Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
earth_n heaven_n saint_n world_n 6,085 5 4.5948 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A29744 The vnerring and vnerrable church, or, An answer to a sermon preached by Mr. Andrew Sall formerly a Iesuit, and now a minister of the Protestant church / written by I.S. and dedicated to His Excellency the Most Honourable Arthur Earl of Essex ... I. S. 1675 (1675) Wing B5022; ESTC R25301 135,435 342

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

this Tenet of ours iugde you what strong considerations moued him to desert our Church He ads the folly of two Spanish fryers that beyond all measure euen of the Catholik Principles as he grants pag. 75. exceeded in the prayses of Saints and he would be no longer a Catholick since there were such madmen amongst vs and perhaps some Protestants will haue the lyke encouragement for to leaue that Church since Mr Sall is entred into their Congregation But if by your acknowledgment these excesses are against our Principles therefore you grant that our Principles do not wrrant any excesses in the Inuocation of Saints why therefore did you leaue the Church whose Principles are sound because some fryers played the foole a pretty reason Now that I haue answered your obiections Mr Sall y pray answer me to this discourse that the Saints in Heauen do pray for vs I proue it thus and if I be not mistaken euidently in the Principles of Religion The Saints in Heauen know euidently that there is a Militant Church on earth for they euidently know that the Resurrection or general Iudgment is not as yet come wheras they know that they haue not assumed their Bodies consequently they know the world is not ended and that there is a militant Church on earth Also they know euidently that this militant Church is in continual warfare still assaulted by Satan with temptations beset with spiritual dangers for this is the Essence of a Militant Church and in this it is distinguished from the Triomphant that This is out of all danger That is in continual battle by this it appeares that the Saints in Heauen are not altogether ignorant of our affaires on earth as our Aduersaries would haue them to be Now I proceed in my discourse can it be imagined that the Saints in Heauen knowing our temptations and battles with so fierce an enemy as Satan should be so deuoid of Charity as not to pray for vs I know not what you may answer but I know what some answer that they can not pray for being rauish'd with the possession of an acomplisht Bliss they cannot mind any thing els but the glory of the obiect which they see But this is in credible that the Deuils in the bitterness of their torments should not forget vs nor the hight of miseries should not allaytheir malice but still tempt vs and the saints and Angels should abate their Charity in the greatness of their glory specially that Christ sayes S. Paul Rom. 8. prayes inessantly for vs the possession therefore of the glory cannot hinder the saints prayers for vs. But I proue that their glory obliges them to pray for vs you cannot deny but that in the possession of that glory they ardently desire the exaltation of Gods name the increase of his glory the confusion of his enemy Satan and what greater confusion of Satan what greater exaltation of Gods name and glory than the victory of men against Satan the victory of those that are tempted by him and finally mens saluation vndoubtedly then wheras they euidently know that the Militant Church is in continual battle against that enemy in continual temptations and dangers of damnation the very possession of that glory makes them desire ardently and wish our victoryes and saluation this wish and desire of theirs you cannot deny but that it is manifest to God and what els I ask you is a Prayer but a pious desire of a thing represented to God it is euident therefore that the saints and Angels pray for vs to God This discourse you will say proues that the triumphant Church and each particular of it knows the wants of the Militant Church in general but not of each particular or of any particular person of the Militant Church therefore wee particular Persons ought not to pray to any of the Triumphant Church wheras they do not know if wee pray or any of our particular affairs But the argument proues at least that the saints departed and Angels are Mediatours for the Militant Church in general and so all Mr Salls discourse for the only Mediatourship of Christ falls to ground more ouer I will proue by Scripture and reason that they know the temptations and dangers of particular Persons of the Militant Church and consequently the former discourse proues that they pray for particular persons and heare their prayers Lu. 15. it s said that the Angels reioyce at and consequently know the conuersion of a sinner the Deuils know the state and condition of particular persons and by their temptations allures them to sin the glorious Spirits therefore who in their natural knowledge are equal to and in supernatural surpasse them do know no less neither is it credible that God should permit the Deuil to know mans condition to tempt him and should not permit the glorious Spirits especially our Angels keepers to help and defends vs the Protestants ought not to question this wheras in their Common Prayer Book they haue this Collect on S. Michael the Archangels day the 29. of Sept God vvho in a vvonderfull manner dispenseths the Ministeries of Men and Angels grant that as they do thee constantly assist in heauen so by thy appointment they may succour and defend vs on earth God therefore vseth the Ministery of Angels to help men and consequently Angels know mens particular affairs That there are witches in the world may not be denyed if wee will not condemn most Commonwealths of folly and iniustice which punish many for such and if wee will not laugh at Scripture which relates 1. Reg. 28. that Saul by the help of a witch raysed the Spirit of Samuel that the witchs inuoke and are heard by the Deuils its out of doubt and shall the Glorious Spirits be deaf to them that inuoke them lastly many examples are recorded in Scripture of the ministery exhibited by Angels to men 3.19.6 Reg. 1. Gen. 48.16 and 16.4 Reg. 19.34 And that saints also departed know our affairs and do assist vs the Scripture doth witness it Saul all fraught with afflictions finding no comfort in the liuing betooke himself to the Spirit of Samuel deceased 1. Reg. 28. this proues that men in those dayes did belieue that the saints departed know our aflairs and can help vs and Samuels answer to him does euidence the same Elias departed this world that 's to say all commerce with human kind the 18. yeare of Iosaphas Reygn as appears 3. Reg. 22. and 4. Reg. 2. and 3. Iosaphat dyed about seauen years after which was the 25. yeare of his reygn as appears 3. Reg. 22. Ioram succeeded to Iosaphat and Elias that departed from all human commerce seauen years before writ a letter to him rebuking him for his wickedness and threatning him with Gods indignation can there be amore manifest proof that the saints departed know our affairs and do help vs S. Peter 2. epist c. 1. tells the Christians to whom he writ that his death was at
commits many disorders in adoring I mages y deny any such abuses that may reach to Idolatry and that the Authority which God has giuen to gouern vs and which wee are bond to obey is to take cognisance of that which when they do and prohibit Images wee will obey them in the mean tyme wee will giue you and your Church leaue to bark at the Moon But I must mind you of one mistake for to conclude this discourse Clemens Alexandrinus say you Hom. 7. I pray where haue yow seen or any other Homilies of Clemens Alexandrinus but this is not the mistake that I am to aduertise you of and in his Paraenesis speaking of Images in general declareth thus vvee haue no Images in the vvorld it is apparently forbidden to vs to exercyse that deceitfull art for it is vvritten c. you are mistaken Mr Sall and it cannot be but maliciously if you haue read his Paraenesis for he does not speake of Images in general but of Idols and such as were adored for Gods by the Gentiles to whom he directed that Paraenesis disswading them from Idolatry to the worship of one true God This is a matter of fact let the Reader peruse the Author himself and he will find that you are mistaken Hence wee conclude that Images of Christ and his saints cannot be called Idols For an Idol is a representation of a God that is not or a Deyty that has no being Images of Christ and the saints are representations of things that haue a real Being and to say that Christ his image is an Idol is to say that Christ who is the Prototype has no real Being wee conclude that the making of Images was neuer prohibited for God made man to his own Image commanded many Images to be made the Ark of the Testament the Brasen serpent and seueral others mentioned in Scripture and the Protestants them selues make many Images of Kings Queens and saints wee conclude that all worship to Images is not prohibited for wee worship the King particularly because he represents Gods Power and greatness nor all religious worship of Images is prohibited for wee giue a Religious worship to the Holy name of Iesus to the Bible beyond all other Books because it is the word of God and the Protestants to the Sacrament which they say is but a figure of Christs body Reason proues wee ought to worship the Images of Christ and his saints for it is apparent that there is such a relation and connexion betwixt the image and the thing wherof it is an image that the honor or deshonor don to the image for being a representation of the Prototype is esteemed to be don to the Prototype as when a man is by publick iustice burnt in Effigie his person is branded by the execution don in his image and no man but will think the iniury don to his picture an affront to his own person wee therefore must worship the Images of Christ and the saints because they are their representations and in this vndoubtedly wee worship them for the relation and connection that is betwixt the representation and thing represented this worship resteth not in the Image but passes to the Prototype for whose sake wee worship it And therefore it may be called a transitiue or relatiue worship The adoration of Latria due to God wee deny to Images and detest it as much as you and when wee declare our Doctrin and Faith so cleerly its malice and knowen preiudice to accuse vs of Idolatry which consists in adoring as God what is not God Inuoeation of Saints Mr Sall I hope does not forget that Maxim of the schooles argumentum multum probans nihil probat that an argument which proues more than the disputant pretends or can pretend to proue proues nothing but must be fallacious and doubtless any Christian will say that an argument that proues directly against the Scripture is but a Sophistry Let vs heare his argument against the Inuocation of Saints God sayes he Rom. 8.34 has appointed his son Iesus to make intercession for vs who is more compassionat better able and more willing than any Saint or Angel to helpe vs and his prayers are efficacious for sayeth he Io. 5.16 VVhatsoeuer vve ask the Heauenly Father in his name he vvill giue it vs. This argument proues directly against Scripture for it proues that wee must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for vs nay it proues wee must not pray for ourselues but remit all to Christ who knowes ourwants is more compassionat towards vs than the Saints on earth are nay than wee are of ourselues loues vs better than they loue vs or wee loue ourselues is better able and more willing to help vs than they are and than wee are ourselues on the other syde his prayers are more efficacious why then should wee ask the prayers of Saints on earth or pray for ourselues Yet Scripture commands vs to pray for ourselues and recommends vnto vs that wee should ask the prayer of our Brethren and the Protestant Church also does practice it Therefore this argument proues directly against the Scriprure and against the practice of the faithfull It s certain Christ loues vs better than the Saints or Angels do and is more able and willing but it is also certain that he loues the Saints of heauen better than he loues vs poore sinners on earth I know not what opinion Mr Sall may haue of himself and so what he would not do for vs on earth for our sakes wee may expect he may do it for the sake of those that he loues most which are the Saints and Angels in heauen For wee haue examples in Scripture of some Blessings conferred on the liuing on earth not for the sake of any liuing on earth but of Saints departed 3. Reg. 11.15 God shewen mercy to Salamon in differring the punishment which he deserued sor his Idolatry not for Salamons sake but for Dauid his Fathers sake who was dead 4. Reg. 19.34 God protected Ierusalem against the Assyrians nor for Ezechias the Kings sake though he loued him nor for Isaias his sake that then liued and was a Holy Prophet but for his ovvne sake and Dauids sake his seruant Thus wee see that though God loues vs more than the Saints departed loue vs yet he loues them more than vs and giues vs for their sake what he would not grant vs for our own He brings the words of S. Peter Act. 4.12 that there is no saluation in any other and no other Name vnder Heauen wherby wee may be saued all which wee acknowledge and yet Protestants as well as wee do ask the prayers of their Brethren on earth and why may not wee aske the prayers of the Saints in heauen for what wee expect by their intercession and the value and worth of their prayers is altogether grounded and springs from the Merits of that name of Iesus This is all that Mr Sall alleadges against
hand and that he would be mindfull of them after his departure from lyfe and help them to be mindfull of his Doctrin Can it then be doubted but that wee may prudently and ought to pray to them by whose means the Scripture assures vs that others did receiue Gods blessings either directing our prayers immediatly to God praying that for his B. Mothers sake for S. Peters sake for Dauids sake this prayer is often made by the ancient Prophets in Scripture Propter Dauid seruum tuum non auertas faciem Christi tui Psal 131. Memento Domine Dauid omnis mansuetudinis eius ps 131. he would haue compassion of vs or directing our prayers immediatly to the saints and Angels beseeching them to help vs and pray for vs as Iacob Gen. 48. prayed that God in whose sight he walked and the Angel who deliuered him from euils should bless his children This is it that 's vnderstood in that Article of our Creed The communion of saints that the saints of the Triumphant Church in heauen of the Militant on earth and the Patient in Purgatory haue a Communication of prayers and merits betwixt them that those of heauen pray for vs and wee by our prayers and suffrages do help them in Purgatory Mr Sall thinks it extrauagancy that wee call the B. virgen our Sauioress and Redeemer and if he be impartial he must call the Prophet Dauid extrauagant also when he sayes speaking of the saints Psal 81. I haue said ye are Gods and the sons of the highest all And perhaps he will not stick to blame God himself who sayes to Moyses Ex. 7.1 behold I haue made thee a God to Pharaoh wee call the B. V. so because those names may be giuen in an improper sence to the chief Instrument of our Redemption as she was being the Mother of him who is truely our Redeemer wee build more Churches sayes Mr Sall and say more prayers to som saints than to God wee answear that all the honor we exhibit to saints is giuen to God for whose sake we honor them To them we build Churchs for his sake because they are his great seruants He assures vs in the Ghospel that what wee do to one of his little ones wee do it to him much more wee may be assured wee do to him and for him what wee do to and for his saints in heauen wheras himself tells vs Io. 12 26. if any vvill serue me my Father vvill honor him Much more ought they to be honored by vs. Purgatory and Indulgences Mr Sall rallyes about the situation of Purgatory and the nature of the torments that there are suffered if cold heat rain or tempest c all which is to no purpose for what is controuerted betwixt Protestants and Catholicks is not what place is Purgatory in or what are the payns inflicted there but if there be any such thing as Purgatory the Protestants deny any third receptacle of souls departed but must go either to heauen or Hell for vvhere the tree falls there it remayns The orthodox Doctrin is that there is a Purgatory where souls departed with venial sins only or that after the remission of their mortal sins in this lyfe by the Sacrament of Confession or by an act of Contrition haue not don sufficient pennance in this lyfe for their transgressions must suffer vntill they satisfy Gods iustice to the last farthing This is an Article of Faith but the Church has not determined in what place is Purgatory that is a schoole question as for the Nature of the torments there inflicted it s an Article of Faith that they are tormented with the priuation or banishment from Gods sight also it s of Faith that they are tormented by fyre but the Church has not determined what kind of fyre is that or how it torments and though Diuins and Fathers speake of other torments yet it s no Article of Faith that they suffer this or that of Cold snow or tempest To proue our Catholick Tenet I will first proue that there is some other receptacle of Souls departed besids Heauen and Hell of the Damned secondly I will proue that there is a Purgatory The first is proued by the Article of our Creed he descended into hell which cannot be vnderstood to be the Hell of the damned for all Christians abhorr the blasphemy of Caluin that sayes Christ his soule suffered the payns of the damned the Protestants giue a most obscure interpretation to that cleer text by the word Hell say they is vnderstood the Graue and the sense of the Article is that Christ his Body descended into the graue This is most absurd for in the next word before this Article the descent of his Body to the Graue is expresly declared He vvas crucified dead and buried to be buried what elss is it but his Body to descend into the Graue and after telling vs in the word buried that his Body was put in the graue would they again repeat the same in a distinct Atticle when they pretended ro giue vs a brief abridgment of the article of Faith S. Peter expounds that Article 1. ep 3.19 Being dead in flesh he descended in Spirit to the Spirits that vvere detained in prison to preach to them that vvere incredulous in the dayes of Noe. Behold the Article of our Creed expounded his Spirit descended after his death surely it did not descend into the graue to the Spirits that vvere detained in prison there was a prison therefore where Spirits were detained and preached to them certainly he did not preach to them that were in the prison of the damned therefore there was some other prison besids that of the damned where spirits were detained Wee find Gen. 37.35 that Iacob perswaded by his children that his son Ioseph was killed and deuoured by a Beast lamented and said I vvill descend mourning vnto my sonne to Hell Certainly he did not intend to descend vnto him to the graue for he was persuaded he had none but was deuoured by a Beast neither can it be imagined that he intended to descend vnto him to the Hell of the damned or belieued that his son descended thither Iacob therefore belieued that there was an other Hell where his son descended and he expected to goe after his death This shocks the whole fabrick of the Protestant dostrin of no Purgatory grounded chiefly on the perswasion of no other receptacle of souls but Heauen and Hell of the damned Now that there is a Purgatory I proue it the Protestants deny it because that if the sin be forgiuen in this lyfe then all the punishment due of man for that sin is also forgiuen and so there is no Purgatory if the sin was not forgiuen then it carries the soul to Hell for in the other world no sin is forgiuen But I proue that though the sin be forgiuen by the Sacrament or Contrition yet some temporal punishment is due of the sinner to God to satisfy his iustice
are conueyed vnto vs not for the effects conueyed wheras what Christ promised to the Receiuers of the bread and Cup he promises to the Receiuers of the bread alone He that eats this bread shall liue for euer Io. 6.38 which he repeats three tymes in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receiuers of the Bread and Cup not for the verifying of Christ his words for that text Io. 6. which is the strongest that our aduersaryes can alleadge if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you The particle and which seems to require the taking of the Cup as well as the bread Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par disp 71. sect 2. do manifestly proue that it must be vnderstood disiunctiuly and signify or and the sence of the text is if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood c. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language wherin Christ did speake it signifyes so and that the Apostle S. Iohn writing in Greek retained the Hebrew Phrase Now that the particle and which vsually is Copulatiue somtymes in Scripture signifyes disiunctiuly they proue it by seueral examples of Scripture as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered I haue no syluer and Gold meaning that he had neither syluer nor Gold otherwise the excuse was friuolous Ex. 15. and 21. He that vvill kill his Father and Mother let him dye the sence is Father or Mother Psal 1. the impious shall not ryse in iudgment and the sinners in the Council of the Iust The sence is nor the sinners So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood c. The word and must be taken in a disiunctiue sence and signify he that vvill not eat his flesh nor drink his blood which is declared by Christ his subsequent words He that eats this bread shall liue for euer signifying that eating alone and consequently or drinking alone was sufficient But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giuing the bread and commanding to Eat gaue the Cup and said drink ye all of this If the Apostles only were commanded to drink they only were commanded to eat and so as the Layty is excluded from drinking they must be also excluded from eating and if the command of eating did reach to the Layty the command also of drinking did extend to them For to answer this Obiection you must obserue the difference betwixt a sacrifice and a Sacrament a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which wee offer in homage of his greatness so that a sacrifice is directed to God and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign giuen to a Creature for some spiritual inuisible effect so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by Gods Creatures and is directed to them for a spiritual effect The Eucharist is a Sacrifice a Sacrament It s a sacrifice of Christs body and blood vnder the Accidents of bread and wyne offered to God in representation of Christs body sacrificed on the Cross and that the representation should be full and compleat it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for vs and in the liquid species of wyne to represent his blood effused This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediat Minister of the sacrifice but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons on whom Christ layd the commend of sacrificing Do this in commemoration of me commanding them to do as then he did it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receiue either the bread or the vvyne consecrated as it is a sacrifice but that the immediat Minister who offers it for all should receiue both Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Layty But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament for that very body and blood of Christ which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God vnder the accidēts of bread and wyne he ordained them to be giuen vnder the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soule I say vnder the same Accidents not that both kind of Accidents of bread and vvyne are needfull for the perfect receiuing of a Sacrament but either for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ which nourishes the soul and giues lyfe euerlasting He that eats this bread shall liue for euer therefore its a perfect Sacrament whence I conclude that since it is giuen to Creatures as a Sacrament and not as a Sacrifice its sufficient they receiue vnder the sensible signs either of bread alone or wyne alone for in either its a perfect Sacrament and only in both a perfect Sacrifice If you ask where then if not in the words of the last supper was there any obligation layd on vs to receiue the Eucharist Sacramentally I answer Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man c. Mr Sall concludes that by Suarez his confession 3. p. disp 42. s 1. the Accidents of bread and wyne are the constitutes of the Sacrament consequently by taking away the Cup wee depriue the Layty of the Sacrament Suarez sayes that the Accidents of bread and wyne and either of bread or vvyne are constituts of the Sacrament and throughout the whole disput 71. largely proues in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind VVorshipp of Images Mr Sall sayes the worship of Images is expresly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expresly prohibits the making of grauen Images or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heauen aboue and on the earth or vnder the earth or in the vvaters and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor vvorship them If Mr Sall will admit no interpretation of that text but vnderstand it literally the Protestants are also transgressors who make pictures of the King Queen and seueral other things and yet the text prohibits the making of the likness of any thing If he will interpret the text to signify no image must be made to be adored wee say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them but the making of them if notwithstanding he will still insist vpon his interpretation then he must giue vs also leaue to giue our interpretation
which is that God prohibited Images to be adored as Gods or as the representations of false Gods which are properly I dols and then enters thequestion which of both interpretations his or ours is the true one which none can decide but an infallible liuing Iudge to which wee both must be bound to submit That God did no prohibit the making of Images or the lykness of things Diuine and Human as the letter of the text sounds our aduersaries must confess for he commanded the Ark of the Testament should be made Ex. 25. the Brasen Serpent to be set vp Num. 21. which Christ sayes Io. 3. was a representation of himself That he did not prohibit all manner of worship and adoration of Images representations and lykness of things which are in heauen aboue and earth it s also manifest for he commanded the Brasen Serpent to be set vp that the people looking on it should be healed and though Mr Sall would perswade vs that no adoration was to be giuen to it yet certainly none can deny but That looking on it was with an inward reuerence and veneration as on an instrument of Gods merices to them and Adoration or vvorship consists properly in the inward affection of the mind Besides the Ark of the Testament which Caluin himself super Psal 105. confesses to be an image of God Arca erat imago Dei was still religiously worshipped by the Iews none permitted to touch it but consecrated persons carried often in Procession by Dauid Reg. 4.3 Reg. 8. and Iosue 6. adored by Iosue and the Israelits prostrated on the ground be fore it Iosue 7.6 But what the Protestants will neuer answer that the Lords supper is a representation of Christ his passion a figure of his Body and is religiously worshipped by them if they do what S. Paul requires 1. Corin. 11.28 by this wee see that the text must not be vnderstood literally prohiting all worship but prohibiting to be worshipped as Gods the world being then plunged in Idolatry some adoring the very statues and Images as Gods others adoring the statues and images as the pictures of seueral things which they belieued to be Gods as Iupiter Venus c. Azor sayes he instit Mor. to 1. l. 9. c. 6. declares it to be the constant iudgment of Diuins that the Image is to be honored vvith the same vvorship vvhervvith that is vvorshipped vvherof it is an Image Azor has no such words and you add falsly that it is our constant Tenet Our Doctrin is declared by the 7. Gen. Council which is Nicen 2. and after by Trent and others that Council decrees Images must be adored and does not determin how that adoration must be called but only excludes the Adoration of Latria which is that which wee giue to God The Diuins after this Council dispute what adoration is it that must be exhibited to them some say only a Relatiue others an Absolut Adoration some saye an Adoration of Latria improperly and for Gods sake to whome only a proper Latria is due and these that speake of this improper Latria are checkt by others because though by scholastical subtilities they may be vnderstood in a Catholick sense yet that expression sounds harsh to pious eares and generally all Diuins do censure any that should out of the school propose those subtilities to vulgar eares But what they all agree in and wee belieue that they must not be adored with that Adoration wherwhith God is adored and wee all say with Epiph. who was present at that Nicen Council Act. 6. non indignas habemus imagines honore veneratione ac salutatione debitamque adorationem illis dare debemus siue igitur obserue these words placebit adorationem siue salutationem appellare idem erit modo sciamus excludi Latriam haec enim est alia a simplici adoratione vvee iudge Images vvorthy of honor and adoration and vvee ought to exhibit it to them call that adoration as you please so it be not Latria it s all alyke vvhat you call it for Latria is different from an ordinary and simple adoration Let some particular Diuins therefore discourse as they please it s not our obligation to excuse them wee belieue with the Church an Adoration but no Latria Petauius sayes he agreat Antiquary declares that for the four first Centuries there vvas little or no vse of Images in the Oratoryes of Christians I cannot imagin to what purpose does Mr Sall bring these quotations of Petauius Azor Iacobus de Graffys if it be not to let his Auditorie or Reader know that he is versed in Authors This proues that the Primitiue Church did vse Images though not so much as now they do and Petauius giues in that very place Dogm Theol. to 5. l. 15. cap. 13. the reason why they were not more frequently vsed because the world conuerted from Paganism that belieued in stocks and stones and some of them that their Gods were Bodyes and not pure Spirits to shun the occasion of a relaps into these errours and to withdraw the people from any apprehensions of Corporality in God Images were but little vsed nay in some places where the danger was greater they were absolutly prohibited and Sanderus l. 2. de cultu imaginum c. 4. sayes this was the reason why the Council of Elibert prohibited the vse of Images S. Gregory whose words you cite would haue the people kept from an Idolatrous worship of Images and pretended no more Not only Nichephorus Calixtus but many this day of the Catholick Church do hold it absurd to paint Images of the Father son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and Nature nor does the Catholicks vse it as you falsly criminat them but they paint the Father in the form of an Ancient Man as he appeared to the Prophet Daniel the son in human shape and the Holy Ghost in the figure of a Doue as he appeared in the Riuer Iordan Vasquez speaks not a word of Images in the place cited by you 3. p. disp 94. but 3. p. Disp 103.5.4 he sayes Images also as well as Idols are prohibited in the first Commandment and what then Vasquez was mistaken as well as you but you far more for he sayes in that place it was not because the adoration of Images was in it self naught as you say for you say its Idolatry but because it was obnoxious in those tymes to the danger of falling into Idolatry and therefore prohibited but this danger ceasing as in the Law of Grace Images may and ought to be adored and not prohibited by that commandment if he speaks consequently or no it s not my business to examine it You say God commanded the Brasen serpent to be broken because the people worshiped it 2. Reg. 13.4 but the text will inform you well if you set preiudice asyde that they began to adore it for God as they did the molten Calf and therefore it was prohibited You say our people
ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and vvhat soeuer ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen which words are also expressed Mat. 16.19 sins therefore may be bound or vnbound on earth by the Apostles and successors and the text marks obserue well that their binding or vnbinding on earth by them must precede to their hinding and vnbinding in Heauen whence the necessity of Confession of sins to the Priests is absolutly concluded But let vs see wherin are wee guilty of cruelty in the practise of Confession First saies Mr Sall in obliging to the minut expression of the most loathsom circumstances of secret thoughts and deeds vvhich renders it the most heaure of Christian duties The man would haue a pretty sweet manner of Confession to declare what each one is pleased and no more How the Protestants did hither to accuse vs that wee did facilitat sin and gaue and easy way for forgiuing it by granting the Priest power of forgiuing and now Mr Sall accuses vs that wee require too much by this wee may see which of vs Protestants or Catholicks does encourage most to sin by an easy forgiuing it for the Protestant for to be reconciled from sin requires no more but a Lord haue mercy vpon me for I am as sinner and that betwixt him and God the Catholick requires the declaring of each particular sin and circumstance to a Priest with an act of sorrow for hauing sinned a firm purpose of a mendment the fullfilling the Pennance that the Priest shall enioyne and the restitution of what he has taken from his neighbor this indeed is seuere but no cruelty its needfull and conuenient Conuenient because that seuerity iustly deserued by sin is a bridle which keeps vs within compass and makes vs feare sin and experience teaches that though some who confess do perseuere in their wickedness yet generally such as make a good Confession are reclaim'd and those that frequent this Sacrament are the most reformed in their lyues Needfull because that the Iudicature of consciences and power of binding and vnbinding being giuen to the Priest how can he exercyse that Iudicature or know when or what to bind if the Penitent does not declare the state of his conscience no more than a iudge in a secural tribunal can giue sentence if he knows not the fact and circumstances of it the fore said S. August hom 49. Nemo dicat occulte ago paenitentiam in corde meo ago coram Deo ago ergo sine causa dictum est quae solueritis super terram c. Let none say I make pennance priuatly in my hart in the sight of God in vain then vvas it said vvhatsoeuer ye shall vnbind c. And S. August also lib. de vera falsa poenitentia Consideret qualitatem criminis in loco tempore perseuerantia varietate personarum Let him consider the quality of the sin reflecting on the place tyme continuance and diversitie of Persons You see Mr Sall what a Confession S. Augustin requires of the sin of it's circumstances Which yet he more expresly declares l. 2. de Visit Infirmorum c. 5. Astantem coram te Sacerdotem Angelum Dei existima aperi ei penenetralium tuorum abditissima latibula nihil obscurum dicens culpam nullis ambagibus inuoluens designanda sunt in quibus peccasti loca tempora cum quibus personis c. Haec autem omnia si taceantur aut dicta callide pallientur animam iugulant Looke on the Priest as on Gods Angel disclose to him the most hidhen secrets of your hart not speaking obscurely nor telling your fault vvith vvheeling and vvinding expressions declare the place tyme and persons vvith vvhom these if silenc'd or craftily palliated kill the soule Seueral other Fathers of the Church speake no less pertinently to this purpose but S. Augustin suffices for all The second thing wherin he accuses vs of cruelty in the exercyse of this Sacrament is the reseruation of cases not to be absolued but by certain Persons Which is so farr from being cruelty that it appears to be most iust either because that euery priest is not so learned as to be able to manage the consciences of all people and therefore are iustly denied the exercyse of that power or because that som sins are so horrid that to withdraw men from them it 's very iust to restrain the power of forgiuing them that by that restriction and difficulty men may be freighten'd The Third thing wherin he accuses vs of cruelty in this Sacrament is that som Pastors make their flock belieue they cannot confess but to their own Curats and extort by sordid auarice monies from them for the Absolution To this M● Sall himself answers wheras quoth he this is the fault of som corrupt members and he will not cast the dirt of the feet of the Church vpon her face and confess the Church to be so much an enemy to this practice that there are Decrees of Councils and Pop's against it Mr Sall if you did know that the Church is not guilty of this crime but som corrupt members why did you therefore forsake the Church but detest that abominable practice because he sayes he did endeauour to reform the abuse and the persons guilty were so haughty and head-strong that he could not preuayle so that if he cannot reform what abuses he finds in som members of the Protestant Church he must also forsake her and he must be of no congregation but of that which has no corrupt members CONCLVSION Against the Third Point of Mr Salls discourse MOnstruous errors you say obliged you to a separation from the Catholick Church the vain pretext of hereticks of all ages whose Names she has crushed to infamy still Triumphant against the Gates of Hell and I must belieue they were errors that obliged you but imaginary only in her and real in yourself we haue asserted her vnspotted and what renders you eternally criminal is that you know in your own conscience they were no errors of the Church which you stile by that name I say you know it well in your own conscience for you that was so many years a Catholick and a Professor as you say in Scholastical and Moral Diuinity in Controuersies and what not You could not but know that the Pop's supremacy in temporal affaires ouer Princes was no article of our Faith but a School-question denied by many Catholicks you knew also the Pop's infallibility was but and opinion of som diuins and that what wee belieue as an article of Faith is not the infallibility of the Pope alone of which only you speake but of the Church Vniuersal as it is diffused or representatiue in the Pope and Council together was it not then knowen malice and preiudice that made you recken as errors of the Church these points which are not Church Doctrin was it not wicked and damnable in you to separat from her for errors if they