〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have merited promeriti sunt crowns of glory and what oration or speech can sufficiently set forth or reach their Merits where the same word is used they were accounted worthy or did obtain such Crowns and that which he renders their Merits is in the Greek their worthiness or vertue He cites Chrysostom saying in his hom on Lazarus rendred according to their Merits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek sounds according to their desert and speaks of both wicked and good and is no more then what the Scripture often saith according to their works Dispunctio utriusque meriti Tertul in Apolog c. 18. and what Tertullian cals the discrimination or severing of both merits of the one to punishment and of the other to reward as we see set forth in Mat. 25.32 and in the different end of the rich glutton and of Lazarus Luc. 16.25 they were dealt with according to their different lives and thus Clemens in his Strom. doth more then once use this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is according to their works or desert It speaks the difference of desert in the one and the other does not speak the worth or proportion of the work to the reward of eternal life To this purpose it was spoken * Nu. 3. above upon their alledging Ecclus. 16. according to their Merits for according to their Works That which he alledges out of Irenaeus and some other Fathers speaks only to this purpose that eternal life is acquired and obtained by good works which was the second thing we acknowledged to be asserted by the Ancients and by us admitted as a Truth which makes nothing to condign Merit truly so called The Latine Fathers cited by the Cardinal Bel. l. 5. de Justific c. 4. albeit they have the word Merit more frequently yet do they indeed speak no more then the former St. Cyprian we grant does often use the phrase promereri Deum but according to the innocent meaning as I said above of those Times promeneri Deum for obtaining or procuring Gods Favour by doing that which is pleasing to him or for enjoying God or his presence in bliss and glory That which the Cardinal cites out of Greg. Mor. 4. c. 42. out of Celestines Epist and out of Bernard in Cantic contributes no more to the Romish cause then the word Merit put for good Deeds only Greg. implies there that the glory will be proportionably the greater and answerable to the measure of good Deeds which we deny not but we deny that this advancement of the reward and increase of the glory which does so much more set out the divine bounty and free liberality should be made an argument for condignity of mans merit as the Romanists do and the Cardinal did above nu 3 urging those Scriptures for Merit which speak the Reward given in proportion to the works But that which the Cardinal brings out of Celestine who was also Bishop of Rome and is here cited for the Names-sake of Merit speaks indeed against them So great saith he is the goodness of God towards all men Tanta erga omnes homines est bonitas Dei ut nostra velit esse Merita quae sunt ipsius dona pro his quae largitus est aeterna praemia sit donaturus Celest in Ep. that he is pleased they should be our Merits which are his Gifts and that he will give us the eternal rewards for those things which he had bestowed freely upon us before which destroyes the very reason of their Merit properly taken That which is cited out of Ambrose de Offic. l. 1. c. 15. saith no more then according to their works whether they be good or bad as above in the Testimony drawn out of Chrysostome The sayings of Hierome and Hilary speak but the second thing we acknowledged viz that good deeds will obtain or be so rewarded Indeed St. Aug. cited by the Cardinal here may seem to speak more then the former Aug. ep 105. ad Sixtum Sicut merito peccati tanquam stipendium redditur mors ità merito justitiae tanquam stipendium vita aeterna As unto the merit of sin death is rendred as the stipend and wages so is life eternal rendred as a stipend to the merit of righteousness Where the stipend or wages is no more then Reward This is clear by what he saith in relation to the Apostles saying Rom 6. ult A stipend is rendred as due for the labour of the warfare Aug. Enchirid. c. 107. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Id eo dixit stipendium pecsati mors gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est is not freely given therefore the Apostle said The wages of sin is death and therefore eternal life cannot be thus called a stipend but grace or the gift of God except it be free is not grace and St. Aug. adds immediately as consequent to it Intelligendum est igitur ipsa hominis bona merita esse Dei munera quibus cùm vita aeterna redditur quid nisi gratia pro gratia reddi tur Aug. ibid. Therefore we must understand that the Merits or good Deeds of Man are the gifts of God to which when aeternal life is given what is there else given but grace for grace And by this we may see how St. Aug. meant what he speaks elswhere upon that of Rom. 6. ult a saying that the Romanists still oppose to the argument we make against Merit from the Text of the Apostle St. Aug. saying is this Aug. de Gra. lib. arb c. 9. Cum posset dicere recte dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere The Apostle might have said and said it truly that the wages or stipend of Righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the Gift of God He might have said it in a true sense taking the word stipend as above for a reward or recompence not in an equal or answerable sense to the other the wages or stipend of sin is death for then it would not have consisted with the Truth of that which the Apostle did say but the gift of God is life eternal nor with the end and purpose wherefore the Apostle did choose to say the gift rather then the stipend viz. to exclude all thought of merit of condignity as it follows there in St. Maluit dicere Gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. He chose rather to say The gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our Merits but for his Mercy sake There is scarce any of the Ancients that has either commented on that Text of the Apostle or occasionally faln upon it but observes the apparent distinction which the
Apostle purposely makes in saying Death is the wage or stipend of Sin but not saying so of life eternal There is another place cited out of St. August that makes a great noise of Justice in giving the reward Aug. de nat gra c. 2. Non est injustus Deus ut Justos fraudet mercede justitiae God is not unjust saith he that he should defraud or disappoint the just of the reward of their justice or righteousness But upon what respect God is said to be Just in rewarding was shewen * Nu. 3. above in answer to those places of Scripture which spake Gods Justice in that particular And the same answer may serve all those Testimonies which the Cardinal or others bring out of the Fathers saying in some loftiness of Language that man by good deeds may make God his Debtor The Wiseman in effect said so Prov. 19.17 and that proverbial way of speech may bear it That saying of St. Aug. which in this Controversie of Merit Truth has forced the Cardinal thrice to mention will clearly unfold how God becomes and may be call'd Mans Debtor and answer all plea of Merit made from such speeches of the Fathers The Lord saith he Aug. Ps 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se secit non accipiendo sed promittendo makes himself a Debtor and how is that not by receiving from us but promising unto us To this purpose it is what the same Father saith elsewhere * Aug. l. 1. Confess c. 4. O thou that payest Debts or renders what is due yet owest nothing to any man qui reddis debita nulli debes where debita debts are promissa his promises And †Aug. Serm 16. de verb. Apost redde quia accepisti sedâ—edde quia promisisti elsewhere We do not say to God render because thou hast received but render because thou hast promised The Cardinal pretends he can easily answer all this and replies thus It is said so by St. Bel. l. 5. de Justif c. 18. sect Sed facilis absolutè sed solum ex promissione dono suo quod autem non ex sola promissione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficiatur Debitor docet Aug. cum subjungit redde quod promisisti quia fecimus quod jussisti Aug. because God owes nothing to any man absolutely but only by his promise and his own bounty and gift This is fair and true but nothing to his advantage and therefore not many lines after he sups it up again with the same breath saying Nevertheless that God is made our Debter not only by his promise but by our work too St. Aug. teacheth when he subjoyns we may say render what thou hast promised for we have done what thou commandest If this may be said to God Almighty yet with such caution that it cannot as bold as it is be a plea for Merit for it must be said with respect to the bounty and promise of God appointing such a reward for them that do so and so and with acknowledgment of his Free-grace helping us to do so wherefore it follows immediately in St. Et hoc tuâ—fecisti qui laborantes juvisti Aug. Ser. 16. de verbis Apost Aug. which the Cardinall thought good to omit and this thou hast done which hast helped those that labour or strive to do well If we take it not as said in such a respect St. Aug. himself will judge it a proud and presumptuous saying for so it is censured by him Against the plea of Merit upon Ps 142. vers 2. Enter not into judgment where he brings in the presumptuous justifiers of themselves saying * Aug. in Ps 142. Jejunavimus non vidisti fecimus quod jussisti quare non reddis quod promisesti ut accipias quod promisi ego dediut faceres We have fasted and thou seest not we have done what thou hast commanded why dost thou not render what thou hast promised To such saith he God will answer that thou maist receive what I promised I gave unto thee to do Finally the Prophet speaks to such proud ones c. If therefore man may so plead render what thou hast promised for we have done what thou hast commanded it must be with such corrections We have done what thou commandest what thou graciously doest require of us and accept as condition of obtaining what thou hast bountifully promised VVe have done but what was our duty antecedently to thy gracious promise done what thou mightest have required of us without such reward done what thou didst help and enable us to do and done it but imperfectly so that it needs thy merciful acceptation and still we need to say Testimonies of Fathers a gainst Romish Merit Enter not into judgment with thy servants O Lord. Now to proceed to the Testimonies of Fathers against Romish Merit First we alledge their sayings whereby they plainly deny Merit or that we are worthy And here we must observe as to the sense of those words Those that deny Merit and Worthiness in us Merit and Worthy in this Controversie a great difference between those sayings of the Fathers which barely affirm our Merits or Worthiness those which deny the same I say a great difference between the force of the one and of the other For when they affirm they speak according to the remiss sense of Merits put for good works obtaining eternal life and do mean such a worthiness that consists by divine acceptation but when they deny either they speak punctually to the exclusion of that worth and merit which the Church of Rome would establish in the Works themselves Bern. de dedicat eccl ser 5. dignatione divinâ non dignitate nostra Nec dignatio locum habet ubi fuerit prasumptio dignitatis as answerable to the reward Thus Bernard We are so by divine dignation not by our own worth ordignity a little after he saith Divine dignation hath no place where there has been a presumption or conceit of self-dignity Thus when they are upon the negative they speak punctually distinctly of merit and worth as concerned in this Controversie St. Basil speaks home * Basil in Ps 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternal rest saith he remains for them that have striven lawfully in this life not rendred according to Debt unto their works but given according to the grace of a bountiful God He speaks it with reverence to those words of the Apostle Henceforth a Crown is laid up for me 2 Tim. 4. and a distinction borrowed from the same Apostle Rom. 4.4 of grace or of debt and so cuts out all the core of pretended Merit which the Romanists would fix in the former place of 2 Tim. 4. Bel. l. 5. de Inâ—â—â—f c. 6. The Cardinal cites this Testimony of St. Basil as objected by Protestants and shuffles pitifully in his replies to it First leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
never destitute of an Evasion or whether indeed it be the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the meaning of the Councils Vere merentur that good works done in grace do as truly deserve and are as condignly meritorious of eternal life as sins and evil deeds are of eternal death I will not further inquire into but out of that which has been said we may draw up the Question to this Issue That the first way set down by the Cardinal and rejected by him Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of the Covenant and Promise only was indeed The Issue of the Question if rightly interpreted the true and ancient Doctrine of the Church asserted by the Fathers and the former Writers of the Church of Rome as may in part be seen by those Authors whom the Cardinal and Vasquez have noted and rejected We need not here be afraid of the words condignly meritorious for being joyned with those words in regard of the Covenant and promise only they must have such a sense as their consistence will allow which is by interpreting the word meritorious according to the first importance of consecution or obtaining and the word condignly according to such a deserving or worthiness as stands by divine acceptation when we do the condition which the promise requires in such a sort as God will accept unto a rewarding Even as in Scripture holy Men are said to be just and perfect through divine acceptation So it comes to this plain Truth The good Works and Life of holy Men will be accepted of God as good and faithful service and certainly obtain eternal life See Mat. 25.21 Well done thou good c. In this sense the Augustan and Wittenburg Confessions did not abhor to use the word meritorious nor Brentius and Melanchthon as Vasquez notes of them and in this sense we need not be affraid to admit it and to say that good works do merit that is do obtain or are rewarded with eternal life through the gracious acceptation bounty and promise of God and one would think this were enough for us both to encourage us to do good and to comfort and stay us in the doing of it and persevering in it without standing upon any farther title or contesting with God that we have made him our Debter or that eternal life is due to our works for the worth of them This is therefore that which we deny That good works do truly and properly merit eternal life Truly and properly I say as deserving it upon the worth of the work and good reason have we to deny it Finding all they can bring from Scripture or Fathers as I hinted above impertinent and inconsequent to the proving of Merit truly so called yea it will appear that the more ancient writers of the Church of Rome are against it yea they that asserted it are forced sometimes by Truth it self to yield so much as may overthrow it First out of Scripture they give us two places bearing the Name of Merit Scripture alledged for the Name Merit but it is only according to their Latin translation not according to the Original Greek The one place is Eccles 16.15 according to the merit of their works so their Edition but the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is according to their works as we finde it often said in the Scriptures But Bellarm. reddere ficut opera merentur and Vasquez reply what is it to render according to their works but to render to them as their works deserve or merit to which we may say Albeit such expression as their works deserve may be very well admitted yet is there much difference between Secundum opera according to works and as their works deserve or merit taking the word Merit in the Cardinals sense for to say according to their works is but to speak the quality of them that it shall be well with those that do well and on the contrary evil to those that do evil it does not speak equality between the work and the reward St. Gregory speaks home to this purpose upon the 143. Greg. in 7. Psalmum poenitential v. 8. Si secundâ—un opera quomodò misericordia aestimabitur Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim ipsa operum qualitas intelligiuâ— Psalm If it shall be rendred to every one saith he according to their works how shall it be accounted mercy but it is one thing to render according to works another to render it for the works themselves for in that where it 's said according to their works the very quality of the works is meant that they whose works appear good shall have a glorious retribution Another place they alledge for Merit is Heb 13.16 which in their Latine Edition has promeretur Deus as bad Latine as Divinity In the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well pleased and so by Occumenius the word is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as well pleased Indeed the Ancient Latine Fathers did some of them especially St. Cyprian according to the ancient and innocent meaning of the word Merit use to say promereri Deum i. e. to engage or obtain of God what he had promised but we do not contend about Words or Phrases Let us see what they bring for the proof of the thing it self Merit truly so called First they alledge all those Scriptures that call eternal life a Reward Their Scriptures to prove the thing From Reward and compare it to the hire or pay of Labourers We grant it is so often call'd but the Inference therefore our works or labour does truly merit such reward is inconsequent for the Apostle supposes there is a reward reckoned of Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. in prafat Ps 31. as there is of Debt Rom. 4.4 Accordingly St Aug. Merces nostra vocatur Gratia Our Reward is called Grace and if so then is it freely given And St. Ambrose tels us in his Epistles there is Merces liberalitatis the Reward or Recompence of liberality where bounty is seen on the one part rather then desert on the other Between man and man there may be Merit and Reward according to debt or justly due not so between God and man yet is Gods rewarding set out by the other to shew the certainty of the recompence and that it shall be rendered according to their works not that the similitude stands good in all parts for the duty of man to God is antecedent to all covenant or promise the ability man has to perform it is from Gods free grace the reward given is infinitely beyond all that man can do Secondly Of Reward given in proportion to Works They alledge all such Scriptures as speak the reward given according to works therefore proportionably to the works and what is that else but according to Merit when as in giving there is regard had
of the Cathari shews that after this life ended the condition is unalterable the receptacles sealed up the Crowns given Not so if souls truly penitent go to purgatory for of such souls he speaks there against the Novatians Thus much of the Place of Souls We come now to the second Head Prayers for the Dead infer not Purgatory that is Prayer for the Dead from which the Romanists would infer Purgatory And for Scripture proof they give us 2 Machab. 12.43 a fit foundation for such an Article of Faith the book of all the Apocryphals least considerable which will easily appear to him that layes together what the Author himself saith of his own work in his 2. chap. v. 23 24 26. and chap. 15.38 39. Evidences enough of a meer humane work done by the labour of the brain not the inspiration of the Holy Ghost St. Aug. indeed sometimes cals these books Canonical according to the large acception of the African Church but being put to answer an argument of the Donatist grounded upon the * Machab. example of Razis he much lessens the Authority of them as not to be compared with the books of the Law and Psalms Aug. contra Gauden l. 2. c 23. quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis Luc. 24 44. recepta non inutiliter si sobrie legatur and the Prophets to which saith he our Lord gives testimony as to his Witnesses But this writing of the Mach. is received of the Church not unprofitably if it be read soberly Gregory Bishop of Rome citing a place out of these Books Greg. Moral l. 19. c. 13. excuses it because he did it out of Books not Canonical in Moral l. 19. c. 13. Again he that well considers the place will easily distinguish between the Fact of Judas and the mistaken collection or misapplication of the writer of that Book Judas no doubt did piously for he seeing their Sin or Sacriledge as the cause why they were slain vers 40. fell to his devotions prayed and sent a sin-offering to Jerusalem v. 42.43 Not for the sin of them that died that 's the mistake of this Writer but upon occasion of their sin to divert the Wrath from the rest of his Army as Joshua thought himself concerned upon the sin of Achan Josh 7.10 Also it is apparent that they died in their sin the things they had stoln being found about them which argues both the incogitancy of this writer who vers 45. supposes they died godly and the impertinency of the Romanists who suppose them in Purgatory whither they send none that dye in their sins but only justified persons They also urge 2 Tim. 1.18 for praying for the Dead whereas that prayer for Onesiphorus supposing him dead at that time has but reference to the Mercy which shall be imparted at the last day to which also the prayers of the Ancient Church do much refer and make nothing for Purgatory And therefore all the Testimonies they bring out of the Ancient Fathers or Councils for praying for the Dead are impertinent as to the proving of a Purgatory there being other Reasons for such praying as we shall see A wilful perverting it is of that Ancient Practice to draw it off as the Church of Rome has done from the first intent and purpose to fasten it upon their conceit of Purgatory pains We shall see this better by the trial following The Ancients when they set themselve to give reasons of the Churches praying for the Dead Other purposes of such Prayers give not this of Purgatory which had been most obvious and most fit to stop the mouth of the Adversary had it been the Doctrine of the Church but other Reasons they alledge differing from or inconsistent with Purgatory This appears by Epiphanius who was put to it by Aerius questioning the prayers made in the Church for the Dead and by Dionysius in his Hierarchy who puts himself to answer the like Questions In both of them it appears that the intent of the Church by those Prayers was mainly this The instruction of the living and the confirming of their Hope See first what Epiphanius saith He cals this practice a seemly preaching or publishing Epiph. Har. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of what of the happy estate and Rest of those that dye in Christ whereby the belief of the living was confirmed and their hope raised What more profitable saith he then that the living should believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that are departed are in being and do live with the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again There is hope saith he to them while they pray for their Brethren as now in their peregrination or absence Insinuating that albeit they are departed or gone from them yet they shall meet again Also to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is more perfect which must refer to the state of the next life for saith he while we are here in the world we offend often And lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all men do offend and slip in this life more or less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore we pray for all even for Patriarchs c. to separate Christ from all other for he being without sin altogether is not to be prayed for but to be prayed unto and worshipped These are all the Reasons he gives of their praying for the Dead which we see do respect and provide for the instruction of the Living and do not imply any such state of the Dead in pain and grief as Purgatory supposeth but the Contrary Now see we what the Romanists endeavour to pick out of words Because he saith Prayer for the Dead is profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. although it cuts not off sins all or wholly they infer thence therefore it doth cut off sin in part We answer As Epiphanius does not say that so neither could he mean it For first we must suppose he would not answer impertinently to Aerius who objected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the prayers of the living altogether profit the Dead then let no man live Godly c. Therefore Epiphanius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must answer to Aerius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and must be understood of the sins of such persons as Aerius spoke of such as had no care of their lives but left it to their living friends to pray for them after death Now if Epiphanius should mean that prayer did in part cut off such mens sins then must he speak according to that merciful opinion of mitigating the pains of the Damned by the prayers of the Living with which conceit some of the Ancients were tainted as we shall see below but this would be nothing to Purgatory Secondly if his meaning had been as the Romanists would have it that prayer for the Dead did not cut off such mens sins but that there was another sort of sinners
of Logick or Reason we envy it not but it was neither Prudeut nor seemly for the Cardinal to conclude that unless such Inference were good our Saviour had spoken inconsiderately or as his word sounds foolishly whereas we saw above our Saviour might speak so in many respects without reference to any such Purgatory In respect to the Age of the Messiah according to the opinion of the Jewes In respect to the General judgment of God and the sentence then to be passed In respect to the forgiveness of sins and that loosing made on earth Another respect we may add and say our Saviour might speak so in regard of the punishment of the world to come which is the necessary consequent of not forgiven shall not be forgiven i. e. shall be punished So Ferus on the place and Chrysostom And this will bring us to their Inference from these words which was the third thing they were to make good and it is directly contrary to that of St. Chrysostom III. They infer Purgatory pains from the forgiveness which they suppose to be in the world to come forgiven i. e. punished This is inconsequent and inconsistent First in regard of the Time for the forgiveness of the world to come is that final open absolution or forgiveness at the Last day but their Purgatory forgiveness and punishment is secret and before that last day But here they seem to answer that sins indeed are forgiven at the last day but to them that have first parsed the Purgatory fire and for this an obscure place of St. Aug. is alledged Even as at the resurrection there will not be wanting some Aug. de Civ Dei l. 21. c. 24. Sicut factâ resurrectione non deerunt quibus post poenas quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum impertiatur misericordia ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter directeur to whom after the pains which the souls of the departed do suffer mercy may be imparted so that they shall not be cast into eternal fire For it would not else be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this nor the world to come What these pains are and when suffered he speaks not and in the application of this Scripture he goes alone Only he is plain for the Time of this forgiveness or imparting of mercy that it is at the resurrection But this will not stand with the Purgatory forgiveness nor with the profit to be raised out of Papal Indulgences by which Souls may be loosed out of Pains every day and sent to heavenly bliss before the resurrection Secondly in regard of the Opposition between Forgiveness and punishment The former Inference which from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven concluded some sins shall be forgiven then the Cardinal acknowledged not to follow according to the Rules of Logick but from their supposed forgiveness to infer punishment is still more unreasonable The Scripture sets reconciliation with God against paying the utmost farthing Mat. 5.25 sets the forgiving of the dâ—bt against the paying of the debt Mat. 18. 32. 34. The Greeks after the Council of Florence set out their Apologie concerning Purgatory in reference to what they had discoursed with the Latines there where we finde this to be one point of difference between them * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What agreement say they is there between Remission and such purgation or punishment there is no need of both and a little after they shew that St. Aug. was the first that conceited this middle kinde of punishment after this life in order to forgiveness of some sins and the occasion that brought him into that conceit they also declare which we shall mention under the next Head Our fourth General Head was concerning the Pains and punishment between Death and the Resurrection Of Pains after Death The Text of 1 Cor. 3.13 misapplied to the Purgatory Fire We have already considered them in relation to Forgiveness of â—n now more specially of the Purgatory punishment to which the Romaâ—â—ists apply what they meet with touching the purgation of fire We will first examine that noted place of Scripture so often misapplied by them to their purgatory Fire It is 1 Cor. 3.13 the fire shall try every mans work and vers 15. He shall be saved yet so as by fire The Cardinal acknowledges this to be one of the most difficult places Bel. de purg l. 1. c. 5. Vnum ex difficillimis locum and that so St. Aug. thought of it and consequently he should have acknowledged it no fit place to ground an Article of Faith on as affording no more certainty of a purging fire after death then such as St. non in credibile so sitan ita est non redarguo Aug. does usually express in the several places where he fals upon this Text such a thing is not incredible It may be it is so and if any will take it so I do not reprove him Again the Cardinal giving us the several opinions of the Ancients about the meaning of Hay and Stubble there mentioned he cannot finde any before St. Gregory that understood thereby Venial sins and therefore all the Ancients were far from conceiving any such purgatory couched in this place Also in giving us the several opinions of the Ancients touching this Fire Bel. ibid. Sect. Tertio quia He tels us all the Ancients seem by the day mentioned ver 13. to understand the day of the last judgement and he gives four Reasons to prove it so and after their different opinions of the fire there also mentioned he concludes that cannot be the purgatory fire because the fire in St. Paul touches all Bel. ibid. onmes tangit at Ignis purgatorius non probat opera eorum even those that build gold and silver But the Purgatory fire does not prove their works Apostolum â—olqui de igne severt justi judicii Dei qui non est ignis purgans affligens sed probans examinâ—ns It remains therefore that we say the Apostle speaks of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God which is not a purging and afflicting fire but a proving and a trying fire and for this he gives unanswerable reasons and in asserting this the Cardinal is sound and ingenuous But what will become then of his Purgatory fire and wherefore is this Text urged for it He finds it in the 15. vers shall be saved yet so as by fire This in the Cardinals imagination is the purging fire But what consent of Fathers for this interpretation He acknowledges that some of the Ancients do here also understand the fire of Tribulation some the fire of Conflagration some the eternal fire as St. Chrysost and Theophylact taking the word * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saved catachrestically for an eternal abiding or living in the fire All these therefore are not for the Romish purgatory
by good works which was somewhat more absurd for charity receives life from faith arising and advancing according to the apprehensions that faith has of the goodness and mercy of God and his several manifestations of it and therefore S. Paul saith it worketh by charity Gal. and note that all his proof for this informing or vivificating of saith by charity is S. Iames his saying that Abrahams faith was made perfect by works wherein as I noted * Ibid. above appear both the falshood of his interpretation and the impertinency of his argument for works belong to his second justification but that informing of faith by charity is supposed to be done in the first A working faith it is that S. Iames requires and so do we to justification a believing with the whole heart as Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 a faith that engages the whole heart in receiving Christ not only for the benefits of his merits and participation of his righteousness but also for obedience to his command and performance of every Christian duty Such was Abrahams faith or believing to which his justification is ascribed the acts of it were pure acts of faith though virtually including works because a readiness to do works of every kinde or obey any of Gods commands Lastly Albeit such a faith justifies as gaining at present remission of sins past and giving a right to the heavenly inheritance yet no man shall gain finall justification and absolution if he continue not in doing good works i. e. if his faith continue not to work as Abrahams did And this is that S. Iames intended by propounding Abrahams example for works not denying his justification by faith but urging it was such a faith or believing that continued working by fuitable obedience to every command of God CHAP. V. Of the Merit of good works THe Council of Trent has defined The notion and reason of merit that good works do verè mereri truly merit increase of grace and eternal life but neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer tells us wherein the reason of merit stands that we might know what it is they contend for when they speak of a work truly meritorious Many fair acknowledgements their Council makes as of the free grace mercy promise of God merits of Christ Sess 6. c. 16. which Mr. Spencer calls the grounds of merits pa. 162. But if they stand to this we have the cause yeilded to us and nothing left but a verbal controversy for those former particulars are so far from being grounds of our meriting truly and properly that they directly overthrow it One would have thought that the verè mereri our truly meriting should imply all the conditions requisite to merit truly and properly taken and that the doctrine of condignity or merit upon worth of the work which the men of Mr. Spencers society generally contend for should be the sense of the Councils definition but that Council was wiser then to speak too plain in this point in which there is so great difference amongst them and therefore may seem to content both parties the one with this verè mereri◠truly merit and the other dissenting party with the former acknowledgments of free grace mercy promise Christs merits as grounds of merit And Mr. Spencer may remember of what society he is and how most of his Fellows speak out and say The righteous merit eternal life by their good works even as the wicked do eternal death by their evil works this is plain and home to a verè mereri truly meriting however he minces it at the beginning with professions of free grace divine acceptation and promise as pa. 164 165. Well notwithstanding all the fair proressions they make when put to it such indeed as overthrow merit truly taken yet will they hold the name and thing of mans meriting eternal life and so propound it grosly to the people They know best how it concerns them By reason of such general concessions of their Council Goodworks acceptable to God he will have some words in our 22. Article to favour merit of good works because it saith they are pleasing and acceptable unto God in Christ From whence he infers 1. Then are they no way sinfull but truly and absolutely good and just for no sin can be pleasing to God in Christ pa. 167. But this is too carlessly spoken for if absolutely good say we then had there been no need to have added in Christ such works would been pleasing and acceptable of themselves We say also good works are truly good and just but not absolutely so they are not sins but something sinfull may stick to them in the performance some imperfections and defects some mixture of by-respects and glances at self-interest yet because they are good both for substance and for manner of performance as to the chief respects and motives upon which they are done they are truly good though not absolutely for which the Article saith they cannot endure the severity of Gods judgment Not that God accepts those sinfull imperfections or accrescencies as he would infer upon us but pardoning and over-looking them in Christ he accepts the good works And what else is the cause that they acknowledge it so hard for a man to know he has merits upon which * Tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia reponere De justific l. 5. c. 7. Bellar. concludes it most safe to put our whole confidence in Gods mercy only what but defects and imperfections which are less perceptible when the works themselves are notorious enough 2. He infers seeing such good works have the promises annexed to them and shall be rewarded in Christ they are truly meritorious in Christ having such a supernatural goodness in them The conformity of good works to the Reward conformable to that heavenly reward and this is all which is taught by the Church of Rome in this point So he pa. 168. This is the most he speaks to the reason of merit or why works are meritorious viz. Reward and Conformity but the first Reward upon the free promise as he affirms it to be takes away more from the reason of merit then the latter which is Conformity can adde unto it for that conformity if our works or sufferings be weighed or examined with the weight of glory falls short by infinite degrees 2 Cor. 4.17 Rom. 8.17 A conformity we grant between good works and the reward as between grace and glory the way or means and the end but it must be equality in worth and value that makes merit And that Conformity or Equality were it to be had is but one of the things requisite to make truly meritorious there are other conditions as that the service be of our own not his enabling us of whom we are said to merit also that the service be not of antecedent duty to the Compact also that the reward be though by compact yet not out of
holding the doctrin of Works truly meritorious and accordingly trusting in them The next place is Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life Here he will have us mistaken in the word Wages Life eternal the gift of God excluding merit and gift misapplied by us Why so because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred Wages signifies the base stipend of common Souldiers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred gift signifies a donative a more noble reward anciently given to them that had carried themselves more valiantly thus pa. 171. thence he will have the true meaning of the Text to be the base recompense of sin is death but the high and noble reward of God is life eternal pa. 172. But first who taught him to render the true meaning of Scripture by such significations of the word as the Scripture does not own for where can he finde in Scripture the word Charisma to signify such a Donative Charisma free gift but alwayes the free gift of God his own Latine edition renders it gratia Dei the grace i. e. free favour or gift of God Again be it so that the Apostle whose purpose is to shew the different reward of sins service and Gods had some reflexion that way of stipend and Donative among Souldiers it s but verbal an using of like words not affording any plea or answer in this point when we speak of Gods gift or donative For first If Souldiers could pretend any merit for a donative it was for some special service above duty or of custom upon the succession of a new Prince and then it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift rather then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift such as that word in Scripture-use signifies and such as Gods gifts and rewards to us are Secondly Souldiers have not from the Emperour that so rewards or gratifies them the strength courage and valour which he so rewards in them but this Donative of Gods gift implies such notions of grace free grace for the performance of the service free grace for the acceptation of the service free grace in the promise of the reward as exclud all merit At length he begins to yeild to the true signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we take the word saith he for a pure free gift we may answer with S. Augustine and the Council of Trent that because the good works and merits themselves are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heaven which is deserved by them is called truly a gift also because the primary title and right which all Gods children have to eternal life is that of inheritance which is the free gift of eternal life may be properly called the gift of God 172. Thus does his answers and concessions which truth forces from him overthrow the doctrine of merit properly taken For if eternal life is called properly the gift of God and our good works be the free gifts of God then cannot they in any proper sense be truly meritorious of eternal life And because he mentioned Saint August take his sense of this Text. * Cum possit dicerectrecle dicere stipendium justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere gratia Dei vita aeterna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Aug. de gratia lib. Arbitrio cap. 9. Whereas the Apostle might say and say it truly the wages of righteousness is life eternal he chose rather to say the gift of God is life eternal that we might understand how God brings us to eternal life not for our merits but for his mercies sake Another place is Eph. 2.8 9. Saved by Grace not by works least any should boast He gives here the Answer we had above in the point of justification The Grace of God excludeth merit properly taken That these works are such as are done before Justification of Grace distinguished from the good works of the Regenerate of whom it is said v. 10. Created to good works so he p. 170. True they are to be distinguished but here the opposition stands between Works and Grace not only in regard of Justification but even to the last Salvation and with a denial of merit which is here boasting so Rom. 4.4 to him that worketh c. he directly shews that meriting by works which challenges the reward as of debt is excluded by grace in the way of salvation so that if any man will merit by works he must do them of himself according to the condition of the Legal Covenant but if he must come into the way of grace to stand in need of a Redeemer for forgiveness of sins past for a supply of free grace for performance of good works for divine acceptation of his performances through the merits of that Redeemer he is clean out of the road of meriting or challenging the reward as debt in any proper sense And therefore how vain are their pretty sayings for evasions That our merits are his gifts That they merit through the merits of Christ or that Christ has merited that we should merit and that good works are meritorious through divine acceptation All which speaks contradiction or folly For to say Christ has merited that we should merit is to acknowledge we are indebted to God for giving his Son to die for our sins and for his purchasing or meriting the first grace for us but then that we enabled thereby should begin to make God and our Saviour endebted to us in the reward of eternal life Christ indeed has merited that we should not be bound to merit that is to obtain salvation by our merits or performance of exact obedience by our selves according to the Legal Covenant Again he has merited that we might be under grace and so perform good works created unto good works To say that Christ has merited that we should merit or that God accepts our works as truly meritorious is to alledge that for the merit of works which excludes it To obtain the reward by works because they are done in Grace or of grace is sense but to merit by works because done in or by grace is folly and contradiction He proceeds to prove the Catholick Position as he calls it That the works of the Regenerate are such as can deserve Heaven where it is our turn again to observe his mistakes in the places of Scripture which he brings to prove his Catholick Position The argument from them is altogether inconsequent to prove a deserving of heaven in any proper sense of merit His places are 2 Tim. 4.7 8. God is righteous in rewarding yet works are not meritorious wherein he will have the words righteous or just judge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give or render and a Crown of righteousness to favour his plea for merit as if by these expressions were implied that God
in justice rewards that he renders or restores so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before that the reward is a Crown of justice so he will have it that is saith he a true reward or price gotten by labour Which appears saith he by 1 Cor. 9.24 our running for it and by 2 Cor. 4.17 by afflictions working for us an eternal glory whence he gathers if they work a Crown of glory then are they a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit pa. 173. then to shew they are worthy of eternal life he cites Revel 3.4 for they are worthy adding Heb. 6.9 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work which must imply the same as the righteous judge will render 2 Tim. 4.8 If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace promise acceptation which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions not such as he would draw out of them For the free grace which he and his Council yeilds is given us for performance of the work that is of that fighting and running and then cannot merit truly what follows on it in the way of reward also that free and liberal promise of the reward in performing of which God is just and righteous to render the reward the Crown of righteousness will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of Gods justice as due to the worth of the work or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit they have their work and causality in their way or measure Non causa regnandi sed via Regni They are not the cause of reigning but the way of or to the kingdome saith a Father Conditions of obtaining the promise not true Causes in the way of meriting it we may adde 1 Jo. 1.9 where God is said to be just in forgiving our sins in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it confessing their sins Lastly that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yeild is that by which they are accounted worthy Rev. 3.4 And we may note that when the Scripture saith not worthy as Rom. 8. How said to be worthy v. 18. and in other places saith are worthy the Negative must be taken properly as to true value and worth the affirmative must be understood in some respect are worthy as to Gods account and gracious acceptation Also note that the Scripture saith not worthy of our doings or sufferings to shew they are so if examined compared with the reward but saith Worthy of the Persons which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them though imperfect and unanswerable to it See what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August saith and rewarded through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness The best acknowledg unworthiness he answers that by this cannot be understood that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works but no merit in proper sense So to Ps 130.3 If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss who may abide it This proves not saith he that no Saint has any good works or merits for they do many things amiss yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Author which is his perpetual mistake and that which he grants they do some things amiss some things aright shews good works may be where no merit is i. e. where many things are done amiss Merit cannot be where there is still need of pardon where there is still need to beg Lord enter not into judgment with thy servant Psal 143.2 that is that God would not deal with him in extremity of judgment or as he deserves How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded notwithstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss and are in themselves imperfect how can such a person by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eternal life There is a saying of S. Augustine Multum nobis in hac carne tribueremus si non usque ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus We should attribute too much to our selves in this flesh or time of this life if we did not live under Pardon to the very deposition of it or to the end of our life So then to conclude as S. Augustine said our merits are Gods gifts which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works because done by Gods free grace or gift so was it a saying of an ancient Father my merit is the mercy of God which excluds merit à parte post in the end when our works are admitted to the reward because that is done through Gods mercifull acceptation CHAP. VI. Purgatory OF the fower particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council The unreasonableness of Romish Purgatory three of them speak their own unreasonableness and carry their condemnation in their forehead 1. That just persons after they have as they hold merited heaven at Gods hand by their justice and died acceptable to him should go to a Purgatory to be tormented 2. That the mercifull God after the Remission of their sin after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of his Son should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment and that only for some remainder of temporal pains not satisfied or born in this life when as that punishment exceedingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all temporal gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done where the poor must be content with the general suffrages of the Church but the Rich that dy and can pay for it have many particular Masses Indulgences in order to their ease or delivery The places of Scripture here brought in the sense of which he will have us mistaken are such as are intended for comfort against sufferings in this life and against dissolution or death by the bettering of their estate but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts and his answers miserable not only mistakes but wrestings of Scripture The first place is Revel 14. Blessed are the Dead who dy in the Lord that they may rest from their labours and their works follow them or
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial pa. 185. His Argument for Purgatory punishment This is great boldness whether we look at the comparison of the things or the difficulty of the undertaking but he learnt this from his Master the * Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 15. Cardinal who was not ashamed to say it and Mr. Spencer is not afraid to follow him let him say and undertake what he will His pretended Demonstration proceeds thus Purgatory is the place where temporal punishments are suffered by just persons after death which they deserved in their life now if any justified soul be liable to suffer such after death then there is a place where they must suffer them To prove them liable to such punishments he endeavours to shew that justified persons yet living after remission of their sins and consequently of eternal Torment are liable to some temporal punishment pa. 185 186. This proposition is too infirm to make a demonstration or proof of Purgatory for we may ask if upon remission of sin consequently there be a remission of eternal why not consequently of temporal punishment he dare not say that temporal punishment is not remitted when sin is forgiven and therefore saith liable to some temporal punishments and pa. 187. he saith God retains part of the punishment he means to be satisfied or payed by us which will be found true only when it pleases God to reserve some and inflict it yet not as satisfactory punishment but for other purposes as we shall see Again we may ask though it be true that remission of sin be consequently the remission of eternal punishment and that so me living are after remission of their sin temporally afflicted with respect to that sin yet how will this consequently fall upon just persons dead To make good the proposition that just men living are liable to some temporal punishment he brings the example of David punished with the death of his child * 2 Sam. 12.13 14. Of punish ment reserved and inflicted after forgiveness of sin and of Adam who after his sin forgiven was notwithstanding liable to death as all just persons are for the same reason pa. 186. His alledging the example of Adams sin punishmed by death is altogether impertinent to the question and Mr. Spencer surely knew it well enough for his question is not concerned in the punishments immediately upon Original sin which cleaves universally to our nature and from which no just persons whatsoever though they have fully satisfied as they suppose for temporal punishments are free but the question is concerned only in the temporal punishment due to actual sins committed after baptisme for to these only belongs the doctrine of satisfaction as he knows their Trent Council has defined for mortality and bodily infirmities following the natural state are not matter for satisfactions or indulgences to work on as the Romanists will grant Let us therefore examine his other example of David whether it will prove his Proposition We say just persons after the remission of their sins are not liable to temporal punishment Ordinarie ordinarily and of course that is God does not alwayes reserve some temporal punishment or part of the temporal punishment due to their sin and to be inflicted or satisfied for by themselves but does reserve such punishments to be inflicted when and as he thinks fit Again when he does reserve and inflict them it is not in ordine justitiae in order to his justice requiring punishment as satisfactory to it which he must suppose when he saith if not suffered here it must be else where But Almighty God inflicts such punishments for other reasons and purposes as for correction and amendment of persons so fuffering or at least for admonition to others as when the person suffering dyes or is taken away by the punishment So that such punishments after sin forgiven are not properly satisfactory as the Romanists must and do suppose but Castigatory at least admonitory to others We grant such punishments are inflicted Other reasons of punishment besides satisfaction and that with relation to and by occasion of sin as Davids was not out of vindicative justice requiring satisfaction as they must suppose but for other reasons of Correction or admonition as was said and as appears by the reason the Lord gives of Davids punishment Howbeit that is notwithstanding that thy sin is taken away and the punishment due unto it because thou hast by this deed or sin given great occasion to the enemies of the lord to blaspheme which also gives us another reason of Gods some time punishing such persons that he may shew he does not approve sin in his children but that it is displeasing to him as is said 2 Sam. 11. ult but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord Now that God Almighty does not ordinarily and alwayes reserve such punishment after forgiveness appears 1. Because he has no where declared that such punishments are reserved or do remain after forgiveness to be satisfied for by us but every where has declared he is well satisfied with the fruits of repentance that is if the person to whom he forgives sin carefully avoids the like sin and performs the contrary duties 2. because he has set out his forgiveness as perfect and full a pardoning of the whole debt of which the temporal punishment due to sin is part and in this point of forgiving he would have us imitate him Be mercifull as he is merciful Luc. 3. Another reason of our denying satisfactory punishment inflicted after forgiveness of the sin is because that forgiveness is imparted for the satisfaction of Christ which was full and all-sufficient payed by him for the whole debt or punishment due to sin for he bore our griefs and our chastisement Isa 53.4 5. even all that sin made us liable to whether eternal or temporal And yet is the Cardinal so bold as by distinguishing of satisfaction for sin to give us part with and under Christ in the work saying that our Saviour satisfied immediately i. e. Bel. l. 4. de poenit c. 15. porro Immediatè pro culpa reatu mortis aeternae mediaâ—e pro poena etiam temporali quatenus gratiam praebet per quamipsi nos Domino satisfacimus by himself for the fault and for the guilt of eternal death and mediately for the temporal punishment also in as much as he affords us grace whereby we our selves satisfy the Lord. Had he said our Saviour satisfied for the Temporal punishment also so that it is either wholly remitted to the Righteous or if any be inflicted grace is given to bear it and the affliction sanctified to their advantage even death it self with all other corporal infirmities and afflictions whatsoever Had he spoke to this purpose it had been wholsome doctrine Thus for his Antecedent or Proposition That Reservation of punishment whether it can hold after death as concerning just persons living liable
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
fire As for those Fathers he cites they have another meaning Cyprians words Long purged with fire purgari diu igne were above cleared to be spoken in relation to the severity of Ecclesiastical censures and penances in this Sect. nu 3. That which he has out of St. Ambrose speaks no more then what the Cardinal before had cited him for the fire of the severe judgment of God cui jun emendato not emendatorio igne opus non sit That which he brings out of St. Aug. upon Ps 37. To whom there is no need of the amending fire is falsly cited for it should be thus To whom being amended there is no need of fire that is the fire of tribulation which God uses in this life to that purpose and of which St. August often interprets the fire here mentioned in this place These are the three Fathers he alledges here for his interpretation of this Text altogether impertinently and these very Testimonies he cites again * Bel. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. in his chapt of proofs out of Fathers for the Purgatory Fire or punishment The like impertinency may be observed in all his other witnesses alledged there and misapplied by him Testimonies oâ— Fathâ—rs misapâ—lied as as to the Purgatâ—ry Fâ—re That which is cited out of St. Ambrose upon ps 36. is plainly spoken of the last day That which the same Father hath upon Psal 1. vers 5. of a fire which they must endure between the first and second resurrection 〈…〉 magi quà m Luâ—em that loved darkness more then light I know not well what to make of sure I am it cannot fit their Purgatory Fire For they that love darkness more then light are of the worst sort and those the Church of Rome does not send to the Purgatory but Hell fire In Hilar. upon Ps 119. Gimel the Cardinal meets with mention of an unwearied or not ceasing fire Ignis indefessus and misapplies it to his conceit of Purgatory but is plainly meant of the Fire at the last day Hierom also upon the last words of Isa their fire is not quenched is alledged by the Cardinal but the Father expresly speaks there of wicked Christians for whom the unquenchable fire of Hell is prepared and to that fire that place of the Prophet is applied in the Gospels Basil upon Isa 9.18 is cited to which may be added what the same Father saith upon Isa 4.4 In both places he has nothing appliable to the Romish Purgatory fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but speaks of the Purgation or examination by the fire of the day of Judgment and shews in cap. 9.18 how our sins are like grass for the spreading increase thereof but by repentance and confession are dried and withered and made like Hay and Stubble fit for burning up which alludes to 1 Cor. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then shall sin so dried and withered be consumed by the purging fire viz. by the fire of the divine judgment before mentioned The Greeks in the Council of Florence do well interpret that devouring or consuming of the hay and stubble by being made to vanish or disappear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as things burnt up do And so shall such sins or errors as are there compared to hay and stubble after they have passed the examination of divine Judgment be done away and appear no more St. Basil also upon the 19. verse of that chapter speaks of a punishing and afflicting fire but what fire is that the fire saith he that the Lord sent into the earth Luc. 12.49 and that is the fire of tribulation in this life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnto this punishing fire are our Terrene sinful carnal affections delivered up for the benefit and amendment of the Soul Gregory Nyssen in orat pro mortuis speaks of the Furnace of a purging fire and is cited by the Cardinal for the Romish purgatory but plainly means the fire at the last day which as the Father thought should at length purge and restore all men And those other words which the Cardinal cites out of the same Orat. Non potest nisi pur gatus fieri particeps Of it he cannot be made partaker unless first purged do plainly speak of one that dyed impure and in his sins yet may as that Father thought receive a purgation after when the Soul parted from the body sees a difference between vertue and vice and so turns to God This speaks what we noted * Nu. 7. above of this Father that he was tainted with the stain of that merciful opinion derived down from Origen Nazianzen also in Sancta Lumina is cited by the Cardinal but intends the fire of the Damned for it concerns the Novatians that denied the baptism of Tears or the reception of Penitents and therefore were in danger if they go on to be baptized with fire So that Father threatens them there and let the Romanists judge whether obstinate Hereticks such as they were supposed to be are in danger of and to be threatned with the Purgatory or the eternal fire And now our Argument for the Negative They knew not such a Fire that the Fathers did not know the Romish purgatory fire which begins at Death and goes out before the Resurrection which afflicts and torments justified Souls is evident by their speaking of several sorts of fire that of tribulation in this life that of the severe judgment of God at the last day that of Conflagration at the end of the world that of eternal pain after and by their attributing a purgation to every of these yet none of them mentioning the Romish Purgatory Besides places newly cited out of the Fathers I finde Nazianzen thus speaking of fire in his 26. Orat. for Moderation in disputing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last fire by which all our doings must be judged and purged which is the fire of Gods judgment at the last day And in his 40. Orat. in Baptism he thus distinguishes the several sorts of Fire I know saith he the purging fire viz. that which Christ came to send on earth Luc. 12.49 the fire of tribulation in this life I know saith he another fire but it is a punishing not a purging fire viz. the fire of the damned Had he known another sort of fire that was both purging and punishing after death as the Romish Purgatory fire is conceived to be he would have mentioned it In his Orat. de Pasch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith there is no purging after this life and in his Orat. de plaga Grandinis after this life is a time of punishing not purging The Romanists are ready to restrain such sayings of the Fathers to such persons as were not at all purged here or did not in this life begin to purge themselves but his saying is general to all unto whom punishment or chastisement is due
and had he known the Romish Purgatory after death he would not have let those former sayings slip from him without some mention of it Nicetas also that comments upon him would have taken occasion to have spoken of it It was noted * Nu. 8. above that St. Chrysost upon that of Mat. 12. not forgiven in this expounds not forgiven by shall be punished here and hereafter In the same place he takes occasion to speak of punishment in this life and in the next Some saith he are punished here and hereafter as the Sodomites Some not here but hereafter as the Rich glutton Luc. 16. Some here not hereafter as the incestuous Corinthian Some neither here nor hereafter as the Apostles and such Disciples of Christ He did not know any other sort or rank of men punished such as they are that go to be tormented in Purgatory And lest it should be objected that the Apostles and such Disciples of Christ suffered great persecution and affliction and therefore were sore punished in this life He severs the notion of Punishment from their afflictions or Trials For speaking of the sufferings of Job and such men he tels us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not the sufferings of punishment or inflicted on such men as punishments but belonged to the combate and were for their exercise So may there be other ends of Gods sending Afflictives after sin forgiven then for punishment but of that Torment in Purgatory no end or reason can be given besides punishment We will conclude with St. Aug. the only Father that for the first 400 years spoke any thing to the purpose of that Purgatory punishment between Death the Resurrection It is very evident how he came first to stumble upon that conceit St. Augustines opinion touching Purgatory pains if we consider the prevalency and danger of that merciful opinion touching the pains of the damned which this Father observed and endeavoured to work out of mens minds This opinion touching the end or mitigation of those pains we noted * Nu. 7. above The danger of it the Greeks in their forementioned Apology do well note saying It was thought in the 5. Synod to be a most cruel opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pernicious to the Church and loosing the nerves and endeavours of the vertuously disposed St. Aug. saw this and therefore often encounters it especially in his book of the City of God but in his contending against it stumbled as I said upon this conceit seeming out of his earnest desire of working that dangerous merciful opinion out of the minds of Christians to be content there should be Temporary pains conceived to remain for some sort of men between their death and Resurrection And this also the Greeks in the aforesaid Apology do observe in that Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying of the Latines in General that to take away a greater evil the ceasing of the pains of Hell fire they yielded to a less a kinde of purging fire before the resurrection and of St. August they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he willing endeavouring to work that opinion out of mens mindes admitted this third sort of punishment This is evident to him that will examine the several passages of St. August one and twentieth Book of the City of God as where he seems to be content that men should think favourably of some mitigation in the pains of the damned Aug. l 21 de Civ De c. 24. noideo consir â—â— quia no resisto so they would hold them eternal for of that opinion of mitigation he saith I do not therefore confirm it because I do not resist it he had * Aug. l. 21. c. 16. before suggested what he thought more probable viz. Some Temporal pains before the last day There is a place which the Romanists much urge in behalf of Purgatory what sense it bears is not very certain but certainly it cannot be applied to Purgatory Speaking to those words in the sweat of thy browes Gen. 3.19 he saith He that tills his field i. e. orders his life carefully and vertuously it is not needful that he should suffer after this life Aug. de Genesi contrà Manich. l. 2. c. 20. Qui coluerit agrum suum post hanc vitam non est necesse ut patiatur Qui non coluerit sed Spinis eum opprimi permiserit habet in hac vita maledictionem post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis vel poenam aeternam but he that tils it not but suffers it to be overgrown with thorns he has in this life a Curse and after this life he shall have either the fire of purgation or the eternal punishment That he alludes here to Heb. 6.7 is very apparent that such as are sent to Purgatory cannot be intended here is also apparent for these are careless and profane Christians whose lives are overgrown with vice and are supposed to so continue till death and are therefore subject to cursing and must be burnt with the eternal fire And it is probable he puts in that fire of purgation by way of concession only to the merciful opinion as if he had said He that suffers his life to be so overgrown must have his burning either such as that opinion fancied such at least or else eternal pains which indeed is the Truth Now concerning these supposed pains or purging fire after death St. Aug. uses many expressions of uncertainty Aug. de fide operibus 〈◊〉 16. De Civit. Dei l. 21. â— 26. Enchirid. c. 69. Ad â—ulcitium qu. 1. far from any stedfastness of belief As when he saith If in that interval Si hoc temporis intervallo forsitan verum est non redarguo or space between death and resurrection any will conceive such a fire such pains It may be true and I do not reprove or contend against it Again Some such thing may be after this life and Tale ali quid etiam post hanc vitam fieri potest utrum ita sit quaeri potest Non est incredibile Talia quaedam judicia post hanc vitam non abhorret quantum arbitror a ratione veritatis whether it be so may be questioned or inquired into It is not incredible that it should be so Again that some such judgments or punishments follow after this life it does not in my opinion abhor from the reason of Truth All these the Cardinal recites by way of objection in his first Book de Purgat c. 15. But what answer gives he This That St. Aug. dubitare solùm de genere peccati quod punitur did only doubt of the kinde or sort of sin that was to be punished which is altogether impertinent as may at first sight appear to him that looks into the places cited Therefore elsewhere he gives these Answers That St. Aug. doubted only of the quality