they had performed their charge But because it was time to end the Council referred the execution of the Decree to the Pope as also of the setting forth the Catechism and reforming the 〈◊〉 and the Breviary and ordered the Popes determination in 〈◊〉 question that rose aboâ—… these Books should be held for deciâ—… 17. If I had been left to mine own Judgment I should have thought this no great honour to the Pope further then as it was a good Action in him to concuâ— to the good of the Church For if the Pope had refused it they must have appointed some Congregation to have done the same as we see the Inquisition and Provincial Councils to have done the like in divers Countries Now your great Divine finds in this great Mysteries that the Council gave the Pope Authority to determine the Verity of all propositions Was there ever such a pâ—ece oâ— Mountebankery Or is not the Pope well seâ— up to have got such Champions to proclaim his Power and Authority And what again hâ—… Divinity made that now we have so many Articles of faith confirmed by the Definition a General Council that must be received as there be sentences either put out or allow'd in the Books censured in the Index Expurgatorius I must not conceal his Demonstration for this Learned Conclusion Could saith he the Council give him Authority to do that after the sitting of the Council which by his own Authority he could not 〈◊〉 by himself before the Council And out of this infers that the Pope does it by his own Authority As for his question I will not meddle with it but hold it at present for one of those doubtfull Articles which God will not have known though he may find many Divines who would answer him that the Council could but what I am certain of is that the Council could not give him that which he had before and therefore your Divine contradicts himself in alleadging the Council for giving the power and saying he had it before 18. The following Numbers untill the twelfth are but Repetitions of the same Onely one Argument of his tenth number is worth the nothing where he asks Who can say the Council of Trent approved not the the Pope's proceeding in this point It is answer'd onely they that read the Council or otherwise have understood that the Council never took notice neither to nor fro what the Popes had done in this kind But he urges that the Council left to the Pope the ordering of the faults and abuses in the matter of Indulgences And who knows not who knows any thing of those times that the Pope promised to reform what belonged to the Court of Rome by himself So that the Council had no need to meddle in such points in which it is expected the Pope would do well of himself Now whether the Pope reformed all that deserved reformation or no is a thing impertinent to our question in which there is all agreement to the Popes decrees and t is a thing not fitting to be made publick table-talk as our Books are like to be 19. In the twelfth Number he seeks the Antiquity of the use of Indulgences for the dead And no wonder he cannot find any great Antiquity for them seeing Caietan and our Holy Bishop of Rochester had looked before him and could find none Caietan's words be Opusc. 16º 〈◊〉 No Holy Scripture no written Authority of Ancient Doctours either Greek or Latin hath brought this the beginning of Indulgences to our knowledg But this onely concerning Ancient Fathers is written some three hundred years since that St. Gregory began the Indulgences of the Stations These Indulgences were as I remember of seven years penances remission for visiting certain Churches no mention of any for the dead granted by St. Gregory But what says the great Bishop It perswades says he â—er adventure â—any not to trust very much to these Indulgences that the use of them seems to be too new and very late invented amongst Christians I â—â—swer sayth he That it is not certain who first began them and some say that amongst the most Ancient Romans there was some kind of use of them Nor doth any man doubt but that later wits have both better examin'd and clearly understood many things both out of the Gospels and other Scriptures then their Predecessours So that you see this great man thought that the Scriptures explicated onely by hâ—man wit were the solid Foundation upon which Indulgences were to be grounded for want of Ancient Testimony Not so your Divine but he can prove it out of Ancient Records and first of Paschal the first some eight hundred or more years since which is a very long time as he well notes for the Church to be in Errour This Paschal is sayd to have given an Indulgence to the Church of St. Praxedes in Rome for the freeing of one soul out of Purgatory But the ill â—â—ch is that this Monument is accounted to be Apocryphal in Rome it self and not esteemed of by men accurate in History of that nature And so neither Caietan who was very inquisitive nor Baroâ—… ever alledged it And Fabers story of its being approved by eleven Popes if properly understood must needs declare as much seeing it is impossible any writer living in Rome could be ignorant of so notorious a thing But I pray take notice by the way of the spirit of these men to abhor it See how they keep the souls of those who will believe them in an Egyptiaâ—al slavery perswading them that if this Pope had committed a private fault the Church had been in an Errour 〈◊〉 years even though no more know of the Popes mistake then have heard of this peece of Paper lying in a private Sacriâ—ty As to Bellâ—râ—ine's approbation we answer he is to be thanked for his pains of gathering so many things together not to be proposed for an Authority for the reasons I alledged above in the like occasion 20. The next instance is out of Baronius or Spondanus in the year 878 how Pope John the eighth gave an Indulgence to all whose hâ—p it had bâ—en to dye in the war for the defence of the Church or whose hap it should be hereafter Before we look into this Testimony I must not omit to note that this very Spondanus was bred a Minister was very conversant with Bellarmins works and after his conversion with his Person and as it is reported had Baronius his approbation to the compendium of his History which he made and clear it is such a man must needs â—e zealous to put in his work whatsoever was to help the Catholick cause and this if it were not in Baronius in notes of his own as he doth divers times This I note to let you understand that this man could not be ignorant of the former Testimony of Paschalis and living in Rome when I first went thither after Bellarmin's death could want no commodity to search
necessary to put you in mind to reflect how in all this Chapter he hath sayd nothing to the purpose Neither Scriptures nor the Council any way touching the Controversy but brought out to cover a silly Argument which I expect will be often repeated over But chiefly that the Fathers he cites are for the most part besides the game speaking of what was done at our Saviour's resurrection wherein we and he all agree very friendly as far as concerns our present task that is that our Saviour set them all free that were then in Purgatory but I say withall that he bestow'd their Bodies on them in which they should rise and accompany him to Heaven The which I think he would not mislike if it sprung in his own Garden Now I know not how circumstances may blast it in his opinion SECOND DIVISION Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter Three Heresies club'd together to prove Ante-judiciary Delivery Nothing evinc'd from th Testimonies of the Greek Fathers 1. IN the fifth Chapter he gives very great words as if he would do wonders out of the Greek Fathers To judge of the effect let us put some Notes which I believe will be common to us both The first is that Origen otherwise a great Doctor and Father held how at the day of Judgment wicked men should begin to be punished every one should be tormented by fire some more some shorter according to the quantity of their crimes but in fine all at last set free and received into Bliss And it is well known that he had many followers but at last was condemned and it setled in the Church that the damned were damned for all eternity 2. My second Note is that though this Errour of Origen was quelled in the Church yet the Venome of it remained in the hearts of many under other words and this question whether it be lawfull to pray for the damned I say the malice of the former Errour remained in this For the Article of our Faith is that the wicked deserve and have at death eternal damnation Now he that saith that they may be pray'd for says that by Prayers this sentence is revocable and by consequence that whosoever is damned eternally it is for want of Prayers and so evacuates the main Article of our Faith engages all good men to have charity towards the damned and wish to them the good which they are taught is possible and makes the communion of the faithfull to reach into Hell No wonder then that St. Gregory the Great judged the opinion that Christ at his resurrection had freed some out of Hell to be Heretical and would much more have condemned this opinion that it is lawfull to pray for damned souls which gives every man though he live and dye never so wickedly hope of salvation if he has but mony to get Masses enough 3. My third Note is that there was amongst the Ancient Christians an Heresy called of Chiliasts or Millenaries which our Fifth-Monarchy-men pretend to resuscitate in England They sayd that there were two resurrections the first of the Just who were to live and reign with Christ here upon Earth for a thousand years in all corporal prosperity before the generall resurrection And there wanted not great and otherwise Holy men who were deluded into this opinion by the apparency of some Texts of Scripture 4. These be my Notes Now the Conclusion for which I drew them is to let you understand that this great Divine makes a Gallimawfry of these three Heresies to present his unwary Reader with a dish of Purgatory and taking away these and the speeches of some Fathers concerning the delivery of souls at Christs resurrection his Chapter will be both very thin and lean his testimonies few and of no efficacity if not contrary to his designe 5. As for Origenism he cites Origen himself and Saint Gregory Nyssen and would fain pull in St. Basil by the way of Brotherhood As for the Errour it self it hath two points in it which makes it nothing to the Purpose the first is that whereas Purgatory ends amongst Catholicks at the day of Judgment Origen's Purgatory begins then So that Origen's Testimonies are very unskilfully apply'd to Purgatory The second is that this Divine ayming mainly to prove that a soul separated from the Body can receive change can make no use of Origenism otherwise then to cosen his auditory seeing Origen puts the souls to have resum'd their Bodies before any change be made in them As for the Person of Origen it is so famous for this Errour that our Divine cannot chuse but be asham'd to say he knew not this was his Errour As for Saint Gregory Nyssen it is a confessed thing both by Ancient and Modern Authours that his works have been corrupted by the Origenists and particularly the Book our Divine cites as I perswade my self he had read in my answers to the Vindicatour and Result though it was not to his purpose to take notice that his Arguments were already answer'd But I for not being too troublesome to my Readers with repeating over the same things must refer them to the second Part of Religion and Reason Divis. 〈◊〉 in the answer to the 22 th Section Out of which it will clearly appear that we are not to seek Saint Basil's opinion out of Saint Gregory's which we cannot know perfectly but rather Saint Gregory's out of Saint Basil's 6. His Testimonies from Authours of the second Heresy begin as he would have it from the great Saint Macarius that is to say is father'd upon him as this Divine cites it by Rufinus Aquileiensis but it imports not by whom for the story carryes discredit enough in its own bowels so that there is no need to look into the Authours credit Yet something I have sayd to this in my Notes upon the first Chapter of the Result So that here I have need onely to note that Gloss of Saint Thomas which he mentions That the comfort which the damned Oracle speaks of is no other then such Joy as the Devil hath when he makes men sin Which signifies that the damned souls are glad that men sin in praying for them which seems to be quite against the Intention of your Heretical citers of this story and in a manner a rejection of the effect of it 7. His next citation of this rank is out of the Oration of the Dead attributed to St. John Damascen and is so shamefull an one that I wonder any man who esteems St. John Damascen for a grave Doctor and one who holds not that the damned are to be prayed for should attribute that Oration to him For besides that it is directly against Saint Damascen's Doctrin who teaches expresly that souls cannot be changed what an unexcusable impudent assertion was it to say that in his time both the whole East and West did testify the delivery of Trajan's soul. Wherefore either this Writer lived after Joannes Diaconus that is some
yet not those effects which follow the other two parts so that part of the pains remain due after the sin is forgiven and if this had been plainly deliver'd it would have cut off his chief imputation that I say the sin being forgiven there remains no punishment due he was fain to frame such a piece of nonsence as you may see in his third Chapter N. 3. c. 2. This being understood I may proceed to his fourth Chapter in which out of Scripture he pretendeth to prove the deliverableness of souls out of Purgatory before the last day His first proof out of Scripture is to cite Scripture for that in which we both agree to wit that some pains remain due after the sin is remitted So that his argument must be purely out of reason Scripture serving but for a stalking-horse and indeed in this point is utterly unserviceable to him But whencesoever it be drawn let us see the force it carries The Council of Trent accurseth those who say a man cannot satisfie God for temporal punishments due after the sin is remitted by fastings c. where we are to note there is never a word spoken of Purgatory Therfore must he infer to make it carry fully home to his designed point we may satisfie for souls in Purgatory Two things be wanting in this Argument One is some Speech of one Persons satisfying for another for the Councils words seem to be plainly of a man satisfying for his own sins The other is that there is no mention of any satisfaction for the sins of the dead So that the whole Argument is nothing but his own assertion or supposition The rest of his Texts of Scripture are drawn after the same trifling manner having never a word worthy the explicating but their sayings being plainly common to both parties he frames some weak Argument under them the which being out of pure Reason I expect to find hereafter where he pretends to bring Reason for his Opinion 3. In the mean while I may pass to the fifth N. where there comes into play another question For so he argues Christ in his resurrection delivered souls out of Purgatory therefore their acts were changed from acts of grief into acts of joy and this without any change made in Body He proves the Antecedent largely nor will I dispute it with him But the consequence I must utterly deny For both in St. Mat. 27. it is expressed that many rose and came into the holy City and appeared to many And if we do consider that the gifts of God are perfect or as Saint Paul terms it sine poenitentia we will easily see that it cannot be rationally thought that they ever dy'd again specially they rising in glorify'd Bodies for else they would have been publickly seen and not appeared onely to whom they listed Besides that the Union to the Body perfects the very beatifical Vision and if they had dy'd again they should have lost that perfection once possessed If again we consider that no apparent difference is mention'd in Scripture why some should have that bliss and particularly that many should enjoy it and not all we shall find this priviledg fit for all and if for all then that none were changed without some change in their Bodies And that I may not speak this without Authority I call him to witness who was present our Saviour Jesus Christ in the fifth of St. John where he makes mention of two resurrections the one of onely good which he sayes to be at hand the other of all both good and bad which was to come in both which he was to be Judg as he was man 4. He would perswade a man that the position of saying all the Just of the Old Testament rose with our Saviour was so absurd that no man would say it though he had read it in my Book and comes prepared to oppose it which he doth or may do out of divers Histories of the Reliques of some of the Ancient Fathers yet extant or at least found long since our Saviour's Ascension But I wonder that a man of so much Criticism as he either is or I mistook him to be should never consider what the power of History is and what it can witness Take the stories of the invention or translation of the Prophet Samuel History can testify there was carryed from Hierusalem to Constantinople a Body withgreat solemnity That the body was said to be Samuel's and for such presented That it was found in a Tomb which was by some probable tokens held for the same in which Samuel was buried But that the Body was truly Samuel's is beyond the power of History to testify For History can testifie nothing but what men can witness nor men witness more then they can hear or see Nor could it be judged either by eye or ear whether this was the true body of Samuel or no Therefore History cannot assure us of any of the examples which he brings against our position and the truth must be resolved either into probable conjectures or to some obscure revelation neither of which is sufficient to make a Theological Argument 5. Yet because I will not discourage the good man I will pass all his sayings and grant him those he cites were the true Reliques of the Saints whose Bodies they were esteemed Then he triumphs and finds a Saint John who hath two or three heads in the World to have none in Heaven and the Saints who have left their bodies in Earth to have none in Heaven And if I should say they were either replicated or at least by divers Ubications in two places he might easily rap me over the fingers and tell me such solutions are fit for more Metaphysical Schools that look beyond nature and not for me who ought to say no more then I can understand Wherefore keeping my self to Aristotle and Saint Thomas I must declare that the things we call Reliques are not the very Bodies of the Saints but new substances made out of the living bodies of such Saints as much different substantially as if the bodies had been turned into ashes or grass though morally keeping a respect to the Persons whereof they were made Whence it follows that in Heaven the Saints may have the same bodies they had upon Earth though these Reliques remain in the Tombs Peradventure this lesson will seem a hard one to him But let him study well how in Aristotle and Saint Thomas's way there is but one materia prima or pura potentia under all forms and how there is a compound made of this Matter and the Soul without any middle Entity to cement them together he may come to understand this mystery the which I explicate no farther because People for whom Books are printed in English for the most part are not capable to reach and judge such points 6. Here I should have made an end of troubling you with this Chapt. but that I found it
that on their side can have no ground but Revelation this ungrounded Innovation is in matter of Revelation and we know onely Faith is the proper matter of Revelation Their opinion then is a piece of Faith as to the matter and should therefore have but hath no ground of Revelation 5. Your Divine replyes that he groundedly challenges also six hundred years before It is a folly to dispute this Question He speaks in supposition that he has layd solid grounds My answers are since made The two being compared men of wisdom and learning are to judge how solid his grounds are to make such a challenge upon He challenges us to shew one Authour who doth so much as by one Word insinuate that our opinion did grow to be more Universally received in the Church these last five hundred years then before it was A strange and shameless confidence Did not Odilo make it Universal in the Order of Cluny Did not the Pope command the Feast Did these make no more Universality See how many Revelations were before those days and how many since do all these signify no more Universality And this may serve untill his fourth Number all before being but the supposition of what he hath not done 4. In the fourth Number he tells us it cannot be deny'd but for these five hundred year all who have pray'd for the dead were instructed by their Ancestours to pray for the present either ease or delivery of the Dead Yet it is deny'd him that their Ancestours taught it them as likewise it is impossible to prove and improbable to beleeve that all were so taught We know Doctrins that are new first infect one part and then another and so by little and little get a popularity The reason why it easily attain'd to this is because the Corporality of those substances which we hold to be spiritual was long held in the Church nor is yet perfectly out I have heard men learned as they are generally called that is of much reading affirm that there were no simple substances but God and declare that this was the common opinion of the Fathers You see this opinion is very conformable to the apprehension of all who are not Metaphysicians And our opinion depends wholly of the Spirituality of Angels and Souls the which even those who follow follow but imperfectly For the nature of Science is to be attained by pieces and degrees so that we must not expect that all who hold the Soul and Angels to be Spirits should discourse of them as pure Spirits ought to be discoursed on St. Thomas took away proper Locality from them but is weakly followâ—d not onely by other Schools which are filled with Ubications but even in his own Now Immutability which Aristotle demoristrated of Spirits is not as yet accepted any thing commonly But if once it come to be thoroughly looked into it will be as well as Illocality and your Divines opinion of Purgatory as much rejected as the Corporality of Spirits is 7. To return to our purpose This apprehension of Corporal Torments and succession and parts in them being so natural to mans understanding also the ending of them was naturally apprehended as a thing conformable to the rest and so all this Doctrin when it began to be superadded to Tradition was received as conformable to it men not penetrating the consequences that followed out of the souls being a Spirit And otherwise seeing nothing contrary to Christian Piety before the excess came to be so great that it grew but a sport to deliver souls out of Purgatory This began to make men reflect and abhorring the excess to look into the causes of the mistake and to find it proceeded hence that some who ventur'd to meddle with Divinity without sufficiency in Philosophy in liew of explicating the Metaphorical words in which Scriptures and Fathers deliver Christian Doctrin that it may be common to learned and unlearned the which is the proper duty of a Scholastical Divine undertake to justify that the Metaphors and Allegories are to be understood according to the very bark of the Letter and to force the learned to have no other apprehensions then the unlearned have and so to understand Spiritual things corporeally and to cry out against them who seek to apply Incorporeal modifications to Incorporeal Substances So that the reason of the vulgarity of this opinion is because Animale is before Spirituale For what was deliver'd by the Apostles was onely that Prayers should be made for the dead You may note specially in St. Austin and St. Chrysostom that having much occasion to speak of Prayer for the dead they are earnest to report that this could not be unless some good arrived to the dead thereby but are as carefull not to tell any good in particular for fear of missing in what they had not found sufficient ground in Scripture 〈◊〉 declare Weaker men finding the question started resolved by the proportion to what they saw in human actions without reflecting upon what the Conditions of Incorporeal natures required and upon this apprehension follow'd the multitude of Visions and Revelations to confirm this position the which being coloured with two gratefull sightfullnesses Piety and Wonder easily got a great strength amongst the meaner sort of learned men and the multitude of the unlearned 8. In his fifth Number he presses that the Apostles taught the faithfull why they should pray for the dead and therefore he argues that motive must still remain in the Church I answer the Apostles taught them to pray for the dead to receive their reward at the day of Judgment as is beyond exception plain in St. Pauls prayer for Onesiphorus and abundance of Scripture and Fathers as may be read in my Treatise of Purgatory and is still conserved in the Church Offices 9. In his sixth Number he repeats the pressing of the Bulls so fully answered and of the cause of the keeping the Holy Commemoration of the dead and this holds to the end of the Chapter Onely I must note himself confesses Number the sixth that the Popes Decrees are not of the point it self but of others necessarily connexed with the point So that if his discourse do fail him there is no prohibition even by his own words of our tenet and out of what we have said it is easy to see it doth fail him And by consequence that all the ground they have is but a pious credulity 10. In his 16 Chapter and the last of his proving discourse for afterwards follow the answers to my Grounds he professes to deliver the fundamental reason of his opinion And I suppose in his first Paragraph he would say if he did dare speak out that he had none Yet not to scandalize his party he must make a shew and so in the midst of his third Number he saith our opinion is Paradoxical which is all the reason I can find And as for that I must remit him untill we explicate our
so out of the way in the whole that I cannot set him right for he mistakes all and makes no sence of my sayings of this point and corrupts what he cites of other points Therfore I must seek the remedy of desperate evils to cut out all this discourse as incurable until he having read what I have written upon his fifth Number become capable of speaking and hearing fence in this matter THIRD DIVISION Containing an Answer to his Eighteenth Chapter Bellarmin's Errours advantageous to Hereticks The Arguments in the Middle-State from Scripture maintain'd to be solid and the Adversary's mis-interpretations shown weak and inconsistent 1. SO thorough many Brambles we are come to his eighteenth Chapter In the Preface of which he gives me two warnings The first that in reason he should expect some clear demonstration to justify the abandoning the known persuasion of the Church And although I have already justify'd that it is no persuasion of the Church but onely a popular Errour which I forsake yet will I not insist upon that not to make needless repetitions But I must tell him he must not expect to see clear demonstration For that belongs to them that have scientifical eyes and not to them who learn onely to bable of what they understand not A Demonstratour must begin from the first Principles of Philosophy and drive them on to his Conclusion not take up his opinions upon Reasons that fall into his mouth out of the Ayr. What he takes out of Faith he must not be onely able to say the words or cite them out of some good Book but he must be sure to understand them well and see that his Explication contradicts neither Divinity nor any other Science And of these two courses neither he nor his Masters as far as I could see were ever guilty They take Texts and urge the letter without ever penetrating the sense and foregoing all principles they fly at every question with fantastick flashes like Hawks at their prey where ever they spy it 2. His second warning is that my Arguments are the out-casts and refuse of their Authours And I am far from denying it For indiscreet people are as subject to reject the best as the worst and if I be not mistaken in hâ—s Authours they ordinarily chuse the worst Opinions for themselves being men that in Sciences hunt after vanity and the pleasing of the unlearned mustitude and so are fit to make a shew in discourse until the weaker sort be beyond their speculation but never understand things solidly nor are able to give satisfaction to sober Wits who look into the depth of a difficulty He concludes that we never take notice of the Answers so fully made to the Objections we take out of his Authours I will not return this upon him and ask him how many Answers he has read in Religion and Reason and my other Writings which he hath read as appears by the impugning of the Doctrin yet will not cite that he may say he knew not of those Solutions which he impugns not But I will onely say let this encounter betwixt him and me bear testimony how fully and solidly the Answers are made 3. He begins his plea with telling his Reader that I borrowed the first and chiefest Objection from that infamous Heretick Ochinus How does he know this Bellarmin says Ochinus uses this Argument What then therefore I found it either in Bellarmin or Ochinus How proves he that The Spirit with which he writes tells him so And my Spirit tells me that the Spirit which tells him so is the Spirit of Errour and Calumny For when I wrote my Book I had neither Bellarmin nor Ochinus Nor did I ever study Bellarmin so much as to remember such particularities out of him I am not ashamed if I had taken any thing out of Bellarmin to acknowledg it For I acknowledg him to be the best Dictionary of Controversies I have seen but a man must beware how he trusts either his Arguments or Solutions Yet he is very good to suggest to a man occasions and matter that may be well used Neither should I be ashamed to use any Argument I had found in Ochinus or any other Heretick so the Argument be solid to my purpose And it is the prognostick of cosenage in the carriage of the cause to make such exceptions An Argument is good and bad by it self not by his Authour and Aristotle used to find the middle truth by comparing the falsities extreâ—mly opposit and so if I by comparing Ochinus and your Divine should find the truth to ly in the middle I should think my action deserve honour and to be profitable to the Church Let us then look into the Argument it self Ochinus to prove there was no Purgatory argu'd if there be a Purgatory then Souls are delivered before the Day of Judgment by prayers but that is false by the Text alleaged c. Now Bellarmin if he had been a solid answerer would have deny'd his first proposition and told him whether prayers deliver'd them before or not yet Purgatory remain'd safe and Ochinus choak'd that he could not have open'd his mouth and this Answer I have found printed at Rome against the Greek Hereticks 4. This Errour produced a greater to wit that their great Bellarmin was forced to confess that the words of the Scripture as they ly or in the plain sence are false and so he fairly betrayes the Catholick position of Purgatory to set up his own fancy For his solution says that these words If there were no Resurrection signify ' If the soul were not immortal which be so different meanings that by many Philosophers the one was confest and the other deny'd So that the two propositions are neither the same nor such as that their connexion is plainly seen Therfore to make this good he fains a third either falsity or at least not proved nor very probable which is that the writer of the second book of Macchabees wrote after Jonathas his time when by reason of a firm peace the Jews fell to dispute about their Law and so into great divisions and sects Whereas by probability this Book was written in Judas his time For it makes no mention of his death which it had been a fault to leave out if it had passed before the book was written which if it be true these words must not be spoken against any infection of Sadduces but of Greeks who had long domineer'd over Jury specially in Antiochus his time 5. His fourth Errour is that he makes our Saviour also make a false Argument and to conclude the Immortality of the soul in stead of the Resurrection and to make this consequence Abraham and Isaac and Jacob's fouls are alive therefore Abraham and Isaac and Jacob's bodies shall rise again The which would not have silenc'd the Sadduces but rather have made them contemn our Saviour For they better understood Resurrection then the being of an abstracted spirit
day it follows clearly that the position putting another time is added to Tradition and being in a matter that depends of Revelation and therefore cannot be known but by Tradition it appears not onely to be a Novâ—… but also ungrounded and not to be followed I must here note how your Divine who heretofore asked for but 〈◊〉 Aâ—…r who should say that the acceleration of the day of judgment was that which we were to pray for can here tell you that such speeches â—re in most common use and that the usual phrasâ— ruâ—s of this day that as the 〈◊〉 of speech is so usual in Scripture it is no wonder that the Fathers and our Liturgies do sometime make use of it Where you shall see a gradation made that in Scripture it is the usual phrase but the Father's and Liturgies do sometime make use of it As if the Fathers did not usually speak as the Scriptures not the Liturgies were made by the Fathers and at least follow their customs though every man of judgment cannot chuse but see the use of Fathers and Liturgies must of necessary be the same with the Scriptures whence they are taken which were it confessed as it is evident what Testimony could I desire at his hands greater then this 11. N. 7. he impugns the Text taken from the tenth to the Hebrewâ— where the Apostle threatneth a Purgation of 〈◊〉 to them who 〈◊〉 after Baptism which Bellarmin is forced to gloss against the Text to avoid Noâ—â—tus his Errour For whereas the Text speaks of a fire that should feed upon those who were not quite contrary to God which words cannot be understood of any â—â—re but Purgatory fire he very freely without any ground of the Text and onely because otherwise it will not stand with his opinion takes no notice of the properties which particularise this fire and by his own Authority puts in Hell fire and a distinction of the effects of these two fires to which sence a Cable is not strong enough to draw the words 12. In his ninth and tenth Paragraphs he impugns the Texts taken out of St. Matthew and St. Lukâ— concerning agreeing with our Adversary in the way that is in our life time that we may not be deliver'd to the eternal Judge And he thinks we urge this Text for not reflecting upon the particular Judgment at the hour of death and I cannot well deny it For I do not remember that in any place of Scripture Christ is called Judge in regard of the next World but either at his Refurrection or at the last day And besides what passeth at mans death I â—â—ke to be very improperly called Judgment and if it were a true Judgment this Formality of your Adversaries delivering you â—ver to the Judge I do not know that any one attributes to particular Judgment Which circumstances though they were pressed where he found the Argument he totally neglected and presses for himself those words of being sent to a Prison there to remain until he pay the last farthing This sayth he is most unnaturally spoken of the day of Judgment after which there remains no prison but eternal And his discourâ—â— were good if this delivery of our Saviour were not Allegoricaâ— that is a human expression of things above human reach and therefore not to be expected to be verify'd entirely to the material word which taken away it signifies no more then at the day of Judgment the sinners shall be punished without remission But to think there shall be other Prison then the mans own guilt or other toâ—…rer then his own knowledg and conscieâ—… is to be proved not supposed And why this must require length of time more then what precedes the sentence and of the which the sentence is the approbation as of all the rest that shall be executed all that day I expect some better declaration before I frame a new Judgment properly so call'd without any ground in Scripture or Antiquity 13. In his eleventh Number he treats the famous place taken out of the third Chapter of the first to the Corinths but so as if he aym'd not to give the sence of it but onely to wave the force from his opinion no matter how much against the words themselves For it being agreed between parties that the Apostle speaks of the day oâ— Judgment and of material fire yet he hath three solutions First that it is meant of no material fire but of the fire of the district Judgment But this is to prevaricate against themselves who agree there is a true material fire at that day which is the faith of all Christians and the Apostles words are plain that that great day shall be revealed in fire Now so far being the common Faith of Christians it is against all sence to say this is not the fire which shall try the works of all men For the Apostle gives for proof or ground why all mens works shall be try'd by fire because sayth he that day shall be revealed in fire What a strange perversion then of the Text is it to make the Apostle make this Argument The day of Judgment shall be revealed in material and elemental fire therefore the works of men shall be try'd by Gods judgment or spiritual districtness and yet this is the sence given to the Apostles words by this Interpretation His second Interpretation is that the meaning is the sinners shall be saved as it were by fire but fire precedent to the fire of Judgment and this explication 〈◊〉 more against the Text then the other For this ground which the Apostle takes that the day of Judgment shall be revealed in fire can be no more brought for the cause why the sinners works shall be try'd by a precedent fire then why they shall be try'd by Gods judgment And besides the Apostle so expressly says that every ones work shall be try'd by the fire in that day or of that day that nothing can be spoken more plainly against the Text then to say it is meant of another fire which went before Likewise that speech that whose work abides the fire he shall be rewarded but if any mans burn he shall suffer detriment is plainly spoken of the fire of that day so that such an interpretation is a plain corruption And no less can be said of his third explication that the meaning is that the fire shall manifest that is shew what was done before but not do any thing For those words If any mans work burns he shall suffer detriment cannot be understood of what was passed before the day of Judgment but of what is done in that day And therefore the trying he speaks of must necessarily be the working of the fire upon the sinners works so that it is evident he and his Bellarmin do not explicate but corrupt the Text against the plain words of the Apostle 14. The ninth Text concerning the Remission of sin in the next world is brought to shew that
actions and all corporeal motions Therefore all his examples are easily I will not say answer'd but assented to as not speaking of the question that is what the duration is in it self but of how it appears to us or how we apprehend and express it But not to leave him thus in the dark I will exemplify a little When we apprehend God is is Wise is Just is Good St. Thomas his School will tell you that Being Wisdome Justice Goodness doth not signify the same that they do when they are spoken of St. Peter or St. Paul But that God is of a notion unknown to us yet of such an one as we are sure in our low Language and conformably to our incomparably-undervaluing-God apprehensions is to be not so much explicated as vestigiated by the notions which are signified by these words of Being Wisdome Justice Goodness c. So likewise true it is that Christ was three days in the heart of the Earth but in such a manner that wise men understand that these words have not an Univocal signification in the duration of his Soul and the duration of his Body but in this in a signification known to us in that in a signification so above our knowledg that nevertheless we know it is to be so explicated or expressed to a human apprehension in the weakness of this life 9. In his seventh Number he attempts the explication of the necessity of existence of divers creatures and tells us that all that can be requir'd is most briefly and accurately expressed by St. Thomas 1. P. Qu. 10. A. 5. Where another man would have told him that every man doth not follow St. Thomas his explication I onely enquire of him whence he hath certainty of this his saying that St. Thomas hath in this place declared all that is necessary For having treated it more largely in other places it is to be suspected he thought somewhat necessary in other occasions which had been superfluous to his Theme in the place cited His ninth Number he begins with Whence you see the Eviternity of souls c. Whence I see he takes all which he hath cited out of St. Thomas for coyned mony so that I may conclude that the certainty of his Doctrin is no more then that it is St. Thomas his opinion which is a poor payment for him who seeks the contentment of his understanding I reverence St. Thomas his Doctrin because I find many and great truths in him but to give him the priviledg of Scripture that things are so because he says it that I am tanght by himself not to do And in our own present case I am forced to specify one particular which is that some things are removed from permanency in being because their Essence neither consists in Mutability nor is the subject of Transmutation yet those things have Transmutation joyned unto them This St. Thomas exemplifies in the Heavens But later Phoenomena's have shown that the Essence of the Heavens is subject to Transmutation Wherefore that example fails him The other example is of Angels which truly St. Thomas says but proves not here so that until that be proved we know no substance that is not the subject of Transmutation and yet hath Transmutation joyn'd to it and he who is acquainted with St. Thomas his Principles will expect that there can be no such since St. Thomas teaches that Accidents have no existences of their own and are but modifications of the Substances to which they belong and consequently their existence must be of the same nature of which is the existence of the Substance seeing it is the very same He tells us also that St. Thomas saith that Angelical intellections are measured truly by time or as he says afterwards by true time But I remember not that word true in him nor do I think it stands with the exact Logick of that Prince of Divines For Time signifying a common measure how can there be true time where there is not a common measure but every act must be its one measure and one be longer another shorter without any common rule Besides St. Thomas knew the motion of the Heavens had appropriated to it self the name of Time before any Spiritual actions of Angels were talked of Wherefore the name of time could not be attributed to Angels but in respect of the motion of the Heavens because the duration of the acts measures the acts as the duration of time measures our actions and corporeal motions which is plainly to take time as applyed to Angels and their actions in an improper sence and one derived from the former 10. After this to the end of the Chapter he doth nothing but lay forth his own conceits without any likeness of Proof or Argument In so much that all he saith for himself is nothing but the acceptance of St. Thomas his words without any proof Only Inote that he lets us understand by the way that he knows not what signifies the Necessity of Existence upon which is built the nature and notion of Eviternity To declare which you are to look into the Metaphysical Principles of nature as Aristâ—tle does in his two first Books of Physicks There you shall find that a corporeal substance is divisible into two parts the one which makes it be what it is the other a pure possibility to be any of many and how it is clear out of this that the former part is it by which Existence is had and which hath nothing betwixt it self and existence and therefore is inseparably connected with existence The later part because of its indifferency to divers forms is separable from any particular existence and so is cause of the corruptibility of the whole the existence of the whole perishing in the separation of the Form from the Matter in all things but in man Hence it follows that if such a thing as we call a form be capable of existence without the support of matter it can never perish because it is of it self and without mediation bound to existence Therefore such a substance is called Eviternal and is so because it is such a form and so annexed to existence The cause then of Eviternity is nothing changed whether the form be to be reunited or no to the matter nor depends it of having no contrary but the having of no contrary flowes from this for contraries are onely found where there is a common subject nor from I know not what obligation in God which are the principles he seems to conceit to be the grounds of Eviternity SEVENTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his two and twentieth Chapter How Angels understand and why necessarily all at once His Ignorance of what is meant by true Time and mistake of St. Thomas His unskilfulness in applying allegorical places of Scripture like the Anthropomâ—rpbites to Spirits literally The fruit of his superabundant Demonstrations His self-contradictions and Absurdities and how weakly he refuâ—es a pretended Demonstration of
the Angels were not created in Beatifical Vision and in the eleventh that it is against Scripture to say the Devils were not once in state of Grace and not bad but seeing he cites nothing for it but the Authority of St. Thomas sure he does not mean to make it undenyable seeing St. Thomas's authority is so professedly deny'd by 〈◊〉 own Divines And as for the places of Scripture seeing they are Allegorical to build so nice a Verity as of the duration of one instant upon corporal similitudes and comparisons is a weak Argument and as freely deny'd as affirmed For the opinion it self St. Austin and Scotus justify it from being erroneous or impossible though where there are no other Arguments brought against it it is superfluous to bring in Auxiliary forces 5. In the thirteenth Number he urges the Illumination of Angels and in the twelfth their speaking to one another which both are explicated in my sacred Institutions To. 2. l. 2. Lectione 8. and are too subtle questions to divulge in vulgar Languages He presses farther that the souls in Limbo just upon good Friday began their Beatifical Vision though the Bodies rose not untill Sunday and that it was not true upon Maundy-Thursday that St. Baptist's soul was in Paradice but on good Friday it was If you are perswaded he hath some special Revelations you may beleeve him I must know some better proof before I be of his mind 6. In his sixteenth Number he tells you that Moyses soul spake with our Saviour Mat. 27. Luke 9. but the Scripture speaks of Moses not of his soul And St. Thomasâ—ill â—ill tell you that a soul can govern no body but its own and so will make you think it was an Angel in the â—â—keness of Moyses that spake to Christ. In his seventeenth he tells us that the Devil did contend wâ—â—h St. Michael about Moyses his Body He should have said scolded for otherwise contention may be some outward action about the Body it self and so nothing to us Likewise he tells us that Dives spake to Abraham by a new Act. Indeed there is mention that Dives had a tongue for otherwise we should have thought that story to be parabolical and that there needed no new words to veâ—fâ—y it Again he tells us the Devil had a new act by which he heard the â—…itth of Enâ—… call for Samuels soul. This it is to be well acquainted with the Devil so that he can tell what passes in his very breast Whereas simple Divines like my self should have thought that it was not the Devil but a good Angel which represented Samuel in that passage Yet this will not serve me for he knows likewise what passes in the breasts of Angels and so he tells us how Raphael by a new act did offer Tobâ—as his prayers to God But he should have expressed whether it was in a dish or a censer that he offered them and likewise with what kind of rope or â—â—ain he tyed up the Devil Also what bustling there was for one and twenty days between the two Angels of Persia and Israel For I that think all these expressions to be allegorical and some of them at least done by outward and corporal actions find no necessity of new acts in the Angels to any of these effects no more then we are bound to put new acts in God Almighty when he is said to do so many new things of which the Scripture is full As the the Son of God to be incarnated to create every day souls of new to speak to our Saviour out of a cloud and many such other things 7. His Tediousness in multiplying divers particulars of the same kind to which the same solution that all the same things or the like are verify'd of God without any novelty in his acts has quite wearied me yet I cannot omit his last Argument because it hath something particular He says then that the Devils sin did at first please them but now these affections be their torturers therefore he thinks they are repented and have changed their acts and adds Mark how you contradict your selves Mainly without doubt seeing we say that the Devils were damned in the veâ—… instant of their creation that is had all the same sorrows even during that complacence and that they have still the same complacence with which they sinned and that the very sinning is continued untill this very day which is a Doctrin often repeated By this you see how sleevelesly he puts me to trouble and to so much loss of time His most solid Arguments are the Testimony of St. Thomas in verity a great Doctour yet such an one that it was never taken for a fault with modesty to refuse his sayings Other Arguments are taken out of Tenets for which are pleaded no more then some criticisms of the word solus or some supposed Antonomasia excluding if they be not well looked to and helped out by additions known truths as when the knowledg of chances to come or the secrets of our hearts is so verify'd of God as to exclude Prophets unless you put in that they or Devils and Angels do not this by their natural power which is not in the Text Other Arguments rely upon the applying of Allegories to Angels as if they were proper speeches And whereas to a reasonable Divine this cannot be unknown that we misapprehend Angels and their Actions by our usual conceits and words as we do likewise God yet our Divine presseth the same things which are to be solved in God Almighty as rigorously to prove a true change as if he saw with his eyes all that past in their breasts And then cryes out he hath super abundantly demonstrated that in which the main difficulty lyes when as he has not brought one word fit to come out of a Divines mouth in way of being a proof Which revâ—…eless I do not impute unto him as a fault for it is not his fault but of that pitifull Topical counterfeiting of Divinity used by them amongst whom he was instructed 8. Now would it pity any Scholler to see him when he has caught the word time by the end as apply'd to that which hath no other reason to be called time but because we have no other names then of corporal things to design out spiritual qualities whereof though we want the true notions yet we are forced to speak so to play with the words and insist upon the words of true time shewing plainly he understands neither what time is nor what a word to be true means For as for time he will tell us that the motion of the Heavens are not true time N. 3. but that our time is measured by those motions which is most unlearnedly spoken Again he puts that there is an extrinsecal measure of Angels intellections in one part of which a proposition is true and in another false Again he tells us that Angels are not above time by their acts as if the