Secondly, A Repentance or sorrow for sin, which is merely natural is counted sufficient. The Apostle to true Repentance requires Godly sorrow. 2 Cor. 7. 9, 10. but they, many of them, think it not requisite that it should be Godly, no not in respect of its original. That will serve, which is not from God, but from nature. Scotus a leader of one mighty Squadron of their School-Doctors determines, (s)That such a sorrow may be had by the power of nature, as will in congruity merit pardon of sin. And Adrian, Durandus with all the Nominals in a manner, take that to be his judgment, and are of the same persuasion themselves. The Franciscans maintained it (t)in the Council of Trent. Aquinas (u)whom the rest of their School Divines generally follow, was of that opinion too. And the chief of the Dominicans his modern followers (even those of them, who are loth their Angelical Doctor should appear to be so much a Pelagian) do hold; that such a sorrow as is merely from nature (without either habitual grace, or special assistance) is enough, to justify him, who through ignorance thinks it enough. So Canus and Soto in (x)Lopez, from whence Lopez infers(y), That in their account such remorse for sin, as requires special assistance, is not necessary to the justification of a sinner: but ⟨p. 136⟩that may suffice, which is had from the power of nature, though the ground of it be but outward disgrace. Thus if we will believe the Roman Doctors, Thomists or Scotists (the Jesuits who serve themselves of both as they see occasion, I need not mention; since of their concurrence herein there is no question): a sinner may be saved by such a sort of Repentance, as is not the gift of God; but the pure issue of corrupt nature.
Secondly, A Repentance or sorrow for sin, which is merely natural is counted sufficient. The Apostle to true Repentance requires Godly sorrow. 2 Cor. 7. 9, 10. but they, many of them, think it not requisite that it should be Godly, no not in respect of its original. That will serve, which is not from God, but from nature. Scotus a leader of one mighty Squadron of their School-Doctors determines, (s)That such a sorrow may be had by the power of nature, as will in congruity merit pardon of sin. And Adrian, Durandus with all the Nominals in a manner, take that to be his judgment, and are of the same perswasion themselves. The Franciscans maintained it (t)in the Council of Trent. Aquinas (u)whom the rest of their School Divines generally follow, was of that opinion too. And the chief of the Dominicans his modern followers (even those of them, who are loth their Angelical Doctor should appear to be so much a Pelagian) do hold; that such a sorrow as is merely from nature (without either habitual grace, or special assistance) is enough, to justifie him, who through ignorance thinks it enough. So Canus and Soto in (x)Lopez, from whence Lopez inferrs(y), That in their account such remorse for sin, as requires special assistance, is not necessary to the justification of a sinner: but ⟨p. 136⟩that may suffice, which is had from the power of nature, though the ground of it be but outward disgrace. Thus if we will believe the Romane Doctors, Thomists or Scotists (the Jesuites who serve themselves of both as they see occasion, I need not mention; since of their concurrence herein there is no question): a sinner may be saved by such a sort of Repentance, as is not the gift of God; but the pure issue of corrupt nature.
- (s)Expresse ipse (Scotus) in 4. dist. 14. q. 2. ait. quod ex puris naturalibus, cum communi influentia, potest esse attritio, quae sit meritum de congruo ad deletionem peccati mortalis—adeo pro constanti ubique habet, quod naturaliter possumus disponi de congruo ad justificationem: quam solam dispositionem ipse docet. Atqui Adrianus, Durandus, & ferme Nominales, & ita illum sentire indubie putant, & sentiunt ipsi. Soto. ibid. l. 2. c. 4. p. 68.
- (t)That a man by natural power only, may feel a sorrow for sin, which is a disposition, and merit of congruity to abolish it. Hist. of Counc. of Trent. l. 2. p. 198.
- (u)Ibid. & Soto. ibid. l. 1. c. 2. (Aquinas) opinionem commun•m insequutus affi• masset, tum quod homo ex naturalibus posset se disponere ad gratiam, tum quod dispositio illa esset meritum de congruo. p. 66.
- (x)Quaestio oritur, an cum attritione orta solum ex viribus naturae sim•l cum Sacramento in re, possit paenitens justificari. Et quidem quaestio est, quae nobis Thomistis facit negotium, propterea quod Scotus & Canus Clarissimi Thomistae, videntur hic affirmativam tenere. Cap. 8. p. 53.
- (y)p. 55.
