would do we only hate the heathen Idols and decline them but as for the Images of Christ and his Saints we have and worship them No! They and we answers Origen have not the same cause of declining these things Origen contra Celsum l. 7. Non eandem aversandi cau vam esse illis nobis Aliis rationibus moventur quam Christiani Judaei quibus Religio est fic Numen colere Sibi ab his temperant propter illud Legis Deut. 6. Exod. 20. and again Those barbarous Nations are moved to it by other reasons then Christians and the Jewes are to whom it is horrid impiety so to worship the Deity They keep themselves carefully from these because of the Law Deut. 6. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him shalt thou serve and that of Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven Image And because Celsus had said Those Barbarians have not Temples Altars Images by reason that they know not what the Gods and Heroes are Impossibile est ut qui Deum novit supplex fiat statuis Nos ideò non honorare simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in istam Credulitatem therefore Origen subjoyns here It is impossible that he who knowes God should be a worshipper of Statues Again We therefore do not honour Images because we take heed as much as in us lies least by any means we fall into the Credulity of attributing to them any thing of Divinity In like manner Minutius Felix and Arnobius were put to answer the Heathens challenging the Christians for having no Temples Minut. in Octavio Altars Images for which Caecilius reproaches them that they could not shew the God they worship and is answered We believe our God though we see him not Again he reproaches them with their poverty and afflictions as if their God could not help them Cruces nec Colimus nec optamus ibid. The Cross is not to be worshiped by you but born and is answered We neither worship Crosses nor desire them And Man is the Image of God Arnobius answers the like challenge and is so far from acknowledging that Christians had Images Arnob. l. 6. Contra Gentes or did worship their God by Images as he must needs have done if they had Images then that he replies to the Heathen that said we worship the Gods by Images Scire Deum rei alteri supplicare Opem sperare à Numine ad Effigicm nullius sensus depâ—ecarâ— VVhat saith he can be more injurious more reproachful to say they know God and yet worship another thing to professe they hope for help from the Deity and yet turn to and supplicat the Image which has no sense which speaks reason against Image-worship in Heathens or Christians Lactantius amongst many sayings against this folly Lactan. l. 2. c. 18. Perversum est ut simulachrum homi nis à simulachro Dei colatur hath this It 's absurd that the Image of man should be worshiped by the Image of God The Ancient Council of Eliberis in Spain decreed That Pictures ought not to be in the Church Epiphanius was very severe against Images Epiph. Epist ad Johan Hierof Velum depictum habens imeginem quast Christi vel sancti cujusdam as he shewed both by Deed and Doctrine At Anablatha going into a Chappel to pray he finds a Veil hanging there and having in it a picture as of Christ or some other Saint wherefore he cut it in pieces as a thing not to be suffered in the Church against the Authority of Scripture as he relates it himself in his Epist to John Bishop of Jerusalem in whose Diocess that place was The Cardinal not liking the shifts that some of their writers make to avoid the prejudice of this Authority thought good to * Bell. l. 2. de Imagin cap. 9. sect ad quintum cut off that part of the Epistle as supposititious and added to the rest by an after hand but this is sure that St. Hierom who was contemporary to Epiphanius and held correspondency and friendship with him translated the whole Epistle out of Greek into Latin this part of it as well as the rest and accounted this to be Epiphanius his deed and Report And this one thing is of more weight then those many petty pretences of Reasons which the Cardinal holds out for the proof of what he said Now let us hear what Epiphanius saith doctrinally of Images Epiph. de Collyridianis Har. 79. Writing against the Collyridians that worshipped the Virgin Mary calling her the Queen of Heaven he tels us the Original of Images or rather of the honour and worship they got in the world that the Devil brought them in * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under pretence of Just that is of giving famous men their due by honouring them after death creeping into the minds of men and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrating or designing the mortal nature to divine honours he set before mens eyes humane likenesses and Images polished with great art that seeing they that are worshipped were dead and out of sight their Images might appear and receive the honour and adoration So that ancient Father St. Ambrose Ambr. de obitu The odosii Regem adora vit non lignum utique quia hic Gentilis est error vanitas Impiorum hath this passage of Helena mother of Constantine when she had found the very Cross of Christ She worshiped the King Christ not the Wood. The Cardinal replies that St. Ambrose would have the Cross not adored for it self but for Christs sake as if that Age of the the Church knew the new Romish distinctions or limitations of giving worship to Crosses and Images for themselves or for the Exemplars sake but the Cardinal did advisedly in cutting off what follows in that Father for this is a Heathen Error and vanity of the wicked viz. to worship such things religiously yet there he findes something which he thinks may favour the adoration of the Cross Levavit Crucem in capite Regum ut Crux Domini in Regibus adoretur Ambr. ibid. Helena saith Ambrose did wisely in setting the Cross upon the head of Kings for she had commended it to Constantine her son to set it upon his Crown that the Cross of our Lord might be adored in Kings What that material Cross placed on the Diadem of any King be adored So must the Cardinal suppose it or else he must grant that the Intent of Helena and the saying of St. Ambrose upon it was only to shew what esteem she had and all others ought to have of the Passion of Christ Non insolentia haec sed pietas cùm desertur sacrae Redemptioni and therefore it follows in St. Ambrose This was not a strange or unseemly thing but Piety seeing the honour is given to the sacred Redemption Hear now
place they either restrain it to the literal as it inforces concord and agreement between man and man or take it in the parabolical sense as appliable to our agreement and reconciliation to God for want or neglect of which the prison of Hell and eternal sufferings there will follow St. Chrysostom and some others are content with the first way * Aug. 1. qu. ad Dulcitium and elsewhere St. Aug. and others apply it in the Parabolical sense not to any place or pains of Purgatory but to Hell and the pains never ceasing To this their own Authors consent Maldonat on the place expounds it of Hell and eternal punishment so Jansenius and others Jans concord c. 40. Salmeron seems indifferent first setting down that Interpretation of the eternal punishment and acknowledging Aquinas and others so to take it but thinking it appliable also to Purgatory cites the very same Fathers which we said above were cited by the Cardinal and misapplied as to this belief of Purgatory Now see we what the Fathers hold out concerning the Place of state of Souls The opinion of the Fathers incounstent with Purgatory between the Day of Death and of the Resurrection We shall finde it inconsistent with Romish Purgatory as may appear by the Particulars following I. They held but two stares places or Receptacles of Souls the one of pain and grief the other of rest and bliss There is scarce any Father but concludes this from the Parable or story of Dives and Lazarus Luc. 16. the one going to Hell the other to Abrahams bosom I need not cite the places which are obvious to every one that looks into their Writings II. They did not agree about the particular place of the Souls of Just persons which difference among the Ancients shews plainly that this place of Purgatory was not then known Iren. l. 5. â— 31. St. Irenaeus and many that followed him held they were all kept in a secret Receptacle below or out of Heaven and sight of God till the resurrection which place was also called by them Hades or an Invisible place and sometimes Abrahams bosom This condition of Souls Legem mortuorum servavit Irenaeus cals Legem mortuorum the Law of the Dead and saith as our Saviour observed it not ascending to his Father till after his Resurrection so must all his Disciples and gives this Reason for it Because the disciple is not greater then his Master Of this common Receptacle of Souls till the Resurrection speaks Lactantius in his 7. Book and chap. 21. Tert. l. de Anima c. 7. cap 55. contra Marc. l. 4. c. 34. Also Tertullian in several places only he seems to allow Martyrs this prerogative to enter Heaven upon their death as in his Book dâ— Anima c. 55. and in his Book of the Resurrection c. 43. This was one opinion of the Ancients and held by many But others conceived the Souls of Just persons were admitted into Heavenly bliss and a sight of God whom Irenaeus notes in the first words of the chap. above cited Quidam ex his qui rectè putantur credidisse transgrediuntur ordinem promotionis Justorum Some saith he of those that are thought to believe aright do transgress the order or degrâ—â—s of the promotion of the Just viz. by admitting them as he conceived too haâ—â—ily into Heaven Of this Judgment was Cyprian and generally the Fathers after him as we shall see presently Now as the former opinion that kept Souls out of Heaven till the Resurrection could not stand with the doctrine of Invocation as we noted above in the II. Sect. so this diversity of judgment touching the place of Souls after death could not consist with a belief of Purgatory III. Although the Ancients were not agreed upon the particular place or degree of bliss yet all held the place and condition in which they put the Souls of Just persons to be a place of rest and refreshment and a blessed condition This is manifest because they set it out by the place of Lazarus also because the Prayers which the Church anciently made for the Dead were still pro quiescentibus for them that were at Rest as we shall see below And St. Aug. whom I specially name because he first stumbled on a conceit tending to Purgatory doth often speak of the secret Receptacle of good Souls as at rest sometimes with distinction from that place where they shall be after the resurrection as in his Confessions l. 9. c. 3 and of the City of God l. 12. c. 9. sometimes in opposition to that other receptacle or place of pain and grief as in his Enchirid. c. 107. and in his second quest to Dulcitius But we shall have occasion below to shew that St. Aug. was not at any certainty as to this point of Purgatory Lastly Those ancients which held the Souls of Just persons admitted into Heavenly bliss Souls of the Just go presâ—ntly to bliss did suppose and so expressed it that they went thither presently after Death without any diversion to or detention in any place of pain and torment The Author of the Questions in Justin Martyr thus Quest ad Oâ—thod â—5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After their going out of the body there is presently made a difference between the Souls of the just and the wicked for they are both carried to places worthy of them What are those places The Souls of the Just saith he into Paradise but the wicked into the Regions of Hell St. Cyprian in his Book of Mortality Cypr. l. de mortalitate Possessio Paradisi in Patriam regredi ad Christum ire cum Christo inciperâ— regnare giving comfort against the sickness that swept away many Christians as well as other useth these Reasons Because good Christians by death are put into possession of Paradise they do return into their own Countrey after their peregrination in this life they then go to Christ begin to reign with Christ It is for him to fear death that is not willing to go to Christ and that believes not he shall then begin to reign with Christ de turbinibus mundi extracti And when the servants of God are drawn out of the storms of this world they gain the haven of and eternal mansion and security â—â—tranquillam quietem Justi vocantur ad refrigerium iâ—justi ad supplicium and have an undisturbedrest and at death the Just are calleâ— to a refreshment the unjust to punishment All this to comfort Christians against death by their present removal to a blessed condition And none of these can be said of them that go to Purgatory for that is not to take possession of or enter into Paradise that is not the Countrey which the faithful seek not a reigning with Christ not the Mansion of Rest or Port of eternal security and undisturbed quietness And these several expressions of this Father may assure us that the
before them how shall we not them move and make God propitious while we pray for them that are departed Here again the Romanists triumph as if St. Chrysost made their praying for Souls in purgatory an Ordinance of the Apostles whereas he plainly restrains this Ordinance of the Apostles as above he did the Ordinance of the Spirit to that which the Church did in the Holy Eucharist and that concerned only them who were at rest in Christ Nothing of Souls in pains and torment is mentioned in the Ancient Liturgies or Prayers of the Church As for this Fathers speaking of prayer for such sinners as he described in all the forementioned places such as were gone to endless pains yet might receive as he thought a little case thereby we must reckon it as a private opinion and misapplication of that practise of praying for the Dead And indeed he seems to acknowledge so much himself for in his forementioned Hom. 61. in Jo. he faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in relation to those his exhortations for such prayers and offerings These things I speak not as one giving precept or setting a Law but as one allowing and condescending to the affections and frailties of men The Romanists here reply that St. Chrysost and others seem to urge Prayer for All because they knew not who died in the state of repentance and so they pray for all in the Church of Rome yet hold those prayers appliable to and available for only those that dye in that state and go to Purgatory pains This is a meer shift for St. Chrysost does plainly suppose that those sinners he speaks of died in their sins such Chrys hom 61. in lo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if God had seen they would have changed he would not have cut them off before their repentance as we had it above such as he in another place speaks thus of of such a one there is no cause to rejoyce but only because the course of his wicked life is cut off yet for such he exhorts to pray and offer and help him as they can And indeed the reason of this extending the benefit of Prayers to such sinners was not any supposal of Purgatory but of some mitigating and easing of those eternal pains to which such sinners were adjudged and this in part according to that merciful opinion and the motion of humane affection of which St. Aug. speaks in his Enchiridion C. 111. as we noted above and to which affection St. Chrysost gives too much scope as we see in the forementioned passages of prayers oblations for such sinners But as for Purgatory pains which are supposed to begin at death to end before the resurrection he knew no such pains as evidently appears by that exact distribution of the several sorts of punishments made by this Father and cited below Nu. 11. What we have said of some expressions of Chrysost applying prayer and relief to such sinners as before were described may be said of that place which the Romanists much urge out of St. Cyril Myst â—atech 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril who tels us they prayed simply for all and accounted it a great help to those souls for which the prayer of the great and holy sacrifice was offered and the great power which that prayer hath to help he sets out by the similitude of a King intreated to pardon and call back one that is banished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the same manner saith he we praying for sinners render God propitious Now if it be after the same manner then by the force of this similitude it must be implyed that the prayers of the Church may obtain pardon for sinners not reconciled to God before their death for so the banished person is supposed to be not reconciled to his Prince and then it sounds to like purpose as those passages in Chrysostom did and is but a private application or misapplication of that Ancient practise neither agreeable to the intent of the Ancient Church remembring in her prayers and offerings only those that were at rest in Christ as by the Forms of those prayers may appear nor making any thing for Purgatory which supposes the person reconciled and justified before he comes there But if the Sinners which Cyril here saith are prayed for be taken in a more remiss sense for such as the Romish Church sends to purgatory then the praying for them comes to no more then what we said above to Epiphanius and Dionysius that such prayer had reference to the passage of such souls and their appearing in judgment not to their being in pains after death For that such persons must appear in judgment the first and the last judgment and undergo a scrutiny or examination and have as it were their hay and stubble burnt up was a Catholick Truth but that persons reconciled to God dying and resting in Christ should presently go to pain and torment was no doctrine of the Church and therefore the prayers of the Church could not refer unto such persons And we may observe that the undoubted Cyril for those Mystagogical Catechismes are thought to be composed by John B. Cyril Catech 15. of Jerusalem tels us that Christ when he comes to judgment shall draw after him a sloud of trying fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall burn up all hay and stubble of their Actions So that if such sinners be prayed for it must be with reference to the fire of trial and examination which they are to undergo in the day of Judgment and according to the true Cyril Thus much for that practise of the Church praying for the Dead that it does not prove a belief of Purgatory but was used upon other Reasons The third general Head was Forgiveness of sins after Death Forgiveness of sins after death or in the world to come out of which the Romanists would conclude a Purgatory The Text of Scripture is our Saviours speech Mat. 12.32 it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come Here they are bound to make good three things 1. That the world to come signifies the Time beginning at every mans death 2. That from our Saviours Negative nor in the world to come this affirmative followes therefore there are some sins shall be forgiven in the World to come 3. That if some sins shall be forgiven then to them to whom they shall be forgiven there remains pain and torment to be suffered I. For the Time Of the world to come The world to come is no where put for the Time between every mans death and the Resurrection for so it would be present to some and future to others but is every where seculum futurum which is so to every one whether it be taken according to the Jewish acception or the Christian With the Jewes the world to come did sometimes signifie the Time of their exspected
Messiah and indeed that place of Isa 9.6 where the Messiah is called Pater futuri seculi the father of the Age or world to come to whom a generation shall be accounted Ps 22.30 does accord thereunto Now it was an opinion among the Jewes as they that are acquainted with their Rabbins do tel us that some sins should then be forgiven which could not before and accordingly it was an usual expression by saying such a sin shall not be forgiven no not in the world to come to shew the Atrocity and flagitiousness of such a sin which the grace that the Messiah should bring would not take away and so our Saviour might speak this ad hominem according to their common opinion and saying to express the hainousness of that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost But take this Phrase according to the tenour of the New Testament which supposes the Messiah come already The world to come every where signifies that which begins at the Resurrection or last day of this world Then is fixed the End of this world Mat. 13.39.40 cap. 28.20 and then begins the world to come Marc. 10.30 Luc. 18.30 Eph. 1.21 And so it must be taken by St. Aug. in that place which the Romanists cite as to their purpose for the forgiveness of sins not forgiven before Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. Neque enim de qui busdam veraciter diceretur non remittetur Otherwise saith he it could not be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come for if we inquire of him when shall this be factâ resurrectione He tels us there after the Resurrection is done And so also Futurum seculum the world to come is taken both by Greeks and Latins * Concil Flor. Sess 1. de Purgatorio in their debate of this point II. Of the Forgiveness For their inference from our Saviours Negative Not forgiven saith he in the world to come therefore say they there are sins to be forgiven in the world to come The Cardinal acknowledges it does not follow according to the Rules of Logick Indeed such forgiveness as they pretend in relation to Purgatory cannot in any reason follow upon our Saviours speech That there is a forgiveness of sins after death cannot be denied so long as we believe there is a Judgment of God to come for when that comes and passes upon the Souls of men either privately at their death or openly at the Last day there is an absolution of some and a condemnation of others a forgiving and a not forgiving in the world to come whether we begin that Time at the day of Death or of Resurrection but this forgiveness is nothing to Purgatory Again This forgiveness or not forgiveness of sins in the world to come may have regard to the forgiveness or retaining of sins by Man in the Ministry of reconciliation in this life so there is a loosing and binding on Earth and a loosing and binding in Heaven in like manner a declaration of sins forgiven in the Church in this life and a declaration of sins forgiven or not forgiven in the world to come For then it shall appear that many sins forgiven by Man Clave errante through misapplication of the Keyes are not forgiven of God but shall receive sentence of condemnation and many that have been unjustly excommunicated and condemned here shall be owned and absolved there And so in this respect it may be said truly that whoever will continue obstinate and rebel against light as they that here blasphemed against the Holy Ghost must not exspect to have his sin forgiven either in this life by the Church or in the world to come when God shall appear in judgment and so it comes to what St. Marc. saith Hier. in Mat. 5. Huic nullo tempore blasphemia remittetur he hath never forgiveness and what St. Hier. saith upon the place This blasphemy shall never be forgiven him The Sins which the Romanists will have forgiven in the next life Venial Sins are Venial or light sins But why these forgiven in the next world when the great sins are forgiven in this life as they acknowledge unto those justified persons whom they send to Purgatory why should such small sins which do not cut off the state of justification or put the person out of the favour of God be retained and call'd so so severe a reckoning as is that of the Purgatory Prison It is true that sanctified persons after their Justification are subject to the daily subreption of such lighter sins but seeing as St. Aug. saith often we do for them daily confess and say Forgive us our debts why should not the general repentance and confession with which such Persons dye be available to the forgiveness of all such failings and secret sins that cannot be remembred in particular through the merit of Christs perfect obedience apprehended by the faith of such justified persons And as for the stains of sinful corruption The stain or remaining corrupting of Sin yet remaining after forgiveness of the guilt and punishment the doing away of which the Romanists call forgiveness what need is there of a Fire to purge them away for it is not fire but the grace of God likened unto fire that can work that effect upon the soul And why may not final grace as some call it do away the remaining corruption at the parting of soul and body They acknowledge that grace infused does it in the first Justification not only taking away the guilt but the stain and corruption too and why may it not do so in the last infusion or communication They acknowledge also that the stain of original Sin comes upon the Soul in a moment at the conjunction of it with the body and why may not the contracted stains and blots of sin be by the grace of God done away at the separation of soul and body All this is far more reasonable to say then from our Saviours speech not forgiven to infer some shall be then forgiven and from that forgiveness to conclude such a Purgation of Souls as they imagine More reasonable I say though not so prudential it may be considering what is gained by it in the Romish Church For hear what the Cardinal saith of that Inference of the affirmative shall be forgiven from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven It doth not follow Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 4. Non secundum Regulas Logicae sed sequi secundum regulam prudentiae alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè locutum saith he according to the Rules of Logick that is of Reason but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence Else should we make our Lord speak inconsiderately in saying neither in this world nor in the world to come For their Prudence in drawing Purgatory out of so many pretended places of Scripture besides the Rules