probable then comparing it with the latter he saith it is more probable then it yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks Where note that their best way is but probable and the Hereticks must be convinced in this point by that way which is less then probable So uncertain is this Article of their faith so unlikely to convince Hereticks however they perswade their people to it This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on Beside all that has been said to it methinks reason should tell them how improbable it is that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated by the care of earthly affairs yea such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner as Luk. 15.7 which sometimes is made an argument by them its a matter of joy and answerable to their general votes and intercession for the accomplishing of the Church and consistent with their state of bliss Now come we to the prayers of men living one for another Prayers of men living for others no argument for praying to Saints departed often urged by this and other their Authors who having no permission or appointment from Gods word for making the Saints departed their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven seek pretence from this duty of the living Therefore to a Protestant asking how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ this Author rejoynds How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them to pray to God for them for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others This saith he is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed First We have warrant for the one and not for the other we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living because we are commanded to pray one for another and diverse reasons there are for it which hold not in the other case The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth and much need that bond as the Apostle calls it to hold them together Eph. 4.3 Col. 3.14 also the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body as the Apostle tells us Lastly in this there is no peril of superstition as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead Secondly our praying others to pray for us is not Invocation or a Religious worship as theirs is to the Saints departed they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both publick and private in such Invocations Thirdly As the living when they are desired to pray for us are capable of this charitable duty knowing our necessities which Saints departed do not so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us that is of a middle order between us and God Almighty as they make their Mediatours of intercession but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters of the same rank condition and distance with us from God in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty they praying for us at our intreaty and we for them at theirs St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture Aug. contra Epist Parmen l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum populum sed rogat pro se orent invicem si Paulus mediator esset non ei constaret ratio qua dixerat unus mediator St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people but intreats they should pray one for the other so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours nay doing it upon mutual entreaty and intimation are therefore not mediatours If St. Paul should be their Mediatour it would not consist with what he had said there is one Mediatour which proves the former consequence that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour His other instance is from St. Johns we have an advocate 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour and so makes it conclude against Parmenian who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people we shall examine the Cardinals answer by which he would shift this off when we come to tryal of Antiquity But This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us and for us by way of charity and society as St. Aug. saith citing contra Faust l. 22.21 I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter but in the l. 20.21 where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society as we honour holy men living which this Author misreports as if said they pray for us which is truth but his adding with us supposes they pray for us when we pray upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests which is false He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture he may please to examine Job 5.1 Gen. 48.16 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs in the first Eliphaz tells Job if he take it thus impatiently he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels whose ministry in those dayes was frequent in the second place Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads and wishes the ministry of Angels for them as it had pleased God to use it in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do that the Angel there was Christ In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints both in the truth of the thing and the consequence Proofs these fitting for such Articles of Faith CHAP. III. Of Images THe Council of Trent as we see by the Decree touching Images Pretended care for the people would seem very careful that the people be taught how they may safely conceive of and worship Images and that all superstition and filthy lucre be
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
what may be brought for or against this Invocation of Saints and Angels allowed in the Roman Church Being forsaken of Scripture they fly to some sayings of the Fathers that seem to allow and commend the practise then set on foot by some in the fourth Century higher they cannot go for the rise of it and so fall short of the second ground of Catholick doctrine requiring it be delivered down from the Apostles time held and believed in all Ages as Vincentius his Rule also tels us For clearing of this We will lay down some Generals which will evince this doctrine and practise though Ancient yet indeed New and not Catholick and so may render what they bring weak and impertinent to prove the contrary First It was the opinion of very many of the Ancients The opinion of some of the Ancients touching the state of the Dead inconsistent with Invocation that the Souls of the faithful are not admitted into Heaven or to the sight of God till the Resurrection being still in the like condition as the Romanists suppose the Fathers of the Old Testament to be in and therefore not in a condition to be invocated or prayed to but were prayed for that God would give them †Lucem refrigerium light and refreshment as we finde in ancient forms of prayer for the Dead Senensis and other Romish Writers acknowledge this to be the opinion of many Ancient Fathers and therefore Invocation of Saints could not then be Catholick belief or Doctrine The †Bell. de Beat. Sanctor c. 1 2 3. Cardinal well saw how this was inconsistent with the ground of Invocation and therefore seeks to make the Contrary appear viz. that the Souls of the faithful do see God But though many Fathers may be brought to the contrary especially after the many Miracles done at the Tombs of Martyrs in the fourth Age yet the general opinion of the more Ancient Fathers being as I said it plainly shews that Invocation of Saints could not be their belief or practice Bellarmine seems to be troubled in shifting off two testimonies especially The one of John the 22. who though of later times yet a Pope and so more cross to their pretended ancient belief of Invocation which sentence of the Pope * Bell. de Beat. Sanct. c. 2. he seeks to elevate it as if the Pope held it doubtfully and recal'd it but elsewhere the †Bel. de Pontifice Romano l. 4. c. 14. cum Liberum esset Cardinal answers roundly to it that Pope John thought so when it was free to think so the Church having determined nothing therein But if Invocation of Saints departed had been a defined and determined doctrine of the Catholick Church then would it not have been free for any to hold them in a place where they could not be Invocated The other Testimony is of Irenaeus Iren. l. 5. c. 31. Legem mortuorum servevit one of the most ancient Fathers most plainly asserting the former opinion and giving Reason for it from our Saviours example who did saith he observe the Law of the dead that he might be the first born from the dead and what Law was that Manifestum est quia discipulorum animae Bell. l. de beatit Sanctorum c. 4. sect tertio Erat animâ beatus animâ sunt in paradiso beati that his soul should stay in the lower parts unto his resurrection or in an invisible place as he cals it in that chapter It is manifest therefore that the Souls of his disciples must stay in the invisible place till the resurrection and then adds for no disciple is above his Master Of all that the Cardinal saith this only carries a shew of Answer That Christ before his resurrection was beatified in Soul so was he before his death by reason of the hypostatical Union In like manner the Saints while they rest as to their bodies in the Sepulchre are blessed in soul and in Paradise That they were in a blessed condition though out of heaven or the beatifical vision of God was not doubted but that Paradise which Bell. in reference to Luc. 23.43 places them in does not reach the highest heaven or sight of God and so he saith nothing as to their capacity of being invocated So also what he saith †Bell. l. 1. de Beat. Sanctor c. 6. fuisse tamen in Fara diso Coelesti formaliter i. e. fuisse Beatam gloriosam afterward That Christs Soul though it did not ascend into that corporeal Heaven before his resurrection yet was it in the coelestial Paradise formally i. e. it was blessed and glorious Which if our Adversaries would yeeld unto the Souls of the Saints we would not be much solicitous for that corporeal Heaven We cannot yeeld nor you neither that the Souls of Saints if not in the highest heaven and that sight of God could be glorified and beatified as the Soul of our Saviour was only that they were blessed in Soul though out of that heaven we yeeld but that will do the Romanists no good as to Invocation And if our Saviours Soul was formally in Paradise before his refurrection because it was gloriosa beata glorious and beatified then was it so in Paradise before his death whilest he conversed on earth or was on the Cross for his Soul by reason of the Hypostatical Union was alwaies in the Vision of God and beatified and so the Cardinal still said nothing to the purpose But this is enough to our purpose that many of the Ancients deny the Saints departed to have sight of God till the resurrection or speak doubtfully of their place and condition which plainly evinces that Invocation could not be a point then of belief or Catholick Doctrine Our second General is This practise of Invocation took beginning but in the 4. Century That this Doctrine or practise cannot be made to appear before the fourth Century and therefore also not Catholick This is proved first because the defenders of it can bring no Testimony for it beyond that Age. That which Coccius cites out of Origen upon Job and the Lamentations is indeed not out of Origen for neither of those Comments are his and what the †Bell. de beat Sanctor l. 1. c. 16. Cardinal makes his first Testimony out of Dionysius his Hierarchy fails two waies for that writing is of a much later date and the place cited concerns the prayers of the Living for the Dead not to the Dead as appears by the purpose of the whole Chapter from whence the words are taken The Cardinals second Testimony is from Irenaeus an ancient Father indeed but what saith he for Invocation He cals the Blessed Virgin Evae Advocatum the Advocate of Eve and Bell. cries Quid clarius what more clear If this imply any Intercession yet can it not prove Invocation for how could Eve invocate the Blessed Virgin But this is a strong and high