The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 10
Concerning the infallible certainty of the Proteſtant faith, and the uncertainty of the Romiſh; Spectacles, Chapter the 10. a page 346. uſ que ad 380.
THE Knights failing in his proofes of our novelty is a ſufficient proofe of our antiquity, and his owne novelty.
The Jeſuits may not be aſhamed of the oath they take to defend the Papacy, nay, they may glory in it as an heroicall act, whereby they binde themſelves to the defence of that authority whereon the weight and frame of the whole Catholike Church and ſalvation of all ſoules from Chriſt his owne time, to the very end of the world; hath, doth, and ſtill ſhall depend.
Catholike Doctors whom the Knight chargeth with diviſion among themſelves, may indeede differ in opinion ſo long as a thing is undefined, for ſo long it is not faith, but when it is once defined, then they muſt be ſilent, and concurre all in one, becauſe then it is matter of faith.
The Knight can have no certainty of his Chriſtianity, becauſe that dependeth upon his Baptiſme, or the faith of his parents which he cannot know.
He can have no certainty of his Marriage, or the legitimation of his children, becauſe the validity of the contract dependeth upon the intention of the parties which marry, and no man can have any certaine knowledge of anothers intention, and ſo the Knight is in no better caſe then his adverſaries in this reſpect.
It is cleane a different thing to diſpute of the certainty of the Catholique faith which we maintaine, and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne juſtification or ſalvation, which we deny to be ſo certaine: the one being grounded upon the authority of Gods divine truth, and revelation, the other upon humane knowledge, or rather conjecture. Howſcever though we be not certaine by certainty of divine faith, that this or that man in particular is truely baptized or ordained a Prieſt; yet we are certaine by the certainty of divine faith, that not onelyonly there be ſuch Sacraments, but that they are alſo truly adminiſtred in the Catholike Church.
It might be good and profitable as Bellarmine noteth, to invoke the Saints, though they themſelves ſhould not heare us, as the Knight would prove out of Peter Lumbard and Gabriel Biel, who though they doubt of the manner, yet they doubt not of the thing it ſelfe; Gabriel ſaith, the Saints are invocated not as givers of the good things for which we pray, but as interceſſours to God the giver of all good. And Peter Lumbard ſaith that our prayers become knowne to the Angells in the word of God which they behold, ſo alſo doe Saints that ſtand before God.
Though it be true which Caietan ſaith, that it cannot be knowne infallibly that the miracles whereon the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints be true: yet it followeth not that we are uncertaine whether the Canonized Saints be in Heaven or no, becauſe the certainty of Canonization dependeth upon more certaine ground, to wit, the authority of the See Apoſtolique, and continuall aſsiſtance and direction of the Holy-ghoſt, the ſpirit of truth, to whom it belongeth not to ſuffer Chriſts Vicar, uſing humane diligence, and proceeding prudently in a matter of that moment,Ep. 68. vivebant ut latrones, honoraebantur ut martyres. to erre; and whereas St. Auſtine ſaith that many were tormented with the Devill in Hell, who were worſhipped by men on earth: it may be well underſtood of the Martyrs of the Donatiſts, who were Canonized by thoſe Haeretikes to be Martyrs, whoſe ſoules were tormented in Hell: and whereas Sulpitius and Caſſander ſpeake of wicked Robbers and damned perſons honoured by the name of Holy Martyrs, it followeth not that becauſe ſome people in St. Martins time did erre in worſhiping a dead theefe for a Saint, without any approbation of the Church: ergo Catholikes may erre in worſhiping of Saints Canonized and Authorized by the Church.
Though Gregorie, and other Catholike Divines differ about the place, manner, puniſhment, and durance of Purgatorie: yet, none rejecteth the beliefe of Purgatorie it ſelfe. And as for Saint Auſtine, alleaged by the Knight to the contrary, his words are to be meant of the finall and eternall place of ſoules. For otherwiſe, Saint Auſtine is ſo expreſſe for Purgatory, in the very booke and place quoted by the Knight, to wit, in his Enchiridian ad Laurentium, that Mr. Antonie Alcock, a zealous Diſciple of Luther, as it ſeemeth, tranſlating it into Engliſh, is faine to write certaine annimadverſions upon this Chapter, wherein hee confeſſeth,C. 110. Neque negandum eſt defunctorum animus, &c. Saint Auſtines opinion is here for Purgatorie. The Saints owne words are, Neither is it to be denied, that the ſoules of the dead are relieved by the pietie of their friends living, when the ſacrifice of our Mediatour is offred for them, or almes given in the Church. The ſame Father elſwhere ſaith, The whole time betweene the death of a man, and the generall reſurrection, containeth the ſoules in hidden receptacles, as each is worthy, either of eaſe or paine.
The Doctrine of Catholikes, concerning worſhipping of Images, is not uncertaine, it being this onelyonly, that Images are to be worſhipped, but not as Gods. For the ſecond Councell of Nice, it requireth not onelyonly kiſsing of Images, and a civill kind of imbracing, but a proſtration on the ground, and praying on the knees before them: Gregorie de Valentia taketh the word Simulacrum, in a good ſenſe, and concludeth out of Saint Peter, that ſome Imageworſhip is lan full, not any Idoll worſhip, as the Knight impoſeth on him.
The Hammer.
IN this Chapter, the Ieſuit in the fourth, fift, ſixt, ſeventh, twelfth, fifteene, and ſixteene Paragraphs, doth nothing but ſeeth againe his old Coleworts, which were taſted before, and after caſt into the dunghill. From whence, I purpoſe not to gather them againe, or ſet them before the Reader, leſt his ſtomacke ſhould riſe at them: but I addreſſe my ſelfe to examine onelyonly ſuch Sophiſmes, Cavils and Evaſions, whereby hee indeavoureth to elude or retort the Knights arguments, brought againſt him in this Section, in order as I have ſet them downe.
To the firſt. The conſequence of the Ieſuit, drawne from the Knights ſuppoſed failing in his proofes, failes many wayes, as may be proved by manifold inſtances. For albeit, many later Mathematitians faile in refuting Copernicus his giddy opinion of the earths circular motion, and the heavens ſtanding ſtill: yet this their failing is no ſufficient proofe of Copernicus his new fancie: neither will it follow, that the religion of Pagans & Infidels hath ſufficient ground, becauſe Lactantius failes in his proofes of Chriſtianitie, in Saint Ieromes judgement: and Cyprian alſo in the judgement of Lactantius. The defects of the Patron or Advocate, ought not to be imputed to the cauſe. It is a weake and ſilly Religion, whoſe whole ſtrength conſiſteth in the weakeneſſe of ſome of the oppoſers of it. The truth is, the Knight hath not failed in his proofes of the noveltie of the Trent Creed, as the judicious Reader will find: yet if there were any defect in them, it may be abundantly ſupplied out of Iuels challenge at Saint Pauls-Croſſe, Abbots anſwer to Biſhop, intituled, The true ancient Roman Catholike, and Doctor Faner in his Booke of Antiquitie, triumphing over noveltie, and divers others.
To the ſecond. That the ſalvation of all ſoules dependeth upon the Popes ſupremacie, which the Ieſuits are bound by a fourth, and ſupernumerary vow to defend, is a bold and blaſphemous aſſertion, derogatorie to Chriſt himſelfe, who is the Saviour of his body, Epheſ. 5.23. 1 Cor. 3.11.and only foundation which beareth up the waight and frame of the whole Catholike Church. When Chriſt ſaid to Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rocke will I build my Church; hee meant not, as Saint Auſtine rightly obſerveth, To build himſelfe upon Peter, but Peter and the whole Church upon himſelfe; non ſuper te edificabome, ſed ſuper me edificabo te. The Church was founded and eſtabliſhed before there was any Pope or Biſhop at Rome, and ſhall ſo continue, when Rome ſhall, perchance, be burnt with fire, Tract. de auferibilit. Papae.and the Papacie which now tottereth, ſhall be utterly deſtroyed. Doth not their owne Gerſon teach, that the Pope may be quite removed, and yet the Catholike Church ſtill remaine? how then can the Jeſuit ſay, that the waight and frame of the whole Catholike Church dependeth upon the authoritie of the Pope?
To the third. The Knight uſed a dilemma, or two-forked Argument. Either the Popes ſworn-Servants, and our ſworne enemies, whoſe depoſitions before wee heard, againſt divers articles of the Trent Faith, concurred with other Papiſts in judgement, or not: if they concurred, then by the joynt confeſſion of all, for thoſe points, at leaſt, they are deſtitute of univerſality, which yet they make a prime note of their Church: if others concurred not with them in judgement, then their Doctors are divided amongſt themſelves, and conſequently, they want another ſpeciall marke of their Church, which they make unitie in point of Faith. To avoid the puſh of this Ramme, the Ieſuit ſtarts*Quintil. Inſtitut. orat. lib. 6. Diverticula et anfractus ſuffugia ſunt infirmitatis, ut qui curſu parum valent flexu eludunt. aſide into a Scholaſticall ſpeculation, whether any thing is to be held for an article of Faith before it be defined, and reſolveth the matter thus: When a a thing is once defined, to wit, by the Church, then it becomes a matter of Faith. Hee ſhould rather determine, becauſe this or that is a matter of Faith, therefore the Church defineth it to be ſo, and not becauſe the Church defineth it to be ſo, therefore it is a matter of Faith. For Faith, if it be divine, is founded upon Gods Word, not the Churches definition: if nothing be matter of Faith, before it be defined by your Church, then Tranſubſtantiation was no article of Faith, before the Councell of Laterane, and Innocentius the third his dayes; nor the Doctrine of Concommitancie, and lawfull communicating in one kind, before the Councell of Conſtance, under Martin the fift; nor the Popes ſuperioritie to Councels, before the Councell at Laterane, under Leo the tenth; nor moſt of Pope Pius the fourth his Articles, before the late Councell of Trent, wherein thoſe points were firſt defined. Then which, what Argument can be more forcible, to convince the novelty of the Romiſh Faith? But whether an article of Faith is to be accounted ſuch, becauſe it is defined to be ſuch by the Church; or whether it be defined to be ſuch by the Church, becauſe it is ſuch in its owne nature; it will little ſerve the Ieſuits turne to make up the breaches of the Roman Church. For certaine it is, that their Doctors differ amongſt themſelves, even in points defined by the Church. For after the bookes of the Old Teſtament, with all the parts (knowne by the name of Apocrypha) by the Councell of Trent were defined to be of Canonicall authoritie; Sixtus Senenſis makes ſcruple of ſome of them.Sixtus Senenſ. bib. Sanct. l. 1. After the immaculate conception of our Lady was defined by Sixtus the fourth, and the feaſt in teſtimonie thereof, authoriſed by him; yet, the Dominicans generally hold, that ſhee was conceived in ſinne. After Juſtification by inherent righteouſneſſe,De Cauſ. inſtit. l. 7. c. 21. was defined in the Councell of Trent, Albertus Pighius and others, cited by Vegas held the contrary. And though the Councell of Trent ſtigmatize the doctrine touching aſſurance of ſalvation, yet Ambroſius Catharinus, a learned Papist, ſet forth a learned treatiſe de certitudine ſalutis. Laſtly, though Pope Leo the tenth, in the Councell of Lateran, defineth the Pope to be above a generall Councell, yet the Sorboniſts at this day maintaine, that a generall Councell is above the Pope. Therefore as St Thomas Moore ſaid pleaſantly of a poore Phyſitian that he was more then medicus, to wit, by one letter,Mor. in Epigr. meaning that he was mendicus. Vna tibi plus eſt litera quam medico; ſo it may truely be ſaid of the unity Papiſts brag ſo much of, that it is more then Vnity by a letter, to wit, Vanity.
To the fourth. If the Knight or any Proteſtant ſuſpended the efficacy of their Baptiſme upon the faith of their Parents, or (as all Papiſts doe) upon the intention of the Prieſt, the Ieſuit might with ſome colour object to us the uncertainty of our Chriſtendome: but let him know if he doth not, that we maintaine generally that the effect of Baptiſme dependeth not upon the faith of the Parents and God-fathers, nor yet upon the intention of the Prieſt, knowne to God onelyonly and himſelfe; but upon his outward action and his words knowne to all the Congregation. We ſay that the obſervation of Chriſts inſtitution in baptizing the partie in the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the Holy-ghoſt, and not the Prieſts hidden intention makes Baptiſme effectuall to all that belong to the covenant.
To the fift. The Ieſuit moſt abſurdly inferreth abſurdities upon his owne Tenet, ſuppoſing it to be ours, whereas we diſclaime it, affirming that although the Church uſeth in marriage, all meanes poſſible by queſtions and anſwers, by joyning hands, by plighting their troth in moſt ſignificant tearmes, and confirming their mutuall promiſes by giving and receiving a ring, and denouncing Gods judgments againſt them in moſt fearfull manner, if they know any thing one by the other, why they ſhould not be ioyned in marriage, yet becauſe the heart is knowne to God alone, the validity of marriage with us dependeth upon the outward profeſſion, and ſacred action done before ſufficient and undoubted witneſſe and not the ſecret intentions of the partie. What the Ieſuit addeth by way of jeare, that a ſmall deale of orders ſerves our turnes, for he ſeeth not any thing done by vertue of our ordination which any man or woman may not doe without it. I hold it not worthy any other anſwer then that, ſith he profeſſeth his eye ſight to be ſo dimme, he would make uſe of the Spectacles he made for the Knight, by helpe of them if he be not ſtarke blinde, he may ſee, that by vertue of our ordination, men in holy orders preach the Goſpell, adminiſter the Sacraments, remit and retaine ſinnes: which if he thinke any man or woman may doe without ordination, like the foole in the Poet,Dum vitant ſtulti vitia in contrario currunt. he is gone from one extreame to the other, and of a Papiſt become an Anabaptiſt. With us none may execute the Prieſts office, but he that is called thereunto, as was Aaron. If the Ieſuit meane that any man or woman may doe the outward acts of Prieſthood de facto, though not de Iure: may they not doe the like alſo ſometimes among them? doth not their Legend tell us that ſome Boyes getting by heart and pronouncing the words of Conſecration, hoc eſt Corpus meum, turned all the Bakers bread in the ſtreet into fleſh? Do not Lady Abbeſſes and Nuns chaunt Mattins together in Romiſh Chappels? Do not Midwives chriſten children in their Church? With what face then can he charge us with thoſe diſorders whereof all the world ſeeth we are free, but he and his Church moſt guilty?
To the ſixt. If we can have but a conjecturall and wavering knowledge of our ſalvation, what comfort can a true Chriſtian have in life or death? If his hope be onelyonly in this life, the Apoſtle affirmeth expreſſely,1 Cor. 15.19. that he is of all men moſt miſerable; and certainely he is but little better if all his hope in the life to come be no better then a gueſſe, or ſlender conjecture. Iuſtly therefore did Martin Luther tearme the Romiſh doctrine concerning uncertainty of ſalvation, non doctrinam fidei ſed diffidentiae, no doctrine of faith but of diffidence and diſtruſt, which if this Ieſuit ſtiffely maintaines, I would faine know of him how he interpreteth that Article of the Creed, I beleeve the remiſsion of ſinnes. Is the meaning onelyonly this, that there is a remiſſion of ſome ſins in the Church? if ſo, then the Devill beleeves as much concerning this Article as he, but if as he beleeveth in the Article of the Reſurrection, the Reſurrection of his owne fleſh, ſo in the Article of remiſſion of ſinnes, the remiſſion of his owne ſinnes; then his owne juſtification, and particular beliefe of his owne ſaltion is a part of his Catholike faith; and if that be but conjecturall, then there is no certainty in the Catholike Faith. It is true, that it is a different thing to diſpute of the certainety of the Catholike faith in generall, and of every mans private and particular beliefe of his owne juſtification, and ſalvation: yet there is ſuch a dependance betweene them, that if the former be uncertaine the latter cannot be certaine. Yea but (ſaith the Ieſuit) we are certaine, by the certainty of divine faith, not onelyonly that there be ſeven Sacraments, but that they are alſo truely adminiſtred in the Church, ſo as there can be no danger of the failing of either, to the notable preiudice of faith and the ſalvation of ſoules. I reply firſt, that for five of the ſeven as was diſcuſſed at large, Section the fourth, the Ieſuit is ſo farre from any certainty that indeede he can bring no probability that there be any ſuch Sacraments in the Catholike Church; and for the other two which we acknowledge to be Sacraments properly ſo called, he cannot be certaine that they are ever effectually adminiſtred in his Church according to their owne Tenents, who ſuſpend the efficacy of them upon the Prieſts intention. Nay farther, he cannot be certaine that they have any Church at all amongſt them, for there can be no Church (as they teach) without a viſible ſucceſſion of lawfull Paſtours, whereof hee cannot be certaine, ſith no man knoweth whether the Biſhops, who ordained their Prieſts, or the Archbiſhop, who ordained their Biſhops, or the Pope, who conſecrated their Archbiſhops, intended that which your Church intendeth; and if there failed an intention in any of all theſe, or in him who baptized or ordained their firſt Pope, (ſince the Biſhops of Rome began to be Popes) hee hath no certainty according to his owne grounds, of any Prieſthood or Chriſtianitie in his Church.
To the ſeventh. I never heard before, that it could be good, or any way profitable ſurdo fabulum narrare, to tell a Tale in the care of a deafe man. Where doe the Scriptures, or ancient Fathers give any approbation to ſuch ſenſleſſe devotion? can a man call upon him with faith, or any hope of obtaining his ſuit, whom hee conceiveth to be out of his hearing? Yea, but Gabriel Biel ſpeaketh not doubtfully, but certainly, of Invocation, though hee ſeeme to doubt of the manner how Saints in heaven know our neceſſities on earth. Biel indeed liſpeth ſomewhat that way, but hee ſpeaketh not plaine; hee ſaith, Invocantur ſancti, not ſancti ſant invocandi; hee ſpeaketh confidently and certainly of the practiſe of the Romane Church, out not of the truth of this point of the Romiſh Faith, that Saints ought to be called upon: for that hee taught,In Can. Miſſae Diſt. 31. videri probabile. that It may ſeeme probable that God revealeth to Saints, all thoſe ſuits which men preſent unto them: conſequently holdeth, that it may ſeeme alſo probable, that the living may pray unto them. But what is this his probabile, or Peter Lumbards not incredibile, to build an Article of Faith upon? Yea, but Peter Lumbard, though hee make ſome doubt, whether the Saints heare our Prayers as they proceed from us, (they being in Heaven, and wee in Earth, they being but in one place,Sicut enim Angelis, ita etiam ſanctis qui Deo aſsiſtant, petitiones noſtrae innoteſcunt in verbo Dei quod contemplantur. and thoſe that call upon them in a million of places, diſtant farre one from the other) yet, Hee maketh no doubt of their knowing and ſeeing our Prayers in the Word of God, as the Angels doe. I anſwer, that this imaginarie Glaſſe of the Schoolemen, wherein they conceive, that the Saints and Angels ſee all things by the contemplation of God, in whom are all things, hath beene long agoe battered in pieces. For if, becauſe they ſee God, they muſt needs ſee all things that are in him, and know all that hee knoweth; it would hereupon inſue, that the Saints knowledge ſhould be infinite, as Gods is: that they ſhould know the day and houre when Chriſt ſhall come to judgement, contrary to the expreſſe words of our Saviour, Marke 13.32. that they ſhould know the ſecrets of all hearts, which the Scripture aſcribeth as a ſingular prerogative to God. To avoid theſe Rockes, if our Adverſaries will confine the knowledge of the Saints or Angels, to ſuch things onelyonly, as God ſhall be pleaſed to reveale unto them, they beg then the point in queſtion, which they ought to prove: viz. That God will reveale to every Saint, what every man on earth prayeth to him for.
To the eighth. Firſt the Ieſuit in this anſwer flatly contradicteth Cajetan, whom hee undertaketh to defend: for, if the Church groundeth not the canonization of Saints upon the report of miracles voyced on them: Cajetans Argument in that place is weak, and of no force. Secondly, for the authoritie of the See Apoſtolike, and the infallibility of the Popes judgement, they are as uncertaine, or more then that ſuch perſons canonized by the Pope are Saints.L. 3. ep. 3. nec quiſquam ſibi quod ſoli filio tribuit pater vindicare ſe putet, ut ad areum pargandam, &c. 1 Kings 8.39. Saint Cyprian in his time, ſeverely cenſured thoſe who arrogated to themſelves that which the Father hath given to the Sonne onelyonly; to wit, in the floore of the Church, to take the fanne in his hand, and ſever the Wheat from the Chaffe. If God onelyonly knoweth the hearts of all the children of men, either the Pope muſt be God, as the Canoniſts blaſphemouſly called him, or hee cannot infallibly know who are true Saints, and ſincerely beleeve, and love God. As for Saint Auſtines complaint (that many were worſhipped by men on earth that are tormented by the devill in hell) they are indefinitely ſpoken, and not reſtrained to Donatiſts, or any other Heretikes: yet, were it ſo, wee may ſee in thoſe Donatiſts a perfect picture of Papiſts. For what Donatus did in Affrica, that doth the Pope in Europe; hee canonizeth thoſe of his faction for Saints. And as the Donatiſts gave the honour of Martyrs to thoſe, who juſtly ſuffered death for Robberies and Murders, ſo doe the Papiſts crowne the heads of Murderers and Traitours with the garland of Martyrdome; witneſſe Becket, Campian, Oldcorne, and Garnet; whereof the firſt ſtandeth in the Kalender of Romiſh Saints, the later in the Regiſter of Jeſuiticall Martyrs. Neither can the Ieſuit ſo eaſily fillip off the teſtimonie of Caſſander, as if hee taxed the ignorant for making a Saint of a Thiefe,Caſſan. conſult. art. 2. and no way touched upon the Pope or your Church; for hee layeth not the blame upon the people, as the Ieſuit here doth, but ſaith ſimply, that Saint Martin found a place honoured in the name of a holy Martyr, to be the ſepulcher of a wicked Robber. Secondly, 'tis well knowne that the people cry not up at firſt a Saint; or Martyr after his death, but the Prieſts, who voyce miracles upon them, and keepe their Shrines and Reliques, and by ſhewing them to the people, make no leſſe gaine, than Demetrius and his fellow Crafts-men did of their ſilver Shrines of Diana.
To the ninth. As hee that plucks the ſtickes out of the Chimney one by one, at laſt puts out the fire: ſo the Knight by looſening, or quite removing the fuell of Purgatorie fire, conſequently extinguiſheth it. If all the parts and circumſtances of the Doctrine of Popiſh Purgatory are doubtfull and uncertaine, the whole certainly can be no Article of Faith: but the Antecedent the Knight proves out of Bellarmine, Dominicus a Soto, Fiſher Biſhop of Rocheſter, Gregorie the great, and venerable Bede, let the Ieſuit therefore looke to the Conſequent. The Church of Rome commandeth every one upon paine of hellfire, to beleeve a temporarie purging fire after this life. Firſt, upon what ground, Scripture, or unanimous conſent of Fathers, or Tradition of the Catholike Church? no ſuch thing. But upon apparitions of dead men, and teſtimonie of Spirits, whether good Spirits or evill they cannot tell. Next, wee demand what ſoules, and how long doe they contine there? To this they muſt anſwer likewiſe Ignoramus. Soto thinketh that none continueth in this purgation ten yeares. If this be true, ſaith Bellarmine, No ſoule needs to ſtay in purging one houre. Thirdly, the ſoules that are ſuppoſed to be there, till their ſinnes are purged, where with are they purged? With fire onelyonly; ſo ſaith Sir Thomas Moore, and proves it out of Zacharie 9.11. Thou haſt delivered the priſoners out of the place where there is no water: or with water and fire: ſo ſaith Gregorie in his Dialogues, lib. 4. Some are purged by fire, and ſome by bathes: and Fiſher Biſhop of Rocheſter, proves it out of thoſe words of the Pſalmiſt, Wee have paſſed thorow fire and water. Fourthly, admit they are purged by fire, whether is this fire materiall or metaphoricall? Ignoramus, Wee know not, ſaith Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 6. Laſtly, is there any mittigation of this paine in Purgatorie, or no? They cannot tell this neither. For venerable Bede, hiſt. Ang. lib. 5. tels us of the apparition of a Ghoſt, reporting that There was an infernall place where ſoules ſuffered no paine, where they had a brooke running through it. Neither is it improbable, ſaith Bellarmine, l. 2. de Purg. cap. 7. that there ſhould be ſuch an honorable priſon, which is a moſt milde and temperate Purgatorie. Yea, but ſaith the Ieſuit, Saint Auſtin is a firme man for Purgatorie, and hee will prove it out of that booke of Enchiridion, and place quoted by the Knight. Reſolutely ſpoken, but ſo falſly,Encharid. ad Laurent. c 69. Tale aliquid etiam poſt hanc vitam fieri incredibile non eſt, et utrum ita ſit quaeri potest et ut inveniri, aut latere poſsit, nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgaiorium ſalvari non tamen tales de quibus dictū eſt regnum Dei non poſside bant. that in this very booke, chapter 69, Saint Auſtine ſpeaking of a purging fire, and commenting upon the words of Saint Paul, Hee ſhall be ſaved as it were by fire; addeth immediately, It is not unlikely that ſome ſuch thing may be after this life: but whether it be ſo or no, it may be argued; and whether it can be found, or not found, that ſome Beleevers are ſaved by a purging fire; yet it is certaine, that none of them ſhall be ſaved, of whom the Apoſtle ſaith, they ſhall not inherit the Kingdome of God. And in the ſame booke, chapter 109. he reſolves, that All ſoules from the day of their death to their reſurrection, abide in expectation what ſhall become of them, and are reſerved in ſecret receptacles accordingly as they deſerve, either torment or eaſe. Theſe hidden Cells or Receptacles whereſoever they are ſcituated in St. Auſtins judgment,C. 109. Tempus quod inter hominis mortem & ultimam reſurrectionem interpoſitum eſt animus abditis receptaculis continet, ſicut unaque que digna eſt vel requiae vel arumnâ. certaine it is, they are not in the Popiſh Purgatory; for St. Auſtine placeth in theſe ſecret Manſions all ſoules indifferently, good or bad, whereas the Popiſh Purgatory is reſtrained only to thoſe of a middle condition, being neither exceeding good nor exceeding bad. Againe, in St. Auſtines hidden repoſitories, ſome ſoules have eaſe, and ſome paine, as each deſerveth: but in the Romiſh Purgatory, all ſoules are in little-eaſe, being tormented in a flame little differing from Hell fire, or rather nothing at all, ſave onelyonly in time, the paines are as grievous but not ſo durable. Elſe where St. Auſtine is moſt direct againſt Purgatory, and wholly for us, as namely, de peceat. meritis de remiſsione, l. 1. c. 28. There is no middle or third place, ſaith he, but he muſt needs be with the Devill who is not with Chriſt. And Hypog. l. 5. The firſt place the faith of Catholikes by divine authority beleeveth to be the Kingdome of Heaven, the ſecond to be Hell, tertium locum penitùs ignoramus, the third place, we are alltogether ignorant of; and in his booke de vanit. ſeculi cap. 1. Know that when the ſoule is ſeperated from the body, ſtatim, preſently, it is either placed in Paradiſe for his good worke, or caſt headlong into the bottome of hell for his ſinnes. Neither can the Ieſuit evade by ſaying that there are two onelyonly places where the ſoules remaine finally and eternally, to wit, Heaven and Hell, but yet that there is a third place where the bodies fry in purging for a time; for St. Auſtine ſpeakes of all ſoules in generall both good and bad, and ſaith that ſtatim, that is, preſently upon death, they are receaved into Heaven, or throwne into Hell; and therefore ſtay no time in a Third place. What then ſay we to the paſſage in which the Ieſuit ſo triumpheth? Enchirid. ad Laurenc. c. 110. Neither is it to be denied, that the ſoules of the dead are relieved by the piety of their friends living, when the Sacrifice of our Mediatour is offered for them, and Almes given in the Church. We anſwer, that where St. Auſtine is not conſtant to himſelfe, we are not bound to ſtand to his authority, and therefore we appeale from Saint Auſtine miſſing his way in this place, to the ſame Auſtine, Nullum auxilium miſericordiae poteſt preberi a juſtis defunctorum animabus etiamſi juſti praebere velint, quia eſt immutabilis divina ſententia Qualis quiſque moritur talis a Deo judicatur, nec poteſt mutari, corrigi, vel minus dimia ſententia.hitting his way elſewhere, namely, l. 2. Queſt. Evan. c. 38. There can be no helpe of mercy afforded by juſt men to the ſoules of the deceaſed, although the righteous would never ſo faine have it ſo, becauſe the ſentence of God is immutable: and Ep. 80. ad Heſich. ſuch as a man is when he dieth, for ſuch he is judged of God, neither can the ſentence of God be changed corrected, or diminiſhed. As for Mr. Anthony Alcots confeſſion, that Saint Auſtines opinion was for purgatorie, it maketh not for the Ieſuit, but againſt him; for he ſaith, it was his opinion, not his reſolved judgment, and his opinion at one place and at one time, which after he retracted and reſolved the cleane contrary, as Mr. Alcots there in part ſheweth, and Danaeus moſt fully in his Comment upon St. Auſtine his Enchiridian ad Laurentium.
To the tenth. If all Papiſts did agree in this, that all Images were to be worſhipped, but not as Gods; yet are they at odds in other Quillets concerning Images, namely, whether they are to be worſhipped in themſelves, and for themſelves, or onelyonly ratione prototypi, in regard of that they repreſent: whether properly, or improperly: whether with kiſſing and imbracing, and other civill complements, as Tharaſius the Patriarke of Conſtantinople teacheth, or with proſtration, or corporall ſubmiſſion before Images, as the Ieſuit indeavoureth to prove out of the Acts of the ſecond Councell of Nice. Neither is it certaine, and reſolved among all Papiſts, that Images are to be worſhipped, but not as Gods. For ſome of them deny, that they are at all to be worſhipped, others over-laviſh on the contrary, and teach, that they are to be worſhipped as God.De Imag. ſanct. l. 2. c. 22. For though Bellarmine himſelfe approve not the opinion of thoſe Roman Catholikes, who teach that Latria, or divine honour is due to Images, unleſſe it be improperly, and by accident; yet hee confeſſeth that Alexander de Hales, Aquinas, Cajetanus, Bonaventure, Marſilius, Almaine, Carthuſian, Capreolus, and Henricus teach, that The Images of God are to be worſhipped with the ſame worſhip wherewith God himſelfe is worſhipped; and what is this leſſe, than to worſhip Images as God? As for the Canons and curſes of the Councell of Nice, they are but Bruta fulmina, and if the Ieſuit be not as ſenſeleſſe as the Images which hee worſhippeth, hee muſt needs confeſſe as much. For to ſpeake nothing of the ridiculous arguments uſed in that Councell, ſuch as theſe are; God made Man after his owne Image, therefore we may make or worſhip Images: and the Angels are to be painted, quia corporei ſunt, becauſe they are bodily ſubſtances. What is there ſpoken in the 115 Pſalme, the 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 verſes, againſt Idols, which may not be applied to your Popiſh Images? It is ſaid of them, They are the workes of mens hands; are yours the worke of Angels, or Devils? It is ſaid of them, They have mouthes and ſpeake not, eyes and ſee not, eares and heare not, noſes and ſmell not, hands and handle not, feet and walke not: doe any of your venerable Images made of ſilver and gold (or rather, of which you make ſo much ſilver and gold of) ſpeake, ſee, heare, ſmell, handle or walke? I conclude therefore in the words of the Pſalmist, They that make theſe Images are like unto them, and ſo are all they that defend the worſhip of them. For Gregorie de Valentia, the Ieſuit telleth but a ſorry tale; for firſt, hee diſparageth his learning in the Greeke, ſaying, that alleaging a Text out of Saint Peter, who wrote in Greeke, hee followed the Latine tranſlation, never looking to the originall: which argueth in him, either groſſe ignorance in the Greeke, or groſſe negligence. After hee hath thus diſgraced their noble Champion, hee leaveth him in the open field, ſaying, pag. 377. Neither doe I allow Valentia his uſe of the word Simulacrum, nor his explication of Saint Peters text, neither this his argument drawne from thence. The truth is, Gregorie de Valentia is unexcuſable;De Idolatr. l. 2. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus ſimulacrorum illicitos notare, ſi omnino nullos ſimulacrorum cultus licitos eſſe cenſuiſſet. for howſoever hee diſtinguiſheth of Image and Idoll-worſhip, and intendeth to prove no more out of Saint Peter, then that ſome Image-worſhip is lawfull: yet, if his collection were good out of Saint Peter, it would prove ſome Idoll-worſhip to be lawfull. For Saint Peters word is, foreign, unlawfull Idolatries; and if becauſe Saint Peter brandeth Idolatrie with the epithet of Vnlawfull, he will infer that therefore ſome Idolatrie is lawfull: by the ſame reaſon he might conclude, that ſome Adulterie or Theft were good and profitable, becauſe the Apoſtle, Epheſ. 5.21. biddeth us to have no fellowſhip with the unfruitfull workes of darkneſſe. For the diſtinction of an Image and an Idoll, I have ſpoken at large heretofore; here onelyonly I obſerve, that the Ieſuit (in ſaying that Idolum, according to the prime ſignification of the word, might be taken more indifferently, becauſe it ſignifieth the ſeeming ſhape or beauty of a thing or perſon) contradicteth himſelfe, and the whole current of his owne Doctours, and ſtrengthneth our Arguments againſt them, drawne from the prohibition of making or worſhiping Idols, that is, the ſhape or beauty of any thing or perſon. Flood, pag. 337.The ſhape or beauty of any thing or perſon, according to the prime ſignification and etymologie of the word is an Idoll: but all Popiſh Images are the ſhapes of ſome thing or perſon, they are all therefore Idolls, and the worſhipers of them Idolaters, according to the primitive ſignification of the word. The truth is, every Idoll is an Image, and every Image an Idoll, according to the firſt ſignification of the word: but according to the preſent uſe, an Idoll for the moſt part is taken in the worſt ſenſe, and ſignifieth ſuch an Image onelyonly as is idolized, that is made for religious worſhip, or rather irreligious, as all Popiſh Images are: and becauſe they are ſo, the places of Scripture which we bring againſt the worſhip of Idolls, as this of Saint Peter, are ſtrong and in force againſt them and their Worſhippers. And this may ſerve for anſwer of the fourteenth Paragraph of this tenth Chapter. In the 15. and 16. following, he doth but champe ſomewhat of that which before he chewed, and therefore I conclude this Chapter with his owne words a little altered: we finde nothing in matter of faith uncertaine in the Proteſtant Church, nothing certaine on the Ieſuits ſide but onelyonly this, that he is alwayes and every where himſelfe, that is a Proteus: whoſe motto may be that of the Heathens Goddeſſe, Fortune: conſtans in levitate ſuâ, conſtant to his inconſtancy, and true to his falſe dealing.