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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of the Cathari shews that after this life ended the condition is unalterable the receptacles sealed up the Crowns given Not so if souls truly penitent go to purgatory for of such souls he speaks there against the Novatians Thus much of the Place of Souls We come now to the second Head Prayers for the Dead infer not Purgatory that is Prayer for the Dead from which the Romanists would infer Purgatory And for Scripture proof they give us 2 Machab. 12.43 a fit foundation for such an Article of Faith the book of all the Apocryphals least considerable which will easily appear to him that layes together what the Author himself saith of his own work in his 2. chap. v. 23 24 26. and chap. 15.38 39. Evidences enough of a meer humane work done by the labour of the brain not the inspiration of the Holy Ghost St. Aug. indeed sometimes cals these books Canonical according to the large acception of the African Church but being put to answer an argument of the Donatist grounded upon the * Machab. example of Razis he much lessens the Authority of them as not to be compared with the books of the Law and Psalms Aug. contra Gauden l. 2. c 23. quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis Luc. 24 44. recepta non inutiliter si sobrie legatur and the Prophets to which saith he our Lord gives testimony as to his Witnesses But this writing of the Mach. is received of the Church not unprofitably if it be read soberly Gregory Bishop of Rome citing a place out of these Books Greg. Moral l. 19. c. 13. excuses it because he did it out of Books not Canonical in Moral l. 19. c. 13. Again he that well considers the place will easily distinguish between the Fact of Judas and the mistaken collection or misapplication of the writer of that Book Judas no doubt did piously for he seeing their Sin or Sacriledge as the cause why they were slain vers 40. fell to his devotions prayed and sent a sin-offering to Jerusalem v. 42.43 Not for the sin of them that died that 's the mistake of this Writer but upon occasion of their sin to divert the Wrath from the rest of his Army as Joshua thought himself concerned upon the sin of Achan Josh 7.10 Also it is apparent that they died in their sin the things they had stoln being found about them which argues both the incogitancy of this writer who vers 45. supposes they died godly and the impertinency of the Romanists who suppose them in Purgatory whither they send none that dye in their sins but only justified persons They also urge 2 Tim. 1.18 for praying for the Dead whereas that prayer for Onesiphorus supposing him dead at that time has but reference to the Mercy which shall be imparted at the last day to which also the prayers of the Ancient Church do much refer and make nothing for Purgatory And therefore all the Testimonies they bring out of the Ancient Fathers or Councils for praying for the Dead are impertinent as to the proving of a Purgatory there being other Reasons for such praying as we shall see A wilful perverting it is of that Ancient Practice to draw it off as the Church of Rome has done from the first intent and purpose to fasten it upon their conceit of Purgatory pains We shall see this better by the trial following The Ancients when they set themselve to give reasons of the Churches praying for the Dead Other purposes of such Prayers give not this of Purgatory which had been most obvious and most fit to stop the mouth of the Adversary had it been the Doctrine of the Church but other Reasons they alledge differing from or inconsistent with Purgatory This appears by Epiphanius who was put to it by Aerius questioning the prayers made in the Church for the Dead and by Dionysius in his Hierarchy who puts himself to answer the like Questions In both of them it appears that the intent of the Church by those Prayers was mainly this The instruction of the living and the confirming of their Hope See first what Epiphanius saith He cals this practice a seemly preaching or publishing Epiph. Har. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of what of the happy estate and Rest of those that dye in Christ whereby the belief of the living was confirmed and their hope raised What more profitable saith he then that the living should believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that are departed are in being and do live with the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again There is hope saith he to them while they pray for their Brethren as now in their peregrination or absence Insinuating that albeit they are departed or gone from them yet they shall meet again Also to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is more perfect which must refer to the state of the next life for saith he while we are here in the world we offend often And lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all men do offend and slip in this life more or less 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore we pray for all even for Patriarchs c. to separate Christ from all other for he being without sin altogether is not to be prayed for but to be prayed unto and worshipped These are all the Reasons he gives of their praying for the Dead which we see do respect and provide for the instruction of the Living and do not imply any such state of the Dead in pain and grief as Purgatory supposeth but the Contrary Now see we what the Romanists endeavour to pick out of words Because he saith Prayer for the Dead is profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. although it cuts not off sins all or wholly they infer thence therefore it doth cut off sin in part We answer As Epiphanius does not say that so neither could he mean it For first we must suppose he would not answer impertinently to Aerius who objected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the prayers of the living altogether profit the Dead then let no man live Godly c. Therefore Epiphanius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must answer to Aerius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and must be understood of the sins of such persons as Aerius spoke of such as had no care of their lives but left it to their living friends to pray for them after death Now if Epiphanius should mean that prayer did in part cut off such mens sins then must he speak according to that merciful opinion of mitigating the pains of the Damned by the prayers of the Living with which conceit some of the Ancients were tainted as we shall see below but this would be nothing to Purgatory Secondly if his meaning had been as the Romanists would have it that prayer for the Dead did not cut off such mens sins but that there was another sort of sinners
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
first Adam that is that there is a new righteousness also put in us in our Justification which we every where acknowledge and is that which Theoph. said above Justificans Sanctificat when he Justifies he Sanctifies Two other places he brings to prove the inhaerent to be our true righteousness which we grant in its order and measure but not to the excluding of the imputed from its due order and place The * Bell. l. 2. c. 8. Cardinal tels us that St. Aug. in his Book of Nature and Grace ch 38. teaches that charity infused into our hearts is our true righteousness This is the Cardinals Collection he does not give us the very words of that Father we must therefore know that Book was written against the Pelagians against whom it was his usual work to assert the true grace of God given us and that all the good we have or do is from God and that all the righteousness which is in us though true yet imperfect and this is the very purpose of that place He shews there that Abel and many others in Scripture were just yet were not without sin and Justi fuerunt sine peccato non fuerunt qua una verè justus est quicunque justus est adhuc erat quo posset deberet augeri quicquidâ—minus erat ex vitio erat Aug. de na gra c. 38. if in Abel the just there was the Love of God by which only every one is just that is just that is without which there is no true inhaerent or actual righteousness yet was it such as might and ought to be increased and whatsoever was less then it ought was to be reckoned as of vice or faulty It is plain he did not mean the righteousness of Justification or that those just men were justified by that righteousness he there speaks of which will farther appear by the next place out of St. Aug. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 19. c. 27. Hic itaque in uno quoque Justitia est siobedienti Deus homini c. Book Of the City of God the Cardinal draws this Testimony Here therefore it is righteousness in every one that God should rule over man obeying him the minde over the body and reason over vice In this definition saith the * Bel. ubi suprá Cardinal the imputed righteousness of Christ hath no place but only inhaerent righteousness Definition of what he could not say of Justification for that Father speaks not of it in that place and so the Cardinal is impertinent But put the Case that any were to give a Definition of Justification should the imputed righteousness of Christ have no place in it This is that they strive for and think they allow it enough if they grant that by the merit of Christs satisfaction and righteousness we have grace righteousness given us by which we are justified and have our sins purged out which with them is Remission and our persons made acceptable we noted this * Nu. 4. ex Vasque above and this is that which keeps the Gap from closing which might be reasonably made up if they would give the Righteousness of Christ its due for our Justification as we are ready to give inhaerent grace and righteousness its due both for the Connexion it hath with our Justification and for the necessity of it to our sanctification But to return there is enough in that chap. to shew how little this serveth to the Cardinals purpose The whole place speaks of Actual righteousness and that is not for his purpose and the two first words Here therefore shews the dependence of this upon what went before and thereby the imperfection of our righteousness here in this life and that also is not to the Cardinals purpose That which went before runs thus Our righteousness though it be true Aug. de Civ Dei l. 19. c. 27. Nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tanta tamen est in hac vita ut potiùs peccatorum remissione consteâ— quam perfectione virtutum Testis est oratio totius Civitatis Dei per omnia membra sua clamat ad Deum Dimitte nobis as to the end of that true good to which it refers or tends yet is it such in this life that it rather stands in the remission of sins then in the perfection of vertues which shews the imperfeon as I said of any righteousness in us as needing continually in this life the mercy of God for pardon and therefore unable to Justifie As witness and proof of this St. Aug. adds the prayer of the whole City of God so journing upon earth witnesseth this for she cries in all her members unto God Lord forgive us our Debts and gives a reason from this mortal condition and corruptible body * quod aggravat animam non perfecte ratio vitiis imperat ideo necessaria est justis talis oratio which presseth down the soul so that Reason does not perfectly rule over vice therefore is such prayer necessary for just persons The Cardinal replies to the first part that mans righteousness consists in both that is in the forgiveness of sins and the perfection of virtues which is true of the Righteousness St. Aug. speaks of viz. the actual righteousness of man in this life for such is the righteousness of just or justified men of whom the Father speaks here but they had another kinde of righteousness by which they are first justified Sic orare justos ac per hoc indigere indulgentia ventalium delictorum Bel. ubi suprá To the latter part he replies That just persons pray so as St. Aug. said they do and by this shew they need indulgence of their venial sins But if only need remission of such which may so easily be satisfied for and done away St. Aug. had not said potius in remissione rather in the remission of sins experience also tels us that just men commit greater sins and need indulgence or remission of them too and see how heedlesly contrary the Cardinal is to himself in so few lines He had said Mans righteousness stands in both these Remission of Sins and Perfection of Virtue and meant it of the righteousness of Justification in which he will grant the Remission of all sins and of eternal death due to them Here presently he restrains Remission to the indulgence of Venial sins I will but add two other places cited out of the same Father rendring the word Justifie The word Justifie sometimes improperly taken by the Fathers by making just or righteous as when he saith Who has made righteousness in man but he that justifieth the ungodly that is of an ungodly man by his grace makes a just and righteous man Aug. in Ps Ps 118. conc 26. qui justificat impium i. e. per gratiam suam ex Impio facit Justum and to the like purpose he speaks upon
Now albeit what this Doctor asserted was most false yet does it plainly follow upon the Romish Doctrine of truly meritorious which the Doctor saw plainly must be deserted or this must be maintained he saw plainly that if good works were truly meritorious they would be so whether there were promise made or no for as I noted above The promise makes not for the merit of the work but for the consecution or obtaining of the reward also he saw that if eternal life were by a gracious and free promise it could not be due to the work of Justice Lastly the Cardinal in the same place acknowledges Bel. l. 5. de Just c. 14. sect Tertia Omnes conditione servi Mancipia Dei operibus nostris alioqui debitis We are all by our Creation servants yea bond servants of God and that there cannot be justice between us God unless he had been pleased of himself by a free Convention to appoint a reward to our works which were otherwise due Due antecedently to all promise due from our being and Creation and if all the justice that can be found 'twixt God Almighty and us men be in regard of his promise only as indeed it is it cannot be in regard of any obligation the work it self casts upon God to make him our Debtor as the Cardinal above did not fear to assert Truth and the Conviction of Gods free and bountiful dealing with man extorts such Concessions from them as do sufficiently contradict their bold Assertions and might put end to the Controversie if some unjustifiable ends did not still engage them SECT VI. Of Purgatory THat Purgatory is conceived to be a Place of pain or punishment What Purgatory is that for Souls of just Persons departed out of this life is plain by the * Sess 6. Can. 30. Council of Trent and by the Reason or ground of it according to the Romish conceit because it is for those to whom the sin and the eternal punishment is forgiven but the temporal not fully satisfied by them here and therefore must be payed or born hereafter This appeared above chap. VI. nu 1.5.6 The Cardinal is bold to affirm Bel. li. 1. de Purgat c. 15. that Purgatory is an Article of the Catholick faith and may be proved all the four waies that points of Faith use to be proved by viz. by express Testimony of Scripture with the Declaration of the Church So is the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father proved or by evident deduction from that which is express in Scripture So is the Article of two Wills in Christ proved c. and so is Purgatory proved saith the Cardinal and he boasts that he has so proved it by giving us many places of Scripture mistaken as to that sense and many sayings of Fathers misapplied as to that purpose which will appear upon the Trial following It will appear that this Doctrine of Purgatory is not Catholick but the invention of later Times taking Rise from that which St. Aug. hinted as probable touching pains after death and then having an Advancement by fabulous reports of Visions and deluding apparitions in St. Gregories time and after at last receiving a Definition and establishment in the Church of Rome And for the countenancing of it They force many places of Scripture and whatever they finde in the Fathers concerning prayer for the Dead or touching a purging Fire though spoken to other purpose doing therein as those Hereticks of whom St. Hilary said that they drew Scripture to that ad id quod praesumpserunt credendum which they had of themselves presumed or before conceived to be proposed and held as matter of Belief For better proceeding We will reduce all to these Heads The Place or state of Souls after death The Prayers that were made for the Dead The Remission of sins after death The pains or punishment after death What the Romanists bring from Scripture or Fathers touching any of these we shall meet with As for the Texts of Scripture alledged by them we may say this in General They have no consent of Fathers for such a sense as they would fasten upon the Texts they cite in behalf of Purgatory First for the Place or state of souls departed Of the Place or state of Souls departed Scriptures alledged by the Romanists There are two Scriptures especially which they alledge for such a place of Souls as they phansie Purgatory to be The one is Zach. 9.11 I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the Pit where no water is which text in the first and immediate sense speaks the deliverance of that people out of the Babylonish captivity but is by many of the Ancients applied to our Saviours bringing forth the Souls of the Fathers of the old Testament out of their Receptacle or Limbus And the Cardinal acknowledges Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 3. Non est aqua Conâ— solationis it has been usually taken in that sense but thinks it as proper for Purgatory and the rather because in this there is not the Water of consolation as there was in the other And this is to be noted here because we shall finde the Cardinal below put to devise how prayers for the Dead made by the Ancient Church for those that rested in peace Bel. l. 2. de Purgat c. 4. admixtam cum cruciatibus incredibilem consolationem propter certam spem salutis could concern Souls in purgatory that is in Torment and cannot invent any expedient for it but by referring that rest and peace to the Comfort and satisfaction they have there together with their Torment by reason of their hope and assurance of coming out of those pains into eternal bliss That which the Cardinal for proof of his interpreting that text of Zach. in behalf of Purgatory fastens upon St. August is not that Fathers expression or intention but the Cardinals misapplication St. August in the places cited by the Cardinal Epist 49. ad Euod lib. 12. in Genes c. 33. speaks of our Saviours descending into Hell and delivering some that were there but i. e. in Purgatorio is the Cardinals addition The other Text is Mat. 5.25 where we read of a prison and a payment to be made there but what proof is there more then a strong phansie that this must signifie Purgatory The Cardinal indeed alledges some Fathers using those words of our Saviour as a Commination against Sinners but that they should thereby intend a Romish Purgatory is still the Cardinals misapplication One and the chief of those Fathers cited by him is St. Cyprian in his Epist 52. ad Antonian where He plainly as we shall see below applies that of the prison and the paying of the utmost farthing to the Severity of Ecclesiastick Pennances and Satisfactions under which the Lapsi or those that fell in time of persecution were held Now when the Fathers give any direct interpretation of that
before them how shall we not them move and make God propitious while we pray for them that are departed Here again the Romanists triumph as if St. Chrysost made their praying for Souls in purgatory an Ordinance of the Apostles whereas he plainly restrains this Ordinance of the Apostles as above he did the Ordinance of the Spirit to that which the Church did in the Holy Eucharist and that concerned only them who were at rest in Christ Nothing of Souls in pains and torment is mentioned in the Ancient Liturgies or Prayers of the Church As for this Fathers speaking of prayer for such sinners as he described in all the forementioned places such as were gone to endless pains yet might receive as he thought a little case thereby we must reckon it as a private opinion and misapplication of that practise of praying for the Dead And indeed he seems to acknowledge so much himself for in his forementioned Hom. 61. in Jo. he faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in relation to those his exhortations for such prayers and offerings These things I speak not as one giving precept or setting a Law but as one allowing and condescending to the affections and frailties of men The Romanists here reply that St. Chrysost and others seem to urge Prayer for All because they knew not who died in the state of repentance and so they pray for all in the Church of Rome yet hold those prayers appliable to and available for only those that dye in that state and go to Purgatory pains This is a meer shift for St. Chrysost does plainly suppose that those sinners he speaks of died in their sins such Chrys hom 61. in lo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if God had seen they would have changed he would not have cut them off before their repentance as we had it above such as he in another place speaks thus of of such a one there is no cause to rejoyce but only because the course of his wicked life is cut off yet for such he exhorts to pray and offer and help him as they can And indeed the reason of this extending the benefit of Prayers to such sinners was not any supposal of Purgatory but of some mitigating and easing of those eternal pains to which such sinners were adjudged and this in part according to that merciful opinion and the motion of humane affection of which St. Aug. speaks in his Enchiridion C. 111. as we noted above and to which affection St. Chrysost gives too much scope as we see in the forementioned passages of prayers oblations for such sinners But as for Purgatory pains which are supposed to begin at death to end before the resurrection he knew no such pains as evidently appears by that exact distribution of the several sorts of punishments made by this Father and cited below Nu. 11. What we have said of some expressions of Chrysost applying prayer and relief to such sinners as before were described may be said of that place which the Romanists much urge out of St. Cyril Myst â—atech 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril who tels us they prayed simply for all and accounted it a great help to those souls for which the prayer of the great and holy sacrifice was offered and the great power which that prayer hath to help he sets out by the similitude of a King intreated to pardon and call back one that is banished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the same manner saith he we praying for sinners render God propitious Now if it be after the same manner then by the force of this similitude it must be implyed that the prayers of the Church may obtain pardon for sinners not reconciled to God before their death for so the banished person is supposed to be not reconciled to his Prince and then it sounds to like purpose as those passages in Chrysostom did and is but a private application or misapplication of that Ancient practise neither agreeable to the intent of the Ancient Church remembring in her prayers and offerings only those that were at rest in Christ as by the Forms of those prayers may appear nor making any thing for Purgatory which supposes the person reconciled and justified before he comes there But if the Sinners which Cyril here saith are prayed for be taken in a more remiss sense for such as the Romish Church sends to purgatory then the praying for them comes to no more then what we said above to Epiphanius and Dionysius that such prayer had reference to the passage of such souls and their appearing in judgment not to their being in pains after death For that such persons must appear in judgment the first and the last judgment and undergo a scrutiny or examination and have as it were their hay and stubble burnt up was a Catholick Truth but that persons reconciled to God dying and resting in Christ should presently go to pain and torment was no doctrine of the Church and therefore the prayers of the Church could not refer unto such persons And we may observe that the undoubted Cyril for those Mystagogical Catechismes are thought to be composed by John B. Cyril Catech 15. of Jerusalem tels us that Christ when he comes to judgment shall draw after him a sloud of trying fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall burn up all hay and stubble of their Actions So that if such sinners be prayed for it must be with reference to the fire of trial and examination which they are to undergo in the day of Judgment and according to the true Cyril Thus much for that practise of the Church praying for the Dead that it does not prove a belief of Purgatory but was used upon other Reasons The third general Head was Forgiveness of sins after Death Forgiveness of sins after death or in the world to come out of which the Romanists would conclude a Purgatory The Text of Scripture is our Saviours speech Mat. 12.32 it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come Here they are bound to make good three things 1. That the world to come signifies the Time beginning at every mans death 2. That from our Saviours Negative nor in the world to come this affirmative followes therefore there are some sins shall be forgiven in the World to come 3. That if some sins shall be forgiven then to them to whom they shall be forgiven there remains pain and torment to be suffered I. For the Time Of the world to come The world to come is no where put for the Time between every mans death and the Resurrection for so it would be present to some and future to others but is every where seculum futurum which is so to every one whether it be taken according to the Jewish acception or the Christian With the Jewes the world to come did sometimes signifie the Time of their exspected