The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 3 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The Sense of the Fathers concerning Purgatory.
The Advantage which comes to the Church of Rome, by the Doctrine of Purgatory, thence the boldness of our Adversaries in contending for it. The Sense of the Roman Church concerning Purgatory, explained. The Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church concerning it. The Difference in the Church of Rome about Purgatory. Some general Considerations about the Sense of the Fathers, as to its being an Article of Faith. The Doubtfulness and Vncertainty of the Fathers Judgments in this particular, manifested by S. Austin the first who seemed to assert a Purgation before the day of Judgement. Prayer for the Dead used in the Ancient Church, doth not inferr Purgatory. The Primate of Armagh vindicated from our Adversaries Calumnies. The general Intention of the Church distinguished from the private Opinions of particular persons. The Prayers of the Church respected the day of Judgement. The Testimonies of the Fathers in behalf of Purgatory, examined; particularly of the pretended Dionysius, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Origen, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Basil, Nazianzen, Lactantius, Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, &c. And not one of them asserts the Purgatory of the Church of Rome. S. Austin doth not contradict himself about it. The Doctrine of Purgatory no elder than Gregory 1. and built on Cred…lity and Superstition. The Churches Infallibility made at last the Foundation of the belief of Purgatory. The Falsity of that Principle: and the whole concluded.
THese general Answers being dispatched, there remains only now this Question concerning Purgatory to be discussed.§. 1. Which being the great Diana of your Church, no wonder you are so much displeased at his Lordship for speaking against it; for by that means your craft is in danger to be set at nought. There being no Opinion in your Church which brings in a more constant revenue, by Masses for the dead, and Indulgencies, besides Casualties, and Deodands, by dying persons, or their friends, in hopes of a speedier release out of the pains of Purgatory. So that if this Opinion were once out of Countenance in the world, you would lose one of the best Arts you have of upholding the Grandeur of your Church. For then farewel Indulgences, and years of Jubilee; farewel all those rich Donations which are given by those at their death, who hope by that means to get the sooner out of the Suburbs of Hell, to a place of rest and happiness. For, What Engine could possibly be better contrived to extort the largest gifts from those whose riches were as great as their sins, than to perswade them, that by that means they would be sooner delivered out of the Flames of Purgatory, and need not doubt but they should come to Heaven at last? And, Would not they be accounted great Fools, that would not live as they pleased in this world, as long as they could buy themselves out of the pains of another? And by this means your Church hath not only eaten, but grown fat, by the sins of the people; it being truly observed by Spalatensis, De Repub Eccles. l 5 c 8. sect. 73.That the Doctrine of Purgatory hath been that which hath most inriched the Church of Rome; which he gives as the reason of the most zealous contending for that Doctrine among those of your party, who find so much advantage by it. And we might easily believe there was something extraordinary in it, when you tell us; It is therefore firmly to be believed by all Catholicks, P. 371.that there is a Purgatory; yea, we are as much bound to believe it, as we are bound to believe (for Instance) the Trinity or Incarnation it self: because, since it is defined by the Church, we cannot lawfully, or without sin and peril of damnation deny or question this doctrine. We had need then look to our selves, who look on this Doctrine as a meer figment, that hath no foundation at all either in Scripture, Reason, or Tradition of the Primitive Church; but much more had you need to look to your selves, who dare with so much confidence obtrude so destructive a Doctine to a Christian life, without any evidence of the truth of it, to be believed as much as the Trinity or Incarnation it self; which expressions take them in the mildest sense you can give them, carry a most insufferable boldness with them. But these are not all the bold words which you utter on this Subject; for you say elsewhere,P. 350. That Bellarmin doth not more boldly, than truly affirm, yea evidently prove, that all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, did constantly teach Purgatory from the very Apostles times, and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition, or nothing can be. So then, if confidence would carry it, we must not only tremble at the fears of Purgatory; but we must firmly believe it as an Article of Faith, and as a most undoubted Apostolical Tradition.
But before we can digest these things, we must see a little more ground for them, than as yet we do;§. 2. and therefore you must be content to hear our reasons, Why we neither look on it as a matter of Faith or Apostolical tradition; in order to which nothing is more necessary, then to enquire what you mean by Purgatory. For as long as you can shelter your selves under General words, you think you are safe enough; but when we once bring you to a fuller explication of your meaning, Purgatory it self is not half so evident as those impostures are whereby you would maintain it. But for our clear understanding this Controversie, we must find out what your Doctrine is concerning it; for, as confident as you are of it, there are not a few among you who are afraid to declare what you mean by it, lest by that means the world should see how far it is from having foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity. We are therefore told by some either are ashamed of the Doctrine it self, or loth to betray their cause (who by declaring themselves) that your Church requires no more then to believe that there is a Purgatory, for which they avouch the Council of Trent, which only defines That the sound Doctrine concerning Purgatory should be taught. This was indeed necessary to be said by such who do not at all believe the Roman Doctrine concerning it, what ever they pretend; but rather agree with the Greek Church about the middle state of souls. But although the Council of Trent did not expresly define what they meant by Purgatory; yet the sense of the Council concerning it, is easie to be gathered from the comparing of places together in it. For the Council of Trent in the last Session when it passed the decree of Purgatory referrs us to two things, by which we may fully understand the meaning of it; For in the Preface to the Decree, it saith, That the Catholick Church had, in this and former Oecumenical Councils, taught that there was a Purgatory; by which we may understand, What this Purgatory is, which was now decreed, and you say, we are bound to believe it as an Article of Faith. Now in all the former Decrees and Anathematisms of the Council, there is no place which seems to concern the Doctrine of Purgatory, so much as the thirtieth Anathema of the sixth Session in these words, Si quis ita reatum poenae aeternae deleri dixerit; ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exsolvendae vel in hoc seculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio, antequam ad regna coelorum aditus patere possit; Anathema sit. If any one shall affirm that the guilt of eternal punishment is so forgiven, as that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be paid, either in this life, or hereafter in Purgatory; before there can be any entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven; let them be Anathema. From whence it evidently follows, that the Doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught by the Council of Trent doth depend upon this principle, That there is a guilt of temporal punishment remaining after the sin is pardoned, which temporal punishment is to be satisfied for, either in this life, or in Purgatory. So that all those who are in Purgatory are there on that account, that they might satisfie the justice of God for the temporal punishment of sin. For the guilt of mortal sin being remitted by the merits of Christ, the punishment is supposed still to remain, which being exchanged from eternal to temporal by the keyes of the Church, this punishment remains to be satisfied for, in the pains of Purgatory. But this punishment being temporal, the possibility of a release from them is necessarily supposed before the day of judgement; for the Council of Trent in the Decree of Purgatory, declares that the souls there detained are relieved by the prayers of the Faithful, and especially by the sacrifice of the Altar. Which, in the 22 Session, it saith, is offer'd pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis, for the departed in Christ not yet fully purg'd. So that the satisfaction of the debt of temporal punishment which remains when the sin is pardoned, and the translation of souls from thence to Heaven by the prayers of the living and the sacrifice of the Mass, are the main Foundations of the Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory.
§. 3.And this will further appear by the state of the Controversie between the Greek and Latin Church upon this Subject. For the main thing which the Greeks objected against the Latins, was this temporary punishment for sin, in a future state: For they say, in their Apology delivered into the Council of Basil, We own no Purgatory fire, nor any temporary punishment by fire which shall have an end; for we received no such thing by tradition, nor doth the Eastern Church confess it. And afterwards; We deny that any souls pass through this fire to eternal fire; for in saying so, Apolog. Graecorum de Igne Purgat. p. 66. ed. Salmas.we should weaken the consent of the whole Church: and it is to be fear'd, if we should assert such a temporary fire, that people would be apt to believe that all the fire in the other life were only temporary; by which means they would fall into such neglect and carelesness, that they would make the more fuel for eternal fire. And therefore they conclude, That they neither have nor shall assert any such Purgatory fire. But you would seem to perswade us,P. 358. That the Contest between the Greeks and Latins was only, whether the fire of Purgatory were material or no; For you say, The Greeks in the Council of Florence never doubted in the least measure, nor denyed Purgatory it self, but only question'd, Whether the fire were material or metaphorical. But if you speak of those Greeks, who held to what was generally received in the Greek Church; you are very much deceived therein, for the sense of the Greek Church was fully delivered by them in this Apology, penned, as is supposed, by Marcus Ephesius but the year before at the Council of Basil; and herein they not only dispute against the fire, but against any such state of purgation after this life, by the undergoing any temporary punishment for sin. For thus that Apology ends; For these causes the Doctrine proposed of a Purgatory fire is to be cast out of the Church, foreign. P. 93.as that which tends to slacken the endeavours of the diligent, and which hinders them from doing their utmost to purge themselves in this life, since another purgation is expected after it. Is not this plain enough for their denyal of any state of purgation after this life, by which men might satisfie for the temporary punishment of sin, and be translated out of that state to the Kingdom of Heaven? And thence, although in the Bull of Vnion published by Eugenius 4. at the concluding the Florentine Council, no more was concluded, than that those penitents who departed this life, before they had satisfied for their former sins by worthy fruits of pennance, should have their souls purged after death, poenis purgatoriis, with purgatory punishments, yet Marcus Eugenicus utterly refused to subscribe it thus; which certainly he would never have done if all the Controversie had been only, Whether the fire were real or metaphorical. And the whole Greek Church utterly refused those terms of union,Alphons. à Castro. l. 12. tit. purgat. and therefore Alphonsus à Castro recounts the denying Purgatory among the errours of the Greeks. The Greeks indeed do not believe that any souls enjoy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement, and on that account they allow of prayer for the dead, notwith any respect to a deliverance of souls out of purgatory, but to the participation of their happiness at the great Day. But there is a great deal of difference between this Opinion, and that of your Church; for they believe all souls of believers to be in expectation of the final Judgement but without any temporary punishment for sin, or any release from that punishment by the prayers of the living, which your Church asserts; and is the proper state of the Question concerning Purgatory. Which is not, Whether there be any middle state wherein the souls of the Faithful may continue in expectation of the final consummation of their happiness at the great day; nor, Whether it be lawful in that sense for the Church on earth to pray for departed souls in order to their final justification at the day of Judgment, or in St. Pauls language, That God would have mercy on them in that day; but, Whether there be such a state, wherein the souls of men undergo a temporary punishment for sin, the guilt being pardoned, out of which they may be released by the prayers of the living, and translated from Purgatory to the Kingdom of Heaven, before the day of Resurrection. This is the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome; and now we come to examine, Whether your Doctrine concerning Purgatory be either an Article of Faith, or Apostolical Tradition; which how confidently so ever you may assert, we shall find your confidence built on very little reason.
Which we may the easier believe, since there are so many among your selves,§. 4. who do not think themselves obliged to own this Doctrine of your Church concerning Purgatory. Nay, we have not only the confession of several of your party, that your Doctrine of Purgatory was not known in the Primitive Church, as Alphonsus à Castro, Roffensis, Polydore, &c. and of others, that it cannot be sufficiently proved from Scripture, as Petrus â Soto, Perionius, Bulenger, whose testimonies are produced by others; but there are some persons of note among you, who have expresly denied the Doctrine it self, and confuted the pretended reasons which are given for it. Petrus Picherellus, Picherellus de Missâ c. 2. p. 150.saith, There is no fuel to be found in Scripture, either to kindle or maintain the fire of Purgatory; and which afterwards he largely disproves in his excellent Discourse de Missâ. Father Barns acknowledges,Punitio ergo in Purgatorio est res in opinione humanâ posita: quae nec ex Scripturis nec Patribus, nec Conciliis deduci potest firmiter: Immo, (salvo meliori judicio) opposita sententia eis conformior videtur. Barns Catholico. Rom. Pacif. sect. 9. l. D. ad fin. Paralip. That the punishment of souls in Purgatory, is a thing which lyes meerly in humane opinion, which cannot be firmly deduced from Scriptures, Fathers, or Councils. Yea, (saith he, with submission to better judgements) the opposite opinion seems more agreeable to them. But later then these, you cannot but know, Who it is here at home, that hath not only pull'd down the superstructure, but raced the very Foundations of your Doctrine of Purgatory in his discourse de medio Animarum statu: wherein he professedly disproves the Doctrine of your Church (though he is loath to own it to be so) in this particular, and shews at large, that it hath no foundation at all, either in Scripture, Antiquity, or Reason. But if your Doctrine of Purgatory be to be believed as an Article of Faith, and Apostolical Tradition if any be; How come these differences among your selves about it? How comes that Authour not to be answered, and his reasons satisfied? But if you be not agreed among your selves, What this Article of Faith is, you are most unreasonable men, to tell us, We are as much bound to believe it as the Trinity, or Incarnation. We ask you, What it is we are bound to believe? You tell us, according to the sense of your Church, The punishment of souls in a future state, out of which they may be delivered by the prayers of the Faithful, and translated into the Kingdom of Heaven; Another he denies all this, and saith, We are in effect only bound to believe, That faithful souls do not enjoy their full happiness till the resurrection, and that there is no deliverance at all out of any state in which mens souls are after death, till the day of Judgement; and that the prayers of the Church, only respect that Day; but that the former Doctrine is so far from being an Article of Faith, that it is contrary to Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason. If such a state of expectation wherein faithful souls are at rest (but according to different degrees of grace which they had at their departure hence, and look for the day of Resurrection, when they shall have a perfect consummation of their bliss) were all the Purgatory which your Church asserted, the breach might be far nearer closing as to this Article, than now it is. For although we find some particular persons ready to give a fair and tolerable sense of your Doctrine herein; yet we cannot be ignorant, that the General apprehension and sense of your Church is directly contrary; and those persons who have discovered the freedom of their judgements as to this and other particulars, know how much it concerns them to keep a due distance from Rome, if they would preserve the freedom of their persons. But you are not one of those that hath cause for any such fears: for what ever Bellarmin saith, you are ready to swear to it, and accordingly set your self to the defence of Purgatory upon his principles; which are far more suitable to the Doctrine of your Church, than to Scripture or Antiquity.
But because this Controversie is not managed between his Lordship and you about the sense of the Scripture, but the Fathers concerning it;§. 5. I must therefore enquire, Whether your Doctrine of Purgatory were ever owned by the Fathers as an Article of Faith or Apostolical Tradition. And that I may the more fully clear it, before I come to examine your proofs for it, I shall lay down some general considerations.
1. Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers, but what they declare, that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation. As to all other things which they assert, we may look on them as private opinions of particular persons, but not as such things which were received as Articles of Faith. For whatsoever is received as such, it must be wholly on the account of Gods revealing it, who only can oblige us to believe with that assent which is required to Faith. And if it be so as to all other things, much more certainly as to the future state of souls, of which we can know nothing certainly without Divine Revelation. For since the remission of sins, and the happiness of the future life, depend upon the goodness and mercy of God, we can define nothing as to these things any further then God hath declared them. If God hath declared that remission of sins lyes in the taking away the obligation to punishment, it will be a contradiction to say, That he pardons those whom he exacts the punishment of sin from, purely to satisfie his justice; if he hath declared, that the souls of the faithful are in joy and felicity assoon as they are delivered out of this sinful world, it is impossible they should undergo unsufferable pains, though not to eternity. I dispute not now, Whether he hath so revealed these things, but that it is impossible for any thing to be looked on as an Article of Faith, but what hath clear Divine Revelation for it. And therefore, although many testimonies of the Fathers might be produced one way or other, as to these things; when they speak only their own fancies and imaginations, and not what God hath revealed, they cannot, all put together, make the opinion they assert to be an Article of Faith. Nothing is more apparent, then that the itching curiosity of humane nature to know more then God hath revealed, concerning the future state of souls, did betimes discover it self in the Church. But the strange diversity of these Imaginations were a sufficient evidence, that they speak not by any certain rule, but according to their different fancies; and therefore that they did not deliver any Doctrine of Faith, but only their own private opinions. If you would therefore prove, that the Fathers did own Purgatory as an Article of Faith, you must not think it enough to prove, that one or two of the Fathers did speak something tending to it, but that all who had occasion to mention it, did speak of it as the Doctrine of the Church, and that which came from an immediate Divine Revelation.
2. There is no reason, That should be looked on as an Article of Faith, which, they who seemed to assert it most, did build on such places, which they acknowledged themselves to be very obscure. For since they deduced it from Scripture, it is apparent that they did not believe it on the account of any unwritten word, or Divine Revelation conveyed meerly by Tradition; and since they confess the places to be very difficult, it is unreasonable to judge, that they looked on that as a matter of Faith, which they supposed was contained in them. As for instance, St. Austin in several places asserts, that all things necessary to be believed are clearly revealed in Scripture; and withall he sayes,Aug. de fide & oper. c. 15, 16. that the place 1 Cor. 3.15. is very difficult and obscure, and that it is one of those places in St. Paul, which St. Peter saith are hard to be understood; and therefore it is not conceivable that S. Austin should make any thing a matter of Faith, which he founds upon this place. And this is the great and almost only considerable Place, which he or the rest of the Fathers did insist on, as to the nature of that purgation which was to be in a future state.
3. That cannot be looked on as an Article of Faith to such persons, who express their own doubts concerning the truth of it. For whatever is owned as an Article of Faith by any person, is thereby acknowledged to be firmly believed by him. Now upon our enquiry into the Fathers we shall find, the first person who seemed to assert that any faithful souls passed through a fire of purgation before the day of judgement, was St. Austin: but he delivers his judgement with so much fear and hesitancy, that any one may easily see that he was far from making it any Article of Faith. We must consider then, that in St. Augustin's time, there were many, who though they denied Origen's opinion as to the Salvation at last of all persons; yet were very willing to believe it, as to all those who died in the Communion of the Church, that though they passed through the flames of Hell for their sins, yet at last they should be saved; and for this they mainly insisted on 1 Cor. 3.15. where it is said, That some should be saved, but as by fire. Such, say they, build upon the foundation gold, silver, pretious stones, who to their Faith add good works: but they, hay, wood, and stubble, whose life is contrary to their Faith; and yet these latter, they asserted should come to Heaven at last, but they must undergo the torments of Hell first. Against these St. Austin writes his book de fide & operibus, wherein he proves that such as live in sin shall be finally excluded the Kingdom of Heaven; And when he comes to the interpretation of that place, he gives this account of it, That those who do so love Christ, as rather to part with all things for him than to lose him, but yet have too great a love to the things of the world, shall suffer grief and loss on that account. Sive ergo in hâc vitâ tantum homines ista patiuntur, Aug. de fide & oper. c. 16.sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur; non abhorret, quantum arbitror, à ratione veritatis iste intellectus hujus sententiae. Whether, saith he, men suffer these things in this life, or such judgements follow after it; I suppose this sense of S. Paul's meaning is not dissonant from truth. So far was he from being certain of it, that he puts in, quantum arbitror, as far as I suppose; and yet he would not define, whether that loss which they were to suffer were only in this life or no. And, in his Enchiridion to Laurentius, where he disputes the very same matter,Enchirid. c. 69. he saith, Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est; & utrum ita sit quaeri potest, & aut inveniri aut latere, Nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium, quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusve salvari. It is not incredible that such a thing should be after this life, and it may be enquired after whether it be found to be so or no, that some faithful souls pass through a purging fire, and are saved sooner or later according to the degree of their affection to worldly things. Will any man in his wits think that St. Austin spake this of any matter of Faith, or that was generally received in the Church as an Apostolical Tradition? Did he ever speak so concerning the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ which you parallel with Purgatory? What would men have thought of him, if he had said of either of those Articles, It is not incredible they may be true, and it may be enquired into whether they be or no? Whatever then St. Austins private opinion was, we see he delivers it modestly and doubtfully, not obtruding it as an Article of Faith, or Apostolical Tradition if any be. And the very same he repeats in his Answer to the first Question of Dulcitius; so that this was all that ever he asserted as to this Controversie. What you offer to the contrary from other places of St. Austin shall be considered in its due place.
4. Where any of the Fathers build any Doctrine upon the sense of doubtful places of Scripture, we have no further reason to believe that Doctrine, then we have to believe that it is the meaning of those places. So that in this case the enquiry is taken off from the judgement of the Fathers, and fixed upon the sense of the Scriptures which they and we both rely upon. For since they pretend themselves to no greater evidence of the truth of the Doctrine then such places do afford: it is the greatest reason that the argument to perswade us be not the testimony of the Father, but the evidence of the place it self. Unless it be evident some other way, that there was an universal Tradition in the Church from the Apostles times concerning it, and that the only design of the Father was, to apply some particular place to it. But then such a Tradition must be cleared from something else, besides the sense of some ambiguous places of Scripture, and that Tradition manifested to be Vniversal both as to time and place.
These things being premised,§. 6. I now come particularly to examine the evidence you bring, That all the Fathers both Greek and Latin did constantly teach Purgatory from the Apostles times, and consequently that it must be held for an Apostolical Tradition or nothing can be. And as you follow Bellarmin in your way of proving it, so must I follow you; and he divides his proofs you say into two ranks. First, Such who affirm prayer for the dead. 2. Such who in the successive ages of the Church did expresly affirm Purgatory. First, with those who affirm prayer for the dead; P. 306.Which (you say) doth necessarily infer Purgatory, whatever the Bishop vainly insinuates to the contrary. The Question then between us is, Whether that prayer for the dead which was used in the ancient Church, doth necessarily inferr that Purgatory was then acknowledged? This you affirm; for, say you, If there were no other place, or condition of being for departed souls, but either Heaven or Hell, surely it were a vain thing to pray for the dead; especially to pray for the remission of their sins, or for their refreshment, ease, rest, relaxation of their pains, as Ancients most frequently do. From whence, you add, that Purgatory is so undenyably proved, that the Relator finding nothing himself sufficient to Answer, was forced to put us off to the late Primate of Armagh's Answer to the Jesuits Challenge. Which, you say, You have perused, and find only there, that the Authour proves that which none of you deny, viz. That the prayers and commemorations used for the dead had reference to more souls than those in Purgatory. But, you attempt to prove, That the nature and kind of those prayers do imply that they were intended for other ends, than meerly that the body might be glorified as well as the soul, and to praise God for the final happy end of the deceased: Whereas that Answerer of the Jesuite would, you say, by his allegations insinuate to the Reader a conceit, that it was used only for those two reasons and no other; Which, you say, you must needs avouch to be most loudly untrue, and so manifestly contrary to the Doctrine and practise of the Fathers as nothing can be more. A high charge against two most Reverend and learned Primates together: against the one, as not being able to Answer, and therefore turning it off to the other; against the other, for publishing most loud untruths, instead of giving a true account of the grounds of the Churches practise. It seems, you thought it not honour enough to overcome one, unless you led the other in triumph also; but you do neither of them, but only in your own fancy and imagination. And never had you less cause to give out such big words then here, unless it were to amuse the spectatours that they might not see how you fall before them. For it was not the least distrust of his sufficiency to Answer, which made his Lordship to put it oft to the Primate of Armagh, but because he was prevented in it by him, Who, (as he truly saith) had very learnedly and at large set down other reasons which the Ancients gave for prayer for the dead without any intention to free them from Purgatory. Which are not only different from, but inconsistent with, the belief of Purgatory; for the clearing of which, and vindicating my Lord Primate from your calumnies rather then answers, it will be necessary to give a brief account of his Discourse on that subject.Answer to the Jesuits challenge p. 195. He tells us therefore at first, That we are here prudently to distinguish the Original institution of the Church, from the private opinions of particular Doctors, which waded further herein then the general intendment of the Church did give them warrant. Now he evidently proves that the memorials, oblations, and prayers made for the dead at the beginning had reference to such as rested from their labours, and not unto any souls which were thought to be tormented in that Vtopian Purgatory, whereof there was no news stirring in those dayes. This he gathers first by the practise of the ancient Christians laid down by the Authour of the Commentaries on Job, who saith, The memorials of the Saints were observed as a memorial of rest to the souls departed, and that they therein rejoyced for their refreshing. St. Cyprian saith, they offered Sacrifices for them, whom he acknowledgeth to have received of the Lord Palms and Crowns; and in the Authour of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the party deceased is described by him to have departed this life replenished with Divine joy, as now not fearing any change to worse, being come unto the end of all his labours, and publickly pronounced to be a happy man, and admitted into the society of the Saints; and yet the Bishop prayes, that God would forgive him all his sins he had committed through humane infirmity, and bring him into the light and band of the living, into the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, into the place from whence pain, and sorrow, and sighing flyeth. And Saint Chrysostom shews that the funeral Ordinances of the Church were appointed to admonish the living, that the parties deceased were in a state of joy and not of grief; and therefore they sung at the Burial, Return my soul to thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. And this he proves likewise from the Ancient Liturgies, wherein prayers are made for all Saints, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and others. And S. Ambrose, after he had said, That Valentinian and Gratian were both blessed, and enjoyed the pleasures of everlasting life; and yet subjoyns his Orizons for them. Thus he prayes for Theodosius, of whom he had said, That he enjoyes everlasting light, and continual tranquillity: And so for his Brother Satyrus, when he had pronounced of him before, That he had entred into the Kingdom of Heaven. The same doth Gregory Nazianzen for his Brother Caesarius. Now, Is it possible you should think that Prayer for the Dead, as used in the the Ancient Church, doth necessarily inferr Purgatory; when they who made these Prayers, did suppose the persons they made them for, to be at rest, and in joy, and in the Kingdom of Heaven? And I hope that is a different state from that of Purgatory. Therefore you see, it is not barely proved, that some different accounts are given of Prayer for the Dead, but such as are exclusive of it, and those such as appear from the eldest times of the Church, when such Prayers were used. Now, having thus shewed, for whom these Prayers were made, he proceeds to shew, of what kinds they were, whereof, he saith,P. 204. some were Eucharistical for the blessed estate of the party deceased; others deprecatory, and petitory, that God would forgive him his sins, keep him from Hell, and place him in the Kingdom of Heaven: which, though at first well meant, were turned to an ill use afterwards, when these intercessions began once to be applied not only to the good, but evil livers also, unto whom by the first Institution they were never intended. And he at large proves by very many examples,P. 224. that the primary Intention of the Church in her supplications for the Dead, was, That the whole man (not the soul separated only) might receive publick remission of sins, and a solemn acquittal in the judgement of that great Day, and so obtain both a full escape from all the consequences of sin, and a perfect consummation of bliss and happiness. And of this nature he shews afterwards were the Prayers of the Church used in Epiphanius his time, which Aërius was condemned for rejecting of; and he plainly proves,P 265. that the Church of Rome comes nearer the Opinion of Aërius, than they would seem to do. For they agree with Aërius, in rejecting that kind of praying and offering for the Dead, which was used in the Church at that time; which was for such as were believed to be in bliss. For, since the Romanists say, That without the supposition of Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead would be unprofitable, and at that time the souls they prayed for, are supposed to be already in bliss; therefore they do as much condemn those Prayers for the Dead, which were then used, as Aërius did. And it is very strange, if the releasing of souls out of Purgatory, had been any ground then of praying for the Dead, that Epiphanius, among all his far-fetcht Reasons, should never assign that, which you think to be the only proper ground of such Prayers. Thus we see, what was the general Intention of the Church in those Prayers which were made for the Dead, and how far this was from inferring Purgatory.
But besides this,§. 7. there were several particular Opinions among the Ancient Fathers touching the place and condition of souls separated from their bodies:P. 229▪ and according to the several apprehensions which they had thereof, they made different interpretations and applications of the Vse of praying for the Dead; whose particular intentions and devotions in that kind, must of necessity therefore be distinguished from the general intention of the whole Church. Thus there were two Opinions much in vogue among many of the Fathers, viz. of souls being kept in secret receptacles till the day of resurrection, and the purging of them in the fire of conflagration at the day of judgement; of which Opinion were not only S. Augustin, but Origen, Lactantius, S. Hilary. S. Ambrose, and others. Now according to these Opinions they interpreted the Vse of praying for the Dead. And thence S. Augustin saith,P. 207. That the oblations and alms usually offered in the Church for all the Dead that received Baptism, were thanksgivings for such as were very good, propitiations for such as were not very bad; but as for such as were very evil, although they were no helps of the Dead, yet were they some kind of consolations of the Living; but this was only a private exposition of the Churches meaning in her Prayers, because it is not to be found in the writings of the former Fathers; and, because it suiteth not well with the general practice of the Church, which it intendeth to interpret. For it is somewhat too harsh an interpretation, to imagine that one and the same act of praying, should be a petition for some, and for others only a thanksgiving. Some other private Opinions there were besides these, as that of Theophylact, That God did not alwaies cast grievous sinners into Hell, but that the Prayers of the Church might keep them from being cast into Hell;P. 241. another, That an augmentation of Glory might be procured for the Saints, and either a total deliverance, or a diminution of torment at least, obtained for the wicked;P. 243. to which S. Chrysostom and others incline. Besides, there were different Opinions concerning the benefit which the Dead received; by the Prayers of the Living. For the Authour of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyrs work's, Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret, Diodorus Tarsensis, P. 270.and S. Hierom, all conclude that there is no release to the expected for the sins of those who were dead. But others supposed, the Dead might receive profit by the Prayers of the Living, either for be remission of their sins, or the ceasing of their punishment; but they were not agreed as to the nature of the sins, which might be pardoned, or the manner of the benefit which they received, whether their punishment were only lessened, or at last extinguished. And Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, tells us, That though some held these things, yet the true sentence of the Church was, That none at all was freed from punishment. But, that still this was a Question in the Church, Whether the Dead received profit by the Prayers of the Living, that learned Authour more at large proves; but my design is only to give a very brief extract of his discourse, that you may from thence see, how far, by the Intention of the Church in praying for the Dead, you are from gathering the necessary belief of Purgatory.
And by this a full Answer is given to what you object concerning the practice of the Fathers, §. 8.to pray for the soul, and not the body; and that when we pray for them, P. 361.they receive ease, comfort, and refreshment by our Prayers, and that they obtain pardon, and mercy, and deliverance from pain for them, and that by the help of our Prayers they are brought to eternal rest and happiness. But all this falls short of your purpose, unless you can prove that any of them either believed or prayed that any such ease and refreshment were obtained by the Prayers of the Living before the day of Resurrection. That they prayed, That God would have mercy upon them in that day, we deny not, which implies ease, comfort, refreshment, pardon, deliverance from pain, and eternal happiness; but then all this referrs not to any purgatory-pains, which they had undergone before, but those eternal pains which their sins deserved, if God should deal in justice with them. We grant then, that supplications and intercessions were used in the Church for the Dead, but we say, They did respect by the intention of the Church the day of judgement, and Gods final justification of them by his sentence at that day. For the Scriptures (as my Lord Primate truly saith) every where do point out, that great day to us, as the day wherein mercy and forgiveness, rest and refreshing, joy and gladness, redemption and salvation, Answ. p. 227.rewards and Crowns, shall be bestowed upon all Gods Children, 2 Tim. 1.16.18. 1 Cor. 1.8. Act. 3.19. 2 Thes. 1.6, 7. Phil. 2.19. 1 Thes. 2.16. 1 Pet. 1.5. 1 Cor. 5.5. Ephes. 4.30. Luk. 21.28 2 Tim. 4.8. Luk. 14.14. From whence it is no improbable deduction, that even the souls of good men, do not enjoy their full and compleat felicity, till the great day: not that they either sleep or undergo any Purgatory pains; but that they are at rest from their labours, and in a blessed condition, but still waiting with a solicitous expectation for the glorious Coming of Christ, that they may then receive the reward prepared for them before the beginning of the world. But, Whether those souls be in Heaven (as it notes a place, and not a state) whether the degrees of their happiness be proportionable (till the great day) to the degrees of grace, which they had when they left the world, are Questions of more curiosity, than necessity to be resolved. But, as long as the Scripture doth insist so much on the proceedings of the great day, both as to rewards and punishments, we do not condemn the practice of the Ancient Church in those prayers which did thus respect the day of Resurrection. If any of the Fathers had any particular Opinions concerning the state of the Dead, and of the benefit which came to them by the Prayers of the Living; we are no more concerned to defend them, than you are to defend those whom you acknowledge to hold, that no souls did enjoy the beatifical vision before the day of judgement, against whom Bellarmin and others dispute at large. Since you therefore confess your selves that some of the greatest of the Fathers did for many ages hold erroneous Opinions crncerning the state of the Dead, With what reason can you press us with the Testimonies of those whom you refuse your selves? And since they had so many different Opinions concerning the state of souls, it seems strange that none of them (at least till S. Augustin's time) should hit upon such a state of Purgation, whereby they might be freed from pains before the day of judgement. And yet we find not one of them, which did so much as dream of that Purgatory which you call the upper Region of Hell; or of any punishment, which they who dyed in favour with God, should undergo between death and judgement, out of which they might be delivered by the Prayers of the Living. Many of them indeed supposed that souls were kept in secret receptacles; but they were far from asserting that they underwent at all any pains equal to the damned, much less that any souls were translated thence to glory upon the intercessions made for them; others supposed that the souls of all good men were at last to pass thorow the fire of conflagration at the day of judgement; others, that the souls of wicked men might either escape, or have their torments mitigated; but all this while your Purgatory was unthought of, and was not conceived till afterwards, through the ignorance and superstition of some, countenanced by pretended apparitions and visions of souls departed, till at last it grew to be one of the favourite-Opinions of the Roman Church. From whence it may easily appear, how very much you were deceived, when you would inferre, because Prayer for the Dead, as it is now used in the Roman Church, doth necessarily suppose Purgatory; therefore it must do so in the Ancient Church: for, although we should grant the same Prayers to be still used, yet since they are used for a quite different intent, that may be supposed by you, which was not at all supposed by them, nor could be inferred from what they did. And yet it is plain, that in some cases, you have changed the Prayers for the Saints, into Prayers to them: For, whereas in the old Gregorian Sacramentary, it was, Grant unto us O Lord, that this oblation may profit the soul of thy servant Leo;Answer to the Jesuit. p. 210. in the latter Books it is turned into this, Grant unto us O Lord, that by the intercession of thy servant Leo, this oblation may profit us. From whence you may see, that your Prayers are changed from what they were: For the Ancient Church prayed universally for all Saints and Martyrs; but you think it a disparagement to them to pray for them; and therefore from your kind of Prayers for the Dead, we may well say, that Purgatory is supposed; but we cannot possibly inferr it from those Prayers which were made for such, who, if any, were supposed in a state of Bliss and happiness.
§. 9.And that the intention of your Church is quite different from the Ancient, we now come more fully to make manifest; because none of them did believe that Doctrine of Purgatory, which you assert. But herein we must follow your footsteps, and consider the many authorities which you produce out of Bellarmin, and undertake to vindicate in behalf of Purgatory; to which I give this general Answer, That some Authours are counterfeit, and the places supposititious; of those that are true, some speak only of Commemoration of the Dead, and Oblations made for them; others respect the day of Resurrection, and the fire of Conflagration, others the purging of the wicked, others only of a purgation in this life; but none of them all speak of any Purgatory pains of those who dye in favour with God, which they undergo as the temporal punishment of sin, from whence they may be delivered by the Prayers of the Living; which is the only thing you should prove from them. And this I come to make appear by the examination of the particulars, as they occurr in order.
The first you begin with, is, Dionysius Areopagita; and, Is not he, say you,P. 361. an Authour of the first three hundred years? As 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, De Confirm. l. 2. c. 7.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, Dionys. Areop. de Eccles. Hier. cap. 7.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,De Coron. Milit. c. 3. De Monog. c. 10. 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. C. Marc. l. 4. c. 34.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, De anim… c. 35.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 foreign exactly,Iren. l. 5 cap. 25. 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,De An. c. 55. 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:§. 10. 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: 'tis 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: 'tis 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, Rigalt. observ. ad Cypr. p. 68.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.Albaspin. observ. l. 2. c. 12. 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;Hieron. ep. Fab. ad Ocean. 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.
§. 11.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. P. 363.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,De Purgat. l. 2 c. 1. 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.Biblioth. l. …. Annot. 170. 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, Sixtus Sen. Biblioth. l. 5. Annot. 171.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, Comment. in Isa. 66. ad sin.at que impiorum qui dixerunt in corde suo, non est Deus, credimus aeterna tormenta; sic peccatorum at que impiorum, & tamen Christianorum, quorum opera in igne probanda sunt at que 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, Cont. Pelag. l. 1.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 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;§. 12. P. 365.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.Comment. in Isa. 9. For he calls the Spirit of God working upon mens souls, that foreign, 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,Sixtus Sen. l. 5. Annot. 171. Estius in 1 Cor. 3. Nazian. orat. 39. 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 censuram que 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, Orat. 26.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. In Psal. 118.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;P. 367. 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,Biblioth. Cod. 233. 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, §. 13.who it seems hath his share of Purgatory in this life; for, you say,P. 368. 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 nothing new to our consideration. But at last we are come to a man who did in good earnest believe Purgatory, and was the first of any name in the Church who did so, and that is Gregory 1. But whosoever reads in his Dialogues the excellent arguments he builds it on, and confirms it with, will find as much reason to pitty his superstition and credulity, as to condemn his Doctrine. And after this time, his Lordship saith truly, Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffer'd to cool again; and in the after-ages more were frighted, then led by proof into the belief of it. And although amidst the variety of judgements among the Fathers concerning the state of the dead, not one of them affirmed your Doctrine of Purgatory, before Gregory 1; yet by all means you will needs have it to have been still owned as an Apostolical Tradition, and an Article of Faith. But I commend you, that knowing the weakness of the arguments brought from the Fathers and Scripture, you at last take Sanctuary in the Churches Definition;P. 372. on the account of which you say, We are as much bound to believe it as any other Article of Faith, yea as the Trinity or Incarnation it self. But this holds for none, but only those who so little understand the grounds of their Religion as to believe it on the account of your Churches Infallibility; which is so far from being any ground of Faith, that if we had nothing more certain then that, to establish our Faith upon, you would be so far from making men believe Purgatory on that account, that you would sooner make them question, whether there were either Heaven or Hell. But though your Church be so far from Infallibility that we have found her guilty of many Errours, yet the Word of God abideth for ever, which alone is the sure Foundation for our Faith to rest upon. And so I conclude with your own Prayer: I beseech God to give all men light to see this Truth, and Grace to assent unto it; to the end, that by living in the militant Church in the Vnity of Faith, we may come at last to meet in Glory in the triumphant Church of Heaven, which we may hope for by the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: To whom with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory world without end.
FINIS.
End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, The Grounds of Protestant Religion (1665)