of true internal Justification before God does but prove what we allow and what makes against himself who must acknowledge a man is truly justified before God before he does such works Seeing then this is the first Justification which S. James intends and that as both they and we say is not by works this cannot without gross mistake and impertinency be objected as it is by them against us but they and we are both of us concerned to reconcile the seeming contrariety between the two Apostles As for the distinction of Justification before God and before men albeit there may be a several consideration of Justification to that purpose and good works do declare a man Justified and as I may say do justify his faith yet we need not here make use of it but the purpose of S. Iames in writing this Epistle does direct us rather to a several consideration of Faith or believing for when he denies a man to be justified by faith alone he speaks not of a lively working faith to which S. Paul attributes justification but of a bare and seeming faith in profession only and as to good works dead and barren such as they rested in against whom he writes This is plain by S. James his subjoyning v. 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed c. how could the Apostle bring this Scripture the same that S. Paul does for justifying faith Rom. 4.3 in confirmation of what he saith of works but to shew that Abrahams faith which justified him was a working faith Now if the Romanists conceive themselves less concerned for fear of the former truth to labour in the clearing of the contrariety which seems to be between the Apostles Romanists confound their First and Second Justification and think it more popular and for their advantage to cry up S. James his bare words of justification by works we cannot help it but must only note their wilfull mistake and impertinency in so eagerly urging S. Iames who speaks of the first justification Mr. Spencer indeed promises pa. 148. to reconcile the two Apostles but does it so as neither of them will be reconciled to his second justification as we shall see by examining the places of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken but first take notice of what he saith here upon occasion of the former Text of S. Iames. Iustified by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vivificating it as S. James describes them here p. 148. This is not only impertinent but guilty of falshood belying the Apostle for first he said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ja. 2.22 that works wrought with faith but that his faith wrought with his works Secondly Albeit the Apostle saith by works was faith made perfect yet does he not therefore describe works as informing and vivificating it for here is no other perfection meant then what the effect brings to the Agent fruit to the tree operation to the power or virtue from which it is as every thing that is made for use ordained to practice and operation is then said to be made perfect and consummate when it comes to working but this is far from informing or vivificating it he may as well say the breath which proceeds from the life of the body its S. Iames his similitude v. 26. does inform and vivisicate it In like manner good works do not inform or give life to faith but receive from it proceeding from it as effects and fruits the whole chapter Heb. 11. shews it speaking the effects of faith even of Abrahams here mentioned And that which this Author pa. 143. gathers from his Trent Council speaks plainly as we noted above that men are freely justified and then do good works And this shews his impertinency for they require fidem formatam faith informed for the first justification how then by works that follow and his inadvertency in again crossing their own doctrine for they say Faith is informed by charity infused in the first justification how then by works that come after Now for the Places out of S. Paul which he insists on to shew the Protestants mistaken The first is Rom. 3.28 Without the works of the Law Here and in all such places which exclude the works of the Law he will have Protestants mistaken in the undestanding of the works of the Law Because by the Law is understood that which is written in the books of Moses both Moral and Ceremonial and by works of the Law Saint Paul understands such works as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ is infused into the soul or that it is enlightned and assisted by his grace pa. 149 c. It is true that the Law is often so taken but when the Apostle excluds works of the Law in relation to Abrahams justification it cannot refer to Moses Law after given and written But the speech by faith and not by works comes to this issue no man can be justified by doing or working according to the Law he is under Not Abraham by the works of the Law then Not Jews by the works of the Law then the Law of Moses Not Christians by works or by doing what they are bound to do by the Law and Commandements which they are under But by reason of their many failings in those works and doings they must stand by faith apprehending Christs obedience and satisfaction to bear them out against the sentence of the Law or Gods judgment And it is true also that the Apostle sometimes takes the works of the Law for such as are done by force and knowledge of the Law before the faith of Christ c. as when he speaks of such as sought righteousness by the works of the Law without Christ but we cannot think the Apostle excludes works of the Law i. e. such as are done before grace as this Author saith from justifying to admit works done in grace into their stead for justification nor think that as Pharisees sought it by the former works and mist of it Rom. 9.31 so the Romanists may seek it by the latter sort of works and finde it for Rom. 10.3 4 5 6 9. he sets the righteousness of the Law and of faith simply one against the other neither can the righteousness of faith be imagined to be any righteousness of our working Observe farther what this Author saith pa. 150. that Rom. 3. v. 20. is added By the law is the knowledge of sin which is a reason wherefore such works as are done by the knowledge of the Law only cannot justify from whence we likewise infer If by the Law is the knowledge of sin and the Law still convinces those that are under grace of sin they cannot be justified by their works before God David and holy men in his time had the same way of justification as we notwithstanding they were under Moses Law who when they were
justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholick Inherent Righteousness they distinguish into Habitual which is by infusion of Grace and Actual which is acquired by Works and here they are not agreed * Bel. l. 2. de Justif c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actualis an utraque De hac re disputant Catholici Doctores Sed conveniunt in eo omnes ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens non autem Christi justitia imputata whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual or by the Actual righteousness or by both together for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it but saith he all agree that it is a true inhaerent righteousness by which we are made righteous formally not the imputed righteousness of Christ How their Catholick Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently But first see how the Cardinal declares He professeth in the same place that his judgement is for the * Solam habitualem esse per quam justi formaliter sâ—mus ibid. Habitual as infused and answers the places of Scripture which are alledged by those that plead for the Actual also where we may note that the places of Scripture here alledged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitualem the habitual only are the very same which they usually bring for works against solam fidem Faith only and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification The places and answers briefly are these Rom. Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 16. 2.13 The doers of the Law shall be Justified The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shal be adjudged or declared just in the Divine Judgment St. James c. 2.24 By works a man is justified The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent which interprets that place of the second justification in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited Lastly 1 Jo. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous The Card. answers the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just but that whereby a man may be known to be just By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteousness of Works from that which they hold to be the first and true and proper Justification much more are they removable from the formality of that which we hold the true and proper Justification according to the doctrine of St. Paul Now let us examine whether they all agree Concessions of Romanists about Imputation as the Cardinal boasted upon the inhaerent righteousness against the imputed First see what Vasquez and Bellarmine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Vega had said as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it Divine providence ordered it so Vasq in 1.2 Disput 222. cap. 1. that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation lest they should seem to give occasion to the Hereticks of these daies for their Error of false Imputation He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them occasion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word and other words aequivalent as Communication and Application And he grants Concedimus imputari nobis Merita obedientiam Christi acsi revera essent nostra ibid. that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us as if indeed they were ours and he giveth a good Reason Because the merits of Christ are the Merits of our Head This is fair and enough for our purpose if he did not pull back what he had given out and restrain what he had freely and truly granted Therefore he subjoyns Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus quo pacto loquitur Concil Trid. etiam ad aliquem effectum imputari ibid. VVe differ from the Hereticks in that to which or for which the Merits of Christ are imputed How is that VVe say they are imputed saith he by reason of the Effect as the Council of Trent speaks also that they are imputed as to some effect Now if we ask to what effect He tels us in the two next chapters They are imputed unto Justification and unto life eternal This is very true But how unto Justification In regard of the dispositions and in regard of the Form of Justification in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Justification and Inhaerent Righteousness given formally to justifie us Thus he explains himself in the second chapter and as for remission of sins by the satisfaction of Christ imputed no mention of that We must look for it in that purgation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness for they usually consound Remission and Deletion or purgation of sin as above noted nu 1. The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ imputed reserving himself still for his inhaerent Righteousness and having nothing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine which allows the being and necessity of Inhaerent righteousness but only the nicety of a Term Formaliter For * Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 7. Si solâ—m vellent imputari nobis Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patri offerre pro peccaâ—is nostris quoniâ—m Christus suscrpit onus satisfaciendi pro nobis recta esset corum sententia speaking of Protestants If they would saith he have only Christs merits imputed to us because they are given to us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because he undertook the burden of satissying for us their doctrine were right and sound But so to have Christs righteousness imputed to us as if by it we were formally just is repugnant to right reason Well we say the first which he cannot but approve we do not say the other for that formally just or justified is their expression not ours Again Although by inhaerent Righteousness saith he Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam inhaer tamen per eam non saâ—isfacimus Deo pro peccatis poena aeterna Non absurdum c. we are truly denominated and made righteous yet do we not by that satisfie God for our sins and eternal punishment therefore it is not absurd to say Christs merits and righteousness is imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied so that it be not denied there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us we do not deny there is but affirm they ascribe too much unto it and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this
Justification will not continue I say till Faith does so engage the Soul it is not a believing with the whole heart not a Justifying Faith Chrys in Phil. c. 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As St. Chrysostom who often attributes the whole to Faith alone requires it should be a working Faith as where he saith Faith ought not to be simply by it self or alone and then shews how our willingness to suffer and in like manner our well doing is from faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our fellowship with him in sufferings is from faith for he that believes he shall reign with Christ will be willing to suffer I need not trouble the Reader here with the Particular sentences of the Fathers using that expression of Sola Fides Faith only The Cardinal has recited many Bell. de Justificat l. 1. c. 25. and undertakes to answer them Well he acknowledges the Testimonies and for his Answers they come to this That Faith only is set against the works of Moses Law It is true that it is sometimes so but we must not think that the Apostle or Fathers denying Justification to be sought or had by the works of the Law do therefore admit our works under Grace to serve in the stead of the other for our Justification but do rather imply that no men Iew or Christian can be justified by doing what they are bound to do by the Law or Commandement under which they are as * Chap. IV. p. 102 103. above was shewen more amply Another of the Cardinals Answers is That faith only excludes the outward work only as in the sentences there cited out of Origen and Chrys but not Repentance and Charity How it does not exclude Repentance and Charity we said hard above i. e. it admits them as Conditions of Remission but not to that condition or Causality rather which the Church of Rome advances Charity to in the work of our Justification which is not a little to the prejudice of the imputed Righteousness and of that singular act of Faith for which it s said we are Iustified by faith only But when the Cardinal tels us those Fathers said by faith only because the outward work was wanting not to exclude Repentance and Charity he should have told us whether he meant charity in habit only or as sending forth its elicit Acts and inwardly working I suppose he will think it as great an absurdity to attribute Justification to a bare not working Habit as to a bare and not working faith which they falsly reproach us with and then he should have remembred he made Habitual inherent Righteousness the Formal Causs of Justification excluding the Actual that is charity as it is acting inwardly or outwardly for this it must come to A third sort of Answer the Cardinal and generally they of the Church of Rome have for Testimonies of Fathers which by Faith only exclude all righteousness in our selves and cannot be shuffled off by saying they exclude thereby all righteousness of Works before Grace or done by power of our Free-wil without Grace then to say all righteousness in us is excluded and sometime denied as of our selves because so we have none but of the gift of God This is in it self a great Truth but makes no apposite answer to Faith only which we have not of our selves any more then we have other Graces and which is the gift of God as much as they When Chrysost saith upon that of the Apostle Rom. 5.2 Chrys in Ro. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by Faith access into this Grace of Justification reconciliation and peace with God We brought nothing with us but faith only and when Oecumenius upon Rom. 3.24 Oecumen in Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith likewise bringing with us Faith only to our Justification it cannot be answered we brought nothing else of our selves for neither did we bring Faith of our selves to our Justification seeing therefore we do bring besides Faith some things else as above granted they may have their place either as preparatives and dispositions to our Justification or as requisite conditions to the Remission that is in our Justification or as fitting qualifications of the subject or person justified yet Faith we bring as that which has a singular property and efficacy for the receiving this great benefit of Justification for which it may be said Fide Sola by Faith only And this we are taught to say both by Fathers and Scripture that so we may attribute the more to Christs merit and righteousness which Faith apprehends and the more lessen or take off from any righteousness in our selves We may shut up this discourse with that saying of Theophylact which the Cardinal cites as objected by the Protestants Fides sola habet in se Iustificandi virtutem ex Theo. phyl in Ep. ad Gal. cap. 3. Faith only has the power in its self of Iustifying cannot be answered as the Cardinal would have it Faith only is said to have that power because there is nothing can justifie without Faith for so there are other things without which there can be no justification but among all those things or Graces Faith only can be said properly to Justifie And now for Iustification by works Not justification by Works in the prime sense it is in vain to put it to the trial of Antiquity For as we may observe the Cardinal though he concludes his 4. Book of Justification with this Question and pretends several places of Scripture to prove good works do Justifie yet has he nothing from Antiquity for it Indeed the Fathers did not know the Romish second Justification to which the Romanists when they are forced to speak distinctly do restrain their Justifying works acknowledging all good works follow Justification in the first and proper sense and that this second Justification is but increase in righteousness as * Chap. IV. nu 2. above shewed We grant and so will the Fathers Vide ch IV. nu 8.105 106 107. that we are of duty to encrease in righteousness and that our often actings or doing good works do augment the inhaerent Righteousness and that the more we do good works the more Favour we have with God the more acceptable are we to Him but there are two words we have cause to reject Merit Iustification That good Works cause an encrease of the habit and do obtain additional grace we grant but if they will stand upon the word Merit properly taken we shall see in the next Section Our good works cannot properly merit Also we see no reason why this should be call'd Justification to make a confusion in this Doctrine of so great concernment Mans Justification before God and to deceive people when they have the doctrine of Justification by Works barely delivered unto them If the Romanists would allow what they ought to the Application of Christs merit and righteousness and give
before them how shall we not them move and make God propitious while we pray for them that are departed Here again the Romanists triumph as if St. Chrysost made their praying for Souls in purgatory an Ordinance of the Apostles whereas he plainly restrains this Ordinance of the Apostles as above he did the Ordinance of the Spirit to that which the Church did in the Holy Eucharist and that concerned only them who were at rest in Christ Nothing of Souls in pains and torment is mentioned in the Ancient Liturgies or Prayers of the Church As for this Fathers speaking of prayer for such sinners as he described in all the forementioned places such as were gone to endless pains yet might receive as he thought a little case thereby we must reckon it as a private opinion and misapplication of that practise of praying for the Dead And indeed he seems to acknowledge so much himself for in his forementioned Hom. 61. in Jo. he faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in relation to those his exhortations for such prayers and offerings These things I speak not as one giving precept or setting a Law but as one allowing and condescending to the affections and frailties of men The Romanists here reply that St. Chrysost and others seem to urge Prayer for All because they knew not who died in the state of repentance and so they pray for all in the Church of Rome yet hold those prayers appliable to and available for only those that dye in that state and go to Purgatory pains This is a meer shift for St. Chrysost does plainly suppose that those sinners he speaks of died in their sins such Chrys hom 61. in lo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if God had seen they would have changed he would not have cut them off before their repentance as we had it above such as he in another place speaks thus of of such a one there is no cause to rejoyce but only because the course of his wicked life is cut off yet for such he exhorts to pray and offer and help him as they can And indeed the reason of this extending the benefit of Prayers to such sinners was not any supposal of Purgatory but of some mitigating and easing of those eternal pains to which such sinners were adjudged and this in part according to that merciful opinion and the motion of humane affection of which St. Aug. speaks in his Enchiridion C. 111. as we noted above and to which affection St. Chrysost gives too much scope as we see in the forementioned passages of prayers oblations for such sinners But as for Purgatory pains which are supposed to begin at death to end before the resurrection he knew no such pains as evidently appears by that exact distribution of the several sorts of punishments made by this Father and cited below Nu. 11. What we have said of some expressions of Chrysost applying prayer and relief to such sinners as before were described may be said of that place which the Romanists much urge out of St. Cyril Myst â—atech 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril who tels us they prayed simply for all and accounted it a great help to those souls for which the prayer of the great and holy sacrifice was offered and the great power which that prayer hath to help he sets out by the similitude of a King intreated to pardon and call back one that is banished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the same manner saith he we praying for sinners render God propitious Now if it be after the same manner then by the force of this similitude it must be implyed that the prayers of the Church may obtain pardon for sinners not reconciled to God before their death for so the banished person is supposed to be not reconciled to his Prince and then it sounds to like purpose as those passages in Chrysostom did and is but a private application or misapplication of that Ancient practise neither agreeable to the intent of the Ancient Church remembring in her prayers and offerings only those that were at rest in Christ as by the Forms of those prayers may appear nor making any thing for Purgatory which supposes the person reconciled and justified before he comes there But if the Sinners which Cyril here saith are prayed for be taken in a more remiss sense for such as the Romish Church sends to purgatory then the praying for them comes to no more then what we said above to Epiphanius and Dionysius that such prayer had reference to the passage of such souls and their appearing in judgment not to their being in pains after death For that such persons must appear in judgment the first and the last judgment and undergo a scrutiny or examination and have as it were their hay and stubble burnt up was a Catholick Truth but that persons reconciled to God dying and resting in Christ should presently go to pain and torment was no doctrine of the Church and therefore the prayers of the Church could not refer unto such persons And we may observe that the undoubted Cyril for those Mystagogical Catechismes are thought to be composed by John B. Cyril Catech 15. of Jerusalem tels us that Christ when he comes to judgment shall draw after him a sloud of trying fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shall burn up all hay and stubble of their Actions So that if such sinners be prayed for it must be with reference to the fire of trial and examination which they are to undergo in the day of Judgment and according to the true Cyril Thus much for that practise of the Church praying for the Dead that it does not prove a belief of Purgatory but was used upon other Reasons The third general Head was Forgiveness of sins after Death Forgiveness of sins after death or in the world to come out of which the Romanists would conclude a Purgatory The Text of Scripture is our Saviours speech Mat. 12.32 it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come Here they are bound to make good three things 1. That the world to come signifies the Time beginning at every mans death 2. That from our Saviours Negative nor in the world to come this affirmative followes therefore there are some sins shall be forgiven in the World to come 3. That if some sins shall be forgiven then to them to whom they shall be forgiven there remains pain and torment to be suffered I. For the Time Of the world to come The world to come is no where put for the Time between every mans death and the Resurrection for so it would be present to some and future to others but is every where seculum futurum which is so to every one whether it be taken according to the Jewish acception or the Christian With the Jewes the world to come did sometimes signifie the Time of their exspected