Notes on the first Chapter.

YOur first Chapter did somewhat sur­prise me, for being used to expect in your writings, Authorities express and driven home, I was amazed to find the main question of your work, past slightly over with a generall assertion that the Fa­thers say what you intend, without di­rectly producing Testimonies of suffici­ent either weight or number to evince your position. The Council of Florence I have taken notice of sufficiently in my an­swer to the Vindicator, which I shall en­deavour to get presented to you. The Result of my discourse there in short, is that I acknowledg all the Council and Pope assert, and shew they do not affirm what you pretend.

Your onely Testimony out of Saint John Damascen perplexed me, for I know your goodness so great, that you would not wittingly impose upon your Audito­ry, and esteemed your Criticism in Fathers so exact, that you would not permit such a [Page 15] notable mistake to gain credit upon you: How then happens it that you so confi­dently cite an Oration of Saint John Da­mascen, which Catholicks either doubt not to be his, or make a shamefull excuse for writing it, saying he was too credulous to fabulous narrations? In it are recorded the famous tales of Trajan and Falconilla, saved from Hell by the prayers of Saint Gregory and Saint Thecla. There is the monstrous story which you are pleased to recount to your Readers of an Heathens scull that told a good Eremite they recei­ved some comfort when they were pray'd for. Which story is taken either out of Palladius his Historia Lausiaca, or else Evagrius his Vitae Patrum, of which Saint Hierom testifies onely the first life to be true, and even in it, is that notorious Romance of Macarius Romanus. And of the former, the same Saint Hierom testi­fies he was an Origenist: wherefore the Authour of this Oration attributed to St. John Damascen is justly fear'd to have himself also been one, seeing his fine sto­ries aym at the comfort of the damned. Besides, our Criticks tell us this story is imposed on the great Saint Macarius, being originally written of another of the [Page 16] same name, and the Oratour adding that the answer was from God, whereas the O­riginal attributes it to the scull of a dead heathen Priest, and so far likelier came from the Devil.

All the rest you say in this Chapter is just the Doctrin of your Epistolar Anta­gonist as far as you let us understand his mind and mine too; to wit, that to deny prayers profit the dead cometh from the De­vil. The general resistence you plead a­gainst this Doctrin of Souls continuance in Purgatory, finds a parallel in all popular perswasions how weakly grounded soever, which none but discreet persons can en­dure to hear opposed; And for the an­swer I intreat your pardon, if I remit you to my late Reply to the Vindicator. For the rest you seem to press us that we must take your sence of the Fathers and Councils, telling us it is the onely ingenious one, and others are but extorted meanings. Truly I believe you speak what you think, but I desire you, think what you speak, that is, examin it well, for I believe your thinking is bred ex consuetudine videndi; your education hath been amongst them who dayly practis'd it; you hear the Bells ever ringing to such devotions; you [Page 17] see the custom spread over all the Western Church, and do not lift up your eyes to the beginning of it, and therefore you think it was ever so, and that it is the sence of those great Authorities.

But I cannot omit a by-word of yours, that it is easie to elude the Fathers by the voluntary glosses of blasted Authors. Is this spoken like a Controvertist? like a victo­rious and crowned Champion over Here­tiques, and that by weapons out of the Fathers, as you are esteemed, and worthily too? When you bring Fathers against any of them, do you profess they may be easily answer'd by blasted Authors? Whence then comes it, that in this Controversie you flie to an evasion so unprofitable to your self, injurious to the Fathers, and advantageous to the common Enemy? but that you esteem the Fathers you bring come not home to the point, and that they must be inched out by a pious affection; whereof, to tell you my mind, I believe all speciousness of piety, which prevents the understanding from being indifferent to judge of the truth, is in very deed a piece of impiety and temerity. And in our pre­sent Controversie, if the words of the Fa­thers by which they attribute purging [Page 18] of souls to the fire of Judgment be not beyond contest, I will yeeld the whole cause: (Some I have cited in my Treatise, and more I can cite, if necessity requires,) but if they be, why is it not lawfull for me to alledge them, though Heretiques make use of them for an evil end? charge either the Fathers for writing so, or the Heretiques for abusing them; however I I am free.

Notes on the second and third Chapters.

THese 2 Chapters go without Proofs, being as it were but inferences from the pretended Ones of the First; and con­sequently their fate depends on the fortune of their Leaders, which I hope I have al­ready sufficiently disabled. Yet give me leave here to add one Caution that may accompany you in your journey to ask all the Catholick world, whether they believe a Release of Souls out of Purgatory ordi­narily obtainable before the day of Judg­ment as an Article of their faith; or onely assent to it as a current truth, which they [Page 19] never doubted, nor ever examin'd. Should you proceed thus warily, I believe your number would strangely diminish: how many think you would fall off, as not con­ceiving themselves able to examin so hard a Question? how many of the learned would confess, the more they impartially consider it, the more they discover reasons not to be too confident of its being a point of Faith: especially, if they have the for­tune to compare it with other common perswasions, which themselves acknowledg Universal and ancient, yet not of Faith, as that of material fire now in Hell and Pur­gatory, &c. how few then will the num­ber of your Voters be? set but aside all those who think there's literal fire there, (which you are bound to do, because they believe it cerraintly, yet is it not of Faith) and presently your multitude in Spain, Italy, Turky, and Soria ▪ whither you went for witnesses, will shrink into a slender and inconsiderable number.

Whereas you add, we never read in Scriptures, Fathers, or Councils, that all those that go to Purgatory must necessarily be detaind there without any relief till the day of Judgment. I answer, first, 'tis but a negative Argument. Secondly, It plainly [Page 20] agrees with my Opinion, who hold them relieved there as well as you, though I ex­plicate my Tenet another way. Which here I intend in brief to shew you.

Wherein, that we may proceed more safely, let us first see how far we agree, and where we begin to differ. We agree that there is a Purgatory; and that souls there detain'd, are helpt or reliev'd by the pray­ers of the faithfull. We begin to differ, in explicating what we conceive by relief; and we wholy disagree in the time of or­dinary deliverableness.

Your conception of Relief, I imagin, is, that when prayers are said for the de­parted, their souls are really changed from the state of pains they were in before, to one of a milder affliction; where they must expect till some new cause raise them a step higher; and so by degrees, having past over all those steps, are at last admit­ted into heaven; your self will agree these words are metaphoricall, and translated from our manner of speaking; and I ga­ther, and conceive the sense too, of these words, is translated from our thinking; and indeed, if we mind our selves well, we shall still find our words of the same piece with our notions: now we, being con­versant [Page 21] onely with our bodies, frame all our notions after their measure, and speak, and think too, generally, of spirits, and even of God himself, as of things we daily commerce with. Do we not still fancy such motions, changes, and other operati­ons among Angels as we see here among our selves? Does not the very Scripture in condescendence to us, use the same me­thod? In most of which cases, both you and I are equally engaged to seek out a wiser meaning, then appears in the naked expres­sions; this task is common to all Divines to endeavour the verifying these phrases (so grosly absurd in their bare letter) by an explication that may strictly and rigo­rously maintain them to be true.

The Spirits I shall treat of to this pur­pose, are God, the blessed in heaven, and the souls in Purgatory. And to begin with God, the beginning of all things, what do we conceit of him, when we read of his being angry, and pleased; his resolving to punish, and afterwards repenting; his having eyes and hands; his going from place to place; his abiding from generation to generation; his seeing successively, and decreeing conditionally, and a thousand other instances; all this Divines must, and [Page 22] do find ways to verify of One simple and absolute unchangeable Essence, whose be­ing and knowing, and willing, is altoge­ther, without the least shadow of succes­sion for ever. All this Divines will say, was perfect in God from the first instant, as I may call it, of his Being; that is, from eter­nity; and yet our condition obliges us to speak, and even think of all this, in a way infinitly below the severe truth, though more or less approaching to it, according to the pitch of our capacities.

For Angels, as we read many of the like passages concerning them▪ and their acti­ons; so the like explications (with obser­vance of a due proportion betwixt the Creator and the creature) be applied to them. The Angels, we know, rejoyce at the conversion of a sinner; and sure it were no blameable practice to allow for that joy some little share in our intention; and perhaps to begin a particular devotion, di­rected to the increase of joy in the Saints and Angels, would be as laudable an in­vention as some that are highly commend­ed. Every day new sinners are converted; every day new joy is among the Angels for those conversions. How must we fairly reconcile the difficulties? the Scriptures [Page 23] say they receive joy, and Divinity sayes their nature is fixt: In our solemnest ob­lations we pray it may profit the Saints to glory: and our Doctors hold they are in termino, and no longer in the Way. Can a change consist with fixture? and a going on, with being at the end? in rigor we see it is impossible, and therefore must cast about to find out the Riddle, which is not so hard as we imagin, if we take the right course to seek. First, let us sever the par­ties: Scriptures and Liturgies are on one side, Divines on the other. Were the question of the truth of the words, without precisely determining the particular sense, I should clearly follow the former: but if it be onely of the Propriety of their signification, and what is severely verifi­able of them, I make no scruple to adhere to the later; and this, without the least diminution to the other. The authority of those, I confess, is more sacred and vene­rable: but the reasonings of these, I can­not deny, are more exact and artificiall; each fittest for its peculiar office. Those undertake the instruction of the world, and perform it according to the capacity of the persons they deal with; these onely intend their notions for the Learned, and [Page 24] their highest praise is, to illustrate and for­tifie and improve true Religion by true Reason.

But, to come neerer our particular question; when we pray to Saints or An­gels, do we not hope we move them then to go make their addresses to God for us, which they were not doing before? do we not expect that at the time of our prayers to them, they should entertain a new af­fection of charity to us; and even ground our devotion on th [...]s expectance? and wisely too, till our understandings be ele­vated to more perfect apprehensions; yet in a strict Examin, all these our conceits are very unsuitable to what really passes among these pure spirits.

Nor are we disappointed in the least of the fruit of our prayers, though we never so much apprehend the manner either of their hearing us, or interceding for us: which assurance ought to suffice the un­learned; whose sincere devotion will in­fallibly save them without these subtilties: the more speculative heads will find, if they search for it, other satisfaction.

To these inquiries, perhaps this one con­sideration may give some assurance; it is clear, in God, (as we said above) all is [Page 25] eternall, and whatever we read or imagin as done successively in Him, must be entire­ly verified of his first instant, were there any such beginning of existence in his per­fect eternity. Why may not the same be affirmed proportionally of Angels, whose being, though neither independent, nor infinit, yet is purely spirituall, and their duration altogether? and consequently the joy, our good works give them, was really in them at their beginning; with relation indeed, and dependance on our conversions, which were to happen after­wards in succession of time, but lodg'd in their brests altogether at first, by the large sore knowledge wherewith their bounte­ous God endued them: else what a strange perpetuall motion would there be in hea­ven, if every good or bad work of all the men on earth, should beget a new affecti­on of joy or grief in all the Angels of heaven, (I suppose our sins displease them, as they do God; and contristate them, as they do the holy Ghost) nor shall I so far distrust my Reader as to doubt his admittance of the same conclusions for Saints as well as Angels; since they both agree in the common notion of Spirits.

[Page 26]To apply this now to our present Case; As our conversions procure joy to the Angels, without making any new change in them; why may not our prayers pro­cure relief to the souls in Purgatory with­out making any new change in them? As all that we express in terms of succession whē we speak of Angels, is in Theology suffici­ently verify'd, by referring it to the first instant of their fixed being; why may not also the Relief we impetrate in succession of time for souls departed, be sufficiently verify'd by referring it to the first instant of their fixt being or separation?

I confess I know not how to find an un­evenness in the two sides, they are so ex­actly parallel: Addition of joy in one; diminution of pains in the other: new ho­nour to the one; new relief to the other; and both from the same act, the same pray­er, the same oblation. If the whole body of Catholikes expect to alter the sorrows of the souls departed, do they not also ex­pect to advance the honour of the Saints and Angels, nay, even of God himself? If that be universally practised, and with such hope, is not this so too? If the common people feel their imaginations check at our interpretation of that; would they not be [Page 27] as much startled, did they strongly re­flect on't, at the Schoolmens explication of this? both contain the same difficulty; and therefore both require the same me­thod to answer: and, as whatever belongs to man in the quality of a living creature, belongs to a horse or lion by the same title: so every attribute incident to An­gels purely as they are spirits, may justly be claim'd by any to whom that notion of spirit is truly appliable.

Now, souls departed have, in my opini­on, so large a knowledge given them im­mediatly upon their first separation, that they assuredly know all the good that they have done for them, both by occasion of what themselves procur'd, and by the vo­luntary charity of others; as also what shall be their portion at the day of Judg­ment, compounded of all these concur­rent causes; and so are now, from the first moment of their unclothing, in that degree of hope and joy which those fore­sights produce: which yet ought not in the least to cool our devotions towards them, since they never should foreknow that our prayers obtain for them those advantages, if indeed we did not really pray for them.

[Page 28]Thus far I am drawn in defence of truth and my self, both beyond my intention, and against my inclination: but still it sometimes happens, that what is not enough for some, is too much for others.

To conclude then, As prayers for the dead with hope of procuring them relief; is a traditionary doctrine and practice, so prayers to Saints and Angels (and even to God himself) with perswasion of ad­vancing their glory. is a traditionary do­ctrine and practise: but whether any re­all intrinsick change among those spirits be wrought successively, and occasionally after our sublunary fashion, is meerly a Theological inquiry, and no traditiona­ry either doctrine or practise.

In the third Chapter, you touch upon the Reasons of praying for the dead in particular; but because you handle it af­terwards on set purpose; I may lawfully defer the answer till I meet with it again; in the mean time, I freely subscribe to every word of the testimony you bring from Saint Austin.

Notes on the fourth Chapter.

Here you pretend to deliver the sense of the Liturgies, both of the Greek and Latin Church. My first note is that where Saint James prayes God to cause the souls to rest with the Saints; You seek to perswade the Reader, that we explicate it to pray, that they may not rest till (nay more till after) the day of Judgment: which I confess to be a jeer, fit enough perhaps for the merry trifling Vindicator, but you much undervalue your self to use scoffing in stead of Reason. You tell us too, the Fathers pray constantly for a present help, but when you cite words, nothing appears, but the common effect in which both sides agree.

One place you have out of Saint Am­brose which hath some shew, I loved him, saith Saint Ambrose, and therefore I will ac­company him to the kingdom of heaven, nor will I forsake him, till by tears and prayers I bring him whither his own deserts call him. These words you interpret to signifie ma­teriall [Page 30] time, that he wil pray so long till he hath brought him out of Purgatory in­to Heaven. I on the other side conceive it onely an expression of the fervency of the prayer which he would make for him. Let us weigh whether explication be the more rationall. To undertake what I say, was in Saint Ambrose's power, being no more then to promise the assistance which was in the Churches power. The other sense which you make, requires that Saint Ambrose should expect a revelation to know when his soul went to heaven, else he must never give over praying for him; that he should enter into the counsels of God, and understand both what punish­ment was due to Theodosius, and what quantity of prayer was enough to release him. Add to this the doctrin of both Fathers and Schoolmen, that there is no promise of God that a good mans prayers shall be heard for others; and therefore, as to us, 'tis wholy incertain. Wherein then are the prayers of those who think with me less fruitfull to their departed friends, then theirs, who call to God for a deter­minate or immediate delivery? If the re­lease be granted when it suits with the justice and mercy of God, as doubtless it [Page 31] is, then both their prayers are equall, and this onely difference is between them, as to the time, one prays with more impor­tunity, the other with more submission; but, as to the desire of benefiting, both with the same affection.

Next you urge Saint Chrysostom, saying, the dead receive some comfort if offerings be made for them; and conclude from that word some, as if it could not signifie hea­ven. But as you prettily press quiddam, so will I begg leave to press the future Par­ticiple, accessurum; which quite spoils your pretence of present change upon our pray­ers; and being indeterminately future, may signifie indifferently, the day of judgement, and that solatium quiddam (as you put it) let it mean what it will, is given them. Now the word some, being abstractive, sutes very well with the intention of him who would evince, that prayers did assuredly benefit the dead; as is the method of all wary men, to use the commonest and surest terms, without ingaging into par­ticular degrees, unless those degrees were the very question. And do you think there are not degrees too of rewards in heaven? is there not the reward of a Pro­phet? and that of a Disciple? that which [Page 32] is proportion'd to the giving a cup of cold water, and all this in the essentiall part of beatitude; every act of charity increasing it to its worth and degree? Besides, will you deny accidentall rewards in heaven?

Then you insist upon revelations of Saint Gregory and Venerable Bede, and make an advantage of their not being contra­dicted, which consequence I do not under­stand. For how many things are there written in divers Authors, both ancient and modern, neither believed▪ nor con­tradicted? or if contradicted, both them­selves and contradictions generally neg­lected? you add, that both Greeks and Latines positively approved to them. True it is, Gregory the third, according to Pho­tius (who could not well be ignorant of it, being so learned a person, especially in Books and Authors) was the Writer of those Dialogues; a Syrian born, and for his piety, exalted to the Popedome; and Zacharias, by birth a Grecian, and for his goodness promoted also to the same digni­ty thought them fit to be communicated to Greece, but with what success I cannot give you any account. Yet I dare say, no grave Divine now living, will undertake to justifie those Revelations, as having [Page 33] ever some smack that agrees not with Catholique Doctrin. Venerable Bede's Re­velations likewise have certain twangs of strangeness in them, which shew that they cannot bear the touch of a Theologicall examination; and so, in a fair word, I an­swer you the Revelations both of the one and the other, are generally contradicted by Divines, and you can make no argu­ment from them; but rather I may in­fer the effect of such an origin is to be suspected, and dangerous.

You say the Sequence of the Mass for the dead, inculcates the horror of dooms­day, to move good people to help the souls out of Purgatory before it come: As if you conceiv'd that day would be worse to them, were they not help'd before; which Position, I confess, I understand not: Since it is the generall Doctrin that the same doom is given in the particular judgement, and there is nothing then to be decided but Eternity. You bid me con­sider, that these three alone, Saint Gregory, Zacharias, and Saint Chrysostom, carry the Greek and Latin Churches on their backs; but give me leave to say, that the Fathers and Authorities I have cited (of which you take no notice) are so far more nume­rous [Page 34] and strong then they, that (to use your own phrase) they carry both their Churches and them and all on their backs.

You come at last to the Council of Chalcedon, and Ischyrions action against Dioscorus, for mispending a Ladies monys, bestowed at her death, for the good of her soul, so the text hath it, if I remember right, and not for the souls of the deceased, as you write it; though if it were so writ­ten, it were conformable to the use of the Church, and true Doctrine, and so I must put this also, amongst your other proofs, which want a little of that pious affection to stretch them home to the purpose: For your argument hence, seems to stand thus; almes given for the dead are to be distri­buted faithfully; therefore souls are deli­vered before the day of Judgement.

After this severe consequence of your own, you entertain'd the confidence to censure my explication of the offertory, for a sophisme; because I think the pu­nishment exprest there, signifies that of Hell, not Purgatory. But certainly, it is a spice of great weakness, to believe the contrary without a stronger proof then your bare word; since the expressions are so horrid, that greater or more significant [Page 35] can scarce be found, as, the jaws of a Lion, or Devil, the deep dungeon ▪ that Tartarus (or the deepest sink of Hell) should not swallow them up. And in the Office of the dead, where no order dwels, but ever­lasting horror; and other such dreadfull phrases. And the Greeks use to call it in their rituals, Gehennam, But why sedes re­frigerii should speak your purgatory, I am not capable of the consequence. It may be said by Writers, that refreshment is given there, but sure none before you, ever call'd that suffering state, the seat of refreshment.

Notes on the fifth Chapter.

AS your Chapter is short, so shall my Notes. You say, tradition alone can­not prove faith in all Articles; but you prove it not; for neither the Council of Trent, nor Saint Irenaeus, though the one say Catholike Faith is contained in both, and the other, that both are necessary for the Church, say that Tradition alone is not sufficient; Rather Saint Irenaeus saith [Page 36] it is; as all those Fathers must needs be un­derstood to do, who in case of difficulty, send us to the Apostolicall Churches. But to be short, I make you this argument: If Scripture teach somewhat that is not in Tradition, either Scripture in such passa­ges needs an Interpreter, or no. If none, can any sensible man perswade himself, it hath not been the perpetuall doctrin of the Church, so it be in a point necessary to be known? And if Scripture do need an Interpreter, that interpreter binds the Church, and is the immediate Revealer, and he must have the Authority of such a Proposer, to oblige the Church to his in­terpretation. It is therefore a sophism, to put the Scripture for a self-sufficient au­thority to bind the Church, in what is not known by tradition. But Scripture is ne­cessary for condemnation of Heretiques in such points as they pretend to deduce from it; and so the Council of Trent de­clares it self, when it speaks upon what ground it would proceed: What conse­quents follow of this doctrin, we must expect your leisure to declare, as yet I know none.

Notes upon the sixth Chapter.

IN the beginning of the sixth Chapter, I find little difference betwixt your do­ctrin and mine; For though you explicate Aristotles Nunc otherwise then I should do, yet not being necessary to our pur­pose, it is not fit for me to take notice of it. Only I understand not how after you have very learnedly declared that the soul by its aeviternity hath the succession of the parts of pain all together, afterwards you put that a soul by twenty years duration in pain hath suffered so long the hard con­sequents of that duration; For if the ex­tension of time as far as concerns the in­trinsecal existence of the soul was all re­sumed in aeviternity, and aeviternity was all together by the very initiating of it; I cannot apprehend the running of time by it, can add any intrinsecall consequent, which was not in it by the very making.

You seem to add yet a greater Paradox, telling us notwithstanding the being of aeviternity all together, yet there is a pri­ority [Page 38] of nature in it: which though I can conceive in causes and effects, as be­ing different things, yet in a pure indivi­sible it passes my understanding; specially when the priority must be in succession, where, when one part is, the other is not, Neither doth Aristotle help you, in whose doctrin the decreeing of the will is a successive action, as depending on a cor­porall motion in the body. But this be­ing the subtilty of a Scotist, I pray do not perswade your self, that in our doctrin (which makes the duration of the acts of the soul, the very duration of the soul) a change of act can be connaturally ad­mitted.

You insinuate something of a Metaphy­sicall charity, and that our doctrin is su­spected to account voluntarily assumed penance to be superfluous, if not superstiti­ous. Sir, I desire you by the freedom you see in my writing, to speak meaning loud, not to mince any sinister conceits fram'd of my Tenets. Truth loves light; and in this particular point, I will openly declare you my sentiment: All austerities or extern actions which either conduce to the breeding of charity in our selves and neighbours, or to the conserving and in­creasing [Page 39] it in those that have it, and to the extending of it by diffusion into divers subjects; all this, though there be no ob­ligation for the actions in common (which is meant by their being voluntary) I esteem holy and sanctified. But if any one should think God takes pleasure that we should weaken or afflict our bodies, with­out intending profit to our souls, but meerly because it pleases God, by and for it self, I am of opinion that he makes God a tyrant, and that his action is both superfluous and superstitious.

After this point, I find no disagreement between us in any thing that concerns our question; some words, at the very [...]nd, of the souls being exercised in a passive com­pliance, seem improper in our naturall and vulgar apprehensions; but not false, and therefore not to be excepted against. Rather I congratulate among many other learned passages in this Chapter, your tru­ly Catholike explication of the Churches Tenet, that while they are in Purgatory, their sins remain, and that their sins once perfectly taken away, they are straight in Heaven; which is in my mind, the true sense of the Bull and Council. Though I cannot approve what you attribute to [Page 40] Scotus, that in Hell, veniall sins after cer­tain proportion of punishment, cease to be, which I think a misgrounded and exotick conceit.

Notes on the seventh Chapter.

IN your seventh Chapter, you give Ari­stotles Reason for the unchangeableness of an abstracted soul, a very true and good one; but so dangerous, if not perfectly un­derstood, that it hath precipitated divers Pe­ripateticks into the suspicion (if not the re­ality) of being Atheists, because a substance without an action, is accounted among Philosophers frustraneous, and superfluous and incongruous to nature; to avoid which inconvenience. I must note that this is one difference betwixt bodily & spirituall sub­stances, that bodies are essentially instru­mentall, and therefore, where they are the directly and primarily intended parts of nature, they are frustraneous and idle, if they have not motion; but spirituall sub­stances▪ especially separated souls, are cer­tain beings, which are the end of bodies, [Page 41] and of all changes: which end succeeds to changes as standing still and quiet doth to locall motion, as being at home to the journey by which we come thither, as health to curing, and manhood to growth▪ therefore souls are of themselves unca­pable of motion, as being now grown a­bove materiality, which is the possibility to change and motion: and so by the negati­on of materiality in Peripatetick Philoso­phy is demonstrated the unchangeableness of souls. And who ever supposes a change in spirits, must suppose them also to have a potentiality to somewhat, which is to be attained by motion, as indeed those Di­vines do, who put change in them.

This is Aristotles way throughout his Philosophy, which those Peripateticks understood not, who drew the mortality of the soul out of the deficiency of fancy in her. I am glad in the mean while, to meet an Adversary so learned, as to pene­trate the truth of Aristotles and S. Thomas his Tenet, and so ingenuous as to attest those great Lights are on my side; by which it appears I am not left singular in my opinion; A favour the Vindicator would not aford me, but made it injurious in me to pretend or assert I built on Saint Thomas his Principles.

[Page 42]It is now time to retire from this di­gression to the imputation you lay upon the Translator, out of the Council of Trent, where it forbids difficult points to be preached to the vulgar; which you extend to the putting them into vulgar Languages, not without some wrong to all such great wits, who are as capable of high speculations, as the Greeks and Ro­mans were, and yet know no other Tongues then their mothers; and what Languages, I pray you, did those Greeks and Romans themselves use in their sub­limest discourses, but their mother Lan­guage? In fine, the practice of other Na­tions testifies, that the Councils prohibiti­on reacheth not so far, if you think it did, I wonder you prest it not home; look in his Preface, and you shall see this per­form'd by him, both to his and my justi­fication; of which yet you vouchsafe not to take the least notice.

But I would heartily intreat you to con­sider likewise those branches of the Decree which concerns your party, and is a great deal more morall and important to ver­tue. Incerta etiam vel quae specie falsi la­borant evulgari ac tractari non permittant. Uncertain devotions ought not to be di­vulged, [Page 43] how much less violently pressed? Were there but one clear sentence of a Father for the opinion of souls being freed before Judgement; Were there any ground of it but unproveable revelations before the School? Did there any anci­ent School man censure the contrary, did it not pass in the Council of Florence for an indifferent opinion, and the contrary not to be exacted; Did not even at this day the gravest School men temper themselves from censure, whatsoever their private opinion is, I might think this command might less concern you. But if none of this I have said can be confuted, then lay your hand upon your heart, and think what is to be done. Remember in what language the scandalous delusive promises annext to certain prayers are printed, and improvidently thrust, as your Epistle calls it, into Ladies hands; look but a little about you, and you may perhaps, find motives enough to proceed very tempe­rately in applying the Council of Trent against that worthy Person that translated the Book, whose conclusion you dislike, but confute not the Premises.

Your next opposition is about the day of Judgment, which you say is not to be [Page 44] prayed for, and your grounds are the dreadfulness of it, and a place out of Saint Hilary. And as for the dreadfulness, I pray consider the words you cite: Cum vix justus sit securus, which if you please to mark, say the just shall be secure, that is, out of all fear. Consider also the tri­umph the book of Wisdom describes, Then that the just stand up in great assurance, &c. And you your self know it is the sense of the whole Church, that even in Purgatory they are all secure of their salvation. As for Saint Hierom, he was yet in the state of uncertainty, and therefore no wonder if he had a deep apprehension of it, being perpetually in thought of his sins. But this was not the way which the spirit of God led Saint Martin, Saint Ambrose, and a late Saint, who professed, he rather de­sired to live in uncertainty of his salvation so to gain souls, then to die immediately with security of going to heaven; nor the mind of Saint Paul, who desired to be dis­solved, and accounted death a gain; so you see, one Saints apprehensions are not to be the rule of the Church. We have our Savi­ours warrant & exhortation even to them who shall see the disorder of the heavens in way to judgment, to lift up their heads [Page 45] with joy, that their redemption is neer. And Saint Paul calls the Saints, those who love Christs coming. And our only Master teaches us to say, Thy Kingdom come.

Nevertheless, I admit that the frightful­ness of that great scene of the Universall conflagration, may deterr spirits, weak and not confident of their strength, from de­siring to be alive themselves at that day, but not from desiring to come when God hath prepared elect Saints fit to encounter those terrors, and to pray that such men may quickly be raised, which is more re­gardfull in their way, who think that even in aeviternity the addition of time is of eminent consequence. Briefly, in the day of Judgment, there are two things con­siderable; One, the terrors and dangers; in relation to which part, none can con­ceive we ought to pray for it: the other, the great rewards and benefits to be then distributed to such as are found worthy; and in that respect nothing can possibly be more desireable to a Christian heart erect­ed with hope, and enflamed with love of such infinit felicity▪

Your ensuing part brings in the difficul­ty of the fruit of prayer for the dead, of which I may truly pronounce, it is both [Page 46] the easiest and hardest part of all this question: easiest to understand, hardest to perswade. And I hold my self bound to thank you, that you handle it like a grave and solid Divine, and not with whimsies (like my Vindicative Answerer) unworthy to be regarded, and able to turn a mans stomack that is bound to answer them; And yet fame threatens the world, with a second Tome of Christian doctrin, turned into jests by our Divine Tarleton.

Now to come to the point of the profit of prayer for the dead; wherein there are three considerations to be managed; first, what is the fruit of this prayer; secondly, what is obtained by it: and lastly, what comes to the speciall share of him who is prayed for. As to the first, remember that prayer is the substance of Christian life, recommended to us to be constant and perpetuall in all our actions; and let me add what you will not deny, in all our passions and defects: If we be so imper­fect as to desire what is not fit for us, yet it pleases God, that even that, as long as it stands with ignorance that 'tis against his will, be demanded at his hands. For still there is a conversion of the soul to him, and many times so much the greater, [Page 47] by how much the passion in us to the thing we desire is the greater.

Turn your eyes on a Gentlewoman that hath lost her husband, or dear child: see the passion she is in, the sorrow she suf­fers, so far as she conceives, her beloved loss to be in misery. Remember the words of Saint Paul, Sicut qui spem non habent, that is, inconsolably; put this Lady with all her passion into a conceit that her loss is reco­verable, that by her prayers to God, she shall eternally enjoy the missed comfort in a plenitude of bliss and happiness. With what earnestness of affection, with what a flood of tears, with what impetuousness of heart doth she embrace God and his goodness, and the hopes of heaven for her self and hers: And will you after this tell me there is no fruit of prayer for the dead, and this dead in particular; since it hath so deep a stroke upon the living friends?

But your eye lay only upon the fruit of impetration. I pray therefore (not to re­peat again how punctually all our expecta­tion of successive relief for those souls by our prayers is verifyed in their simultane­ous enjoyment of it;) tell me, is it to be understood, that a cause can make a thing be sooner, and not make it be? It is plain [Page 48] then if impetration be a causing or making the eternall reward come sooner, it is the causing of the eternall reward it self to come.

I can put this more home to You, who make no doubt but God so orders Beati­tude to be the End of our works▪ that withall he orders our works to be the means of our Beatitude: so that it is per­fectly true, if the works precede not, Bea­titude shall not follow, notwithstanding the effectuall will by which God hath or­dained it. For you understand that in Gods resolutions, there are no ifs and ands, as in ours; but that with one intuitive and strong act, he orders the means for the end, and the end by the means; and that all priority and posteriority is purely in the effects, none in his acts: And that Gods free disposition of creatures consists not, in that he can now determin what he list; but in that he hath determined what he listed; or rather, that he is essentially the very determination of what he lists.

But I exceed the bounds of what you think fit for a discourse to be vulgarly communicated, and therefore I return to my Theme, and conclude, if impetration of the day of Judgment be such a cause of [Page 49] it, and of all that passes in it, true Divinity must confess, if this impetration be not, the day of Judgment shall not be, nor any effect in it; how can any Divine who un­derstands the exactness of Gods working, deny, but, that the prayers for the dead by which its coming is procured, procure the very happiness it self of the party for whom he prayes, and brings him to the crown to which his merits call him, as S^t. Ambrose speaks; so that you see the dif­ficulty of this point consists in this, that those who are not Divines, do not under­stand the connexion of Gods works, and how it is true, that if any one circumstance ordain'd by God to bring about such an effect should fail, the effect it self would have no success.

By which the third consideration is made manifest, that the party for whom the prayer is made obtains by vertue of such prayer, not only his own glory and every accidental part of bliss allotted to him, but besides, obliges all the Saints of God, by being the occasion that by the prayer made for him, all their bliss respe­ctively comes to atchievment▪ how hard so ever it be to stamp a full conceit of this into the heads of the common sort.

[Page 50]Your second Argument presses that the coming of the day of Judgment concerns the living as well, or more, then the dead; I will not question whether it doth or no, but I ask, what doth that pre­judice the prayer, if it helps more then the maker of it thinks on? unless you imagin the good people pray like the little boy, whose prayer was, that God would bless his father and mother, and brothers and sisters, and no body else. I have not learn'd any such restriction of charity, nor did he teach it, who bids us in his own Prayer call him Pater noster, not Pater mi; And told us he knew well (that is better then we) what we wanted, and that our desires should be after the Kingdom of God, and all other things would be added to us; as, to Salomons Petition of Wisdom, besides the grant of it, were added those felicities he did not pray for.

And me thinks the reason is cleer; for if our charity be the adequate cause of im­petrating what we beg rationally of God, and God is not ignorant of what is fit for us, certainly, in respect of our charity, he will do it, so we be carefull to increase that▪ whether we ask it him or no. Look the Pater noster thorow, and see if you [Page 51] find any other object of prayer then the good of the world in common, and the necessaries to our own perfection. Other prayers are fram'd in condescension to our weakness, who do not cleanse our souls from particular desires, and are good and commendable to the proportion of divers abilities. But if all could attain the per­fection of desiring nothing but what cha­rity commands, it would be better both for the living and the dead, even in the way of impetration, though particulars were ne­ver thought on. Nevertheless, since the world is the world, this Article of praying for the dead, is as necessary as our imper­fection (which is not like to leave us) must needs make it, both in common and in par­ticular, as we see it used.

The rest of your Chapter is so specula­tive, that I could willingly have omitted it, but because you recommend it to be weighed, I cannot neglect it. I pray then take notice, that in Saint Thomas his way, the composition of spirits is not of mate­riality and spirituality, but of essence and existence, a composition whose separabili­ty or conjunction belongs purely to the activity of God, and is not a potentia ▪ but a non repugnantia, and so can have no [Page 52] cause under God, whose essence is in the order of existence, or rather the order it self, no other substance reaching to that order. Out of which is inferr'd, that as to create and annihilate, that is▪ to change existence per se, belongs only to God; so likewise doth any change in a pure spirit which cannot have its source in a con­joyned body. Those who put a kind of materiality which they do not explicate, whether they speak consequently or no, I cannot judge, but I know Tully makes sport with the Epicureans for giving their gods, quasi carnem, and quasi sanguinem, without being able to explicate them fur­ther. Besides, that a demonstration could be grounded upon propositions whose sense was not comprehended and explain­ed, I never read in Aristotle.

Saint Bonaventure (if his ordinary citers do him no wrong) makes duration to be truly divisible in infinitum, which, that it should agree to any thing, but either quan­tity, or by quantity, Peripateticks or any other solid Logician, think to imply as much as being divisible, without divisibi­lity. To his Reason and the two follow­ing inconveniences, S^t. Thomas's Scholars use the distinction of infinit in its parti­cular [Page 53] kind; and infinit simply, or in all kinds; and say this later onely belongs to God Almighty; and that if there were an infinit quantity, it would not therefore be God, nor that if an Angel know all spe­cieses of numbers or figures, therefore he knows all things. Nay, that because the intellect is but a passive faculty of it self is there any infinit vigor required to knowledge, though infinit, so it be purely infused, as likewise that the vigor of infinit duration is in the Conserver, not in the thing conserved; so that I doubt much how valuable these arguments can be made, though you seem confident of them, even more then of the Demonstration of Euclid and Archimedes, whom you think apt to swallow suppositions without proof, which is mistaken, unless you speak of some self-known Axioms, which I think you also will admit.

By the way I would intreat you to quote me some place of Scripture in which any Angel is recorded to have had a new internall act, for I know no such; though externall actions they have manifold; and so I end this Chapter, noting, that where­as you cite my Peripateticall Institutions for my opinion of Purgatory, that their [Page 54] testimony is not sufficient to declare my opinion in Divinity matters; the necessity of good method forcing me to abstain from Theologicall resolution in a Philoso­phical Treatise. I could rather have wisht you had taken more notice of the little book I wrote expresly concerning this ve­ry question; where the whole business is largely treated, the Objections rais'd, and Answers offer'd; many authorities pro­duc'd, and many Reasons; to none of which, can I any way conceive, you have much applied your thoughts; and so if they perhaps deserve no answer, I am sure they have none.

Notes on the eighth and ninth Chapters.

IN your eighth Chapter you trouble your self, whether it be possible for the souls in purgatory to see the humanity of Christ, which I am so far from disputing with you, that I willingly acknowledge it; and withall, that it raises a great heighth [Page 55] of charity in him, so that their state in Purgatory is far beyond the state of this life for charity, but yet that it takes not away the dregs of sin left in them at their death. Not that I think Saint Paul speaks of any such matter in the place you cite, but the meaning of those words▪ In corpore an extra corpus nescio, is, that he knew not whether his body was truly car­ry'd locally into the third heaven, or only that he had a sight of it, as Saint Stephen had of Christ in the place where he stood, and so the sense may be, whether the rap­ture was in his body, or only in his mind. For else we must conceive him dead in the mean while, which I know not that any af­firm; and otherwise these be two species of the three which Divines make of Visions.

To enquire then why the sins are not taken away in Purgatory; though I could answer you, that it is because they are in termino; and you Divines tell us they can­not merit nor demerit; Yet both I and you may ask how this is proved, and whi­ther we go consequently. I could answer again, that it is for want of fancy, or of an intellectus agens. But you would reply, God supernaturally supplies that, and I should [Page 56] think God doth not nor cannot prudent­ly change his setled order of causes meerly by favour, and because he will, without the profit of the world. Therefore I must briefly say, it is the result of nature, and that the coexistence of compossible desires impeaches not the duration of these weak affections, since God acts not but by infu­sion of new existence, as in the resurrecti­on. He that will assert miracles without proof, plays not the Divine, but puts all in confusion.

For this Interrogation, Cannot God do it? carries such an awfull aspect, that it seems to lay the imputation of Atheism on him who dares so much as doubt it; yet you, and all good Divines know, it signi­fies no more, then whether the effect im­plies contradiction; which may be dis­puted without horror, nay, peradventure not so much; for if God cannot do in particular, but what is best, he that can shew a thing to be not best (how possible so ever it be) exempts it from the force of that Interrogation. And although I could largely discourse of this later part, even by your own occasion, who grant the course of nature to be for me, yet to make this speculative part as short as I can, I [Page 57] will only insist upon contradiction, how ever I fear, few more then your self will be capable of the discourse.

I pray therefore reflect that when Phi­losophers agree, Identity of Time is neces­sary to contradiction, it is not out of the nature of Time it self, which being an ex­trinsecall accident, hath not power to make any thing compossible or incompos­sible in the subject where they imply con­tradiction; but it must be the nature of the subject it self, which being susceptive of as great mutability as time hath mutation, is in potentia another thing to the pro­portion of the changes of time; as, be­cause a man who walks can stop, and the flame of a candle go out in an instant; therefore the consistency of a material sub­ject, as to our minds consideration, is but moment-strong; and we can affirm no­thing of it in force of contradiction more durable then the unchangeableness or identity of time, which is purely a thought or an abstraction: Out of this it follows, that if we put in spirituall substances, a more then momentanean constancy, we must also put the force of contradiction in them proportionable to that constancy or identity of it self to it self. Now your self [Page 58] seeming to admit this constancy under the name of aeviternity in spirits, for a future eternity; it seems to me you should ad­mit nothing in spirits that is not compos­sible together in the subject, and by evi­dent consequence that not to have an act, and to have one in the same aeviternity, is as impossible as not to have, and to have in the same instant of time.

You will peradventure tell me, this po­sition ruins some common opinions in Di­vinity, and my brittle Vindicator would tell me it moulder'd away his faith: Sir, if you be of the opinion that Theology is arriv'd to its non plus ultra, I am not. I think many now common and probable opinions, will in after ages be demonstra­ted against, and prove erroneous: and therefore the pure authority of Divines, who build upon pure reason, hath no far­ther force with me then their reason. And I think I have learned this lesson out of Saint Augustin, as I am sure your self also have, how ever in practice apparences may seduce you from the exercise of it; as if you believe it consonant to Scriptures, Fa­thers, Councils, &c. without a legitimate examination of them: which when you go about, you find them to be easily eluded by [Page 59] the glosses of blasted Authors, many of which kind of Authors nevertheless Saint Hierom in his Comments upon the Scri­ptures was used to cite, that men of un­derstanding might see in the variety of di­vers conceits what truths might be picked out, even of blasted Authors, as Aristotle out of the verities mingled among false opinions drew his own demonstrations. The rest of these Chapters is but an ex­plication indifferent to both sides, in which as you admit in Purgatory a disposition to charity, so me thinks you should to the change of affections by it: And whereas you say that the soul is extra viam, the common Tenet of Divines should admo­nish you that she is not in state to have new revelations and changes which are the propriety of Via.

Notes on the tenth Chapter.

WHich is, for its Positions, entirely true and holy; but you seem to suppose as true, some misinformations, or misapprehensions concerning your Adver­sary, [Page 60] as that he questions generall tradi­tions, and calls them novelties; which how you can do who know Saint Austin testifies in his time, as yet the question was not agitated and that each part might prove either true or false, and that the Authour of the celebrated Dialogues ex­presly teaches they were unknown till his dayes, and from thence till Saint Odilo's time very little esteemed or noysed; How such an opinion can chuse but be a Novel­ty in respect of the Church of God, I can­not understand, or that six hundred years ago with a known beginning, can enroll it into the practices or doctrins delivered by the Apostles, passes my reach. As for the universall sense of the Church, I hope the Council of Florence's act will demonstrate the contrary, as you may see in my answer to the Vindicator; whither I beg leave to remit you.

The Text you cite out of Saint Austin is excellently true, Quae universa tenet Ec­clesia ab Apostolis praecepta, bene creduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur; but with these cautions▪ That the Church (that is, the community of Believers, as such, not as a multitude of men) hold them as of faith, not opine them only to be current truths; [Page 61] else every common perswasion grounded on any probable Reason or Authority, would become an unchangeable Article of Christian Religion; and in this, I think, I have your consent, if I mistake not the the 32. Chapter of your Systema, which I formerly cited, and desire my Reader to peruse the whole Chapter, being excellent­ly pertinent to this purpose: As also Ve­rons general Rule of Catholike faith, which I hear is newly translated into English.

There you shall see how warily that ex­perienced Controvertist proceeds in sepa­rating faith from opinions: No doctrin, says he, begun since the Apostles, though confirm'd by miracles, and those miracles reported by Saints, or approved by gene­rall Councils, or attested in the Bulls of canonization can ever be an Article of faith; Nor is the practice, says the same Auhor, even of the universall Church a ground firm enough to build a point of Catholike faith upon; because the object of faith is truth, and the Church often guides her practices by probable opinions, which upon occasion she may change. And for Decrees of Councils, the same Doctor maintains, and cites Bellarmin for his opinion; that unless the Council pro­ceed [Page 62] conciliarly, that is, by due examina­tion, &c. and define properly, not barely affirm a thing by simple assertion, and oc­casionally, as it were, en passant: it does not oblige our belief; and which is highest of all, though the Council decree expresly and professedly a Doctrin deba­ted, yet unless it be defined as a truth to be believed with Catholike faith, they are not properly heretiques that hold the contrary.

What you deliver that one mans satis­passion may by way of impetration satisfie for another, and profit him, is very ac­ceptable▪ and none but they who mistake the words, can dislike the sense; for we see humiliations accompany solemn prayers, both in the Law of Moses, and Grace; and nature it self teaches us, it is a conve­nient habit for him that intreats mercy.

Notes on the eleventh Chapter.

WHere I see very little for me par­ticularly to except against, but that you term our Tenet, an Innovation, which name better becomes your own: [Page 63] But this is an Indulgence to be granted to the conceit every one has of his own argu­ments; For the opinion, that the sensitive or corporeall part of man is capable of venial sin in it self, and so of goodness; I neither have nor will have any thing to do with it; You say 'tis taught by the most speculative Divines, as Scotus's Scool, and Cajetan, &c. I dare not meddle with such great men. As for your Opiniators you speak of, I cannot point you to a fairer example then the Vindicators Creed, which he hath declared to be his faith, in his Discourse against me. To the touch you give about probable opinions, the question is too great to engage in on so slight an occasion. The place you quote out of Saint Austin, seems not to concern the question, being only about the mean­ing of a Text of Scripture; however the saying is a very good saying.

Concerning some seeming excrescencies, as you call them, in practical Devotion, you speak like a grave man: you dislike them indeed, but in such soft and gentle words, that none but a very tender ear will feel the stroke; they have no strict acquaintance with Church orders, they are onely a sort of Bigotterie; which is a dark [Page 64] word, and many of the persons most con­cern'd, will least understand it. Much af­ter this fashion did old Eli chide his sons, who had got an ill-favour'd trick to fetch up with a new invented fork, part of the sacrifice out of the Caldron▪ and cheat the people of the fat of their offerings: What says the old father to his sons for this? Quare facitis res hujusmodi, &c. Nolite filii mei, non enim est bona fama quam ego audio, ut transgredi faciatis populum Domini. And almost thus far you seem angry too, but is this enough? Have you sufficiently contri­buted to the secure disparaging such exor­bitances, like a free and zealous Divine? should you not have branded 'em particu­larly and smartly, as being not only (sure even in your own judgment) not good, but abominable & detestable? let any indifferent person seriously consider the intolerable flattering promises, unwarrantably and scandalously applyd to certain praiers, and other actions (good enough of themselves, but incredibly abused by such false and covetous Merchants) and he will find you might have seasonably applyd a little shar­per correction, then what imports they are only in strict account not justifiable. This, I confess, is not our direct Controversy, [Page 65] yet it is more censurable, only in degree, then an eager inviting of people to be­stow alms, with promise of a speedy deli­very out of Purgatory, especially, if they name the day, as I think some priviledg'd Altars venture to do.

Notes on the twelfth Chapter.

IN which, you justly say, it is a most uncertain thing to determin of souls in Purgatory, how long they stay there, and that indeed, there is neither reason nor re­velation to conduct us in that speculation; which is very true, and I shall seek to con­firm it by the testimony of the Church of Rome, or at least, of the Pope, who takes the granting of Indulgences to be his per­sonall priviledge; If we believe the Au­thor of the Roman History of Trent, who seems to speak it out of good warrant. I give you the words of an Author, writing and printing in Rome, not full twenty years since, and therefore who credibly was an eye-witness of what he wrote. Audiatur (saith he) verborum formula qua utuntur [Page 66] Romani Pontifices in suis de liberandis A­nimabus concessionibus, and annexeth for the form these words: Nos divina miseri­cordia confisi concedimus, ut quotiescumque sacerdos in tali loco Missam celebraverit pro liberatione unius animae in Purgatorio ex­istentis quae per charitatem Deo unita ab hac luce decessit, & piorum suffragiis juvari meruit, ipsa anima, quantum Divinae boni­tati placuerit, opportunis de thesauris Ecc­lesiae subsidiis adjuta, peccatorum remissionem consequatur, & de poenis Purgatoriis faci­lius valeat ad coelestem patriam pervenire. Where you see, that notwithstanding a soul enjoys the priviledge granted to such Altars; she may stay in Purgatory till doomsday. And that none of our opinion have reason to abstain from the use of pri­ledg'd Altars, and the like Indulgences for the dead, or do well, if they speak against them; but ought to cry out against the abuse of those who perswade innocent souls of strange vertues which were never granted them, so delude them with hopes for which they have no ground.

Nevertheless, I desire you to reflect, that if this be the profession of the Roman Church, concerning the souls which seem to have an eminent favour & degree in Christs [Page 67] merits and the prayers of the universall Church, that it can be no greater in respect of those souls which have only the private intercession of friends; whence we may gather, that such mediations make them not come sooner then other souls, but easi­lier to the Kingdom of heaven.

I wonder also that you being neer a Jubilate Divine, should make difficulty to censure an opinion; what is there more of difficulty in censuring then in approving, nay then in determining a case to be Usury or Simony? Are there not divers kinds of censuring? Some juridical, and they sup­pose superiority: Some unappealable, and they suppose supremacy: Some only ra­tionall, and they need no more then Equa­lity; and with reference to this last branch, you and I may freely censure or approve of one anothers sayings, as we see cause; In this very Chapter, do not you charge my opinion with Novelty, and consequently with falshood? which surely is a kinde of censure: and as for the con­sequence it self, I shall easily admit it in Faith, but not in Opinions; which I con­conceive may possibly be new, and true too.

I have no more to note concerning your [Page 68] Book, unless I should mark that you seem to make Participem esse fidei Romanae, all one with submitting to the decisions of Rome; but that concerns not our present question; yet I desire you would be more rigorous in your interpretations, that so the credit of your citations may be the greater. Only three things come into my mind, which I forgot to note in their pro­per places; one should have been about the middle of your fourth Chapter, where you would escape the Argument drawn from the frequent mention of the Day of Judgment in the Roman Liturgy; by saying, 'twas partly, that the dead might re­ceive comfort before the last terrible day; neither can the words have any other sense. Pray read over the sequentia again. Can these words, Ne me perdas illa die, inter oves locum praesta, &c. Confutatis male­dictis, flammis acribus addictis, voca me cum benedictis; &c. have no other sense but delivery before the day of Judgement? Joyn to these the prayers of the Breviary; Cum veneris in novissimo die: dum veneris indicare seculum per ignem, libera me Do­mine de morte eterna in die illa tremen­da, &c. And indeed, all over the offices for the dead. Can none of these words have [Page 69] any other sense, then release before the day of Judgement? Is it possible the Churches prayers should be thus cross in­terpreted, that where we expresly pray for delivery in the day of Judgment, you should think we must necessarily mean before the day of Judgment?

Another note which I omitted concerns your first Chapter, where you treated of Revelations. For farther answer to which, I would offer you a notable ex­ample of no less a Person then Gregory the ninth, who considering the ill success of the designs he had undertaken at the in­stance of Peter of Arragon, and upon the assurances of St. Bridget, and St. Katherin of Siena (who spake with great confi­dence of knowing the mind of God) being now in his last sickness, took the B. Sacrament in his hands, and with most solemn and fervent intreaties, conjur'd his successors not to govern themselves by the Visions of such persons as give no reason for their counsels. Compare now the pro­babilities of your Revelations with these that deceiv'd this good Pope. Reflect first on the persons engag'd; a famous Ermit, and two canoniz'd Saints pretend to have it immediately from God, on the one side: [Page 70] on the other, (that is, on yours) some well meaning people perhaps, and devout Pilgrims (the graver Persons that write of such curiosities being generally, if not al­together, bare relaters of what they hear from others) tell strange tales of Visions and Apparitions sometimes to themselves, sometimes to their neighbours, of which not one in a hundred but has something of ridiculous or superstitious: Remember the poor soul that was put to scrub and wash in the Baths at Rome, mentioned in those you will call Saint Gregory's Di­alogues. Read well Saint Bedes Revelati­ons (I mean those he as an Historian recounts to have happen'd to others, as they said) and you will find besides hea­ven, hell▪ and a penal place where imper­fect Christians are punisht (that is Purga­tory) that Revelation tells us of a fourth, where was no punishment at all, but in it agmina laetantia, foelices Incolae, &c. Now, let us ask in the name of Faith and Divi­nity what place is this? The Revealer puts it utterly void of pain, (and so neither Hell nor Purgatory) and full of joy; nay so full, that he could not imagin greater, and so took it for Heaven; but the Angel which guarded him checkt him in that [Page 71] thought, and shew'd him Heaven after­wards. What Divine can acquaint us with so much as the name of this place, or ex­plicate to us why in Justice the very little imperfect Christians whom he places in this gay place, should not feel some pain proportion'd to their fault, as wel as the ve­nially more imperfect souls had to theirs; and these so horrid too, that he who had the Vision, took the place for Hell. Again, he affirms absolutely of those very little imperfect souls that they all go to Heaven in the day of Judgment, and the self same of those seen in Purgatory, which makes the words following concerning some coming sooner subjoyn'd to this later, seem an addition, no such words being an­nex'd to the other state; whereas me thinks according to the doctrin even of my op­posers, those who needed little or no pur­ging, should come to heaven sooner. In a word, this fourth place either contain'd souls perfect in charity, and then 'tis the heresy of John 22. to hold it; or imper­fect, that is, to be purg'd, and yet in no penal place, that is, not in Purgatory, which is equally opposit to Catholicism. How strange a thing is it then that men should build us Articles of Faith upon Re­velations, [Page 72] which are at least subcontrary to Faith. Besides, which is remarkable, Saint Gregory and Saint Bede, are not pre­tended revealers, or ascertaining the Visi­ons on their own experience, but upon the testimony of others they could never be assur'd of; whereas those other en­gag'd the testimonys of the Saints them­selves, and yet miscarry'd most ut­terly.

After these two Revelations of the Dia­logues and Bede, there is none (for any thing I know) more authentique for this point, then that which you recount in your first Chapter, usher in so solemnly, and rely on so assuredly; how that once upon a time, a certain dead mans skul told a certain holy man, that every time he pray'd for the dead, we feel, said the deaths-head, some comfort. Now, as ill luck would have it, this was the skul of a meer Heathen; and so, if heathens use to go to Hell and not to Purgatory, it might sound indeed in behalf of the damned, but not the least concern those in Purgatory, for whose relief only the Church prays. Next, consider the things they meddle with; the one side fairly foretold what in time we could discover the truth of, and so was [Page 73] concern'd to be wary; and the matter it self so far from incredible, that it was not improbable: Your side tell stories far more craftily, such as can never be dis­proved, such as may defy all the world to discover any falshood in them; but hold a little, all this high confidence, I doubt, is not granted on their assuredness of truth, but impossibilty of triall: for who can detect the fraud of such subtil Merchants, who pay us in coyn that no touchstone can ex­amin? who can charge them, as those mistaken ones in Gregory the ninth's case were by dear experience of the whole Christian world in the miscarriage of the Holy War lamentably confuted? Many other instances there are, which all con­spire to the confirmation of the holy Popes wise advice; let them give Reason for their promises.

The third note, which I think, I also omitted, relates to your cencession that by the order of Nature souls in the state of se­paration are absolutely immutable, and can­not change their posture from Purgatory to Heaven, but supernaturally they may: If you mean by supernaturality, the extraor­dinary power of God, I agree with you; and so our controversy will be at an end: [Page 74] but if you mean any constant ordinary way appointed by God to effect that change before the day of Judgment; I conceive it very reasonable some cleer evi­dence be produced, such as may warrant an Opinion, that by your own Tenet so directly crosses the course of nature: when I see that, you shall immediately find me most ready to submit: till then, I hope neither you, nor any of my fiercest op­posers will have the least just cause to con­demn me.

If after this you demand, How shall we distinguish what the Church or Coun­cils teach to be believed as of Faith from other doctrins promiscuously delivered? First, I do not remember this Objection any where insisted on by either of my late Opponents; and I am very slow to stir farther then I am mov'd; and indeed, think it inconvenient to start new game, before we have hunted down the old. Secondly, Are not you oblig'd as well as I, to provide an answer for such a Questi­on? I am confident that the strictest of you do not hold all that is taught in the Church, or defin'd by Councils, even in doctrin and manners, are Apostolicall Re­velations; if you agree with me so far, [Page 75] why do you think me bound to sever the points of rigorous Catholique Faith from Tenets of an inferiour degree, rather then your selves? where we are all indifferent­ly concern'd, why do you exact the per­formance from me alone, as if it were not your duty as well as mine? not that I conceive it impossible to be done to full satisfaction, but that I am no more en­gaged to do it then you; though perhaps upon occasion of a second Essay, I may offer my endeavours towards the cleering that point; especially should my Vindica­tor proceed close and pertinently like a serious man, and an ingenious Schollar; for so I should have more time to attend on the weightier matters. And most of all, if he would enlarge himself a little upon the same Question in his next Vindication, for I shall be glad to be directed and assisted by any one.

But if any be so unexperienc'd as to imagin all that is deliver'd or decreed is absolutely of Faith, let him satisfie the in­stances commonly urg'd by Divines of the Assumption of our Blessed Lady, of the souls being the Form of our body, and many other such truths universally assen­ted to, but not admitted into the Cata­logue [Page 76] of Articles. In fine, if this last be your opinion, you will find very few wise men of your mind; if the former, you are equally concern'd with me to separate Catholike from Theologicall Faith, or any other Proposition of inferiour qualifi­cation.