this Life yet keep to the True Foundation which is Christ and such a man is saved saith St. Austin as it were by the Fire of Tribulation Next he gives the reason of this assertion as follows Quia urit eum rerum dolor quas dilexerat amissarum c. Because the grief he has for things he loved torments him yet shakes not the Foundation he is fortifyed withal As who would say he hath a sence for the loss of Temporals yet the Foundation is not subverted Upon this reason Quia urit eum rerum dolor c. these words immediately follow cap. 69. Tale aliquid etiam fieri post hanc vitam incredibile non est Et utrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inveniri aut latere nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium quanto magis minusuè bona pereuntia dilexerunt tanto tardiùs citiùsque saluari That such a like thing be also after this life is not incredible What is not incredible Mark well the connection between urit eum dolor rerum amissarum and the ensuing words Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri non est incredibile This is not incredible that as some are punished in this life for their too much affection to worldly commodities by grief for the loss of them so likewise it is not incredible that they suffer a torment in those purging flames upon that account Of this particular pain saith the Saint we may inquire whether it be a part of Purgatory or no whether faithful Souls find it there or it be yet latent Find what I beseech you Quanto magis minùsue c. that by How much more or less they loved their perishing goods so much sooner or later they are saved and come to Heaven Which last words plainly gives us St. Austins meaning and shew that he doubted not of a Purgatory which he here supposeth but calls into question such a particular pain as is expiatory of lesser transgressions The ground of all is taken out of St. Austins Doctrine who much inclined to this Opinion that lesser offences are usually purged by the fire of Tribulation in this Life So Suarez observes Tom. 4. in 3. part disp 45. nu 23. Fine Et ideo dixit Augustinus haec peccata leviora in hoc saeculo purgari per Tribulationem And therefore St. Austin said that these lesser sins are purged by Tribulation in this life See his 41. Sermon de sanctis Tom. 10. where he first distinguisheth between great sins and little ones then shews the penalty due to both Finally concludes thus of lesser sins and he specifies the too much love of worldly substance Ita peccata ipsa in hoc saeculo purgantur ut in futuro ille ignis purgatorius aut non inveniat aut certe parum inveniat quod exurat So these lesser sins are purged in this Life that in the next the fire of Purgatory will not either find at all or truly very little to punish The Saint goes on Si autem nec in tribulatione Deo gratias egimus nec bonis operibus peccata redimimus ipsi tamdiu in illo igne purgatorio moras habebimus quamdiu supradicta peccata minuta tanquam ligna faenum stipula consumantur But if in our Tribulation we neither give thanks to God nor redeem our sins by good works we shall stay in Purgatory until those above mentioned little sins like Wood Hay and Stubble be consumed Thus the Saint who may rationally inquire as he doth yes and affirm that those lesser transgressions are usually cancelled by the fire of Tribulation in this Life The Doctor perhaps will say These Sermons de sanctis are not St. Austins for-sooth because they please not his Lordship Let him prove this Sermon now cited is not The same certitude saith Bellar. de seript Ecclesias cannot be had of those Sermons yet credible it is that for the most part they are St. Austins Be it how you will they are of greater Authority then any the Doctor can give us against Purgatory I hope the 2. Books de genesi contra Manichaeos are undoubtedly St. Austins Let the Doctor read the 20th Chapter of his 2d Book Fine he shall find these words qui forte agrum suum non coluerit spinis eum opprimi permiserit habet in hac vita maledictionem terrae suae in omnibus operibus suis post hanc vitam habebit vel ignem purgationis vel paenam aeternam He that cultivates not his Field but suffers it to be over grown with Thorns hath a curss on him in all he doth and after this life shall either have a Purgatory or suffer pains for ever St. Austins Books de civitate were never doubted of Read the 16. Chapter of his 21. Book where he saith If one be regenerated by the Sacraments of Christ our Lord as by Baptism and so pass from the power of darkness c. Non solum in paenis non praeparetur aeternis sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur Hath not only any Eternal punishment prepared for him but not so much as any purging torments after death Again in Psal 37. he distinguisheth a double Fire the one Eternal the other he calls a Fire Qui emundabit eos qui per ignem salui erunt which is more grievous then any torment in this world It would be endless to produce other Authorities for Purgatory Now to Otho Frisingensis whom the Doctor cites lib. 8. Croni cap. 26. and saith Purgatory in his time was got no farther then to a quidam asserunt Some say there is one Answ The Doctor saith He knows not what and strangely abuseth this Author Famous both for Vertue and Nobility In a word The Title of that 26. Chapter is this Si post judicium extra infernum inferiorem c. Whether after the day of Judgement any place for lesser pain remains out of Hell and what is to be thought of little ones who have Original sin only Thus the Title which meddles not with Purgatory The Chapter then begins His dictis indagandum puto si transacto judicio extra infernum inferiorem ad leviores paenas locus remaneat esse quippe apud inferos locum purgatorium in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur c. We are to inquire saith Otho whether when Judgement is past there remains a place for lighter punishment out of Hell for there is place of Purgatory apud inferos amongst those that are under ground wherein saved Souls are in darkness and tormented with Fire Then follows the quidam asserunt of the Doctor which relates not to Purgatory but to that other place after Judgment whereof Otho makes inquiry and he answers negatively viz. That such a place when all causes are heard in the General Judgment remains not though some Fathers inclined to think the contrary See Lactan. lib. 7. cap. 21.
whoever gives a penny or such a small pittance and the Rich man gives so much and the Poor man also These two will be equal and the one have as much as the other yet upon other accounts the Poor mans condition will be better Here is all I can find in this Author and it is most blamless Doctrine nothing to the Doctors sence viz That Indulgences are not to be given to them who have a desire of giving money but cannot And that in such a case it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor If the Doctor will give me better direction to find what he quotes out of this or any other Author he shall have his answer But I perceive his way is not to examine the Originals and therefore abuseth a simple Reader who when he sees such a cluster of Marginal Quotations glitter like the Sun thinks our Doctor more Learned then Rabbi Kimki CHAP. XV. Of the Doctors weak Argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse Doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistaks and charging on Catholicks what they hold not THe Doctor pag. 103. and 6 Section I think his 5th Section hath suffered ship-wrack in the fourth no great loss of it assaults us many ways First he likes not our Doctrine That one man may satisfie for another and cites Suarez for it by halfs Part. 4. we say Tomo 4. in 3. partem disp 38. Sect. 9. I say by halfs for Suarez holds expresly one cannot satisfie for another unless the Confessor Licenses that way of satisfying for Example if the Confessor injoyns his penitent to fast Certum est saith Suarez It is certain that another mans fasting will not be satisfactory He saith 2. That a Confessor is not to do this without a just and necessary cause perhaps of weakness and infirmity because it is not usual in the Church These limitations our Doctor leaves out and runs on with a jest The Rich man is whip'd upon another mans back and his purse only is the Penitent I answer If the Rich mans back deserves stripes as well as some body does no Confessor causelesly laies them on another nor makes his purse the penitent No it is a slander to say that injoyned satisfaction is thus bought off with money Next comes the Doctors weighty Argument For by this Doctrine saith he viz. that one man may satisfie for another it is not to be said of Christ alone that he was wounded for our transgressions that he only satisfied for our sins I answer If this Argument have force it proves as much against a mans own satisfaction as against satisfaction done by another for if Christ satisfied for all in the Doctors sence the Penitents own satisfaction who is one amongst all is vain and fruitless which is not here in question Again our good Doctor gainsaies all the severity of those ancient Canonical Penances practised in the Church and praised by him for if Christ only hath satisfied for all what need was there of such rigid Penances among the primitive Christians it was done to their hands by Christ their Penances therefore were superfluous 2. He blames us for saying The habit of sin is no sin distinct from the former Actions by which the habit was contracted So the Doctor page 104. Answ Here is the most strange Doctrine I ever read Know therefore that Divines distinguish between actual sin habitual sin which is sin past not yet pardoned and the habit of sining generated by frequent acts of vice which makes a man unhappy prone ready and facile to sin again just as the often repeating of a Verse gives facility to say it anew with ease Now to affirm that this habit contracted by former multiplyed acts of sin is a sin seems a piece of new coyned Divinity and proves that no sinner habituated in Vice if he dies immediately after his first act of Contrition or ardent Love of God which justifies him can be saved Why This fervent act of Contrition Roots not quite out the contracted habit of sin no saith our Doctor and truely There is required a longer time and a procedure in the Method of a holy life to do this But this contracted habit of sin is a sin which the most fervent act of Contrition takes not away in a Moment therefore if a sinner dies suddenly after his first Contrition he cannot be saved consequently had St. Mary Magdalen departed this life the next instant after her ardent Charity she had been a lost Soul and so the Doctor must say the good Theif on the Cross is who had little time granted to Root out his bad habits What the Doctor adds that in our Doctrine a man is not bound to interrupt the procedure of his impiety is most unjust dealing for such an one is bound by the Law of God and reason not to sin yes and by Repentance too in case Repentance be the only means to help him The Doctor speaks not well while he insinuates that we are obliged to repent of our habits if Repentance be taken properly Repent we must of our sins and Root out ill habits by contrary acts of Vertue this is our duty Finally he is strangely out in saying As for those sins that come after they are excused if they be produced by a strong habit Answ A strong habit of erring brought forth this assertion it is highly injurious to Catholicks and as far from truth as the Doctor is from honest dealing with us Page 106. he teacheth that every venial sin in its own Nature and the rigor of Divine Iustice is damnable and that in the unregenerate these venial sins are so accounted Answ Most merciless and execrable Doctrine against the very light of Nature For who can say if a spark of Reason lives in him that in case one by special favour pass his whole life without all other sin then once speaking an idle word and dies immediately who I say dare affirm that this man in rigor of Gods Divine Justice is a damned Soul and must for that one little transgression suffer the torments of Hell for eternity Where is your Scripture good Doctor for this desperate Doctrine produce it let us read the place with you but never shall you do it till you prove it by Scripture that a Gnat is as big as a Camel and a Mote in the Sun as great as a House-beam He may say the case now set down is somewhat extraordinary be it so it implies no impossibility and therefore laies open even to Turks and Heathens the prodigious impiety of this Doctrine The Doctor goes on and tells us That though venial sins of their own Nature are damnable yet by the Divine Mercy the smaller committed by invincible ignorance inadvertency or unavoydable infirmity shall not be imputed to those who love God Answ First if these sins be damnable in the
and believed as those Fathers assembled did c. to him and his might well be granted the use of their Rights and Lithurgy while their belief was one and Catholick Now let the Doctor tell me what Language the Maronits then used in their Lithurgy if Syriack it was Sacred and spoken by our Saviour What the Doctor hath out of Quint. pag. 55. is only to talk of Gypsie Language we use no such Barbarous Tongue in our Lithurgies CHAP. VII Of the Doctors cavils against Images Of Antiquity approving their Veneration Of the Doctors ill Quotations PAge 56. Section 8. our good Opponent spits a little Venom against the veneration of Images The Poyson he vents is cast upon the most Ancient Fathers that have lived in the Church Let him read Eusebius Caesariensis who lived in the third age lib. 3. de vita Constantini cap. 48. Paris Print where speaking of the pious Emperour he saith Tantus item divinus amor animum Imperatoris complexus est ut in ipso palatji introitu in medio tecti laqueari inaurato in tabulâ maximâ explicatâ salutaris passionis insigne ex lapillis pretiosis polite elaboratis figendum curaverit Istud Imperatori sanctissimo regni firmum videbatur esse propugnaculum So Great and Divine a Love posses'd this Pious Emperour that he caus'd the Ensign of our Saviours Passion to be fixed in the very entrance of his Pallace in the middle of his guilded Roof and this in a large displayed Table curiously wrought with precious Stones And this very thing seem'd to the most Holy Emperour a strong Fortress and defence for his Kingdom Read St. Basil in his Sermon of Barlaam Assurgite nunc mihi saith the Saint O clarissimi Athleticarum virtutum pictores militis abbreviatam imaginem vestris magnificate artibus c. and a few words after pingatur in tabula similiter ipse Agnotheta luctaminum Christus Rise up now ye Famous Painters of Champion-like Virtues shew your skill in abreviating a Souldiers Picture place also in your Table the Master or Iudge of such Warlick conflicts Christ our Lord. If you desire to know how Churches were adorned with Noble Pictures you may read St. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 19. in laudem defuncti Patris The like you have in St Gregory Nyssen oratione de laudibus Sti. Theodori before those words Solet enim etiam pictura tacens in pariete loqui maximeque prodesse A silent Picture speaks to us on the VVall and profits exceedingly See St. Austin de consensu Evangelji lib. 1. cap. 10. St. Gregory the Great lib. 9. Epistola 9. adserenum Massilensem our venerable Bede de templo Salamonis cap. 19. and innumerable others A Volume would not suffice for all But you 'll say here is nothing for the Venaration of Holy Images Answ I have often wondred why our good Protestants when they hear the name of Jesus bow in their Churches and when they see his Picture scruple to do the like reverence Well for the Veneration of Images besides the definition of a General Council the Second at Nice we have endless Authorities I 'll produce a few manifest ones which the Doctor shall never answer St. Basil the Great in his Epistle 205. ad Iulianum read it in the second Tome of his works Printed anno 1618 at Paris pag. 993. hath these unanswerable words Suscipio autem sanctos Apostolos Prophetas Martyres ad supplicationem quae est ad Deum hos invoco ut per eos id est per interventionem eorum propitius mihi sit misericors Deus c. I willingly admit of the Holy Prophets oft he Apostles and Martyrs and in my Prayer made to God call upon them that by their intercession God may be propitious and merciful to me c. He goes on thus Unde Figuras imaginum eorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honoro adoro praecipue cum hoc traditum a sanctis Apostolis non prohibitum sit quin in omnibus Ecclesiis nostris ostendatur VVhereupon I honour and adore the Portracture or Figure of their Images chiefly when this adoration is delivered to us by the Apostles and no where forbidden but is manifestly shewed us in all our Churches What can be clearer Now if you 'll know how this Great Saint adored those Images none can tell you better then St. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Orthod fidei cap. 17. soon after the beginning of that Chapter Nam ut ille magna rerum divinarum eruditione praeditus Basilius ait imaginis honor exemplum transit c. For as that Great Master St. Basil highly endewed with the knowledge of Divine misteries tell 's us The honour given to Images passeth to the Prototype Bellar. in his Appendix de cultu imaginum cap. 4. § paulo post hath this Authority of St. Basil but as you may see of another Edition which makes it irrefragable To avoy'd all exceptions of the Doctor I here give you St. Basil in his own Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My second Authority is taken out of Athanasius in his interrog respons ad Antiochum cap. 38. Nos Christiani non alia ratione imagines colimus nisi I do not say this is the great Athanius valeat tamen quantum valere potest quem admodum cum filios nostros patres osculamur animi nostri desiderium indicamus sicut Iudaeus olim legis tabulas duo cherubim aurea sculptilia quondam adorabant non lapidis aurive naturam colens sed dominum qui ea ut fierent praeceperat VVe Christians saith he worship Pictures no otherwise then as we do when we shew great kindness and affection to our Children and Parents or as the Iews once worshiped the Tables of the Law and the two gilt or graven Cherubs They Worship'd not the material Stone or Gold but God who commanded them to be made The third is out of St. Chrisostom in Liturgia interpret Erasmo Sacerdos egrediens e parvo ostio portans evangelium praecedente Ministro cum lucerna conversus ad Christi Imaginem inter duo ostia inflexo capite dicit hanc orationem c. The Priest going out of a little door carrying the Gospel and his Minister before him with a Light turns himself to our Saviours Picture and between two Portals bows his head before the Picture and saith this Prayer c. The fourth is out of St. Gregory lib. 7. Epist 54. ad secundinum Nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante imaginem salvatoris nostri prosternimur sed illum adoramus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum recordamur We fall not down before the Image of our Saviour as before a Divinity but we adore him whom we remember by his Image as he was born or crucified The last is St. Iohn Damascen's lib. 4. Orthodoxae fidei cap. 17. Quoniam nonnulli saith the Saint eo nomine nos reprehendunt
In his 79. he excepts against our Doctrine of contrition and saith we allow it not valuable unless it includes a desire or will to confess our sins to a Priest Answ We do so and give this reason True contrition which reconciles to God votively at least implies a will of doing what God Commands But one Command is that we confess our sins to a Priest therefore true Contrition submits to it This proof is evident if God have laid a precept on us to confess to a Priest which by all Law of disputation we may here suppose until the Doctor shews the contrary Add to this what our Doctor hath page 101. viz. That confession is of excellent use among the Pious Children of the Church of England If so give me leave to ask him who Ordained this Confession God or the Church or whether there is Scripture for it or no if neither God Scripture nor Church warrant it it is an invention of man and may participate according to our Doctor of a devilish spirit consequently cannot be of excellent use among any c. Now if Scripture be for Confession if God or the Church have Ordained it the Doctor must say if he knows what true Contrition is that the Supernatural Act which reconciles to God doth of necessity imply Actually or Votively a serious will of doing what ever God Scripture or Church Commands us for to say I am sorry for my sin out of the Motive of Gods infinite Love I purpose amendment I 'll do his Will hereafter and not to say I 'll do what God Scripture or Church commandeth implies a contradiction in a word it is to say and unsay purpose and not purpose c. To confirme this discourse I have enough from the Doctor pag. 79. who saith that Genuine and true Contrition is a Cordial sorrow for having sinned against God c. Ending in a dereliction of all sin and a walking in all Righteousness I wish no more for this very walking in all Righteousness implies the obedience we give to Contrition and will make our good Doctor walk to Confession also if Scripture or Church have Ordained it for finners perhaps he may say that Confession is only of Counsel not of Command when I have his Scripture for such an assertion he shall have his answer fully In the interim know that it is but vain to talk as our Doctor doth of a repentance towards God as it were in abstracto without descending to the ultimate worth and Efficacy of it which as now I said includes a serious will of doing Gods Command This truth supposed with what conscience can the Doctor say that we prefer repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls repentance towards God It is a flat Calumny and as ill intended as expressed improperly for in this Sacrament there is Confession to a man but what repentance is there towards men that we prefer before the Noble Act of Contrition which resting in God prefers him and his Commands before all things in the World A few lines after he saith pag. 80. As Contrition without their Ritual and Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us to God so Attrition with their Sacrament will reconcile the sinner Contrition without it will not Attrition with it will reconcile us And this Doctrine saith he is expresly Decreed at Trent I stand here astonished at this ignorance Do I read in a Doctor that Contrition without Ritual and Sacramental Confession doth not reconcile a sinner and that the Council of Trent Decrees this expresly I say first that the Council expresly declares the contrary Sect. 14. cap. 4. de contritione Docet praeterea Sancta Synodus Si contritionem hanc aliquando charitate perfectam esse contingat hominem Deo reconciliare prius quam hoc Sacramentum actu suscipiatur c. The Holy Synod teaches Although it sometimes falls out that this Contrition when perfect with Charity reconciles a man with God before actual taking of the Sacrament c. The words are contrary to the Doctors assertion and need no explication I say 2. It is the certain and constant Doctrine of Divines that Contrition proceeding from the Love of God or true motive of Charity in the very Moment a Soul hath it gain 's pardon reconciles to God disposes immediately to supernatural Grace whereby a sinner is justified and made an adopted Child of God and this I say In the very Moment a Soul hath it though Sacramental Confession follows not for weeks or months or by accident never for would it not be apittiful case to send a poor sinner to Hell who lies at deaths door or is mortally wounded doth his utmost to be contrite for his sins though neither Priest is present nor Sacramental Confession can be had or hoped for This very case is enough to unbeguile the Doctor and to satisfie him that we Catholicks are not so severe in exacting Sacramental Confession when either accident or necessity excludes a poor penitent from it I know not how the Doctor will come off and satisfie for the enormious injustice done both to the Council of Trent and all Catholicks but by one evasion that shall nothing at all avail him Perhaps he may tell us that when he says Contrition without Sacramental Confession will not reconcile us he only speaks of Votive Confession included in the Act of Contrition and not of Actual No I thought Ritual as he terms it and Sacramental Confession had been in plain English Synonimas or of the same signification with Actual Confession However if the Doctor understands it of Votive Confession read his words thus Contrition without Confession in Vote or desire reconciles not a sinner to God and this you must suppose to be his meaning Then know we Catholicks hold constantly that Contrition without the Vote or Efficatious will of Confession is no Contrition consequently all he proves is that that Act which is no Contrition doth not reconcile to God How then doth he advance any new proof against us Where lies the Mischief or Malignity of our Doctrine in saying that an Act which is no Contrition and submits not in Voto to Gods Command doth not reconcile us to God yet more If he speaks not of Actual but Votive Confession included in Contrition his whole discourse is lame hobling and renders you this Non-sence As Contrition without Sacramental Confession in Vote or desire doth not reconcile us to God so attrition with actual Sacramental Confession doth reconcile us which inference without life and vigor shews nothing to the Doctors purpose for what doth it avail him to say in this place as no Contrition doth reconcile us so Attrition with the Sacrament doth Had he said as Contrition with Votive Confession reconciles us to God so Attrition also with Actual Confession doth the sence had been good and Catholick But never shall he make sence out of these words As Contrition without Confession will not reconcile us