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 Mâ— 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
true but what Mr Sall might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy that the King of England is head of the Church and let him consider if it be not cruelty against soules to oblige them to sweare a thing that not only Catholicks but all sectaries out of England denies nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae sayes Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae fuerunt homines inconsiderati erant enim Blasphemi cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae And the very Protestant Doctors themselues not agreeing in what sence and how far is it true that the King is supream Head of the Church the poore People must be forced to sweare it Then say you the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power when it decreed Princes who did not purge their Territories from Heresies should be depriued of their Lands You abuse the Council neither it nor any other Council did no assume that Povver as you say but finding that is was that the probable and perhaps as they supposed the most probable opinion of Diuins that the Church had that power grounded their fact vpon that opinion and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes And the Catholicks who deny any such Power in the Church do not nor any man cannot say the Council erred formally that 's to say blameably in that Decree because it was grounded vpon a probable opinion and it is not requisit in any Tribunal for the iustice of a Decree or sentence that it be grounded vpon infallible grounds And the Catholicks who deny that power do say that Decree was Materially erroneous because the opinion vpon which the Council was grounded was false whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only in matters of fact such as that was but in Doctrina fidei morum in Doctrin of Faith and Manners it cannot err neither formally nor Materially because it is assisted in that Doctrin constantly by Gods infallible Spirit Transubstantiation How strangly Mr Sall is blinded in calling vs Idolaters for belieuing Christs real personal Presence in the Sacrament and pag. 116. sayes wee will be damned for this and orher Tenets if ignorance does not excuse vs and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation whom Protestants do embrace and receiue to their Communion belieue that real personal Presence of Christ as well as wee are they Idolaters also and will they be damn'd if ignorance does not excuse them or will it be pardonable in them and damnable in vs He sayes wee haue no pertinent text of scripture for it pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Diuinity to answer me to these two following syllogism grounded vpon most cleer texts first Luk. 22.19 eate this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you The text declares he gaue them somwhat what to eat wee say it was his Real Body and proue it He gaue to them that which he gaue for them the text sayes it eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you But what he gaue for them was not a figure but his real and true Body therefore what he gaue to them was not a figure but his true and Real Body it will be no answer to say that he gaue to them figuratiuely what he gaue for them really for the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gaue to them and what he gaue for them and if you presume to say that what he gaue to them was but a figuratiue why may not wee as well say that what he gaue for them was but a figure and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Marcion that what suffered for vs was but a Phantastical Body For to leade you the second syllogism obserue that when the Multitude Io. 6. said This saying is hard hovv can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Christ called them Vnbelieuers There be som of you vvho do not belieue nay sayes they are damnable vnbelieuers v. 54 He that vvill not eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood shall not haue lyfe in him Obserue secondly that what the Iews though hard and impossible was that Christ should giue them to eate his true and real flesh for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should giue the figure of his Body wheras they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb which they belieued to be the figure of the Messias Christ promised what they iudged hard and impossible what they iudged hard and impossible was not that he should giue a figure of his flesh but his true and real flesh therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh and Mr Sall himself pag. 63. does acknowledge that the Iews did vnderstand Christ to haue spoken of his true and real flesh The Ievvs vnderstood him to haue spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating as the Papists do Now answer me I pray to this syllogism A damnable vnbelieuer is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be reuealed by God The Iewes in this occasion were damnable vnbelieuers and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose vnto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it Pag. 63. he rayses an argument vpon this text for the figuratiue presence for sayes he the Ievvs vnderstood him to speake of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the lyke expressions as vvee did in the beginning of this discourse but he did correct their vnderstanding by his subsequent vvords v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speak are spirit and lyfe by vvhich he dravveth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating to that of a spiritual feeding consequently Christ did meane a figuratiue spiritual eating of his flesh thus Mr Sall. By this you acknowledge that the Iews did not apprehend or think of any figuratiue eating consequently they could not either belieue it or deny it for how can a man deny that which neuer fell into his apprehensions tell vs therefore what is that which they denyed and denyed damnably they could not deny but that which they apprehended was spoken and what they apprehended as you confess was a corporal fleshy eating That therefore they must haue denyed therefore they were called vnbelieuers but how were they damnably vnbelieuers if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose vnto them a corporal and fleshly eating For none is bound to belieue if the reuealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him either therefore Christ his words My flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh or they ought not
Alms deeds and such others as they who giue the Indulgence require and that the Alms which are enioyned in such cases though by the malice of some they may be turned to sinister vses are designed for pious vses You mention some words of the 92. Canon of the Council of Lateran vnder Innocent the Third and that Council has but 70. Canon in all nor does the Council speake any thing in any Canon of Indulgences it s no new practice of your fraternity to coyn new Canons and texts as you want them You cite S. Thom. and S. Bonauen who relate some were of opinion that Indulgences were but a pious fraud of the Church to draw men to charitable Acts its true those saints relate that opinion but relate not who were the Authors of it but only that some did say so and they condemn it as impious and iniurious to the Church S. Bon. in 4. dist 20. q. 6. sed hoc est Ecclesiae derogare dicendo eam sub specie mentiri quod abhorret mens recta Thus you only proue by this argument that there were some impious people that accusâ—d the Church of being a cheat And do not you do the lyke wee embrace most willingly the aduertisment of Bellar de amiss Gratiae l. 6. which you relate but nothing to your purpose that in things depending of the freewill of God wee must affirm nothing but what he has reuealed in his Holy Scripture but you are mistaken in asserting that God has not reuealed the Doctrin of Indulgence in the Scripture for that text Mat. 18.18 vvhateuer ye shall vnbind on earth shall be vnbinded in Heauen signifyes the Power of vnbinding from the pains of Purgatory you say it does not and you cite Durandus and Maior who say it does not and that Indulgences are not found expresly in Scripture but I say that though they be not expresly found in scripture they are implicitly found there and you confess in the beginning of your discourse that wee are bound to belieue not only what is contained in Scripture but the vndeniable consequences out of it out of that text the Power of vntying from the pains due to sin is an vndeninable consequence the Church declares it and interprets the text so to whose Authority Dur. and Maior must yeild And though there were no text in Scripture that either explicitly or implicitly did import Indulgences in particular yet by Scripture it self wee are bound to belieue it it being the Doctrin of the Church as S. August said of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. cont Crescon c. 32. and 33. oBserue his words which comes very appositly to our present subiect Although verily there be brought no example for this Point he means the validity of Heretick Baptism for which he sayes there is no text in Scripture yet euen in this Point the truth of the same Scripture is held by vs vvhile vvee do that vvhich the Authority of Scripture doth recommend vnto vs that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs vvho soeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the Church CoÌ„cerning it vvhich vvithout ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth recommend vnto vs. By which sentence of S. Augustin you find that wee follow Scripture whylst wee follow the Doctrin of the Church which the Scripture commands vs to heare and obey You will perhaps infer out of this discourse a consequence which may seem to you absurd thus therefore wee are bound to belieue as an Article of Faith what Doctrin the Church proposeth to vs though that point in particular be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in any text of Scripture only vpon the testimony of the Church This consequence is true and the reason is that the Church being Gods infallible Oracle caÌ„not propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but only that Doctrin which truly is reuealed by God God reuealed all Truths of Religion to the Apostles as wee haue discoursed in the 6. Chap. the Apostles deliuered all those truths to the Church to be handed from age to age to Posterity the Apostles did not deliuer all those Truths in writing as wee haue discoursed in the 2. and 3. ch but part in writing and this is Scripture part by vnwritten Tradition and this is the Depositum that S. Paul speaks of to Timothie the Church is the keeper of this Depositum and as by the Scripture wee know what written Truths the Apostles deliuered so by the Church wee know assuredly what vnwritten Truths they deliuered Now wee say that the Church cannot propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but what was deliuered by the Apostles who doubtless knew and taught to their Disciples all truths of Religion to the Church for wee do not say nor belieue that the Church can coyn new Articles of Faith but only deliuer the Old that through carelessness came to be confusedly knowen and almost forgotten wee do not pretend that the Church has new reuelations of new Doctrin which God did not deliuer to his Apostles but that she has the assistance of Gods Spirit to know certainly and find out the truths that were formerly reuealed and taught by the Apostles not only in writing but by word of mouth what truths therefore the Church proposes vnto vs wee are obliged to belieue them as reuealed truths though they be not in Scripture particularly mentioned for if they be not there they were taught verbally by the Apostles they are of Apostolical tradition and if the tradition be obscure or doubtfull the declaration of the Church renders it certain Thus it matters not that Indulgence is not expressed nay nor implicitly contained in Scripture if it be not it must of necessity haue been taught verbally by the Apostles since that the Church proposeth this Doctrin as a reuealed Truth and no truth is a reuealed truth but has been reuealed to them and by them deliuered vnto their Disciples Publick Prayer in an vnknovven Language Ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam your own position is the strongest argument I can alleadge for Publick seruice in an vn knowen language you say thus the purpose of Nature by speaking is to communicat the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer but hovv can that be if the hearer perceiueth not the meaning of the vvords he speaketh Therefore wee must speake in a knowen language I ask to whom do wee speake in the Liturgy or Publick seruice of the Church Sure it s not to the congregation but God it s to him wee direct our Prayers for to prayse him and implore his Mercy The Hearer is God properly and not the Cougregation and therefore where there is no Congregation present the Psalms are sung in the Oyre and Publick seruice don if therefore wee communicat our fence when wee say Mass or publick seruice to God who is the hearer wee satisfy the purpose that Nature intends by speaking and wheras God vnderstands our fence in