least is secondary Idolatry For Idolatry consists in giving Religious Worship due to God to that which is not God and a primary and secondary respect cannot relieve them because these are Duties of the same kind the higher or lower conceptions of the Object toward which the Religious Office is exercised cannot alter the kind or species and it is impossible to assign any real difference betwixt them Bellar. could find none either in respect of the internal Act of the Will or the external Offices excepting that figment of a sensible Sacrifice but only in operatione intellectus in the apprehension of the understanding which renders the difference only rational nor real 5. Press the Papists with that Text with which our Saviour Christ confuted the Devil Matth. 4.10 Thou shalt Worship the. Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve they will return this is meant of Latria not of Doulia but if this exclusive Particle only bar Latria only then the Devil could have replied the Answer is not sufficient confessedly there is none good but God and then if he had been as subtle a Sophister as a Jesuite or an Apostate he would have added it is not Latria or Primary Sovereign and Terminative Worship that I expect or demand for I acknowledg the Sovereign Almighty Power of God vers 3. and 6. and him to be the Author and donor of this Power which I challenge over the Kingdoms of the earth to give them all I have or can dispose of were first given me for they are delivered to me v. 4.6 and this therefore thou answerest is a mistake keep thine heart thine elevated conceptions to God Doulia and the outward acts are sufficient for me if thou wilt fall down and Worship me that is by falling down Worship me for the Text reacheth not that and indeed that is all I desire but surely this were to corrupt the Text which must be understood of the exhibition of the outward acts agreably to other places of Scripture in which the Worship and outward acts are used as Synonyma's for the Leper who came to Christ and Worshiped him Matth. 8.2 is said to beseech him and kneeling down to him Mar. 1.40 and to fall on his face Luk. 5.12 and so the plain meaning of the sentence is Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve not only with Latria but with Doulia be it by Incurvation Genuflexion Prostration or any other external act expressive of inward Devotion or Subjection Part 3. 3. It is Irrational For 1. To determin that a necessary or profitable Office of Religion and Practice it as such which is neither founded on the Law of Nature nor prescribed by any positive constitution is Irrational because all perpetually and universally obliging Duties of Religion are either Natural which by the tenure of our Creation we are to perform in gratitude to and for the Honour of our Creator or instituted such as we are bound to observe because commanded so to do by our Lord Jesus Christ who only hath Power to order perpetually and universally obliging observations to all Christians Now forasmuch as there is nothing in the Law of Nature to enforce this supposed profitable Duty for then both Jews Gentiles and Christians did sin in the omission of it if it were by the the Law required nor is there in the Discipline of Christ either any Precept or Promise to authorize and legitimate either as a necessary or profitable Duty therefore both the imposition of the Duty and the practice must be Irrational 2. Invocation of the Supreme God the Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth is an act of Justice as well as Religion we wrong God if we pay not this tribute and Homage to him and we wrong him too if we offer or determin it to any other besides him For Invocation is of common right antecedently to any positive order due from man to God and therefore no man nor Society of man can on their own heads without his allowance or consent dispose thereof without Sacriledg Indeed if God had permitted this Honour to be given to any besides himself it would not be an injury to him to pass it to them he should grant it to But in that there is no such assignment extant or producible by any Letters Parents or Settlment from Heaven it is an high Injustice to determin or invade his Original right by an arbitary presumption But admitting which is the most that is by some or can by any be pretended that God had granted to Angels or Saints departed Reigning in Heaven a priviledg to solicite for us at the Throne of Grace and make motions for us in his Court of Requests yet did he never give them leave to pass an Act of Indemnity and Grace for our security and preferment This is a Prerogative which he hath reserved to himself and therefore it is repugnant to right reason to sue for Pardon and Grace from them who have no Power to grant the one or give the other or make good either of them It often proves a profitable good policy for one who seeks a Pardon for a capital offence or affects places of trust and honour in the State to oblige and employ some Favorite Courtier to mediate in his behalf to the King but it would be extreamly ridiculous and absurd in the Petitioner to fall down on his knees to that Courtier and beseech him to command a Pardon under the Broad Seal to be assigned for him or to beg an Act of Grace as to make him an Earl or a Baron of the Realm because these Powers and Preheminencies in right belonging to the Kings Prerogative are inherent to the Crown and inseparably annexed to it 3. The ascribing this Duty to any the most excellent Creatures cannot be profitable to living men because upon several other accounts it is injurious to God for it entitles Creatures in those incommunicable attributes of his upon which also the Duty is founded his Omniscience in fixing a Power in them to hear the mental (b) As it is approved by the Council of Trent Sess c. 1. and exemplified in rheir Lâ—turgy in this form with the desires of our heart we pray unto you receive the ready service of our minds Prayers of living men and his Omnipresence in supposing and asserting they understand the vocal Prayers of Petitioners at the greatest distance removed one from another though it be most certain that the life and virtue of these Prayers lieth not in the outward expressions and postures of Devotion but the inward Veneration and affection of the heart which by the way obviates that vain pretension that by Praying to those Creatures in Heaven they do no more nor otherwise than in begging the assistance of the Prayers of Holy men upon Earth for it was never heard nor can it be conceived that any living man in his right Wits would vocally beg of another at a Thousand miles
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
nature and kind so they shall have distinct natural qualities and operations for then the Angels shall remain as they are more Spiritual substances the Saints departed shall have Bodies though these also in some respect Spiritualized and incorruptible but some only and these specified and intimated in the Context in that Spiritualized state they shall not need Matrimony for the propagation of their kind nor Food for the preservation of their numerical persons as Alphonsus (k) Alphonsus à Castro l. 3. c. haer Jansen Harm Evaug c. 117. a Castro and Jansen understand the words and so they shall be as the Angels or equal to them in being the Children of God for that they are Children of the Resurection which in effect amounts to this they as the Angels shall be free from all the necessities of a temporal human life and from all material and corporeal affections and which is more shall be equal to the Angels in the participation of eternal bliss and the immovable possession of that Inheritance which is incorruptible undefiled and fadeth not away and reserved for them Again they produce Rev. 5.8 four and twenty Elders fell c. but Viega Lyra and Haimo will tell them these four and twenty Elders are not the members of the Church Triumphant Saints reigning in Heaven but of the Church Militant and principally the Pastors (l) Viega in Apoc. c. 4. Lyr. in 8. pl 1. and Bishops thereof And lastly they cite Rev. 8.4 but several of their learned Expositors will satisfie them that that Angel is Christ Albert. Viega Hug. Card. (m) Haimo in loc Aug. Hom. 4. in Apocal. Neither were these Supplications for Pardon and Grace but for Thanksgivings for the redemption of the World as appears by ver 9 and 13. August Hom. 6. in Apocal. Haimo the Glosses and Diouys Carthus saith the Catholick Doctors understand it so SECT II. IT is unpractical Indeed the Tridentine Assemblers affirm it is a good and profitable Practice to Invocate Angels and Saints departed and their great reason of this their affirmation is that it is a Custom received from the Apostles and perpetually hath been retained in the Church of God and agreeable hereunto it is so resolved in the Roman Catechism Par. 2. c. 2. Sect. 5. p. 297. and yet it is most evident that St. Paul when he instructed the Christians of his time in the Duty of Prayer not only for the Substance thereof but descending to a consideration of its convenient circumstances never hinted the expediency of this so supposed profitable Practice which certainly he would not have omitted if he had entertained such a conceit of the profitableness of this Duty as the Romanists do For he professeth that he kept nothing back that was profitable to the Asians during the time of his residence with them but that publickly and privately which is all one with in season and out of season he taught them Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ now because it is impossible to make it appear by any one instance that either he taught this Doctrine of Invocating the Blessed Spirits or prescribed the Practice or ever exemplified it to them by his own usage it necessarily follows he never deemed either the Doctrine or Practice to be any profitable Duty or any part of Repentance towards God or of Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ But as it was no Apostolical practice so neither could it be the constant Custom of the Church in the Primitive succeeding Centuries For the Doctrine and the present Practice of the Church of Rome being grounded on this supposition that the Saints departed do now Reign in Heaven and enjoy the Beatifical Vision whereby they are capacitated to have cognizance of the Devotions of their humble Petitioners those Primitive Doctors who did peremptorily deny the supposition cannot be supposed to assert the Doctrine and Practice founded thereupon because he that denies the supposition must consequently deny the Doctrine and Practice established upon it unless he be presumed to be so inconsiderate and interested as to believe and act contrary to his received Principles and it is hardly to be believed that those ingenious Romanists who profess great reverence to antiquity will think so hardly of the ancient Fathers Now Learned Romanists do confess that Eighteen Catholick Doctors and Fathers of the best note both of the Western and Eastern Church have constantly affirmed the Saints departed do not enjoy the Beatifical Vision but after death are kept in certain hidden receptacles in Rest and Peace till the General Resurrection and they were great names who are confessed to be of this opinion viz. Clem. Rom. Just Mart. Orig. Tert. Ambr. Lact. Hil. Chrysost Prud. Theod. Theod. Theoph. Euih Oecum Ar. Caesar and Bernard Neither could those eminent Fathers who from the Catholick Practice of Invocating God by his Son Jesus Christ and praying in the Holy Ghost be supposed to Invocate the Blessed Saints because they concluded from this Practice the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost disputing against the Arrians and Macedonians viz. Catholicks did Pray unto them the force of which argument depended upon a received rule among them that God alone was to be Invocated neither could those Ancients have justly condemned the Arrians of Idolatry for Invocating Christ whom they conceived to be a Creature but that they had resolved that no Creature was capable of the Divine honour of Invocation But both Bellarm. and (n) Vide Infra Petavius confesseth we must not say their Argument was weak and inconclusive and it was so if a distinction would have invalidated it for then the Arrians would by such evasion have worsted the Catholicks because they could have retorted upon them with great advantage For if the Catholicks had practiced this invocation of the Blessed Spirits the Arrians would have galled them with this return You Catholicks or who would be reputed so charge us with the guilt of Idolatry in that we Pray to Christ whom we judg a Creature whereas you give the same honour to Blessed Spirits the Angels and Saints departed and therefore take the guilt home to yourselves and object not that to us wherein you your selves are more criminal if the Catholicks had replied in excuse of this their Fact as the Romanists now do We indeed Invocate those Creatures with indirect subaltern and relative Prayer but direct soveraign and final we render to God only and when we Pray to him we have more high and hohourable Conceptions of his Divine Majesty than we have to those Creatures when we Pray to them The Arrians would have smartly rejoyned even so do we Invocate Christ and in our inward thoughts we honour him above all other Creatures and we have better reason to Invocate Christ than you have to Invocate Angels or Saints departed because confessedly Christ is superiour to them and deserveth greater Honour than they can expect or is due to them