R

enxxK

,, .>;%¦

R

REMARKS

(V<

ON

MR. NEWMAN'S DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY.

BY A COUNTRY CLERGYMAN.

OXFORD,
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT.
1841.

19'tl

REMARKS, &c.
As by the publication of the second edition of the Tract
No. 90, Mr. Newman has made it plain that he does not
intend, either to modify, or more fully to state his sen
timents, but still to hold that the Articles directed at
the doctrines of the corrupt Church of Rome are to be
explained, not according to the sense in which their
framers would have interpreted them, nor according to
that in which the Church of England has ever explained
them, but rather in the sense which his private judgment
may lead him to affix to them ; I consider it my duty,
as well as that of every Catholic Christian, to oppose his
innovations as far as I can ; and holding fast the doctrine
that Scripture is of no private interpretation, to believe
the Church rather than an individual member of her.
And I shall direct my observations principally to his
sixth section, (ed. 2. page 23,) from two reasons : first,
because I trust to shew from that section, that in this
treatise he is going quite contrary to the general
opinions of the authors of the Tracts ; and, secondly,
because his propositions respecting purgatory are not
true in point of fact.
First, therefore, it will be denied by none, that the

authors of the Tracts for the Times have always pro
fessed a great respect for Catholicity ; have asserted
that the opinion of the Church is to be listened to with
the utmost attention ; and that her voice is to decide
on any doubtful or controverted point. Neither is this
attention to be paid merely to the primitive Church :
Christ has promised to be with the successors of the
Apostles even to the end of the world ; so that sentence
on doctrinal points may be pronounced at this hour with
as much authority as it has been at any assignable period
of Christianity. But this being granted, one conclusion
is necessarily drawn, viz. that whatever doctrine is held
by the Catholic Church at any one period, is the
Catholic doctrine ; the mere fact of its being held, shews
that it is so ; and no man is justified in teaching any
thing contrary to such doctrine. If any one say that the
decision of a general council is also requisite to make a
doctrine Catholic ; we reply, no : for at that rate there
were no Catholic doctrines before the council of Nice ;
which none can allow: the consent of the authorized
successors of the Apostles, acting independently, yet
agreeing in their conclusions, constitutes Catholicity;
and the decrees of councils are useful, not as in any
way constituting doctrine, but simply as stating what
the Church has already taught, and as supplying a
form by which to distinguish between Orthodoxy and
Schism. Of course, this authority of the Church is
bounded by Scripture ; that is to say, if at any period
there are two parties, — one, the larger, teaching doc-

trines contrary to Scripture, which are rejected by
the other and smaller body, — then the sentence
of this last-named body is Catholic, and the others
must be allowed to be in error. Now, at present, Mr.
Newman's position is this : — purgatory, in any sense
whatever, whether as meaning a now-existing local
place of torment, or as referred to that " ignis purga-
torius" which is to destroy the world ; or as applied to
fire, " vere et propie," bringing with it " poena sensus ;"
or to fire " metaphorice," merely causing " poena
damni ;" is and has been denied during three hundred
years, totally and without mental reservation of any
kind, by Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Calvinists. It has
been denied by the Church of England, whose opinion
has been expressed not so much by any formal decree, as
by the successive teaching of her ministers ; it has been
and is denied by the Greek Church, whose farthest
concession, even according to Romanists, never ex
tended beyond the " ignis metaphorice dictus" spoken
of at the council of Florence ; and whose clergy at
present deny, for the most part, this " vox et prseterea
nihil," extracted from the fears of their forefathers. In
short, all the branches of the Catholic Church through
out the world, under whatever discipline existing, have
either by positive decree, or by continual teaching, i
denied all purgatory — present, final, or metaphorical — |
for more than three hundred years. j
The Romish branch alone holds a doctrine on the
point which the author of No. 90 clearly rejects. So

that he stands alone, holding an opinion not allowed by
the orthodox branches of the Church, and which he
professes to be at variance with that of Romcs He
has abandoned Catholicity, and has betaken himself
to private judgment.
I now come to the second part of my subject, and
shall attempt to shew that his propositions respecting
the Romish doctrine of purgatory are not correct. For
the convenience of my readers I qiiote the Tract (p. 25) :
"1. As to the doctrine of the Romanists concerning
Purgatory. Now here there was a primitive doctrine,
whatever its merits, concerning the fire of judgment,
which is a possible or a probable opinion, and is not
condemned. That doctrine is this : that the conflagra
tion of the world, or the flames which attend the Judge,
will be an ordeal through which all men will pass ; that
great saints, such as St. Mary, will pass it unharmed;
that others will suffer loss ; but none will fail under it
who are built unon the right foundation. Here is one
[purgatorian doctrine] not 'Romish.'" "Not Romish;"
let us look to that. If my reader will take the trouble
to turn to Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Theol. Supp. pars iil.
qusest. Ixxxiv. art. viii. sect. 5. he will read thus.
"That fire of final conflagration (I omit, for the present,
'quantum ad hoc quod judicium prascedet') will act as
an instrumentof divine justice, and also with the natural
powers of fire. As far as its natural powers are con
cerned, it will act alike upon bad and good who shall be
found alive, by reducing the bodies of both to ashes."

7
(Same article, sect. 2.) " Sicut coi'pora malorum ita et
bonorum in cinerem resolventur, hoc enim est Christi
solius privilegium Ut caro ejus non videat corrup-
tionem." As far as it (the fire) shall act as an instru
ment of divine justice, it will act differently upon
different people, with regard to the feeling of pain-
For the bad will be tortured by the action of the fire ;
but the good, in whom "nil purgandum invenietur,"
will feel no pain at all from the flames, as neither did
the children in the fiery furnace. Though their bodies
will not be preserved entire, as were those of the
children ; but the divine power may enable them to
undergo the reduction of their bodies to ashes without
any feeling of pain. But the good, in whom "aliquid
purgandum reperietur," shall experience the sense of
pain from that fire, more or less, according to their
different degrees of merit. Such is the opinion of
Aquinas, exactly agreeing with that of Augustine ; and
such was part of the Romish doctrine in his age.
Again, we find St. Augustine (De Civ, Dei, xx. 25,
xxi. 24. 26. J deducing from Malachi jiuj... Matt, xii,
82. 1 Cor. iii. 15. the certainty of a final purgatorial
fire, and the possibility of the existence of an inter
mediate purgatory. Now at the council of Florence,
the Latin Bishops used these very passages, especially
that from 1 Cor. iii, to prove the existence of purgatory ;
and when the objection was brought, that these passages
only refer to a final purgatory, not to an intermediate
one; they, not in the least denying, but fully allov/ing

the doctrine which the Greeks professed, by a series of
logical subtleties, concluded that, since "ignis purga-
torius abstrahit a loco," if there be a final purgatory,
there may be and there is an intermediate one. Such is
the progress of error : St. Augustin, from his early edu
cation, was disposed to take the Platonic view of the
purification of souls by fire ; misinterpreting pur Saviour's
denunciation of sin against the Holy Ghost, (where
"neither in this world, nor in that to come," implies
punishment in both, as in the case of Ananias, but
affords not the least handle for the deduction, De Civ.
xxi. 24.) he imagined that some sins are remitted in
the world to come, most probably at the day of judg
ment; this by degrees was regarded as certain. Then
came the doctrine of a local purgatory : and while Tho
mas Aquinas could say, " probabiliter, et secundum quod
consonat magis Sanctorum dictis, et revelationi fact£e
multis, locus purgatorii est duplex ;" others amused them
selves with fancy sketches, and, like the geographers of
that day, mapped out purgatory as the others did the
M'orld, not from observation, but from the doubtful ac
counts of returned travellers, spiritual or corporeal. But
observe, the last step by no means excludes the others ;
and the "Romish doctrine is condemned, and it includes
the theory of a final as well as an intermediate pur
gatory. I again quote the Tract: "Another doctrine, pur-
gatorian, but not Romish, is that said to be maintained
by the Greeks at Florence, in which the cleansing,

9
though a punishment, was but a poena damni, not a
posna sensus ; not a positive sensible infliction, much
less the torments of fire, but the absence of God's
presence." "Not Romish?" Here are the very words
of a distinguished Romish writer : " Notandum duplicem
esse pa3nam purgatorii, sc. pcenam sensus et poenam
damni. Poena sensus est, dolor seu afflictio proveniens
ex aliquo objecto create : ut enim qui peccat avertit se
a summo bono, et convertit se inordinate ad creaturam ;
ita postea puniri debet, non solum carentia summi boni,
sed etiam afflictione inflicta ab aliquo objecto creato.
Poena damni 'est dolor seu tristitia proveniens ex carentia
fruitionis summi boni.' — Juxta quem sensum loquitur
S. Augustinus (Enchir. 102.) dicens, ' Perire a regno
Dei, exulare a civitate Dei, tam grandis est poena ut
nulla ei possent tormenta quae novimus comparari.' "
The reader will here see, that the Romanists, far from
denying the " poena damni," actually quote St. Augustin
to prove that it is worse than the " poena sensus." So
this is a Romish doctrine, and is condemned. But I will
quote a stronger passage still, for the author of No. 90
has spoken of the vagueness of the Florentine decree :
It is not a point of faith (non est de fide) that the
fire of purgatory is fire truly and properly so called,
(vere et proprie dictum ignem,) quia id nullihi dejinitum
est; Imo in Concil. Florent. Graeci aperte professi
fuerant, " se non ponere ignem in Purgatorio, et tamen
in definitione facta sess. ult. statuitur, Purgatorium esse,
nulla facta mentione ignis. Constans tamen est sen-

10
tentia Latinorum, purgatorium ignem esse verum et
corporeum ignem." Now this way of accounting for the
vagueness of the Florentine decree — used, observe, by a
stern Romanist — proves, that though the Latins might
opine that the fire of purgatory was corporeal, and
brought with it "poena sensus," yet they could not
hold this to be an essential part of the definition ; but,
on the contrary, knowing as they did the expressed
opinion of the Greeks, that purgatory is only "poena
damni," the very omission of any mention of fire makes
"poena damni" constitute the essence of purgatory,
leaving the fire a mere matter of opinion. So that the
doctrine, that purgatory is the deprivation of God's
presence, ("poena damni") is a Romish doctrine, and
reprobated by our Article.
(Tract 90, page 25.) " Another purgatory is that in
which the cleansing is but a progressive sanctification,
and has no pain at all." Can Mr. Newman shew any
authority for this very remarkable state, in which a man
gets rid of his sins without (since he feels no pain at all)
either repentance or contrition for them ?
(Tract, page 28.) "Let it be considered, then, whether
on the whole the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, be not
the doctrine, that the punishment of unrighteous Chris
tians is temporary, not eternal." It really is not worth
while to argue on this point, when the extract imme
diately preceding the remark of Mr. Newman refutes
him. Let him shew, if he can, one single writer who
has made an assertion so monstrous ; and let his readers

11
take this syllogism of Thomas Aquinas, (Supp. Sum.
Theol. qusest xcix. art. iv. sect. 3.) " Iniqui regnum
Dei non possidebunt ; sed aliqui Christiani sunt iniqui,
ergo aliqui Christiani non ad regnum pervenient ; et ita
perpetuo punientur."
I am not one who can call her who sitteth upon seven
hills " an erring sister; " but I do say, that in the midst
of her follies and abominations she never taught as doc
trine what her idol St. Augustin (De Civ. 20, 21.)
expressly writes against; and though blasphemous
traitors, such as those whom England breeds against
herself at Maynooth, may have urged their victims to
all wickedness by such arguments, yet they are not
sanctioned by Rome, nor against them can the Article
therefore be aimed.
I have thus briefly considered Mr. Newman's dis
cussion on purgatory, because it is a glaring instance of
his anxiety to introduce the lesser errors of Rome by
exposing the greater, and because it contains two abso
lutely incorrect assertions. And sure I am, that if those
members of the university who being resident have that
command of books which a country clergyman has not,
would but take the trouble, they might refute Tract
No. 90, not by authority, nor by bitterness, but by ar
gument ; and might shew that Mr. Newman's summaries
of what the Articles condemn are mere caricatures of
Romish doctrine ; while those doctrines which he calls
Catholic, and which he says are not condemned, are the
very ones which the Romish Church taught, and which

12
the Reformers condemned, partly as unscriptural, partly
as knowing to what they led. By this course, the verbal
fallacies of the Tract would be exposed, and the author
be obliged to appeal to the meaning of the. framers of
the Articles ; an appeal which, we suppose, would little
please him.

PRINTED AND TUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT, OXFOllD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 8719

- J; !>

£

lid