DEVOTION AND REASON FIRST ESSAY WHEREIN Modern Devotion for the Dead is brought to solid Principles and made Rational In way of Answer to Mr J. M's Remembrance for the Living to pray for the Dead By THOMAS WHITE Gent. In quo quemque invenerit suus novissimus dies in eo eum comprehendet mundi novissimus dies Aug. Epist. 80. ad Hesychium PARIS MCDLXI PREFACE To the Gentleman who sent me Mr. J. M's Book SIR PEradventure you may desire as well my Judgment of Mr. M's Book as the answering of it In Brief then The man I knew many years ago and concieved a good Idea of his honesty and such Learning as could then be expected from him He went after beyond the Seas where as I heard he follow'd other studies and at his return I saw him once but had a good Character of him from a common friend as touching his Honesty For as to his Learning either my friend had not try'd it or we had no occasion to discourse of it With this Character of his Person I undertook the reading of his Book In which I find all the Arts necessary to the dâ—fending of a bad cause with as little shame as is possible He brings known Heresies for his defence of lawfull Authours he stretches their Persons to the heighth their words beyond their extent if he lights upon an Authority of some Church Book you would think it were the Definition of a General Council he so presses the Authority of the Church for it By Interpretations and Translations he makes them say what he lists He imposes upon his Adversaries Erroneous Doctrin sometimes because he hath not taken the pains to understand them and other times because otherwise his cause would be openly gone He specially presses my opposition to Popes Bulls as ayming by confirmation of them to have me censured Of two the one he corrupts the other he understands more like a Banquier then a Divine and yet sets his rest upon them Most of his Arguments are from places common to both sides A great weapon with him is to tax his Adversaries Arguments as employed by Hereticks to prove Errours not knowing that it is a principal Method of gaining Science to use the Arguments of extream Errours to conclude the middle Truth a way much practised by Aristotle and very laudable For as Aristotle teaches there is nâ— famous Errour without some truth in it seeing wiâ—h â—t shew of Truth Nature could not receive it He hath made a Collection of good and bad I think of as much as can be said but seems to make no distinction between those that have some weight and those which have none His Answers are sometimes the admitting of plain Contradiction sometimes admitting of all we say and for the most some difference in words more then in meaning Yet he brags fearfully of his great Exployts and Triumphs When he pleases he explicates my opinions in disguised Language and ordinarily imperfectly I hope his Book will prove the decision if not of the cause at least of the handling of it He hath had two great Advantages against me One by which a witty Spanish Preacher called Padre Mancio overcame his corrival to a Sermon in a Country Parish For putting him to say his Pater noster in Latin before the People to try his learning when his corrival said it right he would correct him according to the false pronunciation of the common People which the People applauding preferred him So your Authour has the Advantage by explicating Spiritual things corporally to have the apprehension of Ordinary both Men and Divines and consequently the applause for him The secend is that he hath commodity of Books which to me being a stranger and unknown and in a Town not extraordinary boâ—kish are hard to find for which reason I am fain to be content with the faults his citations afford without being able to give so ample satisfaction as the seeing of the works themselves might have made me able to exhibit Yet all this doth not cause me to make an evil apprehension of the man I know the nature of the cause and the perswasions he hath been imbued with must needs have this effect that he must help himself by all the means he can and very likely is conceited that he doth Sacrifice to God in making my opinion seem the worst he can His way of Piety his instruction to handle Divinity by the Authorities of Authours whose Votes have no force his Obedience and the Utility of his Friends all drive him to this I on the other side am forced to treat sometimes his opinions rudely sometimes his Arguments because the English Tongue makes our Controversy exposed to such Judgments as are to be told what the nature of proofs or saying are and well it falls out when even after telling it they be able to see it But I do not desire any of my sayings should reflect 〈◊〉 his Person for his Learning beseems well enough the Narrative Divinity that he hath followed which hath no deeper root then whether some Classical Authour under which nation comes many a mean Divine hold such an opinion and if some Number hold it then it is Canonized for good Doctrin But it is not my Theme here to declaim against the weakness of vulgar Divines but to recommend my pains and self to you desiring yours and your friends opinion of them and of Your ever Friend and Servant Thomas White FIRST PART Refuting the Arguments from Authority and Reason against the Doctrin of the Middle State FIRST DIVISION Containing what in the first four Chapters concerns the Authour to answer The Adversaries misrepresentings of the Author's Doctrin and mistakes of the Council of Trent His Arguments to prove that some Saints of the Old Law reassum'd not their Bodies drawn from Authority and their remaining Reliques shown inefficacious and springing from shallowness in Philosophy SIR 1. THE Book you sent me put me in mind of a punishment St. Hierom reports to have been used to some Martyrs whom first the Pagans anointed with hony and then exposed to be tortured with flyes and gnats For so it serves me first it declares my opinion reasonable candidly It testifies that I aim at shewing the Fabrick of the World to be a perfect work of Wisdom and not a wilfull and arbitrary government Thus far is Hony for if I do perform it questionless I play the part of a good Divine if I do not at least he gives me the commendation of intending it Some parts of my opinion he explicates not well but I conceive it is our of mistake One thing he fumbles in which was plain enough Whereas I put in a sin three parts the strong and resolute Affection Reliques in the Soul after the resolution is changed and lastly the outward Action and give to all these for punishment their several proper effects so that the Resolution which is properly the Sin may be forgiven and cancell'd and
of so great a charity that it might deserve the concession of any Indulgence never so large And that the Pope intendeth never to give any larger Indulgence then what may be discreetly given in regard of such an act including the charity with which it is done Now the question is wherein consists the difference of these two explications The Pope gives proportionable to the desert of the Act and the Pope gives what is fit to be given according to the proportion of the Act. And considering that the Pope hath no means to judge of the quantity of the Charity nor of what part of Christ's satisfaction is proportioned to a known degree of Charity I beleive the Pope's Judgment must be referred to Christs Judgment which is known to be proportioned to that Charity making the effect of the Prayer according to the Desert of the Prayer I not deny but that the way of explicating this same verity may be made with taking a greater or lesser compass or by divers mediums in one way then in the other but that the effect is not the same in both that is it whereof I am not capable Whether the Reasons father'd upon Caietan why it was not fit to publish this Doctrin be good or no concerns not me to dispute but rather to execute For when niceties which are beyond the ordinary capacity are disputed before unlearned and unstudious people they will be sure to follow the easier part let the truth ly where it will The Authour of the Catholick History is so favourable to this explication of Adrian the sixth that he citeth for the same St. Bâ—…nture Richâ—rdus Gabriel Maior Gersâ—… Felinus and Pope Innocentius And thinks the cause why Adrian did not decide this question was because divers Divines held the contrary opinion Which if the other History be true cannot be so for he was resolved to have determin'd it before though he could never be ignorant that others held the contrary having himself set down four divers opinions of Catholicks concerning Indulgences 14. To apply this story to our purpose I understand that these two explications differing not in the Effect but onely in the Way to the End the Definition of Leo the tenth is truth in both and so when he sayth that Indulgences are granted out of the Treasure of Christ's Merits it is true whether those Merits be that which giveth the efficacity to the Pope's grant or whether it be that it is the matter he useth Likewise when it is said Indulgences received profit the living that is true and maintained whether the debt be paid by commutative Justice giving God one thing for another or whether God cancels the debt by good will as pleased with the action done Neither is there any substantial difference in respect of the Dead by what means the good they receive from the living comes to them so it comes from the living's receiving the Indulgence Whether I mean it comes by the vertue of the Action done by the receiver of the Indulgence or by the like Commutation as some Divines put in the living 15. I was about to have made a distinct explication of this question in this place but being pressed here to clear the Authorities and expecting there will be a place for Reason hereafter though not in his Doctrin yet when he comes to oppose mine and foreseeing that the explication would make this Chapter very long I thought better to defer it and to go on with the answering of his Authorities Onely I would intreat you to comfort the good soul and tell him that if I could have foreseen those lamentable tears which he shed for my sake I would have done my endeavour to have presented him with some crums of comfort beforehand that might have stopped the dissolving of the melting humour Now I shall present him with a clean handkercher to dry his water'd Cheeks and it is no other then the censure of the Authour of the Catholick History of the Council of Trent on the Bull of Pope Leo which so much distempers his brain This Authour then whose Authority I doubt not but is sacred to him in his first Book Ch. 21. N. 4. being to give an account why the form of the condemnation of Luthers propositions was given respectively without qualifying every proposition with a singular censure hath these words The Pope therefore intended not by his Constitution to take away all doubt of which kind of doubts God's will is that all the knowledge of this life should be full and chiefly Divinity as that which hath her objects more obscure and more above our understanding But onely intended we should have as much certain as was enough that is he declared those sentences to be perâ—…cious to teach and dangerous to believe Now in case all that this Bull condemns if it be not otherwise known to be false may be true let him wipe his eyes with the charitable conceit that he who holds any of them may have found that truly those which he holds are true and therefore now no more dangerous to believe and much less to teach and out of this charitable perswasion keep his fool-pious expressions to entertain Children with As for his Readers he sends them away to B. Fisher to know what opinions I hold for otherwise I do not know how he can teach them that I hold propositions in the same sence that Luther does It seems it is the mode of this Age to look the farthest off they can from an Authour and his Writings when they will determine what his meaning is 16. In his eighth N. he asks who can say the Doctrin contrary to all these Articles 〈◊〉 not the Doctrin of the Uniuersal Church And my answer is that for my part I doubâ— not of it But whosoeuer beleeves the Authour of the Catholick History of Trent will tell him he does not know why these Articles be not of those which God will have to be doubtfull and that it is a Blasphemy to call that the Doctrin of the Universal Church which is as yet uncertain and as far as we know false Nevertheless he will now put it out of all doubt For he tells you the Council of Trent doth expresly decree that not onely in the censuring of a few Articles but even in the censuring of whole multitudes of Books all Christians should stand to the decrees of the Bishop of Rome and that every doubt of that nature shall be terminated and quite ended by his Judgment and Authority And after some few lines he adds And this must be admitted as undoubted by those who will and must admit this Definition of a General Council You see a horrible charge Will you know the truth of the business The Council of Trent had given the charge to a Committee to review such Books as they thought fitting to have conversant in the hands of Catholicks When they were ready to break off these men came in and told the Council
men so wilfully seek to blind themselves and others in a question as clear as that two and three make five Suppose of those Divines whom the Pope heard in this question the one held that souls were delivered before the day of Judgment out of Purgatory and the other as stoutly deny'd it And the Pope asked them whether at least they agreed in this that whensoever the souls went out of Purgatory they went straight to Heaven and both answered yes they both hold that the Pope could not without nonsence tell them he would define that which they both agreed upon without mâ—dling with the question they disagreed in And if this be as plain as that two and three make five if it were the ordinary Rule and proceeding of the Fathers in the Council of Trent as every one may see in the Catholick History of it is it not pure frowardness and pertinacy in your Divine to spend some four leaves to prove this Nonsence But you may reply for him that there was no such opposition of Divines First I ask how he knows it for he hath cited never a Diariâ—… of what passed about making of the Bull. But suppose there was not doth what passed a day or a month before make the Pope's proposition as it lyes to be Sence or Nonsence And the substance of this answer by all probability your Divine had read in Religion and Reason pag. 69. since though without naming it he often cites it and yet resolvedly rambles upon other solutions without taking notice of this which was the main I would intreat my Reader who shall not be satisfy'd with this to read the place newly cited for this Divines Catching of Larks and Pope Joan is such stuff as deserves not to be looked into 13. In his twelfth Number he falls upon the Council of Florence but speaketh nothing of any consequence which hath not been answered Wherefore I reâ—it the Reader to Religion and Reason p. 58 59 60. 14. N. 13. he turns us back to his fifth Chapter where he had mention'd Gennadius and the truth is my answer there was short and must be still For although I am secure that what I there sayd was true yet I am desirous to see the Book it self before I give a fuller answer not to your Divine but to another who before him objected the same Authority a great deal more strongly against me There remains no more in this Chapter but to joyn in prayer with your Divine for the good man who published in English this Bull of Pope Benedict and the Council of Florence that every Judicious man may see who truly stand to their words and meaning and who do violently strain them against both words and sence NINTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters Universality of Opiners no way obliging to Belief His bold and weak Challenges That the imagin'd Corporeity of Spirits grounded the Opinion of their Mutability What foâ—…ed and spread it A short Account of J. M's weak performances hitherto 1. HIS fifteenth Chapter carries for title The Verdict of the Catholick world for us A brave title 〈◊〉 and I will do him that right as to testify he follows it handsomely His first Argument is that suppose the delivery of souls before Judgment had been but a probable opinion yet Universal to all Pastors Doctors and leading Teachers for five hundred years it would be far more rational to follow it then another which should be pretended a Demonstration but for whatsoever the Auditour can tell may have some horrid Errour ly for a while couched in it which might in time be discovered To this I give two answers 2. The first is that in Metaphysical rigour of truth no multitude of men can be so vast no gravity and wisdome of them so high and great as to oblige any ingenious man to beleeve that which themselves profess they do not know whether it be true or no. â—or all Belief is grounded upon the knowledg of another If I be secured he does not know the thing I should beleeve upon his credit I have no ground of belief for upon this point he is a pure Ignorant If you reply though he do not know it to be true yet he thinks so I must answer that I ought to beleeve him the less seeing he is not so honest to himself but that he will cozen himself by trusting that to which his own conscience telleth him he ought not to trust Now this is the condition of all those who hold a proposition as probable And therefore though all the world for five hundred Ages had held the deliverableness of souls out of Purgatory onely as probable in rigour it made no advantage at all 3. My second Answer is more accommodated to human practise and it is taken out of Nature and Experience out of which St. Austin took it This distinguishes Mankind into two degrees One that is able fully and properly to judge of a truth proposed with due proof and as it should be The other that either for natural dullness or for unwillingness to take pains is not in state to look upon truth in it self and therefore is fittingly to be governed by Authority To the former no multitude nor time can bring obligation to refuse a well proposed Verity as long as the contrary Authority is uncertain The other ought indeed not to meddle but if by any necessity he must do beyond his reach it is clear the greater number ought to oversway with him as far as he is not able to weigh the worth of both sides By these two Answers you will see the pleading of multitudes of Opinatours will not much advantage your Divines opinion further then amongst them who ought not to meddle in such questions 4. Although this evidently ruines his Argument yet I cannot omit to shew another weakness unsufferable for its plainness For he adds that if they had no other witness then of the Latin Church for these last five hundred years this alone were not to be sleighted I pray why not Is not the contrary Testimony of the Greek Church predominant over the Latin where there is but an opinion of five hundred years on one side and one thousand five hundred on the other Nay put case the Greek Church were not against it considering that the subject is a matter not otherwise to be known then by Revelation were it not intolerable to bind any man to the belief of it otherwise then because it is revealed which if it were but of five hundred years standing were impossible to be For the Church professes no Revelations for her guide since the Apostles dyed If then your Divine professed no farther he must confess it to be a weak and ungrounded Innovation For supposing it cannot be known but by Revelation and that there has been no Revelations these six hundred years it is clearly wholly ungrounded And because the subject is a subject of Revelation that is
opinion which will notnow be far of For the rest of this Chapter he spends in saying his Doctrin is conformable to the Councils of Trent and Florence and to St. Austin all which I confess for they speak but of Purgatory in common and so both our opinions are conformable unto them our difference being onely a particularity of Purgatory and not about the sence of it 11. Here if it please you to cast an eye upon what is passed you will find his first proofs to be out of Scriptures speaking Doctrins common to us both the second out of Fathers who say Christ at his Resurrection deliver'd souls out of Purgatory which we grant His next from Fathers who are known to have fallen into Errours in the points he cites them for that is he cites three Heresies for himself In the fourth place Revelations out of Greg. Turonensis and Metaphrastes insufficient Authours Fifthly some Fathers and Councils who speak no more then what both sides agree of Later Revelations enow but they are such Testimonies as are insufficient I think even in his own judgment to make a Theological proof Two Bulls of Popes whereof the one is grossly mistaken And lastly a false apprehension of the Churches present devotions which he takes not out of publick prayer-Prayer-Books but out of private intentions These are the most substantial passages of his discourse others of less moment I neglect not to make my period too tedious SECOND PART Maintaining the Arguments brought by the Authour from Authority and Reason for the Doctrin of the Middle State FIRST DIVISION Containing preparatory Grounds for the ensuing discourses That God being All-wise and Self-Blessed acts onely for the Good of his Creatures and especially Man what God's Honour signifies and how he governs Man The Nature of Sin and its Effects How God's Justice is satisfy'd Of Merit Impetration and Satisfaction A Breviate of the Adversary's opinion 1. BEfore I begin to look into his Impugnations of my Doctrin I think it expedient to lay down a brief explication of mine own thoughts in this question intreating my Reader 's patience if he thinks I fetch it too far about whereof he will see the necessity hereafter I settle therefore or rather explicate some Principles necessary to the seeing how intimately my Doctrin is connexed with Christian Faith 2. Let the first be that God is Essentially Wise and Wisdom or Truth or true Understanding of his actions and the Government of them For if any man sees what he should do but by passion or rather distraction doth not what he sees should be done we may call him Understanding or Knowing but not Wise. Therefore God whose Essence it is to be Wisdome cannot swerve from what he sees to be done or best to be done â—or it is all one to him who is governed purely by Wisdome to be best to be done and to be to be done because nothing but true Good can move such a Will and betwixt two unequal goods the greater is onely the true Good 3. My second Principle is that God is essentially Bliss and Blessed and that in so high and pure a degree that no Good which is adventitious from either his own action or the action of any other Substance can be wanting to him or desirable by him and because Good signifies desirable that there is no extrinsecal good that can truly challenge the denomination of a Good to God Honour for example is the Good of a Man upon two scores one because when he hears himself commended he hath an act of pleasure which perfects him intrinsecally the other because Honour brings him help to do somewhat which perfects him for example to get Wealth or some Office out of which he can gather contentment So that still the interiour contentment is that which makes the exteriour instruments to have the name of Goods Wherefore seeing Christian Religion teaches us that God gets no new contentments out of the effects his action has it is also necessary to believe the honour that all Saints give him is no Good of his 4. Out of these two follows the Third that whatsoever God does he does it for the Good of his Creatures and that when he says that he acts for his own Honour the meaning is that he works that other men whom the Action toucheth not seeing those he acts upon well governed may be bettered and praise him and conceive a greater apprehension of his wisdome and goodness and by that means the good of his whole Mass of Creatures be perfected So that the Honour he speaks of is nothing but the well ordering of his Creatures in which one principal and main part is that his rational creatures have Faith Hope and Charity which are all parts of praising him So that we are not to look for a farther end of God's works then the perfection which is intrinsecal to the Universal Mass of his Creatures 5. The fourth is consequent to these to wit that seeing the Good of his Creatures is his main end and the Good of a Creature is that which is desirable to that Creature and every Nature desires its own Perfection and that perfects Nature which makes it able to do those actions to which such a nature is instrumental or for which such a Nature is made in perfection It follows that if we consider the whole Mass of Creatures God's action is still that which is most conformable unto it or to the Nature of all Creatures But if we consider a particular Nature upon which God acts God's action is that which is most conformable to such a Nature as being in such a posture of Nature in common or the best to this particular Nature as far as it stands with the greatest good of the general Mass. Whence it is evident that God never did nor will do any thing but conformably to the Nature of Creatures And this you see evidently out of the Attributes of his Wisdome and Self-sufficiency which are main Articles of Christian Faith 6. The fifth Principle is that because Man is the end of all material Creatures and Man is to be governed by his own Understanding it is necessary that some things or actions be so done that the effects be not onely performed but that they may be perswasive to man Further because Mankind is of a short apprehension and subject to follow his senses whereas his Beatitude and chief Good is beyond his reach Therefore it is necessary God should be the Teacher of Mankind and speak immediately to him in words and Doctrin as he did to Adam Moyses and the Apostles and that they should know that the words spoken were from God and therefore some extraordinary actions which are above the power of those natural causes with which we are familiar should be in convenient occasions exhibited out of which it should be known that a higher hand gave Testimony to the words and Doctrins delivered The special conveniences which require such actions God
respect to St. Austin that sticks not to impose such an abominable Errour and Blasphemy upon him As to say that God is so cruel as to punish a man eternally who loves him as his last end and otherwise deserves it not meerly for want of time to punish him St. Austin would perswade himself that God would rather keep off the day of Judgment and let all the world stay for their resurrection so abominable a Blasphemy he would take it to be 7. In his seventh N. he tells us news of an unanswerable demonstration against us but because it belongs not to St. Austin I shall let it alone untill he comes to his Reasons Another Authority then he brings out of this that St. Austin praying for his Mother sayes that he doubts not but that God had granted his request So your faithfull interpreter translates these words Credo jam feceris quod te rogo I believe thou hast done already what I ask thee which is no more then that he believed his Mother was already in Bliss to wit from the first hour she dy'd but that she had gotten it by his prayers not a word if not expresly contrary for he expresses that his prayer was after the dead 8. The next Text I know not whether he means to bring it for himself or for me but surely it speaks for me that is so expresly of the day of Judgment that there is no comparison The fire which the Apostle testifies to go before Christs coming to Judgment being the chief subject of the place and himself confessing the literal sence of the Prophecy to be so but that St. Austin to do him a pleasure might apply it to Purgatory Nay that St. Eucherius does plainly which put together makes this Conclusion that Purgatory is terminated with the last Judgment as my position holds forth His last Testimony is out of the Sermons ad Fratres in Eremo the which he sayes have crept into the times of St Austin But whence Baronius answers you calling the Author of them Impostorem fictorem frigidum qui multa delira vana fabulosa effutiat portentosa mendacia blaterat FIFTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to the eighth and ninth Chapter Testimonies from St. Austin to Bede either unsound in Faith or Divinity St. Gregory's mis-translated and maimed Canus his Rule opposit to the Alledgers intention Venerable Bede not engag'd in our Controversy The first Allegation from him misinterpreted Drithelmus his Revelation opposit to the Church's Doctrin 1. HIS eighth Chapter contains the Authours betwixt St. Austin and Bede The which to make the fuller he devides one Authour into Eusebius Emissenus and Eucherius Lugdunensis and if I am not mistaken it is the same whom before he cited for St. Austin The words be afore answered and the answer is that they deliver directly my opinion seeing they mention both the fire of Judgment and the Condition of Purgatory that the last farthing must be pay'd in it 2. After this Trinity and Unity he brings in two Fathers whose works I cannot yet get to see St. Isidore and St. Julian of Poledo Their Testimonies both seem to be derived from St. Austin but with their own explications or additions which I must desire your Divine to make consonant to the Doctrin of the Catholick Church before I accept of them Otherwise I must think the Text some ways corrupted Peradventure when I see the Texts some solution may appear In the mean while he makes Isidore tell us that suffrages profit the dead not to any merit of eternal life but ad solutionem poenae which he interprets the payment of their pains And I the releasing or dissolving of their pains And I think more properly For suffrages are Votes or Intercessions and belong to Impetration not to Bargaining Which as far as I have heard was not thought of in those days But this by the way My difficulty is how seeing we see all the prayers for the dead to be supplications to bring them to Heaven and enjoying of God it can be deny'd that these suffrages of the Saints profit the dead towards the gaining of Heaven and merit of eternal life Surely he must say one thing is pray'd for and another thing given I doubt if I get the Book I shall find some other dash of a cunning Painter iâ— this citation yet take it as it lyes as far as concerns our question the same solution we gave to St. Austin's words how the pain is mitigated or released serves for the meaning of this Saint who seems clearly by the very words to have drawn it of St Austin 3. St. Julian's Testimony also as far as he adds to St. Austin's words contain this Doctrin That the torment of fire in Purgatory is equal to all souls and onely different in duration He gives us the words thus What is performed in those who are reprobate by distinction of their torments into sharper or milder is his comment that is performed by the measure of time in those who are saved by fire For to them lesser or greater punishment of Purgatory fire shall be so much the more extended according to the measure of time adds your Divine by how much they have here more or less lov'd temporal goods So that the addition this Father Father maketh to St. Austin is that the Variety of Purgatory pains rises purely out of the measure of time The which Doctrin I have not heard of either before this Saint or after And yet I cannot but confess it is a Doctrin necessary to the maintenance of this opinion that souls are released from Purgatory some sooner some later For putting that the pains of Purgatory are some more grievous then others that variety would take away all just occasion of ones being deliver'd before another for the lessening of pain would recompense the length of time in him that is longer there for lesser faults and leave the proportion of justice still constant in both Now as it is not impossible this Holy Father might hold this Doctrin though I believe your Divine if he should speak his conscience would say he thought it false so why your Divine should be so stiff upon one half of the proposition and refuse the other let himself answer specially one depending upon the other and having no ground but upon the other which it self hath no ground at all 4. We are come to his ninth Chapter and the Visionarie Ages And first he brings in St. Gregory the Great and he accuses me that unskilfully and injuriously I make this our Apostle and Father in Christ to be Father of their opinion And I cannot deny but I was in the wrong and lyable to his blame But I hope I have given him satisfaction in part in my answer to the Vindicatour which by all circumstances he could not chuse but have heard of before the printing his Book yet pleased not to take notice of He may find it in pag. 77. and
will follow out of both joyn'd together His proposition is that these Revelations are undenyable because the Authours are known to be of great vertue and integrity who for a world would not recommend what they thought to be a ly or not as they deliver it and the Relatours are either those who had the Vision or some who had it from them immediately so that there can likewise be no moral difficulty or doubt of their true relating This proposition I fully acknowledge and a man would think that in so doing I give him full content Here must I advance my Proposition which if it please him as well as his does me I hope we shall agree in the conclusion to be drawn out of both Mine then is that Revelations Visions Apparitions c. cannot be certain to any body but onely to whom they are made and by consequence it is a folly to seek to prove them to any one who doth not of his own good nature take them for true As for the party to whom the Revelation is made I doubt not but God may have such a kind of influence as to make it beyond all doubt that it is himself who speaks to the party But that it must not rely upon the Authority of this party whatsoever is communicated to others that is the position I deny I say therefore the security of a Revelation may be as great as the Authority of the party to whom it is made And it must be certain to others that such a party neither was nor could be deceived in this kind before we can make any argument from the Revelation Out of these two propositions I gather this conclusion That private Relations for the most part can neither be proved nor deny'd and therefore make nothing probable or improbable and so by Divines are to be let alone and lay'd by to let the Historians first resolve of them whether they be true or false which is impossible to do unless there be some outward effects which seldom happen in matters of Purgatory of which we treat 3. I must add one note about his undenyable stories that divers of his Authours are known sometimes to have miscarry'd in their Revelations as by name St. Brigit and St. Bernard as likewise St. Catharin of Sena St. Mathildis and others And since I know no more assurance for others then for these I believe that prudent men will neither doubt but that divers Revelations are true nor precipitate easily to believe that this in particular is to be held for such Nevertheless I except those apparitions which come out with Authority beyond exception As I have light upon one which the Authour brags of that its Authority is not begged from ancient writers but signified by present experiences rhe year the Authour printed the seventh Edition of his Book So that it may be of as great Authority as our Authours Latin book which was translated into many Languages It came to Sevill where Father Martin de Roa a great Jesuit printed his brave Book in the year 1634 on Munday the twenty ninth of May when his seventh Edition was quite done and so it was fain to be put after the end to give you a faithfull Testimony of the duration of the pains of Purgatory The Title of the Book is Estado de las almas de Purgatorio and you may have in it both for Theological resolutions and for fine stories concerning Purgatory what your heart can wish Having told you where you may find what you want I may contract the story it self Not forgetting that it past at Vienna in Austria in the Jesuits house there which I do not know for they had three in that Town The substance of the story carryes that a woman one hundred and thirty foure years before had killed her two Children with poyson and dyed six and thirty years and an half afterward having recieved the Sacraments and suffered incredible torments ninety four years and four months And the Authour notes that surely they all three had no body to pray for them that they lay so long in Purgatory First appeared one of the sons to a lay Brother as he went to see whether all doors were wel shut and lay'd hands on him to carry him to the Church but being contented with the promise of three Masses let him go to bed Yet as it seems repenting of his bargain two hours after came to his bed to get him out of his bed to go to the Church though being fed with the promise of four Masses more it left him but so broken with resisting the violence of the spirit that he could not stir himself Some three weeks after he came again two several nights with the like violence and some eight days after came again as it seems more gently and waking him out of his sleep bad him say nothing and follow him but the Brother speaking and asking what he was vanished away Now whether the souls in Purgatory want civility to treat one so rudely of whom they desire succour or that they do not understand how to insinuate themselves without frighting of People I leave to your Divine for the Authour gives no account nor likewise why he could not endure to be spoken to A while after the spirit came to his chamber and led him silent into the Church where were other two spirits but all vanished as soon as the Brother being frighted cry'd out and he was found on the Floor in a Town from which the Physician freed him yet was he not for some days able to go he was so weakned Eight days after he had a new vision and the next night the apparition of two of the Spirits who after a great intreating that he would not speak told him the story above mentioned and having intreated some prayers and that he would keep fast and silence 34 hours let him alone so long and then appeared all glorious though two of them before had appeared all white and the first ever yet they were all three delivered together It seems the two Children expected their Mother They told him how they meant to have led him to their Mother's grave whom he should have seen in such a case that it would have killed him if they had not negotiated for his life by the Intercession of their good Angels because it was revealed unto them that by his prayers they should that year be set free 4. I doubt not but that the great Divine will out of this Revelation draw high points of Divinity and enrich the Art of Apparitions greatly It must needs be more certain then Venerable Bede's revelations seeing at least three housefull of Jesuits were witnesses to the whole Process Therefore it is no doubt but it is as strong a princple of Divinity as any if not all the Revelations hitherto cited and set forth expressly to inform the Christian World of the conditions of Purgatory I pray then use your diligence to your great
they had performed their charge But because it was time to end the Council referred the execution of the Decree to the Pope as also of the setting forth the Catechism and reforming the 〈◊〉 and the Breviary and ordered the Popes determination in 〈◊〉 question that rose aboâ—… these Books should be held for deciâ—… 17. If I had been left to mine own Judgment I should have thought this no great honour to the Pope further then as it was a good Action in him to concuâ— to the good of the Church For if the Pope had refused it they must have appointed some Congregation to have done the same as we see the Inquisition and Provincial Councils to have done the like in divers Countries Now your great Divine finds in this great Mysteries that the Council gave the Pope Authority to determine the Verity of all propositions Was there ever such a pâ—ece oâ— Mountebankery Or is not the Pope well seâ— up to have got such Champions to proclaim his Power and Authority And what again hâ—… Divinity made that now we have so many Articles of faith confirmed by the Definition a General Council that must be received as there be sentences either put out or allow'd in the Books censured in the Index Expurgatorius I must not conceal his Demonstration for this Learned Conclusion Could saith he the Council give him Authority to do that after the sitting of the Council which by his own Authority he could not 〈◊〉 by himself before the Council And out of this infers that the Pope does it by his own Authority As for his question I will not meddle with it but hold it at present for one of those doubtfull Articles which God will not have known though he may find many Divines who would answer him that the Council could but what I am certain of is that the Council could not give him that which he had before and therefore your Divine contradicts himself in alleadging the Council for giving the power and saying he had it before 18. The following Numbers untill the twelfth are but Repetitions of the same Onely one Argument of his tenth number is worth the nothing where he asks Who can say the Council of Trent approved not the the Pope's proceeding in this point It is answer'd onely they that read the Council or otherwise have understood that the Council never took notice neither to nor fro what the Popes had done in this kind But he urges that the Council left to the Pope the ordering of the faults and abuses in the matter of Indulgences And who knows not who knows any thing of those times that the Pope promised to reform what belonged to the Court of Rome by himself So that the Council had no need to meddle in such points in which it is expected the Pope would do well of himself Now whether the Pope reformed all that deserved reformation or no is a thing impertinent to our question in which there is all agreement to the Popes decrees and t is a thing not fitting to be made publick table-talk as our Books are like to be 19. In the twelfth Number he seeks the Antiquity of the use of Indulgences for the dead And no wonder he cannot find any great Antiquity for them seeing Caietan and our Holy Bishop of Rochester had looked before him and could find none Caietan's words be Opusc. 16º 〈◊〉 No Holy Scripture no written Authority of Ancient Doctours either Greek or Latin hath brought this the beginning of Indulgences to our knowledg But this onely concerning Ancient Fathers is written some three hundred years since that St. Gregory began the Indulgences of the Stations These Indulgences were as I remember of seven years penances remission for visiting certain Churches no mention of any for the dead granted by St. Gregory But what says the great Bishop It perswades says he â—er adventure â—any not to trust very much to these Indulgences that the use of them seems to be too new and very late invented amongst Christians I â—â—swer sayth he That it is not certain who first began them and some say that amongst the most Ancient Romans there was some kind of use of them Nor doth any man doubt but that later wits have both better examin'd and clearly understood many things both out of the Gospels and other Scriptures then their Predecessours So that you see this great man thought that the Scriptures explicated onely by hâ—man wit were the solid Foundation upon which Indulgences were to be grounded for want of Ancient Testimony Not so your Divine but he can prove it out of Ancient Records and first of Paschal the first some eight hundred or more years since which is a very long time as he well notes for the Church to be in Errour This Paschal is sayd to have given an Indulgence to the Church of St. Praxedes in Rome for the freeing of one soul out of Purgatory But the ill â—â—ch is that this Monument is accounted to be Apocryphal in Rome it self and not esteemed of by men accurate in History of that nature And so neither Caietan who was very inquisitive nor Baroâ—… ever alledged it And Fabers story of its being approved by eleven Popes if properly understood must needs declare as much seeing it is impossible any writer living in Rome could be ignorant of so notorious a thing But I pray take notice by the way of the spirit of these men to abhor it See how they keep the souls of those who will believe them in an Egyptiaâ—al slavery perswading them that if this Pope had committed a private fault the Church had been in an Errour 〈◊〉 years even though no more know of the Popes mistake then have heard of this peece of Paper lying in a private Sacriâ—ty As to Bellâ—râ—ine's approbation we answer he is to be thanked for his pains of gathering so many things together not to be proposed for an Authority for the reasons I alledged above in the like occasion 20. The next instance is out of Baronius or Spondanus in the year 878 how Pope John the eighth gave an Indulgence to all whose hâ—p it had bâ—en to dye in the war for the defence of the Church or whose hap it should be hereafter Before we look into this Testimony I must not omit to note that this very Spondanus was bred a Minister was very conversant with Bellarmins works and after his conversion with his Person and as it is reported had Baronius his approbation to the compendium of his History which he made and clear it is such a man must needs â—e zealous to put in his work whatsoever was to help the Catholick cause and this if it were not in Baronius in notes of his own as he doth divers times This I note to let you understand that this man could not be ignorant of the former Testimony of Paschalis and living in Rome when I first went thither after Bellarmin's death could want no commodity to search
merit he will here needs make an act of Charity not begun in the Man's life but in the first instant of his great knowledg of the next World enough to make such a weak one as I am worse then an Origenist For I know not why by his Argument any body should be damn'd or rather could be damn'd for questionless every Soul whatsoever it be hath at her separation so clear an understanding of the goodness of God and the variety of all corporal goods that if there were then place of Repentance and making of new an act of Charity she could not chuse but cancel all her idle desires and turn to God For if there be Repentance it may be as well in the choice of her chief good as of the ways to it But whence shall we know the good Thief was violently set upon his evil courses For my good Nature inclined me to think he had been for want or ill company brought into inconvenience But seeing it is fitting for the Divine's Argument let it pass what will follow That if he repented in this life there is place of Repentance in the next for all that have a perfecter knowledg of God's Goodness and their own Folly 12. His ninth Number sheweth a great fear that some in Purgatory may be honoured for Saints But what if they were Are not they God's Friends Are they not truly Saints Why then should the Church erre in declaring them so But that he may not be afraid I would desire him to believe until he gains knowledg that it is the Habits gotten in this life and not the acts which make Saints For the Acts pass but the Habits remain and budd into Affections of their own Nature in the next life So that if his Saints have no evil Habits the obreption of an act will do them no harm besides that the anguishes of Death have vertue in such men to purge sleight sins As for his Stories he will understand that I am more a Lover of good ones then a Creditour of unlikely ones as of that out of St. Peter Damian concerning Saint Severinus for I cannot judge his act to have been irrational as far as you recount it The Story also of Paschasius I beleve is of no better credit then of Baronius who was as I take it the last Correctour of the Roman Martyrologe and gave more credit to the Dialogues called St. Gregories then I do 13. Now are we arrived to the tenth Number in which he puts a Second Principle of mine though you will find in effect it is the same with the former or at least so joyn'd with it that he hath already impugn'd it Yet that is nothing to me so he brings new matter That which most terrifies me is that he threatens after he has done with it here he will make a new Chapter of it So desirous are People of making great Books though it be with the tedious repetition of the same thing ten times over But says he this Point is attended with so long a train of absurdities that one Chapter will not serve and so one must be largely prosecuted in this Chapter The Principle is that what affections the Soul embraces at her separation she persists in the same the whole time of her separation His inconvenience he finds in this Doctrin is that he must find some present asswagement of the pains in Purgatory when the Prayers are made for the Dead And repeats over the Authours he cited before to that purpose whereof the Devil in the Scul and Metaphrastes a Tale-finder are to his purpose All the rest speak but what we will hold as well as he yet must be plain for him Onely I must note that he changes the former Text he cited out of St. Isidore into paying part of the pain I must desire him to look well into his Books and see whether his own Fellows teach the Doctrin which here he presseth to wit that at that very time when a Mass is sayd or an Alms is given there be some relaxation of pain given as his fine Stories relate For I know the ordinary way is of delivering Souls or at least of the shortning the time of the Souls punishments whereas present Refreshments would rather make the pains longer and the delay of Heaven greater which would be worse to the Souls in Purgatory then to be without such relief and so by the greatness of the pain to make the time shorter therefore if there be not a perfect release the comfort should stay until the end may come with or by it Another quaint conceit is that all the above-used Authorities makes relief flow from the pious acts effectively Truly this is to be a great Divine The Authorities all that are esteemable say that good Prayers and Works help the Dead and we agree with this saying But it is necessary for him that it be presently done and immediatly these very words no whit changed signify that it is presently done 14. This is not enough for him but he requires that the Prayers should do them effectively and upon his least beck the words ply themselves to signify an effective causality Is not this strong Divinity to make the words of Councils and Fathers so plyable to his Will that without any change they signify what he pleases What would not Simon Magus have given to have had the Holy Ghost so in a string He objects that the relief of Souls is certain and must not be made depend of the probable opinion that Souls know future things Where should I have learned this Divinity if I had not met with it here I might have read all Suarez and Vasquez over and have found all the Mysteries of our Faith explicated by probable Opinions of which they dissent among themselves without ever understanding that therefore the mysteries depend of those Opinions But hereafter I must be waryer and know that probable Opinions are not to be employed in that kind and therefore I pray let him think I hold it for certain that separated Souls know future things as we have an example of Samuel Moses and of Onias and Hieremias He cites next the Authour of the Supplement at the end of Saint Thomas his Sum which Work hath not the Authority of Saint Thomas no not when the Authour uses the very words of St. Thomas For St. Thomas having in his Sum much change of his Doctrin in his other Works the Sum is the absolute Work which beareth the authority of St. Thomas the other Works as far as they disagree not with the Sum are confirmations of it or consequent to it Which I mark because this Divine freely useth the name of St. Thomas when he cites this Work whereas in truth what is in the Supplement must first be proved to be St. Thomas his Doctrin at least in other Books before it can be father'd upon him For the very name of Supplement shews the credit of the Doctrin to depend
which we see amongst even our Moderns many profess not to understand and many of those who profess to understand it by their gross explications shew they do not penetrate it But you may ask what then is the force of our Saviours Argument I answer that we have it from our Saviour himself who told his Apostles that Lazarus was asleep not dead and the like he spake of the Prince of the Synagogues daughter and the phrase amongst Christians is used of all the Faithfull and so we sing Regem cui omnia vivunt venite adoremus and St. Paul expresses it in the words then says he those who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished When then our Saviour says God is not God of the dead this word dead must be taken for perished according to what St. Paul comforteth the Christians and tells them they must not be sorrowful at their friends deaths as Gentils were and giveth the reason qui spem non habent that is who expect no Resurrection but think their dead for ever perished and not to be as it were in a sleep untill the last Trumpet awakes them There is yet a deeper Mystery in our Saviours words which neither pleased Bellarmin nor his admirer to wit that because all things are present to God in eternity therefore no future thing is absent to God so that Abraham Isaac and Jacob did live to God and as to God were really living 6. He presses also that St. Paul urgeth the like Argument saying that if there be no Resurrection let us eat and drink for tomorrow we shall dye But this Argument sheweth plainly that his former solution was naught For St. Paul speaks not to Sadduces but rather to Pharisees to whom belongeth the custom of often Baptisms which he there urges therefore it depends not out of the connexion of the Immortality of the soul and Resurrection but rather it supposes the Immortality of the soul to be a thing not known to the vulgar For according to that saying of his sapientiam loquimur inter perfectâ—s he apply'd his Doctrin to his Auditory To the multitude he preached what they were capable of 〈◊〉 is he proposed the Goods proper to the whole man and as it were an excellency and heighth of those goods whereof they had experience reserving the declaration of goods purely spiritual to the special audieâ—ce of the more understanding part Wherefore all his publick preaching being of the rewards 〈◊〉 be received in the Resurrection be mâ—keâ— this Argument if there be no Resurrection we are the most miserable of men for in this world we enjoy no pleasure and in the next we have no reward So you see this solid resolution of Bellarmin to be compounded of pure mistakes and improbabilities And yet if his worship had been so curious he might have found it confuted in the third account of the Book whence he read the objection made though Bellarmin is not by name cited not every petty confirmation impugned the which I should have done if I had taken it out of Bellarmin 7. He yet presseâ— That those who were seduced by the Geâ—â—ils would not esteem of 〈◊〉 Authority of Judas Maccabâ—â—â— in which he shews either little experience or much cunning For as an Ordinary Protestant such as depend from the Authority of their Preacher if he see it prov'd that all Antiquity is against what his Preacher teaches is presently strucken with a horrour and begins to waver because it is natural to men to love and adhere to their Ancestours so those who were wavering amongst the Jews upon the perswasions of the Gentils when they saw the publick profession of their Country in the fact of Judas Maccabaeus would be much sollicited to forgo the apparent reasons of the Gentiles and prefer their Countries belief before them Either therefore your Divine did not understand this or else under the colour of some obstinate Persons he would cunningly make his Reader believe that no body would take good by this example of Judas Maccabaeus 8. His opposition to my second Text is already answer'd for St. Paul did not speak to the Sadduces but to such as received the custom of Baptisms or praying for the dead and his Argument is as strong as that when we out of praying for the dead prove a Purgatory and remission of sins in the next world so does St. Paul prove the Resurrection Whence it is manifest that he taught the Christians to pray for that good to the dead which they were to receive at the Resurrection and by consequence that all the good the dead can receive before that day is already received before they are pray'd for 9. The third Text he dissembles to understand and for that reason with his Paraphrase corrupts the Text The Text it self says that his spirit or soul may be saved in the day of our Lord. He paraphrases Saved to signify to appear with great honour and glory But every one who understands the word knowâ— it signifies to be freed from some danger or harm and all Catholicks by admitting a particular judgment know all danger is past therefore the meaning must be that in that day he shall be freed from punishment and misery At length he turns off this Text with a jeer telling us St. Paul was not so uncharitable as to wish no good to Onesiphorus beforâ— the day of Judgment As if it were not charity mistaken to wish him what St. Paul knew was not to be had St. Paul therfore in this expression wisheth Onesiphorus all good that could happen to him which as yet he possessed not and so shews there was no good to be expected for the dead but either what they have before prayers or else are to receive 〈◊〉 the day of Judgment 10. In his eighth Number he goes over this Text anew and says or rather grants that indeed it is the common phrase of Christians to speak so but that as it cannot be inferred thence that the wicked go not to Hell before that day no more can it be inâ—…ed that the just commonly receive not their reward before that day But the difference of the two 〈◊〉 is very manifest For the damning of the wicked is not proposed to us as a thing to be desir'd and effected by our prayers and therefore concerns not us when it is done But the Reward of our Benefactours is propos'd to be gain'd by our prayers and therefore we ought to know what to pray for and he confesses that Universally the phrase which is the witness oâ— our thoughts and of what we are taught runs so as to wish good in the day of Judgment The consequence therefore is most infallible and in a manner belonging to Tradition that all our prayer for the dead must be that they may receive their reward at the day of Judgment For although Tradition doth not expressly teach the Negative yet because it Universally teaches the positive to pray for good at the last
day it follows clearly that the position putting another time is added to Tradition and being in a matter that depends of Revelation and therefore cannot be known but by Tradition it appears not onely to be a Novâ—… but also ungrounded and not to be followed I must here note how your Divine who heretofore asked for but 〈◊〉 Aâ—…r who should say that the acceleration of the day of judgment was that which we were to pray for can here tell you that such speeches â—re in most common use and that the usual phrasâ— ruâ—s of this day that as the 〈◊〉 of speech is so usual in Scripture it is no wonder that the Fathers and our Liturgies do sometime make use of it Where you shall see a gradation made that in Scripture it is the usual phrase but the Father's and Liturgies do sometime make use of it As if the Fathers did not usually speak as the Scriptures not the Liturgies were made by the Fathers and at least follow their customs though every man of judgment cannot chuse but see the use of Fathers and Liturgies must of necessary be the same with the Scriptures whence they are taken which were it confessed as it is evident what Testimony could I desire at his hands greater then this 11. N. 7. he impugns the Text taken from the tenth to the Hebrewâ— where the Apostle threatneth a Purgation of 〈◊〉 to them who 〈◊〉 after Baptism which Bellarmin is forced to gloss against the Text to avoid Noâ—â—tus his Errour For whereas the Text speaks of a fire that should feed upon those who were not quite contrary to God which words cannot be understood of any â—â—re but Purgatory fire he very freely without any ground of the Text and onely because otherwise it will not stand with his opinion takes no notice of the properties which particularise this fire and by his own Authority puts in Hell fire and a distinction of the effects of these two fires to which sence a Cable is not strong enough to draw the words 12. In his ninth and tenth Paragraphs he impugns the Texts taken out of St. Matthew and St. Lukâ— concerning agreeing with our Adversary in the way that is in our life time that we may not be deliver'd to the eternal Judge And he thinks we urge this Text for not reflecting upon the particular Judgment at the hour of death and I cannot well deny it For I do not remember that in any place of Scripture Christ is called Judge in regard of the next World but either at his Refurrection or at the last day And besides what passeth at mans death I â—â—ke to be very improperly called Judgment and if it were a true Judgment this Formality of your Adversaries delivering you â—ver to the Judge I do not know that any one attributes to particular Judgment Which circumstances though they were pressed where he found the Argument he totally neglected and presses for himself those words of being sent to a Prison there to remain until he pay the last farthing This sayth he is most unnaturally spoken of the day of Judgment after which there remains no prison but eternal And his discourâ—â— were good if this delivery of our Saviour were not Allegoricaâ— that is a human expression of things above human reach and therefore not to be expected to be verify'd entirely to the material word which taken away it signifies no more then at the day of Judgment the sinners shall be punished without remission But to think there shall be other Prison then the mans own guilt or other toâ—…rer then his own knowledg and conscieâ—… is to be proved not supposed And why this must require length of time more then what precedes the sentence and of the which the sentence is the approbation as of all the rest that shall be executed all that day I expect some better declaration before I frame a new Judgment properly so call'd without any ground in Scripture or Antiquity 13. In his eleventh Number he treats the famous place taken out of the third Chapter of the first to the Corinths but so as if he aym'd not to give the sence of it but onely to wave the force from his opinion no matter how much against the words themselves For it being agreed between parties that the Apostle speaks of the day oâ— Judgment and of material fire yet he hath three solutions First that it is meant of no material fire but of the fire of the district Judgment But this is to prevaricate against themselves who agree there is a true material fire at that day which is the faith of all Christians and the Apostles words are plain that that great day shall be revealed in fire Now so far being the common Faith of Christians it is against all sence to say this is not the fire which shall try the works of all men For the Apostle gives for proof or ground why all mens works shall be try'd by fire because sayth he that day shall be revealed in fire What a strange perversion then of the Text is it to make the Apostle make this Argument The day of Judgment shall be revealed in material and elemental fire therefore the works of men shall be try'd by Gods judgment or spiritual districtness and yet this is the sence given to the Apostles words by this Interpretation His second Interpretation is that the meaning is the sinners shall be saved as it were by fire but fire precedent to the fire of Judgment and this explication 〈◊〉 more against the Text then the other For this ground which the Apostle takes that the day of Judgment shall be revealed in fire can be no more brought for the cause why the sinners works shall be try'd by a precedent fire then why they shall be try'd by Gods judgment And besides the Apostle so expressly says that every ones work shall be try'd by the fire in that day or of that day that nothing can be spoken more plainly against the Text then to say it is meant of another fire which went before Likewise that speech that whose work abides the fire he shall be rewarded but if any mans burn he shall suffer detriment is plainly spoken of the fire of that day so that such an interpretation is a plain corruption And no less can be said of his third explication that the meaning is that the fire shall manifest that is shew what was done before but not do any thing For those words If any mans work burns he shall suffer detriment cannot be understood of what was passed before the day of Judgment but of what is done in that day And therefore the trying he speaks of must necessarily be the working of the fire upon the sinners works so that it is evident he and his Bellarmin do not explicate but corrupt the Text against the plain words of the Apostle 14. The ninth Text concerning the Remission of sin in the next world is brought to shew that
some sin remains truly in Purgatory to be purged and that if onely pains are put in Purgatory it is no Purgatory This consequence we handled before when he pressed we put no Purgatory because there was nothing purged untill the day of Judgment Ch. 17. N. 4. Where I shewed how he himself acknowledges that there must be something that hath the nature of a Blemish that purgation be necessary His first objection is that Calvin uses this Argument I answer it was the fault of them who explicated Purgatory as Bellarmin and he does to give such an advantage to Hereticks by evil explicating our Faith that their argument though otherwise weak against Faith yet are demonstrative against it in their Explications His second solution is to fall into that condemned Heresie that after the souls are perfectly purged yet they remain in Purgatory For he will needs put a most intense act of charity and contrition for the first act of the soul separated which expels the guilt of Venial sin and by consequence the souls after they be purged remain to be tormented Besides he doth not reflect that if this act can deserve the Remission of the sin it can also the Remission of all pain which Doctours assign to perfect Contrition His third solution is that by the name of sin is to be understood lyability to punishment Which is very true if it be taken proportionally as it ought for there can be neither sin without pain due to it nor owing of pain but by sâ—n But the mistery is that he wil not understand this though a man should beat it into him with a pestil but will if you say the sin is not wholly remitted as long as pains are due for it cite you I know not how many Texts of Councils against you and yet now he can cite out of St. Thomas that the Remission of the pain belongs to the entire Remission of the sin and promises he will shew it to be the sence of the Fathers which I shall be thankfull to him for because it is a most plain truth But yet I cannot allow his consequence that when our Saviour says that a Sin shall not be forgiven either in this World or in the next it must in this World signify guilt and in the other onely pain For our Saviour does not use to make his words straddle so wide as within three words and continuing the same proposition to make a double sence of the same word He concludes that hitherto his Adversaries have brought no Demonstration Which whether it be true or no let wiser men then judge I can onely say that he hath solved no one Authority with any colourable answer but either by falling into Errours or abusing the words of Scripture by Paraphrases or inconsequent explications which are easily made appear to any one who attentively reads my Replyes FOURTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his nineteenth Chapter The Testimonies from Fathers and Antiquiquity brought for the Authours Doctrin in his Book of the Middle State maintain'd to be assertive of it and the Adversary's Interpretations shown to be most weak and senceless distortions of their words and meanings 1. HE begins his nineteenth Chapter with the Comparison of the multitude of Fathers he hath brought to the paucity of mine To which I have nothing to say for a comparison ought not to be made before both parts are seen and he will have the Reader judge before he hath made any discussion of mind Let the Reader therefore remember what is passed concerning his Fathers which he professeth to have cited plentifully to wit one class of them who speak of our Saviours Resurrection in which we are more forward then he that all souls were then delivered Another class of such Testimonies as are confessedly Erroneous and Heretical The rest of Fathers speaking in common what we both agree in unless St. Julian of whom I cannot pronounce having not seen the Books Lastly certain stories which some Fathers mention your great Divine making no difference betwixt the stating of Divinity and telling of news but parallelling what a Father says he heard to what the Church receives from Jesus Christ and his Apostles Is not this think you a goodly score to vaunt so much of He adds for the last thousand years not so much as a whisper of any one Father In what age then lived Alacinus St. Anselm and St. Thomas who are cited for holding the Fire of Judgment to be the fire of Purgatory and were in a manner the beginners of the Scholemen 2. In his second Number he comes to the objections Before I begin them I must give you a short note of the state of the question You are therefore to take notice of two famous propositions in Antiquity which modern use has much relinquished The one is that in the primitive Church the day of Judgment was hotly proposed to Christians as in which both rewards and punishments were to be expected Whereas now adays all the preaching almost tends to the present going to Heaven or to Hell And this is so plain thathe himself renders causes why it was so The second Doctrin was that because some souls needed purging and this was apprehended to depend of Judgment also the day in which the rewards or punishments were given was deputed for the purging of the souls which needed purgation This purging was by the Saints generally taken to be done by fire therfore of the last conflagration and other purging we hear not of until private Revelations took Authority to build Diuinity new Principles since which time almost all the Devotion of the Latin Church runs after the delivery of souls from present pains of fire which the Greek Church professed in the Council of Florence not to have heard of But as in the former proposition the difference betwixt Antiquity and the present use maketh not either reprehensible so in this later question there is no formal opposition but the Essence Purgatory is conserved in both to wit that some souls are in torment until they be delivered But Antiquity makes no mention of any delivery but at the day of Judgment Our later Revelations make irregular deliveries upon divers occasions Now what I aym at in the citation of Fathers is to shew that the Testâ—… brought out of them for purging of souls all or generally speak of the day oâ— Judgment so that as to the Fathers the question is all one if whether there be a Purgatory and whether the souls be released at the day of Judgment and all the Authorities which prove Purgatory fire be such as to prove that fire to be at the day of Judgment Whence it follows that who will put a Remission before must look for Fathers who say that directly and not rely upon the common speeches Farther the question is of that nature that it depends from solid Revelation out of Scripture or Tradition and no less Authority is able to make it a
made in him and not onely concerning merit and demerit Likewise the following words are For such as in that day he departs such in the last day shall he be judged Which sentence plainly says if he dyes impure and deserving to be purged the last day shall find him impure and deserving to be purged what stories soever Bellarmin tells us of another thing 14. There follows â—â—ffinus his Testimony which of it self might have been common to both opinions if it had not clearly alluded to the words of St. Paul which he and Bellarmin with him acknowledge to be spoken of the day of Judgment and which by consequence draw the words of Ruffinus to be meant of the same To Eâ—cheriâ—s Lugdunâ—â—â—is he answers that he hath shewed his words are against us and there where he endeavoured to shew this that is Ch. 7. N. 8. I have answer'd his proof Onely I must note that he cites the words for St. Austin's wheras t' is clear they are not nor that homily of which the one half where these words are is taken out of Eâ—cheriâ—s and therefore the whole Homily must be of an Authour later then St. Eucherius whence his pressing of St. Austin's other places to confirm this is nothing to the purpose 15. He concludes his Chapter with saying there is no one Authority alleadged by which it is made clear that every one though he dy'd never so long since is to be detain'd in Purgatory untill the last day though he had but one Venial sin to answer for In which words there are so many circumstances that it were indeed very hard to find the proposition formally and in terminis in Scripture or Fathers Therefore I deem it enough for me if I find that the faithfull who dy in sin without exception must be purged by the fire of Judgment if I find no mention of any ending of purging but by this fire nay if I find that there is no remission of sin in the next world unless it be at the day of Judgment and finally if I find the whole direction of Scripture and Fathers publickly to be to that day without any mention of any change in the Interim This I think enough for me and plainly enough lay'd down since your Divine hath not given a plausible solution to any one place of Scripture or Father alleadged He confesses the tryall by fire but puts it to be a manifestation against the force of the words without other reason then because it would be against his opinion He confesses the Universal direction to be to the day of Judgment He confesses there is no true Remission of sin in the next world unless it be in the first instant or be as we say with the Fathers in the day of Judgment What can I ask more unless it be how the fire acts upon the good and bad For he not putting it to have this force by preparing their Bodies to Resurrection must of necessity make some fine procession of all who rise thorough this fire and a great discretion in it to know which it must touch and which not and how much every one must suffer and when it will be time to end the dance and tumble with the wicked down to Hell which will make a curious piece to contemplate and so I must expect his farther leasure and prepare my self to his next Chapter FIFTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his twentieth Chapter Of Vindicative Justice and in what sence 't is transferrible to God His Ignorances and Mistakes of our Dâ—ctrin and Arguments Why Fire cannot be an Instrument to torment Spirits His rare Mystery of surceaâ—ing from Action by pure cessation and of Obediential Power 1. THough his twentieth Chapter bear in the front of its title to answer the objection of Novelty yet it discourseth of other circumstances As that Pope Gregory puts not any to go to Heaven but onely to be delivered out of pains and Venerable Bede the like out of which we do not infer Novelty but Errour and want of Authority in the Revelations they bring For Alcuinus I do not remember I cited him for any such matter but for the opinion it self to be for us Nor do we make this consequence because Abel went not to Heaven therefore others go not now but onely by this example reâ—ute the importunity he makes from the length of Time He says no man can deny that St. Anselm and St. Thomas held this delivery out of Purgatory and brings for witness his first Number of the tenth Chapter where there is nothing but stories written in the two Saints lives which to take for their Authorities is a great mistake For the Authority of those stories belongs to the writers of the lives who how prudent and exact they are and by how many hands they received them are guesses in the ayre I was told within this week a story how the Devil fetcht away a Minister at Zurick It was read me out of a Letter of a man against whom I had no exceptions but because it came thorough more hands neither he to whom it was written nor I could find faith enough to trust it 2. As to his defence that their opinion is not new I remit my self to 〈…〉 Answers in the places he cites that is 〈…〉 Answers of the fifth and sixth Number Chap. 9. his N. 12. Ch. 7. N. 11. and 12. Ch. 5. N. 11. and 12. Ch. 14. And as to his solid Judgment that those proofs are sufficient to make this opinion be defined for an Article of Faith if it be not already as of one side the Church expects no new Faith since the Apostles time so on the otherside what he brings in his fifteenth Chapter is not able to make his opinion as much as probable For the matter being a matter not knowable of his side but by Revelation seeing it depends wholly upon Gods free counsel and will beyond our reach otherwise then by Revelation so it must needs follow that the Verdicts of all men who go not out of solid Revelations are the Verdicts of blind men judging of colours 3. In his second Number he tells his Reader as concerning whether God sets pains purely vindicative that we dressup old Arguments in new Clothes the which I must needs confess to be a custom not onely laudable but necessary For otherwise no Argument that were old could be good whereas experience teaches that oftentimes they are the best and by the regular course of nature they must be so for what is strongest endures the longest But let us look into his process 〈…〉 cites out of the Supplement two Arguments to prove there are no pains in Hell and concludes Thus you see these Arguments do the Devil as good service in taking away Hell as they do our Adversaries to take away our Purgatory So that your Gentleman after he hath spent so large a book to make people believe that the pains of Purgatory are not so great as
comparison to Aristotl's demonstration and saying that in Aristotl's way there be insuperablr difficulties which uses to be the saying of those who understand not this Demonstration of Aristotle which is fundamenta to Philosophy and acknowledged by all who deserves the name of Philosophers And so you may see I did well to promise him no demonstrations who know not what they signify but thinks every Anthropomorphitical explication of Scripture to be Demonstrative EIGHTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his twenty third and twenty fourth Chapters Our Opinion avouch'd by true Philosophy Hiâ— Calumny of our Teâ—ets God's Gâ—… of the Synagogue different from that of the Church The notion of the word Merit The connaturalâ—ess of the pains we put and the needlesness of his The many ill-consequences and absurdities of the Opinion that all Venial affections are blotted out by Contrition in the first Act of Separation The â—illiness of his Opinion that souls in Purgatory cannot help themselves His probable Divinity His non-sâ—… that lyability to be punisht without Fault is 〈◊〉 blem isâ— refuâ—ed 1. I cannot but complain of your Divine that having promised such wonders in the last discussed Chapter he came off so pitifully that where he had the advantage of human apprehension against me he gave me not as much as occasion to explicate my Doctrin unless I should have gone and stray'd from his Text. His oppositions were pure opinions without any sight of Evidence His Authority for the most part of St. Thomas from whom in this point we professedly recede His Scripture such as he himself is bound to solve in respect of Almighty God So that in its words it has no force and all the force must come out of this whether the nature of Angels requires to have the words explicated improperly or no which he may suppose but goes not about to prove otherwise then from uncertain Authority His solutions to admit contradiction or else propose some Argument by halfs The rest of his Chapter high words 2. Howsoever I hope his three and twentieth Chapter will make amends for the question is not so Metaphysical as the other was It begins with an explication of my Doctrin disguis'd in high terms yet true ones for the greatest part In his second Number he accuseth it of being against Philosophy to say that God so order'd all things in the beginning that he need not since put his hand to it By which if he understands that God doth not continue conserving of his creatures it is not my Doctrin If he grants Conservation to God though the truth is that Conservation is but the very Act of first Creation though in name and notion it be divers then I must see how he proves it against Philosophy For saith he no natural cause can produce the soul of a man and therefore God must do some new action when there is an exigence of creating a soul. I grant no creature can create a â—oul but affirm that the first act of Creation creates every soul when time is without farther or greater Influence of God He may reply he understands not this To which my answer is that I beleeve him but cannot help him seeing it is not here place to explicate Mysteries of incident Philosophical points He may help himself if he pleases with my Institutiones both Peripaticae and Sacrâ— He adds two other Philosophical necessities he finds one of the necessity of Gods actual concourse with second causes the other of Gods choosing Individâ—…s for the second causes to produce The former as far as it hath sence in it is done by the Action of Creation or Conservation by which God sets the Angels on work to move celestial Bodies from whose motion actual motion flows into all other causes and this is the true either premotion or concourse of God with creatures plain and visible The other which I fear he means hath no kind of Philosophy nor Divinity in it The choosing of Individâ—… is the rascallest and the ridiculousest Position that ever was affirmed by any scum of Philosophers You see what sound maximes â—e takes to impugn the perfection of God's Wisdom 3. In his fourth Number he begins to employ his Divinity And first he asks what natural cause can raise dead bodies and give them due torments And I must answer with a reply of a question to wit when this is to be done While the Fabrick of Nature holds or when it is ended If when it is ended how comes it to our purpose Or is not he grosly mistaken to put this amongst the workings of Nature Yet that the course of Natural Causes does prepare the World even to this unmaking of Nature you may find in the last book of my Institutiones Sacrâ— For the proportionable pains the Soul of themselves will cause those as you may see in the same book To fill up here a Page with his own opinion of Purgatory was besides the matter for we doubt not but that he puts more Wilfulness then Wisdom in God Almighty's Actions 4. His main Answer begins N. 3. where he tells us that it is Heresie to make natural causes to have vertue sufficient to bring man by themselves alone to his final end of Eterâ—… Bliss And then he tells you that our prime Argument is the same that Pâ—…gius's to wit that every natural Agent ought to have power given it from the Author of Nature to bring it self to its natural perfection But first I would enquire where â—e sound in any Writing of mine the Proposâ—â—on he condemns If I say that God hâ—th ordain'd second causes to do all effects which are not to be seen to be miraculous do I exclude supernatural causes Are not Christ's coming and Preaching the coming of the Holy Ghost the Habits of Faith Hope and Charity the Prayers and Preaching and good Works proceeding from men thorough such Habits the Sacraments the whole â—orm of the Church all Supernatural causes interwoven with natural To what purpose then doth this man talk that natural causes are not sufficient to bring a man to Heaven Is it not plain he knows neither what I say nor what himself See how just our Argument is the same with the Pelagâ—â—n's Out of this you see his Answer is like to be a good one and so it is For Numb 8. he hath so I answer As man's last 〈◊〉 cannot be reâ—ched by Nature so is it out of the reach of natural causes by their natural operation to chastise man's sinning proportionably to his voluntary acting against his supernatural end My Reply is that he must seek out to whom to answer for I never talked of purely natural causes but natural and supernatural together as they compound all second causes But the good man could think of no supernatural causes but God himself working immediately and so strayed to seek out why such actions were not miraculous which we will not follow him to because it is not concerning to our Theme 5.
it self All Prelates of the Church not excluding the Pope himself none of these in their qualities and degrees by which they are Judges of Christian demeanour pretending the extraordinary favours he requires to make them speak like Doctours I wonder he is not acquainted with the Bull of Leo the tenth beginning Supernae Majestatis In which he lays Excommunication upon all Preachers who in their Sermons do lay forth any such Visions or Revelations before they are approved by the Church because ordinarily they are but Illusions of Melancholy Persons who in their prayer have conceited such dreams and imposed them upon their Directours I pray perswade him to consider how much worse it is to preach such things then to point them in a vulgar Language by which they run amongst the unlearned sort and consider how far he and the divulgers of his Book are from deserving Excommunication Again how many of these Visions in particular have passed the examin and approbation of the Church for which they may not be accompted the dreams of waking men 8. To return now to our former course in his third Paragraph he cites the 63 Canon of the Council of Nice the which though it be known to be none of the Council yet because the custom it speaks of is laudable I except not against it For we doubt not but the multiplication of pryers is ever good St. Paul hath taught us that but the question is onely of the end for which the custom was instituted Yet I may note this that peradventure your Divine is mistaken in the number for we find in the first ages that though there were forty Priests in a Church onely one said Mass upon private days But it is a tedious thing to walk in the dark and to handle a question whereof the Roots are not understood Wherefore I shall to my power lay down the grounds of the question out of which Authorities may be the better understood 9. There are therefore two questions to be display'd the one whereon relys the efficacy of Prayer the second to what it is efficacious First therefore we must note that this word prayer hath two significations In the one it is nothing but the praising of God in the other it signifies the begging something of God Prayer in the first signification chiefly consists in the acts of the Theological vertues By Faith and the qualities consequert to Faith we acknowledg and admire the attributes of God and the perfection of his works so break out into those motions which follow such Acts. By Hope and Charity we love à nd desire God as our proper good whether by his Essence or by and his Creatures Out of this follows that we ask him what we apprehend as necessary to us in which consists that prayer which is properly called Petition Now let us consider God as we would consider a wise man and we shall see that if we beg any thing of a wise man he considers two things one is whether the Petition be convenient for it self which if he finds without difficulty he grants it The other is that though it be not convenient in it self yet he considers whether the friendship of the Person who begs it makes it convenient to be done or no And if he find it does he grants the request So then likewise must we esteem of God that he doth what is beg'd of him because of it self it is fitting to do it even if there had been no prayers At other times it is not good unless it had been begged Further in the Beggar we find two Considerations one of the Person the other of the Begging This later consideration is not considerable before God more then as it makes the Person more acceptable For whosoever begs of God addresses himself to God and by that exercises some vertue for which he comes to be more acceptable But then the begging obtains because of the worth of the Person Abstract from this and begging is but the affection to a created thing and so hath more imperfection then perfection in it unless it be the desire of what is commanded us as when it is said Quaerite Reg num Dei and again siquis indiget sapientia postulet a Deo And it is added in fide nihil haesitans which if I be not mistaken signifies that he shall certainly be heard Of other things we hear Pater vester scit quia his omnibus opus habetis and if we will nevertheless ask them we have the form shaped out to us sed tua volunt as fiat non mea 10. That this explication of Gods hearing our prayers is true depends of the Principles long since explicated that God under forfeit of his Wisdome and Goodness is bound to do what is best for his creatures and nothing else Wherefore what he does is either therefore best because begg'd or of it self therefore on one of these motives to be granted Now if it be best because begged since the title of begging is the favour the Beggar has he must by the act of begging be in greater favour then without it for if it had been convenient otherwise it would have been done without begging and so not for the begging for God needs no Monitor to tell him what and when it is best And so you have the first point clear'd that Charity and onely Charity on the Peggars part is the cause of the effect 11. The other point was what God grants in respect of our prayers That is to what our prayers are efficacious In which the first proposition is that God grants nothing upon our prayers but what first he stirs us up to pray for and ordains our prayers to be causes of the effect the which is both evident of it self and formerly declared The next proposition is that God stirs up no body to pray for any thing unless the action of praying be good to him that prays So that whether the effect be granted or not the good of praying never fails him who prays A third proposition is that all things confider'd no extrinsecal good is the good of the man who prays for it but is absolutely indifferent whether it be the spiritual good of Father and Mother or Children or whatsoever it be and therefore by a perfect soul none of those things is to be absolutely pray'd for or desired but onely under the good will and provideoce of God This is clear also to all those who understand the nature of Good to be respective to him who desires it and that it signifies what according to reason is to be desired by him and that every man is a part of the World and cannot with reason desire the World should be conformable to him and therefore may or must desire his own good because he is made for it and hath that charge from the Authour of nature to procure it and be sollicitous of it But as his Beatitude is but the end of him so the Beatitude