Memoires da Duc de Roban lib. 1. which is written of F. Arnold the Jesuite Confessor to Lewis the thirteenth of France that he caused the King at Confession solemnly to swear never to dislike what Luines the great favourite did nor himself to meddle with any State-affair Now what advantage the Pope hath over Christian Princes in this particular and how much they have and how much more they may suffer by this Oeconomy is a matter of great consideration Admonetur omnis aetas posse fieri quod jam factum vidimus 3. There is yet another very great evil that attends upon the Roman way of Auricular Confession and that is an eternal scruple of conscience which to the timerous and to the melancholy to the pious and considering and zealous is almost unavoidable For besides that there is no certainty of distinction between the mortal and venial sins there being no Catalogues of one and the other save only that they usually reckon but seven deadly sins and the rest are or may be easily by the ignorant supposed to be venial and even those sins which are under those seven heads are not all mortal for there are amongst them many ways of changing their mortality into veniality and consequent to all this they are either tempted to slight most sins or to be troubled with perpetual disputes concerning almost every thing besides this I say there can be no peace because there can be no certain rule given concerning the examination of our Consciences for who can say he hath done it sufficiently or who knows what is sufficient and yet if it be not sufficient then the sins which are forgotten by carelessness and not called to mind by sufficient diligence are not pardon'd and then the penitent hath had much trouble to no purpose There are some Confessions imperfect but valid some invalid for their imperfection some perfect and yet invalid and they that made the distinction made the Rule and it binds as they please but it can cause scruples beyond their power of remedy because there is no certain principle from whence men can derive peace and a certain determination some affirming and some denying and both of them by chance or humour There are also many reserv'd cases some to the Bishop some to the Patriarch some to the Pope and when you shall have run through the fire for these before the Priest you must run once or twice more and your first absolution is of no force and amongst these reserv'd cases there is also great difference some are reserved by reason of censures Ecclesiastical and some by reason of the greatness of the sin and these things may be hidden from his eyes and he supposing himself absolv'd will perceive himself deceiv'd and absolv'd but from one half Some indeed think that if the superiour absolve from the reserv'd cases alone that grace is given by which all the rest are remitted and on the other side some think if the inferiour absolves from what he can grace is given of remitting even of the reserved but this is uncertain and all agree that the penitent is never the nearer but that he is still oblig'd to confess the reserv'd cases to the superiour if he went first to the inferiour or all to the inferiour in case he went first to the superiour confessing only the reserved There are also many difficulties in the Confession of such things in which the sinner had partners for if he confess the sin so as to accuse any other he sins if he does not in many cases he cannot confess the circumstances that alter the nature of the crime Some therefore tell him he may conceal such sins till a fitter opportunity others say he may let it quite along others yet say he may get another Confessor but then there will come another scruple whether he may do this with leave or without leave or if he ask leave whether or no in case it be denied him he may take leave in such an accident Upon these and many other like accounts there will arise many more Questions concerning the iteration of his confession for if the first confession be by any means made invalid it must be done over again But here in the very beginning of this affair the penitent must be sure that his former confession was invalid For if it was he cannot be pardon'd unless he renew it and if it was not let him take heed for to confess the same things twice and twice to be absolv'd it may be is not lawful Qaest quod libet Quaest. 6. de confess and against it Cajetan after the scholastical manner brings divers reasons But suppose the penitent at peace for this then there are very many cases in which Confession is to be repeated and though it was done before yet it must be done over again As if there be no manner of contrition without doubt it must be iterated but there are many cases concerning Contrition and if it be at all though imperfect it is not to be iterated But what is and what is not contrition what is perfect and what is imperfect which is the first degree that makes the Confession valid can never be told But then there is some comfort to be had for the Sacrament of Penance may be true Cajetan summ verb. Confessio and yet without form or life at the same time And there are divers cases in which the Confession that is but materially half may be reduc'd to that which is but formally half and if there be but a propinquity of the mind to a carelessness concerning the integrity of confession the man cannot be sure that things go well with him And sometimes it happens that the Church is satified when God is not satisfied as in the case of the informis confessio and then the man is absolved but his sin is not pardon'd and yet because he thinks it is his soul is cozen'd And yet this is but the beginning of scruples For suppose the penitent hath done his duty examin'd himself strictly repented sadly confess'd fully and is absolved formally yet all this may come to nothing by reason that there may be some invalidity in the Ordination of the Priest by crime by irregularity by direct deficiency of something in the whole Succession and Ordination or it may be he hath not ordinary or delegat jurisdiction for it is not enough that he is a Priest unless he have another authority Summ. verb. Absolutio says Cajetan besides his Order he must have Jurisdiction which is carefully to be inquir'd after by reason of the infinite numbers of Friers that take upon them to hear Confessions or if he have both yet the use of his power may be interverted or suspended for the time and then his absolution is worth nothing But here there is some remedy made to the poor distracted penitent for by the constitution of the Council of Constance under Pope Martin the 5th
no purgation can no way be put off by any pretences For he means it of the time after death before the day of judgment which is directly oppos'd to the doctrine of the Church of Rome and unless you will suppose that S. Gregory believ'd two Purgatories it is certain he did not believe the Roman for he taught that the purgation which he calls Baptism by fire and the saving yet so as by fire was to be perform'd at the day of judgment and the curiosity of that trial is the fierceness of that fire as Nicetas expounds S. Gregories words in his oration in sancta lumina So that S. Gregory affirming that this world is the place of purgation and that after this world there is no purgation could not have spoken any thing more direct against the Roman Purgatory S. Hilary In Psalm and S. Macarius speak of two states after death and no more True says E. W. but they are the two final states That is true too in some sense for it is either of eternal good or evil but to one of these states they are consigned and determined at the time of their death at which time every one is sent either to the bosom of Abraham or to a place of pain where they are reserved to the sentence of the great day S. Hillary's words are these There is no stay or delaying For the day of judgement is either an eternal retribution of beatitude or of pain But the time of our death hath every one in his laws whiles either Abraham viz. the bosom of Abraham or pain reserves every one unto the Judgment These words need no Commentary He that can reconcile these to the Roman Purgatory Homil. 22. vide etiam homil 26. will be a most mighty man in controversie And so also are the words of S. Macarius when they go out of the body the quires of Angels receive their souls and carry them to their proper place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a pure world and so lead them to the Lord. Such words as these are often repeated by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Ancient Church I sum them up with the saying of S. Athanasius De Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is not death that happens to the righteous but a translation For they are translated out of this world into everlasting rest And as a man would go out of prison so do the Saints go out of this troublesome life unto those good things which are prepared for them Now let these and all the precedent words be confronted against the sad complaints made for the souls in Purgatory by Joh. Gerson in his querela defunctorum and Sr. Tho. More in his supplication of souls and it will be found that the doctrine of the Fathers differs from the doctrine of the Church of Rome as much as heaven and hell rest and labor horrid torments and great joy I conclude this matter of quotations by the saying of Pope Leo Letter p. 18. which one of my adversaries could not find because the printer was mistaken It is the 91. Epistle so known and so us'd by the Roman writers in the Qu. of Confession that if he be a man of learning it cannot be suppos'd but he knew where to find them The words are these But if any of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being intercepted by any obstacle falls from the benefit of the present Indulgences and before he comes to the constituted remedies shall end his temporal life by humane condition or frailty that which abiding in the body he hath not received being out of the flesh he cannot Now against these words of S. Leo set the present doctrine of the Church of Rome that what is not finished of penances here a man may pay in Purgatory and let the world judge whether S. Leo was in this point a Roman Catholic Indeed S. Leo forgot to make use of the late distinction of sins venial and mortal of the punishment of mortal sins remaining after the fault is taken away but I hope the Roman Doctors will excuse the Saint because the distinction is but new and modern But this Testimony of S. Gregory must not go for a single Testimony That which abiding in the body could not be receiv'd out of the body cannot that is when the soul is gone out of the body as death finds them so shall the day of judgment find them And this was the sense of the whole Church for after death there is no change of state before the General Trial no passing from pain to rest in the state of separation and therefore either there are no Purgatory pains or if there be there is no ease of them before the day of judgment and the Prayers and Masses of the Church cannot give remedy to one poor soul and this must of necessity be confessed by the Roman Doctors or else they must shew that ever any one Catholic Father did teach that after death and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECTION III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholic nor Apostolic In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholic faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus P. 18. as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can finde no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sense of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without
Ruffinus says The Apostles being to separate and go to their several charges appointed Normam futurae praedicationis regulam dandam credentibus unanimitatis fidei suae indicium the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world the measure for believers the Index of Faith and Unity Not any speech not so much as one even of them that went before them in the faith was admitted or heard by the Church By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed by this the gate of life is set open by this the glory of Confession is shewn It is short in words but great in Sacraments It confirms all men with the perfection of believing with the desire of confessing with the confidence of the Resurrection Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarchs whatsoever is declar'd in the Scriptures whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets of God who was not begotten Serm. 131. de tempore sive Serm. 2. de exposit Symboli ad Competenteâ— of the Son of God who is the onely begotten of God or the Holy Spirit c. Totum hoc breviter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se continet confitendo So S. Austin who also cals it The fulness of them that believe It is the rule of faith the short the certain rule which the Apostles comprehended in twelve Sentences that the believers might hold the Catholick Vnity and convince the heretical pravity The comprehension and perfection of our faith Serm. 181. de tempore Hom. 115. The short and perfect Confession of the Catholick Symbol is consigned with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Augustum is so furnished with celestial ammunition that all the opinions of Hereticks may be cut off with that sword alone said Pope Leo. I could adde many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith and the fulness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed But I summe them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus In the Apostles Creed there are but few words Lib. 2. de institut Clericorum cap. 56. but it contains all Religion Omnia in eo continentur Sacramenta for they were summarily gathered together from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles that because many Believers cannot read or if they can yet by their secular affairs are hindred that they do not read the Scriptures retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge Now then since the whole Catholick Church of God in the primitive ages having not only declar'd that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contain'd in the plain places of Scripture but that all which the Apostles knew necessary they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession and esteem'd the belief of this sufficient unto salvation and that they requir'd no more in credendis as of necessity to Eternal life but the simple belief of these articles these things ought to remain in their own form and order For what is and what is not necessary is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves or by the Oeconomy of Gods Commandment and what God did command and what necessary effect every Article had the Apostles onely could tell and others from them They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did have shown their want of skill and by that confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill For which sins are venial and which are mortal all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell and how then can they tell this of Errors when they cannot tell it of Actions But if any man will search into the harder things or any more secret Sacrament of Religion by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things and to a contempt of things below he may do it if he please so that he do not impose the belief of his own speculations upon others or compel them to confess what they know not and what they cannot find in Scriptures or did not receive from the Apostles We find by experience that a long act of Parliament or an Indenture and Covenant that is of great length ends none but causes many contentions and when many things are defin'd and definitions spun out into declarations men believe less and know nothing more And what is Man that he who knows so little of his own body of the things done privately in his own house of the nature of the meat he eates nay that knows so little of his own Heart and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature I say what is man that in the things of God he should be asham'd to say This is a secret This God onely knows S. Athanas. ep ad Serapion This he hath not reveal'd This I admire but I understand not I believe but I understand it to be a mystery And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives and do what he commands but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift or the Metaphysicks of a Command Cannot a man eat Oysters unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath and will not condited Mushromes be swallowed down unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a spunge S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13. Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ saying This is my body and cannot I take it thankfully and believe it heartily and confess it joyfully but I must pry into the secret and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry and find out the nature and the undiscernable philosophy of the manner of its change and torment my own brains and distract my heart and torment my Brethren and lose my charity and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me by the Holy Body because I break those few words into more questions than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten Is it not enough that I believe that whether we live or die we are the Lord's in case we serve him faithfully but we must descend into hell and inquire after the secrets of the dead and dream of the circumstances of the state of separation and damn our Brethren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damn'd in Purgatory Is it not enough that we are Christians that is that we put all our hope in God who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ that we are redeemed by his death that he rose again for our justification that we are made members of his body in Baptism that he gives us of his Spirit that being dead to the lusts of this world we should live according to his doctrine and example that is that we do no evil that we do what good we can that we love God and love our Brother that we suffer patiently and do good things in expectation of better even of
Castro Adrianus Petrus dae Aquilae and others before the Council of Trent 3. Though these men go several ways which shows as Scotus expresses it hoc verbum non est praecisum yet they all agree well enough in this that they are all equally out of the story and none of them well performs what he undertakes It is not mine alone but the judgement which * Qu. 90. in 3â— Thom. dub 2. Vasquez makes of them who confuted many of them by arguments of his own and by the arguments which they use one against another and gives this censure of them Inter eos qui planè fatentur ex illis verbis Joh. xx o necessitatem Confessionis supple elici vix invenias qui efficaciter deducat And therefore this place of S. John is but an infirm foundation to build so great a structure on it as the whole Oeconomy of their Sacrament of Penance and the necessity of Confession upon it since so many learned and acute men master-builders believe nothing at all of it and others that do agree not well in the framing of the Structure upon it but make a Babel of it and at last their attempts prove vain and useless by the testimony of their fellow-labourers There are some other places of Scripture which are pretended for the necessity of Confession but they need no particular Scrutiny Primum istorum esseâ— magis conveniens lenendâ—m si posset evidenter haberi istud praeceptum ex Evangelio Nec oporiet ad hoc adducere illud Matthaei 16. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quia non est nisi promissio de datione futura Sed si aliquid in Evangelio videlicet ad hoc videtur illud Joh. xx Accipiâ—e Spir. S. Quorum remiseritis c. not only because they are rejected by their own parties as insufficient but because all are principally devolved upon the twentieth of S. John and the Council of Trent it self wholly relies upon it Dicitur quod sic de illo verbo Jacob. 5. Confiremini alter utrum peccata c. sed nec per hoc videretur mihi quod Jacobus praeceptum hoc dedit nec praecepum à Christo promulgavit Scotus in l. 4. dist 17. Sect. De Secundo This therefore being the foundation if it fails them as to their pretensions their building must needs be ruinous But I shall consider it a little When Christ said to his Apostles Whose sins ye remit they shall be remitted to them and whose sins ye retain they shall be retained he made says Bellarmine and generally the latter School of Roman Doctors the Apostles and all Priests Judges upon earth that without their sentence no man that hath sinned after Baptism can be reconciled But the Priests who are Judges can give no right or unerring sentence unless they hear all the particulars they are to judge Therefore by Christs law they are tied to tell in Confession all their particular sins to a Priest This is the summe of all that is said in this affair Other light skirmishes there are but the main battel is here Now all the parts of this great Argument must be considered And 1. I deny the argument and supposing both the premisses true that Christ had made them judges and that without particular cognisance they could not give judgement according to Christs intention yet it follows not that therefore it is necessary that the penitent shall confess all his sins to the Priest For Who shall compel the penitent to appear in judgement Where are they oblig'd to come and accuse themselves before the judges Indeed if they were before them we will suppose the Priests to have power to judge them but how can it be hence deduc'd that the penitents are bound to come to this Judicatory and not to stand alone to the Divine tribunal A Physician may have power to cure diseases yet the Patients are not bound to come to him neither it may be will they if they can be cur'd by other means And if a King sends a Judge with competent authority to judge all the Questions in a Province he can judge them that come but he cannot compel them to come and they may make an end of their quarrels among themselves or by arbitration of neighbours and if they have offended the King they may address themselves to his clemency and sue for pardon And since it is certain by their own confession that a penitent cannot by the force of these words of Christ be compelled to confess his venial sins how does it appear that he is tied to confess his mortal sins For if a man be tied to repent of all his sins then repentance may be performed without the ministery of the Priest or else he must repent before the Priest for all his sins But if he may repent of his venial sins and yet not go to the Priest then to go to the Priest is not an essential part of the repentance and if it be thus in the case of venial sins let them shew from the words of Christ any difference in the case between the one and the other especially if we consider that though it may be convenient to go to the Priest to be taught and guided yet the necessity of going to him is to be absolved by his Ministery But that of this there was no necessity believ'd in the Primitive Church appears in this because they did not expect pardon from the Bishop or Priest in the greatest Crimes but were referred wholly to God for the pardon of them Non sine spe tamen remissionis quà m ab eo planè sperare debebit qui ejus largitatem solus obtinet tam dives misericordiae est ut nemo desperet So said the Bishops of France in their Synod held about the time of Pope Zephyrinus To the same purpose are the words of Tertullian Salvâ illâ poenitentiae specie post fidem quae aut levioribus delictis veniam ab Episcopo consequi poterit aut majoribus irremissibilibus à Deo solo The like also is in the 31 th Epistle of S. Cyprian Now first it is easie to observe how vast the difference is between the old Catholick Church and the present Roman these say that venial sins are not of necessity to be confessed to the Priest or Bishop and that without their Ministery they can be pardoned But they of old said that the smaller sins were to be submitted to the Bishop's Ministery On the other side the Roman Doctors say it is absolutely necessary to bring our mortal sins and confess them in order to be absolved by the Priest but the old Catholicks said that the greatest sins are wholly to be confessed and submitted to God who may pardon them if he please and will if he be rightly sought to but to the Church they need not be confessed because these were onely and immediately fit for the Divine Cognisance What is now a-days a reserved case
to the Pope was anciently a case reserved to God and what was onely submitted formerly to the Bishop is now not worth much taking notice of by any one But now put these together By the Roman doctrine you are not by the duty of repentance tied to confess your venial sins and by the Primitive it is to no purpose to bring the greatest crimes to Ecclesiastical repentance but by their immediate address to God they had hopes of pardon From hence it follows that there is no necessity of doing one or other that is there is no Commandment of God for it nor yet any necessity in the Nature of the thing requiring it Venerable Bede had an opinion that those sins onely which are like to leprosie ought to be submitted to the judgement of the Church In Lucae Evang. cap. 69. tom 5. Colon Agripp 1612. Caetera verò vitia tanquam valetudines quasi membrorum animae atque sensuum per semetipsum interius in conscientiâ intellectu Dominus sanat Lib. 5. ep 16. And Goffridus Vindocinensis tells of one William a learned man whose doctrine it was That there were but four sorts of sins which needed Confession the Errour of Gentilism Schism Heretical pravity and Judaical perfidiousness Concil Tâ—id sess 14. c. 5. Nam venialia quibus à gratia Dei non excludimur in quae frequentiùs labimur quanquam rectè utiliter citráque omnem praesumptionem in confessione dicantur quod piorum hâ—minum usus demonstrat tateri tamen citrà culpam multisque alâ—is remediis expiari possunt Caetera autem peccata à Domino sine confessione sanari But besides this I demand Whether or no hath the Priest a power to remit venial sins and that this power in the words of S. John Chap. XX. was given to him by Christ If Christ did in these words give him power to remit venial sins and yet the penitent is not bound to recount them in particular or at all to submit them to his Judicatory it will follow undeniably that the giving power of remission of sins to the Priest does not inferre a necessity in the penitent to come to confess them And these things I suppose Vasquez understood well enough when he affirms expressly that it may well stand with the ordinary power of a Judge that his power be such as that it be free for the subjects to submit to it or to end their controversies another way And that it was so in this case is the doctrine of * Vide Vasquez in 3. tom 4. q. 90. art 1. dub 2. Sect. 3. Scotus above cited and many others Add to this the Argument of * Vbi supra Scotus The Priest retains no sins but such which some way or other are declar'd to him to have no true signs of repentance yet those which are no way manifested to the Priest God retains unto the vengeance of Hell therefore neither is that word whose sins ye remit precise that is If God retains some which the Priest does not retain then also he does remit some which the Priest does not remit and therefore there is no negative affix'd to the affirmative which shews that the remission or retention does not necessarily depend on the Priest's ministration So that supposing it to be true that the Priest hath a power to remit or retain sins as a Judge and that this power cannot be exercis'd without knowing what he is to judge yet it follows not from hence that the people are bound to come this way and to confess their sins to them or to ask their pardon But 2. The second proposition is also false for supposing the Priest by the words of Christ hath given to him the ordinary power of a Judge and that as such he hath power of remitting and retaining sins yet this power of judging may be such as that it may be performed without enumeration of all the particulars we remember For the Judgement the Priest is to make is not of the sins but of the persons It is not said Quaecunque but Quorumcunque remiseritis peccata Our Blessed Saviour in these words did not distinguish two sorts of sins one to be remitted and an other to be retained so that it should be necessary to know the special nature of the sins he only reckon'd one kind that is under which all sins are contain'd But he distinguish'd two sorts of sinners saying Quorum and Quorum the one of Penitents according to the whole design and purpose of the Gospel and their sins are to be remitted Vid. Padre Paolo hist. Conc. Trid. lib. 4. and an other of Impenitent whose sins are not to be remitted but retained And therefore it becomes the Ministers of Souls to know the state of the penitent rather than the nature and number of the sins Neither gave he any power to punish but to pardon or not to pardon If Christ had intended to have given to the Priests a power to impose a punishment according to the quality of every sin the Priest indeed had been the Executioner of the Divine wrath but then because no punishment in this life can be equal to the demerit of a sin which deserves the eternal wrath of God it is certain the Priest is not to punish them by way of vengeance We do not find any thing in the words of Christ obliging the Priest directly to impose penances on the penitent sinner he may voluntarily submit himself to them if he please and he may do very well if he do so but the power of retaining sins gives no power to punish him whether he will or no for the power of retaining is rather to be exerciz'd upon the impenitent than upon the penitent Besides this the word of remitting sins does not certainly give the Priest a power to impose penances for it were a prodigie of interpretation to expound remittere by punire But if by retaining it be said this power is given him then this must needs belong to the impenitent who are not remitted and not to the penitent whose sins at that time they remit and retain not unless they can do both at the same time But if the punishment design'd be only by way of Remedy or of disposing the sinners to true penitence then if the person be already truly penitent the Priest hath nothing to do but to pardon him in the name of God Now certainly both these things may be done without the special enumeration of all his remembred sins For 1. The penitent may and often does forget many particulars and then in that case all that the Priest can expect or proceed to judgment upon is the saying in general He is truly sorrowful for them and for the time to come will avoid them and if he then absolve the penitent as he must and usually does it follows that if he does well and he can do no better he may make a judgment of his penitent
of his Commentaries and yet even the Purgatory which is in the Dialogues is unlike that which was declar'd at Basil Lib. 4. Dialog c. 39. for the Gregorian Purgatory supposed only an expiation of small and light faults as immoderate laughter impertinent talking Cap. 46. which nevertheless he himself says are expiable by fear of death In summa sacram and Victoria and Jacobus de Graffis say are to be taken away by beating the breast holy water Eccles. n. 110. the Bishops blessing Decis cas confâ—ient part 1. lib. 1. c. 6. n 10. and S. Austin says they are to be taken off by daily saying the Lords prayer and therefore being so easily so readily so many ways to be purg'd here it will not be worth establishing a Purgatory for such alone but he admits not of any remaining punishment due to greater sins forgiven by the bloud of Christ. But concerning S. Gregory I shall say no more but refer the Reader to the Apology of the Greeks who affirm that S. Gregory admitted a kind of Purgatory but whether allegorically or no or thinking so really they know not but what he said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by way of dispensation and as it were constrained to it by the arguments of those who would have all sins expiable after death against whom he could not so likely prevail if he had said that none was and therefore he thought himself forc'd to go a middle way and admit a Purgatory only for little or venial sins which yet will do no advantage to the Church of Rome And besides all this S. Gregory or whoever is the Author of these Dialogues hath nothing definite or determin'd concerning the time manner measure or place so wholly new was this doctrine then that it had not gotten any shape or feature Next I am to account concerning the Greeks whom I affirm always to have differed from the Latins since they had forg'd this new doctrine of Purgatory in the Roman laboratories The letter pag. 14. and to prove something of this I affirm'd that in the Council of Basil they publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the doctrine of Purgatory Against this up starts a man fierce and angry and says there was no such Apology publish'd in the Council of Basil for he had examined it all over and can find no such Apology I am sorry for the Gentlemans loss of his labour but if he had taken me along with him I could have help'd the learned man This Apology was written by Marcus Metropolitan of Ephesus as Sixtus Senensis confesses Biblioth lib. 6. and that he offered it to the Council of Basil. Annot. 259. That it was given and read to the deputies of the Council Lib. 2. p. 186. June 14. 1438. is attested by Cusanus and Martinus Crusius in his Turco-Graecia But it is no wonder if this over-learned author of the letter miss'd this Apology in his search of the Council of Basil for this is not the only material thing that is missing in the editions of the Council of Basil for Linwood that great and excellent English Canonist made an appeal in that Council and prosecuted it with effect in behalf of King Henry of England Cum in temporalibus non recognoscat superiorem in terris c. But nothing of this now appears though it was then registred but it is no new thing to forge or to suppress acts of Councils But besides this I did not suppose he would have been so indiscreet as to have look'd for that Apology in the editions of the Council of Basil but it was deliver'd to the Council by the Greeks and the Council was wise enough not to keep that upon public record however if the Gentleman please to see it he may have it among the Booksellers if he will please to ask for the Apologia Graecorum de igne purgatorio published by Salmasius it was supposed to be made by Marc Archbishop P. 93. but for saving the Gentlemans charge or trouble I shall tell him a few words out of that Apology which will serve his turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For these reasons the doctrine of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church as that which slackens the endeavours of the diligent as perswading them not to use all means of contention to be purged in this life since another purgation is expected after it And it is infinitely to be wondred at the confidence of Bellarmine for as for this objector De purgatâ—rio lib. 1. c. 15. Sect. it matters not so much that he should in the face of all the world say Ad secundum dico that the Greek Church never doubted of Purgatory whereas he hath not brought one single true and pertinent testimony out of the Greek Fathers for the Roman doctrine of Purgatory but is forc'd to bring in that crude allegation of their words for prayer for the dead which is to no purpose as all wise men know Indeed he quotes the Alchoran for Purgatory Bellar. lib. 1. c. 11. Sect. de Mahumetanis an authentic author it seems to serve such an end But besides this two memorable persons of the Greek Church Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica and Marc Archbishop of Ephesus have in behalf of the Greek Church written against the Roman doctrine in this particular And it is remarkable that the Latines were and are so put to it to prove Purgatory fire from the Greek Fathers that they have forg'd a citation from Theodoret * In 1 Cor. 3. which is not in him at all but was first cited in Latin by Tho. Aquinas either out of his own head or cosen'd by some body else And quoted so by Bellarmine * Lib. 1. de purgat c. 5. Sect. ex Graecis which to wise men cannot but be a very great argument of the weakness of the Roman cause in this Question from the Greek Fathers and that Bellarmine saw it but yet was resolv'd to run through it and out-face it but Nilus taking notice of it says that there are no such words in Theodoret in the many copies of his works which they had In Greek it is certain they are not and Gagneius first translated them into Greek to make the cheat more prevalent but in that translation makes use of those words of the wisdom of Solomon Sap. 3. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as gold in the fornace meaning it of the affliction of the righteous in this world but unluckily he made use of that Chapter In the first verse of which chapter it is said The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them which is a testimony more pregnant against the Roman Purgatory than all that they can bring from the Greek Fathers for it And this Gentleman confutes the Dissuasive as he thinks by telling the story according as his own Church hath set