hebrew Pesel every where signifies an Idol and so it is rendred by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idolum now there is a great difference between Idol and Image for an Image is the representation of a true thing but Idol a representation of what neither is nor can be as he who makes or uses it intends thus he in pa. 78 79 80 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine sculptile and our Translation then does duly render it graven-image also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel does generally imply Image likeness representation although when taken with connotation of Idolatrous worship given it it signifies an Idol in his sense and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and representing statues he should not be so offended that we in rendring those texts put in the word Image well let the texts run as rendred in their latine Bible our reasoning and argument against Image-worship will stand firm it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years according to Scripture asserted and after the Cardinal whom this Author follows had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image he is forced to admit that which defaces it as this Author we shall see is content to do in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the worship given it That the prohibition of the commandment concerned only Heathen Idols The prohibition of the Commandment was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council to introduce or defend the Image-worship then begun so grosly abused both the words of Scripture and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-worship to defend that hold and in order to that conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image as may seem to clear their Images and statues from the prohibition of the Commandment and leave only that which they call an Idol under it Upon his long descant upon the words we may note 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing representing and such was Pesel the graven images statues pillars forbidden in those texts whereas the things represented or the reputed Deities Baal Jupiter Diana were Idols too and the main ones and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images were Idolaters by the first commandment And this note is necessary for distinction of the first * Vt infra 〈◊〉 12. and second Commandment
understanding power divinity as he expressed it for if by this importance of the word serve the Romanists think to secure their worshiping of Images because they do not give divine worship or homage to them nor esteem them endowed with understanding power and divinity then I say those more understanding Heathens may be excused from serving of Images because they did not give Divine honour to them or esteem them so endued with c. and yet their worshiping was a serving of them So we see there was no need of such an outcry as he makes against our Translation saying worship where it should have said serve we had no advantage by the one nor hath he by the other Besides this of worship for serve he busieth himself to finde three other mistakes in our translating that one verse of the Commandment Other needless exceptions against our translation which in his zeal to Image-worship he brands with the note of fraud and double dealing The one in translating Pesel a graven Image which should be Idol as he would make us believe and all because the Septuagint has it in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine Idolum so he will have us contrary to the Hebrew Greek Latin texts so he p. 91. But what if here the Septuagint rendred it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the parallel place Levit. 26.1 it renders the same Hebrew word Pesel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Sculptile and who can deny that this signifies a graven Image and if their Latine Sculptile be not contrary to the Hebrew then we are safe enough His second exception is that we translate it any graven Image But his Logick might teach him that the force of Indefinites amounts to an Vniversality that to say there is not a man in the Church is as much as to say there is not any man in the Church so thou shalt not make to thy self a graven Image and thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image Wher 's the difference besides he acknowledges that in our New Translation the word any is put in a different character His third exception is not much unlike the former To make the Text saith he sound yet more against us in the ears of the Vulgar they make it say nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven when as it should be nor any likeness which is in Heaven pa. 92. But what English man would make any difference in these more then that the first is the rounder expression and the zeal Mr. Spencer has for the Images of Saints which are in heaven makes him so suspicious if not uncharitable in judging we had a designe in the translation to make the unlearued think that the likeness of all things in heaven and consequently of our Saviour and of the Saints is here forbidden so he pa. 93. But the words any thing are here also put in a differing character to shew they are added for the rounder English expression and as for the Religious or Romish worshiping of the likeness or Images of our Saviour and Saints we conclude it forbidden not by any consequence of an advantageous translation but by the force and intent of the Commandment Besides Deut. 4.16 will bear printing it out so in the Catechisme for there is Col. after Temounah the likeness of any After this in his zeal to Image-worship he spends 11. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. pages in noting places of our translations where the word Image as he pretends is unduly and fraudulently put in but because most of them were so in the old Translation and are corrected in the New I will only note two where the word stands still in our present Translation The one is Ro. 11.4 to the Image of Baal But how could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be better rendred whether we supply it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Erasmus did which signifies Image or with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies statue and may well be understood it being the word which the Septuagint useth in that History of Baal 1 Kings 10.27 the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 statuam Baal sic Vul. Lat. Image or statue of Baal Mr. Spencer for fear the word Image should be here supplied would make it refer to a Femal Deity But let him shew that any femal Deities came under the name of Baals or Baalim he acknowledges that in 1 Kings 19.18 to which this place of the Romans relates it is that bowed not the knee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore no femal Idol is here meant but because the falsely supposed Deity was acknowledged and worshiped by bowing the knee to his Image S. Paul more expresly and elegantly put it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other is Act. 19.35 where he quarrels at our Translation for adding the word Image in rendring the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies that which fell from Jupiter But seeing that which was supposed to fall was a statue or Image what harme is there or fraud in adding the word Image and rendring it more clearly the Image that fell And what need this tenderness in Mr. Spencer for the word Image if he would not shew himself zealous for that against which God Almighty has in this Commandment declared himself a jealous God But its time from words to return again to the consideration of the thing worshiping of Images which he begins to do pa. 107. where he undertakes to shew that the very Translations of the Protestants prove nothing against the use of Images Of Graven Images practised in the Romish Church Certainly much may be proved against what is practised there but here we are to consider the Doctrine see then how he makes good what he said He supposes the Protestant must take Graven Image either in his sense above for an Idol and false God or in the sense he put upon the word Image i.e. for a true representation of some holy person the Church of Rome detests Graven Images in the first sense and in the other sense a Graven Image is not forbidden Thus he But he should consider that Protestants can tell him of Graven Images which may and have been made to worship by them not a false god but the true and so forbidden in the Commandment such were those we spoke of above Labans Images Mica's the Golden Calf and note that those Images which were stoln from Laban are called strange Gods Gen. 35.2 not that the false Heathen gods were worshiped in them by Laban or any of Jacobs family but because they used these in the worship of the true God which was to worship God after a strange manner as the Heathens worshiped their gods Again the Protestants can tell him of Graven Images which represent neither the true nor false God yet falling under the prohibition by undue worship given unto them and such was the brazen Serpent and so their Images
brake that he gave but he brake substantial bread therefore he gave it The exception Mr. Spencer used in answer to the former objection viz. He gave the same he took unless it were changed which they affirm it to be before he gave it did not serve him there it will less here for the affirming of such a change of the subject in such contextures of Scripture we found unreasonable unless the story or our senses did evidence the change but here it s more unreasonable to answer â—e gave what he brake the same for substance unless substantially changed for the end of our Saviours breaking it was to give or distribute it to his Disciples if therefore he changed the substantial Bread which he brake he did not give them what he brake for them and brake that which he brake to no purpose it being presently to be changed and annihilated To no purpose I say of Communion and distribution which our Saviour intended in this Sacrament For I acknowledge another purpose of breaking and that mystical to shew the breaking of his body on the Cross which might hold though the substance of the bread had been presently annihilated but the other purpose of distribution must needs be frustrate That this was the end and purpose of our Saviours breaking the Romish Commentators upon the place acknowledge saying our Saviour brake it into so many parts that every Disciple might have one But the Church of Rome does not break now in order to Communion or distributing to the people but in order to a sacrifice the Priest breaks a Wafer into three parts and this onely to himself not for others to take or receive Here they cannot serve themselves of the Species as when they say of the eating and shewing which is a breaking of the Sacrament with the Teeth that the Species of the bread are only broken the body of Christ remaining whole under them which is senseless enough but here in the breaking for distribution more senseless for it supposes only the species remaining to be distributed which cannot answer the purposes of the Sacrament nourishing incorporation of which as inforcing the necessity of substantial bread to remain more below nor can it answer S. Pauls purpose in saying The bread which we break is it not the Communion of c. Nor answer the purpose of the Scripture expressing the Administration of this Sacrament by the breaking of bread as sometimes in the Acts of the Apostles Nor can they of the Church of Rome answer our Saviours command Do this They do not what our Saviour did they do not break bread the bread they use is broken for them by the Baker those little portions of bread or wafers being severed from one another by him or her that makes them before they come to the Priests hands nay before they come into the Oven and are sit for eating If they say they break i. e. distribute that indeed is sometime signified by breaking and is implied consequentially in that phrase or expression breaking of bread and in S. Pauls the bread we break for they did break it as our Saviour also to the end they might distribute it But this will acknowledge the substance of Bread in the distribution i. e. after Consecration and still the Argument from our Saviours breaking bread is good for he brake it to that end to give and distribute it In the next objection p. 200. which is also much of his own framing he speaks something of breaking but uncertainly whether our Saviour brak before those words This is my body or while our Saviour was speaking them or after they were spoken i. e. after Consecration if he will fix on the last as he seems most inclined to do there is enough said against it from that senseless supply they make by the Species and accidents of the bread from that expression of breaking bread from S. 1 Cor. 11. Pauls the bread we break and further from that representation of Christs body broken on the Cross intended in the breaking of the Sacramental element therefore Saint Paul to this my body adds which is broken for you The next objection or Argument of Protestants is upon the word this when our Saviour said this What the word this denotes it must signify what he took and held in his hand and so the proposition must be This bread is my body He answers pa. 206. by demanding whether our Saviour when he turned Water into Wine Joh. 2. could not truly have said This is Wine the water remaining when the word this was pronounced and changed when the whole proposition was spoken But we reply this is to change the Case which enquires de facto of the deed or being to that which enquires de possibili of the possibility The question is whether the words This is Wine or this is my body do of themselves imply such a change there being nothing else evidently shewing us the change done or to be done if they do then is there no certainty in speech as was shewen above no not in Indicative propositions as these are and should be therefore most punctual and determinate in their affirming or denying any thing As for the possibility or power of changing one substance into another we doubt not of but if that change be to be signified by the proposition this is Wine the first substance Water remaining when the word this is pronounced the proposition must have this sense to make it true this water shall be changed into wine so is must be put for shall which the word is cannot of it self import nor be that way intelligible without some declaration of the change done or about to be done So the Argument above from the thing present under the word this though not good against all possibility of change nor is it intended against that yet alwayes good against the intelligibleness or determinate signification of such propositions if intended to import a change without signifying otherwise by some clear evidence it is done or to be done so it was in that change Ioh. 2. but nothing to clear the change they would have signified in This is my body Another Difference between the change of that Water into Wine and the supposed change in the Sacrament and therefore a difference between this is wine spoken of the first and this is my body affirmed of the other because that Wine was made of the Water the same matter remaining which they cannot dare not say of Christs body that it is so made of bread Again another difference I note these because he so oft makes use of this instance as adaequate to the change he supposes in the Sacrament Although the Water was turned into wine yet not into the same wine which the Governour of the feast had or which was existent before but here the bread is by them said to be turned into not only flesh and wine into blood but into Christs flesh or
the presence but believe the communication of it to all the purposes of the Sacrament But hear a great subtilty that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot saith he stand with the Protestant doctrine Bread how Sacrament of his body which in the little Catechisme defines a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual grace but our Saviours body in the first institution was as visible as the bread and though after Ascention his body became invisible by reason of the distance yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace his conclusion is therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learnt their Catechisme for see him presently afraid this should be returned upon themselves He knows first that albeit our Saviours body was in the first institution visible and so it is still visible in it self and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibilitie in the Sacrament then the Romanists do His body is broken eaten blood shed drunk in the Sacrament invisibly yea all this really done but invisibly when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution and before his body was indeed broken or his blood shed on the Cross Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible yet will not allow Protestants to make Christs body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament because he was visible Nay but though he be now invisible yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace this is Mr. Spencers subtiltie but he that makes the blood go along with the body that who receives the one has the other too might allow us here a concomitancy of Christs body and the spiritual grace which as I said goes alwayes along with it so that as in the general definition of a Sacrament it is said signe of an inward spiritual grace so in respect of this particular Sacrament it may be said signe of Christs body and blood which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented conveyed with all the spiritual effects and graces Well we are to thank him for venting that subtiltie Mr. Spencers several confessions of truth in this point of the Sacrament for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants any man might think if he were in earnest it would follow there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and therefore he subjoyns pa. 283. line ult yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sacrament why For iâ— signifies that heavenly and divine grace which by vertue of it is given to nourish our souls which is truly inward and spiritual this is well but if the spiritual grace be given by vertue of it i. e. the Sacrament does not the Sacrament give that grace by vertue of Christs body given in it Yea we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviours body invisibly existent in this Sacrament and nourishing our souls may be truly called a spiritual grace and inward too when it is Sacramentally received very good all this But is there no sign of this body Hear him also saying that which sensibly appears and is called Sacramentum tantum the Sacrament only is a Sacramental sign of our Saviours body p. 284. All this acknowledged to the defiance of his former subtiltie and what could a Protestant desire more Only when he said nourishing our souls he adds and our bodies which I take to be a slip for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say Christs body nourishes our bodies And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by vertue of the Sacrament given to nourish our souls that that which appears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental signe of our Saviours body that our Saviours body is truly existent or given in the Sacrament that our Saviours body nourishes our souls Now in the difference between us see which has the advantage 1. Transubstantiation a wrong to the Sacrament several wayes That which sensibly appears saith he and is called Sacramentum tantum is the Sacramental signe of our Saviours body but what is that which appears he tells you presently those shews and species under which he will have Christs body to exist but are these fit to bear the name of a Sacrament Of the Sacramental signe of a body What advantage would this have given to Marcion in his conceit of our Saviours body as phantastical and in shew and appearance only Can these shews and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament the corporal breaking the eating the nourishing Whereas Protestants retaining the substance of the Sacramental element Bread preserve the outward part of the Sacrament and all the uses of it without which the Sacrament is mairned if not destroyed preserve I say the outward part without prejudice to the inward which is Christs body and blood for we hold of it as above existent really given and nourishing the soul which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritual part But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part by making it existent under those shews or species as he saith here for how would this have confirmed Eutychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then who upon the mistake of the Churches doctrine as Theodoret in his Dialogues shews made semblance for their heresie saying the humanity of Christ is swallowed up into the divinity shape and figure remaining as the Bread is in the Sacrament shape only and appearance remaining Again they binde our Saviours body so to these shews and species of bread that Christs body and they make unum quid but one thing so that Christs body goes along with them wheresoever they go or are cast into the mouthes and stomacks of wicked men and stayes wheresoever the species are till putrefaction of the species if they without the body of Bread be capable of it drive the body of Christ away This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary phansie of putting Christs body under the species in the place of substantial bread we as was said preserve the Sacrament intire acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive given I say to all the purposes of the Sacrament What he sayes p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body are properly and literally to be understood when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary might pass for a truth if he did not suppose there is nothing constrains All the former inconveniences inconsistencies with many more tending to contradiction do constrain to the contrary To
this half Communion the sequel of the former Article of Real presence and acknowledges that without the establishing of the one the other cannot be defended so p. 322 323. We see then what goodly fruit the Romish Real Presence has brought forth to the great and just offence of Christian people in denying them the Cup besides other goodly sequels of it as Adoration and Circumgestation It is not Real Presence truly granted no not such as the Romanists will acknowledge to be true that gives a ground for half Communion or makes it defensible for they grant as we see here p. 123. the Lutherans convinced of this mystery i. e. to believe a true Real Presence but cannot say they are convinced of this sequel or that it follows then may the Communion be delivered in one kind there being other Reasons from the Institution of this Sacrament and our Saviours purpose therein which forbid it as we shall see by what follows To the first Argument from the Institution which is carefully to be observed Halse Communion against the Institution he answers I. that the accidentary circumstances of the first institution are to be distinguished from the substance and essence of the Sacrament This is alwayes to be held not the former p. 324. This we admit only note he reckons the giving it then to Priests only among the accidentary circumstances of the first institution II. he answers that the entire substance of the Sacrament is under each kinde he means both body and blood are under each kinde we shall see asterward how farr that is true But be it so that both body and blood are under each yet is not that the whole substance of the Sacrament which stands in the outward part Bread and Wine as well as the inward or spiritual part the body and blood nor is the Institution held to if the body and blood be given but in one kinde And notwithstanding that he reckoned the giving it at first to Priests only among the Accidentary circumstances of the Institution here he tells us All that can be gathered from the bare words of Institution is that it is to be consecrated and received by Priests Mr. Spencer may say what he will and yet adde a greater untruth such as were the Apostles who were then made Priests p. 325. If then made Priests let him shew us what words what imposition of hands or other Ceremonies were there for that purpose Was our Saviour then conferring orders or instituting the Eucharist or could he with the same words actions and ceremonies institute and administer two several Sacraments Do this he said and that is all they can pretend to but if by this the Disciples were made Priests then they doing what our Saviour did must also ordain others so oft as they administer the Eucharist Now the whole importance of that precept Do this concerns the whole company Priest and people as is plain by 1 Cor. 11.25 26. And it is generally held by the Ancients that the Disciples then represented the whole Church or company of faithfull and that they received orders or Priesthood after his resurrection Jo. 20.22 Lastly the Church of Rome gives not the Sacrament in both kinds to Priests when they are not Conficientes consecrators or administers of it as the Disciples then were not but leaving this senseless assertion and novel device of our Saviours making them Priests when he said do this let us come to the main viz. the whole substance of the Sacrament under each kind He that receives under one kinde saith Mr. Spencer receives a true Sacrament Whether the whole substance of the Sacrament be in one kinde p. 326. He that receives may we say according to the Romish Church in one kinde he does not receive a true Sacrament or not the true Sacrament because not the outward part truly and wholly as it was purposed and appointed at the Institution so that definition which he gives here may pass for a compleat definition of a Sacrament in general but is not compleatly used when applied only to one of the kinds or outward parts of this Sacrament For there is as he noted p. 324. something particular in this Sacrament not the particular he there notes that the whole substance may be received in each kinde but that it stands in two kinds or signs or outward Elements both which together make the compleat sign of the spiritual grace signified and exhibited in this Sacrament each signe apart cannot represent and exhibit the whole spiritual grace of this Sacrament He acknowledges a different grace conferred here A different grace conferred in each kinde one of spiritual meat the other of spiritual drink only he will have both in each kinde p. 327. Which is as much as to say the effect of drink is shewen and exhibited by the meat we eat and the effect of meat by the drink we take so with equal absurdity to say that the blood shed is shewen by the blood in the Veins of unshed for so it s given with the body under one kinde and that the blood is drunk when we eat the flesh For though it be true that he who receives Christ by faith receives whole Christ and by that mouth of faith eats his flesh and drinks his blood is really made partaker of his body given and his blood shed for him thus without the Sacrament and when we come to receive him in the Sacrament the same act of faith receiving him in one kinde as under the bread can and doth at the same time receive also his blood Totum Christum not Totum Christi or whole Christ yet does he not receive his blood sacramentally as blood shed and so not all of Christ or Christ wholly Thus by reason of the act of faith he that receives but in one kinde out of necessity may be assured that he is not defrauded of the participation of Christs blood shed but he cannot be so assured that wilfully receives but in one kinde because though there is a concomitancy of flesh and blood in Christs body as to the natural condition of it yet not a concomitancy of his flesh and bloodshed as to the Sacramental consideration of them which therefore are set out in the Sacrament apart by two several elements Also because such a one being a Transgressor of our Saviours Institution and enemy to his own comfort falls short of the benefit thereof Therefore the Church of England had cause to say though not to the purpose he would have it p. 326. in the distribution of the bread The body of our Lord preserve thy and then adding the Cup to say there also preservethy and this conformably as to our Saviours Institution so to his saying Except ye eat and drink Jo 6.53 and to the Apostle in what he received from the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 This Author is forced to confess that if by a compleat sign be meant a full and express
hear what St. Aug. saith of this matter he tells us from Apulcius and other Platonicks what they held their Daemons to be Aug. de Civ dei l 8. c. 22. Medios inter Deos homines tanquam interpretes internuncios qui Ideoque cultum eorum à supernorum Deorum religione non separant and what respect and worship they had for them They held them spiritual or airie substances but denyed them to be Gods set in a middle condition or place between Gods and men as interpreters and messengers that may carry from hence our petitions or prayers and bring back from thence the helps and supplies of the Gods and therefore they do not separate the worship of these from the religion of the supream Gods let the Romanists consider well what they finde like to this in their Angel-worship how they do not separate the worship of Saints and Angels from the religion and service of God Mald. in Mat. 5.34 Impitus error Lutheran nullum nisi Deo religionis honorem trib is shewen above cap. 1. num 5. and Maldonat could conclude it is a silly error of the Lutherans and Calvinists yielding no honour of religion but to God only It may saith he to the creature in reference to God and proves it by that which our Saviour there reproves their swearing by Heaven St. Aug. in the same book above cited speaks of their resorting to the memories of Martyrs Aug. de Civ Dei l. 8. c. 27. Martyres de functos non habemus Deos. and of that which was done there and this in answer to the worship of Martyrs objected by the Heathen We hold not the dead Martyrs for our Gods no more do we say the Romanists hold the Saints and Angels when we worship them and no more did the heathen Platonicks hold their Daemons and Heroes to be Gods as above said So then the Romanists say nothing when they so excuse their worship and S. Augustine had said nothing if he had said no more to the objection then this we hold them not to be as Gods therefore he goes on to shew what honour they afford the Martyrs and what the heathens falsly charged them with as by them given to the Martyrs because done at their Tombs or memories But saith he * Sed eorum Deum Colimus eorum memorias honoramus ad Dei honorem cultumque apud eorum memori as offeratur Deo ad imitationem ex eorum memoriae renovatione we worship their God and honour their memories then for what they did there that the Altar over the body of the buried Martyr was erected there for Gods honour and worship that the prayers and sacrifices there were offered to God that they gave praise there to God for the victories of the Martyrs and by making a remembrance still of them exhorted one another to imitation of the Martyrs God being prayed to for help and assistance To Faustus objecting they had but made a change from many heathen deities to their Martyrs * Aug. cont Faust l. 20. cap. 21. Non coli similib votis He first denies that they are worshipped with like vows and applications then how they worship or honour the Saints departed we worship and honour Martyrs †Eo cultu dilectionis et societatis quo in hac vita coluntur sancti homines with that sort of worship as we do holy men living which he there calls the worship of good will and fellowship and conformable to what he said above he adds here what is offered there is offered to God but therefore offered at the memories of Martyrs that * Ex ipsorunt locorum admonition◠by the admonition or remembrance which the very places may give us a stronger affection may arise to inflame our charity both towards those whom we may imitate that is the martyrs and towards him by whose assistance we may be inabled to do it Memorias Martyrum religiosa solennitate concelebr at ibid. But there is something here that the Romanists take hold of for he saith in the same place Christian people by such religious solennity celebrate or honour the memories of Martyrs That religious solennity is all the †Bel. de Beat. Sanctor c. 12. Cardinal could oppose out of S. Aug. against the many places of the same Father denying religious worship to the Saints Whereas he might have seen that S. Aug. calls it religious solemnity not for worship given to the Martyr but for the religious acts there performed to God But it follows in the Father * Et ad excitandam Imitationem et ut meritis eorum consocietur orationibus adjuvetur Aug. ut supra both to the exciting of Imitation of the Martyrs and that the Christian people might come to a fellowship of their merits and be helped by their prayers the meaning of which is that by imitating the Martyrs they may come to obtain what they have obtained which is the usual acception of merit with the Ancients or that by their merits that is by that favour they have with God and by their intercessions which we acknowledge the Saints make and the Church below has benefit by there might be help found and received from God No more then this can be wrung out of this saying of S. August considering what he saith so often against such worship and invocation as we see in this sect and shall below sect II. And unto Maximus the Grammarian Aug. ep 43. 44. Bust a Martyrum stulte frequentant Scias à Catholicis Christianis nullum coli mortuorum objecting that the Christians did foolishly frequent the tombs of their Martyrs neglecting the Ghosts of their Ancestors He Answers as he did in his book of true Religion above cited know thou that none of the dead are worshiped by Catholick Christians And elsewhere speaking against Heathen worship that they worshiped Devils They saith he * Aug in ex pos Ps 69. seek divine honour to be given them but all good Angels will that God alone be worshiped So in his book of true Religion chap. 55. after he had said Our Religion stands not in the Worshipping of the Dead he adds * Quid st pie vixerunt non quaerunt Sed illum à nobis coli volunt For if they lived holily they seek not such honors but would we should worship him So in the same place having said our Religion stands not in the Worship of Angels he affirms of them †Hoc ipsos velle ut unum cum ipsis colamus Deum Euseb Hist l. 4 c. 15. This they would have that we with them worship one God When the Jewes reproached the Christians that they would leave their Christ and worship Polycarp because of the great affection they shewed to that Martyr their Answer was as Eusebius relates it that they * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would worship none else but Christ As for
notes are ch 5. 8. ch 6. 10. ch 8. 3. which we shall touch below but hear what he saith in his next disputation * Non fuisse morem in V. Tâ—â—adeundi Sanctos Intercessores Erat etiam olim periculum Idololatriae Salm. disp 8. sect postremo It was not their manner in the Old Testament to use the Saints as intercessors the Reason because they were not then glorified and because of old there was danger of Idolatry Mark the danger of the Romish practises in Religion and Worship But was there not danger under the New Testament he acknowledges it saying it is not express but was left to Tradition secretly to be delivered which he cals * Tacitam Spiritus suggestionem ibid. the silent suggestion of the Spirit but why because †Quia durum erat id Judaeis praecipere Gentib daretur occasio putandi multos sibi deos exhibitos pro it was hard to command such a thing to the Jewes and it was likely to give occasion to the Gentiles of thinking that many Gods were put upon them in stead of the many Gods they had forsaken And might not the same Reasons still be good against Romish Invocation and Image-worship either to keep them out or cast them out of the Church seeing they give such occasion of scandal to Jewes and Infidels throughout the Romish Communion The Cardinal is not so liberal with us Bel. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 19. Non consuetum Nec ordinariè cognoscere preces c. 20 sect sed dices for he would confine it to the Old Testament acknowledging It was not the custom then to say Holy Abraham pray for us and his reasons are because they did not see God and could not ordinarily i. e. without special Revelation know the prayers of the living Neither is the Cardinal so ingenuous with us as was his fellow Salmeron for albeit he gives reasons why prayers were not made to them in the Old Testament which reasons were good against their Invocation till our Saviours ascension yet he brings places out of the Old Testament for a seeming proof of it Some of them indeed concern Invocation of Angels as that Gen. 48.16 Job 5.1 to which we briefly answered †Chap. II. nu 9. above And though the Cardinals reasons which exclude the Saints of the Old Testament do not conclude against the Angels which did see Gods face and as well hear and know what was said and done below on Earth in the time of the Old Testament as after yet Salmerons Reasons might prevail against invocation of them because of danger of Idolatry then and it would have seemed strange and hard to the Jewes And albeit they had Cherubins in the picture yet not Angels in their worship Which is acknowledged by Azor and Vasquez and that out of several Fathers clearing the Jewish Church from Worshipping of Angels or Images and somthing to this purpose was said †Chap. III. nu 10. above Now for the places out of the Revelation Places of Scripture alledged for Invocation which are the only Texts that have any semblance or pretence for Invocating Saints or Angels they are mistaken as applied to that purpose That Text Rev. 5.8 where the four living Creatures and the 24 Elders are set out as falling down before the Lamb having harps and viols full of odours or incense which are the prayers of the Saints Here the Romanists that would have these prayers of the Saints to be meant of the prayers of men living offered up by the Saints in heaven are mistaken for the whole place is a representation of the Church below offering up prayers to God by Christ the Lamb and those Eucharistical or prayers of thanksgiving and praise chiefly for the Victories of the Lamb and Redemption by Christ as the next verse specifies them Thus Viega understands them of the Church below and he follows good Authors in it The next is Rev. 6.10 how long O Lord Here also is a great mistake of Romanists making this a formal prayer of the Martyrs for revenge which stands not with that charity they have in so great a degree and therefore this is but a figurative or emblematical representation of their Souls lying under the Altar and calling for revenge only to shew the certainty of that judgement and vengeance which God would in time bring upon the Heathen Persecutors for their bloud as when Abels bloud is said to cry for vengeance And for the Argument they make If the Souls of Martyrs cry for Vengeance upon their Enemies therefore their charity much more prompts them to pray for Gods servants It fails first in the Antecedent for they do not as we see make any formal prayer for vengeance and then it fails in the Inference for it would only conclude that they do pray for the Church Militant which we grant not that they offer up prayers made to them which is the point in question The third Text Rev. 8.3 where Another Angel is said to stand by the Altar having a golden Censer and much incense was given to him that he might offer it with the prayers of all Saints A great mistake this and impious to make this the office of any created Angel for the very Text seems to imply that this was a special Angel differing from the seven Angels set out in the second verse as ministring Spirits and what one created Angel is sufficient for this to receive and offer up their prayers that are made by all the Saints or just men on Earth Therefore generally it is interpreted of Christ the great Angel of the Counsel of God as Viega and other modern Writers and herein they have Ambrose Haimo Rupertus and the Interlinâ—ary Gloss consenting To whom I may add what Irenaeus saith reflecting upon this place and the other cap. 5.8 where speaking of the Church offering up all by Christ applies to it that of Malachi cap. 1.11 in every place Incense shall be offered then adds Now †Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Incensa autem Joan. in Apocal. Orationes ait esse Sanctorum Tert. advers Marcion l. 4. c. 9. Per Jesum Christum Catholicum Patris sacerdotem St. John in the Revel saith that Incense or the sweet odours are the prayers of the Saints And Tertul. upon that of our Saviour to the Leper cleansed shew thy self to the Priest and offer Mat. 8.4 Inferreth we must offer up all our prayers and thanksgivings by Jesus Christ the Catholick or universal Priest of the Father No Created Angel can be such a Catholick Priest to offer up the Prayers of all Saints Thus much for Scripture to shew how destitute they are of any real proof and therefore want the first and main ground of Catholick faith and doctrine Sect. 1. in Introduct according to Vincentius his certain and safe Rule at first mentioned Now let us make a brief Survey of Antiquity and see