doth as Bellarmin contends elsewhere contradict this by so much the less is his testimony of any validity in this case it being plain what his meaning is here but that seems the less probable because he writ his Books against the Pelagians in which he asserts the same not long before his death This purging fire then of St. Hierome makes little for your purpose since it is only a more refined branch of Origens Hypothesis and is understood of a fire after the Resurrection and that of Hell and not of Purgatory and wherein wicked men shall be purged if they dyed in the Churches Communion and not such who repented of their sins in this life But if St. Hierom himself do not speak to the purpose you hope one under his name may do it and we must needs say Purgatory hath been alwayes beholding to forgeries for you cite his Commentaries on the Proverbs which are rejected as counterfeit by Sixtus Senensis Canus Marianus Victorius and Bellarmin himself But from St. Hierome we proceed to St. Basil who you say teaches the same Doctrine with him if he doth it is very little for your comfort But so far was St. Basil from asserting your Doctrine that although he speaks of a purging fire he speaks not at all concerning it in another life but only of that which purgeth out sins in the souls of men in this life For he calls the Spirit of God working upon mens souls that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which consumes sin within them as may be seen by comparing his Commentaries on the sixth and the ninth of Isaiah together And where he afterwards speaks not of an utter rejection but an expurgation as by fire it is plain that he understands it of the fire of affliction in this life and not the fire of Purgatory in another But where ever you meet with fire and purging you think it impossible to be understood of any thing but your Purgatory it seems you are hugely possessed with the fears of it that you think you meet with it where ever you go But if you will needs have St. Basil to speak of a future state then your own Sixtus Senensis and Estius will tell you that he is to be understood of the fire of Conflagration at the Day of Judgement of which he speaks in several other places And so Nicetas understands the place of Gregory Nazianzene which you produce about Baptism by fire for saith he Per ignis baptismum examen censuramque divini judicii intelligit and for that cites the place of the Apostle Every mans work shall be tryed by fire This he calls elsewhere the last fire by which our works shall be judged and purged And of this Lactantius and Hilary are to be understood for Hilary expresly saith That even the Virgin Mary shall pass through it whom I hope you will not place in Purgatory The testimony of Boethius shall then be taken when you prove that he doth not speak in the person of a Philosopher but of a Christian delivering matters of Faith with an ut puto but if you had considered the design of his Book for the sake of Philosophy you might have spared his citation And so you might for your own sake that of Theodoret which not only the Greeks in their Apology cry out on as counterfeit but no such place as yet appears in any edition of Theodoret. And the same Greeks tell you if you consulted the honour of Gregory Nyssen you would spare him too because he was a favourer of the Origenical Hypothesis concerning the redintegration of all things and so many places are produced out of him wherein he makes the nature of all pains to be Purgatory that the Patriarch Germanus of whom Photius speaks had no other way to vindicate him but by saying that the Origenists had foisted many places into his works If you will therefore say That it is a groundless calumny to say that any of the Fathers did corrupt the Christian Doctrine by the opinions of Plato you must either deny that Origen and his followers ever asserted any Doctrine contrary to Christianity and therein contradict the fifth Oecumenical Council or that any of the Fathers had any touch of Origen's opinion both which I suppose are tasks you will be unwilling to undertake But whether their opinions are true or false which we are not now enquiring after to be sure they are far enough from your Doctrine of Purgatory which supposeth the Sin pardoned in this life and yet the punishment undergone for it in another which Doctrine if it were granted at all reasonable it would be much more asserting it to be after the Resurrection when the body might endure pains as well as the soul than so absurdly as you make the soul only to suffer and that too in a way the most unlikely of all other viz. by a material fire But it is time we come to the succour of St. Austin who it seems hath his share of Purgatory in this life for you say He hath the ill hap to be used the worst of all other Because his Lordship represents him as dubious and uncertain as no doubt he was in this point which argues indeed that he was a Novice in your Roman Faith but thereby the more a Father of the Church But you are the man that let St. Augustin say what he will himself will prove to his face that he could not possibly be thought to deny or doubt of Purgatory And it is a Combat worth seeing to see you dispute against St. Augustin but you do it so pittifully that St. Austin remains as uncertain as ever he was The only place which seems to the purpose Constat animas purgari post hanc vitam c. is so notorious a counterfeit that not only Vives confesses no such words appeared in the ancient Copies but they are wholly left out not only in the Basil Edition 1556. but in that of Lyons 1560. and in the later Lovain and Paris editions The other places you confess your self relate to the benefit which the dead receive by the prayers of the living of which a large account hath been already given without any supposition of Purgatory Whether St. Austins doubts did referr only to the circumstances of Purgatory and not to the thing it self I leave it to the consideration of any reasonable man who will read the places already cited wherein those doubts are expressed By which one may see at what rate you use your expressions when you can have the face to say That S. Austin no less constantly teaches the Doctrine of Purgatory than he doth the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell Which after the language of the Sorbon-Censures is a false rash and scandalous assertion and as ungrounded as Purgatory it self The remaining testimonies of St. Cyril and St. Chrysostom only speak of prayer for the dead and the benefit of that and so offers
grants a safe-conduct or makes promise of any thing to the prejudice of that Jurisdiction it shall not hold The reason is because 't is a promise made of a thing not pertaining to the Jurisdiction of that Prince nor wholly in his power to see performed To this I answer 1. That if I understand any thing this is expresly to say That no Prince is to keep Faith with Hereticks and that is it which you are charged with and you made use of this distinction to free your selves from Now that this is the plain meaning of it thus appears you say in the words immediately after But the Council no where teaches That Faith or safe-conduct given in temporal causes properly pertaining to the Princes Jurisdiction is not to be kept by all and to all persons of what condition soever so far as it is possible Which is as much as to say That in any other case but that of Heresie they are to keep Faith but not in that for this of Heresie is that which you oppose to all Temporal Causes and challenge it as belonging to an Ecclesiastical Tribunal when therefore the Council of Constance decrees That no Secular Power is obliged by any safe-conduct to any thing which may hinder the Ecclesiastical Tribunals proceeding in causes of Heresie what doth it else but declare in express terms That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks i. e. in any thing relating to their Heresie for this you say they have nothing to do with and therefore let Kings and Princes make never so solemn promises and engagements to men suspected of Heresie to their peril be it who rely upon them for they have nothing to do to promise in such matters and though their Faith be given never so publickly and solemnly they are not bound to keep it nay they are bound not to keep it for if they should it would be to the apparent mischief and prejudice of the Church This necessarily follows from your own words and the distinction here used by you So that now we need seek no further than your self and Becanus for the open avowing of this Principle That no Prince is bound to keep Faith with Hereticks but if he doth promise safe-conduct to them though it be more than he can do yet the Church can make that good use of it that by that means she may get the Hereticks under her power and when she hath them it is but then declaring this promise to be null and she may do with them as she pleases Neither is it only Becanus and you who say this but it is the received Principle among you whatever you say or pretend to the contrary I mean not that you say in express terms That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks but by this distinction of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power as you use it you say that from whence it necessarily follows But yet I answer 2. Though this distinction should be granted yet it cannot really excuse the Emperour from violating his Faith For I say he promised nothing but was in his power which was to secure him as to life and liberty Now although the Emperour had suffered the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to do what belonged to it which was to enquire into the charge of Heresie and to give sentence upon the person yet the execution belonged wholly to the Secular Power as the Council it self acknowledged when after the sentence of Heresie was pronounced against John Husse there was nothing of the executive part which was pleaded as belonging to the Church but only degradation and that was performed in the presence of the Council upon which the Sacred Synod declares That they had no more to do with him but to deliver him over to the Secular Power and accordingly decrees it to be done Now when the Synod declares this Is it not plain that what concerns his life doth properly and only belong to the Secular Power if therefore the Emperour was bound to do all which lay in him to do he was effectually bound to secure him as to life and liberty for both those lay within his power And therefore when he gave order for his execution he was highly guilty of the violation of his Faith and if the Council of Constance declared him absolved as to this too it is yet more evident that they not only decreed That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks in matters concerning the Ecclesiastical Tribunal but in such as concerned the Secular Power which is much as to say Not at all And by this the vanity of this distinction of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power is sufficiently manifest and that it evidently appears that the Council of Constance did decree That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks And thus I have proved that his Lordship hath not as you calumniate him ignorantly or maliciously wronged the Council but that no other tolerable sense besides that which his Lordship saith can be made of the decree then passed and notwithstanding your arts and distinctions nothing can be more plain than that John Husse was trepanned into his ruine by the Faith of the Emperour given to him It can be therefore nothing but either palpable ignorance or a deceit as gross as trusting your safe-conduct in a matter of Heresie for you so confidently to assert That if the Relator had not mangled the words of the Council to deceive his Reader but set down the decree fairly and fully as it is the business had been so clear that it would scarce have any dispute Whereas his Lordship only sets down the title of the decree and so he tells you himself and this he doth as faithfully as may be and whereas nothing can more evidence the juglings of the Council than the Decree it self doth in which nothing is more plain than that In case of Heresie no Prince is bound to keep Faith with any persons whatsoever From the Council of Constance we proceed to other Authors to see whether they do not concurr with it in this Opinion For this his Lordship cites Simancha a Spanish Bishop and a Canonist as well as Civilian who expresly saith That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks as neither with Tyrants Pyrates or other publick Robbers and plainly justifies the proceedings of the Council of Constance in that respect in that Hereticks by their solemn judgement were burnt although publick security had been given them Let us now see what answer you return to these clear Citations In general you say The Bishop was insincere or unadvised in quoting this Author I wonder wherein I am sure not so much as you are in your Answers to him For you say Simancha holds not this absolutely and universally but only in cases wherein that which is promised cannot be lawfully performed Hence say you Simancha hath these words Veruntamen ut Marius Salomonius ait promissa contra Christum fides si praestetur perfidia
though this had never been questioned by any If you had asked Whether he had been an Ancient and Learned Authour living sometime within the first four hundred years you should not have met with any opposition from me But if you will needs have him to be the true Dionysius you must prove it better than by meer referring us to what Bellarmin Baronius and Del-Rio have said upon that subject and you are very strangely deceived when you say That only Erasmus and Valla and some few others did doubt of it but at present you suppose few learned men doubt of the matter For even Bellarmin himself doubts of it and What think you of Habertus Sirmondus Launaeus Petavius Are not all these with you learned men who have all declared their doubts of it and so will any one else do that impartially examines the Arguments brought on both sides But we have no reason to insist longer upon this since you say It is sufficient that he is acknowledged for a Writer of great Antiquity Well But what is it then this Authour saith only that Prayers were made for the deceased party that God would forgive his sins and place him in the Light and Country of the Living But say you both the Arch-Bishop and Primate would have thought that man a Papist who would have made the like prayer for his deceased friend in their hearing And very good reason they might have to think so when they know beforehand that your intention of praying for the Dead is to deliver their souls from the pains of purgatory but if they had heard one use such a Prayer in the Ancient Church they could not have imagined it was for any such intention since the same person in Dionysius is said to be replenished with divine joy and not fearing any change to the worse but knowing well that the good things possessed shall be firmly and everlastingly enjoyed as he speaks at his entrance upon that discourse And if this be in effect to teach Purgatory as you would have it you must set your Purgatory a great deal higher than you do for you say It is but an upper Region of Hell a little after when Dionysius speaks of those who were in a Region of rest and happiness Your second Authour is Tertullian and three Citations you produce out of him In the first he only mentions the oblations for the Dead which we have confessed to be used already but without any respect to Purgatory In the second a mention is made of begging of God refrigerium refreshment for the soul of one departed this were some thing to the purpose if you had first proved that Tertullian did suppose that soul to be then in the pains of Purgatory for then it were but reason to think this refrigerium did relate to the easing of them But he elsewhere tells us what he means by this refrigerium Sinus Abrahae interim refrigerium praebiturus est animabus justorum by which he understands not any deliverance from pains but contentment in expectation of the future Resurrection It was the ardency of the desire after that which made them pray for this refrigerium not out of any punishment they were supposed to be under for sin but their earnest expectation of future glory And since they supposed different degrees of refreshment which the souls had in the bosom of Abraham this prayer only notes the desire of the continuance and increase of it and not being under present pains for the want of it In the last place of Tertullian you would fain have the Carcer infernus to be Purgatory but he means no more by it than Hades or the common receptacle of souls till the day of Resurrection which Irenaeus calls locum invisibilem which renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exactly in which he makes souls to stay till the day of Resurrection and Tertullian explains himself afterwards when he sayes Constituimus omnem animam apud Inferos sequestrari in diem Domini and therefore Bellarmin confesses Tertullian to be one of those that held that no souls did enjoy the beatifical vision till the day of Resurrection at which time he supposed the order of rising to be according to the degrees of holiness and therefore he makes the punishment of souls not to be any Purgatory pains but the mora resurrectionis that they should be longer before they rise from the dead viz. towards the latter end of the thousand years for so he makes the Resurrection to continue the thousand years of Christ's Reign upon earth and as the highest rank of Christians should rise in the beginning of it so others in their order according to their degrees and the most slothful and negligent to be punished morâ resurrectionis by their Resurrection being deferred to the conclusion of it By which we fully understand Tertullian's meaning Judex in carcerem te mandet infernum unde non dimittaris nisi modico quôque delicto morâ resurrectionis expenso by which lower prison he intends neither Hell nor Purgatory but the common receptacle of souls wherein they were held till they should rise sooner or later according to the measure of their graces and sins The next place to be examined is the noted one of S. Cyprian to Antonianus where he gives an account of the difference between the lapsed persons who become penitents and the Martyrs Aliud est ad veniam stare aliud ad gloriam pervenire aliud missum in carcerem non exire inde donec solvat novissimum quadrantem aliud statim fidei virtutis mercedem accipere aliud pro peccatis longo dolore emendari purgari diu igne aliud peccata omnia passione purgâsse It is one thing to stay in hope and expectation of pardon another thing to come presently to glory 't is one thing to be cast into prison and not to come out thence till you have paid the last farthing another to receive presently the reward of our Faith 't is one thing to be amended for sins by long grief and to be purged with fire a great while another to have purged away all his sins by suffering Martyrdom Did not S. Cyprian say you think of Purgatory when he taught this No that did he not if we believe your own Writers For Rigaltius tells us that S. Cyprian here speaks of the severities of pennance which the lapsed persons underwent in order to pardon and compares them with the present felicity which Martyrs were possessed of And this was that purging fire in order to their amendment which he insists on to shew what great disparity there was between the state of these penitents and the Martyrs thereby to shew that though penitents were admitted by the Church yet it was with so much severity that might give little encouragement for men to fall in hopes of admission For that was the main thing which S. Cyprian there discourses of And thus
likewise Albaspinaeus understands it of such who suffered pennance all their life time and were absolved only at the point of death these were they who were held in prison till they paid the utmost farthing Neither may it seem strange that this should be called a purging fire since S. Hierom describing the pennance of Fabiola saith Sedit super carbones ignis She sate upon coals of fire and Pope Siricius in his Epistle to Himmerius extant in the Councils calls perpetual pennance purificatorium poenitudinis ignem the purging fire of pennance And this seems a great deal more probable to be S. Cyprian's meaning because he speaks most clearly of any of the Fathers of the immediate happiness of all Gods Children after death in his excellent Book of mortality wherein he comforts the Christians of Carthage against the fears of death by reason of the raging plague which was then among them It is for him saith he to fear death that would not go to Christ it is for him not to be willing to go to Christ that doth not believe he shall begin to raign with him with much more to the same purpose throughout that Book which I pray read and then tell me Whether St. Cyprian did think of Purgatory or no. I wonder with what face you produce Origen's Testimony in behalf of your Doctrine of Purgatory since Bellarmin confesses that he held all punishment to be only Purgatory and that this Opinion of his was condemned in the fifth Oecumenical Council But you say in the place produced by you he saith no such thing but that men are purged according to the mixture of Lead and Gold in them but that those who have all Lead shall sink down to the bottomless pit for ever Than which you say nothing can be spoken more clearly for Purgatory To which a short Answer shall serve by this Dilemma either you have faithfully represented this place of Origen or not If you have it is plain that Origen hath been infinitely abused or else apparently contradicts himself for you make him here plainly to assert the eternity of punishment which the fifth General Council according to you infallibly condemned him for denying if you have unfaithfully represented him then still Origen cannot be understood of such a Purgatory as you speak of but of such a one which all must pass thorow good and bad and their continuance in it is according to the proportions of good or evil in them And of such a Purgatory as this Bellarmin confesses that Origen speaks and which he places after the Resurrection and saith That even Peter and Paul must pass thorow it And for such a Purgatory as this is many places are produced out of Origen by Sixtus Senensis and many others But this is an universal Purgatory for good and bad after the Resurrection and for the body as well as the soul and judge you now Whether this be the Purgatory you contend for or no. The following Testimonies of St. Ambrose Hilary Lactantius St. Hierom c. are taken off by Bellarmin himself since although in his first Book he produceth them for the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory yet in the beginning of the second he confesseth that all these were for such an Vniversal Purgatory at the day of judgement thorow which all must pass not the Virgin Mary her self excepted And St. Hierom though he denies Origen's Hypothesis as to the final Salvation of all yet seems by the places you cite out of him very willing to admit of it as to all such who dye in the Churches Communion against which Opinion St. Augustin at large disputes as I have shewed already I acknowledge then that these Authours do speak of a purging fire but such a one as your selves disown and dispute against and Bellarmin could no other wayes bring any of them off but by saying That they speak of the fire of the last judgement by which we see the apparent Sophistry in bringing those as plain places for your Purgatory which you confess your selves are understood of something else It being confessed that they speak of purging consequent to the Resurrection which is quite another thing from what you plead for And besides it is plain from St. Hierom's words that he speaks of wicked men dying in the Communion of the Church that they shall at last be saved And if you will needs have arbitramur when it is opposed to credimus to signifie a firm belief which is another proof of your skill in Lexicons that which you can only inferr thence is that S. Hierom did as firmly believe that wicked men if Christians should at last be saved as that Devils and Atheists and other wicked men should be finally damned For these are his words Et sicut Diaboli omnium negatorum atque impiorum qui dixerunt in corde suo non est Deus credimus aeterna tormenta sic peccatorum atque impiorum tamen Christianorum quorum opera in igne probanda sunt atque purganda moderatam arbitramur mixtam clementiae sententiam Judicis And the same he rather more fully asserts in the other place Christianos si in peccato praeventi fuerint salvandos esse post poenas but you who are never backward in helping the Fathers to speak out very commodiously render it Such as dye before full and perfect Pennance for the sins of which they had truly repented Which is as far as Purgatory as from St. Hieroms meaning for he doth not oppose penitent sinners to impenitent but opposes wicked men dying in the Churches Communion to the Devil and his Angels and all other wicked persons All which he saith shall perish eternally but such as are Christians should be saved at last after undergoing punishment And it is to be observed that at the end of the Commentaries on Isaiah he immediately before speaks of that which is supposed to be the Origenical Hypothesis viz. That the torments of the other life shall after a long time be ended and when he hath produced the places of Scripture which the favourers of it did produce he only passes this censure of it Quod nos Dei solius scientiae debemus derelinquere Which we ought to leave to the knowledge of God alone and then concludes with that moderation of his sentence That he did believe the eternity of torments of Devils Atheists c. but of such who were Christians he did suppose God would mingle Mercy with his Justice and that after they had been sufficiently purged by fire they might escape at last If he had intended only a mitigation of their torments who were Christians the opposition could not lye as it doth between the eternity of some and the clemency of God in others but the eternity must have been confessed in both and the opposition made only in the weight of the torments of such who were not Christians above such as were If St. Hierome