from an Authour of less esteem then St. Thomas though I do not deny that ordinarily the Doctrin of the Book is or was St. Thomas's Doctrin in his younger days 15. And now we are brought on to the twelfth Number in which he advances a difficulty which is truly Theological and deserves to be discussed But whereas it hath two parts that part which is chief and should go fore-most he leaves to be discussed in his 22. Chapter to wit Whether continuance of an indivisible Entity makes it greater or no Wherefore here I must onely treat the second part which is what good Prayers do which do but accelerate the Day of Judgment And to do this I must explicate a Doctrin whereof he should not be ignorant yet I perceive he is I lay forth therefore this Proposition No Prayer is heard by God Almighty for any particular effect but for such as are fore-determin'd by God not onely to be but to be by this Prayer Another I add to this of the same quality to wit that no effect which God hath fore-determin'd to be for such a Prayer can be if the prayer be not These two Propositions as peradventure to the ordinary sort of Faithful may be unknown or rather unreflected on so is it a shame that any Divine should doubt or question them As for the former he that will maintain the contrary must say God fore-saw not what he would after do or fore-would not what he after did which are both notorious Blasphemies And he who opposes the later Proposition must say that some cause which God hath order'd to be the cause of an effect is superfluous and hath no influence into the effect since the effect can be without such a cause which is no less a derogation to God's Wisdom and the perfection of his ways Out of â—hese two â—ropositions it follows evidently that if God hath order'd the Day of Judgment to come by the prayers for the Dead the Day of Judgment would not nor could not come unless those prayers were sayd And if this be evidently true it is an evident want of Divinity to ask what good the prayers for the Dead do if the Dead receive no other profit then the advancement of the Day of Judgment Against this Doctrin Number 17. he objecteth What then shall become of Christ's Promises This is a good Objection for a Catechumen who learns Christian Doctrin but a poor one for a Divine who should know that Christ governs the World not as Aristotle puts in common by moving the first Mobile but as Faith teaches by fore-seeing fore-willing and ordering every particular act of Angels Men and irrational Creatures and as far as the acts have any good in them setting and settling the whole Frame of the Causes inerrantly So that Christ's Promises rely upon this not onely power or fore-sight but as I may so speak a kind of fore-acting in his Providence all the good Creatures shall ever do Therefore it is silly to talk so as if Christ's Promises would fail if this particular man did not say this particular prayer for it proceeds upon the actual ordering of this prayer The like or weaker is the Objection that Christ's Judicative Power will depend of particular prayers First because in some way of speaking it is evidently true as it is that Christ could not damn Judas if Judas were not or had not betrayed him Another way and that in a proper manner of speaking is that it doth not follow that Christ's Judiciary Power dependeth from these prayers but these prayers of it For seeing no body doubts but that Christ hath in his power what acts shall be and what shall not it is clear that what shall be depends of him not He from what shall be So that this which with his great Divinity he deems the worst of shifts is as certain as any Article of our Faith and Blasphemous and Heretical to deny 16. To justifie this proceeding of his he brings another piece of sweet Divinity It is that there be some things which God resolves shall come to pass by certain prayers and some that he resolves to effect quite independently of any such means upon other motives To give you his true meaning in this distinction is hard yet I think his meaning is that the means or causes of some effects are such that though de facto they are causes of the effect yet God would have done the effect if these causes had fail'd and other causes are such that if these causes had fail'd God would not secure the effect that is his meaning is that some causes which are truly causes notwithstanding God's Providence that they should be causes might have fail'd and therefore God had cast if these causes should fail to provide others which should supply that the effect might not fail Quantum capio quantum sapio what is this but to put that God's Providence as far as concerns that this prayer should be or should be cause of this effect is fallible and not certain Are we there great Divine that you tell us God's Providence is errable That neither by his Power nor by his Wisdom he can ascertain that which he orders to be done Or if peradventure you will not venter to deny his Power at least that his act falls short That some good Action is done which he did not will efficaciously should be done Is this Catholick or Christian either Divinity or Metaphysicks to make God's Providences fallible to make the Essential Wisdom doubtful of what he is to do casting about like a man If this day will not do I will take another O pittiful stuff O three half-peny Divinity 17. He objects it were superfluous to pray that St. Francis be not turned out of Heaven because God is resolved not to do it whether any body prays for it or no What ill luck have I to meet with such Counsellours of God Almighty who know upon what motives he doth all his Works and what things must be wanting to break God's intentions I am bred simply to believe that if the least dust or straw in the streets should not fall or be cut when it does fall and is cut it would change the greatest effects of God's Providence So exact be the Rules of God's fore-sight so just and fitting all that he determins To us is revealed what is fitting to promote the saving of our Souls that is as concerning our purpose to pray for those things the solicitude of which stirs us up to pray heartily and willingly and therefore it is revealed to us that we ought to pray for the Dead because it causes in us a fervent and great recourse to God It is not revealed to us to pray that St. Francis should possess his bliss eternally because that motive of prayer would either be of small efficacy or have other inconveniences annexed And yet I do not doubt but this amongst the rest may be an effect even of the
comparison to Aristotl's demonstration and saying that in Aristotl's way there be insuperablr difficulties which uses to be the saying of those who understand not this Demonstration of Aristotle which is fundamenta to Philosophy and acknowledged by all who deserves the name of Philosophers And so you may see I did well to promise him no demonstrations who know not what they signify but thinks every Anthropomorphitical explication of Scripture to be Demonstrative EIGHTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his twenty third and twenty fourth Chapters Our Opinion avouch'd by true Philosophy Hiâ— Calumny of our Teâ—ets God's Gâ—… of the Synagogue different from that of the Church The notion of the word Merit The connaturalâ—ess of the pains we put and the needlesness of his The many ill-consequences and absurdities of the Opinion that all Venial affections are blotted out by Contrition in the first Act of Separation The â—illiness of his Opinion that souls in Purgatory cannot help themselves His probable Divinity His non-sâ—… that lyability to be punisht without Fault is 〈◊〉 blem isâ— refuâ—ed 1. I cannot but complain of your Divine that having promised such wonders in the last discussed Chapter he came off so pitifully that where he had the advantage of human apprehension against me he gave me not as much as occasion to explicate my Doctrin unless I should have gone and stray'd from his Text. His oppositions were pure opinions without any sight of Evidence His Authority for the most part of St. Thomas from whom in this point we professedly recede His Scripture such as he himself is bound to solve in respect of Almighty God So that in its words it has no force and all the force must come out of this whether the nature of Angels requires to have the words explicated improperly or no which he may suppose but goes not about to prove otherwise then from uncertain Authority His solutions to admit contradiction or else propose some Argument by halfs The rest of his Chapter high words 2. Howsoever I hope his three and twentieth Chapter will make amends for the question is not so Metaphysical as the other was It begins with an explication of my Doctrin disguis'd in high terms yet true ones for the greatest part In his second Number he accuseth it of being against Philosophy to say that God so order'd all things in the beginning that he need not since put his hand to it By which if he understands that God doth not continue conserving of his creatures it is not my Doctrin If he grants Conservation to God though the truth is that Conservation is but the very Act of first Creation though in name and notion it be divers then I must see how he proves it against Philosophy For saith he no natural cause can produce the soul of a man and therefore God must do some new action when there is an exigence of creating a soul. I grant no creature can create a â—oul but affirm that the first act of Creation creates every soul when time is without farther or greater Influence of God He may reply he understands not this To which my answer is that I beleeve him but cannot help him seeing it is not here place to explicate Mysteries of incident Philosophical points He may help himself if he pleases with my Institutiones both Peripaticae and Sacrâ— He adds two other Philosophical necessities he finds one of the necessity of Gods actual concourse with second causes the other of Gods choosing Individâ—…s for the second causes to produce The former as far as it hath sence in it is done by the Action of Creation or Conservation by which God sets the Angels on work to move celestial Bodies from whose motion actual motion flows into all other causes and this is the true either premotion or concourse of God with creatures plain and visible The other which I fear he means hath no kind of Philosophy nor Divinity in it The choosing of Individâ—… is the rascallest and the ridiculousest Position that ever was affirmed by any scum of Philosophers You see what sound maximes â—e takes to impugn the perfection of God's Wisdom 3. In his fourth Number he begins to employ his Divinity And first he asks what natural cause can raise dead bodies and give them due torments And I must answer with a reply of a question to wit when this is to be done While the Fabrick of Nature holds or when it is ended If when it is ended how comes it to our purpose Or is not he grosly mistaken to put this amongst the workings of Nature Yet that the course of Natural Causes does prepare the World even to this unmaking of Nature you may find in the last book of my Institutiones Sacrâ— For the proportionable pains the Soul of themselves will cause those as you may see in the same book To fill up here a Page with his own opinion of Purgatory was besides the matter for we doubt not but that he puts more Wilfulness then Wisdom in God Almighty's Actions 4. His main Answer begins N. 3. where he tells us that it is Heresie to make natural causes to have vertue sufficient to bring man by themselves alone to his final end of Eterâ—… Bliss And then he tells you that our prime Argument is the same that Pâ—…gius's to wit that every natural Agent ought to have power given it from the Author of Nature to bring it self to its natural perfection But first I would enquire where â—e sound in any Writing of mine the Proposâ—â—on he condemns If I say that God hâ—th ordain'd second causes to do all effects which are not to be seen to be miraculous do I exclude supernatural causes Are not Christ's coming and Preaching the coming of the Holy Ghost the Habits of Faith Hope and Charity the Prayers and Preaching and good Works proceeding from men thorough such Habits the Sacraments the whole â—orm of the Church all Supernatural causes interwoven with natural To what purpose then doth this man talk that natural causes are not sufficient to bring a man to Heaven Is it not plain he knows neither what I say nor what himself See how just our Argument is the same with the Pelagâ—â—n's Out of this you see his Answer is like to be a good one and so it is For Numb 8. he hath so I answer As man's last 〈◊〉 cannot be reâ—ched by Nature so is it out of the reach of natural causes by their natural operation to chastise man's sinning proportionably to his voluntary acting against his supernatural end My Reply is that he must seek out to whom to answer for I never talked of purely natural causes but natural and supernatural together as they compound all second causes But the good man could think of no supernatural causes but God himself working immediately and so strayed to seek out why such actions were not miraculous which we will not follow him to because it is not concerning to our Theme 5.
it self All Prelates of the Church not excluding the Pope himself none of these in their qualities and degrees by which they are Judges of Christian demeanour pretending the extraordinary favours he requires to make them speak like Doctours I wonder he is not acquainted with the Bull of Leo the tenth beginning Supernae Majestatis In which he lays Excommunication upon all Preachers who in their Sermons do lay forth any such Visions or Revelations before they are approved by the Church because ordinarily they are but Illusions of Melancholy Persons who in their prayer have conceited such dreams and imposed them upon their Directours I pray perswade him to consider how much worse it is to preach such things then to point them in a vulgar Language by which they run amongst the unlearned sort and consider how far he and the divulgers of his Book are from deserving Excommunication Again how many of these Visions in particular have passed the examin and approbation of the Church for which they may not be accompted the dreams of waking men 8. To return now to our former course in his third Paragraph he cites the 63 Canon of the Council of Nice the which though it be known to be none of the Council yet because the custom it speaks of is laudable I except not against it For we doubt not but the multiplication of pryers is ever good St. Paul hath taught us that but the question is onely of the end for which the custom was instituted Yet I may note this that peradventure your Divine is mistaken in the number for we find in the first ages that though there were forty Priests in a Church onely one said Mass upon private days But it is a tedious thing to walk in the dark and to handle a question whereof the Roots are not understood Wherefore I shall to my power lay down the grounds of the question out of which Authorities may be the better understood 9. There are therefore two questions to be display'd the one whereon relys the efficacy of Prayer the second to what it is efficacious First therefore we must note that this word prayer hath two significations In the one it is nothing but the praising of God in the other it signifies the begging something of God Prayer in the first signification chiefly consists in the acts of the Theological vertues By Faith and the qualities consequert to Faith we acknowledg and admire the attributes of God and the perfection of his works so break out into those motions which follow such Acts. By Hope and Charity we love à nd desire God as our proper good whether by his Essence or by and his Creatures Out of this follows that we ask him what we apprehend as necessary to us in which consists that prayer which is properly called Petition Now let us consider God as we would consider a wise man and we shall see that if we beg any thing of a wise man he considers two things one is whether the Petition be convenient for it self which if he finds without difficulty he grants it The other is that though it be not convenient in it self yet he considers whether the friendship of the Person who begs it makes it convenient to be done or no And if he find it does he grants the request So then likewise must we esteem of God that he doth what is beg'd of him because of it self it is fitting to do it even if there had been no prayers At other times it is not good unless it had been begged Further in the Beggar we find two Considerations one of the Person the other of the Begging This later consideration is not considerable before God more then as it makes the Person more acceptable For whosoever begs of God addresses himself to God and by that exercises some vertue for which he comes to be more acceptable But then the begging obtains because of the worth of the Person Abstract from this and begging is but the affection to a created thing and so hath more imperfection then perfection in it unless it be the desire of what is commanded us as when it is said Quaerite Reg num Dei and again siquis indiget sapientia postulet a Deo And it is added in fide nihil haesitans which if I be not mistaken signifies that he shall certainly be heard Of other things we hear Pater vester scit quia his omnibus opus habetis and if we will nevertheless ask them we have the form shaped out to us sed tua volunt as fiat non mea 10. That this explication of Gods hearing our prayers is true depends of the Principles long since explicated that God under forfeit of his Wisdome and Goodness is bound to do what is best for his creatures and nothing else Wherefore what he does is either therefore best because begg'd or of it self therefore on one of these motives to be granted Now if it be best because begged since the title of begging is the favour the Beggar has he must by the act of begging be in greater favour then without it for if it had been convenient otherwise it would have been done without begging and so not for the begging for God needs no Monitor to tell him what and when it is best And so you have the first point clear'd that Charity and onely Charity on the Peggars part is the cause of the effect 11. The other point was what God grants in respect of our prayers That is to what our prayers are efficacious In which the first proposition is that God grants nothing upon our prayers but what first he stirs us up to pray for and ordains our prayers to be causes of the effect the which is both evident of it self and formerly declared The next proposition is that God stirs up no body to pray for any thing unless the action of praying be good to him that prays So that whether the effect be granted or not the good of praying never fails him who prays A third proposition is that all things confider'd no extrinsecal good is the good of the man who prays for it but is absolutely indifferent whether it be the spiritual good of Father and Mother or Children or whatsoever it be and therefore by a perfect soul none of those things is to be absolutely pray'd for or desired but onely under the good will and provideoce of God This is clear also to all those who understand the nature of Good to be respective to him who desires it and that it signifies what according to reason is to be desired by him and that every man is a part of the World and cannot with reason desire the World should be conformable to him and therefore may or must desire his own good because he is made for it and hath that charge from the Authour of nature to procure it and be sollicitous of it But as his Beatitude is but the end of him so the Beatitude
of the Abbot I confess I understand it not For had he had the apprehension that the torments of Purgatory be so great as Divinity tells us he could never methinks have with a Christian heart spoken those words It is now a good while since our brother who is departed remains in torments of fire and therefore we must shew him some charity As who should say I am content he hath suffer'd the pains of Purgatory for one month nay two for so long it was before he designed him to be released Imagine he had caused him to be rack'd or impal'd so long would not all the Christian World have abominated the cruelty What conceit then had he of Purgatory that would let his Brother burn in that cruel fire so long without shewing him any Charity I would to God your Divine had told us where we might find that Vindication o◠the Book he speaks of For the more I consider it the more unworthy it seems to me to be our great Doctour and savour more of the Monk then of the Pope Though besides he tells us that this story hapned three years before his writing and Baronius tells that the Book was written in the fourth year of St. Gregory's Popedome at which time St. Gregory could not be in his Monastery Nor do I think Baronius can rattle Canus for this opinion then since he held it himself in his eighth Tome and revoked it in his ninth Therefore he may have patience with one who falls into the Errour into which himself fell before 9. Let us omit that ridiculous opinion of excommunicating souls in Purgatory and answer the question he puts what any Judicious Catholick can say to the story Which is that the Authour of this Book sheweth no such exact inspection into every circumstance as that any man should be bound to believe that he could not be deceived either in his Judgment or in his narration as that truly Copiosus knew not of the saying of the Masses And I wish you to note your Divine's advice he gives that when the Authour makes this Argument that concordante visione cum Sacrificio res apertè claruit he speaks like a Doctour Is this Tradition or Scripture or Councils upon the which Doctour's proceed or a common and ordinary prudence by which every man conducts his private business 10. There follow two stories out of Venerable Bede written as an Historian should write and as it was worthy of his Learning and Wisdome The first is nothing to the Alledger's Purpose being but of the profiting of the Mass to the dead which is the position common to us both That which he chiefly takes notice of is this word delivery or loosing as if we held the souls were never to be deliver'd or that their delivery came not to pass by prayers and other good works So that this being agreed on and that there is no specification of time there is nothing particular in this story but that many who heard this story were devoutly inflamed in faith to wit to pray for the dead by which we understand that this story was the occasion of their apprehension of suddain delivery which hath no other ground then the parallelling of the loosing of his fetters to the help in Purgatory which every man would guess of according to the principles he was before imbued with So that both the effect is common to both opinions and the ground every ones application of the Miracle to a spiritual effect which they saw no otherwise then in a corporeal allegory But your Divine explicates inflamed in faith which as it lyes signifies no more then that they grew fervent towards good life to signifie that they had recieved this faith from the beginning which seeing there is no ground for it in the Authour is but a kind of a corruption of the Text by the Divines addition to it 11 The later story of Drithelmus hath one circumstance that favours your Divines opinion but the very same words have a blot to mar it that is what you◠Divine I doubt will acknowledg to be a flat Heresy I mean that these words all shall come to Heaven in the day of Judgment include some who have no Obstacle of Sin to wit those in the fourth place So that he affirms them not to go to Heaven as soon as purged against the Council of Florence and Benedictus his Bull. Whence by the Rule that no Revelations are to be admitted which contain any thing inconsonant to Faith this Revelation is to be rejected not so far as concerns venerable Bede who truly relates what Drithelmus not onely reported but truly thought But that he Drithelmus was some way deluded either because the Vision was a natural effect of forgoing thoughts or that he mistook himself in the rehearsal or some such like cause whereof the contingency of sublunary causes furnish us with store I pray take notice also that the works of the living help many to be freed before the day of Judgment be the words of the Angel not of Venerable Bede narrative not doctrinal Whence you may see this Divine continues still his practice of proving earnestly that which is not in controversy and saying little or nothing of that which is the true difficulty SIXTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his tenth Chapter Of the Nature and Certainty of private Revelations The rare Spright in the Jesuits House at Vienna His Relations for what in them concerns the Alledger's purpose found to be in likelihood what himself intitles them Stories 1. IN his tenth Chapter we must launch into the Ocean of Revelations for after once by the foregoing Relations they grew into fashion every Spiritual body had of them either truly or at least put upon him Nay this very day there want not spiritual directours which profess a kind of skill in such a space of time to bring their Ghostly Children to Extasies and Revelations And who doubts but that if a Devout soul of her self subject to those passions which Galen and other Physicians call Extases or Enthusiasms light into the Government of a Ghostly Father delighted with admirable accidents both their thoughts being continually busied upon spiritual matters the Ghostly Father having such a pitch of Divinity as to correct in his Ghostly Child's apprehensions what is plainly naught and contrary to Faith and Christian life both being constantly conceited that God uses to discover extraordinary verities to those who much converse with them who I say can doubt but many relations of wonderfull sights must needs proceed from them nay many times of things which verily fall out as they see them as all Heathen Histories recount some which hapned so as Philosophers teach us by a secret combination of the soul with outward causes amongst which the Divine Providence mingles it self to work its proper ends 2. But your Divine and I frame about these two propositions seeming contrary yet so well agreeing that one good conclusion
he can press this Decree against me he must shew there is no other way of remitting Purgatory pains Which certainly there is since all Catholicks agree that the satisfactions and prayers of the faithfull and alms-giving do assist the souls of Purgatory So that the Pope by such means may redress the souls of Purgatory more assuredly then by Indulgences And when this is done by way of Command it is as full and perfectly a pardon to the souls as if it be done by the application of the merits of the Saints For they are assuredly in the Popes Jurisdiction and may be applyed by him of the others it is questionable and otherwise the way is the same both being the applying of the Church's merits 8. Yet have I one scruple more about this pointâ— Why your Divine changed the words of the Sentence condemned by the Bull which I find to be Quod Papa non potest indulgere alicui vivo poenam Purgatorii Now these words alicui vivo quite alters the question and makes that the Bull doth no way touch what the Pope can do to the souls in Purgatory and the leaving out of these words wholly disgraces both the Bull and the Pope making him speak against the received opinion of Divines both before and since his time who for the most part agree that the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over Purgatory and cannot absolve men from the pains of it Which is contradictory directly to the words your Divine cites to wit that the Bishop of Rome can pardon the pains of Purgatory For a proposition taken abstractedly to be censur'd must be understood in the proper sence of the words and the proper sence of these words The Pope can forgive the pains of Purgatory is that he hath Power and Jurisdiction over Purgatory to forgive punishments there which some one Divine may have â—eld but 't is generally rejected even by Martinus Roa that great Visionaire What should I think of this â—…eless proceeding and corrupting a Pope's Bull in so main a point Truly the good opinion I have of the Authour of the Book will not let me think he did it maliciously but rather to guess that the Bullary consen'd him having copy'd this Bull out of some negligent Transcriber to whose Errour I impute this fault â—or the Ballary is not a publick work but the collection of a private Authour who cannot be free from such mischances Wherefore I let him understand that the Text I cite is out of the Authentical Copies which are conserv'd in Spain 9. Next he brings in the Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther to what purpose is hard to say For I do not know that any man makes difficulty of the three propositions he cites as therein condemned The propositions are these The first that the Treasures of the Church whence the Pope giveth Indulgences are not the merits of Christ and his Saints This proposition was well condemned in Luther who denyed Indulgences and the Pope's Authority in them but what it hath to do with my opinion who profess that the Pope when he remits sins or the pains due unto them doth it in the same Authority in which St. Paul did who clearly says he does it in Persona Christi I do not understand For I think that includes the merits of Christ and to be an immense Treasure if it can be called a Treasure that cannot be consumable in the least part of it The next condemned proposition is that Indulgences to those who do truly gain them do not avail them to gain pardon of the pain due to actual sins by the Divine Justice This proposition may well be Luther's a boystrous fellow more clamorous then understanding But how it can be apply'd to my way of discoursing who profess all punishments Natural Civil and Ecclesiastical which follow sin to be the punishments due to God's Justice which is the plain sence of Scriptures Fathers and Councils falls not into my brain For assuredly he gains not Indulgence who gains not the remission of some of these pains 11. The third proposition brought for condemned is that to six kinds of men Indulgences are neither necessary nor profitable to wit to the Dead c. As for this proposition I think his want of Divinity is cause why he applyes it to me because he understands not how any thing can profit the dead unless it be immediately put into their hands Which Errour of his likely enough is the cause of applying all the rest to my Doctrin For when he hears the Pope pronounce these propositions to be false he presently appprehends the Pope had the same fancies which he has and therefore can mean nothing else but what rings in his Ears Whereas Pope's use to hear all opinions and then to declare so abstractedly as not to hurt any Catholick Tenet but onely what is against all Catholick Doctours 12. But to understand more fully the case it is not amiss to set down a discourse related by Francesco Chiericato Bishop of Fabriano and Nuncio to the Diet of Noremberg against Luther sent by Adrian the sixth with whom he had much acquaintance and confidence He wrote a Diary of what passed in Rome in the beginnings of Adrian the sixth's reign and in it this History How this good Pope had as it is yet to be seen in his works written of the nature of Indulgences and his opinion was that when an Indulgence was granted to any one for doing a good work the work might be so done that the whole Indulgence might be gained But if the work were not perform'd perfectly enough then the performer gaineth so much of the Indulgence as answereth in proportion to the imperfect work This thought the good Pope to decree ex Cathedra and propound it to the whole Church but first communicated his thoughts to Cardinal Caietan who had been a great Student of this question by oâ—der of Leo the Tenth and by the necessity of dealing with Luther and both a better Divine and more practised in the World then Adrian was This man as to the substance of the Divinity-question agreed with the Pope and told him that he stedfastly believ'd the Doctrin in his conscience yet had so carryed it in his writings that none but the most Learned men could draw it from his words Further he gives reasons why he thought it not fitting this Doctrin should be made too publick to the common people 13. This story the Authour of the Roman History of the Council of Trent doth much disparage And as far as concerns the Historical Verity it concerns not me but that at least it is ben trovato that is a likely and rational History seems to me evident out of the opinions of the two men extant not onely in their works but confessed in the Roman History For he confesses tom 1. l. 2. c. 4. that the subtilty that Adrian the sixth invented consisted in this that every good external act might bud out
so out of the way in the whole that I cannot set him right for he mistakes all and makes no sence of my sayings of this point and corrupts what he cites of other points Therfore I must seek the remedy of desperate evils to cut out all this discourse as incurable until he having read what I have written upon his fifth Number become capable of speaking and hearing fence in this matter THIRD DIVISION Containing an Answer to his Eighteenth Chapter Bellarmin's Errours advantageous to Hereticks The Arguments in the Middle-State from Scripture maintain'd to be solid and the Adversary's mis-interpretations shown weak and inconsistent 1. SO thorough many Brambles we are come to his eighteenth Chapter In the Preface of which he gives me two warnings The first that in reason he should expect some clear demonstration to justify the abandoning the known persuasion of the Church And although I have already justify'd that it is no persuasion of the Church but onely a popular Errour which I forsake yet will I not insist upon that not to make needless repetitions But I must tell him he must not expect to see clear demonstration For that belongs to them that have scientifical eyes and not to them who learn onely to bable of what they understand not A Demonstratour must begin from the first Principles of Philosophy and drive them on to his Conclusion not take up his opinions upon Reasons that fall into his mouth out of the Ayr. What he takes out of Faith he must not be onely able to say the words or cite them out of some good Book but he must be sure to understand them well and see that his Explication contradicts neither Divinity nor any other Science And of these two courses neither he nor his Masters as far as I could see were ever guilty They take Texts and urge the letter without ever penetrating the sense and foregoing all principles they fly at every question with fantastick flashes like Hawks at their prey where ever they spy it 2. His second warning is that my Arguments are the out-casts and refuse of their Authours And I am far from denying it For indiscreet people are as subject to reject the best as the worst and if I be not mistaken in hâ—s Authours they ordinarily chuse the worst Opinions for themselves being men that in Sciences hunt after vanity and the pleasing of the unlearned mustitude and so are fit to make a shew in discourse until the weaker sort be beyond their speculation but never understand things solidly nor are able to give satisfaction to sober Wits who look into the depth of a difficulty He concludes that we never take notice of the Answers so fully made to the Objections we take out of his Authours I will not return this upon him and ask him how many Answers he has read in Religion and Reason and my other Writings which he hath read as appears by the impugning of the Doctrin yet will not cite that he may say he knew not of those Solutions which he impugns not But I will onely say let this encounter betwixt him and me bear testimony how fully and solidly the Answers are made 3. He begins his plea with telling his Reader that I borrowed the first and chiefest Objection from that infamous Heretick Ochinus How does he know this Bellarmin says Ochinus uses this Argument What then therefore I found it either in Bellarmin or Ochinus How proves he that The Spirit with which he writes tells him so And my Spirit tells me that the Spirit which tells him so is the Spirit of Errour and Calumny For when I wrote my Book I had neither Bellarmin nor Ochinus Nor did I ever study Bellarmin so much as to remember such particularities out of him I am not ashamed if I had taken any thing out of Bellarmin to acknowledg it For I acknowledg him to be the best Dictionary of Controversies I have seen but a man must beware how he trusts either his Arguments or Solutions Yet he is very good to suggest to a man occasions and matter that may be well used Neither should I be ashamed to use any Argument I had found in Ochinus or any other Heretick so the Argument be solid to my purpose And it is the prognostick of cosenage in the carriage of the cause to make such exceptions An Argument is good and bad by it self not by his Authour and Aristotle used to find the middle truth by comparing the falsities extreâ—mly opposit and so if I by comparing Ochinus and your Divine should find the truth to ly in the middle I should think my action deserve honour and to be profitable to the Church Let us then look into the Argument it self Ochinus to prove there was no Purgatory argu'd if there be a Purgatory then Souls are delivered before the Day of Judgment by prayers but that is false by the Text alleaged c. Now Bellarmin if he had been a solid answerer would have deny'd his first proposition and told him whether prayers deliver'd them before or not yet Purgatory remain'd safe and Ochinus choak'd that he could not have open'd his mouth and this Answer I have found printed at Rome against the Greek Hereticks 4. This Errour produced a greater to wit that their great Bellarmin was forced to confess that the words of the Scripture as they ly or in the plain sence are false and so he fairly betrayes the Catholick position of Purgatory to set up his own fancy For his solution says that these words If there were no Resurrection signify ' If the soul were not immortal which be so different meanings that by many Philosophers the one was confest and the other deny'd So that the two propositions are neither the same nor such as that their connexion is plainly seen Therfore to make this good he fains a third either falsity or at least not proved nor very probable which is that the writer of the second book of Macchabees wrote after Jonathas his time when by reason of a firm peace the Jews fell to dispute about their Law and so into great divisions and sects Whereas by probability this Book was written in Judas his time For it makes no mention of his death which it had been a fault to leave out if it had passed before the book was written which if it be true these words must not be spoken against any infection of Sadduces but of Greeks who had long domineer'd over Jury specially in Antiochus his time 5. His fourth Errour is that he makes our Saviour also make a false Argument and to conclude the Immortality of the soul in stead of the Resurrection and to make this consequence Abraham and Isaac and Jacob's fouls are alive therefore Abraham and Isaac and Jacob's bodies shall rise again The which would not have silenc'd the Sadduces but rather have made them contemn our Saviour For they better understood Resurrection then the being of an abstracted spirit
day it follows clearly that the position putting another time is added to Tradition and being in a matter that depends of Revelation and therefore cannot be known but by Tradition it appears not onely to be a Novâ—… but also ungrounded and not to be followed I must here note how your Divine who heretofore asked for but 〈◊〉 Aâ—…r who should say that the acceleration of the day of judgment was that which we were to pray for can here tell you that such speeches â—re in most common use and that the usual phrasâ— ruâ—s of this day that as the 〈◊〉 of speech is so usual in Scripture it is no wonder that the Fathers and our Liturgies do sometime make use of it Where you shall see a gradation made that in Scripture it is the usual phrase but the Father's and Liturgies do sometime make use of it As if the Fathers did not usually speak as the Scriptures not the Liturgies were made by the Fathers and at least follow their customs though every man of judgment cannot chuse but see the use of Fathers and Liturgies must of necessary be the same with the Scriptures whence they are taken which were it confessed as it is evident what Testimony could I desire at his hands greater then this 11. N. 7. he impugns the Text taken from the tenth to the Hebrewâ— where the Apostle threatneth a Purgation of 〈◊〉 to them who 〈◊〉 after Baptism which Bellarmin is forced to gloss against the Text to avoid Noâ—â—tus his Errour For whereas the Text speaks of a fire that should feed upon those who were not quite contrary to God which words cannot be understood of any â—â—re but Purgatory fire he very freely without any ground of the Text and onely because otherwise it will not stand with his opinion takes no notice of the properties which particularise this fire and by his own Authority puts in Hell fire and a distinction of the effects of these two fires to which sence a Cable is not strong enough to draw the words 12. In his ninth and tenth Paragraphs he impugns the Texts taken out of St. Matthew and St. Lukâ— concerning agreeing with our Adversary in the way that is in our life time that we may not be deliver'd to the eternal Judge And he thinks we urge this Text for not reflecting upon the particular Judgment at the hour of death and I cannot well deny it For I do not remember that in any place of Scripture Christ is called Judge in regard of the next World but either at his Refurrection or at the last day And besides what passeth at mans death I â—â—ke to be very improperly called Judgment and if it were a true Judgment this Formality of your Adversaries delivering you â—ver to the Judge I do not know that any one attributes to particular Judgment Which circumstances though they were pressed where he found the Argument he totally neglected and presses for himself those words of being sent to a Prison there to remain until he pay the last farthing This sayth he is most unnaturally spoken of the day of Judgment after which there remains no prison but eternal And his discourâ—â— were good if this delivery of our Saviour were not Allegoricaâ— that is a human expression of things above human reach and therefore not to be expected to be verify'd entirely to the material word which taken away it signifies no more then at the day of Judgment the sinners shall be punished without remission But to think there shall be other Prison then the mans own guilt or other toâ—…rer then his own knowledg and conscieâ—… is to be proved not supposed And why this must require length of time more then what precedes the sentence and of the which the sentence is the approbation as of all the rest that shall be executed all that day I expect some better declaration before I frame a new Judgment properly so call'd without any ground in Scripture or Antiquity 13. In his eleventh Number he treats the famous place taken out of the third Chapter of the first to the Corinths but so as if he aym'd not to give the sence of it but onely to wave the force from his opinion no matter how much against the words themselves For it being agreed between parties that the Apostle speaks of the day oâ— Judgment and of material fire yet he hath three solutions First that it is meant of no material fire but of the fire of the district Judgment But this is to prevaricate against themselves who agree there is a true material fire at that day which is the faith of all Christians and the Apostles words are plain that that great day shall be revealed in fire Now so far being the common Faith of Christians it is against all sence to say this is not the fire which shall try the works of all men For the Apostle gives for proof or ground why all mens works shall be try'd by fire because sayth he that day shall be revealed in fire What a strange perversion then of the Text is it to make the Apostle make this Argument The day of Judgment shall be revealed in material and elemental fire therefore the works of men shall be try'd by Gods judgment or spiritual districtness and yet this is the sence given to the Apostles words by this Interpretation His second Interpretation is that the meaning is the sinners shall be saved as it were by fire but fire precedent to the fire of Judgment and this explication 〈◊〉 more against the Text then the other For this ground which the Apostle takes that the day of Judgment shall be revealed in fire can be no more brought for the cause why the sinners works shall be try'd by a precedent fire then why they shall be try'd by Gods judgment And besides the Apostle so expressly says that every ones work shall be try'd by the fire in that day or of that day that nothing can be spoken more plainly against the Text then to say it is meant of another fire which went before Likewise that speech that whose work abides the fire he shall be rewarded but if any mans burn he shall suffer detriment is plainly spoken of the fire of that day so that such an interpretation is a plain corruption And no less can be said of his third explication that the meaning is that the fire shall manifest that is shew what was done before but not do any thing For those words If any mans work burns he shall suffer detriment cannot be understood of what was passed before the day of Judgment but of what is done in that day And therefore the trying he speaks of must necessarily be the working of the fire upon the sinners works so that it is evident he and his Bellarmin do not explicate but corrupt the Text against the plain words of the Apostle 14. The ninth Text concerning the Remission of sin in the next world is brought to shew that
actions which cause men to be good in this world are more to be recommended to comprehensive souls But if any one thorough subjectness to passion and shortness of discourse is more moved to Charity by corporeal apprehensions then by strength of reason this praying for the dead is well proposed to him Though the truth is it doth enervate the perfection of Charity not onely in it self by entrenching upon true resignation but also concerning the special fruit of praying for the dead of which the wise man admonishes us saying it is better going to the house of wayling then to the house of banqueting because in the former we are put in mind of the end of all men And J. M. himself cites out of St. Austin that when we celebrate the days of our dead Brethren we ought to have in our mind that which is to be hoped and that which is to be feared that is to say the day of Judgment What a strange humour then is this of men who pretend to devotion to cast away the substantial certain and ever in all Antiquity practised part of praying for the dead to set up a new fallacious uncertain way against the orders of the Church forbidding vncertainties to be taught publiâ—…y to the people against the perfection of those who pray to whom they preach to determin God and to desire a particular effect of which we neither have any promise that it shall be granted nor know whether it stands with Gods providence and even common rules of Government Let then Priests say their Masses and Offices according to the words they find in their Missals and Ceremonials and not frame sences that are not in the words Let them pray as all the former Church hath done and not frame out of Origenical or Chiliastical Principles new inventions to magnify themselves by having some priviledges or more power then others Let them first make it plain that what they profess hath better grounds then such as the Popes call the dreams of devout Persons in their prayers before they impose upon our belief new Articles of Faith Let them not oblige Divines to think that falsities may be solidly connected with Faith and such like Doctrins destructive of Truth and Religion and Devotion I pray also inquire where he found those words in St. Austin whence he father'd that gross absurdity upon him that some should be damned for want of time to be prayed for For I read the Chapter he cites twice over and could espy nothing like it Your Servant T. W. Errata PAg. 28. l. 25. as this is 48. l. 1â— in these 〈◊〉 63. l. â—8 swoun 65. l. 19. struggle 66. l. ult alter the story 67. l. 〈◊〉 â—…ir Inquisition 68. l. 11. severe l. 20. consider how much the torments of this 77. l. 27. we acknowledg 109. l. 28. that the Pope 154. l. 28. If this way 160. l. 18. for fear of being l. 28. knowing 180. l. 6. then we â—udg 181. l. 23. if mine 182. l. 15. Alcuinus 183. l. 24. essence of 184. l. 6. one whether 190. l. 20. not sute p. 19â— l. 6. by â—s 24â— l. 23. change but. 249. l. 16. Peripateticae 253. l. 2. for we FINIS A short Letter sent after the former SInce I writ the former I have found commodity to see the cited Books which before I wanted And can give this accompt of them The Authour of the Oration imposed upon St. John Damascen is an unexcusable Heretick The intent of the Oration to perswade men that however they live they may come to Heaven by other mens Prayers He puts Infidels to have been deliver'd out of Hell by our Saviour Jesus Christ at his descâ—â—sion which St. Gregory declared to be Heresie He puts perfect good works without Faith against the constant Doctrin of St. Paul which is perfect Pelagianism He puts that the Heathen Philosophers knew almost all the Mysteries of our Faith as much as we hear of the Sibyls And to make it wholly fure that he is an Heretick he doth more then half profess his Doctrin is his own invention and that he has evinced against the Prophet saying In inferno quis confitebitur tibi and against the present persuasion of Christians that there is confession in Hell As for Gennadius whom he presses likewise he is of the same stamp He teaches St. John Damascen found this Doctrin of praying for the damned He takes the whole sum of Doctrin out of that Oration He onely cousen'd the Latin Fathers in pretending in common to hold prayer for the dead And being returned into Grece joyn'd with Marcus Ephesinus to annul the Union made in the Council of Florence The work of St. Isidor I find to be none of his but of some Authour who lived about the beginning of the Schools he so perfectly useth the School-terms and so his Authority is no more then of a School-Doctor As for St. Julian of Toledo it is true that he holds the opinion of our Adversaries but so that he confutes their intention For having proposed the question he is so far from saying it was the opinion of the Church that he resolves it as upon his own head and that uncertainly with a Puto I think alleadging St. Austin for his saying whose sentence you have heard examined already So that his Authority is no greater then his ghess that so it is as St. Austin ghessed there might be some such thing So that we have out of St. Julian that it was not the credulity or received opinion in his days By which you will understand how small performances accompany the good mans great boastings And see the growing of their opinion St. Austin ghessed it possible at most for he professes onely not to oppose it The Authour of the Dialogues credited unlikely Revelations St. Julian ghessed it positively St. Odilo and those who follow'd him took it up for certain upon private Revelations The later Greeks upon the like Revelations took praying for damned souls And upon the combining of these two your great Doctour seeks to make it an Article of Faith These short Notes I thought fit to acquaint you with to compleat your satisfaction which done I rest Your Servant Tho. White FINIS