THough such be the beauty of reason, and such its soveraignty over humane nature, when rightly disposed, that no force of authority can be capable to wea­ken conclusions once demonstra­ted (for what can authority pre­sume unless reason pre-assures us of its veracity? or how can reason give it that testimony having a demonstration against it?) yet is it not lawful for me to treat the question I have now in hand; without first consulting the senti­ments of antiquity. I am endeb­ted [Page 2] to the unwise as well as the wise; and see them far more nu­merous who pin themselves upon authority; few being able to su­stain the esclat of discourse, evi­dently and rigorously connected. Besides, it well becomes the dig­nity of the Church in which I live, and is requisite for the satis­faction of those without her, to make it clear that our forefathers generally do not dissent for me in this controversie.

This then shall be my aime in the following Treatise: First, to illustrate the nature of Purgatory from the sacred Scriptures and monuments of holy Fathers; next, immoveably to establish it by Faith, or Principles evident in Na­ture; but before all, give me leave to summe up and state the whole controversie, as it is on both sides asserted. For the Church her self hath herein defined no­thing more, then that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are reliev'd by the pray­ers [Page 3] and suffrages of the faith­ful.

The Vulgar modern DivinesThe Ad­versaries explication of Purga­tory. embrace in a manner generally this position, That the deficiences of men are some mortal, and puni­shable with eternal misery, others venial and expiable by temporary sufferings. Mortal lapses, if re­pented they absolve from eternal, condemning them notwithstand­ing to time-limitted torments. So that suppose an imperfect Chri­stian departed, whose venial sins no satisfaction at all hath cancel­led, whose mortal an imperfect one hath diminished; these Doctors admit him not to the beatifical vi­sion, but provide for him a subter­raneous cave, fill'd with flames and horrid instruments of torture, which his there confined and impri­son'd soul must, till expiated, en­dure. And these pains they thus far suppose like to those we here experience, that they are inflicted by extrinsecal Agents, and against the will of the patient, conce [...]v­ing [Page 4] moreover that they take their proportion from the measure and nature of the crimes committed in the body, according to the e­stimate of Divine Justice. Nor can these torments by any indu­stry or force of the soul it self be evaded, though by our prayers, who survive, they may be miti­gated, and before the otherwise due and prefixed time determined. The same relief they fancy from the satisfaction or merits of the Saints, if by the Church to that intent apply'd.

Thus these later Divines; fromThe Au­thors Ex­plication of the same. whom in this discourse, I must for the most part, take leave to dissent. I acknowledg in humane faylings a difference betwixt mortal and ve­nial nor do I deny an imperfect re­mission of mortal impurities. But I place not this imperfection, in that the Sin is totally cancelled the pain only remaining, but in the change of an Absolute into a conditional affection, as it were instead of I will, substituting, I will not, bu [...] Oh [Page 5] that I lawfully might. This sinner therefore concludes that an eter­nal good is to be preferr'd before that which he abandons, and in his life and actions preferrs it; but looks notwithstanding back upon it, as amiable with a wishful glance; not unlike the Cowes which bear­ing the Ark did bellow to their Calves shut up at home. The affe­ction or inclination he had to tem­poral good is restrain'd, not extin­guish'd; of mortal become veni­al; changed, not destroy'd.

Being therefore by the operation of death, as it were new moulded and minted into a purely spiritual substance, he carries inseparably with him the matter of his torment in the like manner as he also doth who takes leave of the body with his affections only venially disorder­ed. Wehave no occasion here to em­ploy infernal Architects to invent strange racks and dungeons, since the innate, and intimately inhe­ring strife and fury of the affections te [...]t against reason, perform alone [Page 6] that execution; which is there­fore proportioned to the sins be­cause springing and resulting from them, nor ever otherwise possibly capable to [...]e [...]se and determine, unless the soul by a new conjun­ction with the body▪ become a­gain susceptible of contrary im­pressions. This in the resurre­ction is performed by a twofold o­peration of fire; one corporeal, which aptly disposes the matter of bo­dies for the ministry of Angels, and the reunion with their spirits; the other spiritual, to wit, the judgment of Christ, that is, the bodily and mental intuition of him, which transferrs the dispositi on of souls, from the distortion acqui­red by the commerce of the body, into that state which is the im­mediate aptitude for beatifical vi­sion. In this we conceive to con­sist the remission of pains, or (as the Scripture terms it) sins; for the procuring whereof in due time, we acknowledg the efficacy of the prayers of Saints, either [Page 7] such as are already glorifi'd, or such as daily press on towards that happiness. These, to my best ap­prehension, are the summary heads of both opinions. Now to the work it self.

IN the very front whereof I fixThe first Text from 2 Mach. two evident testimonies of the sacred Writ. The first from 2 Mach. 12. where the discourse is, that Judas Machabeus sent mony to Hierusalem to procure sacrifices for the sins of his Soldi­ers slain in battel; the holy Wri­ter testifying that he did this act, [Page 8] Well and religiously, thinking of the resurrection; for unless (saith he) he had hoped they should rise again, it would have seemed super­fluous and vain to pray for the dead. For vain the Greek Text hath [...], foolish or ridicu­lous. It appears that even then when this book was written, the errour of denying the resurrection had insinuated it self amongst the Jews, by the commixtion of Gen­tiles; so that the Writer was ob­lig'd to reprove it, by occasion of this signal action of Machabeus. His argument runs thus; 'Tis cer­tain (saith he) that Prayers can­not avail the dead unless there be a resurrection: But as by this illustrious Example of Machabe­us we learn, Prayers do avail them, Therefore there must be a resurrection.

We affirm that from this Text, it is easily convinc'd, that souls before the resurrection are not delivered from their Purgatory-sufferings or State. For if they are, [Page 9] our prayers working that haypy effect, it were great benefit and great wisdome to pray for them though there were never to be a­ny resurrection▪ Either the sa­cred Writer therefore is mistaken, or they who free such souls before the resurrection. Nor is their conjecture of any moment, who suppose it may be therefore said, unless he had hoped they should rise again, because the denyal of the resurrection would have at once destroy'd the beliefe of the im­mortality of the soul, at least as to the Jews; first, because 'tis known that the Heathens, by whose conversation the Jewish tenents were corrupted, did ma­ny of ▪them admit souls to be immortal, notwithstanding they deny'd the resurrection of bodies: and secondly, because this ex­plication is too frank and volun­tary, engaging a Writer with­out the least ground, against an opinion, which, whether it had at that time any assertors, is [Page 10] altogether unknown, and that at the peril of making a frivolous consequence, and the assuming a proposition in it self false. Nor doth it advantage them to alledg that the Sadduces (against whose Progenitors this disputation may be thought to be levell'd) deny'd spirits. The Stoicks did the like, yet at the same time they ac­knowledged the soul's superviven­cy and transanimation after the decay of the body. Clearly therefore, if souls may be exemp­ted from their suffering before the resurrection, this proposition, It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead unless there be a resurre­ction, is both false, and to no pur­pose alledged.

Let the New Instrument keepThe Second Text, 1 Cor. 15. exami­ned. time and harmony with the Old. Let S. Paul be heard preaching to the same effect. 1 Cor. 15. 29. What shall they do (saith he) who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again? to what end are they baptized for the dead? [Page 11] Some understood by baptizing, affliction or mortification of the body; others a certain ceremony of washing themselves for the dead: which way soever you take it, his discourse is the same with that of the Writer of the Macha­bees. Where that Writer affirms, it were superfluous to pray for the dead, the Apostle cryes out, What shall we do? what benefit shall they reap? how will they be de­jected seeing themselves depriv'd of the hopes of assisting their friends? What the one calls vain or foolish, the other phrases, To what end are they baptized? what do they mean? what do they aime at? nothing; they are fooles or mad men. It is therefore ap­parent that pious and wise per­sons used this custome (whatever it were) of baptizing themselves, whose action and example the A­postle commending it, urgeth as of sufficient authority again the Corinthians

Nor n [...]d w [...] further strain the [Page 12] nerves of this discourse, it being perfectly the same with the first Text; to wit, that it were folly to be baptiz'd for the dead, if they were not to rise again. No be­nefit therefore is obtain'd by such Baptisme before the resurrection, nor by so doing can the souls till then be released. So that from this argument it appears, that the solution offered to the first was of no consequence; for no man that I know alledges that the Doctor of the Gentiles dis­putes here against the Sadduces, with whom his arguments would not have any force at all. For neither would they regard the Example of those who baptized themselves in behalf of the dead, as being Pharises; neither would what the Apostle urgeth of Christ's resurrection, or his own predi­cation make any the least impres­sion in them. Let these two Texts therefore remain inviola­bled, as first not to be resisted without manifest violence, and [Page 13] secondly, as directly pointing at the very knot of the controversie. ‘That souls once engaged are not capable of that eminent good of being delivered from their pains, before the resurrecti­on.’

LEt us from the same Epistle toThe Third Text. 1 Cor. 5. the Corinthians 5. 5. adde a positive proof to two negative ones already alledged. I (saith the Apo­stle) have already judged to deliver [Page 14] such a one to Satan, for the destru­ction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord. He speaks of excommuni­cating a notorious fornicator, that he might be made penitent, and by repentance saved. But when? In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. His soul therefore was not to be saved till the last Judg­ment day. But why not his as well as any others? No soul there­fore imperfectly, and as it were compulsively repenting shall be saved till the day of Judg­ment.

Consonant and ally'd to this isThe Fourth Text, Heb. 10. that text, Heb. 10 27. Sinning voluntarily after knowledg receiv­ed of the truth; we have now no o­ther host or oblation left for sins, but a certain terrible expectation of judgment, in the interval of it, and rage of fire, when it shall come, which shall consume the adversa­ries; the Greek text hath it [...], ready or about to eate those who are partly [Page 15] opposite; not to consume, but feed upon or gnaw them; that is, to take off the depraved affections of such as dye with an imperfect repentance. He that denies this to be the Apostles meaning, let him side with Novatus in reje­cting lapsed penitents, or fancy an extrajudicial remission, con­trary to the Apostle's design.

In the third place I cite theThe Fift Text, 2 Tim. 1. 2 Tim. 1. 8. Where the Apostle thus prayes for Onisiphoris, Our Lord grant him to find mercy from our Lord in that day. An Here­tick may perhaps smile at the alle­gation of this text to justifie prayer for the dead, and pretend a great difference between praying for those who are living that they may be saved after their depar­ture, and praying for their salvati­on who are already departed. But I shall entreat him to reflect more advisedly on the expression. Was it not said, that he may find mercy in that day? Is not that day confessed to be the day of judg­ment? [Page 16] Let us consider Onisi­phorus now dead; will you affirm that he hath already found that mercy, which the Apostle prayes he may find in the day of judg­ment? Why do you hesitate? If now he hath receiv'd it, how shall he then find it? If he have not yet receiv'd it, the wish of the Apostle is not yet accomplished. It hangs therefore still in suspence, and if so may be reiterated, and if it may be reiterated, then must it be lawful to pray for the dead. For Prayer is ever seasonable till the effect be granted; and consequently pray­er for the dead is from hence also cleerly proved.

But methinks I see our mo­dern pretenders to Divinity full, and longing to be delivered of this objection, That if effectu­allyTon. 2. lib. 3. lect. 4. par. 11. & lect. 5. par. 8. & lect. 3. p. 15. 16, 17. this be so, we must pray for the Saints also, they being to obtain likewise a great ad­vantage by that day (as in our Sacred Institutions may appear) [Page 17] which notwithstanding any one may perceive to differ from the common practice of the whole Church. I am not of so weak a stomach as not to digest this morsel. What do you expect I should reply? That S. Paul presum'd Onisiphorus should not be happy before the last day, whereas himself desired to be immediately dissolved and dismis­sed to the enjoyments of Christ? I dare not. How then? Shall I say he prayed not that Onisiphorus might find mercy, even after his soul was beatify'd? The Text on all sides confess'd forbids me. What then? will our Adversaries say this was not to pray for the blessed? Common sense permits them not. S. Paul did it; An­tiquity did it.

Let S. James be our first wit­ness,Proof, of prayer for the blessed from anci­ent Litur­gies. in his Liturgy of the Hiero­solymitan Church. Be mindful (saith he) Lord God, of the spirits and all their bodies whem we have commemorated, [Page 18] or not commemorated, who were Orthodox, from the just Abel to this present day. Thou grant them there to rest, in the region of the living in thy Kingdome, in the delights of Paradice.

S. Basil's Liturgy. Be mind­ful also of all who have slept in the hope of a resurrection to life ever­lasting.

S. Chrysostom's Liturgy. For the memory and remission of their fins who were the founders of this habitation, worthy of eternal me­mory, and of all who have slept in thy Communion, in the hope of re­surrection and life eternal, our Orthodox Fathers and Brethren.

The Liturgy of S. Mark, that is, of Alexandria: Give rest O Lord our God to the souls of our Fathers and Brethren, who have slept in the faith of Christ, mind­ful of our Ancestors from the be­ginning of the world: Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops, Saints and just men; all the souls [Page 19] of those who departed in the faith of Christ. And moreover of those whose memory this day we cele­brate, and our holy Father Mark the Evangelist, who taught us the way of salvation. To the souls of all these give rest, our supr [...]me Lord and God, in the holy Taber­nacles, in the Kingdome, bestowing on them the good things thou hast promised, &c. And he concludes, To their souls I say grant rest, and admit them to the Kingdome of Heaven.

Lastly, The Romane, or Gregory the Great's Liturgy, from whom it seems at last to have received its full perfection. Remember also, O Lord, thy servants who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and now rest in the sleep of peace. To them, O Lord, and all that rest in Christ, we beseech thee grant a place of ease, and ligh [...], and peace. The sense is plain and ob­vious, that he prayes for all who were baptized and departed in the Communion of the Church.

[Page 20]I am not ignorant, that Litur­gies, from the bare considerati­on of antiquity, have not that force which other writings of the same Authors have, since as they are of publick use, so can we not almost doubt, but somethings in them might, by succeeding prelates of the same Churches, by additions or dimi­nutions be altered, as it were of course. But give me leave withal to observe, that this de­fect is more then supply'd by their being the publick instru­ments of Churches, the Do­ctrine, which in so many Litur­gies is delivered, being justly to be accounted as the constant tenet of all ages, unless so great an authority can from elsewhere be undermined. Let us then ar­gue thus. So many Patriarchal Churches, continually in their publick Liturgies, beseech God in general terms to give salvation to all the faithful departed, as­signing them a place of ease, [Page] light, and peace; and where none are excepted, all are included; and in our case eminent Saints particularly named, as it were by foresight and obviation to this objection. We cannot there­fore doubt but that prayer was anciently offered for the Bles­sed.

But let us consider more par­ticularly. The Hierosolymitan Church is by origine the chief, she beginning from the just Abel, cannot certainly be supposed to exclude any other; and Cyril, the heir of S. James in his fifth Catechesis, will assure us she did not. Next (saith he) for the holy Fathers and Bishops depar­ted, [...], and of all universally who are dead from amongst us. The Church of Alexandria was second to the Roman; she pray'd for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apo­stles, and Martyrs, and by name S. Mark. S. Chrysostome, or the Constantinopolitan Church [Page 14] prayed for the Builders of the said Church, whether by that ap­pellation intending the Apostle of Constantinople, or the Fabricators or endowers of the material Church; however we cannot rea­sonably doubt, but he esteemed them Saints and enjoying God; and himself commends this Litur­gy in many of his Homilies. The expressions of other Churches, speaking in common, may well, by the determinations of these, be understood literaily as they sonnd, and not with restriction to any particulars; as also Diony si­us Areopagita, Clemens Romanus, Greg. Nazianzene, &c. in whom those universal experssions are found.

But because the Roman Liturgy seemes to speak less clearly then the rest, let us examine her own best interpreters. S. Ambrose De ob. Valent. Prayes day andAnd Fa­thers. night for him and Gratian. He commends the souls of Theodosius and his brother to God, and begs [Page 15] rest for them; all whom notwith­standing he doubts not to be in Bliss, in the receptacles of eternal tranquillity, in the Tabernacles of Christ, in the supernal Hierusa­lem, in the company of Saints, in the Kingdome of our Lord Jesus. S. Hierom in like manner affirms Paulina to be gone from hence to her Lord, and to enjoy a sweet rest, for whose sake notwithstan­ding he commends the giving of almes. S. Gregory himself in his book of Sacraments, saith, We have received, O Lord, the divine mysteries, which as they avail thy Saints to the encrease of glory, so we beseech thee they may benefit us for the cure of our infirmities. The same may be likewise gather'd from the Areopagite, who tea­ches to pray for those who depar­ted so holily, that be affirmes them to be presented to the Priest as to the distributor of their crowns. The same from S Chry­sostome, who describes at one and the same time, weeping and alms­giving, [Page 24] rejoycing and triumphs for the dead; cleerly declaring it to descend from the Apostles Doctrine and command to offer sacrifices for the dead. It was therefore anciently lawful and customary to pray for the Saints; nor is it in our dayes less, the Church her self instructing thus to pray, Receive what we offer to the honour of thy Saints, that to them it may be an increase of glory, to us of safety. Nor is it infrequent amongst the more pious, when they name a Saint or Martyr, to adde, Whose glory God increase.

FRom what hath been said, a clear light seems to discover it self, though many hands la­bour to draw a dark curtain be­fore it, to the vindication, shall I say of the Fathers of the Church, or of the Church it self, from a foul imputation laidThe impor­tance of clearing Antiquity in this point. upon them or her. For I ponder with my self, that if so great a multitude of Saints be supposed to have erred in this one Article; [Page 26] we are almost at a loss how to excuse the Church from the same crime. These calumniators mu­ster up Fathers neither few in number nor those inconsiderable in value, nor of one Nation, nor of one age; and the nature of the Article is such that we may not well exclude it from its con­cernment in order to piety, or necessity in order to Faith. They affirm (not more unwarily then audaciously) ‘That most of the Ancient Fathers did promiscu­ously sequester from the face of God, the perfect with the im­perfect till the last day of judg­ment.’

I dare not take upon me to justifie them in all circumstances, but as to the substance I avow, that (setting S. Bernard aside, and John the 22. if you please to reckon him amongst the Fathers) not any one of them (for ought may be gather'd out of their writings) spoke even ambiguously in the case. 'Tis true many of [Page 27] them did deliberately deny the Saints to be in Heaven, which by inadvertency is become our vulgar phrase to signifie Beatitude. But S. Bernard reflecting on theHow S Ber­nard came to be decei­ved therein. difference, affirm'd them to be in Heaven, as to their substance, but not so as to enjoy the vision of the Deity. Whence it ap­pears that he light upon this sin­gularity, whilst he wholly ap­ply'd his speculation to the sub­til reach of the mistical speeches in the Apocalypse, not by the imi­tation of his predecessors, so that unawares he let go the Churches sense, retaining only her words.

We are to consider in the dayTwo effects of the Day of Judg­ment. of Judgment two retributions to be made good to all mankind; the degree of reward due to their merits, and the place design'd for their eternity. Who denies the first makes it no Judgment; for what kind of Judgment is that which hath no rewards or punish­ments attending it, but actually [Page 28] finds all beforehand done for which it was intended? The latter carries too much evidence to find an opposition, since we are speaking of men, and those who are never so little spiritualiz'd know that to be in place suites only with bodies. These two things then those holy Fathers maintain, and by their testimo­niesWhat the Fathers mean when they affirm­ed souls to be kept in certain re­ceptacles till the last Day. foreprize our exceptions. When we hear them say that Saints or their souls are detained in certain receptacles or store­houses till the day of Judgment; conceive them to mean that they have not yet received their ma­terial places of Beatitude, S. Bernard alone to opine that they are indeed already possessed of their proper and material places, but so that the humanity only of Christ is represented to them and made their object. For as we term that to be in darkness which is not in the light, and in a manner alwayes explicate pre­vationsby in compossible positives; [Page 29] so those Doctors phrased the not being locally in Heaven, by the being in other receptacles, ei­ther accommodating their expres­sions to the vulgar capacity, though conscious of the Priva­tion, or by the force of fancy be­ing themselves beguil'd into that unwary perswation.

This reflection alone beatsA particu­lar vindi­cation of most of them. back most of the calumnies darted at those Saints. For Ireneus, Justin, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Origen, Vistorinus, Prudentius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Are­thus, Oecumenius, pronounce no more then that the souls are de­tained out of Heaven, and ex­pect at the last day their remu­neration and future glory. Yea, most of them follow those ex­pressions with others, which at least permissively insinuate that they enjoy God as to their souls. So Ireneus explicating the com­pleat resurrection to be that of bo­dies. So Justin affirming them to [Page 30] enjoy Paradice with the sense of Intelligence, that is, those joyes of Paradice which pure Intelli­gences are capable of. So Ter­tullian allowing them rest and joy. So Origen, declaring them to be as it were in a Schoole or Auditory, that they may make judgment of the future, that it may sore-run, and mentally taste the joyes they are awayting; sav­ing moreover that they expect those which can receive no fur­ther encrease. So Victorinus, confessing them to be in a state of repose, free from pains and flames, where they attend in the last times, a perpetual, that is, not mutable or increasable reward. Prudentius's words may well sig­nifie Heaven, unless the use and acceptation of his Age otherwise determine them. The sentiments of S. S. Chrysostome and Augu­stine are elsewhere sufficiently cleared. Arethus saith, they have a certain conjecture, that is, pre­science, or pregustation of the future.

[Page 31]Having so great an evidence of the thoughts of most of them, we are not to doubt but that the rest, whose words are somewhat harsher, were yet of the same judgment. S. Ambrose speaks ambiguously when he saith that the soul after this life is still in sus­pence of the future Judgment; but I conceive him to speak inde­finitely, not intending that any one in particular remaines doubt­ful, whether she shall be happy or otherwise, but that all are not to be happy, but some happy, some miserable. The place is taken out of the 10. Chapter of his Book, De bono mortis, where treating more at large of this Doctrine, he seemes to explain this part of his opinion in this sort. Therefore whilst the plenitude of time is ex­pected (saith he) the souls waite their just remuneration, some shall have punishment, some glory. Besides what he had before af­firmed of the soul of Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius and his [Page 32] Brother gives ample satisfaction concerning his Judgment. To which you may adde if you please, out of his 59. Epistle, de obit [...] Acolij, he sees perpetual light without a Sun, now face to face. And in Com. Ep. ad Philip. Thinking it better to be present with God. And on 1 Cor. Ep. 13. The Saints going out of this world shall behold him as he is.

Theophilact's speech is likewise somewhat difficult, maintaining the Saints to have yet obtain­ed nothing of the celestial pro­mises. But S. Chrysostom's pie­ty (which he adheres to) relieves him, giving us occasion to understand by Celestial those promises which are to be ac­complished in Heaven, and which Oecumenius calls the term or period of goods. S. Chry­sostom himself declares that the souls unless the body rise again shall remain excluded from the Celestial Beatitude; that is, shall [Page 33] indeed have its happiness, but not that which makes or fol­lowes it's place in Heaven. So that at last it appears to have been not a famous Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church, but an infamous calumny against them, to impose upon them the denyal of the sight of God before the universal resurrection. S. Ber­nard alone neither having nor seeking an Example ventured to assert it; for as to John XXII. since his writings are not ex­tant, we cannot legally pas [...] sen­tence upon him.

NOtwithstanding all which, IWhy the rewards of the day of Judgment are so much inculcated. should think my pains well rewarded, if I could learn the reason, why the holy Doctors with so much earnestness have inculcated to us the rewards and punishments of the last judgment, since they well enough understood that pure souls might have an immediate fruition of God. The first Motive may be that the Bea­tifical First Rea­son. Vision is more perfect with the body resum'd, then without it; which S. Chrysostom exceed­ingly favours. Yet I am not convinced by it; first, because nothing of this reason appears [Page 25] amongst most of them, though the Thesis be common to them all; and secondly, because no proof thereof is brought by him, nor by S. Augustine himself, though he affirms it certain that the soul of man devested of the body, cannot so behold the in­commutable goodness as the An­gels do, and the said souls expect the redemption of their bodies, since in his Retractations he seems to acknowledg the obscurity of the Consequence. The reason we have given for it in our Theo­logical Institution is singular, and by few valued or comprehen­ded.

The next Motive may be, be­causeSecond▪ Reason▪ Corporeal goods, which are first attained by the Resurrection, are more esteemed by the genera­lity of Christians then spiritual, as being better understood by them. But this reason is too dis­advantageous to Christianity it self; for it being the designe of it's profession, and task of its Do­ctorin [Page 36] to take off the minds of men, from terrene goods and place them on celestial, 'tis alto­gether improper to permit corpo­real advantage, to be preach'd and inculcated more vehemently then spiritual; nor doth it stand with those encomiums of Beatitude, That eyes have not seen, eares not heard, &c. That the passions of this time are not condign to the fu­ture glory; that there is good measure heaped together, pres­sed down and overflowing, &c. Lastly, Because we are taught, that they compared to spiritual pleasures, principally to the Beatifical Vision, have the proportion of finite to infinite; so that it little imports the satisfaction and contentment of the person whether he hath then or not.

The third reason then mustThird and chief Rea­son. take place. That therefore the Retributions of the last day are so inculcated, because they are uni­versal, whereas the rewards which [Page 37] before that are given, are parti­cular, and as it were priviledges. I shall endeavour to explicate my self. Mankind or humane nature is not integrated by a few wise or extraordinarily re­ligious persons, but by the com­monalty and universality of Chri­stians. Them therefore God, and Christ in the predication and propagation of the Gospel, hath respect to. These things then in the bulk and body of Catholick faith are to be promi­sed which concern the genera­lity of Mankind. And truly whether we cast our eyes on the old or new Testament, we shall find our Faith founded andThe Resur­rection is the basis of all Faith. rooted in the resurrection. Let us examine the hopes of Job, the threats of Ecclesiastes, the menaces or promises of the Pro­phets, the comfort of Toby, and instructions given to his Son: Lastly, either the valour of the Machabees fight­ing, or their patient suffering, [Page 38] every where we meet with the Resurrection. Is the New stile dif­ferent? Do not all the exhortati­ons, parabies, promises, denuntia­tion of Christ our Lord sound forth the Resurrection? S. Paul cryes out that all Faith is at an end and frustrated, if you take away, the Resurrection. S. S. Peter, Jude, James and John repeat the same lesson. This is the Theam which both affrighted and allured all the world; this made the proudest necks to bow, and both already hath and shall subjugate all Nations to the obe­dience and Laws of Christ.

And now behold us on a sud­den revolved, I know not how,S. Pau's prayer for Onesipho­rus expli­cated. to the solution of the difficulty which begat this discourse; for by this clue we readily acquit our selves of all intricacy in the A­postles wish of mercy to Onesi­phorus, not simply in the next world, but expresly in the day of Judgment. For though the vertues of the person [Page 39] permitted him to hope no less then that his last breath would wafte him to the regious of Beatitude, yet he chose rather to express his affection in terms sit to expli­cate to all the Brethren and Faith­ful the common condition of re­tribution, least he might be thought to have entertain'd too good an opinion of Onesiphorus's well-doing. And that this was the form of prayer for the dead among the Jews, those that are conversant in their rights do te­stifie; and our selves have a man­ner of speech not much unlike, when challenging our due, we threaten to demand it at the day of Judgment, if it be not restor­ed.

And if I mistake not, ChristThe Sixt Text Mat. 5. our Lord gave us the hint, advi­sing us to agree with our adversa­ry The Seventh Text Luke 12. in the way, least he deliver us to the Judg, and the Judg to the Executioner; who shall with ri­gour exact the debt. You see then that both Matthew 5. 26. [Page 40] & Luke 12. 58. we are taught that we must smart for our offen­ces in the last day of Judgment, and then make satisfaction to those we have injured. Which passa­ges if they be urged will con­vince us, that there is a remission of sins, and that not without fire and torments in the day of judgment. Especially Catholicks, who not believing punishment due for eve­ry the least breach of neighbourly charity, are compell'd to admit an expiation of such lighter tres­passes in the day of Judgment, when the adversary will be to­gether with us, and Christ sitting the common Judg, to whom he may deliver us. These two Texts then conclude the same. But what stand I enumerating every particular Text? If the whole face of the Scripture, if the universal Assembly of Saints and holy Doctors, if the belief of all ages look upon the day of Judgment as the time of general reward, certainly unless we avow [Page 41] that the greatest part of Mankind is then admitted to Beatitude, the Majesty and utility of that grand day is annihilated, and the ostentation of those great promi­ses rendred inconsiderable in re­spect of what was conceived of it. From the main stock there­fore of Christian Faith springs the certainty of this truth, ‘That whoever are once in Purgatory, that is, the greatest portion of the faithful can never be posses­sed of the Kingdome prepared by the Father, till they have pre­sented themselves at the supreme and august Tribunal, that it may be fitly said to them all, what is to take effect in the greatest part of them.’

THe next Text which occurrsThe Eighth Text 1 Cor. 3. is so special an evidence, that I cannot omit it without the in­dignation of the Reader. It is found, 1 Cor. 3. 13, 14. &c. If any one (saith the Apostle) builds upon this foundation (Christ or his Doctrine planted by the Apostle in their hearts) gold, silver, preci­ous stones, wood, hay, stubble, every mans work shall be manifest, for the day of our Lord will de­clare it, because it shall be re­vealed in fire, and the work of e­very one, of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any ones work shall abide which he built thereon, [Page 43] he shall receive reward, if any ones work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Thus far the Apostle immediately bef [...]re which he had rebuked them for making comparisons among their preachers, to which also he' af­terwards returns. From whence some are conjectured that these speeches refer rather to the Do­ctrine of the Teachers, then works of the Auditors. But the contrary appears; first in that the Builder comes after the Apostle hath done his work, whom we may well suppose to have delivered to the faithful the whole and in­tire Law of Christ, as himself testifies, b [...]dding adieu to the Asian Churches, that he had withdrawn nothing, that was profitable from them. Secondly, what kind of tryal can there be of Doctrines by the day of our Lord, as the Latine Translation hath it, or that day, as the Greek reads, if the Article be [Page 44] taken emphatically, or simply D [...]ey, that is diuturnity or length of time, wherein the builder may receive reward or detriment? Thirdly, who shall be saved by suffering detriment? The Preacher or Hearer? There is no work in the Preacher by con­flagration whereof he may suffer detriment, and if the Hearer suffer it, then is he also the Builder, and not only he, but whoever destroyes the Temple of God within himself, him will God overthrow, that is, severe­ly punish. But to return. The Apostle proceeds to enumerate three sorts of good, that is perfect works, and as many which abide not the trial, and adds, that of which of these kinds every ones works are, it shall be made manifest. Why? Because the day of our Lord will declare it. How? By being revealed in fire, a fit examiner of the several alloyes. After this he goes on, If any ones work remain, he shall receive [Page 45] reward, that is, more good shall be added to him. But if any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss, that is, he shall be punished, and that which he seemes to have shall be taken from him. But because his foundation is solid, to wit, the lively faith of Christ in him, he shall be saved, but as a brand snatch'd flaming, and charred, from the fire.

This is the literal sense of that place, in which it is evident thatWhich must be under­stood of Ve­nial sins and of the day of Judg­ment. the discourse runs of Venial sins, it being plain that Mor tal ones cannot be built upon Christ, since by their very being in our souls they expel from thence life and Christ. The next thing we are to reflect on, is, that according to the inter­pretation we have given, the day of which the Apostle speaks, musts be the day of Judgment, which appears partly because the Latine Text hath the day of our Lord, which shewes there have [Page 46] been various lection in the Greek, though now all copies agree; but more rationally from the context it self. For if it be ex­plicated thus, Every ones works shall be apparent, because the day of tryal will be revealed in fire, a fit instrument of bringing them to the truth, the discourse pro­ceeds fair and smoothly. But if it be brought to this, Every ones work shall appear, for Day, that is, length of time will clear the truth, because the work shall be reveal'd in fire, and the fire shall try every ones work of what kind it is: the discourse is render­ed obscure, interrupted and with unnecessary repetition. Finally can the distribution of rewards and sufferings be more properly refer'd to any other day then the Day of Judgment? Or is salva­tion at least by fire given in any other?Though S. Augustine sometimes otherwise extounds.

I am not ignorant. S. Augu­stine, and that several times ex­plicates this passage of the tribu­lations [Page 47] of this world. But if I deceive not my self, from the literal, he falls to the moral sense, a thing not unusual to the Fa­thers. For if the Text be under­stood primarily of temporal affli­ctions, it is too obscure and allego­rical; first, to call tribulation, the day of our Lord is an unusual phrase, and though sometimes in the Prophets it may be so taken, yet that is only when the glory and majesty of God, and the de­claration of his Justice in reveng­ing wickedness is described. Next, this part of the Text, because it shall be revealed in fire, must be understood of the works them­selves, and so that which fol­lowes. And of what quality eve­ry ones work is, the fire shall try, becomes a meere tautology: and moreover there begins a new alle­gory of fire, without any parti­cle determining it. And again what signifies this, He shall receive reward? That is properly called the reward which is given in the [Page 48] end of the day, or accomplish­ment of the whole work, not in every part or moment thereof, as particular tribulations are to be accounted. In like manner, if any ones work burn, he shall suffer damage, what can it im­port? That the pleasures which inveigled his affections are now taken away? They were not his workes but the matter upon and about which he did work. A­gain, he shall suffer damage, must signifie, he will be troubled or sorrowful; but that the rather by impotency, to sin a new, and freshly, then to be amended. Lastly, He shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Shall regret and sorrow for the loss of things temporal save him? Or the loss it self by means of that sorrow? It must be then understood that this tri­bulation must conect and reform him, which though sometime it happens, yet not alwayes, or indeed for the most part, which nevertheless is requisite to make [Page 49] the truth of the Text apparent. Whosoever having throughly con­templated this passage, and find­ing the interpretations given it by others to be scarce reconcilea­ble with the Letter, whereas ours in every particular wonderfully agrees with it, shall notwithstand­ing profess himself unsatisfi'd in what we have offered, I shall be much surpriz'd if he ever find con­viction from any of the sacred writings.

My last Testimony shall beThe ninth Text Mat. 12. from S. Matth. 12▪ where Christ our Lord declares, that the sin against the holy Ghost shall neither be remitted in this world, nor in the next. Which S. Mark, in like manner expressing▪ saith, it shall not be remitted for ever. Holy Fathers gather from hence, not impertinently, that there is a remission of sins after this life, and some of our Moderns make use thereof to confirm the Do­ctrine of Purgatory, as it is vul­garly described. But in truth, [Page 50] therein they fail; for whatever venial stains the departed soul had contracted, those they absolutely declare to be by a perfect con­version to God, in the very first instant, cancelled. Purgatory therefore according to them doth not remit, but chastise sins; and consequently they have no right to alledg this place, since remis­sion of sins there is none accord­ing to them. But on the contra­ry, if the affections to sin re­main after death, and in the day of Judgment are rectifi'd, 'tis evident, there must be a remission of sins in the next world. And thus by the whole series of this discourse it is made appear, that no one text of holy writ is or can be urged for Purgatory, which by some circumstance or other, does not at the same time prove, that it is no otherwise a part of Christian belief, then as we have already explicated.

IT is now time to take the votes of antiquity, and observe whether the suffrages of the ho­ly Fathers are more numerous and propitious to our adversaries or us. And first, let us interro­gate those, who by application of holy Writ, rather then by their own proper motion or de­sign, declare this Purgation to be made in the day of Judgment. S. Basil, Ch. 15. on Esay, calls the baptisme of fire that probati­on which is made in the day of Judgment. S. Hierome, upon the third of Matthem, saith, In [Page 52] this world we are baptized with the spirit, in the future with fire; the Apostle also giv­ing testimony, that of what sort every ones works are, the fire shall try. Theodoret, Ephrem and Rufinus explicate the pro­phecy of Malachy, wherein Christ is said to purge the sons of Levi, of the last judgment. S. Augustine, lib. 20. c. 25. de Civit. Dei, conjoynes the place of Esay and Malachy, and applies them both to the same day; and lib. 16. c. 24. de Civ. Dei, he in like manner expli­cates the passage of the fifteenth of Genesis, of the smoaking fur­nace, and flashes of fire passing through the midst of the divided carcases to be the fire of the last day, which shall discriminate the carnal persons who are to be saved by fire, from the carnal ones to be damned in fire.

From hence we may thus argue. The Fathers interpret those places of holy Writ [Page 53] which speak clearly of the pur­gation of sins, and that by fire to be meant of the day of Judg­ment, therefore they teach that the purging of souls from their sins by fire, is performed in that day, and consequently that that is the Purgatory fire. Whoever then confesses and acknowledges the purgation of souls in the day of Judgment by the general con­flagration, defends Purgatory in the sense of the Holy Fathers, nor can any thing from their Testimo­nies be alledged for the cessation of, or exemption from Purgatory before that day, when they teach that souls are purged by fire.

And hence also are they easily silenc'd, who cry out that such like Testimonies are to be understood of some few remaining alive to the very last hour. For the main­tainers of Purgatory, waving those passages which speak so in gene­ral termes, will find it no small difficulty to make a Father or two speak out for them, [Page 54] and so the whole extrinsecal au­thority fit to maintain Purgatory will be lost, both the Scriptures themselves (as hath been shewn) being a verse to that conceit, and absolutely respecting the day of Judgment, and the holy Fathers refusing to own it. Besides most of the Patrons of this interme­dial fire conceive that all men shall be dead before the day of Judg­ment; so that the same flames may serve to expiate them with­out the help of those of the con­flagration and Judgment; and whatever is otherwise affirmed by them, clearly is not a conse­quence of their Doctrine, but an invention to elude the evidence of the Fathers. Let as there­fore dispel this mist also with the clear attestation of such of them as speak plainly and positively in the case.

St. Denys of Areopagus shall usher them in, who tells us that those Psalms were wont to be sung for the Dead which make mention of the Resurrection, as also such lessons as contain the promises thereof. And speaking of the secure estate of good men departing, he saith, they perfect­ly understand that all will go well with them in the life ever­lasting, through their total resur­rection. From whence it is evident that the hope which they gene­rally had for the dead, and which was therefore fit to be expressed [Page 56] in the Office for the dead, de­pended on the resurrection for its effect, and this in the very begin­ings of Christianity.

Origen is yet more clear in his third Homily on the 36. Psalm. As I conceive, saith he, we must all be brought to that fire (it went a little before which is prepared for sinners) though he be a Peter or a Paul, he must come to that fire; but such as they shall hear it said, though you pass through it, the flame shall not burn you. But when such a sinner as my self shall come to the fire as Peter and Paul did, he shall not pass through it as Peter and Paul did. In the end of the eighth book of his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans he saith, But he, who neglects to be purged by the word of God and Evangelical Doctrines, is reserv'd for sad and penal purifications, that the flames of Hell may cleanse him, whom the Apostolical Doctrine and Evangelical speeches could not. [Page 57] And in his thirteenth Divine Ho­mily upon Jeremy; But if any one be saved in the second resurrection, he is a sinner who needs the baptisme of fire, who by burning is purged, that the fire may consume whatever he had of wood, hay, or stubble.

I cannot but foresee that my adversaries will except against O­rigen, because he is thought to have exempted all men from eter­nal punishments. But their excep­tions are unjust. For what do they aime at? Because elsewhere he ex­ceeded the truth, must he be thought never to have defendedi [...]? Because in some one thing he de­parted from others, must he not be heard in those things wherein he agrees with others? If this be so, let him deserve no place or credit in antiquity, and let them likewise be deny'd any use or advantage by him.

But that Origen hath in this particular, the rest of the Fathers not only for his applauders but al­so followers, S. Ambrose is a [Page 58] sufficient witness, who in his com­ments of the Psalms is esteemed to have borrowed this sentence from Origen. Thou hast exa­mined us with fire, Saith David; we shall all therefore be examined with fire,—With fire therefore shall the sons of Levi be purged, with fire Ezckel, with fire Dani­el. Wo [...] be to me if my work burn, and I suffer loss of this my labour. Though our Lord save his servants, we shall indeed be saved through faith, but so as by fire; if we are not consumed, we shall at least be burnt. How some remain in the fire, others passe through it, the Divine Scripture tells us. And on the 118. Psalm. This Bap­tisme shall be after the consumma­tion of the world, the Angels being sent to segregate the good from the evil, when iniquity shall be burnt up by the furnace of fire, that the just may shine as the Sun in the Kingdome of God. All must be try'd by fire who desire to arrive at Paradice; all must pass through [Page 59] flames, whether it be John the E­vangelist whom our Lord so lov­ed, that he said of him to Peter, if I will have him remain, what is it to thee? follow thou [...]e. Of whose death some have doubted; of his passage through that fi [...] none can doubt; or whether it be Peter who received the keys of the King­dome of Heaven, he must say we have passed through fire.—He will be examined as Silver, I shall be examined as Lead, till my drosi [...] Lead be consumed, I shall burn.—He alone could not be sensible of, or subject to that fire who is the justice of God, Christ.

Let Tertullian bear Origen company, who in the last Chap­ter of his Book de Animà, expli­cates that Prison mentioned in the Gospel of some infernal re­ceptacle, and the last quadrant or farthing to be the punishment of every small offence, by the delay of the Resurrection. What can be said more fully to declare that [Page 60] no sin whatever can be remitted before the resurrection? The same hath S. Cyprian in his 32. Epistle, where speaking of sin­ners (in which number he compre­hends all except Martyrs) he pro­nounceth that they are to be a­mended with a long sufferance of griefs, to be a great while purged with fire, and in the day of Judg­ment, to expect anxiously the sen­tence of our Lord.

Lactantius (Constantine's Master) shall be next, who in his seventh book of Institutions, Chap. 21. saith, When God shall judg the just, even them shall he examine with fire; whose fins shall exceed in gravity and number, they shall be scorc [...]'d and fi [...]ged with the fire, but those whose ju­stice is perfect, and whose vertues throughly ripe and mature, shall not at all feel [...] it.

Let Hilary succeed Lactantius. On the 118. Psalm. How (saith he) can that Judgment be desireable in which we must encounter with that [Page 61] indefatigable fire, wherein those severe torments are to be undergone for the expiation of the souls guilt? A sword passed through the soul of blessed Mary that the cogitations of many hearts might be revealed. If then that Virgin, who was able to contain God himself descend to the severity of that Judgment, who dares covet to be judged by God?

St. Basil upon the 9^th Chapter of Esay. The Prophet declares that terrene things shall become fuel for that chastising fire, to the advantage and benefit of souls. For he threatens not ruine and total destruction, but rather infinuates a Purgation, according to that of the Apostle, If any ones work burn, he shall suffer damage, but him­self be saved, yet so as by fire. But nothing can be more clear then that place where he affirms, the same fire shall both pu­nish the guilty▪, and illumi­nate those who are designed [...]on [Page 62] eternal joyes. What else is this but that the just and unjust shall experience the same fire, which to the one shall afford comfort, to the other torments?

I shall not think much to joyn N [...]ssen with his Brother, who in this point stands somewhat in need of his brotherly assistance. For he discourses of Purgatory fire, without distinguishing the times of purgation. But whereas some Hereticks traduce him for an Ori­genist, they do therein, like them­selves, impudently; so great a personage ought not for a few obscure words be suspected of so great a madness. Let his re­lation to S. Basil afford him this fanctuary and protection, that without evident proofs, he be not branded with impiety.

S. Chrysostome, on the first Epistle to Timothy, saith, One si­phorus shall have his reward in that terrible and dreadful day when we shall stand in need of much mercy.

[Page 63] Gregory Nazianzen, in his Ser­mon on the Epiphany, speaking of the Novatians, who differed from the Catholicks only in ill custome tells them, that perhaps, if they retract it not, they shall be bapti­zed with the last Baptisme, which he affirms to be more sharp and la­sting, and to feed upon the matter as upon hay, consuming all the levity of wickedness. Nor is Ni­cetus to be heard, who interprets this passage of Hell, which is on­ly punishment, and not Purgation: As in like manner Oecumenius must excuse us who fancies the same in S. Basil, that he may draw him to countenance a certain singular opinion of S. Chrysostome.

S. Hierome, T. 3. upon Amos; The fire of the day of Judgment first d [...]vo [...]rs the Abysse, that is, all kind of sins, wood, hay, stub­ble; and afterwards eates also the part, that is, reaches the Saints, who are r [...]puted the part and pro­priety of our Lord.

S. Augustine, on the sixth [Page 64] Psalm: All that have not the foun­dation, which is Christ, are con­demned in the day of Judgment; but they are amended, that is, purg­ed, who build wood, hay, stubble upon this foundation. Again in the 16^th Book de Civit. Dei, cap. 24 alrea­dy cited, speaking of the furnace and fire passing though the divisi­ons spoken of in the 15^th of Gene­sis, he saith, At the setting of the S [...]n, that is, now at the very end, the day of Judgment is signifi'd by that fire which divides betwixt the car­nal people, who are by fire to be saved, and the carnal ones in fire to be damned. And elsewhere in the Psalms, and his Sermons, de Tempore, he repeats the same ex­plication. And that you may see he speaks not of those only who are just then to dye, on the sixth Psalm above ci [...]ed, he im­mediately addes; Make me such a one, O Lord, as that I may not need the fire to mend me; or the correcting fire.

[Page 65]And that you may further per­ceive he was herein constant to himself, Lib. 20. de Civi [...]. Dei, cap. 25. From what we have alledged, saith he, it se [...]es evi­dently to appear, that in that Judgment there will be certain purging punishments for some. And whereas lib. 21. c. 26. he seemes to doubt, whether such fire as consumes venial sins, may not be admitted betwixt the day of Death and the day of Judgment; that intrenches not upon the certitude of what he had already established, but rather begins a new Question, especially since he explicates himself, not of mate­rial fire, but of the fire of tribulation. His intentions may perhaps be more illustrated, if we adde the negative place, De Civit. Dei, l. 2. c. 24 As, saith he, in the resurrection of the dead, there will not want those, who, after the pains which the spirits of the dead suffer, shall find mercy, that they be not precipitatid into [Page 66] eternal For it would not have been with truth affirmed, that they should not be forgiven neither in this world nor the next, unless there were some, who, though they foun [...] it not here, should notwith­standing obtain remission hereaf­ter. And in the fifth Chapter of the sixth book against Julian; If no sin, saith he, were to be re­mitted in that last Judgment, I suppose our Lord would not have said of a certain sin, that it should neither be remitted in this world, nor the next. Finally, Confess. l. 9. c. 3. Grant him [Verecundus] in the resurrection of the just, a recompensation for the good Offi­ces he did us, since th [...] hast alrea­dy made him one of thy faithful. Nor is his 80^th Epistle to He­sichius to be omitted; In what condition every mans last day finds him, in the same shall worlds last day overtake him, for such as in that day he departs, such in the last day shall he be judged. What can more throughly discredit all [Page 67] pretence of intermedial change? Ru [...]inus, if he be the Author of that work on the Psalms which is ascribed to him, is to be explica­ted conformably, when he saith, By anger may be understood the trial by purging fire, in which they shall be chastised, who now build things unprofitable upon Christ their foundation; as mean­ing by that purging fire, the fire of the last day of Judgment, and so he confirms our opinion.

To him we will joyn Eucheri­us Lugdun [...]nsis, if the Homilies, which carry the name of Eusebius Emissenus, be his. They who have committed things worthy of temporal punishment (saith he) to whom belongs that speech of our Lord, that they shall not go free till they have paid the last far­thing, shall pass through a fiery River (according to that of the Prophet, a swift River ran before him) through horrid gulfs of flam­ing metal. And a good while after; The just shall pass through [Page 68] them, as through pleasant and re­freshing baths, the flames loosing their propriety, and their untouch­ed bodies shall be honour'd by the very Instruments of pain, because they were not burthened with sin. The description of the just passing through those flames with their bodies untouched, and the fiery River running before the face of Christ, give us sufficient light that the day of Judgment is here spoken of. Nor need it any way trouble us, that he saith, the slowness in passing through shall be proportionable to the matter of sin; for there may well in the compass of one day be diversity of torments, and of their dura­tion; besides, delay may, not improperly, signifie difficulty in passing.

NOr hath the hasty progress of this vulgar perswasion, concerning the cessation of pu­nishments before the day of Judg­ment, altogether Eclipsed the con­trary. For Venerable Bede himself doth not admit to Heaven those whom he supposeth to be freed; and Alcuinus is positively against it. Both S. Anselme and S. Tho­mas joyntly confess, that the purging and saving fire mentioned by the Apostle, may be under­stood of the fire of conflagration. And the most eminent among our Modernes confess this to have [Page 70] been the sence of antiquity; nor do themselves much labour to op­pose or discredit it. But nothing can be more clear then the Saxon Homilies (lately set forth in the By M. Whelock. 1644. Annotations upon Bede) which having been purposely compiled that they might be read through­out all the Churches in England, evidently declare the sence of the English Church, till the beginning of the Schooles. What shall I say of S. Gregory, who first brought into the Church the con­trary opinion, from certain sto­ries and relations of pious, but timorous persons? Not one word can be found in him of ad­mitting those, who were so pre­tended to be freed, to the Beati­fical Vision; but one, who had been excommunicated, is repor­ted to have received the Commu­nion, others to have quitted their painful prisons. And here it may well be noted, that our Moder­nists, who admit the fire spoken of by S. P [...]ul to be the fire of the [Page 71] last day cannot from that Text (though none more clearly assert Purgatory) draw the least advan­tage to the confirmation of theirs, but on the contrary meere confu­sion and darkness.

And now let us cast up the to­tal summe of this discourse, which consists of these three constant asseverations of the holy Fathers; first, that some souls already enjoy God; secondly, that none are yet locally in heaven (since to be in place requires a body) thirdly, that all the faithful expect the day of Judgment, that they may receive the reward of what they acted in their life-time, wherein all their works are to be try'd by fire, and those who were not perfectly ho­ly, to be purged and suffer detri­ment. From whence we may with the same constancy pro­nounce, that since those who dye in sin (provided their foundation be on Christ) are in the last day to suffer purging flames, there can be no other material ones after [Page 72] this li [...]e, but they. For if you substract those testimonies of the Fathers, which either expresly speak of the day of Judgment, or in such general terms, that it is evident they ought to be applyed to it, by consent, and in comply­ance with the rest, you must from them expect no authority at all for the establishing of▪ Purgato­ry.

To which we may adde, since all Christian belief or credulityNothing can be a part of our Beliefe but what is banded down to us by unin­terrupted tradition from the Apostles. is finally resolved into, and total­ly depends on Christ and his Apostles Doctrine, if any Tenet, concerning a subject not other­wise then by revelation discove­rable, appear not to have been, by un-interrupted succession, from them derived unto us, it is most evident that originally it was new, and in respect of Catholick Faith, can never cease to be new; and consequently may at all times be segregated from it, and can never lay claim to anti­quity, since the contrary was, [Page 73] and ever will be more ancient. But nothing is more apparent then that abstracting from Reve­lation, there remains no one ground in Christian practise or Faith, whereon to establish re­al flames, or fire interceding betwixt the hour of Death, and day of Judgment. If therefore that perswasion can be known to have been introduced after the Apostles dayes, it is and ever will be new, and inferiour to the other, which teaches that in the last day alone, those material flames are to act upon us.

But that this conceit was of aProofs th [...] the Adver­saries opi­nion came not to us in that man­ner. later date then the Apostles, S. Augustine to Dulcitius, quaest. 1. will assure us. 'Tis not incre­dible also, saith he, that some such thing may be after this life, and whether it may be so or not, may be examined, and either be disco­vered or continue hidden; to wit▪ that some of the faithful are, by a certain Purgatory fire, so much sooner or later saved, by how much [Page 74] more or less they set their affections upon transitory goods. Perceive you not that the Purgatory flames we are now discoursing of, and their nature were such as in S. Augustines time had not yet been search'd into, and the search such, as perhaps might admit of a discovery, perhaps not?

After S. Augustine, let S. Gre­gory himself be heard, a person beyond exception, and the Fa­ther of the opinion it self. In the fourth Chapter of his Dia­logues, he brings in Peter demand­ing, why in those latter dayes so many things come to light con­cerning the condition of souls, which were before unknown? and this question is started immediately after the story of Paschasius, freed from the Bathes; and his answer acknowledges and confirms the truth of the demand.

Venerable Bede shall be ourlib. 4. c. 22. third witness, whose history im­bued our Country with that opi­nion. He sufficiently declares [Page 75] that England embraced it upon the credit of a miracle wrought on a certain soldier, whose chains fell off, when Masse was said for him, as supposed dead. We may therefore conclude that this opini­on is to be accounted new, and no wayes comparable to the Do­ctrine of purgation of souls in the day of Judgment, which ex­tends it self to all Christian times and regions.

Lastly, the Councel of Florence it self shall give us Testimony. For as in other Articles then de­bated betwixt the Greeks and La­tines, the devision being made indifferent to either side, it re­mains confessedly safe and lawful for Catholicks to hold which they shall see good; so in this which was likewise discussed, because (the Latines having first pro­pounded it, and the Grecians ab­stractedly explicated theirs) the Canon was at last framed abstract­edly, the Greeks were permitted to retain their own, which in a [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 74] [...] [Page 75] [...] [Page 76] book, treating particularly of this subject, they thus declare. We from our Teachers have not received the Doctrine of Purga­tory fire, and punishment by tem­porary and ceasing flames, nor do we know that the Eastern Church hath any such perswasion. Which gave occasion to Fisher, that learned and holy Bishop of Ro­chester, to think they deny'd Purgatory, whereas they deny'd it only in the sense of the Schoole­men.

And now looking back upon what hath been deduced, a kind of unexpected miracle presents it self, to wit, That so many, and so familiar expressions of the Saints, hitherto lying open and subject to censure, and esteemed, as it were criminal, should on a sudden put on a new face, and come forth adorn'd with truth and candor. These three Propositi­ons I chiefly mention, That the Saints may lawfully be pray'd for; that they are yet detained in [Page 77] the Entry, or Porch, or Avenues of Heaven: That they are all to pass through the fire of the last Judgment, whereby themselves shall be approved, others suffer detriment, and finally be saved, yet so as by fire. All which from our grounds are convinc'd of ma­nifest truth, and with a grateful return give no less Testimony to our Doctrine, placing it under the protection of Christian disci­pline and defence, and with their impenetrable files, securing it from all hostile attaques.

HAving thus from the Ora­cles of Holy Scripture and Fathers laid the foundation of our Doctrine, we ought no longer to delay the Superstructure: But be at length permitted to have re­course to Reason, which presup­poses the basis of Faith; and that she may have less of disguise,The Ad­versaries suppose all venial sins to be re­mitted in the instant of dissolu­tion by an act of Con­trition. let us by our first exception in part devest her thereof. Those against whom we are at present armed, maintain that all venial affections whatsoever, which at the hour of death possesse the soul, are by contrition, in the very first mo­ment [Page 79] of its dissolution, cancelled and erased; yet that the soul her self is precipitated notwithstand­ing into Torments for her past offences. We on the other side,The Au­thors expli­cation. That parting from the bodie, she continnes in, and still pursues the same affections which in this life she had contracted, and that those very self▪ same affections be­come her torment till the last day of Judgment, when she is again enabled to retract them. Our first exception then against our Adversaries, is, that there can be no such pains, as they suppose, which thus we prove.

If there be any such, they mustSo taat t [...] punish [...] which re­main [...] be infli [...] purely [...] of revenge for past of­fences. be purely vindicative; But it be­comes not God to inflict torments upon departed souls, through the sole Motive of Revenge, There­fore there are no such torments in Purgatory as they fancy, due for the past offences of holy souls. The proof of the Major propo­sition is obvious, being our Ad­versaries own concession; for [Page 80] they expect neither merit nor o­ther advantage accrewing, either to the souls themselves, or any o­ther either single person, or com­munity from these pains, but purely a satisfaction to the Divine Justice; which that it can have any other notion then of Revenge they go not about to shew. Ac­cording therefore to their opini­on (as far as I am able to appre­hend it) these pains are purely Vindicative.

I come then to the proof ofOf Publick Revenge. the Minor, and observe that Re­venge is twofold, publick and pri­vate. In the publick, I observe the Magistrate to aym at the cut­ting off from the Common-wealth an evil member, disturbing the general peace thereof, whether it be by such chastisements as are apt to correct the sufferer, or by Death or Banishment, which ex­terminate his person; with this farther design, to prevent future evils in the Common-wealth, by deterring others, prone to the [Page] like excesses, by the sense of their suffering [...]. From both these con­siderations a Judg may fairly challenge all honest mens thanks for the penalties he inflicts.

I am not ignorant, that thereOf Retali­ation. is also a third ground of inflicting punishment, to wit, the satis­faction or comfort of him who received the injury, which seems chiefly to have had its place in the law of Retaliation. But here it cannot well pretend to be ad­mitted, since neither God can suffer evil, nor even man (if I mistake not my selfe) when ful­ly master of Reason, demand his injurers chastisement meerly up­on that account. For a rational man proposes some good to him­self in every action; but anothers mischief cannot be his good, un­less accidentally it chance to have some good annexed to it. Indeed in a passionate man, 'tis evident that the allay of his anger is such a good, and so to him, from anothers evil springs his good, but [Page 82] how a wise man, who regulates and governe [...] his anger by reason can esteeme his own condition better precisely because anothers is become worse, I cannot un­derstand. For the evil of another not being, in it self good, but on the contrary, against the na­ture of charity, and so, consider­ed in it self, bad even to him who was injur'd, it cannot be coveted, but through some ac­cidentally conjoyned good.

It may be answered, that the equality and just proportion inAn ebjecti­on answer­ed. the Commonwealth requires this amends. But it is soone repli'd, that whatsoever is so challeng'd proceeds from Commutative, not Vindicative justice; as when for a hurt or wound, a pecuni­ary mulct is leavy'd, the expen­ces of Chirurgery, loss of time and profit, perhaps the grief and the like, are considered. In di­minution of reputation, such submission is made, before the same or equivalent witnesses, as [Page 83] may restore the person injur'd to the same esteeme and integrity he had before the affront. These are the intercourses and com­merce of Commutative justice, nor do thy otherwise, then materi­ally imploy the Revengeful part of it.

If we look into particular Re­venges, their chiefe aime is, thatOf priu [...] ▪ revenge. their grief, that is passion and irrational appetite may be satis­fi'd, in the rest they differ not from the Publick; and this very difference renders them odious and impracticable to a wise man. I see no fruits of Revenge, besides those we have explicated, which may beget or nourish a desire thereof. For cleerly, other harmes, in themselves, as oppo­site to Charity, are to be abhor­red, unless they be corrected with some peculiar good to our­selves. But our good is, either present, or future, in the pre­vention of evil; Restitution cures o [...] present, caution our future▪ fo [...] [Page 84] these two reasons then alone may the dammage of others be justi­fiably sought.

To returne now to the limits from whence this discourse hathThe wis­dom of O [...]d cannot per­mit him to in [...]i [...] such pains as neither a­ [...]il the sufferer or any other. strayed. It being the practise of all Theology to transfer and ap­ply the notion of wisedome to the Divine attributes; and wisdome not permitting punishments to be inflicted, where nei [...]her restitu­tion nor Caution are concerned, neither of which utilities can take place in these of Purgatory, a [...] by them they are described; it re­maines apparent, that God ne­ver decreed such punishments; for they would violate the Lawes of Wisdome, since neither the soulos themselves can thereby be amen­ded, as having already cast off their ill affections, nor their suf­ferings availe others by way of caution, being neither authenti­cated by Faith, by Reason, nor the apprehension of our senses, deeply imprinting the stroaks of their objects. They must [Page] serve therefore only for pure re­venge, that is, for asswaging pas­sion, from which God is abso­lutely free.

You will perhaps say, that God,Another objection from Gods attribut [...] of justice. as he is stiled goodness it self, so no lesse necessarily is he to be ac­counted Justice it self. But Justice requires, that as no good without remuneration, so no e­vil should go without punish­ment. It is therefore necessary, since both sides agree, that a soul otherwise just, carries with it some evills unpunish'd out of this world, that there should be time and place elsewhere appoint­ed for its chastisement. Since then this reason alone is sufficient to evince a necessity of pains, they prudently may and ought, though upon the onely score of Revenge to be inflicted. To which I an­swer,answered▪ denying this proposition assumed in the argument to be universally true, That there is no good without remuneration, no evil without punishment, for [Page 86] neither the highest Charity which is in the Blessed, nor the high­est malice which is in the damned have their proportionable com­pensations; there being in the next world neither capacity to merit or demerit. Whence it is evident, that axiome takes place only in this life, the reward of which we expect in the future; and we grant, that the sins, which escape in this, are to be expiated in the other world, but by such punishments as naturally spring from the sins themselves, as de­lay of Beatitude till the day of Judgement, and the dissention and intestine warre of Appetites, which in our Theological Institu­tions are declared.

And it is to be noted, that this Vindicative Justice is not a thing simply and of it selfe desire­able, but in particular cases; and upon supposition of some precedent evill, and consequently that it is not such as is illimited, nor such whose object hath no [Page] end or bound, as those things w^th are expetible for themselves, but is terminated by some other vertue and therefore hath the object of that vertue for its extrinsecal end. It must therefore be subordinate to goodness or charity, and is no farther or otherwise to be exer­cised then as it conduceth to the good of the person on whom it falls, or some other. Its limits consequently are to be setch from the rules we have above layd down, of Restitution and Caution. Tis not therefore a sufficient mo­tive of punishing, to satisfie ju­stice; but its direction must be taken from a subalterne power, and in the first place care must be had, that goodness may remaine intire, and unless respect of good All punish­ments which have no respect to some good, are effects of cruelty no [...] justice. prescribe the punishment, that is, unlesse the punishment be profi­table, it becomes an exercise of cruelty not of justice.

The evidence hereof puts our adversaries to cast about for ano­ther means to enervate our argu­ment. [Page] They represent God injur'd A third ob­jection from the injury done to God by robbing him of his honour. by our sins; we have robbed him of an Extrinsecal good, his Honour; we must therefore make just a­mends, and since no restitution can be made out of our other goods, which are all his, we must lye by it, our carcasses must pay for it. Thus our angry opponents. We mustAnswer. stop their carreer, and first, questi­on that proposition which affirms God hath suffered injury by us. For how? did he suffer it willingly or against his will? If against his will, he was not omnipotent, who had a desire to hinder it, but could not. If willingly, it was no injury. Besides the Phylosopher denies ju­stice to have place betwixt God and Men, betwixt Master and Servant; but where no justice is, there can be no injustice. But of this more in our Tom. 1. lib. 1. lect. 5 Theological Institutions.

Let us consider the other part of the charge. We have deprived God of some measure of extrin­secal good or honour due to him. Let us, I say, examine attentive­ly [Page] what this means. Doth ourThe dimi­nution of Gods hon­our, what it signifies. adversary really think God en­joyes not now so much honour, as he would have done if Peter had not sinned? Or only that from Peter himself he receives not so much, though perhaps other­wise, or by some other means, he had as much, or more? If the latter, I cannot perceive any diminution on Gods part, since he hath thereby as much or more honour, then if Peter had not sinned. For the honour of God consists in this, that his work, that is, the universal fabrick, re­ceive its ultimate perfection: So that, if that become more im­prov'd by occasion of Peters sin▪ then otherwise it had been, more honour redounds to God from Peters sinning, then from his wel-doing, and this from Pe­ter himselfe. But if the uni­verse, by this sin of Peter, be sup­posed to become lesse perfect, it cannot be understood that God should do better in permitting [Page 90] then impeding his sin, the lawes of wisdome absolutely obliging him thereto▪

But if the intent of the pro­position be, that Peter, not sim­ply, but as much only as in him lay, did derogate from the Di­vine honour, then is there no ne­cessity of restitution, where, though there wanted not will, yet it took no effect. You will urge, that though in truth and rigour, Pe­ter took away no honour from God, yet did he not effectually pay that honour to God which was due, and consequently, by reserving it to himself, did in some sort deprive him of it. I answer,The true ground of well doing. that properly speaking, a sinner hath no other obligation then to live well, and that, because an evil life of its own nature, leads him to eternal misery; other ex­pressions are metaphorical. But to continue the metaphor howe­ver, if it were true that the de­fect of Gods honour occasioned by Peter, were supply'd and re­payr'd [Page 91] by some other, the argu­ment would carry some shadow of strength. But now that God from Peter himself, either by ex­emplar punishments in this world, or such as spring from the sin it self in the next, or by drawing Peter, by means of the said sin, to do for him greater things, hath made himself amends, it can no wayes be thought that Peter is still tyed to restitution of Gods ho­nour, or that God was injur'd by him, or can inflict any punish­ment on him, upon the accompt of loss of honour. It is therefore concluded to be unworthily and against all Theological evidence imposed on God, that he inflicts, or can by his wisdome▪ and good­ness be permitted to inflict pains purely vindicative, that is, such as our adversaries assert in their Purgatory.

OUr next consideration must be, whether pure spirits are truly capable of such pains, as they stand committed to Purga­tory there to undergo. For if they really be found incapable thereof, all this intermedial fire vanishes instantly into smoak. Let us therefore examine what pains sig­nifiesOf Pain, and Pu­nishment, and Tor­ment. to us here immers'd in our bodies, and we shall presently dis­cover that the notion of punish­ment differs herein from that of pain or torment, that it does not [Page 93] necessarily include griefe, as pain and torment do. For we proper­ly enough, account it punishment, if any one for his offence-be taken away by the hand of Justice, though sleeping or insensible of pain: But properly pain, at least according to the Latine accepta­tion of the word, imports some dolorous punishment inflicted on us against our wills, in which torment agrees with it, though it differ from both in regard of de­merit, or the hand of the infli­cter. For whatsoever griefe be­falls us against our wills, though it proceed not from our merit, or the infliction of another, but from nature or accident, is still a torment.

These are the native and genu­ine differences of the words, though they are oft by negligence confounded, as in this occasion we may perceive. For the nature of that pain which here we search af­ter hath no respect ▪to merit, but consists of these two notions, that [Page 94] it is dolorous, and inflicted from an external Agent, on a repug­ning and unwilling sufferer. And from torment it either differs not at all, or only in this; that it re­quires an extrinsecal Agent, whereas torment may take its rise from within us. Contemplating then this sort of pains, we find that by how much weaker and more obnoxious to griefe the minds of those that suffer them are, the higher and more vehe­ment they become. Not only History, but our own memory assures us, that some have expi­red in the defence of secrets com­mitted to them, without consent­ing to reveal them; others endu­red the Gout, the Stone, the twisting of the gutts, without a sigh. And Philosophy teaches us, that grief is heighten'd by thinking on it; the sharpest tor­ments, if there be constancy and manliness enough to employ the spirits upon other objects, either vanishing or decreasing. So that [Page 95] pain, that is, such an action as isNo extrin­secal A­gent can annoy us, but by our body. apt to produce griefe in us, no o­therwise obtains that effect, then by our unableness to busy and di­vert the spirits elsewhere. From the body then, and the course of its spirits, it is that an extrinsecal Agent gets power to annoy us. So that deliver but the soul from the body, and you have secur'd it from outward passion; and conse­quently the spirits of the departed, which are to be purged, are clearly exempt from all such pain as may be caused by any outward A­gent.

Again let us inform our selves even of these very men, who are the maintainers of this opinion, whether the Will can, by any vio­lence be drawn to consent? they perfectly disclaim it, firmly build­ing upon this fair ground, that, since the will of its own nature, is a will, or spontaneous inclina­tion, no act thereof can be butEvery act of will must needs be voluntary. voluntary. We subsume; But in pure spirits griefe or pain is an [Page 96] act of the Will, therefore all the suffering of abstract'd spirits is voluntary, and consequently not from without, seizing upon them against their wills, as they use to imagine.

Again, the pain of souls that are purged, is either rational, and flowing from the understanding, by connexion of discourse, cor­responding to our syllogistical in­ferences; or a pure affection of the Will, by some other means instil­led. If the first, it is genuine, and the same which we assert, there being a plenary knowledg in a separated soul, and its nature requiring, that it's motion follow the understanding. If you main­tain the second; first, you defend an impossibility, because the Will clearly includes the understanding, and volition, or an act of Will, an act of understanding, either formally, or at least by conse­quence. Secondly, the entity of the soul being one, that is inclu­ding in her self both the said pow­ers, [Page 97] it is manifest there cannot be in the soul an act of the Will, without a preceding act of the understanding, into which it is, as it were ingrafted, and without which it cannot be understood. We have therefore evidently pro­ved, that pains, extrinsecally in­flicted, and not as it were, spon­taneously springing from within, cannot reach spirits, devested of their bodies.

Our third exception against them is, that they affirm these purging pains to be inflicted by fire, and corporeal instruments, which is a fiction vain and alto­getherCorporeal Action, that is, Ra­refaction and Con­densation cannot reach indi­visible sub­jects. impossible. For all cor­poreal action requiring space, can by no means be exercised on an indivisible subject. Again, the quality of a Body extends not it self beyond its own subject, whence no corporeal action is per­formed without a sallying forth of parts, which touch and insi­nuate themselves into some other body, which how it can be in re­lation [Page 98] to spiritual substances, is above humane capacity. Further, the action of bodies is performed by division; and involves Rarefa­ction and Condensation, from which the very Patrons of the o­pinion we reject exempt and dis­chargeNo, not Instrumen­tally. pure spirits. Nor is it any thing to the purpose, to cry out that the corporeal action which they require is only instrumental; for all that endeavour to speak in­telligibly, make that to be the instrumental action, which is the principal action of the instrument abstracted from the principal A­gent, which being directed by the principal Agent, or by the ad­mixture of its action, changed, acts otherwise then naturally it would have done. So that there being no principal action of bo­dies upon spirits, neither can there be any instrumental one.

Nor need we fear least theyHow man is notwith­standing subject thereto. urge a [...]rity of the soul immu­red in the body. For Man be­ing truely one Entity, the soul [Page 99] cannot in this life, be actually di­vided from the body; for so man would become two Entities, or Hypostases. And if Man be but one Entity, he must be an Entity actually corporeal, and virtually only spiritual; so that there is no inconvenience in its being changed by a corporeal A­gent. And because the subject in which the change is wrought is virtually spiritual, it may be al­tered, as such, by the said change, because the whole is yet actually corporeal. When Man there­fore shall be resolved into Soul and Carcass, both parts shall be found such, as virtually they were in the pre-existing Man, after, and by the said immutation. Thus whilst the soul inhabits the body, it's immutation from cor­poreal Agents, is not a change wrought by a body on a substance actually spiritual, but actually corporeal, and virtually only spi­ritual; in which there is not the least shadow of inconvenience. [Page 100] But those who put the soul, whilest it is in the body, to be actually distinct from it, both render it an Assisting Form, and are alto­gether at a loss, to explicate how it is by the body changed.

IT is now time we should ask our Adversaries, to what end, or for what good, they suppose God should inflict such torments on these souls as neither avail them, nor are visible to us? Nay such as can have no effect upon [Page 101] them, since it is evident by the loss of the things that were dear to them, by the delay of their rewards, by the repentance of their past deviations, they really and naturally suffer whatsoever by the Metaphors of fire, gnashing That fire is taken Mo­taphorically as well as Darkness, gnashing of teeth, worm of Consci­ence, &c. of teeth, worm of Conscience, and darkness useth to be explicated to us; or to speak more properly, being in its self inexplicable, is in­sinuated to us by the severest pu­nishments we are acquainted with, that so raising our thoughts above them, we may endeavour to dis­cover things more sublime and subtile. For that darkness is a faint expression of the privation of the Beatifical Vision, it is superfluous to observe. That fire and burning describe Love and Grief, Poets and Chirurgeons can tell us; the one observing inflammation to be the companion of pain, the other calling Love a consuming flame and devouring fire. The worm of Conscience, and gnashing of teeth aptly betoken repentance, since [Page 102] we find in our selves that collision of our teeth, when we are asham­ed and confounded at the foulness of some unhandsom action; and the gnawing worm of the consci­ence, by the very phrase, repre­sents the dictates and instinct of natural piety. It being then ap­parent, from what hath been said in Peripat. Institutions Book 5. Lessons 3. & 4. our Philosophy, that all this, from the very nature of the thing must needs be verify'd in the souls that are purged, why presume we that fire alone is to be taken truly and literally, all the rest Metaphori­cally? And what can less be ex­cus'd, why should God, since all this may be perform'd conforma­bly to the order and government of Nature her self, superadd to natural causes other improper,That souls in Purga­tory would endure all their Tor­ments with ex­treme plea­sure. unnecessary and disproportion'd ones?

From whence a sudden and un­expected truth breaks forth, That all these pains are purely pleasures. For the souls to be purged, being on the one side, [Page 103] truly in Charity, and extremely thirsting after eternal Good, which they are certain to attain; and on the other side, clearly understand­ing that corporeal punishments are the only means to capacitate and adopt them to the fruition of that Beatitude, it is evident, They look upon these pains, as a man of invincible courage, highly inflam'd, and passionately ena­moured of some atchievement, would upon his adventurous acti­ons or sufferings in the pursuit; wherein reason and experience tells us, he would feele unspeakea­ble pleasure.

Our fifth charge takes its rise from a principle in Logick, though (if I well remember) deduced by the Philosopher in the fifth book of his Physicks. He admonishes us, that some things there are which will by no means suffer themselves to be compared each to other; to wit, such things as are rank'd under divers kinds, or predica­ments. For it is madness to say, [Page 104] a Horse runs as much as a Swan is white: or, Rome is as far di­stance from London as an Elephant is great. These are the compari­sons of fools. But I beseech you, can any corporeal thing so differ from another corporeal, as it doth from a spiritual? if then this be impossible, what rule of pro­portion can we invent betwixt burning and willing, that is, sin­ning? And yet upon this com­parisonThere can be no pro­portion be­twixt sin and fire. stands all the fabrick of their Doctrine; for, take away the proportion betwixt the acti­on of fire upon the soul, and it's assent to sin, and it is impossible that pains should be assigned to and compensate sins, and such a duration in flames correspond to so much heynousness in the offence. But on the contrary, if voluntary griefs be understood to be the pu­nishment of sin, they being the very effects thereof, they must also of necessity keep exactest proportion with it, the sins them­selves measuring out their own punishment.

[Page 105]From the same root shoots forth another objection; that, in spiritual acts, whether they concern Beatitude or Misery, there is no proportion to Time, soNor be­twixt time and a spiri­tual Act. as to make the pain which lasts longer to be greater, or that which ends sooner, less. These are the proprieties of things cor­poreal, whereas among spiritual substances, the whole difference of their duration consists in the necessity of their [...]eing or inexi­sting▪ For as, because spirits have no dimensions, their substan­ces cannot be compared to any quantitative bulk; as this Angel to a Perch, that to an A [...]re, the third to a mile, but the very low­est of them is more noble and e­minent then the whole mass of Quantity; so every act of a pure Spirit, reflected on it self, being of its own nature, out of the reach of time, is not subject thereto, but greater then the whole extension of time, as being to be estimated by the necessity of its inexistence, [Page 106] not by the succession of its own or any other's parts.

Nor is it unworthy our obser­vation,Length of time, aug­ments cor­poreal grief or pleasure, but hath no affect on pure spirits. that corporeal griefe or pleasure is therefore greater, the longer it continues, because it con­sists in motion; for motion is in­tegrated of parts, and the more parts there are which constitute it, the greater is the Whole. On the contrary; let us consider, if, to a thing, which coexists with a longer space of time, nothing be thereby added, or to that, whose duration is less, nothing diminish­ed, there can be no reason, why duration should affect that more sensible, this less; there being in them no plurality of parts, by which the excess of ones pain or pleasure above the others is mea­sured. So that whatsoever grief of a separated soul, is, by the quality and force of its essence, greater, the same, let its coexi­stence with time be what it will, must be more vehement, and that which is less, less intense; nothing [Page 107] being gain'd or lost by the perpe­tuity or interruption of the mo­tions of the Sun or other celestial bodies. And hence again it is apparent, that this opinion total­ly mistakes the propriety of spiri­tual nature.

From whence we may further infer, that the grief or any other act of a separated soul, is no less indefectible, then the state of it's separation; and consequently, that its pain beginning after death must continue till a new conjun­ctionNo act of a separated soul can be­changed without a new Con­junction with the body unless▪ miraculous [...] ­ly. with the body, if the ordi­nary bounds and progress of Na­ture be observed. For having no parts of succession or duration, of its own nature, it must either continue but one moment, that is, not at all, or ever. For, as Points in quantity, so instants in time, not being of the nature of the whole, but pure terms and negations, it is evident, that a spiritual act, to which the dura­tion of one only instant is assign­ed, hath no duration at all; but [Page 108] if an indivisible duration be as­signed it, equal to any part of time, the very supposition it self constitutes it of a superiour and more noble order, and exalts it above the reach of all or any time assignable. For, the comparison between them being to be made abstractedly from parts, what can be considered as common to them both, but meerly their necessity of existing? That is, that a spi­rit can have no causes of its de­fect, a body more or fewer, but alwayes some. So that we must confess every spirit whatsoever outvyes the most solid and dura­ble of bodies, since evidently in this necessity of existing, every spirit transcends all bodies, as in our Peripat. Inst. Book 5. l. 1. par. 2. & 3. Philosophy is demonstrated. But imagine that one indivisible act should out-last another, and this indivisibly, without addition of duration to duration, is it in­telligible in what this out lasting should consist, or how it can be any thing extrinsecal? It is then [Page 109] irresistibly true, that every dura­tion of such an Act of its own nature, is eviternal.

To conclude, experience tells us, that Resolutions or Determi­nationsEvery Act of a sepa­rated soul is made up­on full view of all cir­cumstances, and conse­quently in­alterable. made upon the full view of circumstances, are, of their own nature, immutable; for rea­son alone, or consideration can be the motive of change in Wills▪ and it was supposed no new rea­son could present it self. It hav­ing therefore been demonstrated Peripat. Just. book 5. Lesson. 2. 3, 4. in Philosophy, that spirits, se­gregated from the dreggs of matter, break forth into every act upon distinct knowledg & perfect consideration of all motives, it is also convinc'd, that their acts are, of their own nature, inalterable. Besides, we observe the cause of all changes to reside in things a­ctive, communicating and par­ticipating the same matter, and, with opposition one to the other, pertinaciously strugling to possess themselves of it and master it. Of which kinde of contention and [Page 110] rivalship, spirits, now infanchi­sed, being wholy void, nothing ap­pears which may destroy or alter their acts.

BUt because the Philosopher hath instructed us that for the utter eradication of any Er­rour, it is necessary we should retrive the causes of it, that is, whence, and by what steps the assertors were led into its snare, we must not desist our pursuit till [Page 111] we have obey'd his commands. In order whereunto, let us first reflect, that God, in the Govern­mentGod go­verns his World not as a Prince but as a perfect Ar­chitect. of humane things, may be considered either as a Monarch, with precepts and punishments ruling his people, or as an Arti­ficer or expert Engineer, so con­triving every part and movement of his machin, that of it self it may perform and attain the end for which he designed it. The first way, though one of the most eminent within our ken, yet by reason of the imperfection of the subject (the weakest of all intel­lectual substances) Man, whose providence is short-sighted, is al­so weak and imperfect. For Princes, amongst men ordain such rewards, both for well and ill deserves of the Common­wealth, as of their own nature, have no relation to the quality of merit or demerit, but are meerly connected with their Wills and commands, and which they are forced to execute with their own, [Page 112] that is, their ministers strength. And besides, commands of that nature suppose, in the subject, an ignorance of his Prince's rea­sons, and an acceptation of what is to be done or suffered by him, from the sole motive of his com­manders power.

The latter proclaims the incom­parable wisdome of that Architect, who could so artificially frame at once his work, that it should of it self, perform all operations without supplement, or future mi­nute alterations in any of its mem­bers or organs. His fabrick is in all respects compleat, rewards and punishments therein being not only conformable to, but also originiz'd from their merits; the precepts which are given, are directed to the promoting na­ture, and increase of science, and are accepted through a sight and knowledg of their causes and uti­lities.

Evident therefore it is, that, however the first way, which in­volves [Page 113] the truth in Allegory, may be more adopted to those under­standings, which being but mo­derately enamour'd of truth, bend not their whole strengths to obtain it; yet the latter is both necessary, and much more satisfactory to those, who rending the parabolical veyl, fix their contemplations on the naked discovery of the thing, as it is in it self. For they easily perceive, that God being the Author of Nature, which flows from him as from its proper cause, must contradict himself if he act any thing against it, and guide not every thing according to its own nature, especially men to Bea­titude. But it is clear, that vo­luntary assign [...]tion of punish­ment bearing no connexion with the fault, is not an action of Na­ture, but of our imperfect reason not sufficiently qualifi'd to govern and steer nature in its right course it is therefore no less▪ indubitable, that it mis▪becomes God, and ought not to be attributed to him.

[Page 114]You will object, that the sa­credAn Obje­ction from Examples in Scripture of punish­ments which have no con­nexion with the fact. stories overflow with Exam­ples of chastisements which have no coherence with the crimes for which they are inflicted, or at least grow not immediately out of them. That David's son dy'd, because he had made others blas­pheme the name of the Lord; That the Boys who scoffed at E­lizeus were torn in pieces by a Bear: That a Lyon destroy'd the disobedient Prophet, and aAnswer. thousand such like. I answer, in Tom. 2. lib. 2. lect. [...]. par. 2 3, 4, 5, 6. the Theological Institutions it is sufficiently declared, that there is then a necessity of a mi­racle, or work beyond the usual and connatural course of causes, when our good requires it should by us be thought, that the or­der of Nature is shaken and o­verpower'd When this happens in order to punishments, the con­natural Government of men ex­acts, that the usual connexion, which is found in the ordinary series of things betwixt the fault [Page 115] and penalty, should be omitted, least the Revenge which God in those cases intends to signalize, should seeme an effect of chance or Nature, not of the uncon­trouleable power of his Deity. But these Examples are not to be drawn to the condition of ordi­nary punishments which are usual and customary in the common or­der of things.

The same humane frailty, in point of discourse, leads our Ad­versaries into another incongrui­ty, which it will not be amiss here to take notice of. They affirm that God remits the guilt of sin, but not the pain. For, as they experience in themselves, when injur'd or exasperated, a certain [...]bullition or quick motion of spirits about the heart, which though at the same time they for­bear any violence, yet can they not allay; so do they perswade themselves that there is in God a certain aversion from a sinner, which though upon his repentance [Page 116] it ceaseth, yet do they conjecture, that an intention of punishing him may still remain. From whence they infer, that all the guilt of the soul is pardon'd be­fore it arrives at Purgatory, but the pain is there notwithstanding to be endured. But it seems they never consider, that the passion or impetuosity spoken of, is a cor­poreal motion, unworthy a wise man, much more unfit to be trans­ [...]'d or apply'd to God. For anger in God, signifies no more then an intention to punish. Whence necessarily it followes,The punish­ment of soul cannot out­l [...]st their guilt. that as much as is remitted of the fault, so much must be remitted of the punishment. Again, what can the sinner be guilty of, if not of sin? Of an Offence, say you, to God. But that, if Punishment ensue not thereon, whom doth it prejudice? The Man? He is concern'd only in the Pain. God against whom the offence is? But God can receive no prejudice. And in­deed [Page 117] in our common speech, we do not use to say sin deserves guilt, but punishment; so that the guilt of sin is the fault it self, and not a guilt or obnoxi­ousness to fault, but to punish­ment. Impossible therefore it is, that Pains, purely upon the account of sins already remitted, should be undergone in Purgato­ry.

Let them therefore consider, whether the passion, we experi­ence in our selves, be any thing else then a beginning or first mo­tion of the Heart to Revenge, that is, to annoy the Offender, that is, in a spiritual substance a will to punish. But though a will to punish be a different thing from an aversion to sin, yet is it subsequent thereto, and later then it, and consequent­ly, according to the nature of the thing, will first of the two cease. It is therefore against Nature, that the aversion should be taken away, and yet the will to [Page 118] punish remain, which is wholly grounded and originally depen­dent upon that aversion. Whence those Divines are grosly mista­ken, who affirm the effect, that is, the Will to punish ceasing, the Cause, that is, the aversion from the sinner is taken away; and de­ny that the cause, to wit, the a­version being taken away, the effect, to wit, the Will to punish, ceases. Finally, if need were▪ we could in our defence muster an army of Fathers, and appeal to the common sense and Judg­ment of Mankind. You willObjection from the dissimili­tude be­twixt a sin­ner and God. say perhaps, at least it cannot be deny'd, but that there is a previ­ous dissimilitude betwixt God and the sinner, antecedently to his Will of punishing him, and that there­in consists the point of offence. It is answered, no man explicatesAnswer. the nature of offence, by dissimili­tude, but by action, so that if the dissimilitude act not upon the of­fended party, it is no offence at all. And besides the dissimilitude [Page 119] it self is not so great, as that of irrational creatures, for though it disfigure, yet doth it not cancel the image of God within us. But all other things, besides Man, de­serve not the honour of being cal­led his image, but his foot-step. Last­ly, this aversion is the cause of his punishing, whence, without it, there can be no liableness to Pain in Man, no appetence thereof in God.

TO what we have here deliver­ed,Examples out of Scriptures of sins pu­nished after remission s [...]ereof. it may be objected, that nothing is more frequent in the sacred Scripture, then the account of punishments inflicted after the undoubted remission of the fault. We, his progeny, feel yet the effects of the sins of our first Fa­ther Adam, whom we no wayes doubt to reign with Christ, our saviour in Heaven. We read that the sins of M [...]ses and Aaron were punished with death, and yet at that same time, that God famili­arly [Page 121] conversed with them, after the offence. We read of the people sin, which God threatens to remember in the day of Re­venge, and yet in the mean while acknowledg his great benificence to them, and particularly his in­troduction of them into the Land of Promise.

Now Jeremiah tells us, chap. 2. that the translation of the Tribe of Judah was that day of revenge. Is not this, saith he, done unto thee, because thou didst forsake the Lord thy God at that time when he led thee by the way? And yet betwixt those two times how of­ten was God reconciled to them, especially in the dayes of Sa [...]uel, David and Solomon? Of the sin of David, we read, that his son should dye, and the sword never cease▪ in his house, yet are we confident of his being in favour with God, and the text assures us, that in the presence of Nathan his sin was transferred. What then can be more evident than [Page 122] that punishment remains due after the sin is cancell'd? So that it may well be concluded, that mortal sins, though remitted, still challenge their reward in Pur­gatory; and venial ones, unre­pented, are there, by those grudging flames, to be expiated.

I answer, Almost in all things which fall under our considera­tion,How sins are said to be remitted. we are forced to distinguish, in the same propositions, there be­ing predicated sometimes simply, sometimes secundum quid, or according to some one respect or notion. And so in our present case; treating of the remission of sins, we must acknowledg an absolute and a respective remissi­on; which I shall presently de­scend to explicate. If first I be permitted to admonish the read­der of a danger he may easily in­cur of being drawn into errour by the manner of our conceptions or apprehensions of things. For, experiencing in our selves that we then properly forgive an injury, [Page 123] when our exasp [...]rated minds re­turn from their commotion to an even and calme temper, we are apt to expect the same should happen in the remission of our sins in Gods part: Which not­withstanding is quite otherwise. For since there neither is, nor possibly can be any temporary or indeed any relation at all in God to his creatures; 'tis evident, that as well all relation, as all change, to which relation is sub­sequent, is on the creature's side▪ A sin therefore to be or to have been remitted, signifies nothing else then that the sinner himself is or was converted. From which animadversion we may easily se­cure our selves against the errour into which many are un [...]arily precipitated, beleeving that sint are indivisibly remitted; so that not by parts, and in process of time, but instantaneously, by a certain conversion of the Divine disposition from malevolent to benign, the said remission is effect­ed. [Page 124] But if we look upon this remission as made on the crea­tures side, then by how much, and, by what degrees the soul is perfected and corrected, as to the object of sin, by so much and by the self-same degrees will the re­mission of the sin be wrought.

And since we have alreadySimply and respective­ly. said, that the remission of sin is twofold, simple, and according to some respect; it followes evident­ly, that if sin be destroy'd, as to that wherein its essence consists, it is to be termed simply and per­fectly destroy'd. But if it be only destroy'd as to certain things which are accidental to the na­ture of the sin, we must say, that it is in some respects remitted, but simply remaines; and contrary­wise it may perhaps remain in some regards, though simply de­stroy'd;What sin prope [...]iy consists in sin essentially consists in an affection opposite to and in­compossible, or inconsistent with the love of God, or Charity; that is, in such a disposition towards [Page 125] a created good, as is apt to ren­der it the ultimate end of that man; so that during that affection he cannot have a will to relin­quish it, or esteem himselfe hap­py, if deprived of it for ever. All other affections towards the said good, are not properly sin; as for example, the habitual incli­nation to desire it for it self, and the conditional appetency by which we should be actually carri­ed towards it, unless it deprived us of our Beatitude; and whatever other way a thing may be said to be a sin.

Now it is evident, that this sin It's divisi­o [...] into in­ternal and external. is divided into the internal af­fection and external operation; both which are termed sin, but so, that, though the extern act more vulgarly, yet the intern, more properly, hath the nature of sin, that is, of evil; since its nature is formally rooted in the mind, and by participation only is communicated to the external action. And from hence again [Page 126] a new equivocation springs, which darkens the subject we have in hand, unless we steadily fix our eye on the several senses which overshadow one the other. We are then to enquire after the re­mission both of the internal and external sin, and that both simply and comparatively. It having there­fore been said already, that ac­cording to the well-ordere pro­vidence of God the punishments of sin signifie the evils which e­merge from them; and again, that the guilt of sin consists in man's obnoxiousness to those punishments, that is, evil con­sequences of the sin; it remains concluded, that a sin is then re­mitted, when the sinner is no longer liable to the evil fruits of his sin. But it is apparent, that upon every actual, internal, mor­tal sin, an eternal privation of the Beatifical Vision must of its own nature ensue, together with those griefs, which spring either from the loss or impotence [Page 127] of obtaining the affected false goods, or the consideration of the true ones neglected; and that in the obnoxiousness▪ thereto consists the essential guilt of mor­tal sin, o [...] of sin properly taken; whensoever therefore, by true repentance, the affections of the sinner are so changed, that, for the love of God and Beatitude he isInternal mortal sin when pro­perly re­mitted▪ ready to abandon the pleasures or profits which formerly he valued above all▪ it is evident, [...] is no lon­ger lyable to the griefs and evils springing from those affections▪ and consequently, his sin is sub­stantially, that is, simply, remit­ted.

Farther, it is manifest that everyInter [...] venial [...] when re­mitted. affection to a created Good, which, though weakly indeed, and so as not to overthrow the soul's fix'd and setled appetency of Beatitude▪ is yet carried towards it not pure­ly as toward [...] a means, but in some sort for its own sake, must need [...] cause in the soul a privation of the Beatifical Vision, and the griefs [Page 128] comitant therewith, till it be re­tracted, and consequently render the sinner obnoxious to th [...]se sufferings, but not eternally, be­cause the love of preference of Beatitude above all things is a cause inexisting in the soul, which in due circumstances is fit to rectifie that lesser inordinate affection. Which affection may either primarily and originally be thus conversant about its ob­ject, or be the remains of a pre­cedent mortal distemper. If the first, it is not to be esteemed remitted, if the second, the sin may be said to be simply remitted, but in some r [...]spect to remaine.Of the re­mission of external sin.

Of external sin the same may be affirmed; that through the well regulated providence of God, it is punished by the ill effect [...] o [...] consequences thereof, and by degrees remitted, in the same proportion as by little and little those ill effects cease to flow from it. And thus the sense of the holy Scriptures, as to this point [Page 129] is [...]lucidated, and the seeming contrariety opens it self into a faire distinction. For when God professes, that in whatsoever hour the sinner shall repent of his wickedness, in the self same he will remit and pardon him, it is spoken of the internal sin, and its proper punishments. For the Church acknowledges▪ that a perfect act of true contrition quits the scores of punishment as well as guilt; I mean, if it arrive at that degree, that, as demonstration chaseth away at once all doubt­fulness, and staggering incertitude, so the firmness of its resolutions cuts off all manner of tendency towards the formerly beloved ob­ject. Such seemes to have beene that noble one of holy St. Au­gustine, who after that sharpe and violent conflict of the Flesh against the Spirit, was suddenly translated into so perfect a quiet of mind, that from thence for­ward he felt no attempts upon the superiour part of his soul.

[Page 130]But if the resolution be not so strong and generous, but that new assaults of temptations shake it, and though they cannot over­throw, yet make the soul, as it were, to reel or stagger, as most commonly it happens; then is the sin simply remitted, but in part re­mains, and in this world it is pu­nished by evils following this de­bility of mind, either sins or con­flicts, or whatsoever other griefs proceeding from them; but in the future, by the fruit & offspring of those evils, till in the last Judgment day, that tepidness, and, as it were, rust, with which the soul by con­tagion of that sin was infected, be burnt off. From whence you easily see, that, in a perfect repen­tance God remembers no longer the sin, but, in an imperfect one accommodates and adopts the pains to the state of the soul.

From what hath been declared,How chil­dren are punished for their parents sins. it likewise appeareth, how God revengeth the sins of parents, to wit, external ones, upon their po­sterity, [Page 131] and this sometimes intri [...] ­secally, when the children become themselves▪ wicked by example of their parents, but for the most part extrinsecally. Which la [...]erSometimes suddenly o [...] miracu­lously. punishments are threefold, first, immediate, as when the son of David was punished with death: secondly, as it were eternal, asSometimes to the [...] de [...] of their race or [...] ­tion. when, for the same sin, it was threatned that the sword should never depart from his house: and likewise for the adoration of the golden calfe, that they should be punished in the day of visitation. For these expressions import that those very sins should cause a total destruction of that people. Of which sort is likewise that pre­diction of Christ our Lord, that all the innocent blood, which had been spilt from the just Abel to his time should fall upon theBut most common [...] to the 3^d. and 4^th ge­neration▪ Jewes. The third degree is be­twixt these two, as a standing rule of the divine chastisements, to wit, to the fourth generation. All this is evident in the examples [Page 132] which we hinted at. For the punishments of Adam, Moses, Aaron, and David also in the death of his son, belong to that rank which we have called miracu­lous, in which it was requisite they should seem to proceed, not from the order of causes, but the especial judgment of God. But for the posterity of Adam, their pu­nishments whether internal or external, are Tom. 1. lib. 1. lect 4. clearly shewn in our Theology, to flow from the order of causes; where it is likewise evident, that that sin Tom. 2. lib. 3. lect. 10, p. 1. 2. &c. can never be remitted till the Resurrection and last Judgment. The crime of adoring the golden Calf be­came in like sort almost eternal, th [...] is, lasted till the extirpation of the whole people, Which E­zekiel testifies, Chap. 20. re­proaching the Jews, that from their departure out of Egypt, they persisted, by continual re­lapses, in the sins of their forefathers, who came from thence. Whence it may be seen [Page 133] that the stiffness of neck, which Moses so oft exprobrated and complained of, continued in that people, till their utter extermina­tion, and that (as Christ our Lord assures us) all the just blood spilt through the world was punished in that last generation.

The very same discovers it self in the sin of David, whose Love to Bersheba preferred Solomon be­fore the rest of his Children, to the succession of his Crown, which was the apparent cause of emulation between Absolom and Adonia [...], and of both their deaths, and of all the crimes of Absolom. From the same foun­tain, through Solomons disorders, sprung the schism of the ten tribes, and all the subsequent warrs, with the defection of the house of Is­rael from God, and the corrup­tion and wickedness of the house of Judah, and consequently all their mutual chastisements, and final overthrow; the sons still in­heriting the vices of their Pa­rents. [Page 134] Lastly, from the same principles it appears, why for the most part the sins of private per­sons cease in the third or fourth Generation; to wit, because their memory and imitation is, for the most part, lost; the respect of kindred growing weak, and the permixion of forreign blood, in the several Mothers, rarely suffering the great Grand-fathers blood to boyl with any notable vigour in the veins of his Great-grand­child.

From this explication, it is ea­silyWhat the punishment of▪ sin is. gathered, that, according to the natural series of Agents and Patients, the punishment of sin, whether external or internal, is nothing else but the increase and exaggeration of sins in those who are perverse, and the decrease and diminution of them in those who amend. For both the internal sin, in the wicked, is punished by greater sins, and their exter­nal punishments are the extension [...]nd propagation of the sin, into [Page 135] new subjects, or into more parts of the same subject, that is, en­creases it extensively or intensive­ly. And on the contrary, in those that are good, the strugglings and dolorous affections, which wrestle with the affection to sin, are their punishments, as to the internal; and their external ones are the dimintiuon of the dying sin weakly, derived into other subjects.

FRom hence we may observe another mistake of our Di­vines in their model Purgatory. For though they determine the sufferings there to be certain pains, inflicted by torments, yet when these pains cease, they neither require nor think of any pleasures, or at least good acts which may succeed them; parallelled to which kind of Philosophy neither the whole variety of Nature nor Grace, that I know of, affords one experiment. For, in vegetativ [...] [Page 137] nature, griefs are asswaged by a cer­tain congruous and self cherishing disposition of nature, and, in super­natural works, sin is not extingui­shed but by infusion of grace and affections opposite to sin. To assertNo grief can cease without the admission of some plea­sure. therefore certain pains which must be determin'd and asswaged by a pure cessations, and not by the en­trance and subinter mission of any contrary, wholly misbecomes a Philosopher, & is altogether repug­nant to the ground work of natu­ral action, which requires an opposi­tion of causes severally challenging to themselves the common subject.

Our eleventh exception takes notice of another absurdity. They affirm, that in the instant of death (whether in the body or out of the body I know not) by an act of contrition, all guiltA perf [...]ct act of con­trition dis­charges pu­nishment as well as guilt. whatsoever, which during the whole life had been contracted, is immediately wash'd off▪ I urge, since the efficacy of contrition is by both sides acknowledged to be such that it not only abolishes the crime, [Page 138] but equalizes, and consequently is, of its own nature, capable to extinguish also the punishment, and the act of contrition we now treat of, must needs be strong and perfect, why doth it not by its equivalence supersede all punish­ment? Certainly if it be made by the soul now discharged from the body, we cannot doubt but it must be of the highest degree, and much more intense and vehe­ment then any contrition, which here with ardency of affections were able even to set the very body on fire, as some pious Histo­ries relate to have happened. But if it be put to be made in the bo­dy, being endowed with so emi­nent a prerogative as not to leave uncancelled any one slight stain, upon what grounds, or how shall we deny it the power of dis­charging punishments also? But they will chuse to put this act of contrition to be made in the term of separation, where merit and satisfaction have no longer place, [Page 139] and the inevitable necessity of suf­fering only remains. And then I shall demand from whence they have learn'd that blemishes can there be rectifyed, where penal­ties cannot be mitigated?

Nor is there more strength ofThe souls i [...] Purgatory may as well merit for themselves as for others. reason in this, that the merits of the living may avail them, but their own not so. For could their proper merits be regarded, all Purgatory, according their own grounds were at an end; for the perfect charity and co [...]ition of separated souls, being exercised with the whole force of their sub­stance would in one moment set them free. Again, what Piety, what Justice hath enacted this Law, that the distressed souls may not pray for their own deli­very? Can any thing be more absurd? They make them such Favorites of God, that for us they can obtain many graces, whilst for themselves they can procure none. I remember to have heard a Divine (whom a printed course [Page 140] of all Divinity had already raised above the lowest form) prescri­bing this advice or receipt, that whosoever had lost any thing, should promise upon condition he receiv'd it, to procure so many Masses for departed souls, and failing of his hopes, should fail also in the performance, thereby to compel the souls to obtain of God the recovery of what had miscarried. O pitiful and sordid Divinity! such a train of absur­dities follow the admission even of one unexamin'd Principle.

To make up the compleat do­zen. Let us reflect on the a­buse of the name it-self, and observe, that, whilst they vain­ly labour to establish their own,There can be no Pur­gation where there is no coin­qui [...]ion. they destroy and annihitate all manner of Purgatory. For to purge, cleanse, and the like expres­sions, clearly import a suppositi­on of stain and blemish in what­soever is said to be purḡed and cleansed; and in like sort, to amend and rectifie presupposes faults and [Page 141] imperfections; if you then take away their stains, these imperfe­ctions, you take away all Pur­gatory. For certainly, to smart and suffer, is not to be purged, but finally to be condemned, or un­dergo the last sentence of Dam­nation. But the Patrons of this kind of Purgatory lay this for the very foundation of their doctrine, ‘That the imprisoned souls are al­ready holy and full of charity, and consequently incapable of being purged.’

Much better therefore, and more solidly then they, did the Poet philosophise in the sixth book of his Aeneids; who having after his manner, made a descripti­on of [...] the torments of the damned, thus proceeds to that of Purgatory, and its causes.

What could any Phylosopher meditate more sublime and no­ble? That corporeal affections by depraved habits, penetrate into, and infect the soul; that they are not by death extingui­sh'd, but carry'd along to the next world, whereby the souls are punished, and their punish­ments become truly Purgatory, or expiating; that their torments are proportionate and of several degrees, which degrees are taken from the division of Elements, that is, corporeal Agents, from whence the disordered affections themselves have their roots. The pursuers of Honour and Vanity are tormented by the wind, that is, their being puff'd up with Pride. Those who delighted to [Page 143] wallow in sordid pleasures, by the fluidness and momentariness of their fleeting enjoyments. Lastly, the Potent and ambitious affectors of Tyranny, with their own ardent and truly enflamed desires. That finally, after this state of Purgatory, they are made Denizons of Paradise: and those (speaking of the times he liv'd in) but few; the multitude, whose sins were mortal and irretractable, remaining engulf'd in eternal mi­series.

ANd I would to God the in­consequenceScripture and Fathers still incul­cate a Pur­gation, which the adversaries render im­possible by cancelling all sin at the instance of separati­on. of discourse, and defect of right ratiocination were the only inconvenience, and that their errour stretch'd not it self to the violation of sacred truths, and contradiction of the holy Scriptures. Machabeus offers sacrifice, that the dead may be absolved from their sins; Christ affirms, that in the world to come sins are remitted: The Apostle [Page 145] assures us that every ones works are to be try'd by fire, and some persons to suffer detriment; as though he should say, that some thing should by fire be taken off from the party, as dross from the pure mettal.

Nor do the expressions of Ho­ly Fathers, grounded on the Scripture, any wayes disagree. For whether they speak of Bap­tisme by fire, of purging flames, of fire correcting and amending, of passing through the flames of the last Judgment, which shall burn the sinner, spare the Saint, of a suspension in the day of Judg­ment, and a kind of uncertainty of the Judge's sentence, or whatsoever other expressions, heretofore mentioned, they make use of, from whence any thing can be ga­thered towards the explication of Purgatory, nothing can be drawn to establish pure pains; but the whole discourse runs constantly of sins, and of the purgations of sins, and depraved affections; [Page 146] so that nothing can be more clear, then that these later Di­vines change the style of the whole Church, a manifest token of their Novelty.

Let it therefore be acknow­ledg'd, that this vulgar conceit, as it is opposite to the sense of the Church, really and effectually abolishing Purgatory, and in lieu thereof presenting us a slaughter­house of barbarous executions; destroying the tender mercy of God, whose aim is alwayes the utmost good of every creature, and instead thereof offering us a barren apprehension of Pure Ju­stice, and unbenefical pains; so is it also dissonant, and in a man­ner perfectly repugnant to the phrase, both of the holy Scrip­ture▪ and of the Fathers expli­cating either it, or the sense and be­liefThe Greek Church had good reason to reject their expli­cation of Purgatory. of the Church. Which if they are the marks of the ancient faith and perswasion, then is this other new: And if proposed to the Greeks, under the notion [Page 147] of a Tradition, and not only of an opinion, they certainly had ground to object against the La­tines, that they endeavoured to superseminate tares▪ and bring into the Church new Tenents, and such as were recommended by no ancient Tradition.

The last, but not the least, of our exceptions against this vulgarNothing but wa [...] of Charity can debar separated soul from the Beatifical Vision▪ opinion shall be, their putting a­nother impediment to the Beati­fical Vision of souls freed from the body, besides the want of charity. For since the Church neither knows, nor holds forth any other way of attaining Bea­titude, but that great and Royal high-way of charity; since Christ our Lord, his Apostles, and all other Fathers preach no other Doctrine, to introduce any ob­stacle of Beatitude without their authority, were clearly to controul the discipline of all Christian in­stitution, and put a bold exception to their general Rule. Besides, true Theology assures us, that [Page 148] perfect charity is a disposition ne­cessitatingA position acknow­ledged by all true Divines. or determining Al­mighty God, to communicate himself to those that bring it; so that he can no more deny him­self to be the object of a soul in perfect charity, then forbear the concreation of a Rational soul when the Embrio is fully formed, or the infusion of existence, when the actions of inferiour causes requires it. But it is manifest, that those, who put the soul, in the first instant of its separation, to be endowed with the same e­minence of charity, which it hath or shall have when it is ad­mitted to the fruition of God, and yet notwithstanding, for some­time, debar it thereof, must needs suppose that disposition of soul not sufficient and adequate, but require something else, whereof neither the Scripture nor holy Fathers [...]ve us the least hint, who all unanimously acknowledg no other partition-wall betwixt God and us, but our Sins.

[Page 149]Finally the Florentine Coun­celAnd [...] ­ted by the Floren [...]i [...] Councel and Bene­dict 11^th. and Benedict the eleventh seem clearly enough to have con­demned this their Doctrine; ‘the latter determining, that the souls of the Faithful, which have nothing to be purged or ex­piated, do, immediately after their departure, and before the General Day, see the face of God: the former adding thereto, that the souls of such as dye pre­sently after Baptism, or such as after death are purged, are im­mediately received into Heaven.’ By both which expressions, this may indubitably be concluded to be meant, That nothing but what may be purged, that is, what stains and contaminates, that is sin, can deprive a soul from its admission to Heaven, and the full sight of God. Let us subsume▪ But, according to our Adversaries, all, who dye not in mortal sin, after the first moment in which they are said to be perfectly converted to God, [Page 150] have nothing now remaining to be expiated, but are already, af­ter death, cleansed: Therefore they are all immediately after the first moment received into Heaven. Is it not evident, that the determination of this Pope and Councel subverts their whole fabrick of Purgatory? For though they endeavour to equivo­cate, yet the proper and dogma­tical signification can be no other then that which we have given, and the secondary explication of purging, for enduring pains which do not cleanse the soul from any filth, is harsh and im­proper, and by themselves avoid­ed, when they come to explain themselves, though in familiar conversation, with those especi­ally who understand not the dif­ferent senses, they make use of it, that they may not seem to vary from the language of the Church and their Fore-Fathers.

FOr a conclusion at length of this part, I shall observe to the Reader, that this mistake of the school men proceeds from a higher principle: Their not ad­hering to a certain Doctrine deli­vered by Saint Thomas of Aquine, and by his school received.Spirits know not by discourse but by sim­ple appre­hension or intuition, in which there can be no errour. He teaches, that, in abstracted spirits, there is neither discourse nor any manner of composition, but purely a simple apprehension; so that errour and falsity can have no place in them. That holy Doctor understood that all these were originally in us, from the [Page 152] body, and therefore could not, in immaterial substances, be ex­pected. For we find, by experi­ence, that composition and discourse are begotten by the successive beatings of the memory on the Phantasie, which inter­course if once you bar, it is im­possible that indivisibles should be capable of succession. It is therefore certain, that pure spi­rits contemplate all things, as it were, with one sight or glance; and since, with them, all that relates to science is transacted by naked Definitions, which no wordish equivocation can ob­scure, it is evident, that falshood cannot reach them; there being no precipitation, where no de­lay is required. Nither the prin­ciples then nor their connexion can be concealed from them, nor consequently the truths depending on them.

[Page 153]This may perhaps become more intelligible, if we reflect, that the Soule, when first infused into the Body, is such, as the quality of the Matter it is united unto, exacts and determines it to be, because a natural action, that is, which doth not exceed the rank and limits of causes, cannot but act according to the existence of the subject, and do that whichThe thoughts and affecti­ons of the soul in this life, point out it's fu­ture un­changeable state, no less perfectly then the disposition of the Em­brio in the womb de­termines the feature▪ and com­plexion off the future▪ man▪ is conformable thereto and apt to be produced thereof. But Death also is a natural action; making that, which of a man, can be made, to wit, a spiritual substance, which we call a soul▪ And as the disposition of the Em­brio, or seminal concreation, delineats the future man, so that man to have had, in the course of his whole life, these and these thoughts and affections, designes and points out, by the impressions left the future condition of his Soul. So that death produceth such an Entity, as, from the man so disposed, is naturally producible; [Page 154] and the Entity, so made conti­nueth such, till it be, a [...] it were, new moulded, which is the worke of the Resurrection. For the spiritual being of the soul is what the whole course of map's life hath made it, and bears that re­spect to the antecedent life, which the being at Rome hath to the travelling to Rome, or the being in health hath to the cure▪ which was wrought by the Physician's hand. Whence it appears, that in the next world, there can be no more motion, since rest, and not motion, is the terme and pe­riod of motion: So that for the soul to know, to be joyful, or to be sad in the future world, is no­thing else but to remain in that act of knowledge, joy or sadness, into which, by the force of Death and dissolution, it was transla­ted.

And this is the very reason; why every resolution made is from thencesor [...]h immutable; because there are no instruments, no di­versity [Page 155] of parts, whereof some may act on others; no distincti­o [...] matter and Agent, all which are requir'd to effect a mutation. But some may wonder how theWhy the soul cann [...] be dispos­sessed of her depraved affections▪ as well as from her erro [...]eous Judgments▪ in the st [...]e [...] of separa [...] ­on▪ soul can be disengaged from the false opinions with which she was here possessed, and not have power to devest herself of the affections depending on those er­roneous judgements? To whom we must answer, that this hap­pens not through any discourse, but by the precise stroak of death. For it being impossible to a spi­ritual nature, at one and the same time, to assent to two con­tradictories, seeing and compre­hending the contradiction, and nothing (as hath been said) be­ing able to escape the knowledge of a separated soul, it is evident, that truth must overcome fals [...]y, and since one of them only can take possession, truth must abide, and errour give place, and this through the very disposition of the soul it self, by Death. But [Page 156] the affections, on the other side, being not contrary to each other, nor of contrary objects may at the same time subsist in the soul, death framing its creature, ac­cording to the predisposition of the subject it works on. And yet alas! these divines, with whom this dispute engages us, choose rather to wander through all sorts of absurdities, then yeild to so imperious a truth.

First, they make the soul, in man,The Ad­versaries several mi­stakes in explicating the nature of the soul. to be an actual entity, which clear­ly renders it assistent, not infor­ment and constitutive of one only substance or thing. Then they assign it certain Powers, against all the dictates of Me­taphysicks. For Power being perfected by Act, how is it pos­sible that a pure act should ad­mit a Power, as it were, for it's Act? If that Power be intel­lective, the soul being actually intelligible, she her self will be the first Act of her Power, an­tecedently to Intellection. So [Page 157] that to understand, will immedi­ately be the first act of the sub­stance of the soul, and not of her intellectual Power. Thirdly, they make this intellectual Power active on it self, ‘against the first and most known Principles in Nature, which conclude that the same indivisible Entity can­not at once be actually and po­tentially.’ But others labour to avade these inconveniencies, by a distinction of Entities, more unfortunately pretending to cor­rect, then the others had [...]rred. For either they stock the right notion of Entity, concluding se­veral beings or entities, under one existence, whereas an Entity imports that which hath an exi­stence; or they multiply several solid substances, each whereof have their proper existences, in the same individual Entity. No wonder then if they are found guilty of profaning Divinity, who commit so many outrages on Phi­losophy.

IT now remains we conveniently solve the objections which may be brought against us. From the holy Scriptures nothing is presented, as to this point of the controversie, whether some are freed sooner, some latter; and whatsoever is alledged to other purposes, as for the proof of pains, or fire, or satisfaction to the Divine Justice▪ I conceive it will easily meet with it's solution from what hath been said here­tofore. For if Worms, darkness, and gnashing of teeth are taken [Page 159] metaphorically, why not fire alsoWhen the Scriptures speak of fire they ar [...] either to be understood metaphori­cally, or of the fire of conflagrati­on. as well as they? Besides, they will be put to it, to shew that that fire cannot be meant of the fire of conflagration or last Judg­ment. In like manner, in what relates to the satisfaction of the Divine Justice, we must consider whether it may not as well be made good at the Resurrection, as at any other time. Which cautions being premis'd, I pre­sume little trouble will arise from Scripture-proofs.

Amongst the Fathers, they citeA passage of S. Aug. cleared. S. Augustine de Civitate Dei, lib. 21▪ cap. 24. speaking of those adult, who have committed some lesser sins. Is is evident (saith he) that such being purged before the day of Judgment by temporal pains, which their spirits suffer, shall not be delivered to the punishments of eternal fire. He speaks (say they) of those who are departed this world, he expressy affirms, that their spirits suffer, and that they are purged before the day of [Page 160] Judgment, and lastly, that this is evident. But this evidence makes rather against our Adversaries. For, since, in the very next chap­ter but one, he affirms, that it may be true, and that he is not satisfi'd whether their spirits are purged both here and there, or only there; or here only, that they may not be purged there; it is manifest, that his evidence falls only upon this, that their souls are somewhere purged, and not to be delivered over to eternal chastisements; and that for all the rest S. Augustin was uncertain, save only that in the day of Judgment at least they were to be purged, which assurance of his we have a­bove made good. The sense then of the place is this, That it is certain the souls of such as dye in lesser sins, being pur­ged by pains or repentance before the day of Judgment, are not from thence cast into the ever­lasting fire. The difference betwixt [Page 161] the two explications is this: I con­tend the Saint's meaning to be no other, then that such souls are purged by pains preceding the day of Judgment, and finished ei­ther before or in that very day; but the Adversaries will necessarily have the purgation ended before the day of Judgment. But the Au­thors incertitude thereof both in this book, as also in his book to Dulcitius, and in the 69 ^•• chap­ter of his Enchiridion, and his constant perswasion that sins are purged in the day of Judgment, compel the reception of our expli­cation, and convince any unby­ass'd Judgment.

After S. Augustine, they bringEucheri [...] Lugd. ex­plicated. forth Eucherius Lugdunensis, ‘who supposes that the delay of purgatory pains is greater or lesser according the quality of the sins.’ But he having there clearly spoken of that purging fire, through which the Just also pass, that is, of the fire of Conflagration, can make nothing at all against us, since the whole [Page 162] though never so long cannot ex­ceed that day. Besides, what hinders but that the word, Mora in Latine, which they render, de­lay, may as well be taken for the obstacle, difficulty, and labour of purgation, as for the length of time? The sense is nothing less perfect if it be rendred, that, by how much greater the sins are, by so much the more difficult, dolorous, and penal shall the purgation be.

In the next place are advancedGregory the Great, and Ve [...]. [...]edes Au­thority pon­dered; who advance no­thing herein as Doctors but me [...]rly as Histori­ans. those two Lights of their Age, the Great S. Gregory and Venera­ble Bede, followers of, or rather Leaders in this opinion; persons of such eminence, that their te­stimonies can no more be under­valued than deny'd, though Mel­chior Canus (one of the gravest writers amongst all those of the councel of Tren [...]) seems a little to wave their authorities. For, having premis'd in his 11^th Book De Lo [...]i [...] Theol. Chap. 6. that all things which great Authors [Page 163] have deliver'd, are not therefore presently in all respects perfect▪ he adds, They are great men indeed, but still they are men. Which I may, perhaps not unjustly pro­nounce of S. S. Bede and Gregory; the former whereof in his History of England, the latter in his Dia­logues, set down certain miracles vulgarly reported and credited, which the Criticks of our Age will believe to be uncertain. I presume he chiefly points at those stories wherein the Deacon Pas­chasi [...] and another, without name, are said, after their deaths, to have been condemned to the service of the Bathes; which so displeased their followers, that I do not remember any thing of the same nature ever afterwards to have been reported, unless it were in the beginning of the last Age, of a certain Nun, who professed her self to have, by her prayers, set▪ free certain souls de­parted, which were imprisoned in the Sands of the River Tagus: [Page 164] which fiction was both opposed in Spain, and d [...]rided in France.

The other stories which we meet within S. Gregory and Vene­rable Bede, I know not why he should conceive the Criticks of his Age would go about to dis­credit, unless he takes the de­scriptions he meets with in Bede for things actually done, not for Visions, that is, corporal repre­sentations of spiritual pains, or allegorical expressions of the in­tellectual state of those souls. My exception against their di­ctates is no other then this, That the obedience which is to be ren­dred to the same persons is diffe­rent, when they are considered as pious Historians, from that which is given them as holy Do­ctors. Historie cannot challenge the same Authority which is due to Theological conclusions. But these Saints do, of their own ac­cord, profess that they receive this Doctrine from Historical Nar­rations, and consequently it can [Page 165] have no stronger support then History can lend it They cannot therefore in this Question chal­lenge the name and Authority of Doctors and Fathers, but of Histo­rians only, whose credit depends upon their Authors. But from these Historians, (as far as can be con­jectured) the whole strength and continuance of this opinion is derived. For from that time forward reports and Visions of souls freed from Purgatory have multipli'd without end, especially since that Odilo Abbot of Clugny, a very famous per­son, did, through all his Mona­steries, by a special command of commemorating all the souls de­parted on the second day of No­vember, disperse far and near this opinion.

THe next thing which occurresThe diffe­rence be­twixt the Visions pre­tended by the Adver­s [...]ries and Prophetical ones. is, to examin what perswa­sive power is to be attributed to Visions. And immediately a vast discrepancy appears betwixt such Visions as these, and those which are Prophetical; in that Prophe­tical ones, simply and by their proper design, tend to the instru­ction of the people, that is, the Church. But these (as far as can be gather'd from their stories) seem only to be directed to the benefit of the distressed souls, which is not a publick, but private good▪ and so unknown, that the Revealer only is conscious to it. [Page 167] From which consideration I infer, that Prophetick Visions do not communicate any veneration at all to these, but, on the contrary, that these compared to them, loose much of their credit, by the disproportion; the end, for which generally they are suppo­sed to be, being ambiguou [...] and undiscoverable.

And really, if we aim never so little above the levell of sense, and demand why this soul amongst a thousand hath the favour allow'd it of appearing to the living, of begging their suffrages? Why it obtain'd it not immediately af­ter it's separation, but rather af­ter some dayes, months, and sometimes years? Why it should beg assistance from such certain persons and not from others? Why for a limited time, and not till they are absolutely free? Last­ly, why particular prayers and satisfactions are required? What can with any shadow of reason be answered?—All is to be [Page 168] refer [...]'d to the secret judgement of God, to his good pleasure, no wayes from reason deducible, and so finally resolved into obscuri­ty.

The second thing, which inThat the former are not attested by any mi­racles. these Visions may be observed, is, they are not armed with the pub­lick testimonials of Events and Miracles. For all that is pre­tended to be seen, being acted by invisible substances, no event can confirm the truth of the vision, nor is it proper any miracle should be wrought to that end: Nor for the most part is there any occasion of demanding them, or any custome in history of alledg­ing them. And the vision is, of its own nature, such, that it ad­mits no witnesser, but passes wholly within the soul of the seer, and consequently entirely depends on his veracity, who sometimes is a Peasant, sometimes a Women, or at best one little capable of judging what passeth with in our souls. And if at any time it be a [Page 169] man of great sanctity, or famous for that prudence which is esteem­ed in the world (although, to confess the truth, few such are pretended) what miracle is it that a prudent man should be once deceived? And for the pions man, it is so frequent, that no body wonders at it. To which we may add this reflection, that when such Novelties are once received by the itching ears of a multitude, they are magnified beyond measure; and the further they are carry'd, the greater they appear. Yea the very memory of the first deliverer is confounded with a multiplicity of interrogato­ries from such as are curious and inquisitive into things of that nature, so that he begins not well to know what it was that he saw, but to beleeve he saw truth; and when any circumstance less favourable thwarts it, he easily applies himselfe to rectifie some­thing, presuming he might in that particular be abused.

[Page 170]And the suspicion, which thisThat no Rules are giv [...] Div [...]s b [...]w [...] exa­mine them. sort of Revelations are obnoxi­ous to, is more justifiable, in that Divines cannot agree upon any Rules, by which false ones may be distinguished from true. Which shews, that neither they themselves, in whom they are wrought, have any clear tokens whereby to discern them, or if they have (as S. Augustin seems to believe of his Mother) that the discrimination is not explica­ble to another. So that, as we cannot doubt, but that private Revelations are communicated sometimes to Gods favorites▪ so we must no less avow, that the whole complex of them is subject to unspeakeable obscurities and ambiguities, and altogether in­sufficient to administer any firm ground of argumentation, to those, at least, who have not themselves received and experi­enc'd them.

[Page 171]And this exception becomes yetThe quality of the Per­sons that see the [...] ▪ less unjust, by the consideration of the quality of the Persons, who are for the most part Wo­men, sometimes simple men, ei­ther melancholy or dozed with as­siduous musing and solitary pen­siveness, sometimes by sickness indispos'd, or upon their death­beds, or recover'd from a Traunce. Each of these hath need enough of some artificial help to secure them from lapsing in point of prudence and wari­ness. And the more ancient theThat the Danger of errour is greater at first then afterwards▪ Revelations are pretended to be, the more necessary is this care and vigilance, all beginnings of such things being more suppos'd to mistakes, till experience by de­grees opens a window to the dis­covery and dispersion of the mists of errour.

But nothing so enervates andOf the force of Pantasy. invalidates this sort of proofs as the power of Phantasy, whose prodigious delusions, few, and those only who have experienc'd [Page 172] them, can perfectly avoid and detest. The power I say of that faculty is such that it compells us to believe divers things to be a­cted without us, which have no other stage then our own Brain. This our Dreams, and the extrava­gant delusions of feaverish and hypocondriacal persons sufficiently convince. I remember that ru­minating long since on an acci­dent, which at that time I was very sensible of, and casting, by chance my eye on a Beam in the House, the end thereof seem'd to me perfect to resem­ble a head cut off, insomuch that (though conscious of the illusion) I was forced to turn away my eyes, horrour seizing me as often as I fix't them up­on it. In the twilight of the evening, and not unfrequently in the day time, men or beasts appear to me at a distance, which drawing nearer, I find to be no­thing else but certain parts [Page 173] of trees, or stones, or other things, which striking, in a fit line, my eye, would perswade me that things were otherwise then in tuth they are, unless ex­perience did undeceive me. But all this is so notorious to every one, that no man of common sense will oppose it.

Farther therefore I affirm,The impres­sions whereof are often more lively then any which are caused by our senses▪ that these deluding apparences are oftentimes more lively and penetrating than the impressions themselves which are caus'd by our senses. When I was yet a child, and had the small pox, I imagin'd I saw little birds pick­ing up crums about my bed, so distinct and strongly, that to this very day their shapes and colours are fresh in my memory. A kins­woman of mine being ill of the same disease, and by order of the Doctors, having slit pigeons clap'd to her feet, had so rooted and deep an apprehension that she was shod, like horses, with iron [Page 174] showes, that, many dayes after her frenzy had totally left her, she did conjure me to tell her, truly whether it were so or not. I was present at another time, when a youth of fourteen years of age at least, waking out of his sleep, had so fixt an imagination of a boy in white garments stand­ing by him, that notwithstanding the light which I brought in, and the presence of several of his companions who lodg'd in the same chamber and all spoke to him, he continued to sweat and fear, unable, through the fright, to close his eyes again. The Philosopher saw the reason of these accidents, when he explicated to us why little noises appear great to us when we are in sleep; which very thing I have observed in my self, as likewise that the said noi­ses caused in me dreams. And it is from the difference of what happens to us waking. For our senses being then busied and entertain'd about may objects, [Page 175] every object striking them accor­dingThe reason thereof from the [...]iding in of some one object whilst all the rest, are by sleep, shut one of doors. to the proportion of its strength, and that only being per­ceptible which exceeds the rest, rendring the others confuse and in­sensible, it followes that each must of necessity be taken notice of, in that degree in which it over­comes and exceeds the rest. Now it is evident, that, by sleep, the gates are lock'd against this busie troop without; so that if any one thing chance to slip in, unac­company'd, it strikes the Organ with a great force, totally filling and possessing it, and immerging it self in it.

Whensoever therefore throughWhich may happen also at other times. sickness or any other disposition of the Body or Head, the same effect, that is, the exclusion of all objects, but one, happens, it's impressions on the Phantasy must needs be vehement, and ex­ercise a plenary jurisdiction there­in, and consequently cause a very spightful motion, and impress a very distinct and lively sensation. [Page 176] From whence may be infer'd, that an extraordinary light in an apparition doth not argue an im­mediate influence from God, but only a free and apt disposure of the Phantasy. So that being an argument only of corporeal acti­vity, it rather seems to justifie a suspicion of fallacy, then an ex­pectation of truth.

The Visions then, which with­outWhat is required in Visions to give them some credit. forfeiture of prudence may be credited and rely'd on, must be such as carry with them proofs be­yond the reach of Phantasy. Such as are coherent and somewhat long discourses, a discovery of some such new Truth, as either carries with it its own evidence, built on the principles of clear reason, or is back'd with such spe­cial events, that they transcend the sphere of chance; such as was that (if the fact be true) which happened to Ptolomy, to whom a Dragon seem'd, in his sleep, to present a leaf never before by him seen, which being immediate­ly [Page 177] sought for, and by its likeness to that he dream'd of, acknow­ledg'd, cur'd him of the malady with which he was surprized. For by how much the evidence is more abstracted and intellectual, by so much the more doth it sur­pass the force of Nature to ef­fect it. Not that I question, but that an unlook'd for Demon­stration, or an unexpected Verse or Poem may peradventure by a dream or natural extasie, be com­posed which much study could not otherwise arrive to, but that when any thing therein exceeds the reach of nature, it is a stronger argu­ment of a celestial origin.

HAving said above, that ho­lyOf Histo­rical c [...]r­ [...] [...]i [...]ty and it's de­grees. Doctors in the proposal of these Visions are to be consi­dered as Historians, let us exa­min the degrees of certitude which History can afford us.First Historical certitude seems to be absolute when the thing related was done in the presence and right of thousands, confirmed likewise by numerous, or, as it were, universal testimonies. Such was the Pharsalian fight, in the [Page 179] view of the world, and in an Age when so many noble writers flou­rished. But alas! how far from this is the credit of any of our Visions.

The next degree of certaintySecondl▪ in History may be the relation of a particular fact, confirmed by few authorities; such as Tully's defence of Ligarius before Cae­sar. But even that had sufficient witnesses, 'twas obvious to sense, the work was in every ones hand, and is at this day extant. So that hitherto History makes good its ground.

The third step is, the delive­ryThirdl▪ of secret transactions and pra­ctises, from some wise and faith­ful eye-witness, such as was Phi­lip Comines declaring the thoughts and designs of Lewis X^• I of France. And here the right which History claims over our as­sents begins to expire though the known integrity of Comines, and the verisimilitude of the nar­ration it self, doth a little cherish and fester it.

[Page 180]In the fourth degree are rank'd,Fourth and last degree. certain arcana or secrets commu­nicatd from the third or fourth hand, yet so that they were not unknown to some that had the ma­nagement of affairs, nor are in their circumstances improbable or incredible. There appears a disjoyntedness in the middle nerves betwixt the thing done and the Historical publisher. And this is the lowest floor that Historical belief can reside in.

But the Relations upon whichOf all which, these pretended Visions fall short. our Divines go to establish Ec­clesiastical Doctrines are far beneath even this. The thing it self is not evident so much as to the Seer, who is seldome capa­ble to discern whether it were from God or Nature; and again, being from an undiscoverable hand, it can challenge no credulity, unless it can fasten strong, and as it were, iron chains upon the understanding. Moreover man­kind being greedy both of know­ing [Page] and delivering wonders, these stories are apt from every hand to receive some supplement, po­lishing and perfection; so that when it comes to the Writer, it is quite another thing, nor can he yet forbear to add or detract some little matters, the better to ac­commodate it to his purpose. What then shall we say to these Visions which are so infinitely short of other Histories? And yet we must undergo the sharpest censure unless we pin our faith upon them in a Theological point.

If thou hast leisure, Reader,As appears by these re­lated by▪ [...]. Gregory. let us more particularly take cog­nizance of some few. There are three Revelations of this na­ture in S. Gregory, two of souls condemned to the Bathes, the third of a Proprietary Monk. For the first, if we regard the Do­ctrine of following School-men, we must absolutely reject them. S. Thomas teacheth us, that separated souls are not active, because their proper & substantially united body [Page] is the sphere of their activity, and the instrument by which they move other things, and they were Angels, if they could work upon separated bodies. Again, how should such services be penal un­to them? Do we think the An­gel Raphael was design'd to pu­nishment, whilst he waited on T [...]bie? Moreover how could these new auxiliaries in the Bath be concealed to their fellow-ser­vants unknown to their Masters? Had they meat and wages with the rest? Lastly, if these exam­ples be received for Precedents, why may not all Mettal-mines [...]e full of departed Ghosts? What Romances, what old wives tales may we not expect? Certainly such inventions were either design­ed, or, of their own nature, tend to the vilifying the belief of all Purgatory pains.

The other example is of the Monk. He declares that ‘it were well with him, he had now received the Communion, though▪ [Page] formally tormented in fire.’ It seems he was restored to the Church not to Heaven. But if his sin were absolved, why was he deny'd Heaven, according to our modern definitions? Again, why was he not admitted to re­ceive the Communion after the first, as well as after the thirteenth mass? Certainly the excommu­nication ceased▪ when liberty was given to pray for him; and in o­ther Revelations both of S. Gre­gory and Bede, the celebration of the very first mass hath power to loosen those bands. And in­deed the remission of sins after thirty dayes is neither agreeable to the ancient nor modern stile, this supposing it to be in the first moment, that in the day of the last Judgment. Finally what an uncouth thing is an excommuni­cation reaching to the next world? would they have us be­lieve that those, who dy'd in mor­tal sin, were snatch'd out of the jawes of Hell? No man doubts [Page] but the souls in Purgatory are ho­ly, and partakers of Ecclesiasti­cal Communion, but these fa­bles, which lead to errour, what sway can they bear with a true believer?

There is but one little sentenceAnd V. Bede. (as I remember) in Venerable Bede, (l. 5. c. 13.) which makes for the cessation of Purgatory pains before the day of Doome, and that so cast in by the bye, into the Angel's discourse and explication of those sufferings, that it seems ra­ther, according to the perswasion of some following Age, thrust in by some other, having no rela­tion to any part of the Vision, which of it self makes an excel­lent and neat allegory. But it is to be remark'd, that though they are said to be freed from their pains, yet are they not admitted to the joyes of Heaven; which notwithstanding somewhat varies from the modern opinion, from the degrees of the Florentine Coun­cel, and Benedict XI. both which [Page] joyntly seem to pronounce no­thing but sin, debars and secludes abstracted souls from the Beatifical Vision. The same may be said of all other Revelations; for if they are not meerly frivolous and insignifi­cant, they commonly in some par­ticular or other shock the purity of Ecclesiastical Doctrine. Some of them will tell you of souls kept in Purgatory, for the payment of debts among the living; others that a prefixed time was set them for begging and procuring assistance. The great Odilo, and strong asserter of this opinion, is said, by his own and the prayers of his Monks, to have freed Benedict the eighth out of Purgatory, upon condi­tion that a second alms should be given by his successor John, because the first was out of treasure ill gotten. What can we make of this? Are the prayers of Re­ligious men frustrated, and in ef­fectual if their Alms come out of an Usurers purse? 'tis very hard to [Page 186] oblige them to search into and discover this, unless perhaps it want not its convenience, if they be, in like manner, permitted to retain the first, and demand the second benevolence in case it be found to be so.

But to speak ingenuously, all this passage is inextricable. For what shall we say? That the rich man shall in three dayes re­deem his Purgatory, which must cost the poor as many years. Without doubt a convenient mo­tive for accumulating riches; but such a one as I have not yet met with in all the Gospel, or Christian directions. And yet what else do they seem to regard, who make it either only care and business to accompany the Dead with a multittude of Masses? some such conceits as these the Schools have alrea­dy exibitated, and immediate­ly they have disappear'd in all succeeding Visions and Revelati­ons, that you may see they [Page 187] wholly depend upon vulgar opinion. From whence it hap­pens that the Greeks, though otherwise more addicted to them then the Latines, having no­thing of this nature, though much more then we of refrigera­ting the damned themselves, because this sort of Purgatory runs not in their fancies.

BUt what am I doing? shall I charge so many grave and holy persons with Forgery, or at least being deluded by the Devil? I cannot easily determine which were more criminal, and there­fore shall by no means be trans­ported with that arrogance. From whence then this plentifulAnd strange dis­courses of Appariti­ons recei­ved, waking or sleeping Harvest of Apparitions? The notion of Apparition must be di­vided. One kind happens to those who are awake, and have their eyes about them, the other to those whom sleep or extacy hath oppressed. The first gives a jea­lousie [Page 189] of some defective or vitia­ted organ, especially if the Phanta­sme appear to one only, either alone or in company, and that in the night, when ill-disposed, or af­ter some misfortune or long con­tinued grief; something is pro­bably amiss in the Brain, though it be not altogether impossible that a meer preoccupation of mind may work that effect. The other is more obvious; and intelli­gible; the soul contemplates ma­ny things as they were proposed from without (when the senses are by sleep or extasie lock'd up) which not withstanding have no o­ther being than in the Phantasy.

But against this are very admi­rable examples, by which we are assured that in these sleeps or extasies things future, secret, at a distance, in fine, such as no sense could reach to, are often seen and foretold. All can­not rationally be deny'd, nor all promiscuously admitted. I observe therefore that [Page 190] for the most part, some falsity mingles with these revealed truths, which commonly gives the occasion of their being im­puted to the black Art. But we must examine how far Nature How farre they may be natural. can herein play her part. It hath been said, that the soul, lull'd as it were a sleep with dreams or extasy, finds the stroaks or darts of memory and Phantasy more sharp and pene­trating, by the vacuity of its calls or receptacles, into which other objects can at that time make no incursion. We may add, that this cessation may well occasion a more calm discovery of truths; their dependency being more orderly display'd, and con­sequences more immediately and nimbly linking themselves toge­ther. From whence the History of S. Thomas of Aquin's being three whole dayes in extasy, and at his return out of it, profes­sing he had, in that time, seen and learn'd more, then he had [Page 191] yet written in his whole life, or, being now near his end, could have leisure to write, seems to me no wayes incredible, but al­together becomming and worthy so great a Contemplator.

Nor do I think it impossible,Even to the sudden pos­sessing of a science be­fore un­known. that, in the like circumstances, a science (such as Ca [...]optrick [...], &c.) may at once be possessed; the principles by vertue of the said tranquility discovering themselves and of their own accord flowing into Theoremes. Was that Po [...]t and Musician whom Venerable Bede tell us, in one night, to have been made both a Scholar and a Master, thus instructed? I affirm nothing positively.

Well do I remember, when I was of an age more obnoxious to the operation and power of Phantasy, to have seen in my sleep, an imaginary representa­tion of Christ comming to the last Judgment, and the Saints flying in the cloulds to meet him, in colours so ravishingly pleasant, [Page 190] that those which we daily behold can no wayes equalize or imi­tate them; and withall, to have found such conformable motions excited thereby in my sensitive appetite, that awaking, I thought fit carefully to nourish them.

A certain youth I likewise knew, who, being reclaimed from a course of debauchery with Drink and Tobacco (a thing not then so countenanc'd by custom and general use) had no [...] only (in an acute feaver into which he fell) a lively portraiture of the Devil drinking to him, and puffing Tobacco by his side, but also a most distinct catalogue im­printed in his memory of all the misdeamenours of his whole life. Such apprehensions as these I dare presume to accompt and applaud as the sports of verdant Nature. When the effects happen to be more intricate, I acknowledg the natural disposition to be made use of, but whether it alone can per­form all, I do not engage. Yet [Page 193] I have observed, in the narrati­ons of some holy women, no small agreement between the mo­tions of their Phantasy, and the wonders which are said to have past within their brests. And in the whole History of the Visions of a certain late pious Maid in I­taly, that they were almost all suitable to her apprehensions, and such as might freely spring from the cogitations to which she was inured.

Nor can I dissemble, that a­mong the innumerable stories, ancient and modern, which pre­tend to foretel things future, or declare the state of things remote and absent from them, I find not many which challenge the opinion of sanctity, or the peculiar pro­vidence of God in them. Yet is it hard to determine what stock they have in nature to produce them. I may think thus. It is confess'd, that those upon whom these wonders are father'd are for the most part persons dictacted▪ [Page 194] obnoxious to some vehement pas­sion, [...]cstatick, dreaming, whose Phantasy is either free, or strong­ly addicted to some one object. If free, then doth it prophesie at random of many things; if en­gaged, then of that only to which it is affected. Women, who have an absolute and unlimited passion for their husbands or children, are said to experience this, accor­ding to that of the Poet.—Who is't that can beguile the Lover? Madmen have in like sort foreseen strange things, relating to that single object which their minds are full of; whilst those who are subject to distraction, ecsta [...]y or dreams discourse wonderfully and unconnectedly of several things. All these have no constant byas; and the errors interlarded with the truths sufficiently convince they are not special guifts of Gods benevolence.

[Page 195]Farther, then, I proceed toHow passio­nate persons come to ap­prehend the condition of their absent friends. conclude, that the Phantasies of such persons are moved by wea­ker impulses then the brains of wiser men, which being employ'd in various negotiations, feel not those lesser outward incursions. As then certain Beasts receive the first trembling hints of the change of air, and by their pro­per motions, give notice of the future storm or serenity to men that are otherwise busied; So Lovers, from their Beloved, re­ceive and acknowledg certain in­fluences which others take no no­tice of. If a Dog after many hours can take the scent of a Hart or Hare, and, pursuing it, retrive its origin; what miracle, that the like emissions (as the chast Lo­ver terms them) falling from his beloved, and finding him free from all others and fixed only up­on this cogitation, should raise in him such thoughts or dreams as were conformable to the tem­per and condition of his Beloved, [Page 196] when that scent dispersed it self through the air, and consequent­ly, without any other messenger, inform him of her well or ill be­ing. The like may happen in o­thers, whose attentions are not engaged in so many trifles, a [...] most mens are, about their own and others affairs. I am apt to believe that most of our storiesWhose transport hath been the rise of most of our stories con­cerning the souls in Purgatory. of souls freed from their punish­ments (to give an account where­of, all that hitherto hath been said principally tends) if they were examin'd to the bottom▪ would be found to proceed from the fre­quent cogitation, and passionate affection of the living towards their departed Friends.

BUt alas! one abyss calls up­on another, nor are we so happily disengag'd from one vex­ation, that our retreat leads us not into another. It is urged,The Ad­versaries Objection, of the use­fulness of our prayers if this be true. that there can be no fruit of pray­er for the dead if some at least are not thereby exempted before the common delivery. Again, what efficacy have our suffrages, if a multitude of them can do no more then a lesser number? If those who have many assistances gain no more then those who have few, or perhaps none at all? Lastly, the day of Judg­ment is by God predetermin'd▪ [Page 198] and will arrive in its due time,And chie­fly from the predetermi­nation of the Day of Judgment indepen­dently of our prayers. independently of our prayers; and though it should have some respect to them, as it only hath to the predestination or will of God, that is not the thing which sets the faithful awork to bestow or procure alms for their depar­ted friends; but they expect that this very soul should receive some advantage by vertue of their prayers, which were not other­wise from its own merits due unto it.

These are the Objections; a­mongWhich is first an­swered. which I cannot but wonder to see Professors of Divinity al­ledg that prayers are fruitless for such events as are decreed by Predestination. What Lethe have they drunk of? Have they for­gotten that whatsoever good be­falls us was predestinated? What do they think of their own and others salvation? Does any one doubt but they are the effects of predestination? We need not therefore pray; and if [Page 199] we pray not, as little need we be sollicitous. Let prayers, let good works from henceforth cease. Why so? Because all things are accomplished by vertue of their being so decreed. This they confess; but they will not have us pray for those things which we are certain will come to pass. We are still where we were. For how ignorant soever we are, whe­ther what we ask be predestina­ted or no, yet are we satisfi'd, that unless it be predestinated, we shall not obtain it. We know then, that only which is prede­stinated shall come to pass; and consequently it alone is worth our asking. So that the Apostle doth not vainly exhort us to en­deavour, by good works, to ren­der our Vocation and election cer­tain; that is, to take care to putBy shewing that the means are predestina­ted as well as the end. it in execution. The errour then of the Argument or Arguer consisted herein, that he so look'd upon the effect as predestinated, that he saw not its cause [...], or the [Page 200] means, by which it should come to pass, were also predestinated. So that, pure Inadvertency begat this objection.

And from hence we may haveIn what manner and sense our Prayers be­nefit the dead in ge­neral. an easie step to the other part of the Argument. For when they urge, that nothing ensues upon the account of their prayers for the Dead, we reply, all depends upon them. For if their delive­ry from their pains, whensoever it happens, be a requital of their supplications, and that delivery be nothing else then the commu­nication of glory and celestial joyes, all this, is, in the day of Judgment, granted to their Pray­ers. What then? shall they have any thing more then what their pious conversation in this life promerited? Not at all. Behold the Riddle. A great Lord saith to his servant, behave thy self faith­fully in my house seven years, and at the marriage of my son, I will make thee steward of his family. The servant dischargeth his duty; [Page 201] is he therefore Comptroler of his young Lord's house? No, unless his Master be first married He then that shall procure a Match for the young Gallant shall do a good of­fice for the old servant, and deserve great thanks at his hands. So he that is chastised in Purgatory, did in his life deserve to receive a re­ward at the coming of Christ, but that Christ should come he did not deserve▪ For that, as it is an u­niversal good, so is it due to the merits and supplications of all, and not of any one Particular.

For this reason it was answered to the souls of the slain, resting under the Altar, and crying out to have that day hasten'd, that it depended upon the rest who had not yet suffered, but were to com­pleat the number. Whosoever then desires and loves the coming of our Lord, either for his own sake or any others▪ as every one does who prayes for the retribution of the dead, accelerates that day. And thus you see, that the time, which [Page 202] was said to be predestinated, will notwithstanding never arrive till the number of the elect be per­fected. From whence it follows, that whatsoever is predestinated, so obtains the stability of it's im­mutable arrest (the liberty and contingency of second causes, by which it is brought about, not impeding) that if any one of them should fail, that very thing, which we term predestina­ted, could not come to pass. And applying this assertion to our present purpose, if Prayer should not be made for the Dead, they would never be deliver'd, not­withstanding the irresistible force of predestination, through the imbecillity of causes by which their delivery is promoted. He that prayes then supplies what was wanting to the sufferings of the departed, without which sup­plement they could not be sav­ed.

They reply, this supposed, itAnd in par­ticular. is all one to this particular friend [Page 203] departed, whether fewer or more prayers are said for him, since the last day will break assoon to one as to another. It is answer­ed, they cannot deny, but at least he who is the occasion that more prayers are offered to that in­tent, hath, as it were, a greater right to that day then he for whom fewer are offered. Whence to him it will arrive more grate­ful and honourable, then to the o­ther who less contributed to its advance. But besides, these pious offices and affections of others towards him, being known by the person departed whom they concern, beget a disposition in his soul, by which, when time shall serve, his love to God, and consequently, his Beatitude shall be encreased. Moreover▪ by way of impetration, they become oc­casions to the Divine Providence, of so disposing many things, which otherwise would be diffe­rently ordered, that in the day of Harvest, they may inlarge [Page 204] his either essential or accidental happiness. If any thing of this happens through the good deeds of the person himself departed, it is to be accounted amongst his merits, or the rewards due to his merits; but if such prayers spring not from any root which he him­self did, whilst living, plant, but purely from the charity of some propitious persons, they are an effect of God's Providence, whose mercies are numberless.

One objection only remainsThat it im­ports not what parti­cular fancy they may have who pray for the dead, as to the relief given thereby. unanswer'd, That this is not the thing which those who pray and are solicitous for their dead, do look for. But neither ought we regard what they expect, but what they ought to expect. The Apo­stle only admonishes us, not to be afflicted as those who have no hopes, but to retain and cherish an expectation of re-enjoying their society, and that in the re­surrection. Yet if the metapho­rical explications of fire and other pains be found more proper to [Page 205] excite affections then the truth me­taphisically deliver'd, use them if you please, so you keep your self within the bounds which the Coun­cels and Fathers have set; viz. that souls are punished, and by prayers relieved, but for the time when this takes effect, leave it, as they do, undetermin'd. Are you still unsatisfi'd and urge an imme­diate releasment? I am contented; let it be the very next moment af­ter your prayer. For whatsoever time intervenes betwixt it and the restauration of the world, is to them but as one moment. If you still repine and fret, I may with juster indignation protest, you are not only ignorant, but envious of their sublime state and condition, which exalts them above theNot whe­ther this Doctrine become a means of lessening the number of unworthy Priests. reach of time.

In fine, if I be thought the occa sion of restraining the profuse abun­dance of Alms in this particular▪ I shall withall have the satisfaction to have check'd the daily increa­sing swarms of unworthy Priests, [Page 206] who, qualified neither with know­ledg nor good manners, live like droans upon this stock, to the disgrace and contempt of their function, to the abuse of souls, and the common scandal both of those who live in and out of the Church. Catholick Faith shall from henceforth be no longer the subject of the derision of externs, whilst her children vainly labour to defend, against Hereticks, those things which have neither ground nor proof, but are introduced from the customary expressions of Law-Courts and exchanges, not from the Language of Nature or Christian Tenets. But of this e­nough.

FOr the last attempt they re­serve the Practise of the Church, which can neither de­ceive nor be deceived. And this they drive on with great fury and clamour, partly from the prayers which are said for the Dead, part­ly from the concession and accep­tation of Indulgences; wherein their valour gains so much ap­plause that it is worth our pains to give it a check. Our first en­counter [Page 208] shall be to demand of them, when they talk of the Ec­clesiastical Practise, which do they mean, an universal or a particular one? Again, if an universal one, whether they intend only a present Universality, or an universality including also the ancient practise? If they admit an universality of place (as they needs must if theyThe Vulgar opinion can neither claim Vni­versality of place. will conclude any thing; for other­wise, by their own confession, it will amount but to a probable, that is, fallible argument) let them demonstrate to me, that the pra­ctise they contend for, either an­ciently was, or at present is in the Grecian Church. Sure I am, nei­ther in the Florentine Councel, nor in the Union of the Arme­nians, nor in the Profession of Faith prescribed by Urban VIII. to the Oriental Churches, any thing is expressed, from whence this Doctrine may be deduc'd. InNor time. like manner, as to point of time, it is evident, that before S. S. Gregory and Bede, there; was no [Page 209] such notorious Practise even in the Roman Church, and con­sequently that it became not general, till after Odilo, about six hundred years agoe. But such a Practise no way deserves the title of Universal, according to Time.

The question then is devolved to the Western Church, for the four or five last ages, for the uni­versality cannot be stretch'd higher, since the practise ap­pears to have taken it's rise from the Devotions of the Clugniac Monks, and the effect of those Devotions, that is, Revelations springing from them, whereas be­fore it was rare, if not unknown.N [...]r do the present Churches words or actions de­clare any suc; pra­ctise at this day, even in the western part of it. Our next quaere is, what they mean by practise? For my part, to avoid ambiguity. I divide it into that of actions and of expressions; both which, if they apparently favour what we have delivered, then is our adversaries last effort as in-ef­fectual as the former. The Chur­che's expressions are visible in her [Page 210] Missalls, Rituals, and Breviaries, As appears by her mis­salls Bre­viaries and Rituals. by which if I stand condemned, I willingly yeild the cause. To begin with the sequence of Dies irae, Dies illa, is it not throughout of the day of Judgment, and the deliverance which is then to be made? What else hath the Of­fertory? Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, free the souls of the faithful departed, from the pains of Hell, and the profound L [...]ke, free them from the Lions jawes, that H [...]ll may not devour them, nor they fall into darkness, but let the holy Ensign-bearer, Michael, conduct them into that happy light which thou hast hereto­fore promised to Abraham and his seed. Thus far in general for all the Dead: then in particular. We offer up to thee, O Lord, sacri­fices and thanksgiving prayers, receive them for those souls which we this day commemorate, grant them, O Lord, to pass from Death to Life. These are the Church's prayers, which, to a Catholick, [Page 211] what can they signifie but theWhich una­nimously respect the day of Judgment. examination and sentence of the last Judgment? After the person is dead, and that prayers begin to to be said for him, where is he in danger to perish but in the last Day? If then the Church prayes not for what is past, which seems to be unprofitable, it prayes not for any other delivery of the Dead, then what is to be in that final Judgment.

I easily foresee it may be obje­cted, that the Dead have in rea­lity no incertitude or hazard even in that Day, wherefore these Prayers must on both sides be ac­knowledged to have their impro­prieties. My answer is twofold. First, in our way, we coyn not a new Metaphor, but prosecute that which Christ and Holy Scrip­tures have furnished us with. For if they have styled it a Judgment, not in order to an investigation or disquisition of things doubtful (for what can be obscure when God himself is judg?) but meer­ly [Page 212] to signifiy the effect of the said Judgment, that is the respe­ctive destribution of rewards and punishments to good and bad, which then is made, is it not evi­dent that the Ecclesiastical man­ner of speech (that it may be con­formable to the sacred and Tra­ditionary expressions) must speak as it were of a dubious sentence, whilst there is yet an affection to, or expectation of punishment, or reward? These speeches then sig­nifie just the same, as if the Church should plainly say, suffer them not to be cast into Hell, but grant them eternal happiness. And so is that particle also to be understood, of passing from Death, of life.

Though there be also another way, in which the souls in Pur­gatory, when they become par­takers of the Beatifical Vision, may not improperly, be said to pass from Death to Life: For those souls, having (according to what hath been explicated) an impedi­ment in themselves, debarring them [Page 213] from true life, which is perfect Beatitude, clearly, if death be op­posite to life, they are truely said to pass from death to life, when they are freed from their sins and that impediment. I am not ignorant, that Divines, taking it from the Law­yers, suppose in these souls a cer­tain Right to Beatitude, by which they are rendred partakers of life. But these expressions abuse us, when besides an allegory we expect propriety in them. Nor indeed doth right to a thing make a man owner of it, but right in the thing; and in reality those holy souls have not right to life, but seeds of it, to wit, the faith of Christ, which works by charity, and which as­suredly will (through the last judg­ment) fructifie to life eternal. As then s [...]ea is not yet reckon'd a­mong things living but dead, so these souls also. But we must ob­serve the word dead hath a dou­ble sense, being propounded abstractedly and privatively. The damned are privatively dead, because all possibility or root [Page 214] of eternal life is extinguished in them; but those in Purgatory are only dead because they have not yet obtained life.

My second answer is, that, spee­ches of this kind are altogether inexplicable, according to the con­trary opinion, which is a certain note that they mistake the Chur­ches sense. For proof hereof it were enough to charge them with it, and put them to the trial. But I can produce the express con­fession of an Author, volumi­nous enough to appear great a­mongst them, who, paraphrasing upon the above▪ cited words, ex­cuses their form, Because (saith he) those who pray often use ex­pressions which they are altogether ignerant what they signifie, or whither they tend. But surely the Rituals sufficiently declare whi­ther these speeches tended. Make him worthy by the assistance of thy Grace, to escape the Judgment of revenge, who, living, was signed with the seal of the Trinity. Again, [Page 215] Let us pray for the spirit of our Brother, that the mercy of our Lord may place him in the bosome of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, that, when the day of Judgment shall come, he may resuscitate him on the right hand, among his Saints and Elect. Again, We pray thee to command the soul of thy servant N to be carryed by the hands of thy Angels into the bosome of thy Friend Abraham the Patriarch, to be resuscitated in the last day of Judgment, that whatsoever vices, by the deceipt of the Devil, he hath contracted, thou pious and merciful maist blot out by indul­gence. In the office of the dead in like manner in the Roman Bre­viary. Lord when thou shall come to judg the Earth, where shall I hide my self from the countenance of thy anger?—When thou comest to judg do not conde [...]n me. Again, be merciful unto me when thou shalt come to judg in the last day. Again, Remember not my sins, O Lord, when thou shalt [Page 216] come to judg the world by fire. Last­ly, free me, O Lord, from eternal Death in that dreadful day, when the Heavens and Earth shall be shaken, when thou comest to judg the World by fire. I tremble and fear whilest that discussion and fu­ture anger comes; that day of anger, that day of misery and ca­lamity, &c. To this you may add the publick Litanies, instituted, as it is thought, by Gregory the Great himself, or at least by him recommended, where you find, In the day of Judgment deliver us O Lord. And in the commen­dation of the soul departed, In the day of Judgment deliver him O Lord.

Finally, if we have yet anyAnd have not one clear word, throughout them all, of any o [...]her delivery. judgment left us, and are not wholly transported and fascinated with the opposite opinion, let us consider with our selves, what a strange blindness and absurdity it had been in the composers of our sacred Liturgy (if they intend to pray in the Mass and Offices, [Page 217] for the delivery of souls before the day of Judgment) not to ex­press it in one clear sentence, throughout so many and large prayers, but perpetually to fix the Readers thoughts and expectati­ons upon the last judgment. What shall I say of so many who have not only used, but corrected them, yet never durst take the boldness to violate the ancient and received style? Since then in Ecclesiastical Ceremonies the significations of the actions depends on the expressions, and the expressions are so clear for purgation in the day of Judgment, it is beyond dispute evident, that this is the practise and intention of the Holy Church in all publick Prayers and Masses, that is, in all that are hers.

FRom what we have said, theTheir rash­ness who because they can no lon­ger presume to free the souls depar­ted at their own time and plea­sure, refuse to continue to pray for them. temerity and precipitation of those appears, who, from the de­nial of a sudden and capricious delivery of souls, [...]ye immedi­ately to the refusal of supplicating any longer for them; whereas, on the contrary, they ought more assiduously, yea, perpetually and without end, to pray, both be­cause their torments are more du­rable, & because our own goods are so strictly conjoyned with theirs. [Page 219] Our method therefore instructs us, never to abandon, never to remit or slacken the charity which we profess towards our friends lately departed, and consequent­ly by this new temporary motive fastens our souls upon the love and contemplation of the future world, whereas the contrary opi­nion begets a short memory and long oblivion.

And here behold we are natu­rally put in mind of surveying the other branch of Practise, which no less attests ours to be the Church's sense, and perfectly conformable to her practise. I mean the procurement of prayers for the souls of the Dead. Let us reflect herein on the conse­quences which are apt to follow from either opinion. If it beThe conse­quences of both opini­ons exami­ned. true, that souls are, from Purga­tory, conveigh'd to Beatitude, be­fore the day of Judgment, though we know not how long the time may be of their durance, yet this is certain that every one hath [Page 220] a limited time, let us suppose ten years (as a Divine famous enough hath opined,) the Church ought in reason to prescribe a cessation from thenceforward, of duties for that soul, that others may be benefited by what to it is now superfluous. You reply, that it is not done because the Church is uncertain how long the time may be. Very well, but how long I beseech you shall she continue un­certain? till the day of Judg­ment? And this of every one, that is, of all? where then liesWhich e­qually a­gree in con­tinuing to supplicate to the worlds end. our quarrel? I may perhaps af­firm it to be certain, that they are not dismiss'd before the day of Judgment, and consequently that we ought alwayes to pray for them; you affirm it to be uncer­tain whether they are sooner freed or no, and consequently conclude the same thing, to wit, that we ought alwayes to pray for them. The practise then of praying alwayes for them is com­mon to us both: More strongly [Page 221] indeed on our side, from motives both of reason and antiquity, which ever prayed for all without exception.

You reply, it is so uncertain of every one in particular, that notwithstanding it is indefinitely certain of some. Let it be so, because you are resolute; what is that to the practise that remains common to both sides? Can you from practise possibly convince that some indeterminately are ex­empted, when you pray for eve­ry one as though he were detain­ed? Practise is an action, and action is of Individuals, that is, of particular Agents about particular Patients. But to proceed: Imagine with your selfWhere it ought ra­ther to be converted into thanks­giving for those who are set free, if the vul­gar opinion be true. some practise which may infer that some are freed; ought there not to be a change in the Tenor of prayer, and a thanksgiving succeed to supplication, rather then that the self-same supplica­tion should still continue? Shew any such custome, and you have [Page 222] won the day. But if you cannot, and, on the contrary, I can and do produce men pious and pru­dent who with their last breaths pray for their Grand-fathers and Great-Grand-fathers, and when themselves come to dye, build Churches, Hospitals, and the like eternal institutes, with ob­ligation to have themselves and their ancestors for ever pray'd for, two things I shall esteem my self to have clearly prov'd, first, That Ecclesiastical Practise stands with us; secondly, that our Adversaries cannot bring the least shadow of proof from thence.

They quit not yet their station, but threaten us with sorks, now that their arrowes are spent. Practise, say they, consists not only in the external action, but in it with the intention, opinion and hope conjoyn'd therewithall. But it is evident, that the opinion and hope with which men now adayes pray for the departed, is [Page] that of a speedy delivery, therefore the Church-practise concludes it. In which, first, we deny the Ma­jor. For when some action is handed down to us from ourThe inten­tion is not alwayes vi­sibl [...] i [...] e­very action. fore-fathers in the Church, it doth not follow their intention must necessarily be derived to us by the same succession, for though we know not in particular what they intended, yet do we often in belief of our Parents, as the vulgar term it, do the same thing which they did. So the unlear­ned receiving or administring Sacraments, through the confi­dence they have of the Church's sanctity, do, with good intention, receive and administer them, though ignorant what intention is properly due to the action. It is not therefore necessary the Practise attest that which the private intention of every actor apprehends, but only that which he intends joyntly with the Church, though in particular ignorant of it. Again, it is [Page 224] manifestly one thing to be a pra­ctise, and another to be the ground of a practise, or reason for which it was instituted. For a practise is received by custome or command, and may have seve­ral motives or ends for its origin, so that no one end can be evinced, since any one may suffice; much less doth pure opinion belong to practise, which every Age may vary, or oftener, according to the greater or lesser science of Doctor [...], whereas the Practise may remain the same.

THere lies yet another accu­sationWhether Indulgen­ces either in general or particu­lar make a­ny thing a­gainst the tru [...] Do­ctrine. against us, from the use of Indulgences, which we have not satisfy'd; and it is also two-fold: For they both urge in general, that the whole force and fabrick of Indulgences falls to the ground, if Purgatory-pains are not releas'd. For what good do they do either in this world to the living, or in the next to the departed, if they neither a­bate nor discharge their present pains, nor our future ones? And again in particular, what shall [Page 226] become of those concessions which grant expresly the releasment of a soul to every third, thirtieth, or single Mass? Which with such and such fasts, prayers, alms, visitations of Churches, redeems or commutes so many dayes or years of sufferings? Nothing can be said why all these should not declare the practise of the Church. Thus they. And in­deed both the outward apparen­ces and inward merit of the thing challenge a deep inspection, and thorow-examination; but let us at present content our selves brie­fly, and according to the small­ness of our volume and ability to discuss it.

No man that hath the least ac­quaintanceThe first and proper use of re­mission or Indulgence in general. and conversation with Ecclesiastical antiquity, can be ignorant, that all along even up to the very infancy of the Church, Excommunications, solemn incre­pations, penitential ceremonies, and rigorous satisfactions were in use. That these rigours, in di­verse [Page 227] circumstances, sometimes in consideration of the penitent himself, sometimes of externs, were not only abusively, but canonically and profitably relax­ed, both the monuments of pious men, and the vicissitude of hu­mane nature assure us. This re­laxation was, by the Latines, in the Apostolical phrase, called In­dulgence. And thus far no rati­onal man questions their legitimate use. These Indulgences being in order to such penalties as the Go­vernours and Rulers of the Church conceived proportiona­ble to the cancelling and extin­guishing the sin they related to (soThe occasi­on of its being stretch't farther. that he who had legally perfor­med them, was supposed to have quitted that score, before God) it naturally became a question, whether the remission granted by Bishops did free the penitent, not only for those visible penalties which the visible Church was wont to exact or release, but moreover discharge him from [Page 228] the account due to those sins in the sight of God, and put him in the same condition, as if he had actually performed the penal­ties themselves. And S. Paul Fron S. Paul 2 Cor. 2. himself, 2 Cor. 2. gives occasi­on of this question, where, trea­ting of the penitent Fornicator, he commands the Church to for­bear to afflict him, lest too much sadness should overwhelm him; adding a general either truth or lenity, ‘that himself pardon'd whatsoever the Church should pardon. And further giving his reason, he saith, For I my self, if I have pardon'd any one any thing, I have in the person of Christ pardon'd it, for your sakes, that Satan may not circumvent us, for we are not ignorant of his arts.’

To this purpose the Apostle; wherein he unfolds to us the whole business of Indulgences; That their matter is that [...] rebuke or correption which it was fit the Church should exercise to­wards the sinner: That there are [Page 229] two causes of remission, the first, the incapacity of the subject's bearing such Rigours, who other­wise would be swallowed up by grief; the second, the good of the Church, lest the Devil by pre­text of too great severity, or the like, should provoke or stir up some to murmur and make a schism. So that two things in the infliction and moderation of Ec­clesiastical chastisements are to be regarded, the good of the Person and the good of the Church. But the Apostle explicates moreover the efficient cause, which he makes to be three-fold; the Church, Him­self, us a Prelate of the Church, and Christ our Lord. For he saith, that what he indulged he indulged in the person of Christ. Had he spoken only of the Church and himself, it would have pass'd for a Rule, that as the Church knoweth not the interiour things, so neither doth she judg of them, or pretend to remit them. But subjoyning that he did it in [Page 230] the person of Christ, he seems to extend it to all that Christ our Lord doth or may remit, and con­sequently to infer, that the sinner is no longer, as to that particular, obnoxious to the Judgment of Christ.

This the fathers seem to coun­tenance;And some passages in the Fathers. both universally, in as much as they apply to Church­discipline that famous speech of Christ, that sins are remitted or retain'd in Heaven proportiona­bly to the severity or mildness of Apostolical proceedings upon earth. And particularly, S. Cy­prian, who affirms, that Penitents may be aided before God, in the abolition of their sins, by the sol­licitation and prerogative of Martyrs. Yea Celerinus, in his Epistle to Lucius, beseeches those who were designed for Martyr­dome, which of them soever should first be crown'd, to for­give the sin of two women who had deny'd their Faith. Could any thing be more plain for this [Page 231] assertion, that such sins are remit­ted also by God, the punishments whereof the Church hath relea­sed?

But however that matter stood,The posture of Indul­gences in the 11th Age. the use of Indulgences continued till the division of the Romane Empire, and till the eleventh age, as a certain Ecclesiastical Pra­ctise, but without any special form or Court of Judicature. In that age a new form was institu­ted, Penitential Canons ordain'd, which were partly redeem'd by Alms and other pious works, partly by corporeal austerities, and particularly by flagellation, which thereupon took the name of Discipline. In the XII. Cen­tury their application was exten­ded to Wars undertaken against Pirates and Infidels. In the thir­teenth Century, the form of Jubile was instituted, since which time the Harvest hath been too large for the Barns, insomuch that it required the prudence of later Popes to restrain it.

[Page 232]Now in the XII. Age the School­men grew up; a sort of men, whilst closely adhering to the Fathers and Councels, grave and learned; whilest intent upon Philosophy and the Mysteries of Aristotle, acute and sublime; but, when vex'd with the importunity of such as endlessly call'd upon them for answer, they so confounded all, that they neither throughout pursu'd the Allegory of Faith, so necessary for the people; nor yet were able (streightned and urged by their importuners) to at­tend the discovery of it's pure light, which is only attainable by the faithful study of true and solid Philosophy, and so bequeath­ed to their posterity an uneven in­coherent, and uncertain course of Doctrine. These men there­fore ravish'd with the considera­tion of the m [...]taphorical Laws of Justice betwixt God and sin­ners, fancied certain pure pains after death, and taught their fol­lowers the redemption of them [Page 233] by corporeal afflictions in this world.

And seeing with their ownThe design of the School men to establish them on a new basis. eyes the great fruits which some remission of penitential Canons did produce; foreseeing also, or rather already experiencing, that Ecclesiastical Rules did or would, by degrees, lose their authority, all beginning to subtilize, and ad­dict themselves to nice enquiries, they concluded it fit to establish Indulgences upon a more solid basis; and to that end pretended that the pains of Purgatory, as they were extinguishable with penance, so also with remis­sions or pardons. And this they fell upon with such eager­ness and numbers, that they ea­sily over perswaded Leo the Tenth, then engaged against Lu­ther, to propose to the Chri­stian World their whole fabrick, with the treasures of Christ's me­rits, and his Saints; although they could never effect or extort any such thing from the L [...]teran and [Page 234] Florentin Councels before him,Though they could never pro­cure any Councel to favour it. nor the Councel of Trent after him.

THis is, as far as I can com­prehend, the Historical pro­gressThe School­men's Idea of Purga­tory accor­ding to the Metaphori­cal explica­tion there­of. and period of Indulgences. From which it sufficiently appears, that the School-men's conceit of them depends wholly upon the Metaphorical explication of Pur­gatory; as the leaned Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, well observed, when he said, that men were first af­frighted with the torments of [Page 235] Purgatory before they ran after those Indulgences; and conse­quently, that Indulgences are dif­ferently to be treated and expli­cated, according to the differentLead them to stretch Indulgences to the next world. sentiments of Purgatory. Those, who believed pure pains in, and successive deliveries out of Pur­gatory, were necessitated to stretch Indulgences to the next world. For what would such Indulgences signifie, or with what spur would they quicken the De­votions and pious exercises of the faithful, if no benefit accrue to those that accept them? But on the contrary, those, who took not that way, must go upon other grounds, and suppose, from what hath been said, that the pains of Purgatory are not purely Vindi­cative, but, as their very nature imports. Purgative, and not to cease till that Purgation be perfe­cted by the fire of conflagration They must suppose also, that there is no proportion betwixt merits or prayers, and the punish­ment [Page 236] due to sins; and that this exchange and traffick of merits and pains smells too much of the Banquier's Laws, to be formal­ly transferred into Christian Divinity, and apply'd to God. But let us take a strict account of this new-found trea­sure.

They pretend a vast treasure And invent an imagina­ry treasure of Christs and his Saints me­rits. and magazine of Merits laid up in Heaven▪ What do they call merit? Good works recompensed, or not recompen­sed? If recompensed, how come they to superabound, or why do they tell us of them? If not recompensed, what con­ceit would they frame in us of God, who make him unable to reward his servants merits, or leave him in their debt? But we have shew'd in our Tom. 1. lib. 1. lect. 14. Theological Institutions, that merit is nothing else but aWhereas e­very good work of the Saint is more then rewarded. good work fructifying to reward: whence necessarily it ensues, that it is either rewarded, or no me­rit. Besides, what shall become [Page 237] of that Axiom, God rewards be­yond all merit? drawn from the clear testimonies of the A­postle, that the sufferings of this life are not proportionable to the future glory. But go too; heap sin upon sin, will these Divines say that the punishments due to them exceed the merits of Christ? nay even of one drop of his blood, or of the least par­ticle of a drop? If they dare not, to what end do they accumulate this treasure? To what purpose do they add the merits of Saints to those of Christ? For fear peradventure lest the punishment due to sin should exhaust the whole source of Christs merits?And every merit of Christ ex­ceeds all proportion of demerit or punish­ment. Alas▪ how can you value the least drop of his? How can you assign a particle so minute as not to exceed the greatest debt imaginable? If the least of Christs merits be dispensed, it is too much, and exceeds all punishment It is therefore consequent, that Christ must long since have offer'd to his [Page 238] Father more merit then all the sins that ever shall be perpetrated can require; nor indeed could he possibly do otherwise, every least merit of his being perfectly infi­nite. So that Christ's merits must absolutely be taken out of the scales, if there must be an e­quality and exactness of commu­nicative Justice. For it is simply impossible, even in respect of God's absolute power, that so little should be offered to God of Christ's merits, as not infinitely to overweigh all that enters the ballance with them. It appears then that all this Doctrine is inco­herent, and incongruous, and consequently to be rejected.

And if our discourse have hi­therto been rightly pois'd, we can no longer doubt of the two opi­nions concerning Indulgences, which ballance sinks down with it's gravity, which flyes up with its levity. For first, whereasOf Eccle­siastical pe­nalties. they put Ecclesiastical penalties to be such as equalize the crime, [Page 239] that may be understood two wayes. The first, that they should equalize the pains due in Purgatory, which if it were in it self true, what messenger could assure them of it? For S. Gre­gory bears us witness, that the Revelations which discover'd the state of souls at that time were new, and consequently unknown to the Apostles and their successors. But besides, it being confessed, that the lightest pain of Purgatory out­vyes all the sufferings of this world, how can some determinate quantity of these be equivalent to those? The other explication then of equivalence, is, that such a penance, inflicted and perfor­med,How such a Penalty may be said to corres­pond or be equivalent to such a crime. would, by its exemplarity, cause such reparation in point of Ecclesiastical Discipline, as the fault had caused miscarriage and transgression. And this evident­ly may well be determin'd by the discreet arbitration of prudent censors of manners. So that hence also it is apparent which opinion is to be embraced.

[Page 240]Let it be then established, that Ecclesiastical Indulgence remits no more then what the Church imposed, or thought fit to be im­posed, for the restauration of Dis­cipline; and that it affords no ar­gument for remission of sin or pain, either in this world or in the next, other then the change which is made in the sinner him­self, or the Church scandalized by him. As to that then of S.With a so­lution to the objecti­on from S. Paul. Paul, it is answered, that he who in some certain business is consti­tuted Att [...]rney or procurator for another, cannot thence take upon him to do all his Lord or Master might do, but only act according to the limitations of the power entrusted to him; yet, this not­withstanding, whatsoever he doth, he doth it in the name and lieu of the person who employ'd him. So S. Paul, what he remitted of the integrity of Discipline he re­mitted in the person of Christ: the sense being either prophetical, importing that by Revelation [Page 241] he understood that Christ appro­ved what he had done; or natu­ral, signifying no more, then that, all power being from God, what­soever, as the Minister of Christ, he dispensed with, he dispensed with upon the account of Christ.

The places of S. Cyprian areAnd some Fathers. of more easie solution; For he clearly seems to teach, that Mar­tyrs have power to obtain that remission be made in Heaven, conformable to the Indulgence exercised by the Church upon Earth. He doth not then imagine, that by force of the Church's re­mission the sin is remitted also in the sight of God; but that the prayers of Martyrs, especially after their appearance before our Lord, are effectual to that end. And for those expressions of an­tiquity, that remission made on earth is ratify'd in Heaven; they suppose the Church made a right judgment of the Penitent; which clears the dispute. The design of [Page 242] those holy men was to insinuate that there is an obligation in con­science, to comply with the Church's Laws, and fulfil her in­junctions: But when, through her Indulgence, they are recall'd, that then this divine obligation ceaseth. And thus, by Indul­gences, is the punishment from Heaven remitted which is forgi­ven on Earth; and whatsoever is remitted here, an obligation remains from Heaven, and by the command of Christ, to perform it. We have then answer'd to Indulgences in general and shew'd that they do not much concern our Question.

TWO things may be disputed concerning particular Indul­gences; first, what substance of truth they have in them; second­ly, what they make against us. And because we have mention'd Indulgences upon no other ac­count then in defence of our ex­plication of Purgatory (against which they are no otherwise al­ledged, then as inferring the Uni­versal Practise of the Church) we are concerned to examine them no further then to discover [Page 244] with what strength of Practise and Universality they are sup­ported. The measures whereof must be taken either from the Gi­ver, or Receivers. First, beforeParticular Indulgences were not app [...]yed to the souls de­parted be­fore the Schools. the School men, there was, that I know of, no noise of these In­dulgences; for what is reported of Gregory the Great's granting the redemption of a soul to every thirty Masses, is (if I mistake not) weak, and grounded on no solid authority: And for that other story of him, that he should re­lease seven years penalty to those who should visit certain Chur­ches, makes nothing to our pur­pose; since the custome of follow­ing Ages shewes that Relaxation to have related only to penances enjoyned or to be enjoyned; e­specially in the eleventh Age, when the ordinary dispensation with Ecclesiastical penalties upon the death-bed, or otherwise, to such as were desirous to dye or live in the Church's peace and communion, seems to have been in­stituted:

[Page 245]From that time forward, howHow thi [...] come since to be apply­ed that way. Ecclesiastical questions of Practises depending on Theology, are hand­led at Rome, take this account: When any thing is demanded of the Pope, the difficulties whereof surpass the ordinary administrati­ons of his Courts, a select Com­mittee of Canon▪ Lawyers and Di­vines is nominated to resolve it. For the Canonists (the Prince be­ing to them the head and fountain of all law and Power) it is no great marvel if they deny little or no­thing to the Papal Commands. For the Divines, they are gene­rally such, as, confusedly ming­ling authority with reason, and so wandring up and down in uncer­tain Principles, abhor certitude in things speculative, as the ap­paritions of a frightful Ghost, unless some Venerable authority define it.

Let the question now be put, whe­ther the Pope can do such a thing; do you not perceive the scale already inclining to the affirma­tive? [Page 246] Answer is return'd, ‘That, since there neither appears in the thing it self manifest con­tradiction, nor any exception against the general power given to S. Peter by Christ, it is pro­bable the Pope, his successor, may do it; and that, if he sees it expedient for the Church, tis their advice he should do it.’ If any one oppose, that the reso­lution is doubtful, and, if the thing be in truth otherwise, the Popes concession null; he is soon silenc'd with the return of Valeat quantum valere potest, Let it go as far as it can; the Pope hath done his part. This is the Court­style in things of this nature; nor do I see much reason to quar­rel at it. The deliberation clear­ly is prudent, the concession benign and liberal.

For the Pope himself, he nei­therWhich the Pope nei­ther com­mands nor commends. commands nor commends it; to those that sue he grants it, or rather denyes it not to those who urge and extort it He exhorts [Page 247] to exercises of piety, his Indul­gences are look'd on as rewards, and purchased with pious and la­borious austerities. From the Granter then, this sort of Indul­gences hath no Universality, since it depends not on him, but on the receivers, how many will accept them. Nor can he be sup­posed to strengthen or authorize the practise, who, as hath been said, behaves himself as purely passive and permissive, sometimes restraining, never extending it without compulsion.

The same degree of liberty hath the people. He that hath a mind seeks them; upon him who is not desirous of them, they are not obtruded. If then your plea be, they are frequented by many, by most; I grant both. But if you will have that which neither is confirmed by command nor long custome, pass for a practise, and that not of Individuals, but an Universal one, and of the whole Church, I shall slowly consent. [Page 248] Whence doth it appear to me, how many they are who receive them, of what rank, with what intention they do it? I know some that desire not to appear singular, and therefore do as their Neighbours: I know others that openly express their dislike. There are those who are said to allow them only when there is some great cause, some extraordinary Christian necessity; and Cardinal Bellarmin himself is reckoned a­mong these Others prefer quiet of mind before such less retired Devotions, amongst whom I find S. Philip Nereus, who is repor­ted to have usually quitted the Roman magnificences, and frequen­ted those Churches where in silence he might pour forth his prayers to God,

You will urge, That may just­lyAn Obje­ction from the Prelates corn vence at least. be stiled a Practise of the Church which is done by many, the Prelates seeing and not forbid­ding it. I answer; If the que­stion only be, whether they do [Page] well or ill that frequent them,A [...]s [...] is a V [...] rather [...] Vi [...]e in them. I easily admit they do well, and according to their conscience. For what can they be reproched for? the worst you can say, is, they act ignorantly, not wickedly. Nor doth the c [...]nnivence or per­mission of Prelates conclude any thing more; For what reason have they to inhibit those who of their own accord perform good duties? nothing can from hence be drawn for the remission of pains in Purgatory. For what have the Prelates to meddle with things indifferent and unknown, in which it is no crime to be igno­rant, or act mistakingly? whilst the opinion stands probable, that Purgatory-pains are discharged by Indulgences, it is and will be lawful to use them What need the Prelates be troubled? let it be first demonstrated, that these pains are not releasable, then take your liberty to accuse their back­wardness; whilst it is a thing in­different, commend their [...]ci­turnity.

[Page 250]It is delivered to us, Tradition And will be till the Demonstra­tion of the contrary Doctrine be generally acknowledg­ed. assures us, that we are to pray for the Dead, and that our prayers are beneficial to them. That their works are to be examined by fire in the day of Judgment, and accordingly remunerated; in the mean while that the condition of some is better then that of o­thers. But for the particular reasons of all these, and how they are effe­cted conformably to Nature, and the progress of divine operation, is a business of Theological disqui­sition. That which shall be clearly demonstrated to consist with the Principles delivered will finally get the Victory. Till then, that is, till the demonstration be not only found out but acknowledged, it is and will be lawful for the Prelates of the Church to follow either opinion, and accordingly to proceed to action.

THey yet, though gasping,The last ob­jection, from the universali­ty of the vulgar opi­nion, at least since the Schools. struggle and contend, that the opinion which we have called Vulgar, is, and hath been the opinion of the whole Church, at least ever since the Schools reigned; and lest we deny our assent, they argue thus: The opinion of the people is the opinion of their pastors; the opinion of the Pa­stors is the same with the School­men (for they either are, or de­pend on the School-men.) The opinion therefore of the School­men▪ [Page 252] is the Church's opinion. Ei­ther therefore the Church hath erred these 500 years, or the vul­gar opinion is plainly it's belief. In this difficulty we are to enquire,Answer, There are three de­grees of them; the first from suspicion. what opinion, what Church signi­fies. I observe that there are seve­ral degrees of assent in man. The first may not improperly be called suspicion; when there are some sympt [...]mes which if you narrowly scan, you easily perceive them to incline doubtfully to either part of the contradiction, though at first they inclined you only to one. These render a man suspicious, that is, more intent and propend­ing to one side, as it were expe­cting thence more light and satis­faction.

The second degree is, when theThe second, from pro­babilities. verisimilitude or probabilities are very great, and which perswade a man through their difficulties or multitudes, that it is not worth his farther inquisition; but according to the proportion of consideration which every thing challenges more [Page] or less in this life, he hath bestowed pains enough in the question. He therefore so satisfies his mind in that point, that he rejects not him that shall oppose it, but if he bring any thing new and unheard of, is ready to give ear to him, and if his proofs merit it, assent also. The third and last degree of assent is his, who will not endure any oppo­nent,The third, from De­monstrati­on. but is certain that nothing can solidly be alledged to the contrary.

Now I ask of my adversary, whether the first degree be of that quality, that if the Church be supposed upon any occasion to suspect one part of the contradi­ction to be true, this suspicion must prejudicate the opposite? I cannot think any one who is so much as fit to pretend to Divinity, can be so foolish as to deny that hitherto it is lawful to opine the contrary. For as yet there is properly no assent, The first, rather obli­ges the Church to a farther Inquiry. and the Church by the very positi­on of the case, resolves on a Me­liùs inquirendum. Nay he that should forbid an opposition, [Page 254] would bind the Church to a most evident danger of erring, and that even in her own Judgment, by which she is carryed to a further enquiry. This being setled, we may observe, the second degree is so compared to the first, that as the first exacts, so the second admits of an inquisition. The same inconveniencies thereforeThe second still admits it. recur again, though their danger be less manifest and more remote. It is then an injury also offered to the Church, to prohibit investi­gation in this second degree, or to alledg the said opination of the Church, to the prejudice of the opposite Doctrine, since, by her very opining, she confesses a readiness to thank those who shall take the pains to clear the truth. For she ought not to be thought opiniastre, but a Lover of truth, whereever it be found.

The third degree cannot other­wiseThe third is not pre­tended to in the Case. be attained to but by infalli­ble authority, or evident Demon­stration; for a professor of reason▪ [Page 255] cannot resist the force of either of these. If then our adversary shall be pleased the declare, which of these degres he honours with the Churches opinion, it will hence soon appear what answer he ought to receive.

As for the name of the Church, that is, of the Church supposing or opining any thing, I thus di­stinguish; that the Church may either be said to opine, because she hath established something by a publick and solemn decree, or by private suffrages: If by private An opinion may be held by all the men of the Church, and yet not by the Church. suffrage, then she did it either as a Church, or as so many men. As when all her members ac­knowledg Columbus for the dis­coverer of the West-Indies, they do it not as parts of the Church, or as faithful, (for Turks and Idolaters do the same) but meerly as so many persons.

Let the arguer, amongst these three significations of the Church thinking or opining, choose which he conceives most to his advan­tage. [Page 256] If the first, let him pro­duce the decree; which if he could do, we should not hear so much of the Church's opinion. If the third, he exposes himself to deri­sion; for how doth it concern faith, what the Church's senti­ments are in matters of History or Philosophy? The second, as it were only useful to his intent, so is it absolutely false, the Church being a congregation of faithful, that is, of believers, that is, of such as have accepted the Doctrine of Christ, and to this day conserved it. But clearly this opinion began about Gregory the Great's time, was unknown and unthought of in the dayes of S. Augustine, of little credit before the Schools, not yet proposed to, or if it were,That is by them as be­lievers, that is grounded upon and preserving inviolate Tradition. rejected by, the Oriental Church. So that by what other means soe­ver it may have speciously insi­nuated it self into the men com­posing the Church, it can chal­lenge no sway over them as they [Page 257] are a Church, that is, as believers, that is, as grounded upon a per­petual Tradition.

Hence we see how vainly they laboured in forming the propo­sed argument: For be it gran­ted the peoples opinion is the same with their pastors, and the pastors the same that the School­mens, and consequently the opi­nion of the men of the Church the same that the School-mens; it followes not, that it is in the Church otherwise then in the School men. So that if it be but opinion in the School-men, and such as may be changed, it's being dispers'd through the Church will not add to its certain­ty, but by consent of the whole Church it will be alwayes subject to change, and, if suffi­cient reason be brought, justly to be changed. It is then so far from following, that an opi­nion, by being the opinion of the whole Church, can­not be changed, that on the [Page 258] contrary, very unexpectedly, it appears to be mutable, and that in fit circumstances it ought to be changed.

It is easie to gather fromThat the Vulgar opi­nion nei­ther is nor ever was taught as a p [...]int of faith. hence what answer is to be affor­ded them who go about to ac­cuse the Church of circumvent­ing us, affirming they were taught as a point of faith, ‘tha [...] souls might be delivered out of Purgatory before the day of Doom, both by other prayers, and especially by those which have Indulgences annexed to them.’ Of whom I demand; were they taught that this was the perswasion of all the Pastors of the Church? If they affirm it, I cannot deny but they them­selves were circumvented. But let them not accuse me, from whom they have received no such Doctrine. I who have detected the Legierdemain, (if any such there be,) why must I suffer what they deserve who put the sl [...]r upon them? Let them com­plain [Page] of their own Doctors, let them call upon them to prove what they have taught; which if they cannot do, let them find them guilty, and accordingly pu­nish them, but withall give me thanks for the discovery of the cheat. But if, in truth, they have been taught no otherwise then that it is a pious credulity, But as a pious cre­dulity. that souls are, before the day of Judgment, delivered (which, if they take the pains well to exa­mine them, they shall find to be the meaning of their Doctors) who hath circumvented them, but their own selves through sloth and negligence? consequently, let them lay the guilt at their own doors.

What I have in this whole dis­putationThe Conclu­sion. performed, let them, in Gods name, judg whom he hath been pleas'd to make fit Ar­bitrators in Theological Contro­versies. What I have aimed at was this, ‘That antiquity did believe, that men in the next [Page] world, whether their souls are beatifi'd or no, were not admit­ted locally to Heaven till the day of the final conflagration. That then every ones works were to be examined; that the work [...] of the imperfect, whose foundation was on Christ, were to burn, and by that means their sins, not without detri­ment, to be remitted. That the opinion which holds pure pains, and those in the interval be­twixt Death and Judgment, either of their own nature, or by prayers determinable, is new in the Church, built upon slight grounds, & such as are uncapable in things Theological to beget faith; obnoxious to many and weighty objections; and finally by it's Patrons weakly defended.’ These endeavours I have crowded into this small Volume, for the benefit and conveniencies of such as take delight in Dissertations of this nature.