A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 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 Cburch 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. Howsoever though we be not …ertaine 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 s…lfe; 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, honorabantur 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 Image-worship is lawfull, 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 edificabo me, 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, Tract. de auferibilit. Papae.perchance, be burnt with fire, 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 tabi 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 ha…ds, 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 contraria 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 eare 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 sunt invocandi; hee speaketh confidently and certainly of the practise of the Romane Church, but 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,Sicut enim Angelis, ita etiam sanctis qui Deo assistant, petitiones nostrae innotescunt in verbo Deo quod contemplantur. and wee in Earth, they being but in one place, 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 purgandam, &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 hell-fire, 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 continue 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, wherewith 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 B…llarmine, 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 purgatorium salvari non tamen tales de quibus dictū est regnum Dei non possidebant. 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 … 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 interpositam 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, …s 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 etiam si justi praebere velint, quia est immutabilis divina sententia Qualis quisque moritur talis a Deo judicatur, nec potest mutari, corrigi, vel minui 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 si nulacrorum 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,Flood, pag. 337. that is, the shape or beauty of any thing or person. 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 not… 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.