Apostle purposely makes in saying Death is the wage or stipend of Sin but not saying so of life eternal There is another place cited out of St. August that makes a great noise of Justice in giving the reward Aug. de nat gra c. 2. Non est injustus Deus ut Justos fraudet mercede justitiae God is not unjust saith he that he should defraud or disappoint the just of the reward of their justice or righteousness But upon what respect God is said to be Just in rewarding was shewen * Nu. 3. above in answer to those places of Scripture which spake Gods Justice in that particular And the same answer may serve all those Testimonies which the Cardinal or others bring out of the Fathers saying in some loftiness of Language that man by good deeds may make God his Debtor The Wiseman in effect said so Prov. 19.17 and that proverbial way of speech may bear it That saying of St. Aug. which in this Controversie of Merit Truth has forced the Cardinal thrice to mention will clearly unfold how God becomes and may be call'd Mans Debtor and answer all plea of Merit made from such speeches of the Fathers The Lord saith he Aug. Ps 83. Debitorem Dominus ipse se secit non accipiendo sed promittendo makes himself a Debtor and how is that not by receiving from us but promising unto us To this purpose it is what the same Father saith elsewhere * Aug. l. 1. Confess c. 4. O thou that payest Debts or renders what is due yet owest nothing to any man qui reddis debita nulli debes where debita debts are promissa his promises And †Aug. Serm 16. de verb. Apost redde quia accepisti sedâ—edde quia promisisti elsewhere We do not say to God render because thou hast received but render because thou hast promised The Cardinal pretends he can easily answer all this and replies thus It is said so by St. Bel. l. 5. de Justif c. 18. sect Sed facilis absolutè sed solum ex promissione dono suo quod autem non ex sola promissione sed etiam ex opere nostro Deus efficiatur Debitor docet Aug. cum subjungit redde quod promisisti quia fecimus quod jussisti Aug. because God owes nothing to any man absolutely but only by his promise and his own bounty and gift This is fair and true but nothing to his advantage and therefore not many lines after he sups it up again with the same breath saying Nevertheless that God is made our Debter not only by his promise but by our work too St. Aug. teacheth when he subjoyns we may say render what thou hast promised for we have done what thou commandest If this may be said to God Almighty yet with such caution that it cannot as bold as it is be a plea for Merit for it must be said with respect to the bounty and promise of God appointing such a reward for them that do so and so and with acknowledgment of his Free-grace helping us to do so wherefore it follows immediately in St. Et hoc tuâ—fecisti qui laborantes juvisti Aug. Ser. 16. de verbis Apost Aug. which the Cardinall thought good to omit and this thou hast done which hast helped those that labour or strive to do well If we take it not as said in such a respect St. Aug. himself will judge it a proud and presumptuous saying for so it is censured by him Against the plea of Merit upon Ps 142. vers 2. Enter not into judgment where he brings in the presumptuous justifiers of themselves saying * Aug. in Ps 142. Jejunavimus non vidisti fecimus quod jussisti quare non reddis quod promisesti ut accipias quod promisi ego dediut faceres We have fasted and thou seest not we have done what thou hast commanded why dost thou not render what thou hast promised To such saith he God will answer that thou maist receive what I promised I gave unto thee to do Finally the Prophet speaks to such proud ones c. If therefore man may so plead render what thou hast promised for we have done what thou hast commanded it must be with such corrections We have done what thou commandest what thou graciously doest require of us and accept as condition of obtaining what thou hast bountifully promised VVe have done but what was our duty antecedently to thy gracious promise done what thou mightest have required of us without such reward done what thou didst help and enable us to do and done it but imperfectly so that it needs thy merciful acceptation and still we need to say Testimonies of Fathers a gainst Romish Merit Enter not into judgment with thy servants O Lord. Now to proceed to the Testimonies of Fathers against Romish Merit First we alledge their sayings whereby they plainly deny Merit or that we are worthy And here we must observe as to the sense of those words Those that deny Merit and Worthiness in us Merit and Worthy in this Controversie a great difference between those sayings of the Fathers which barely affirm our Merits or Worthiness those which deny the same I say a great difference between the force of the one and of the other For when they affirm they speak according to the remiss sense of Merits put for good works obtaining eternal life and do mean such a worthiness that consists by divine acceptation but when they deny either they speak punctually to the exclusion of that worth and merit which the Church of Rome would establish in the Works themselves Bern. de dedicat eccl ser 5. dignatione divinâ non dignitate nostra Nec dignatio locum habet ubi fuerit prasumptio dignitatis as answerable to the reward Thus Bernard We are so by divine dignation not by our own worth ordignity a little after he saith Divine dignation hath no place where there has been a presumption or conceit of self-dignity Thus when they are upon the negative they speak punctually distinctly of merit and worth as concerned in this Controversie St. Basil speaks home * Basil in Ps 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eternal rest saith he remains for them that have striven lawfully in this life not rendred according to Debt unto their works but given according to the grace of a bountiful God He speaks it with reverence to those words of the Apostle Henceforth a Crown is laid up for me 2 Tim. 4. and a distinction borrowed from the same Apostle Rom. 4.4 of grace or of debt and so cuts out all the core of pretended Merit which the Romanists would fix in the former place of 2 Tim. 4. Bel. l. 5. de Inâ—â—â—f c. 6. The Cardinal cites this Testimony of St. Basil as objected by Protestants and shuffles pitifully in his replies to it First leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
in justice rewards that he renders or restores so he will have the importance of it p. 173. as if due before that the reward is a Crown of justice so he will have it that is saith he a true reward or price gotten by labour Which appears saith he by 1 Cor. 9.24 our running for it and by 2 Cor. 4.17 by afflictions working for us an eternal glory whence he gathers if they work a Crown of glory then are they a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit pa. 173. then to shew they are worthy of eternal life he cites Revel 3.4 for they are worthy adding Heb. 6.9 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work which must imply the same as the righteous judge will render 2 Tim. 4.8 If he will stand strictly on these words according to the reason of true merit he overthrows his former true concessions of free grace promise acceptation which also gives us the true meaning of these words or expressions not such as he would draw out of them For the free grace which he and his Council yeilds is given us for performance of the work that is of that fighting and running and then cannot merit truly what follows on it in the way of reward also that free and liberal promise of the reward in performing of which God is just and righteous to render the reward the Crown of righteousness will not suffer good works either to challenge the reward of Gods justice as due to the worth of the work or to be true causes of eternal life by way of merit they have their work and causality in their way or measure Non causa regnandi sed via Regni They are not the cause of reigning but the way of or to the kingdome saith a Father Conditions of obtaining the promise not true Causes in the way of meriting it we may adde 1 Jo. 1.9 where God is said to be just in forgiving our sins in regard of his promise of it to them that perform the condition of it confessing their sins Lastly that divine acceptation which Mr. Spencer and his Council do yeild is that by which they are accounted worthy Rev. 3.4 And we may note that when the Scripture saith not worthy as Rom. 8. How said to be worthy v. 18. and in other places saith are worthy the Negative must be taken properly as to true value and worth the affirmative must be understood in some respect are worthy as to Gods account and gracious acceptation Also note that the Scripture saith not worthy of our doings or sufferings to shew they are so if examined compared with the reward but saith Worthy of the Persons which argues its divine acceptation that makes them so and then accepts their works also to the rewarding of them though imperfect and unanswerable to it See what this Author acknowledges pa. 175. All their merits are his gifts as S. August saith and rewarded through the free acceptation of them through the merits of Christ To the Protestant argument of the Saints ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness The best acknowledg unworthiness he answers that by this cannot be understood that no just man hath any works truly good and pleasing to God pa. 175. Neither do we understand or prove by unworthiness that they have no good works but no merit in proper sense So to Ps 130.3 If thou Lord wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss who may abide it This proves not saith he that no Saint has any good works or merits for they do many things amiss yet through the grace of Christ may do somethings aright pa. 177. Good works and merits go for the same with this Author which is his perpetual mistake and that which he grants they do some things amiss some things aright shews good works may be where no merit is i. e. where many things are done amiss Merit cannot be where there is still need of pardon where there is still need to beg Lord enter not into judgment with thy servant Psal 143.2 that is that God would not deal with him in extremity of judgment or as he deserves How then can any just person that needs divine acceptation for mercy and pardon of many things amiss in him and again needs divine acceptation for his good works that they may be rewarded notwithstanding they are accompanied with many things done amiss and are in themselves imperfect how can such a person by his works be said truly or in any proper sense to merit the reward of eternal life There is a saying of S. Augustine Multum nobis in hac carne tribueremus si non usque ad ejus depofitionem sub venia viveremus We should attribute too much to our selves in this flesh or time of this life if we did not live under Pardon to the very deposition of it or to the end of our life So then to conclude as S. Augustine said our merits are Gods gifts which excludes merit à parte ante in the original of our works because done by Gods free grace or gift so was it a saying of an ancient Father my merit is the mercy of God which excluds merit à parte post in the end when our works are admitted to the reward because that is done through Gods mercifull acceptation CHAP. VI. Purgatory OF the fower particulars which Mr. Spencer notes out of the Trent Council The unreasonableness of Romish Purgatory three of them speak their own unreasonableness and carry their condemnation in their forehead 1. That just persons after they have as they hold merited heaven at Gods hand by their justice and died acceptable to him should go to a Purgatory to be tormented 2. That the mercifull God after the Remission of their sin after he had forgiven them for the all-sufficient satisfaction of his Son should exact of them such extreme satisfaction or punishment and that only for some remainder of temporal pains not satisfied or born in this life when as that punishment exceedingly goes beyond all that can be suffered in this life though never so long 3. That the Church of Rome forbidding all temporal gain to be made of this doctrine of Purgatory should notwithstanding suffer it daily to be done where the poor must be content with the general suffrages of the Church but the Rich that dy and can pay for it have many particular Masses Indulgences in order to their ease or delivery The places of Scripture here brought in the sense of which he will have us mistaken are such as are intended for comfort against sufferings in this life and against dissolution or death by the bettering of their estate but this doctrine makes all these miserable comforts and his answers miserable not only mistakes but wrestings of Scripture The first place is Revel 14. Blessed are the Dead who dy in the Lord that they may rest from their labours and their works follow them or
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial pa. 185. His Argument for Purgatory punishment This is great boldness whether we look at the comparison of the things or the difficulty of the undertaking but he learnt this from his Master the * Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 15. Cardinal who was not ashamed to say it and Mr. Spencer is not afraid to follow him let him say and undertake what he will His pretended Demonstration proceeds thus Purgatory is the place where temporal punishments are suffered by just persons after death which they deserved in their life now if any justified soul be liable to suffer such after death then there is a place where they must suffer them To prove them liable to such punishments he endeavours to shew that justified persons yet living after remission of their sins and consequently of eternal Torment are liable to some temporal punishment pa. 185 186. This proposition is too infirm to make a demonstration or proof of Purgatory for we may ask if upon remission of sin consequently there be a remission of eternal why not consequently of temporal punishment he dare not say that temporal punishment is not remitted when sin is forgiven and therefore saith liable to some temporal punishments and pa. 187. he saith God retains part of the punishment he means to be satisfied or payed by us which will be found true only when it pleases God to reserve some and inflict it yet not as satisfactory punishment but for other purposes as we shall see Again we may ask though it be true that remission of sin be consequently the remission of eternal punishment and that so me living are after remission of their sin temporally afflicted with respect to that sin yet how will this consequently fall upon just persons dead To make good the proposition that just men living are liable to some temporal punishment he brings the example of David punished with the death of his child * 2 Sam. 12.13 14. Of punish ment reserved and inflicted after forgiveness of sin and of Adam who after his sin forgiven was notwithstanding liable to death as all just persons are for the same reason pa. 186. His alledging the example of Adams sin punishmed by death is altogether impertinent to the question and Mr. Spencer surely knew it well enough for his question is not concerned in the punishments immediately upon Original sin which cleaves universally to our nature and from which no just persons whatsoever though they have fully satisfied as they suppose for temporal punishments are free but the question is concerned only in the temporal punishment due to actual sins committed after baptisme for to these only belongs the doctrine of satisfaction as he knows their Trent Council has defined for mortality and bodily infirmities following the natural state are not matter for satisfactions or indulgences to work on as the Romanists will grant Let us therefore examine his other example of David whether it will prove his Proposition We say just persons after the remission of their sins are not liable to temporal punishment Ordinarie ordinarily and of course that is God does not alwayes reserve some temporal punishment or part of the temporal punishment due to their sin and to be inflicted or satisfied for by themselves but does reserve such punishments to be inflicted when and as he thinks fit Again when he does reserve and inflict them it is not in ordine justitiae in order to his justice requiring punishment as satisfactory to it which he must suppose when he saith if not suffered here it must be else where But Almighty God inflicts such punishments for other reasons and purposes as for correction and amendment of persons so fuffering or at least for admonition to others as when the person suffering dyes or is taken away by the punishment So that such punishments after sin forgiven are not properly satisfactory as the Romanists must and do suppose but Castigatory at least admonitory to others We grant such punishments are inflicted Other reasons of punishment besides satisfaction and that with relation to and by occasion of sin as Davids was not out of vindicative justice requiring satisfaction as they must suppose but for other reasons of Correction or admonition as was said and as appears by the reason the Lord gives of Davids punishment Howbeit that is notwithstanding that thy sin is taken away and the punishment due unto it because thou hast by this deed or sin given great occasion to the enemies of the lord to blaspheme which also gives us another reason of Gods some time punishing such persons that he may shew he does not approve sin in his children but that it is displeasing to him as is said 2 Sam. 11. ult but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord Now that God Almighty does not ordinarily and alwayes reserve such punishment after forgiveness appears 1. Because he has no where declared that such punishments are reserved or do remain after forgiveness to be satisfied for by us but every where has declared he is well satisfied with the fruits of repentance that is if the person to whom he forgives sin carefully avoids the like sin and performs the contrary duties 2. because he has set out his forgiveness as perfect and full a pardoning of the whole debt of which the temporal punishment due to sin is part and in this point of forgiving he would have us imitate him Be mercifull as he is merciful Luc. 3. Another reason of our denying satisfactory punishment inflicted after forgiveness of the sin is because that forgiveness is imparted for the satisfaction of Christ which was full and all-sufficient payed by him for the whole debt or punishment due to sin for he bore our griefs and our chastisement Isa 53.4 5. even all that sin made us liable to whether eternal or temporal And yet is the Cardinal so bold as by distinguishing of satisfaction for sin to give us part with and under Christ in the work saying that our Saviour satisfied immediately i. e. Bel. l. 4. de poenit c. 15. porro Immediatè pro culpa reatu mortis aeternae mediaâ—e pro poena etiam temporali quatenus gratiam praebet per quamipsi nos Domino satisfacimus by himself for the fault and for the guilt of eternal death and mediately for the temporal punishment also in as much as he affords us grace whereby we our selves satisfy the Lord. Had he said our Saviour satisfied for the Temporal punishment also so that it is either wholly remitted to the Righteous or if any be inflicted grace is given to bear it and the affliction sanctified to their advantage even death it self with all other corporal infirmities and afflictions whatsoever Had he spoke to this purpose it had been wholsome doctrine Thus for his Antecedent or Proposition That Reservation of punishment whether it can hold after death as concerning just persons living liable
to some Temporal punishment after forgiveness which how far and in what sense true we have seen Now let us see how supposing it true in the Romish sense as indeed it is not he can transfer it from the living to the dead that it may be a ground and proof of Purgatory after death as they suppose it is of satisfactions in this life for if ask supposing such persons in this life liable to some temporall punishment why should they be so in the next it rests upon that false assertion of his Council that such punishment must be satisfied or paied either in this world or the world to come for there is a third way which * Vid Alens summ l. 4. qu. 15. mem 3. artic 3. some have allowed and that is a removal of all the stains of sin and guilt of punishment by the final grace and in the passage of the soul from the body And how bold is this Author to make God a respecter of persons if he should not punish in the other world one that had sinned as David and not payed for it in this pa. 187. for then he should not saith this Author reward every man according to his works God no respecter of persons if he forgive all Temporal punish ment with out our satisfaction But this is First a bold inference upon the former falls supposal of such punishments retained and inflicted in the Course of vindicative justice if not satisfied for by us whereas we saw three reasons against it and other purposes which God has in so retaining and inflicting punishment when he sees fit for chastisement amendment admonition to others and to shew how he is displeased with sin in his children yea it is very profitable for us that he should retain and inflict it after forgiveness as and when he sees fit But none of these purposes can hold in the punishments of Purgatory Secondly that Rewarding every man according to his works is misapplied to sins of just persons forgiven for the reward of punishment which God without respect of persons renders to works is to works not reckoned for i. e. not repented of not forgiven And whereas they will not allow that God either in mercy or justice can remit the remainder of Temporal punishment without being a Respecter of persons why do they contend for the power of Indulgence to be in the Pope and allow him to be a Respecter of persons as the Rich finde him to be And whereas they hold Christ to entreat and intercede for souls in Purgatory yet none come out upon his Intercession but upon the Popes Indulgence All they can pretend to here is that by such Indulgencies the application of Christs merit and satisfaction is made Papal Indulgences But why should they allow the Pope to be a respecter of persons in applying the merits of Christ with respect as he does to friends or those that can pay well when they will not allow God Almighty to dispense his own mercy or justice to them that have not satisfied here unless they do it in Purgatory or why do they allow the Pope to extend that power of loosing to souls in Purgatory that is under the earth which was given to the Church for loosing only things * Mat 16.19 Mat. 18.18 upon earth Indeed God has appointed many wayes and means in his Church of applying Christs satisfaction such as his Word both Sacraments and Absolution but as for the many new invented wayes of the Church of Rome they are unwarrantable and ineffectual to the purpose deceiving the people not only of their money but of their souls by staying on things that must be payed for yet profit not false applications of what they pretend the merits and satisfaction of our Saviour Christ Unto this debate of Purgatory it will not be amiss to adde something concerning satisfactions Of satisfactions and of doing the things signified by that name We do not here condemn or deter people from doing the things which in the language of the Church of Rome come under the name of satisfaction viz. those Penals self-afflictives acts of self-denial or such spiritual exercises or bodily austerities reasonably used that way But we commend them as profitable and to good purpose if rightly undertaken and directed only we cannot allow the grounds upon which that Church has established her satisfactions nor the purposes that Church seems to have in the commending or injoyning them The grounds we saw in the discourse of Purgatory That God does retain part of the temporal punishment which may by works of penance be remitted here in this world or payed in the world to come as this Author expresses it pa. 187. of this sufficiently above Nor can we allow the purposes or at least practises of the Romish Church in commending those Penals as meritorious and satisfactory to Gods justice that I may say nothing of the no small gain that is made thereby But we allow and commend the doing of the things these self-afflictives First in order to the obtaining of remission of sin and punishment so the Sackeloth Ashes Lying on the ground as in the Ninivites Ion. 3. this they do not as having any merit or satisfaction for punishment due by Gods justice unto sin nor yet as the prime conditions of forgiveness but as expressions of that inward Repentance and humiliation of which they are effects and which they conduce to encrease by a reaction or working back again upon the soule Secondly After forgiveness they are profitable when done either in respect to sin past by way of wholsome discipline to make more wary of such sins more careful to avoid them hereafter and more diligent in doing the contrary duties or when done in order to the averting some Temporal judgment wherewith God might strike us justly for some failing remisness or want of due carefulness as is requisite for that avoiding of sin and performance of duty For these are the fruits of Repentance which God accepts as the great and only satisfaction on our parts as for those Penals and bodily afflictives they are pleasing unto him so far as conduce to inforce care and strength of the spirit against sin and as they are expressions and effects of that humiliation and Repentance which is the Condition of forgiveness And these Afflictives or exercises of self-denial may be either voluntary undertaken of our selves or by advise of the Priest that has the ministery of reconciliation and the power of loosing committed unto him and the less that God does inflict on us i. e. the greater prosperity health ease quietness that any man enjoys in the world the more is he concerned to impose on himself such acts of self-denial and keep the soul exercised by sometimes afflicting the body or else the flesh will gather strength against the spirit and bring in the world too fast into the soul Upon the aforesaid Respects we commend and allow the things