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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
inhaerent Righteousness but as for the imputed a Non absurdum will serve that It is no absurdity to grant it There is one place more where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and that the similitude of a garment used by the Protestants may agree to it in as much as Christs satisfaction for our sins is applied to us Bel. de Justif lib. 2. c. 11. Nobis donatùr applicatur nostra reputatur and reputed ours This is fair but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness That one man should satisfie for another is reasonable not that one should be formally just because another is so True a man cannot be therefore formally just that is inhaerently just or as by an inhaerent qualification but why may he not be therefore that is for Christs satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification that is one to whose charge nothing can be laid one reconciled restored to favour accepted to life eternal And as Bel. said Christs satisfaction is reputed ours he means really so why may not we thereupon be also reputed really just and righteous as to the notion or importance of Justification and if by that satisfaction and righteousness of our Saviour imputed we are acquitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death as the Cardinal granted and so doth their Trent Council why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted I say to eternal life as to the first Right This may be inferred also from the words of that Council when it tels us as we had it * Num. 2. above what Justification is A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ Which though no good definition yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them under which all men lye while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam Again it implies such persons acquitted of their sins are received into favour as sons by Adoption and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance Lastly that all this through Jesus Christ which implies the satisfaction and merits of Christ applyed imputed Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given Other purposes of inhaerent Righteousness then that we should be justified by it in Justifying of a sinner as often said before yet it is not given for the formalizing of Justification it self properly taken but as consequential to it for qualifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by degrees the stain and corruption and for breaking the dominion of Sin There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God therefore Grace infused for the New-birth and as a Principle of New life and obedience There is acceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit obtaining and enjoying of it We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righteousness given us then that we should be Justified by it Furthermore that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsecally joyned with Remission of sins is plain by the Apostle Ro. 4.6 7 8. telling us who are those blessed ones to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness even Those to whom he will not impute sin And the similitude of a Garment or of Jacobs wearing his elder brothers cloathes to get the blessing and the birth-right which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christs righteousness to us does imply more then remission of sins Even the accepting of their Persons and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing Also that the Imputation of Christs righteousness should not be confined as the Romanists would have it or delight to express it to the bare importance of satisfaction they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others For when we urge against that Treasure of their Church and the applying of it that common judgment of the School Meritum non excedit Personam Merit exceeds not the Person Christ only excepted They distinguish and consider the good works and sufferings of the Saints as Satisfactory and as Meritorious and say as they are Meritorious they exceed not the Person but as Satisfactory they are imputable appliable to others Which albeit said without ground or warrant might keep them from restraining thus the imputation of Christs righteousness to the point of satisfaction and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner but as Meritorious also to all effects and purposes for compleating the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righteous to whom it is imputed or applied We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness by those that are most for the inhaerent I mean the Jesuites and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification when the Imputed would bear it better Now see what Vasquez who has handled this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently acknowledgeth touching their dissenting Authors Romish writers dissenting in the point of Justification by Inhaerent Righteousness to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholick Doctrine First * Vasq in Thom. 1.2 disput 205. c. 1. he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God before he infuseth Grace or inhaerent Righteousness And that this gift of inhaerent Grace or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God but from the will of God appointing that every one who is to be brought to eternal life should have it This is that which we say that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness doth accompany and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justification but for other purposes as noted above one whereof and the main one is here mentioned viz. the bringing preparing fitting us to eternal life and is there approved by Vasquez himself But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God and accepted of him unto Justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness antecedently to infusion of habitual righteousness * Non parum favere Haereticis nostri tempori Vasquez disp 205. c. 2. He saith it doth not a little favour the Hereticks of our daies And in another place speaking of the Imputation of Christs righteousness and merits which the Protestants assert in Justification he
Faith its due which apprehends that righteousness and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place there would be little cause of Controversie in this great point of Christian Doctrine I will conclude with the Cardinals answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Canticles * Bern. in Cantic Christus nobis justitia in dulgentia Dei nostra justitia Christ is our righteousness because he justifies us from our sins and the Indulgence of God is our righteousness By Indulgence and Remission saith the * Cardinal he understands full and compleat Justification Bel. de Iustif l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae Remissionis intelligit plenam Iustificationem quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam remittitur culâ—a quin simul because as we have often said the sin is never remitted but righteousness is together with it insused And so say we But the righteousnes which Bernard cals Indulgence is not the Infused but the righteousness of Justification for where sin is not imputed there righteousness is imputed as * Nu. 4. above shewen out of Rom. 4.6 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence But still we acknowledge that continuance in the state of Justification is by good Works or continuance in wel-doing SECT V. Of Merit of good works IT was observed above Chap. V. nu 1. that the Council of Trent had desined Explication of the Question and the Reason of Merit properly taken Good works do truly merit eternal life but did not tell us plainly wherein the Reason of Merit truly so called doth stand only it gives us certain acknowledgements of Gods bounty promise and grace which are so far from being the grounds of Merit as Mr. Spencer there cals them that they do by necessary consequence overthrow it The Question therefore being about Merit truly so called it will be first necessary to see into that for the clearing of it will plainly shew the impertinency of what they alledge out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious We spoke something to this purpose in the V. Chap. as Mr. Spencer gave occasion We may further observe that They who hold up the Controversie for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome do let it fall use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur or truly meritorious and they are simplicitèr propriè ex condigno simply properly and condignly meritorious as we see in their * Bel. 5. de Iustif c. 16. Vasq in 1.2 Tho. disp 213. c. 4. two great Champions for Merit The word Simply is alwaies exclusive of that which is so or so according to some respect only Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into has regard to Gods promise bounty and acceptation whereby good works say we obtain so great a reward The Asserters of Merit will not say that their simply meritorious does exclude the Promise or all respect unto it but lay the Promise as a ground-work of their merit The word Merit sounds two things The better to understand this mystery we must consider that the word to merit sounds two things obtaining and deserving the first stands by the promise but the second which carries the reason of merit stands by the worth of the work The Cardinal and his fellowes must say that if God had not made the promise and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward the best service of man could not have obtained it or brought him to eternal life but they will also say that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward See to this purpose what the Cardinal putting the queston of works condignly meritorious delivereth Bell. l. 5. de Justif c 17. Meritoria ex condigno ratione Pacti tantùm vel operis tantùm vel ratione utrâ—usque This may saith he be three waies varied or considered that works be called condignly meritorious In regard of the Covenant or promise only or in regard of the work only or in regard of both Opus multò inferius mercede promissâ In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferiour to the reward promised as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one daies labour in the Vineyard Opus revera aequale mercedi Opus verè par mercedi In the second he supposeth the work equal to the reward but no covenant or promise intervening In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward set out in the Covenant or promise and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both the promise and the work it self Whereas it is plain that the promise makes but way for the Consecution or obtaining of the reward and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining but as for deserving of the reward wherein the reason of Merit properly stands that is laid upon the worth of the work which is supposed as we see to be truly equal to the Reward promised Vasquez usually more free and open then the Cardinal plainly professeth and mamtains †Vasquez in Tho. 1.2 disp 214. c. 5. that good works without any promise or divine acceptation are condignly meritorious of eternal life and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it For he saw that the pretence of the Covenant or promise or divine acceptation was no ground but a prejudice to the reason of Merit truly so called and therefore a little after sets himself to prove Vesq c. 8. nullo msdâ— pertinere ad rationem meriti that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works Sin saith he deserves a punishment equal to it without all Covenant or Commination therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory Vasq ibid. cap. 10. absque ullo pacto vel comminatione without all Covenant or promise * siqui dem hoâ— praetrâ—â— aequale est for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the promise But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V. and Greg. XIII two Popes condemning certain Propositions of which this is one Vasq ibid. cap. 13. â— Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death so a good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life What else did Vasquez say but he strives to clear himself by pretending this difference between his Assertion and the condemned Proposition that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious which Vasquez does not Now whether Jesuites little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls being
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
free promise and liberality Seeing then the matter stands clean otherwise between God and man as appears by the former concessions of free grace for the performance of free acceptation of it unto reward of free and liberal promise in appointing the reward the service or work cannot be truly meritorious And certainly these considerations did and still do cause diverse in the Church of Rome to decline this truly meritorious Against merit of condignity in goodworks or merit of Condignity as we may gather by the * Bel. l. 5. de justific c. 16. sect quod attinet Cardinal acknowledging it of Tho. Waldens And of P. Brugens who would have them call'd meritorious not ex condigno of condignity but ex gratia Dei tantum only of the grace of God which is the ancient notion of the word meriting as it signifies the obtaining of the reward through the grace and liberal promise of God and speaking of Durand he saith that the same arguments that fight against the Hereticks fought against his judgment in this point Bel. de Just l. 5. c. 17. sect Alâ—j contra Also of Scotus and other Schoolmen and of Viega that they held good works meritorious only ratione pacti in regard of Gods compact and promise not ratione operis for the worthof the work which falls in with the former so that the Cardinal finds only this difference between the Lutheran doctrine and theirs They hold good works verè bona non peccata truly good and not sins which the Lutherans did not That we grant them truly good and not sins was said above But this satisfies not the Cardinal and therefore chap. 18. endeavours to prove them meritorious ex condigno not only ratione promissionis because of the promise assuring the reward but ratione operis because of the worth of the work it self and fears not to affirm that God is made our Debtor Non sola pro missione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficitur Debitor Bel. ibid cap. 18. not only by virtue of his promise but also by reasonof our work This I note to shew how the reason of verè mereri truly to merit does force from the Cardinal who strives to defend it such affirmations and from others who did not see how merit could be properly between God and man such concessions and yeilding up of the Cause For this being agreed according to former Concessions First What is required to make a work truly meritorious and then what man receives of Gods free grace to enable him for working and how man stands indebted to God the controversy is at an end all their proofs fall short as not ad idem to the point all our proofs from Scripture stand good against merit properly taken and the mistakes Mr. Spencer would fasten on us appear frivolous as we shall now see The first place he sets down as alledged by us is Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of t his present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory Nothing here saith he against merit Why so because Goodworks produce eternal life but not ex condigno as a grain of mustard-seed is not to be compared with the great bulk it bears yet it produces it so do sufferings the fair tree of life as Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4.17 This flourish of a similitude in transferring things Physical to Moral neither proves nor answers any thing Controversal Again it comes not home speaking only to the word Compared whereas the force is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not worthy which in comparing things Moral as the work and the reward is mainly considerable so is here a great deal of difference between Physical or Natural productions and Moral For we grant that the small sufferings of this life may produce or work as S. Paul saith there in their way and measure a more exceeding and eternal weight of glory but if this Author will have it any thing to the reason of merit he must affirm that sufferings and good works do produce it veritate insitâ by their own virtue and worth as that seed doth the bulk which comes of it by its own inbred vertue The next place is Luc. 17.10 When ye have done all say Vnprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty The mistake here he imputes to us is because we will have merit excluded here Unprofitable servants in respect of God by this acknowledgment of doing but our duty and being unprofitable Why then saith he deserves a servant his Wages by doing his duty and nothing else pa. 169. Because duty of a servant does not exclude merit or desert for the servant is not bound to that duty antecedently or before his voluntary compact or Covenant with his Master as man stands bound to God Neither does the Master supply the Servant with life health ability these the servant brings with him and therefore may be said to merit or deserve his wages though his service was duty after covenant with his Master It is not so between God and Man For the acknowledgment of being Vnprofitable servants Who saith he can bring profit to God hence is only proved that God is no way beholden to us but we owe to him for all our good works this is good Catholick doctrine but contrary to what his Master the Cardinal saith as * Num. 2. above cited and directly overthrowing the vâ—re mereri the merit of works in any proper sense for if we owe to him for all our good works as we do because he enables us to do them by his grace how can we merit properly by those works at his hands therefore we are all to humble our selves before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded on his free promise and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ so he pa. 169. This is good doctrine again but still contradictory to merit for if his gifts then not our merits if reward upon free promise and divine acceptation then are not our works truly meritorious of such reward Nor will such concessions which Truth and shame forces from you salve the matter whilst your doctrine delivered in Gross teaches to plead merit and to place confidence in it that is to be proud of your own works and to excuse it by saying Thou O Lord hast given me to be confident and think thus well of my doings Thou O Christ hast merited that I should merit That saying Our Merits are his Gifts though it be S. Augustines yet as used by you together with your other sayings do no more witness you humble in this point then the Pharisee was who said God I thank thee c. yet all the while was proud and conceited of what he had done and so returned unjustified nay he did not as we can gather adde the conceit of merit to his doings and therefore more justifiable then a Romanist
follow with them The text saith not they rest presently after death that 's his first exception The present blessedness of them that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3 where the poor in spirit are called Blessed and and yet in their misery but blessed because the kingdome of heaven belonged to them pa 181. It is true that hope in this life makes blessed but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition according to the measures God has appointed But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed but the reason their dying in the Lord and resting from their Labours for dying in the Lord and sleeping in Christ are all one and that sleeping does necessarily infer that the Rest begins at death as the sleep doth and little comfort would it be if they went not presently to Rest for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life to go to worse again that which enforces this presently is their works following them that they follow them for reward he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease do not evince it the expression here may for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow them which might be at some distance but more then the translation expresses it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them that is immediately As Rev. 6.8 Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy and Hades followed with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is immediately as Hades or the invisible state to which the soul goes follows immediately upon death More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death in the next place of Scripture His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream that we mistake the word Labours which here is not taken saith he for all labours but the labours and persecutions of this life or that they cease from their good works pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours then reason and the comfort intended by this Text would infer that those labours being at an end the service performed the reward should immediately follow the warfare and combate being ended some Prize or Crown should be received and so indeed their works following them or with them does imply but here instead of receiving reward or rest the Combatant that has laboured and conquered is carried to the house of Correction delivered up to certain torments And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after then is the Romish Purgatory excluded which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort and allows them no more in this Rest then the wicked have when they dy a freedome from the labours of this life leaving them only hope of coming out after some time The next place is 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heaven Here again he tels us we are mistaken for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house The same again proved pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it also the word uncloathing which is in death must imply a cloathing with that house v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon without uncloathing which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age that are taken alive at the last day no Romish Purgatory can be for them but if that cloathing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was so that it came to an uncloathing the Apostle had said little to their comfort in telling them of their house from heaven if he had not implied that upon their uncloathing they should be received into it but that contrarily they should first go to a house below and there suffer in the next region to hell exquisit torments for many years Also the opposition he makes between at home in the body absent from the Lord v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one inferrs the other if absent from the body then present with the Lord and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8 that when ye fail there is this dissolving or going out of the body they may receive you into everlasting habitations ther 's the heavenly house a present reception is necessarily implied even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house The next place is Wisd 3.1 The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them The word Torment here is misunderstood saith he Why so Righteoâ—â— souls aâ—â—â—â— Death 〈◊〉 from Tâ—â—ment because it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a torment that malefactors or suspected to be so are put to to make them confess the truth Now no such torment shall touch the righteous for God has sufficiently tried them and proved them and found them worthy of God v. 5. which is a plain place for merits pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text he will catch at another If it make against Purgatory he will have it make for merits Well if it be so plain for merits he must wring them out of the word worthy which being * cap. 5. num 8. objected above in the point of merits was answered too But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concerns Purgatory let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment and what matters it if they that go to Purgatory suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons so that indeed they suffer the like as Malefactors do It would be mockery and not comfort to tell them they shall suffer not under that name but as much And to suffer this now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies against which this is their comfort into the hands of God which the Text puts as the reason why no torment can touch them and thus to be handled there and that after God had proved and found them worthy of himself as this chapter v. 5. hath it how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text which is spoken for their comfort But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
to some Temporal punishment after forgiveness which how far and in what sense true we have seen Now let us see how supposing it true in the Romish sense as indeed it is not he can transfer it from the living to the dead that it may be a ground and proof of Purgatory after death as they suppose it is of satisfactions in this life for if ask supposing such persons in this life liable to some temporall punishment why should they be so in the next it rests upon that false assertion of his Council that such punishment must be satisfied or paied either in this world or the world to come for there is a third way which * Vid Alens summ l. 4. qu. 15. mem 3. artic 3. some have allowed and that is a removal of all the stains of sin and guilt of punishment by the final grace and in the passage of the soul from the body And how bold is this Author to make God a respecter of persons if he should not punish in the other world one that had sinned as David and not payed for it in this pa. 187. for then he should not saith this Author reward every man according to his works God no respecter of persons if he forgive all Temporal punish ment with out our satisfaction But this is First a bold inference upon the former falls supposal of such punishments retained and inflicted in the Course of vindicative justice if not satisfied for by us whereas we saw three reasons against it and other purposes which God has in so retaining and inflicting punishment when he sees fit for chastisement amendment admonition to others and to shew how he is displeased with sin in his children yea it is very profitable for us that he should retain and inflict it after forgiveness as and when he sees fit But none of these purposes can hold in the punishments of Purgatory Secondly that Rewarding every man according to his works is misapplied to sins of just persons forgiven for the reward of punishment which God without respect of persons renders to works is to works not reckoned for i. e. not repented of not forgiven And whereas they will not allow that God either in mercy or justice can remit the remainder of Temporal punishment without being a Respecter of persons why do they contend for the power of Indulgence to be in the Pope and allow him to be a Respecter of persons as the Rich finde him to be And whereas they hold Christ to entreat and intercede for souls in Purgatory yet none come out upon his Intercession but upon the Popes Indulgence All they can pretend to here is that by such Indulgencies the application of Christs merit and satisfaction is made Papal Indulgences But why should they allow the Pope to be a respecter of persons in applying the merits of Christ with respect as he does to friends or those that can pay well when they will not allow God Almighty to dispense his own mercy or justice to them that have not satisfied here unless they do it in Purgatory or why do they allow the Pope to extend that power of loosing to souls in Purgatory that is under the earth which was given to the Church for loosing only things * Mat 16.19 Mat. 18.18 upon earth Indeed God has appointed many wayes and means in his Church of applying Christs satisfaction such as his Word both Sacraments and Absolution but as for the many new invented wayes of the Church of Rome they are unwarrantable and ineffectual to the purpose deceiving the people not only of their money but of their souls by staying on things that must be payed for yet profit not false applications of what they pretend the merits and satisfaction of our Saviour Christ Unto this debate of Purgatory it will not be amiss to adde something concerning satisfactions Of satisfactions and of doing the things signified by that name We do not here condemn or deter people from doing the things which in the language of the Church of Rome come under the name of satisfaction viz. those Penals self-afflictives acts of self-denial or such spiritual exercises or bodily austerities reasonably used that way But we commend them as profitable and to good purpose if rightly undertaken and directed only we cannot allow the grounds upon which that Church has established her satisfactions nor the purposes that Church seems to have in the commending or injoyning them The grounds we saw in the discourse of Purgatory That God does retain part of the temporal punishment which may by works of penance be remitted here in this world or payed in the world to come as this Author expresses it pa. 187. of this sufficiently above Nor can we allow the purposes or at least practises of the Romish Church in commending those Penals as meritorious and satisfactory to Gods justice that I may say nothing of the no small gain that is made thereby But we allow and commend the doing of the things these self-afflictives First in order to the obtaining of remission of sin and punishment so the Sackeloth Ashes Lying on the ground as in the Ninivites Ion. 3. this they do not as having any merit or satisfaction for punishment due by Gods justice unto sin nor yet as the prime conditions of forgiveness but as expressions of that inward Repentance and humiliation of which they are effects and which they conduce to encrease by a reaction or working back again upon the soule Secondly After forgiveness they are profitable when done either in respect to sin past by way of wholsome discipline to make more wary of such sins more careful to avoid them hereafter and more diligent in doing the contrary duties or when done in order to the averting some Temporal judgment wherewith God might strike us justly for some failing remisness or want of due carefulness as is requisite for that avoiding of sin and performance of duty For these are the fruits of Repentance which God accepts as the great and only satisfaction on our parts as for those Penals and bodily afflictives they are pleasing unto him so far as conduce to inforce care and strength of the spirit against sin and as they are expressions and effects of that humiliation and Repentance which is the Condition of forgiveness And these Afflictives or exercises of self-denial may be either voluntary undertaken of our selves or by advise of the Priest that has the ministery of reconciliation and the power of loosing committed unto him and the less that God does inflict on us i. e. the greater prosperity health ease quietness that any man enjoys in the world the more is he concerned to impose on himself such acts of self-denial and keep the soul exercised by sometimes afflicting the body or else the flesh will gather strength against the spirit and bring in the world too fast into the soul Upon the aforesaid Respects we commend and allow the things
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
place so much urged by the Romanist for a semblance of Purgatory must have another meaning then that they would put upon it Cypr. â—p 52. ad Antonian The place is this It is one thing to stand as a Penitent for pardon another thing to come to glory One thing to be cast into prison Aliud est ad veniam staâ— re and not come thence till the utmost farthing be payed a not her thing presently to receive the reward of their faith and vertue pro peccatis longo dâ—lore â—â—uciatuâ— emunderi purgari diu igne pendere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini One thing to be cleansed by suffering a long grief for sins and to be purged a great while by fire another thing to have all a mans sins purged away by the passion of Martyrdom One thing with suspence to expect the sentence of the Lord in the day of judgment another thing to be presently crowned of the Lord. The objectors of this place were they not so ready to phansie a Purgatory meant where ever they finde mention made of a Prison or last Farthing or Fire might easily see those phrases and expressions to be used with reference to the severity of Ecclesiastical satisfactions and pennance to which they that fell the Lapsi either by Adultery or renouncing through fear the Christian Faith were put to The occasion upon which he spoke it was an objection made against the receiving of those that fell in time of persecution that if such savour were shewen them and Ecclesiastical discipline let loose we should have no Confessors or Martyrs He answers * Nam Maechis à nobis poenitentiae tempus conceditur pax datur Non tamen ideirco virginitas in Ecclesia desicit We give peace to Adulterer's after their time of pennance fulfilled and yet Virginity fails not in the Church but flourisheth then followes that place as affording reason for their receiving of penitents from the severity they are put to and the great difference between their Condition and the happiness of those that have continued constant or proved Confessors and martyrs And therefore he expresses that severity with which the Lapsi were handled in a reference to the Martyrs sufferings and priviledge That they stood long desiring pardon before they could be restored to former state that they were as Men held in prison till they made full satisfaction that they were put to a great Torment in the shame and grief of their pennance and the anxious sollicitude of obtaining what they desired And lastly as to the Sentence and Judgment of the Lord there is a great difference between them and the Confessors or other Just persons who without suspence and such solicitude expect the sensence of the Lord for that Pendere ad sententiam Domini is spoken either of the Time while they are under Ecclesiastical Censures during which time they continue in great perplexity and suspence as to the sentence of the Lord till they be reconciled to the Church which often was deferred to the time of their Death or else it is spoken in relation to a more severe scrutiny and examination which they shall undergoe at their appearing before the Lord and not have that ready admittance which Confessors and other Just persons that needed not their repentance shall finde being admitted without delay readily Sine cunctatione as St. Cyprian speaks of them or without judgment to grace and favour Sine judicio ad graâ—iam as Ambr. on the first Psal vers 5. whereas the other shall be held under a scrutiny examination an opening of their failing and denials quis pudor quae consusio what shame then and confusion of face saith St. Ambrose there when all shall be laid open or when taken in that which thou taughtest others should not do Thus sometimes some Fathers speak of those that dye in a salvable condition through faith and repentance though late as distinguishable from those that died Martyrs or having repented betimes had lived long in a constant course of Christian profession and careful performance of righteousness St. Ambrose thus * Ambr. de bono Mortis c. 12. When that day comes the day of death they go to their Redeemer to the bosome of Abraham yet * ibid. c. 10. elsewhere he seems to defer it to the Resurrection according to the first opinion of the Ancients delivered above Unless we take that going to Abrahams bosome generally for a state of blessed Rest and be that where it will either below or in Heaven yet their going thither presently upon death excludes Purgatory Dionysius in his Eccles Dionys Eccl. Hier. c. 7. parte 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierarchy speaking of those that dye in the Lord transmits them presently to a Christ-like Rest Nazianzen in the death of his brother Caesarius towards the end of his oracioâ— saith Every good soul loosed of the body Nazien in Epitaphio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 goes presently to the state of bliss which he there describes such as he believed â—â—s brother was gone to And which is to be noted he brings in the former Assertion thus I believe the sayings of the wise Every good soul being loosed c. and for the Purgatien mark the Parenthesis he there puts in Eo quod tenebras effundebat purgato deposito vel quo verbo ca res appellanda sit Nazian ibid. that which did cause darkness being purged and deposed which must be by death or separation from body or by what word that thing is to be called I know not Chrysost Chrys in Mat homil 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus This present life is subject to many sorrows and troubles but no such thing saith he is spoken in Scripture of the future but there all grief flies away and * Chrys ad Philip. Serm. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elsewhere speaking of Sinners and Righteous he saith of these being gone from hence they are with Christ face to face as the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.7 saith being absent from the body we are present with the Lord Chrys ad Hebr. ser 4. And in another place he asks what mean the Lamps and Hymns and Prayers viz. at the Funeral of the Dead but as signs of joy to tell us The Lord has crowned him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and has him with him And in his 61. hom in Joan. he saith of the righteous man dying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he goes away with the Angels alluding to Lazarus his Soul carried by Angels into Abrams Bosom All this and often thus he speaks of the Just man opposed to the Sinner that dies in his sins without Repentance for he usually divides All men into these two sorts but such righteous Men the Church of Rome sends to Purgatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Epiph. Haer. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Heresie
wishes intercessions Thus they prayed at the Burial or carrying out of the Dead and did it as we saw above for the reasons there mentioned viz. the instruction of the living and confirming of their hope and demonstration of their affection and the like And upon the like respects they yearly repeated the like prayers as we hinted above out of the Cardinal acknowledging as much Lastly it was a private opinion but notorious and held by many That the Damned had benefit or ease by the Prayers of the Church a private opinion or misapplication That they which died in their sins without true faith and repentance might at length be recovered out of their Pains or at least have them mitigated And to these the Prayers for the Dead which begged forgiveness ease or release were I do not say referred by the Church but applied or rather misapplied by many Origen gave occasion first to this Error for he held that All should at length come out of their Torments and his Error was as Vincentius notes a great temptation to the Church by reason of the wit and parts of the Author Aug. Enchirid cap. III. Frustra quamplurimi aeternam damnatorum poenam miserantur affectu and St. Aug. tels us in several places that many were of this merciful opinion Very many saith he do commiserate through humane affection the eternal sufferings of the damned and do not believe it will be so c. Of these also in other places especially in his work Of the City of God l. 21. c. 17 18 19 20. where he reckons five latitudes in the extent of that Opinion refuting them all Greg. Nyssen seems to be deeply tainted with that merciful opinion and is noted for it by the Greeks in their Apology against the Romish Purgatory made and given out in the time of the Council of Florence for that * Nyssen in orat Deus omnia in ommbus Idem in orat le Mor. tuâ—s pag 1067. Mixtam clementi sententiam Father seems plainly to assert the restoring of all men to salvation and in another place speaks of the purging of some and their turning to God after death who were impure in their lives And that place of St. Hierom upon Isa 66. ult which the Cardinal misapplies to Purgatory for it plainly speaks of wicked Christians does shew some tincture of that merciful opinion Now it is plain that Chrysostoâ—e applies the Prayers and oblations made for the Dead to such sinners And I should choose rather to silence those errors and mistakes of some ancient Fathers did not the importunity of the Romanists force us to shew the misapplication of them to Purgatory I shall insist therefore in some passages of St. Chrysostome Hom. 61. in Jo. Hom. 21. in Act. Serm. 3. in Philip. The sinners he speaks of to be prayed for are in several Homilies towards the End of them thus set forth by him One saith he that daily offended God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that lived every day to his own pleasure One that died in his riches and never used them to the benesit of his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupted and lost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of whom he saith Hom. 32. in Mat. If God had seen he would have changed he would not have cut him off before his Repentance Such as these the Romanists will not say that they go to Purgatory but to Hell yet of these he saith Let us mourn for such a one but that avails not Let us help him as we can How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by prayers and alms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things must be done which may bring some comfort and ease to him To this tenour he speaks in all the places above cited but especially in Hom. 21. upon the Acts Shall we not try saith he of one that lived to himself and the Devil to rescue him from the dangers and evils he is encompassed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is a way if we will to make his punishment lighter and this by making prayer for him and almsdeeds and these saith he so much the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was guilty of the more sins And this he takes to be doctrine sutable to the loving kindness of God towards man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though we be not vertuous our selves yet let us get friends that will do this for us when we are gone Then presently follows * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblations are not in vain nor Supplications nor Almsdeeds All these things the Spirit has ordained willing or commanding that we should help one another Then he mentions the Offering of the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith It is not the Minister simply or only that praies so for those that are faln asleep in Christ It is not he only that sends forth that voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Spirit He indeed holds the Offering or Sacrifice in his hands c. And so goes on expressing the honour to be then remembred and the power and efficacy of Christs death then represented Where we may observe that this saying of his The Spirit has ordained all these things which the Romanists do much urge as if their prayers and offerings for souls in Purgatory were by an Ordinance of the Spirit relates to the help of one another by Prayers Oblations and Almsdeeds which in general is true so far as we are capable to be helped by them But if it be particularly applied to the helping of such sinners as before he had spoken of it makes nothing for the Romanists for they will not allow that the Prayers and Oblations of the Living do avail or help such as died in their sins but if it be applied to the Prayers and Offerings in the Eucharist as he seems here to intend it it makes nothing still for them or against us for we allow that Ancient practice of remembring there and praying as they did for those that sleep in Christ The intent and purpose of those prayers he expresses in the close of his speech that they and we saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may obtain the good things promised through the Grace and merciful loving kindness of our Saviour Christ A place parallel to the former he hath in his third Hom. on the Epist to the Philip. where speaking of Prayers and Oblations with respect to the Dead These things Chrys in Phil. hom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he were not in vain ordained by the Apostles that a remembrance be made of those that are dead in the most reverend and holy Mysteries For when all the people stand and the company of Priests with their hands stretch'd out toward heaven and the great sacrifice lies
Messiah and indeed that place of Isa 9.6 where the Messiah is called Pater futuri seculi the father of the Age or world to come to whom a generation shall be accounted Ps 22.30 does accord thereunto Now it was an opinion among the Jewes as they that are acquainted with their Rabbins do tel us that some sins should then be forgiven which could not before and accordingly it was an usual expression by saying such a sin shall not be forgiven no not in the world to come to shew the Atrocity and flagitiousness of such a sin which the grace that the Messiah should bring would not take away and so our Saviour might speak this ad hominem according to their common opinion and saying to express the hainousness of that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost But take this Phrase according to the tenour of the New Testament which supposes the Messiah come already The world to come every where signifies that which begins at the Resurrection or last day of this world Then is fixed the End of this world Mat. 13.39.40 cap. 28.20 and then begins the world to come Marc. 10.30 Luc. 18.30 Eph. 1.21 And so it must be taken by St. Aug. in that place which the Romanists cite as to their purpose for the forgiveness of sins not forgiven before Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. Neque enim de qui busdam veraciter diceretur non remittetur Otherwise saith he it could not be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come for if we inquire of him when shall this be factâ resurrectione He tels us there after the Resurrection is done And so also Futurum seculum the world to come is taken both by Greeks and Latins * Concil Flor. Sess 1. de Purgatorio in their debate of this point II. Of the Forgiveness For their inference from our Saviours Negative Not forgiven saith he in the world to come therefore say they there are sins to be forgiven in the world to come The Cardinal acknowledges it does not follow according to the Rules of Logick Indeed such forgiveness as they pretend in relation to Purgatory cannot in any reason follow upon our Saviours speech That there is a forgiveness of sins after death cannot be denied so long as we believe there is a Judgment of God to come for when that comes and passes upon the Souls of men either privately at their death or openly at the Last day there is an absolution of some and a condemnation of others a forgiving and a not forgiving in the world to come whether we begin that Time at the day of Death or of Resurrection but this forgiveness is nothing to Purgatory Again This forgiveness or not forgiveness of sins in the world to come may have regard to the forgiveness or retaining of sins by Man in the Ministry of reconciliation in this life so there is a loosing and binding on Earth and a loosing and binding in Heaven in like manner a declaration of sins forgiven in the Church in this life and a declaration of sins forgiven or not forgiven in the world to come For then it shall appear that many sins forgiven by Man Clave errante through misapplication of the Keyes are not forgiven of God but shall receive sentence of condemnation and many that have been unjustly excommunicated and condemned here shall be owned and absolved there And so in this respect it may be said truly that whoever will continue obstinate and rebel against light as they that here blasphemed against the Holy Ghost must not exspect to have his sin forgiven either in this life by the Church or in the world to come when God shall appear in judgment and so it comes to what St. Marc. saith Hier. in Mat. 5. Huic nullo tempore blasphemia remittetur he hath never forgiveness and what St. Hier. saith upon the place This blasphemy shall never be forgiven him The Sins which the Romanists will have forgiven in the next life Venial Sins are Venial or light sins But why these forgiven in the next world when the great sins are forgiven in this life as they acknowledge unto those justified persons whom they send to Purgatory why should such small sins which do not cut off the state of justification or put the person out of the favour of God be retained and call'd so so severe a reckoning as is that of the Purgatory Prison It is true that sanctified persons after their Justification are subject to the daily subreption of such lighter sins but seeing as St. Aug. saith often we do for them daily confess and say Forgive us our debts why should not the general repentance and confession with which such Persons dye be available to the forgiveness of all such failings and secret sins that cannot be remembred in particular through the merit of Christs perfect obedience apprehended by the faith of such justified persons And as for the stains of sinful corruption The stain or remaining corrupting of Sin yet remaining after forgiveness of the guilt and punishment the doing away of which the Romanists call forgiveness what need is there of a Fire to purge them away for it is not fire but the grace of God likened unto fire that can work that effect upon the soul And why may not final grace as some call it do away the remaining corruption at the parting of soul and body They acknowledge that grace infused does it in the first Justification not only taking away the guilt but the stain and corruption too and why may it not do so in the last infusion or communication They acknowledge also that the stain of original Sin comes upon the Soul in a moment at the conjunction of it with the body and why may not the contracted stains and blots of sin be by the grace of God done away at the separation of soul and body All this is far more reasonable to say then from our Saviours speech not forgiven to infer some shall be then forgiven and from that forgiveness to conclude such a Purgation of Souls as they imagine More reasonable I say though not so prudential it may be considering what is gained by it in the Romish Church For hear what the Cardinal saith of that Inference of the affirmative shall be forgiven from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven It doth not follow Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 4. Non secundum Regulas Logicae sed sequi secundum regulam prudentiae alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè locutum saith he according to the Rules of Logick that is of Reason but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence Else should we make our Lord speak inconsiderately in saying neither in this world nor in the world to come For their Prudence in drawing Purgatory out of so many pretended places of Scripture besides the Rules
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