sinne all punishment due vnto it as martyrs doe Thirdlie I answere that S. Augustin speaketh there onelie of those two places to which all soules are finallie destinated and to one of which generallie speaking for the most parte euerie one presentlie passeth yet as there is no rule so generall which doth not admit exception so doth this generall sentence of sainct Augustin include those onelie who dye in either of those states which he mentioneth in that place that is either absolutely in such good workes as presentlie deserue paradise or els in such ill workes as presentlie deserue the paines of hell yet it admitteth an exception in others who passe out of this world in neyther of those two states but are of those whome the same S. Augustin in an other place calleth nec valde bonos nec valde malos or mediocriter malos mediocriter bonos Enchyr. c. 110. lib. de cura pro mot cap. 1. Neyther verie good nor verie euill and of whome he also meaneth when in his first booke of care for the dead he sayth non dubium est orationem prodesse defunstis it is no doubt but prayer is profitable to the dead which speaches hee would newer haue vttered if hee had euer denyed the faith of Purgatorie that this is S. Austins true sense it is plaine in regard it was sufficient for his purpose in that place whose intent is onely in generall to persuade to virtue good lyfe that when men come to die they may be found in state rather to go presentlie to heauen thē to hell to which purpose of his because it was impertinent to mention Purgatorie therfore he passed it in silence wher as yet in other places where it cometh in his way he doth not omit it Lastely I aduertise the reader of the smale fidelitie which Sir Humfrey vseth in the citation of this place of S. Austin traslating those words pro meritis bonis for his good merits his good works flying from the worde merit out of his Puritānicall spirit as a beare doth from the ring Frō hence Sir Hūfrey passeth to proue the vncertaintie of Indulgēces honour of images by the testimonies of the Romanists but the trueth is none of them proue anie vncertainlie amōg the Romanists touching the substantiall points themselues for all the authours which he citeth here for this purpose doe vniformelie consent in both those particulars of exhibition of honour to images aboute the power lawfullnesse of the vse of Indulgences as wee haue showed before And onelie ther is some vncertainlie in that which is not determined by the Church as for example how farre Indulgences are extended aboute the begining of the practise what maner of honour is due to images the like which questions are out of the subiect of this section the title of which is if Sir Humfrey remembreth of the certainlie of the reformers faith vncertainlie of the Romish faith not of such disputable questions as the Romanists in the cited places speake of Wher also it is to be noted by the way that the kinght ahuseth S. Thomas first in that he affirmeth him to teach that the image of Christ is to be adored with diuine honour For although it is true that S. Thomas sayth that seeing that Christ is adored with adoration of latria it is consequent that his image is to be adored with adoration of Latria neuerthelesse the same S. Thomas addeth afterwardes non propter ipsam imaginem sed propter rem cuius imago est meaning that altho' both Christ his image be adored with the same externall action of diuine honour which he calleth adoration of Latria yet is not the Latria it selfe or diuine honour in spirit truth attributed or exhibited to the picture but onelie to Christ himselfe by reason of his diuinitie which diuinitie as S. Thomas knew it not to be truelie reallie in the picture so knew he also that diuine worship ought not to be giuen to the same not as much as by accident but onelie that the externall adoration or externall action of Latria or the matter of it was so to be exhibited to the image that the formall parte ther of that is the affection of the mynde ought wholelie to be cast vpon Christ himselfe represented by the same Secondlie I say that the knight abuseth S. Thomas in that he calleth him the founder of image worship whereas yet he himselfe had cited the seuenth Synod immediately before which vseth the same terme of adoration and that which is more the foresayd Synod is alledged by Sir Humfrey in another place for the authour of idolatrie which neuerthelesse was celebrated some hundreths of yeares before Sainct Thomas of Aquin was borne And altho' this doctrine of his is some what obscure in the termes which he deliuereth it soundeth harshelie in the eares of the common people yet as it is true in the sense he speaketh it so may it also be so explicated by pastours preachers that euen children themselues may be capable of it especiallie if first they be tould in generall that no picture is to be honored by it selfe without relation or reference to the prototype or thing it represents or for itselfe that whensoeuer they exhibit anie act of honour towardes an image they must withall fixe their mynde affection vpon that onelie which it representeth referring the whole action finallie lastelie not to the picture but to the thing pictured euen as they doe who bowe or make courtisie to a man whome they salute honour by touching his garment as the fashion in some places in which action of honour altho' the exterior signe is directed as well to the apparell as to the man him selfe or rather more immediatelie to the apparell then to the person yet the internall affection of the saluter is settled vpon the person onelie where finallie it stayeth remayneth An so it is in the worship of the images of Christ his Saints in which there is no more daunger or showe of idolatrie then there is danger of excesse of ciuill reuerence towardes him whose garment is honored in the manner before described And according to this if Sir Humfrey his blynde mates had but light of vnderstanding to conceiue it they should not need to feare anie danger of idolatrie in the Romanists tho' they were neuer so ignorant or simple but those might more iustlie feare spirituall idolatrie in themselues who doe so much adore the Idol of their owne priuate spirit that they will not yeald to the iudgement of the most vniuersall Church and to those who are both farre more in number incomparablie farre more learned religious then all the impugners of honor due to the images of Christ and his Saints And yet vpon supposition of this same false idol of his owne conceite that all kynde of reuerēce done to any kynde of image
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
it is euer essentially one the same in it selfe cleare from distinction cleare from error the coÌ„trarie to which neuerthelesse should necessarily be true if ei-faith were diuided in to fundamental not fundamental faith the Church could erre in her propositioÌ„ of the one not of the other And to this I adde that one propertie of the true Church is holines but now what sanctitie integritie or holines can possible be in the Church if it be infected with errors in faith of what nature soe euer they bee For as the scripture affiirmes sine fide that is true pure intyre faith impossibile est placere Deo True faith is the forme fashioÌ„ beautie of the Church which is the immaculate sponse of Christ ' not hauing spot or wrincle In soe much that if she be defaced thus with errors she can not possible be the sponse of Christ as in the cided place like wise in the Canticles she is described all faire or comely but rather she would be like a leaper or most deformed creature Thirdly I confesse for my parte I could neuer perfectly vnderstand what the Nouellists truely meane by fundamental not fundamental points by reason I finde the matter in none of their workes sufficiently explicated I veriely coÌ„ceiue they purposely anoyde the declaration of it to the ende the absurditie may lesse appeare Neuerthelesse it seemes in probabilitie that by fundamentals they meane all those points which according to their owne exposition ar contained in scriptures the three creedes And by not fundamentals the points of controuersie betwixt vs theÌ„ as is the number of Canonical bookes the infallible rule of interpretation of scriptures the real presence transsubstantiation iustification ' c. This beiÌ„g supposed I argue thus Either those points which our aduersaries call not fundamentals ar matters of faith ' to be beleeued by all sortes of Christians according to the diuersitie of their tenets vnder paine of damnation or not to be beleeued If they ar thus necessarily to be beleeued by faith then doubtelesse they ar included in those truthes touching which as I haue declared coÌ„firmed before by both scriptures Fathers Christ promised to his Church the assistance of the diuine Sprit to remaine with it eternally that is till the consummation of the worlde and consequently the Church can not committe anie error in proposing them to the people as being no lesse fundamental in that respect then anie of the rest of the articles of faith But if our aduersaries on the contrarie denye them to be necessarily beleeued vnder paine of losse of SaluatioÌ„ hould theÌ„ onely as matters of indifferencie such as may either be beleeued or not be beleeued without preiudice of faith or maÌ„ners vpon this supposition I graunte the Church may erre in proposing theÌ„ to her flock but yet in this case that parte of our aduersaries distinctioÌ„ affirming that the Church can erre in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tal matters of faith is still false and impertineÌ„t in regarde those particulars aboue telated in which they teache the Church can erre ar soe farre from being either fundamentals or not fundamentals in matter of faith that according to the former supposition they ar not either one way or other with in the circuit of faith and consequently that parte or member of our aduersaries dinstinction viz that the Church can erre in not fundamentals is both false nugatorie and impertinent in which sense soeuer they intend to maintaine it Fourtly I proue directly that the affirmatiues euen of those particulars controuerted betwixt vs and the professors of the English Religion ar fundamental points of faith and by consequence that if the Church can erre in them that parte of their new distinction is false according to which they auerre the Church can not erre in fundamental points of Religion which I conuince in this forme of argument That distinction is false and absurde according to which it necessarily followes that the Church can erre in matters the true faith of which is necessarie to saluation But according to the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith it necessarily followes the Church can erre in matters necessarie to saluation Ergo The distinction of fundamental and not fundamental matters of faith is a false and absurde distinction The minor in which the total difficultie consists I proue because according to this distinction the Church may erre in these propositions The Church hath the true complete Canon of scripture The Church hath the true interpretation and sense of scripture Christs bodie and bloud ar truely really substantially and not by onely faith contained in the sacred Eucharist c. And yet the faith of these either affirmatiuely or negatiuely is necessarie to saluatioÌ„ as the aduersaries theÌ„ selues if they will not be occounted obstinate in a matter soe cleare and manifest can not denye Therfore it is hence concluded by forcible sequele that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals in matters of faith is false and absurde Fiftely I reason in this manner against the same distinction If the infallibilitie of the Churches authoritie consistes in fundamental points of Religion onely and not in all that the true Church shal at anie tyme declare vnto her members concerning their faith and Religion then were not tâ—e prouidence of Christ perfect towardes his sponse but more defectiue then God was towardes the synagog of the Iewes neither were this anie other then to imagine that Christ in deede did laye a sounde foundation for his Church but lefte walles and roofe exposed to be deiected or caste to grounde with euerie puffe of winde which how repugnant to reason his owne inuiolable promisse this is the reader may easily consider and censure Sixtly I argue yet more positiuely against the distinction related because our aduersaries frame it either in respect of the greater or lesser dignitie of the obiects of fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points of faith in them selues or in respect of the greater or lesse necessitie of them to saluation by reason of the necessitie of faith which the members of the true Church haue of them all and euerie one in particular Now if we respect onely the material obiects in them selues and the necessitie of them to saluation precisely soe I confesse ther ar some particular matters of faith which much surpasse orhers and in that respect alsoe the one may not vnaptely be termed fundamental in comparision of the rest which haue not that preheminencie For example that ther is a God and that God is a rewarder of workes quod Deus est remunerator sit That he is one in three persons that the second person in Trinitie became incarnate or tooke humaine nature vpon him was borne of the Virgin Marie suffered death for our dedemption c. are matters both more noble and dignifiable in them selues then those Christ fasted fortie dayes and fortie nights an Angel
Image of Christ among the images of gentilicall Philosophers and because also he put a croune vpon it and worshipped it in an Ethnicall manner and not according to the custome of Christians but as S. Epihanius heres 27. explicateth those heretikes Gentilium ministeria perficiebant they sacrified vnto all those images to wit of Pithagoras Aristotle together with Christs image after the manner of the Gentiles and so this parte of the Pedegree containes an errour in in heraldry and proueth no true descent In the next passage which is aboute the CommunioÌ„ in both kinds Pope Leo tells vs saith the Knight that the Manicheis a sorte of heretikes in his time vsed the Sacrament in one kinde videlicet in bread onely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam Videlicet Manichei nostris audeaÌ„t inesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt tutius lateaÌ„t Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae omnino haurire declinant Leo ser 4. in quad It is true S. Leo saith so but he doth not condemne them for heretikes for that reason but be cause they abstained froÌ„ wine as from an vncleane creature and because they did not beleeue that Christ had bloud in in his body and so that which Pope Leo did when he gaue commaunde that those should be diligeÌ„tly obserued who vsually receiued but in one kind was done purposely for discouerie of the Manicheis who crastily to conceile their heresie touching the truth of Christ humanity communicated with the Catholikes dissemblingly the Custome of that time being to communicate sometimes in one kinde and in both as now the Grecians practise and therefore that holy Pope did discretely commaunde those should be diligently obserued who in all occasions did vse to receiue vnder the forme of bread onely houlding that for an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t of their aborring of the bloud of Christ By which it is euident that euen that same time the communioÌ„ was lawfully vsed by some in one kinde otherwise S. Leo needed not to haue vsed any great diligence for the dicouerie of the Manicheis in regard that if all generally had bene obledged to coÌ„municate in both the Manicheis who frequented the Communion would haue beene discouered at the first by their abstaining from the chalice And in like manner the knight abuseth Bell toutouching a proofe of his taken from the example of the Nazarites as if he had deriued wholy or chiefly the communion of one species or kinde from the practise of their communion whereas he doth not so but hauing by other arguments of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons sufficieÌ„tly established the doctrine of the Church in that particular he bringeth that of the Nazarites onely as a confirmation of the same Lastlie the knight concludeth this point with those wordes of S. Luke drinke you all of this whereby he would proue that the communion in both kindes came from Christ and so it did indeede but not by precept giuen to all in generall but onelie to those then present and to those whome they represented as to be their successours that is the Apostles and all Priests after them but not to anie Puritan or Puritannicall minister as not hauing from them anie true succession After these passages Sir Humfrey proceeds to inuocation of Saints and Aungels the founders of which he affirmeth to haue bene the heretikes called Angelici and for this citeth Saint Augustine ad quod vult Deum But this is idle for the Angelicalls were heretikes not for the inuocation of Angells but either for that they held them to haue bene creatours of the world or in regard they vsed to boast of their owne Angelicall manner of life or because as Saint Augustin testifieth they were so addicted to adore Angels Erant in Angelorum cultum inclinati quos Epiphanius iam omnino defecisse testatur Aug. haeres 29. that they did vse to worship them with latria or diuine honour all which kinde of adoration the Romanists with the same Saint Augustin giue to one onelie God And so the knight doth peruert the trueth and abuseth S. Augustine who in his 61. q. vpon the Genes explicating that passage of Apocalips 19. in which the Angell prohibited S. Iohn to adore him saith neither let it moue the that in a certaine place of scripture the Angell doth prohibite a man to adore him and doth admonish him that he rather adore God for the Angell did so appeere that he might haue adored him for God and therefore saith S. Aug. the adorer was ro be corrected by which it is manifest that when S. Augustin teacheth that the Angelici were heretikes because they were inclined to adore Angels he meanes because they adored them with diuine honour and not because they gaue that due inferiour worship vnto them which the Romanists vse For workes of merit and supererogation hee produceth for authours the heretikes named Cathari and Puritans but the heresies of these sectaries were farre different from the doctrine of the Romanists touching these two points Nay they were neuer defenders of either merit or workes of supererogation that euer I read but that for which they were condemned by the Catholike Church was chiefelie for their defence of the errours of Nouatus and particularelie for denying remission of sinnes and the authoririe of the keyes in the Church and for that they affirmed their owne pretended puritie to be aboue the doctrine of the Apostles as not conteyned in it but farre exceeding it and therefore they were called Cathari that is pure ones Cathari qui seipsos isto nomine propter munditiam superbissime atque odiosissime nominant Secundas nuptias non admittunt paenitentiam denegant NouatuÌ„ sectantes haereticum vnde etiam nouatiani appellantur S. Aug. haeres 38. And S. Isidor in the verie place cited by Sir Humfrey saith of them That they named them selfes Cathari for their puritie for glorying saith hee in their merits they denie pennance c. And so it appeares by this that the knight belyes Saint Isidor in two respects Because he quotes him lib. 8. cap. de Haeres Christian as if he did testifie that these heretikes were the first authours of doctrine of merit and workes of supererogation Whereas S. Isidor hath neither the one nor the other Nor yet makes anie mention in that place of workes of superogation And so according to this lette our Puritans of England and Sir Humfrey him selfe as none of the least of them examen their consciences well and doubtles they will finde themselues to haue farre more affinitie with the foresaid fellowes then the Romanists who both graâ—nt remission of sinnes by vertue of the Ecclesiasticall keyes and allso denie and renounce all such puritie of Spirit as the Puritans pretended He addeth for conclusion the worship of the blessed Virgin Marie to haue bene the heresie of the Collyridians Quaedam mulieres currum quendam siue sellam quadratam
to translate his prayer into his vulgar tōgue c. Thus the Rhemists Which as the reader may easilie perceiue doth quite contradicte Sir Humfreys purpose the doctrine practise of his Church Sir Humfrey also falsifyes Gabriel lect 12. in Can. or at the he least he falsely ignorantlie vnderstāds him when in his owne 265. page he cytes him affirming that he diliuereth there seuen reasons why vocall prayer should be vnderstanded by the people For Biel teacheth not there in what lenguage vocall pryer ought to bee but onelie proueth that it must not be meerelie mentall but so vttered pronounced as it may be knowne for such by the people vt innotescat populo which wordes doe not signifie as the kinght falselie English them may be vnderstood but may come to the notice or hearing of the people in regarde it is vocall prayer in what language soeuer it bee Hebrewe Greke or Latin Circa primum an oratio debeat vocaliter perfici Tūc dicitur ad dubium quod oratio publica necessario est vocalis Oportet enim quod talis oratio innotescat populo pro quo offertur Biel. in Can. lect 62. f. 124. So that the reader may perceiue that this author is neither pertinently nor sincerelie produced by our aduersarie For the greater safatie of his reiecting the wiship of images he produces expresselie three onelie authors two of which neuerthelesse are no Romanists one of them being the dimi-Romanist Erasmus the other Cassander neither of whose authorities we admit for current It is true the same Cassāder brings out of Biel something to the same purpose who supposing he be truelie alledged yet it must alwayes be true that one suallowe makes not summer so what soeuer he sayth his authoritie alone can not ingender safetie And since I writ this by taking a viewe of the authors themselues I fynde that Sir Humfrey hath thryse corrupted Cassander by omission of some of his wordes which he rehearses out of the 979. page of his consultation of images for all that clause of Cassander imaginum moderato vsu pacis tranquilitatis causa conseruato Sir Humfrey lets quyte drop out of his pen which wordes not withstanding are of so much importance to haue ben trulie related that togither with some others in the same page which he also pretermits they be the onelie wordes which most declare the authors meaning touching the honor due to images The wordes are these Non tamen haec quae diximus eo pertinent vt imagines sanctorum si in ijs modo decorum seruetur non aliquo honore illis conuenienti debito affici possint videlicet si vt signa monumenta sanctorum honorifice habeantur in gratiam illorum quos significant referunt reuerenter conspiciantur tractentur modo ab eximo cultu temperetur nihil diuinitatis virtutis illis tribuatur sed eo tantum loco habeantur quo litterae voces quae rerum absentium quas diligimus veneramur gratam memoriam suggerant All which long sentence as being much disagreeable to Sir Humfreys Precisian spirit he made shifte to passe ouer in lurchers sylence And in deed in my iudgement the foresayd wordes taken as they stand in the text are so plaine for the worship of images in that sense in which the Roman Church houldes it lawfull to honore them that I can not easilie preceiue in what they differ from the tenor of the decree of the Tridentine Councell in that point In the other place Sir Humfrey likewise omits the latter parte of Biels sentence as it is cyted by Cassander as the wordes are founde in Biel himselfe the wordes which Sir Humfrey scips are these quia qualitercumque consideretur imago est res quaedam insensibilis creatura cui adoratio latrie minime exhibenda Which wordes in deed are those by which both Biel Cassander cheefelie declare what they denie to be lawfull in the due worship of images that is adoration of Latria or diuine honor And yet both of them graunte an other inferior worship or honor due to them so that the industrious knight to saue labor falsified these two authors both at once And altho' Biel doth reprehend that most iustelie the blockish error of some ignorant people of which perhaps some there may be some times in the vniuersall Church that beleeue some diuine virtue or sanctitie to reside in images yea in one more then an other the like sotish conceites yet doth it not followe out of this reprehension of Biel that he denied it absolutelie to be lawfull to worship images in due manner as our captious knight would haue it Nay Biel is so farre from this that in the verie same place quoted by Sir Humfrey he expresselie defēdes adoration of the images of Christ euen with Latria improperlie or per accidens which is as much as anie Roman diuine grauntes to anie image what soeuer To which we may adde that the same Biel doth in expresse termes put for conclusion of his 59. lection these wordes Haec de imaginum adoratione ratione representationis This of the adoration of images in respect of their representation By which wordes it is cleare that is author this grosselie abused in that he is cited by our aduersarie against honor of images he being so plaine a defendant of the same that he doubts not to vse the words Latria adoratio Erasmus Cassander are also here produced by our aduersarie against the vse of images practised in the Roman Church But these two altho' I doubte not but both of them in their writings incline much more to Catholike Religion then they doe to Protestancie yet absolutelie they are but neutrals who followed more their owne wandering wits then anie other certaine rule of faith And so their testimonies are not admitted by vs for Orthodox and authenticall And therefore Sir Humfrey committes an error as often as he vseth them for Romanists Against the safetie of inuocation of Saints he produceth S. Augustin saying Tutius iucundius loquor ad meum Iesum But this sentence he cites he knowes not where and it proues he knowes not what nor I neither S. Augustin truelie affirmeth that he speaketh more safelie delighfully to Iesus thē anie other so doe I but as hee doth not say that he speaketh not to his Saints also no more doe I. Tract 84. in Ioan. And as Saint Aug. tract 84. in Io. sayth that wee make commemoration of the Saints at the table that is at the altar to the end they may pray for vs so doe I. the knight citeth also for his purpose Chemnisius Cassander but I care not for them their testimonie is neither safe nor sound Against the saftie of the doctrine of merits he citeth also S. Bernard saying that dāgerous is the habitatiō of those that trust in their owne merits But here the knight rides beside
the same yet that is not truly the Iesuites challendge but that you produce some which haue professed your religion in euery point in euery age before the daies of Luther This is the charge you haue vndertaken till you haue discharged your selfe of this your honor still remaines at the stake for all your bragges your safe way is to the Romanists all other of mature iudgment but onely a by-way serueth onely for a cowardly excuse of your want of abillitie to performe your promise But now to returne to the contents of this section in particular from which I haue in some sort digressed I say it consists onely in a recapitulation of those seuerall pointes of controuersie which I haue alreadie examined in confirmation of which since the author hath produced nothing which I haue not sufficiently confuted conuinced to be of no force but all eyther false equiuocall or impertinent it is most apparent that what soeuer he from hence collecteth by way of conclusion is noe conclusion nor of any more authority then his owne bare affirmations or negations consequently notobstanding the vaine knight will needes seeme to haue the victorie to haue gained his cause yet I make no doubt but that the prudent reader will rather iudge in fauour of the anserer then of the abiector especially considering how farre more easie a matter it is for any man to impugne the doctrine of another then to defend his owne Wherfore I ioyne issue with myne aduersaries opposing the doctrine of the Roman Church to those same positions of the pretended reformed Churches which the knight hath heere sett downe applying the same to the safe way by-way as he hath donne by-way of antithesis or oppositiue comparison betwixt them both in the manner followeing And firste I say The Romanists teach that not scripture onely but scripture with diuine Apostolicall traditions receaued for such by the vniuersall Church in all ages the approued generall Councells the infallible authority of the perpetually visible Church of God are the onely certaine meanes safe way to saluation But Sir Humfrey with his complices teach that scripture onely interpreted otherwise them by authoritie of the most vniuersallie florishing Church according to perpetual tradition of the Fathers doctors of the same is sufficient to saluation this is a doubtfull by way Secondly the Romanists teach that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe perfect rule of faith yet in some places obscure ambiguous as euen some of their aduersaryes confesse therfore it is not sufficient alone but requires the authority of the true Church commended in the same scripture as an infallible interpreter this is a safe way to saluation but the Reformers teach that the scripture with the interpretation conference of one place with another by euerie priuate man or woman that can but reade it is a sure euident perfect rule of faith this is an vncertaine by-way Thirdly the Romanists teach that traditions appertayning to faith or manners receaued from Christe by his Apostles or from the Apostles themselues by inspiration of the holie Ghost as such conserued in the Church by continuall succession are to be imbraced reuerenced with like pious affection as the scriptures this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that onelie those traditions concerning faith manners that can be proued by scriptures of which sort they denie anie to be in the Church notobstanding sainct Paul in the scripture expresselie commandeth the Thessalonians to hold his traditions deliuered vnto them by word of mouth or by epistle And this is an vncertaine by way Fourthly the Romanists teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed in the interpretation of scriptures some certaine persons in the Church as professors of diuinitie some others for the auoyding of noueltie in doctrine take an oath of the same moreouer that where they finde that consent they are to receaue it as a certaine rule for the true expounding of the scriptures without contradiction or inuention of other new sense or glosses this is a safe way to saluation but the reformers teach that the vniforme consent of vndoubted Fathers is to be followed onelie so farre as according to their priuate spirit or iudgment they agree with scriptures which is a captious deceitfull rule of expounding them And this is an vncertaine by-way Fiftly the Romanists teach that the Christian Catholike Church is a congregation or companie of people beleiuing professing the true faith of Christe vnder one cheife head our Sauiour Iesus Christe his vicar in earth the Pope or Bishop of Rome as cheife Pastor visible gouernour of the same vnder Christe sayeing with all that the notes whereby the true Church is knowne from all other hereticall scismaticall conuenticles are not onelie cheiflie exteriour splendour amplitude miracles as our aduersarie doth deceitfullie insinuate but principallie the name Catholike antiquitie continuall succession c. And this is a certaine safe way but the reformers teach the Church is a Congregation of pastours people with out anie certaine infallible authoritie assigning for markes of the same that which is common to all congregations euen of heretikes schismatikes according to their seuerall opinions as all euerie one of them holding they haue the true word Sacraments rightlie preached administred in their conuenticles which consequently can be no certaine markes of the true Church in particular no more then the name of a Christian in generall can be an infallible note of a true beleiuer this is an vncertaine by-way Sixtly the Romanists teach that General Councells by the Popes authoritie or approbation conuocated confirmed are not onelie of great vse in the Church But also of certaine infallible power for the determination of all doubts controuersies in religion which may arise in seuerall times occasions this is a certaine safe way But the Reformers teach that General Councells althou ' they say they be of great vse authority in the Church to determine controuersies in religion yet they hold them of vncertaine authoritie subiect to errour both in faith manners this is an vncertaine by-way Seauenthly the Romanists teach that the cheife rock angular stone vpon which the Church is built is Christe the Sauiour of the world yet they say with Christe himselfe that Peter is also in his kinde a rock vpon which he promised to build his Church this is a certaine safe way But the reformers teach that Christe alone is the onelie rock vpon which he built his Church which is repugnant to the expresse wordes of Christe in the scripture sayeing to Peter vpon this rocke will I build my Church this is a diuerticle or by-way Eightly the Romanists teach that the