Religion and reason mutually corresponding and assisting each other first essay : a reply to the vindicative answer lately publisht against a letter, in which the sence of a bull and council concerning the duration of purgatory was discust / by Thomas White, Gent.

Religion and reason mutually corresponding and assisting each other first essay : a reply to the vindicative answer lately publisht against a letter, in which the sence of a bull and council concerning the duration of purgatory was discust / by Thomas White, Gent.

Table of contents

Title page

THE AUTHOR TO THE JUDICIOUS READER.

INDEX.

Errata.

Introduction.

FIRST PART. Refuting some of the Vindicators Objections, as they ly in his Book; chiefly those that concern the Middle State.

FIRST DIVISION Containing an Answer to his five first Sections. The Vindicator's mistake of the manner of treating Controversies, and of the nature of a Censure. The Method a knowing Divine ought to pursue. Diverse Errors rectify'd.

SECOND DIVISION. Containing an Answer, from Section sixth, to the fifteenth. The Ground-work of the Vindicator's impugnation of the Middle State found to be a most groundless Calumny. The occasion of writing the Middle State, the Letter of Vindication, and that in Answer to the Dispensers of the Bull and Canon. His weakness in arguing, in stating the Question, and opposing his Adversary.

THIRD DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his fifteenth and sixteenth Sections. The true Question establisht, and the sence of the Bull and Canon defended against the mistakes of his learned Divine. Some Notes evidencing that nothing about the Duration of Purgatory was defin'd in the Council of Florence.

FOURTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his seventeenth Section. The Authours Doctrin of Councils explicated; This new opinion of Purgatory in likelihood later than Saint Gregory.

LAST DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section the eighteenth, to Section the two and twentieth. The Catholick Rule of Faith defended. The Vindicators weakness in making the unlearned Judges of Controversy. His frequently mis-representing my Doctrin, and manifold failings in his new attempts from the Bull and Council.

SECOND PART Refuting the Vindicator's other scatter'd Objections; chiefly those which oppose several Doctrins of the Author in other points.

FIRST DIVISION, Containing an Answer from Sect. 22. to Sect. 27. The Vindicators unskilfulness in the nature of a Metaphor. The Triall of his Tenet and mine by Fathers and Liturgies. His Drollish Calumnies shown groundless by the Authours Explication of his tenets about the Church's future proficiency in science, a dispossest Governour, and the uncertainty of the Scripture's Letter by meer transcribing. His manifold abuses of the Authour in his citing him about Councils, and Hell. His miscalling God's doing whats wisest and best, Pagan Fatality.

SECOND DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section the twenty seventh, to Section the thirtieth. The Identification of the Soul's affections with her self. The best corporeall pleasures most conducive to Beatitude. In what sence the Soul is not the same in the Body and out of it. Affections of Souls not retractable during their separation. Mis-informations of that grief the Author puts in Purgatory, rectify'd. Our Saviour's sufferings not prejudic't by this Doctrin.

THIRD DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section thirtieth to Section thirty fifth. The Duration of pure Spirits free'd from the mistakes of Fancy. The Identification of the Soul and Body maintaind by reason and Authority; and that this is requisit to the Souls change. The Vindicatours rude conceits of Angels. Vnalterableness of pure Spirits prov'd from the Indivisibility of their actions, His false pretence that the Author injur'd St. Thomas.

FOURTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section the thirty fifth, to Section the fortieth. The Vindicators forgetfulness that Eternall Happiness was any Good at all. That Prayers for the dead in the Authours Doctrin manifoldly profit the Souls in Purgatory, and relieve them, even there. Charity asserted to be the immediate Disposition to Bliss. The Authours Doctrin consonant to the Council of Trent in the points of Remission and Satisfaction. Diverse Squibs and Insincerities of the Vindicatour toucht at.

LAST DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section fortieth, to the End. The Vindicators mistakes of what passes in the Soul at reunion. The efficacy of his sleightly grounded Devotions examin'd, on the by. His impotent malice in objecting Paganism. His many bogglings at Divinity-Explications, like to fright him out of his Faith, satisfy'd.

[Page]RELIGION AND REASON.

First Essay.

§

[Page]

[Page]

RELIGION AND REASON Mutually corresponding and assisting each other. FIRST ESSAY. A Reply to the vindicative Answer lately publisht against a Letter, in which the sence of a Bull and Council concerning the duration of Purgatory, was discust. By Thomas White Gent.

Vinc. Lir. cap. 27.

Intelligatur te exponente illustriùs, quod anteà obscuriùs credebatur. Per te Posteritas intellectum gratuletur, quod ante Vetustas non intellectum venerabatur. Eadem tamen quae didicisti ita doce, ut cum dicas novè, non dicas nova.

PARIS MMLX.

THE AUTHOR TO THE JUDICIOUS READER.

[Page]

[Page]

I Suppose you have perus'd the Book I here pretend to Answer; And, how do you like it? has he done his work? I dare not say, demonstrated, for sure he will not offer at what he thinks impossible; but has he prov'd, which is a modest word, and he must not be offended at it? has he solidly prov'd, That the position he sustains is a Truth traditionarily deliver'd from the Apostles to us as a[Page]point of Catholick Faith? Or, secondly, That It is Defin'd either in the Bull or Council? if he had done this, I should heartily rejoyce in his Victory, though over my self: But if, as to the first branch, he have onely prov'd it the common perswasion of later Ages; and that, without clearing in what quality it is held, whether as Faith or Opinion, even by the Moderns: If, instead of the Consent of Fathers he bring but One, above Exception, and out of that One, the first and chief testimony is indifferent both to him and me, and the onely difficulty of the rest objected and answer'd by my self, and unreply'd to by him: If, of the three passages he cites out of the publick Liturgyes, one onely bear any shew of difficulty; the other two being either plainly neutral or grosly abus'd: And, if in the second branch, he have onely prov'd that it was suppos'd, or, as their Title-page warily calls it, Contain'd in the Bull and Council, and not Determin'd, I cannot see my case so desperate as he imagins. Scripture it [Page] self oftentimes proceeding upon Suppositions conformable to the fore-entertain'd apprehensions of those it speaks to, without engaging that every such supposition is a reveal'd Truth. But, on the other side, if I have plentifully alledg'd both Scriptures and Fathers, and Liturgyes, and Reasons too (of which me thinks a little does well even among Divines) and to none of these has he given the least satisfactory answer; I cannot see but my case is hopefull; and when you have read this little Treatise, I cannot doubt but you will see it so too.

But all this engages onely a particular Controversy, the next is of a far more high and universal importance, of a far different strain from other single and ordinary Questions. For in this, we agree that what the Church sayes is the truth; we agree in the words wherein the Church delivers us that truth, our onely dispute is about the sence of those words; or rather what ought to be the means to come to the knowledge of that sence. We find by dayly [Page] experience the same Creed recited in the mouths of children, of men, and of the learned: We cannot doubt but the apprehensions of children and men are different, and that our young thoughts are to be corrected by Age; but whether the Learned and the Prudential make the same apprehensions, is the great Controversy between us. My Antagonist seeing the largest part of the Church consist of this degree of Prudential men, perswades himself, that not only their Belief, but their very apprehensions are uncontrollable and unamendable: I conceive, God has given that priviledg to Learning, to make us understand the truth of our Faith better, then by vulgar and popular conceptions. On my side stand the endeavours of the whole Schools, whose direct Profession it is, to explicate and declare the true sence of Scripture, and the words in which Faith is left us. On his side stands the multitude of the common People, whose fancyes are not elevated, nor their judgments improv'd by Study: this Multitude he loudly [Page] calls the Church, All Christianity, and such brave names: but be not astonisht at his great words, for he distinguishes not between the Church, and the weaker part of it which he follows; nor offended at me that I observe not a grave and regular Progresse, where I am set to catch a bird that hops up and down from twig to twig, chirps upon this a little, and then flyes immediately to another; but rather pity the condition of an old clumsy man too slow and heavy for so wild a Chace. Wherein, yet, by the help of God, I am resolv'd to follow him, as fast as I can. As the whole Book in a manner is made up of little else but boutades and flashes, so you are onely to expect from me short hints of what might be said more dilatedly, which I hope may suffice to counterblast those sudden gusts. If any other, as is threatend, come out with stronger Ordnance, I shall endeavour to oppose stronger Bulwarks. I hope he will write hereafter more closely and with less distemper; especially, since now, as I understand, [Page] he intends to read my Books; I would he had done so before he had written against them; for then I might have hop'd a few hours would have suffic'd to make my Answer, which now has cost me all my spare time of a whole fortnight.

Tho. White.

INDEX.

[Page]

A

EVery Act (even a sinfull one) has some perfection, as to what's positive in it, pag. 132.

That Affections got here are not distinct from the Soul, no singular Opinion, p. 131, 132.

Antiquity not favouring ante-judiciary Delivery, shown from the miscarriage of his best Testimonies thence, p. 105, 106, 107.

Arraignment of the Author feebly attempted. p. 90, 91, 92.

C.

CEnsuring of Doctrins, and who may lawfully do it, p. 6, 7, 8.

[Page] Controversy, in what manner to be handled, p. 5, 6.

Corporeall Affections remain after separation, p. 137, 138, 141, 142, 143.

Best Corporeall pleasures most conducive to Beatitude, from p. 133. to p. 137.

The Council of Florence, examin'd. p. 49. It (and the Bull) wrongly descanted on by his eminently learned Divine, p. 53. not holding ante-judiciary Delivery a materiall point, nor of Faith, p. 58, 59, 60, 61.

Councils, how held by the Author, how by some other Divines, p. 64, 65, 66. Infallible in things necessary, and proceeding advisedly, p. 68, 69. Their Errability, speaking in common, and abstractedly from all matters and manners of proceeding, held by all, p. 121, 122, 123. Fewer, easier, and less deceivable requisites to their Infallibility in the Authors Doctrin than in others. p. 71. 121. 123.

The Council of Trents Doctrin concerning Remission and Satisfaction exactly observ'd by the Author, p. 177, 178, 179.

D.

DEfinitions may proceed upon Suppositions onely probable, p. 96. 97.

Delivery so speedily expected by Priviledg'd Altars, diminishing the care of assisting our dead Friends, p. 88, 89. and our amendment here, p. 184, 185. The opinion of ante-judiciary Delivery never taught as certain, p. 83, 84. 87. Its beginning and progress, p. 77. to 81.

True Discourse in Angels following from the Vindicators tenet, p. 162, 163.

Distinguishers between Faith and Opinion must neither be illiterate nor meanly learned, p. 76, 84, 85, 87.

Divinity grafted on the stock of our naturall speech; and, so, on Philosophy, p. 24.

E.

EYmericus his mistake, p. 47, 48. His censoriousness p. 39, 40.

F.

FAith not endanger'd by true Science, p. 12, 13. but its objects better understood [Page] by it p. 9, 10, 14, 15. not diversify'd according to the severall Apppehensions of the Faithfull. p. 9, 10, 11. 14. 191. 198. 199.

So [...]e False-dealings and disingenuities toucht at, p. 22, 23. 27, 28. 31. 48, 49, 50, 52, 61. 93, 94. 112, 113, 115, 120, 121, 125, 126, 174.

Father and Son spoken of God metaphorically, 102, 103, 104.

That Foundations contradict ante-judiciary Delivery, p. 79.

G.

THat a Governour dispossest ought to be restor'd when the common Good requires it, the profest and express Doctrin of the Author, p. 116.

S. Gregory not the Author of those Dialogues which gave us the first news of an ante-judiciary Delivery, p. 77, 78. Hence, the origin of that Opinion much later, p. 107.

I.

I Dentification of the Soul and Body necessary for a Body's action on her, p. 153. 155.

[Page] Identity of the Soul and Body, p. 154, 155.

Infallibility, when certainly found in decrees of a Pope and Council, p. 72, 73.

Inquest not necessary to find our Faith p. 73.

Interpretation of the Bull and Council by the Vindicator, manifoldly defective, p. 75.

M

THe Method of a Divine in seeking Truth, p. 8. to 14.

Diverse Mistakes about the Council of Florence, p. 92, 93. of a Censure, p. 16, 17. of the occasion of my writing the Middle State, p. 28, 29. of a Metaphor, p. 101. of the Liturgyes manifoldly, p. 109, 110. of my Doctrin concerning a dispossest Governour, p. 116. and the Vncertainty of Scriptures letter, 110, 117, 118. of best corporeall pleasures, p. 134. of eternall Happiness to be no Good at all, p. 166, 167. of the Souls nature at reunion, p. 183.

Mysteries of Faith not knowable without Revelation, p. 11.

P.

PAganism uncharitably and weakly objected, p. 187.

Pains of Purgatory what, in the true opinion of the Author, p. 144.

Prayers and Alms for the Dead in use before the Opinion of ante-judiciary Delivery, p. 78, 79. and many wayes beneficiall to them in the Authors Doctrin, p. 167. to 173.

A Prohibition of a Book no Censure, p. 16. to p. 20.

Punishments of pure Spirits agreed by all to to be Acts of the Will, p. 88.

Q.

THE Question stated as in the Bull, p. 34.

S.

Scriptures Letter uncertain without the ayd of Tradition, p. 117.

The Soul, how substantially chang'd by separation, yet the same, p. 139, 140.

Pure Spirits know all things together and [Page] perpetually, p. 156. to p. 161.

The Sufferings of our Saviour not prejudic'd by the unyeeldingness of separated Souls to externall torments, p. 146, 147.

T.

TRadition not examinable, p. 72. More or less Time coexisting adds or dimininishes nothing to a pure Spirit, p. 149. to 153.

Errata.

[Page]

P. 114 l. 19, 20. these terms; but the Terms expressing those Mysteries, which were—p. 147. l. 9. conform. p. 157. l. 12. appetit.

Introduction.

SIR,

HAD your Answer to the unknown Author been written in my fresher dayes, I should have endeavour'd to have given you an ampler satisfaction: Now, being come forth in my frozen Age, when my long ague hath made me fitter to think of death than of School-quarrels, [Page] I hope you will be patient with me, if, in as short a method as I can, I give you rather hints by which a little endeavour of your own may find out satisfaction, than dilate my self so far that every weak eye may see it.

Doctor Hammond, as I am told, about the same time hath bent himself against my Doctrine: whom, though I much esteem, being assured by friends common to us both that he is a very courteous and civill person, and hath spent much time in reading good Authors; yet have I rather preferd the answering you; both because I expect better quarter at your hands, since the stricter bond of Religion should make us apt to interpret one another more fairly; as also, and indeed far more (for I see that Tye very slippery in many) because you have some tincture of the School; and, to my thinking, are much sharper and abler to set off an argument, and write a style solid and proper to the matter: Whereas, that loose way of preaching and affecttaion of words the [Page] Doctor uses, shews more vanity than substance in his Discourses. Besides he has an Adversary from satisfying whom he seems to me very short; and I am gladly willing to excuse my pains when I see the same or more fruit come from anothers Pen.

Returning then to you, I hold it my first duty to give yon many thanks for your work; you being the first, who (though somewhat late for me, now scarce able to keep my self warm by a fire) have given me the occasion to speak for my self, that the world may see whether those many smother'd slanders, which so long have layen heavy on me and my works, bear a value proportionable to the noyse they have made. Which to examin in short, I divide your Treatise (and so, my Reply) into two Parts; the first holding twenty two of your Sections, and belonging chiefly to the Middle State of Souls: the second, containing the rest of your Sections, touching upon many points of my Doctrin in which you find fault.

FIRST PART.
Refuting some of the Vindicators Objections, as they ly in his Book; chiefly those that concern the Middle State.

[Page]

FIRST DIVISION Containing an Answer to his five first Sections.
The Vindicator's mistake of the manner of treating Controversies, and of the nature of a Censure. The Method a knowing Divine ought to pursue. Diverse Errors rectify'd.

TO begin then with your first Section, I confess you speak very fairly, had your patience but held out, not to have broke your word in that very Section: which I intend presently [Page] to declare, if first I desire you to beware how you take principles out of Hereticks mouths. The Nobleman out of whom you cite the Maxim that writing of Controversies ought to carry as much sweetnesse as Love-letters, was a very ingenious and worthy Person; but, if you enquire of his Religion you shall find it in Chillingworths book, in which he is thought to have had a great hand. And Mr Chillingworths Religion how sound it was you may ghess out of the answers made by himself to himself which go before his book. In one whereof he candidly professes, that if tomorrow he sees more reason for another Religion, and next day for a third, he will change his Religion as often.

Now, who can doubt but he that has his Religion tackt on him with such slight pins that he may change it a la mode, has reason neither to take offence nor give any upon that account, but civilly to proceed with a gentile and unengag'd indifferency as in a business that concerns him not enough to be angry about: And, if you have such an esteem of your Religion, you shall do very well to follow that Maxim: But, if you conceit writing in Religion to be one of the most efficacious courses to [Page] breed an eternall and incomparable mischief to the readers, if it be so handled that he may think both sides (as men call it) probable, and that it sinks into neithers heart, then I beleeve your pen will prove sharp and stinging, as wee see the Fathers is in such occasions; though some milk and honey towards the Persons bee mingled for Charity and Edifications sake.

Now let me perform my promise. You say you cannot digest their boldnes who usurp the Authority of the supreme tribunal to brand any opinion with the title of Heresy whilest the Church has not done it to their hands. Yet presently after you do it your self, branding this opinion of Purgatory as Hereticall, and bringing your Evidence that you are convinc't it is condemned.

And, I pray, who off [...]s to censure another, but he takes himself to bee convinc't that it is against some Rule which he supposes sufficient to make a Catholick Truth; as, against Scripture, Councils, the generality of the Fathers, or (as you do) against the Definition of a Pope; and this to him is a Conviction that it is Condemned before he censures it. Nor have you any more to build on than your own Perswasion that it is defin'd; your self professing that the [Page]Question is brought to those niceties that one need have his Vnderstanding perfectly calm to judge of it. So that, on your perfectly calm judgment entirely relies this your censure. Thus much to your self: But, as to the universall proposition of censuring opinions, you seem a great stranger in the world. For, what famous Divine, what University, what Bishop is not thought fit to censure a malignant proposition? Is there not regularly in all Dioceses some Censor Librorum expresly appointed? Is not every Preacher subject to be forbidden the Chair if he advance a proposition that the Bishops Theologall thinks not fit to be suffer'd? Are you ignorant of the pudder at Paris about censuring Monsieur Arnaulds letters, which censure was not approved at Rome? And yet you cannot digest their boldness who usurp the Authority of the supreme Tribunal to brand any opinion with the title of Heresy while the Church has not done it to their hands. Know, great Divine, that the Pastor or Doctor who lets a wicked proposition run uncontroll'd among the people till means bee made to get it censu [...]'d and forbidden in Rome (which how hard it is if the maintainer have great Friends may appear by the long contest [Page] betwixt the order of Saint Dominick and the Jesuits about certain propositions of Molina) wrongs his own conscience and is unfaithfull to his vocation, in suffering the infection to sink deeply into the hearts of the Faithfull ere he prepare an Antidote. Besides, when would the Pope take notice of what is publisht in France or England if no body cry Fire? How many, how violent out-cryes were there in France before the Jesuits wicked cases were condemn'd at Rome. So that this principle of yours betrayes the Church into the hands of any potent Heresy that shall spring in a far Country. Let me therefore intreat you not to use so uncivill terms towards all the learned Doctors of the Church.

I hope you will not be offended that I omit to answer some small-shot of yours in this Section, that I may pass to the next; in which I find my self taxed of a wrong Method in seeking Truth, out of a story which as I do not particularly remember, so am I far from denying; for the Method you report, as I understand you, is truly mine; that is, as a Divine, to find out the Truths in Philosophy, and then the Mysteries of our Faith will square well enough with them; and so I doubt not but I have been [Page] subject to declare it many times. Nor can I conjecture who it was that gave mee the Answer you mention, but shrewdly ghess that he either did not understand mee, or the matter, or both. And, because by your proceeding I fear you are in the same Errour, I will endeavour to explicate my sentiments, and leave the judgment of the cause to upright Understanders. My conceit of matters of Faith is that the Scriptures and Creeds and sometimes also our Doctors deliver them in words well known, but whose vulgar sence Divines see impossible to bee true. For example, where it is sung that the Eternall son descended from heaven, the vulgar conceive a locall motion by which he came down into the B. Virgins womb: and, as I remember I saw it painted thus at Frank ford in a Catholick Church whither I went to Mass: The Holy Ghost above coming towards the Virgin, and sending rayes before it, in which was a little child carry'd by them towards that Blessed Mother: An apprehension which the learned know to bee impossible. So, by our expression of Christ's sitting at the right hand of his father, what doth a vulgar hearer imagin but an old man sitting in an high chair, and his young Son in another, set [Page] at his right hand. I cannot believe you think it possible this meaning should be literally true. To find out then the true sense, I conceive Philosophy a fitting instrument; So that by Philosophy we come thus to understand our Faith, and by understanding it, to be able both to defend it and propagate science out of it. A certain sort of Divines (if I wrong them not in calling them so) there is, who, conceiting as soon as they have the words they know the meaning, reckon not upon this way; but cast about to find out more and other words that shall lead them to the defence and propagation of the known truths; and think they must not look what Philosophy sayes, but teach her what she ought to say. This I conceive to have been the difference between me and the eminent Schollar that conferr'd with me.

When I had read thus far, I expected to see the other Method strongly maintain'd, & mine as strongly laid flat on the ground; but, looking farther I onely find your own censure, and that such a one as is hard to judge whether it be a dispraise or a commendation: But, whatsoever it is, with mistake or addition. From which last to begin, you suppose I intend out of Philosophy [Page] to frame a Divinity; and, if I understand you right, independently from Revelation; which I am sure you can find neither in my words nor my writings; but onely that revealed propositions were to be explicated by Philosophical ones known without Revelation. Do you make no difference between inventing Divinity-truths and finding out the Meanings of the Words in which they are deliver'd? Do not Lawyers dispute the meaning of the Laws after they see the Words ly before them? Do Scripturists invent Scriptures when they seek out the sence hidden in those writings? I pray then take notice that you either add to or mistake what I say; for, how often do I expresly affirm those Mysteries could not be known without Revelation; though, after they are revealed, they may by nature be explicated, and new truths propagated out of them. You seem to be sore afraid that my Method should bring forth a naturall and new Divinity. Had you said a connaturall one, I could not have desir'd a greater praise at your hands; for so all supernaturall Qualities, at least the good ones, are term'd by Divines. But you say a naturall one: what mean you by this term? That [Page] it shall be one never reveal'd by God, and yet exprest by the very words in which God reveal'd his? Truly, if this be your meaning, I am beholding to you for a great honour and commendation. But I must tell you I suspect you understand not well your own proposition. For, if it be true that the Holy Ghost means in his words all true senses which they afford, there is no denying but such a Divinity will be a revealed one, however it may be proved by naturall Principles; For, you will not deny but the same object sometimes may be knowable both by Faith and by Philosophy. If the Divinity you mean be false, it is either against the other which you say is revealed, or against naturall Principles: This latter you cannot press while you grant it is a naturall one, that is, according to naturall Principles. The former leaves still this quarrell undecided which is the true Divinity, since the words bear both the senses; and, this, by your own plea, hath the advantage of conformity to nature, as indeed any true Divinity must have. Besides, the novelty you fear, supposing it contradict no truth already known, is a great praise; for to discover new Truths especially in Divinity, and such [Page] as are of moment, is to advance and give a Progress to that sacred Science, and so the highest pitch a Divine can aym at.

Thus much being spoken to your fearfull thoughts, let me consider the two sayings, that of your eminent Schollar, and mine own. I desir'd to be assured of naturall Truths, and said (as your self report) that the mysteries of Faith would square well enough with them. And I appeal to your self whether I spoke Truth or no. If I mistake not your Person you have been a Reader of Philosophy, and so cannot be ignorant that ex veris non sequitur falsum, and that Verum vero minime contradicit. If then we have once certainly found the Truths of Philosophy, can there be any danger that what we have so found should contradict our Mysteries? Much help may proceed out of such Principles, much direction; no harm, no danger of erring. So that I doubt not but your self, if you consider it, will find this resolution perfectly secure.

Now let us turn the leaf and examin the course of your eminent Schollar; and you may easily descry how he commands us to take unkonwn Principles to prove Truths which may be known by other [Page] plain wayes. Do not mistake me, I call not the Principles of Faith unknown as not being demonstrated, but as not being understood. I grant the Letter to be certain and certainly known, I grant a quaedam tenus of the sence to be known; but the sence which in rigour is literally verifiable, that I do not grant to be alwayes and entirely known out of the pure force of Faith. Your self will easily apply this Doctrin to the Article of our Saviours sitting at the right hand of his Father. It is certainly known those words are true; it is certainly known the materiall sence which the vulgar takes has a proportion to the true sence: For, the true sence being that he arrived to perfect Quiet after the troublesome oeconomy he had passed in this world, which Rest hath sitting for its concomitant in an active man; That he remain'd the first and chiefest Instrument, and in the French phrase, le premier Ministre d' Estat in Gods Government of the World; to which dignity is annext a kind of perpetuall presence and conference with the Prince: Now, why this is well exprest by being on the right hand of another, may we not consult some other skill than that of Faith? Wherefore, in such cases as these I cannot doubt to [Page] affirm that true Philosophy is both an usefull and necessary and alwayes obedient servant of Faith. And let your eminent Schollar without the assistance of any other knowledge than the bare words of the Article attempt to determin out of them what sitting, and what on the right hand is, and this according to the way and profession of a Divine, I fear he will come out with some such notion as others of his form learnedly give to Person, Nature, Vbi's, Actio's, &c. that is, some strange puzzlling thing, which not onely leaves us altogether ignorant what it is in God, but wholly confounds the knowledge we have of it in Nature.

Neither do I deliver this purely by Discourse but by Experience; which Experience joyntly with my reading S. Thomas were the Instruments by which God conducted mee to this way. I thought it fit to dilated my self a little in this point, that you who are in your flourishing age, and hopefull to be a great Light in Gods Church, if you be put in the right way, may be little and little mark the difference of them who go under the common name of Divines, and see how many such as you esteem eminent Schollars are onely Historicall, not Scientificall [Page] Divines: They can tell you after the manner of an history or Narrative what the most celebrated Doctors teach; what is in their opinion the more common sentence of Schoolmen; and, the multitude or reputed worth of such Doctors is the scale in which they weigh Theologicall truths; though they read even in those very Doctors that their Authority is of no more value than the proofs they bring. Now, if Divinity be a Science, as I am sure you will not deny, it being voiced so by those very Divines, though sleightly executed, there must of necessity be, or be possible a sort of Divines who in true speaking know Theologicall Truths, who therefore will properly and with Justice claim the title of Divines, whereas these others wil be but Discoursers in Theologicall Subjects. If an old mans Experience may prevaile with you, I exhort you to study true divinity.

Looking into your third Section, at the very door I met with a scruple which I must endeavour to remove. You say, The Authority of our Supreme Pastor hath interposed his sharp but justly deserved Censures against diverse of my books. I confess it is gravely spoken; but I find not any sence within to maintain so peremptory an outside. [Page] I pray which of your eminent Scholars teach that the prohibition of a book is a censure. The holy Bible if printed I do not say in a vulgar language, but even in an Heretical Country, especially by an Heritick, is prohibited; and your way of speaking which makes a prohibition a Censure, I and a sharp one too, would make us beleeve that the Bible, that is, Gods word is sharply censured by the Pope. Can you imagin a greater scandal, considering the place where you live? In Luthers time there was a Decree that whatever Book was printed by any book seller who had printed any of Luthers works should be prohibited. Read the Rules of the Index expurgatorius in the Council of Trent, and see how farr wide you have stray'd from the Catholike practice and opinion.

As for the special prohibition against my book, though Doctor Holden hath learnedly declared the quality of it and that be sufficient, yet I have these two notes to offer you; one, that I am now fortify'd in my plea (which hitherto has been accused as a meer shift to cover my disaffection) that a simple Condemnation of a Book at Rome, without singling out any particular proposition, leaves the whole Doctrin [Page] of the Book untouch't. I am confirm'd, I say, now by a fresh Authority out of Stubrockius his new Notes upon Wendrockius his Commentaries on the Provinciall Letters; where, at the bottom of the page before the first, you may see how unscrupulously those Children of Obedience take up the same undutifull pretence against Roman Condemnations with others when their case is the same with others. This you may plainly see if you busy not your thoughts too much at the seeming contradiction of my words [the page before the first] for I observe your Art is excellent in descanting on a Bull. But, because the words prohibited, condemn'd, make a noyse a great deal lowder than their signification, I shall so far comply with my Reader's either unexperience or indisposition as to cite that disguis'd Jesuit Stubrockius his words; that the world may know how Religious men and those whose chief strictness consists in Obedience, can put by the blow of a Superiour's command when they are concern'd in it, how loudly soever they exclaim against others for a less matter. Si nihil prorsus in eo (Libro prohibito) sigillatim config [...]tur, sed prohibeatur generatim, nemo sapiens neget eo duntaxat[Page]nomine prohibitum fuisse quod contra regulas a Concilio Tridentino praescriptas, editus sit. If nothing at all in particular be struck at in that Book, but it be prohibited in generall terms; no wise man can deny but that it was onely in this regard prohibited, because it was set forth against the Rules prescrib'd by the Council of Trent; as that the Authors name was not printed (by which, observe, that this your Book, according to the Council of Trent Sess. 4. is prohibited) or Approbation of Superiours obtain'd, or such like. And the Book Stubrockius thus strives to defend is neither better nor worse than the intolerable Apology for the Casuists, condemn'd and prohibited by the Pope the last August.

My other Note is, that amongst all the two Books of mine (for your diverse are no more) prohibited in Rome, this which you except at is none: So that your Censure is the first; how well grounded your following discourse will tell us. The reason that Court would not proceed against it (though the Doctrin it delivers might justly expect a stronger opposition, than some others that have had worse luck, from the Interest of its most zealous Adversaries) is because they see my opinion supported [Page] by an Universality of Fathers, of contrasting with whom they are cautious in Rome, being persons of great prudence. And the Ex-Jesuit who writ so bitterly against me here in England, though sollicited to oppose that Book, would not, answering he knew diverse Fathers of that mind, particularly S. Austin, whom (sayes he) I have read over no less than fourteen times.

You promise me in the end of this Section to concern your self onely with this one Controversy of the State of Souls dying in grace not as yet fully purged, and with the positions and grounds on which (my) explication of Purgatory stands; unless some one Doctrin (of mine) or other, having a neer alliance with the business in hand so offer it self that the Discourse and Subject would be illustrated by it. You promise me a great favour; for, I naturally love to speak to one question at once, and points connected with it, that so it may be more fully illustrated and the Reader inform'd; which, when many are touch't sleightly and onely catch't at, especially if disparate and not tending to the same difficulty, the Reader's eye is distractedly drawn diverse wayes, and no occasion offerd of clearing any [Page] thing fully. But I must not be so happy as to hope performance from you in any thing. You promist me formerly the sweet style of Love-Letters; but anon very furiously and unkindly call me Epicurean, Pagan, Heathen, and what not? You promist you would not censure me; and yet proceed even in the same place and all over to censure me most sharply. You promist p. 5. strength of sence in treating this Subject; but have hitherto afforded me nothing but the contrary weakness, and I mainly fear the like performance in the rest of your Book. You promist civility towards my person, and that you combated onely my Doctrin; yet more than once quarrell with my very name, which I assure you, Sir, is onely personall, and not a jot doctrinall. And now you promise me the treating onely one question and points neerly ally'd with it, which is a procedure worthy a Schollar; but yet afterwards you ramble to the Apocalypse, the two wings of the woman, the Eternall Generation of the second person, my expression of my name and quality, and diverse such discourses; which are not onely not neerly but not at all ally'd to the present question: Which shows that you are very regardless of your [Page] word and credit, and unconstant to your own thoughts; and that you aym more to cavill and make a noise against me, by picking out of my works two or three Paragraphs here and there from their fellows by connexion with which they subsisted (a method which should one attempt in God's Holy Word it self, your own heart tels you nothing's so absurd but might be father'd upon it) rather than to confute any piece end wayes as a Schollar should do.

Your fourth Section (the substance of it being nothing but the copying another Book) I am glad to have nothing to except against, onely you insinuate a fault in the Translation, which not having the Latine copy by me I cannot judge of. Had you endeavour'd to mend it, you should have oblig'd both the worthy Translatour and my self.

In your fifth Section by a malignant sleight you seek to bite Sir Kenelm Digby, saying, the book of the Immortality of the Soul was father'd upon him. I know you would do me the honour to entitle me to it. But, as that eloquently proper Style, the diffusion of the Discourse, the multitude of experiences even in Arts wherein I am totally [Page] ignorant, do exclude me from the vanity of pretending to so excellent a piece, so do they discover to the world the rashness of your impotent Envy. My part follows next in the subscription of my Peripateticall Institutions, the naturall sence whereof being, Thomas an English man, of the Whites of Essex, you are pleas'd to transform according to your good will. You add I say my Institutions are according to the Minde of that most eminent man and excellent Philosopher. And, as for the first Epithet I have the unanimous Testimony of all that know him and are able to judge in what consists the worth of abilities in the arts both of peace and warr. And, for the second, concur with me all those in Italy, France, Germany and England, whom their own industry and aequability of minde have made worthy to read his Book. What your following discourse sayes of my Institutions I candidly confess and am bound to thank you for sealing it with your good word; saving still what you cite out of the Consilium Authoris, where is no such matter as you express, though your sincerity can allow the puting it in a different letter as a citation from the place: And, therefore I see even when you make show to cite the very words, the [Page] Reader must look the place if he will not be mistaken. Though you seem to speak of a Point which all Peripateticks acknowledge to be done by Aristotle long since, and so needs no greater excellency to perform than to have read and understood him. It seems by your requiring Faith in your Reader, that in your schools you do not use to let your schollars see evidence to anchor them in your doctrin, but you propound some easy and plausible perswasion to tickle and inveigle their belief; and so need none of thofe strange terms, fit, sequitur, consequens est, &c. for no one thing follows another in your doctrin. All are either primò nota or postremò ignota in your Philosophy.

Your next quarrell is that I say Divinity is inaedificata to Philosophy. Lord! how you would have been troubled if I should have sayd that Faith is grafted upon the stock of our naturall understanding, and Charity on our Will; and yet I beleeve this will prove the tenet of your eminent Schollars. Now, if this be so, sure it is less absurd but not less necessary that our Divinity be grafted into the stock of our naturall Speech and words, whose meanings and Definitions Philosophy must open to us. I [Page] pray then be not offended with this word Inaedificatàe; for it signifies not super aedificatae, nor has the force to signify that the strength of Divinity comes from Philosophy, but that Philosophy is the wax into which the seal of Divinity is printed, which no learned ingenuous man will deny. For, if Definitions be the Principles of Science, and Philosophy defines the words Divinity uses, it must needs have a materiall priority to it.

Next, you tell your Reader my Philosophy and Divinity are so perfectly squar'd, that if I had not made a Division of the Books it had been impossible to know where one ended and the other began. Honour'd Sir, you know I am but a poor man, and cannot give rewards for good turns done to me; therefore I beseech you to be content with humble thanks: For I owe them from my heart; First to God who gave me to perform what you say or rather did it by me; next, to your self who so kindly acknowledge and divulge it. For I see not how you could give a Schollar a greater praise, than to signify that the contexture of (not his Paragraphs, but) even his Books are so closely connected. But to check my too much feeding on your [Page] praises, you give me a knock with every bit; you say I banish supernaturality, evacuate Christian Faith, admit nothing on other grounds than Demonstration, all calumnies as false as bold; and so can do me no harm where your bare word is not blindly beleev'd.

SECOND DIVISION. Containing an Answer, from Section sixth, to the fifteenth.
The Ground-work of the Vindicator's impugnation of the Middle State found to be a most groundless Calumny. The occasion of writing the Middle State, the Letter of Vindication, and that in Answer to the Dispensers of the Bull and Canon. His weakness in arguing, in stating the Question, and opposing his Adversary.

IN the sixth Section you seem to come to the Question, and cite a large Text our of my Peripateticall Institutions, adding at the end this conclusion of your own. This [Page]is the Essence, the Substance of his Purgatory, this is his whole chain or deduction of it, this is the grief he admits in separated Souls, &c. Is it possible, Sir, you should thus forget all truth and honesty? First, you cite out of a Book where there is no more mention nor thought of Purgatory than of the Dungeon of Constantinople; where Method permitted me to treat of no more than I had before layd grounds for, where I had not made any mention of Christianity, or Christian Felicity or Unhappiness: Where, in a word, I could onely speak to pure Naturalists; and yet you boldly pronounce this is the Essence, the Substance of his Purgatory, this is the grief he admits in separated Souls; whereas the whole bufiness is both in the Sacred Institutions and Middle State (the Books which purposely treat that Subject) so quite differently and so at large explicated. Pray, Sir, furnish your self and me with some excuse why you omit those Books which designedly handle that matter, and cite out of another which handles it not at all; and then, upon this false and abusive pretence, lay the whole Ground-work of your future impugnation.

The seventh and eighth Sections consist [Page] chiefly of my words, and so I may omit them till there arise some occasion of farther examination: onely I must note that at the end of your eighth Section you profess your great care fully to deliver the foundations of my new Fabrick of Purgatory; yet make no mention at all of the Institutiones Sacrae; or that there is either Scripture, or Fathers, or Theologicall reasons alledg'd in my Book of the Middle State; by this sly trick seeking to draw your credulous Reader into the conceit that there is no other ground for my opinion than a Metaphysicall Argument, whose force because they do not penetrate, you may shake it off with crying 'tis non-sence.

In the ninth Section you tell a forged story (whether out of Ignorance or Malice I leave to your conscience) that my Lord of Chalcedon admonish't me of this point and others, and that I was ready with a premeditated Apology. In which, though short, there ly three mistakes. First, that my Lord admonish't me: For, though he were my Superiour; though one whom a long-well-spent Age, great study and many writings had made awfull to our Church, yet was he far modester than you; and profest, as he did dislike my opinions, so he dissented no [Page]otherwise than as one Divine does from another, and had never descended to censure any of them. Perhaps, of this point you may have heard the contrary, but I have it under his own hand. The second mistake is, that he admonish't me of this point; for he never descended to any particular; and this you might understand (as partly the other) out of my Dedicatory of my, Ratio villicationis written to him, and presented in his lifetime. The third, that I had fore-prepar'd my Book of the Middle State, and presently sent it him. For, the reason of my composing it was the many popular noises rais'd against me by persons, some ignorant, some malicious, as if I were an Heretick, which forc't me to write the Treatise in mine own defence, and I dedicated it to my Lord, though I knew no particular Exception of his against this point, but judged he might have some, because the greatest cry was against it. The Translation, as far as came to my knowledge, was not made by any design upon earth, though by the event I perceive it was out of speciall Providence in Heaven. How things passed on your side, and what were the true mot [...]ves of your publishing the Bull, and that Testimony of the Council I can onely collect [Page] from the phaenomena of all concurrent circumstances, of which you may perhaps hereafter hear more.

You say the Publishers of the Bull had no respect to the Letter of Vindication. I think you aym at one I wrote in Latin to a Person of Honour, which was presented Him, and by him shew'd to some Jesuits that frequented his House, and they can be witnesses of the Truth between us. This, afterwards, as I hear, was translated into English and printed. If this be the Letter you speak of, I would gladly understand why you imagin the Author conceits himself inspir'd with the Genius of Mont-alt: whose spirit, I confess, I take to be very solid and pious, and generously adhering to persecuted Truth: Nor, do I find it unlawfull that any should wish to be inspir'd with it, but truly conceive my self far below the hope of such Excellences.

What you heard well observ'd that all the Protestant Divines of England would subscribe to the same Protestation which is in that Letter, I beleeve purely upon your report. But tell me first, may a Catholick protest nothing that a Protestant will subscribe to? or can a Protestant profess nothing but what he will perform. Again, [Page] will any Protestant profess to renounce any Doctrin found to contradict any Authority constantly acknowledg'd for Infallible in the Catholick Church, meaning the same by Catholick Church as my writings declare me to do, that is all those who adhere to Tradition? Will any Protestant be content to have lost his cause if any decree of a Pope be expresly repugnant to him, which I there also profess? How maliciously blind then was the observer you follow, who could not see such distinctive expressions? How uncharitable your self who catch at and magnifie every rash cavill, out of a tooth to disgrace and abuse him that never did you injury. Your calumny of my denying Decrees of Popes and Councils shall be answer'd in its due place.

You say the Publishers intended not to enter into the lists of Disputation, which I easily beleeve; and that they were perswaded, the very reciting the Bull and Canon would have knockt down the Book (which you say was the occasion of their setting them forth) beyond all Reply. How weak a conceit was this for men that saw both Bull and Canon cited and explicated in that very book, and could not be ignorant that in many private Conferences the same Authorities [Page] had been debated? You thought your Capitall Letters would have dazled the understanding, of the adverse party, so that none would have dar'd to look further into the meaning of those Authorities. But God provided that al should not be so light of belief, nor his Church led into Error by such a misgrounded Interpretation of its Decrees. You complain much in your tenth Section that this pious intention of the Dispensers was wrong'd. As though you did not know that Intentions are secret and must expect their reward from him that sees the heart: Men judge of Actions, and your self confess the effect was that pious (that is, credulous) persons received satisfaction; that is, were seduced into Errour by that cuning practice; and yet you think it not occasion enough for an understanding man to discover so prejudiciall an Interpretation forc't on the Church; and would needs have it a wrong to you that one unknown & not intended to be hurt by you should take this pains; as if every honest and ableman were not interessed in the Churches quarrell of so high a nature as to set up an Opinion, that may prove when examin'd erroneous, for an Article of Faith.

In your eleventh Section you begin to [Page] produce your Arguments, whereof the first is, that all Orthodox writers who have treated this Subject of the State of separated Souls since the promulgation of the Bull a foresaid suppose it as a certain Truth. But how many such do you cite? Surely of five hundred which have written since those dayes your Readers might civilly expect at least half a score that positively assert it as an assur'd doctrin of the Church. But, such is the irregular way of discoursing your eminent Scholars use, that when they have audaciously advanc't a proposition whereof they know nothing certain, if it be deny'd, against all Rules of Discourse and Logick they put the Defendant to prove the contrary, which peradventure concerns not him a pin whether it be true or no. As in the present, what concerns it my Faith whether many or few interpret the Bull and Councill as you or I say? To make a new Article of Faith the definition must be so clear that none can doubt of it: And ipso facto that it needs Interpretation, 'tis evidently insufficient to make a new obligation of Faith. Again, suppose your Antecedent be true, does any number of Interpreters lock up the understandings of those that follow that they [Page] may not see more than their Fore-goers? If you say yes; shew us some seal of Infallibility in their foreheads by which we may know so much, or else your Faith will be but probable; but a peradventure I, peradventure no; and Interest or Passion must supply the rest. And, such I beleeve is your Faith of this your new-born Article, though somewhat an older Opinion.

In your twelfth Section you enquire into the state of the Question; and when you have recited it out of the Bul, you presently cry, Victory, without ever looking into the words and sence; that one may note in you the wonted disposition of your great Masters, to read the words, but seldom take pains to understand them. The Bull then sayes, that in the dayes of the Popes Predecessor there rose a Question among Divines concerning the vision of the Souls of Just men after their death, in which nothing was to be purg'd when they departed out of this world; or, if there were, it was now totally purg'd; whether they see the Divine Essence before the re-assumption of their bodies, and the Generall Judgment, and also concerning other matters, &c. I pray you now, in vertue of your Logick, shew us here what is the subject [Page] of the Question, what the Predicate. To my apprehension the Subject is divided into two parts; one is of Just men in whom at their death nothing is to be purg'd; the other of them who at their death had somewhat to be purg'd, but now are totally purg'd: The Predicate is, the seeing of God's Essence before the day of Judgment. If this be so, then resolve me whether the Subject of the Proposition be affirm'd by the Proposition, or be that of which the Predicate is affirm'd. We whose Logick tends to Demonstration, agree that the Subject is not affirm'd, but is that of which the Predicate is affirm'd? What your eminent Schollars that square Philosophy and consequently Logick to their not understood Faith, will say to this, I expect you to teach us who are a great Professour (I doubt not) in their way. In the mean while give me leave to think and tell you, that the Question whether any Souls be purg'd before the re-assumption of their bodies, is no part of the Popes Answer, and neither part of the Predicate nor of the Copula; and this so evidently that no ingenuous person can reply upon it; which I may very well ghess to be the reason why you would not scan the Popes words. Nor need I make [Page] other answer to Cherubinus, he (as your self say) agreeing with the Pope. This is the main prop of your whole cause; and yet how weak it proves when seriously and indifferently examin'd! though I freely confess it might easily be mistaken by an unwary Reader fully possess't of the contrary perswasion.

You see, now, Sir, the way a Scholar that understands Logick would have taken here, is, since every Question is of whether something be or be not (that is, of some Proposition, that is, whether some Predicate be identify'd to the Subject) to show that the Predicate of the proposition you would evince is the Predicate here; your Subject, the Subject. By this method you might have hop't to arrive to some strength of sence. But instead of doing this you onely cry aloud the words are most plain and express for you, that they most clearly and evidently condemn us; and then to prove it, you are very high against your Adversary's over sight, his prepossession, his boldness, his confidence, Sometimes he is blam'd for an absurdity almost impossible in overlooking it; Anon, you say, to do him right (as if you would confess you did him wrong before) he did see it and cite it. Strange [Page] challenge of over-sight which consists with a grant of both seeing and citing! So that all you bring in your own behalf, and this in the main support of your cause, is contradiction to your self, calumny of your Adversary, many bold sayings, and not one Schollar-like attempt of proof. Sweet Sir, will this serve think you to prove your Adversary a Puny, and your self a great Clerk? or rather will not the Reader judge that the differences of your performance will transpose those appellations?

In your thirteenth Section you reprehend your Adversary that he pretends there was but one Question onely disputed and defin'd at that time, and affirm stoutly that it is not possible for him to perswade a [...] Intelligent Reader thereof; though both the Pope and Cherubinus by your confession call it a Question, and not Questions. 'Tis an hard case that the Pope's own word cannot protect him, but we must be put to prove the Pope spake what he thought. But, let us see your Arguments. You say the Pope makes two Questions, and that Cherubinus does the same (their words being equivalent, I see not why I should make two disputings of the same case) the first of Souls in which nothing remain'd to be [Page]purg'd; the other of Souls in which something is to be purg'd. But since by your own confession, and by the words cited by your self they say these two made but one Question, a man would have expected you should bring somewhat to prove what you say, and not upon your bare word force us to beleeve they contradict themselves in the same period. But, to speak sence as well as words, who knows not that the word Question may have two meanings; one, to signify what may be ask't; another what is or may be doubted. An asking may be fram'd of any proposition we are ignorant of; a doubting onely of those against which we have some kind of apparent reason. Now, you are pleas'd to look no farther than for what may be ask't; but your Adversary goes on to what may be doubted of; and, therefore, finding no speciall doubt of one part of the persons you divide which was not in the other, he was so clear-sighted as to find that the Pope and Cherubinus exprest themselves properly and dogmatically; whereas you make them break the common Laws both of Sence and Grammar; and, when they would speak of many Questions, to use the singular number. You add a confirmation [Page] out of the Title of the Bull, in which in the plurall number Articles are sayd to be defin'd; not distinguishing betwixt Articles and Questions, whereas an Article must be fore-debated to be call'd a Question. So that, if there had been but one Article doubted of and debated, there was but one Question decided, though many Articles defin'd.

Nor do you well appeal to the 2d. Scholion of Cherubinus, where you onely find that ten Heresies are condemned by this Bull. for it is a far different thing to condemn a known falsity, and to determin a doubted question. So that your clear-sight fail'd you also in this point. As for Eymericus I easily confess of his worth, all that Pegna writes: But, as all that doth not except him from being a man, so neither from having had his imperfections; and this in particular that he was too censorious; which is pardonable in him, few Saints arriving to a perfect exinanition of proper interest, till towards the End of their dayes. Wherefore, as all Judges for the most part are subject to draw causes to their own Courts, so this Inquisitour was willing to make many heads, upon which Delinquents might fall within the compass of the Inquisition, by [Page] which means he set great quarrels betwixt his own Order and that of Saint Francis, condemning Raymundus Lullus, whom the Franciscans maintain to be a Saint, of Heresy, for attempting to demonstrate the Trinity. In which controversy our modern Divines side much with the Franciscans. Hence I infer you can ground little upon this Author as to increasing Articles of Faith. Your citation out of Spondanus is less to the purpose, for his relation reports nothing more to your intent then what is formally in the Bull it self; and, so, already discuss'd: onely I may note that this worthy Author, in that he sayes the opinion of the Saints not seeing God was not altogether reprov'd or condemn'd in John the two and twentieths dayes, is mistaken with divers others of your eminent Scholars, as may appear by the Universal out-cry of the Church against him, and the Arts and violences he was fain to use to get Doctours to side with him, as the History of those times doth manifest. I may conclude that notwithstanding your strong confidence that your Adversary never dreamt of these subtill Mysteries you think you have discovered, he saw the truth more cleerly then you with all your great intelligence; and [Page] so may return your exhortation upon your self, to beware of heat of youth, to beware of the secret snare of Interest, which many times lurk undiscovered in the hearts of men of greater age.

In the fourteenth Section you come to the other question of what is the Subject of this Bull, which your Adversary sayes to consist in this, whether perfect Charity brings immediatly to Heaven. And you very complementally beseech him to tell you how his cleer-sighted friends could perswade him to impose so grosly upon you, as to settle the state of the question in that whose name is not recorded in the whole decree. I confess I hold him bound to yeild you satisfaction. And because you have imposed by your first Section the burthen upon me to answer for him, in return of your civility my request is, to know how a man of your worth and parts could perswade your self to descend so low as to ask a question grounded on so triviall an errour, that every School-boy must see it. I imagin if two words have in a Dictionary the same signification, and a School boy should deny that his Latin had the sence in English which his Master asserted, because one of the two words was not in it. I fear his Master [Page] would think him negligent enough to deserve the rod. So if the word Justus signify one that is in charity, and you, who take upon you so high an Authority of censuring, will flatly and challengingly deny the thing to be there because the very word is not there, you seem to me most extremely unreasonable: What if instead of an Angel of gold, I give you half a Piece, is it not all one? or, which perhaps you will think more like our case, instead of the term defin'd suppose the definition? You object therefore more strongly, that he requires the Popes positive is or is not; And if you do not shew that, and yet will obstinately persist to draw from this Definition that Souls are delivered before the day of Judgment you hazard to contradict both Bull and Council. The rest of the Argument though plainly and strongly urg'd you omit at the present, what you will do hereafter we shall see. This last point that you hazard to contradict the Council and Pope you stumble at. But why (I pray) if you know not their minds about that point do you not hazard to choose the wrong for the right. I understand no otherwise. But you insist upon his admission that the Pope was of that mind. First [Page] that admission comes after this speech of his. Secondly it is but a permission, not a certification, for out of it, you are never the securer that indeed it was so, and so still remain in hazard. As for his requiring an is or is not, I wonder you should except against it; this being the very substance of the question in hand. I pray, reflect (as any ingenious Reader I suppose will) that the Pope may either think that some Souls are purg'd before the day of Judgment, and yet neither intend to say it, nor in fact say it: He may again both think so and intend to say it, and yet not say it; lastly, he may do all three: Let us then for Argument sake suppose, that, he did all three, and that this would make an Article of Faith of what was not so before, for some of your eminent Schollars hold that. Doth any of them say his pure thought has that power, or his Will if it budds not into words? None that ever I heard of. The most demand publication and affixion ad Valvas Sancti Petri, and in acie Campi Florae, and such like formalities, far more visible than an ambiguous elocution or supposition; which you, without being able to shew any express word, will needs fix upon us for a yoak to submit all understandings [Page] unto. Do not reprove so fiercely unless you can give a better account of your Doctrin and actions. It becomes you not.

THIRD DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his fifteenth and sixteenth Sections.
The true Question establisht, and the sence of the Bull and Canon defended against the mistakes of his learned Divine. Some Notes evidencing that nothing about the Duration of Purgatory was defin'd in the Council of Florence.

SO much concerning your reply ad hominem. Now, let us say a word to your question it self. By the precedent discourse 'tis apparent there was but one formall question disputed in those times, though the predicate belong'd to diverse subjects as all universall Predicates do. Of which kind [Page] (viz. universall Predicates) 'tis impossible to see one if the Questions must be counted as many as the subjects to which they are applyable. Now then in our present case I averr the Question to be Vtrum justus nihil habens purgandum immediate potiatur visione Dei. Nor do I see how possibly you can deny either the Question to be One, or to be this; Since the Pope himself both expresly calls it one and puts it to be this. Which being agreed on, let us see what signifies the Subject, [Justus nihil habens purgandum] Just men or Souls in which there remaines nothing to be purg'd. To Divines a Just man or Soul signifies one that is indu'd with charity; and to have nothing to be purg'd, signifies to have not so much as a veniall Sin left to be purg'd in them, that is, according to S. Thomas his Doctrin, to have his Charity totally fervent & perfect. Now John the 22th. deny'd that such Souls went to heaven before the day of Judgment: His opposits, the main Body of the Church, affirm'd it. If then this explication be on all parts evident, what can be answerd why this, according to your Adversary's tenet, was not the onely-handled and debated Question? unles you will return to that triviall excuse, as to cry the word is not [Page] there but onely the sence and meaning. And, where I pray, does your Adversary pretend that his very words are in the Bull, that you challenge him so vaporingly to shew you the Question in termes? I find him indeed say that 'twas the Designe, aym, drift, intention of the Definers, but I do not see him undertake that perfect Charity brings an immediate Heaven were precisely the terms of the definition. Your self cannot but observe he severally phrases the Question, as sometimes whether Souls perfect in charity see God immediatly, sometimes in other words; attending to the sence as sober and intelligent Writers should do, not standing upon terms as dodging Sophisters do. Look but into the Testimonies which your self cite, and indeed what all Historians and Divines report, and see whether they do not unanimously agree that this was the Question. I think I may after so much evidence excuse the answering of your Adversary's Argument drawn from the Pope's so pious recommends of Holy desires; for, since the Question is not chang'd, but by you mistaken and pitifully not understood, and that your whole solution relies upon that defect, His Argument remaines in its full strength. Onely, I will [Page] ask your pardon if I presume to direct you in the example of the Entychians and Monothelites. You argue thus: when the Church combated the Eutychians, it did not onely define the plurality of wils against the Monothelites, &c. what you would say I cannot tell; If, that the Church defin'd both the plurality of Natures and Wills, you discover too much Ignorance, for it defin'd onely the plurality of Natures: If, that it defin'd onely the plurality of natures not of wills, you say right, but it comes quite crose to your intention, which strives to prove that something is defin'd by connexion, not formally set down in the Definition. Wherefore your Discourse seems to me imperfect and perplext.

Now then I may fairly proceed to your fifteenth Section where again I meet with Eymericus; but, because he either sayes no more than the Bull or obliges not so much, I shall agree with you that he is a grave and learned Authour, without contending any farther about what conduces so little to our main Conclusion. Onely, give me leave to note this defect in him where he sayes these points were made of Faith by this Bull, If that be his meaning. twas a great weaknes in a writer so neer [Page] those times and living when the noyse was not yet ceas'd. For, if the truth of these Articles were not known before this Bull, what reverence was it in the whole Christian world publikly to term the Pope an Heretick, and preach against him, even in the Court of Avignon; as an Englishman of Eymericus his order, by name Thomas Wallis did, and was imprison'd for it. No; these points were the constant Tradition of the Church, and this Bull serv'd not to bring in a new Faith, but to quiet the world, and by Authority to quell the spirits mov'd by John the 22th.

In your sixteenth Section you pass on to the Council of Florence; but it's definition being exactly according to the Bull, there is no hope of any new advantage to your cause from thence. Yet you will try again, though with the same Argument, and we beg your Readers patience if we repeat the same Answer. First you cite the Council that some Souls are purg'd by the punishments of Purgatory after their body's death Which would have seemd very little to the purpose, your Adversary professing the same, had not you long before laid a snake in the grass to use his sting when occasion should serve; which here [Page] you begin. presently adding that this can find no admittance in your new modell. For all the suffering of Soules which you fancy by their irregular and now unchangeable affections avail nothing as to the purging and cleansing of Soules, &c. Now I see why you neglected my book of the middle state, and what I write of it in my Sacred Institutions, that you might freely slander the Catholick truth I teach about Purgatory, to those who know no more, then what you cited out of a treatise of philosophy, where there was no intention to speak either of purgatory or in deed Christianity. But because you will dilate your self as I suppose more largly herafter, I will deferr the question till then.

You will have your Adversary observe that when the Council in the fourth Article declares that Souls which are purg'd being uncloth'd of their bodies are immediately received into heaven, this doctrine by the Parenthesis of (as is abovesayd) is wholly built upon the former Doctrin of the Purging it self. And I, Sir, would desire you to note, that because neither in the third nor in the fourth Article any time of compleating the Purgation is express'd or insinuated, that your note is nothing to your Purpose, nor [Page] doth any way conduce to shew a complete Purgation of them while uncloathed; And this, though it were true that a Purgation by punishment in Purgatory were against your adversary; which is a pure conceit of your own brain.

You proceed to an Antiparallel of the Councels Doctrin to ours, and to manage it the better you most freely assume what you finde not in the Councell. I mean these words being purged uncloath'd of their bodies, which signify in plain English that the purgation is perfected while they remain yet uncloathed. The equivalent of which sence, if it bee not in the Council as all my endevours cannot find it, I must perforce protest that as I should be content you wrong'd me to do the Council right, so to slander the Council that you may wrong me is a thing unsufferable in any, much more in a religious Person. In the parallel you give for my side, you put a vast grief by reason those pleasurs are now impossible to be enjoy'd. Shew this in all my books ever apply'd to the Soules in Purgatory and carry the question: if you cannot, consider what you make me suffer among them who believe you. You desire your adversary farther to note that sunt purgata is the [Page] preter perfect tense, and show that the purgation is pass'd. And are you so unadvis'd as not to know the Council speaks as well of the Souls to go out of their bodies the following ages, as in those before? so that this being pass'd must stay in some even to the day of Judgment by your own explication?

After this you seek farther into the roots of the Council even from its beginning at Ferrara. But as far as I see you are not very expert in the story. For at Ferrara was deliver'd to the Fathers of the Council a long oration by Marcus Ephesius who would never consent to the Councils resolutions about Purgatory. But his action concerns not us much, so we understand the meaning of the main body of the Greeks, whose propositions when you have recited, you infer 'twere absurd to deny that the question of Purgatory was here disputed and defined, by which you discover a great mind to play soul, but your fingers are not nimble enough to carry it hansomly; you craftily would perswade the incautious Reader that we deny'd Purgatory, but then you spoil all by putting a wrong term, for truly the question of Purgatory was not disputed, but from the beginning [Page] agreed on by both sides; but a question concerning Purgatory, that is, whether there were true fire in it was debated, and so, for any thing the Council says, or I know it may be debated still. Of the other points exprest in the decree of the Council there was an agreement without debate betwixt the generality of the Greeks and the Latins.

You go on pronouncing that in these professions both sides agreed against us directly, and home to our point in question: without expressing in what, or bringing any proof of it. For your self have before confest we hold both expiation and delivery, and the onely question betwixt us is whether before the day of Judgment this expiation end: of which (though the very precise point we contend about) you still have the ill luck to fall short; you offer sometimes indeed to rack your Testimonies to confess what you desire, were not the words too faithfull to their Speakers sence, to be corrupted by you: but if they will not do in Latin, you have a trick to turn them into English, and piece them our with stuff of your own; making their sence to be this, their present delivery whilst uncloth'd? this you say the Council intended [Page] to deliver as the Faith of the Church, in this both the Greek and Latin Fahers clearly agreed, and yet plainly the conclusion I sustain was neither agreed to, nor debated, nor question'd, if I be truly accus'd as the first Inventer of it, nor so much as mention'd. You conclude, it must be an act not of understanding, but of will to say presently signifies, at the day of Judgment. Truly it would be so, and in the mean while 'tis an act of ill will, to impose on your Adversary that he sayes it.

Now a word to the discourse of an eminently learned Divine which you mark with the letter C. And for his learning I have nothing to say, why it should not be eminently above yours, but for his wyliness he is far short of you, and if any thing corrupt his Judgment, it is self-conceit and down-right passion, his unhappy humors, that strangely abound in him. But I cannot omit to note in you, that you had not the luck to give his Paper a convenient title, but printed it just as he had written it for his own memory. The entrance of his discourse is very good; But his first proposition concerning the matter, plainly and unexcusably mistaken; for he sayth, the matter in dispute betwixt the Latins [Page]and the Greeks was what Souls were admitted or to be admitted to eternal Beatitude before the day of Judgment. A question that neither you as far as I can guess, nor we ever found in this Council. Neither do I remember to have met with such a gradation of Saints in any Author: Therefore, I leave this great Doctor to prove that there ever was such a question mov'd. His next leap though he calleth it this question, yet is quite from the question in hand; being whether there be fire in Purgatory or no. Which how it appertains to his mainly proposed question I leave to better wits to consider. But I gather, that this Paper was onely private notes, not written in a form to be printed, and that you have done very indiscreetly and to his dishonour, to expose them to the publick. He puts next the Latins position, in which you who cannot pardon your Adversaries sloath in perusing of the Council, omit a sentence most pertinent of any thing to the cause, to wit, that he who hath committed many offences is freed after a longer time of purgation, but he who hath committed a few is sooner delivered, which particularity had it been in the decision of the Council, would have been something to the purpose, and [Page] saved you the labour of corrupting the Council by your additions. But I must note that this eminent man useth this phrase in this world, and in the next for before the day of Judgment and after, not (as I think) by affectation, but by negligence, which still more confirms me, that the whole draught were but private notes, and not fram'd for the print.

He goes on to give the variety of opinions concerning their going to Heaven, in which he sayes the Greeks imagin that the Souls of just men have indeed obtained Beatitude, but not perfectly, and that they shall perfectly enjoy it when they shall be reunited to their bodies: which position, so far (by his leave) is common also to some principal Latin Fathers. He adds that the Greeks say that in the mean while they remain in a separated place, where they interiourly rejoyce, entertaining their thoughts with the fore-seen and fore-known perfect Beatitude and adoption which is prepared for them. But in the conclusion he seems to say that after many disputations the Greeks came to the ensuing resolutions which are well known. In which he slaunders the Greek Church, for it was but a part of them that maintained this last mention'd position, upon [Page] the like Testimonies as John the two and twentieth did amongst the Latins, so you see that his master piece for which he esteems himself so highly, to wit, to understand what the opinion of the Eastern Church was, is a meer illusion bred out of the reading some Schismaticks works, whom he took to be the mouth of the Greek Church. For the Greeks themselves who at Rome write against Hereticks Profess that the Faith of the Greeks concerning Purgatory is contain'd in their Euchologies & Ritualls which are ancient and used both by Catholicks and Schismaticks. For as to their writers, if you read one, you know not who else will agree with him. So various and irregular are their explications. Now if their Ritualls and Euchologies be not more express then the Latins for your opinion, you will easily see what will become of you, there being not one word of delivery before the day of Judgment, but all that is any way express referr'd thither: which you are pleased to neglect though it be the publick profession of the Church, and to seek birds-nests in the bushes of probable Authours.

Next then, your eminently learned man makes his reflexions upon the word presently, [Page] just as wisely as you, perswading himself that we think the natural and formal signification of it is at the day of Judgment, and insisting upon it, because it is added onely to this member. As if the reason were not evident, to wit, because the time was to be set down uncertainly onely in this member; Presently therefore signifieth as soon as purg'd, whensoever that be, according to the variety of opinions. He goes on to tell us that neither Greeks nor Latins doubted of the delivery of Souls at the day of Judgment, which is very true, and therefore also they put no more down. He adds that the sole difficulty was of the precedent time, as both their declarations do manifest. But this manifestation was made in his learned brain, for in the text there is no sight of any such contest betwixt them. But it appears that the Greeks held their tongues about it, and the Latins were content they should do so. At last your learned man would perswade us that it is most plain in Benedictus his Bull, and that there the word [Presently] most manifestly signifies before the day of Judgment. But because he sent me not the magnifying spectacles of Passion which he used, I could not perceive such evidence. He concludes with, what may [Page]he judge of me, who call this Definition of a holy Pope and Council, a new Doctrin. I pray certify him that I neither believe him nor you, that the Doctrin I call new is either the Popes or the Councils.

Which that it may appear better, I give you a few notes for our side, upon the Council. The first was that there was no debate betwixt the Greeks and Latins concerning Purgatory but onely about fire, and with some Greeks about the Vision of God by confessedly just men, so that your learned mans wilfull supposition of a strife concerning the gradation of Saints coming to Beatitude is a pure fiction, without any ground of History, and his whole discourse built upon it, nothing but the humming of a Chimaera feeding upon entia rationis. My second note is that whereas the Latins put in their confession that some of those who requir'd purgation came sooner to Beatitude, others later; The Greeks after they had seen the Latins confession, quite left out that point, and this upon the fourteenth day of June, whereas the Latins put in their propositions the fourth, so that you see it was not for hast or over-sight, but because it was not settled amongst them, as it seem'd to be amongst the Latins. My third [Page] note is, that the Greeks express the punishments of Purgatory to consist in griefs, to wit, for their sins and for the want of Beatitude which are the same in which I also think the pains of Purgatory consist, howsoever you please not to take notice of it. My fourth note is that the Latins never took notice of the Greeks disagreement in point of coming to bliss, some sooner, some later, but proceeded joyntly to the Definition with words abstracting from both sides of this controversy. All this is so manifest in the letter of the Council, that there can be no dispute, in truth, of any part; though of this later, you and your learned assistant will force a disputation thrusting in a sence which the words bear not, without shame or care of your conscience in so wicked an attempt as to corrupt a Council.

Now out of these Notes I frame a demonstration, as strong as the nature of such a case can bear.

Where a difference is so plain betwixt 2 parties that it is not possible to be hidden from either, and yet neither part takes notice of it, it is plain they do not hold that difference to be materiall.

But there was a known and plain and unconcealable difference between the Greeks and [Page] Latines concerning this tenet whether some Soules were purged sooner then others, the Latines putting it down expressly, and the Greeks after having seen the Latins confession, leaving it quite out, and yet no quarrel or disputation arose betwixt them about this point.

Therefore neither part took it for a materiall point of Religion and Controversie.

Now then you see wherin consisted the agreement of the two Churches concerning this point, to wit, in this that neither of them thought it a matter to contend about. I pray express your opinion in this point whether if the Latins had believ'd it an Heres'y to say one Soul was not deliver'd before another, could they in conscience have admitted the Greek Church to communion without declaring their mind in this point, and this after so open an opposition, as to leave out all mention of it when the Latins had so positively express'd it? If you think Councils can dissemble in points of this quality, I believe the world wil soon confess that I, as stubborn as you reckon me, give far more reverence to Councells then you do. Wherefore I press you farther out of the Council. If any man should say it was an Heresy to hold there were no materiall fire [Page] in Purgatory, or that it was not lawfull to consecrate in leaven'd Bread, you would not spare to tell him that since the Council had declared it indifferent, he stood not with the Council, but seem'd at least to contradict it if he held it were a matter of Faith. So do I press you, since the Council hath pass'd this point for an indifferent one, He that will say the opposite is an Heresy is malapert beyond his strength. Arrogantia ejus plus quam fortitudo ejus.

You give us another paper, which you say was written by a nameless Schollar of mine. I could reply I have none. For who converse with me, I tell them they must see themselves, not trust me; which if they do, they are Scholars to truth, not to me; If they trust me they follow me not, and so are not my Scholars. But I have too much ground to suspect you aym at some advantage against me by charactering him a very able proficient in my School, and repeating it so often; as if you would have men think that both Friends and Foes were all against me. I must then once more tell you that the Authour of that Letter never was addicted to my Doctrin, nor pretended to be my follower (however you have got a trick to call all my Followers that will not censure [Page] me as loud as you, nor willingly assent to your uncharitable carriage) nor was he ever given to be curious in such kind of dissertations, no not even to that degree as to have read my middle State, which made him more easily liable to surprise in mistaking the Council at the first sight, taking all for right which your learned Divine writ concerning it; so that it was candid credulity of your Friends wrong relation of it, not want of Judgment which betray'd him into the errour of imagining the Bull and Council on your side, nor did he dream his Letter should ever come into print, it being writ privately to the other as a Friend, otherwise in likelihood he would have sifted the Testimonies himself, and not have taken them on others account. So that you first uncivilly print a private Letter of his, surreptitiously procur'd, without his knowledge; then mischaracter him an able proficient in my School, my Follower, &c. whereas what he writes is onely like a moderate and grave Christian, who knows he is not even by Principles of Charity to interpret as disobedient one who publickly submits to the Church; and so I look upon it as an act of charity, not of particular Friendship to me. But since you [Page] love to have it thought your party can gain some advantage against those who are proficients by my Books, I will show you one, your present Adversary, whom your self character to be but a puny in my School, and as I hear never appear'd in print, nor set himself to write before, yet has so prudently foyl'd you in every encounter in this Question, that he hath left nothing for me but to discover your falshood in such by-questions as you thrust in to stuff out your Volume.

FOURTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his seventeenth Section.
The Authours Doctrin of Councils explicated; This new opinion of Purgatory in likelihood later than Saint Gregory.

IN your seventeenth Section you first put upon me that I am arm'd against the Authority of Popes and Councils, and then you run headlong on with declamatory invectives [Page] upon that supposition. But, as the world is curious, I conceive some will light on my defence as well as on your calumny; to whom I thus explicate the true state of the question. It is known to all Christians that Christ and his Apostles taught the world the Christian faith. It is known to all Catholicks, that this same faith has continued in the Catholick Church now fifteen ages. It is known to the same that the means of continuing this faith hath been by Pastours, and Fathers teaching their Children what themselves had learn'd by the same way. It is likewise known that in divers ages there arose up divers Hereticks, who endeavour'd to bring in Doctrins contrary to the received Faith: and that Bishops, sometimes in particular (especially the Bishop of Rome) sometimes in Collections or Councils with-stood and confounded such Hereticks confirming the old belief, and rejecting all new inventions. It is evident that to do this it fuffices to have veracity enough to attest what the old Doctrin was, and power enough to suppress all such as stir against it; Thus far all goes well. Of late Ages among our curious School-men some have been so subtle that the Old faith would not serve them, [Page] but they thought it necessary to bring in new points of Faith, and because what was not of Faith could not become of Faith without a new revelation, they look't about for a new revelation; and, finding the two supreme Courts of Christian discipline, seated in General Councils and the Pope, they quickly resolv'd to attribute the power of encreasing Christian Faith to these two Springs of Christianity. Now, the first difference betwixt the two parties engag'd in the present controversy is, whether the Faith deliver'd by the Apostles be sufficient to govern the Church by, or there be necessary fresh Additions of such points as cannot be known without a new revelation. In which they whom I follow hold the negative, they whom I suppose you follow, the affirmative. Out of this question springs a second, whether in the Councils and in the Pope is to be acknowledg'd a Prophetical kind of Spirit, by which towards the ordinary government of the Church, they have a gift to reveal some things not before revealed, nor deducible out of things already revealed by the natural power of discourse which God has left to mankind to govern it self by. In which point also I follow them [Page] that deny, you and your eminent learned men stand up for the Affirmative.

I hope by this any ingenious Reader will perceive that, if the Faith deliver'd by Jesus Christ joyn'd with the natural power of discoursing be sufficient to govern the Church of God, then those who give power to Councils and Popes sufficient to govern by this way, give them as much as is necessary for the Church. But if new Articles be necessary to the government of the Church then, and onely then, they fall short. So that no understanding person reading these lines can doubt but the true question is this, whether the Faith deliver'd by Christ be sufficient for the government of the Church; or, that we must expect new additions to our Faith every age, or when occasion presents it self. Whence it will easily appear that all the great noyse you make, and furious Rhetorick you use, of, my denying the Authority of Councils; my being arm'd against them; and such like angry stuff, are but uncharitable, uncivil, and highly injurious clamours without any true cause or ground at all. But we shall hear more of these hereafter.

Now, any prudent Christian that shall, with moderate attention, have read but so [Page] far, will judge the question already decided: For who dare maintain Christ's Doctrin was imperfect? And indeed all that have any little modesty on your side, will not say new Articles of Faith are necessary, but that whatsoever the Church defines was before revealed; though when they come to declare themselves they demand really new Articles, onely calling them Explications of the former, or Deductions from them: And if they would justify that they were but such Deductions as natural reason can deduce, there would remain no controversy: which in very deed the Churches practise shews to be the truth; In the first Council it being recorded, that there was Conquisitio magna, and all Councils, and Popes ever since proceeding in the same style.

But here I must remember you what you said in the beginning concerning Pargatory, that the reason why you write against my opinion was because it was translated into English. And so I now protest, that you are the cause why I write of this subject in English. My books generally are to debate what I think in the points I write of with learned men, whose care it is to divulge truths to the people, dispensing to [Page] every one the quantity he is capable of, not to raise any new thoughts in ignorant heads. Your crying out against me forces me to a necessary defence before the people; wherefore if any disputings concerning this matter displease any person of Judgment, let it light upon your head who are the provoker, and compeller of me into this new task, which both age and other thoughts make me slowly and unwillingly undertake. But I must not be mine own chuser, but follow God.

As to what you say against this Doctrin: first you desire your Reader to consider that if these grounds, to wit, that the Pope and the Council can err, (without distinguishing in what either matter or manner of proceeding) Christian Faith is a meer mockery. I confess the proposition grave in words, but in sence not worthy a School-boy. For, first, I ask you, whether you mean in necessary points or unnecessary ones? If you say, in both, I doubt your whole School will desert you. For who is there that hath an ounce of brains who will give authority to the Church to determin all the subtle quirks of the School? But if you say onely necessary ones, then before you went farther against me you should have prov'd [Page] that the verities come by inheritance from Jesus Christ are not all that are necessary, which question you never think on, and so brandish your Logick against the apparitions in the clouds. Secondly, I ask you whether without counsel or with it? If you say without it, again your School will desert you. If you say with it, I ask you how much counsell, and to what period? In all which you will be at a loss. Must it hold till by reason they see a necessary connexion with the deliver'd Faith? if you say so you desert your vertue of prophesying, and come over to our School, which you so abominate as rational and faithless: yet this, experience teaches us, is the way that Popes and Councils use to take. If you say their consulting must not hold till they see it by reason, then tell me, what Oedipus or Geometrician can guess or fix the terminating line of counsell prerequisite? These points a Scholar would have setled. You distinguish nothing but jumble all your Bells together into a confused noise, and deafen more then instruct your Hearers. Now 'tis to much purpose to talk of the force of the word Anathema, whilest you have not settled a matter in which the Church hath a power to impose it. What [Page] an inconsiderate manner of arguing is this?

You say Catholiks require no other assurance of their Faith, then upon this firm foundation that our holy Mother the Church is their infallible directress. The proposition is the very Tenet we mainly advance and stick to. Go but consequently to this, and we shall have no quarrell. You add another ground, that the Councils (her mouth) are the unerring deliverers of truth. This also is very true and never deny'd by us. But there rises a great question whether Councils be perpetually and in all cases the mouth of the Church: look upon Cariolanus his abridgment of the Councils, and read his division of General Councils into approbata and reprobata, and ex parte approbata, and ex parte improbata: and see how ignorantly you go to work even in the grounds of your own eminent learned men, who will oppose you peradventure more then I, and yet you preach Christian Religion is a mockery if this be taken away. I desire not to look into particulars, unless you force me to it. For I cannot discover even your Errours, without discovering too the vanity of that School which you nickname the Church, and confidently [Page] take upon you to be one of her Masters. I doubt not if you attentively consider your eminent Scholars you will find many of them speak indeed gloriously of Councils; but, unless I be strangely deceiv'd, they give them less of inward and reall Authority then I; while they make them, in effect, but Cyphers to the Pope, without whom they signify nothing, though added perhaps to him they increase his signification; yet surely not very much; since, in many of those Masters opinion, he alone is infallible, and I think in every ones opinion, all together are not much more. Whereas the Doctrin I follow gives them an absolute Inerrancy in testifying receiv'd truths; which is clearly sufficient to conserve and propagate the Faith of the Church.

I beleeve you mistake the meaning of that grave and worthy Person, whom, without any ground at all for your conceit, you call my Scholar, since he seriously protests, he never gave his mind that way, nor ever read over any considerable part of my Books, nor particularly, this of the Middle State: his true meaning I conceive is, we may know when Councils and Consistory's apply themselves right, by [Page] examining (not Tradition it self for that's evident in the sence of the Faithfull, but) their proceedings, by Tradition, whether they be conformable to it. Which is not onely a maintainable but excellent truth. And by this method the Divines of those dayes examin'd the Doctrin of John 22. For, Tradition is the Law of Christ planted in the hearts of all Christians, not to be examin'd; it being to be read, fair written there by their externall words and conversations. Now if a Pope or Council be supposed to delver Doctrin against this, 'tis past darkness and examining, since all the Christian world cannot choose but resent it, and know it to be against their Faith and Judgment. So that you plainly misunderstand the meaning of Tradition, which is no hidden thing, but the publick and settled belief of the Christian world.

You will say, 'tis impossible a Pope or Council should proceed so grosly. I wish there were no examples of it. But the truth is, if instead of a Pope, consider'd onely personally, you take him as presiding in his Church and Seat, and joyn'd with it, which is a kind of more then a Provinciall Council; but much more if you take a [Page] General Council, without extraordinary violence without or within, both mainly visible, this cannot happen, and so they have infallibility in attesting the received Doctrins, most absolutely sufficient to secure the Church against being mis-led by them.

By the same Errour you look to determin Faith by Inquest, not knowing it cannot be unknown in a Catholick Country to them that live there. See the story of Luther. Were men doubtfull of their Faith, before he and his fellows in iniquity set themselves to snarl at it? Therefore Inquest may be made how to answer their Argumments, but not to understand what the Church held before opposition rose. How much mistaken is all your discourse about the proceeding to higher Tribunals after so great diligence of scrutiny? There is no such thing as scrutiny necessary to find out Faith, nor ever was the Church to seek her Faith. Since she once receiv'd it from Jesus Christ she never lost it, and so is to look into it, not for it. If any thing be to be look? for, it is not faith, it may be some Theologicall Verity, not faith. Your discourse therefore is wholly out of the way. No wonder then you find your self [Page] at a loss, and cry out like a blind man for a hand to guide you, since instead of Christs faith, you look for a new faith. One would have it an Article of our Christian faith, that his Order is a true Religious. Order, Another, that one hang'd for treason is a true Martyr: others seek some private revelation that brings in profit, to be canoniz'd for faith, and other such fine questions to be put in the Creeds of the Church; and if it be not yeelded there's a power in the Church to impose such beliefs upon men, presently the denying Doctrin is an Exterminating School, and pulls up by the roots all the foundations of Christian Religion.

Nor will there want some to say, that though these things be true, they are not to be published, but Catholicks are to be left in ignorance of such tender points: But will not the mischief by degrees grow intolerable, if once it should come to that height that the People by a preoccupated credence, be apt to be stirr'd seditiously against their naturall and lawfull Governour, by any surreptitious Rescript fetch't from beyond Sea, freshly seal'd with the new stamp of faith: and to believe all Christianity is rain'd if such a Rescript, [Page] nay the Interpretation of the procurers be any way doubted of. O strange unhappy times!

You press farther that according to me the Church hath de facto erred in the Bull and Council so long treated of. What a strange boldness is this? you bring an Interpretation against Grammar, against Logick, and against Divinity, and if this be not accepted of, you cry the Church has err'd. Your Interpretation is against Grammar by your own confession, complaining of your Adversary for demanding an Is or Is not, which is a plain acknowledgment that your sence is not formally in the words. It is against Logick, because you put the subject to be part of the predicate; Against Divinity because you would make the grace of God and heavenly benefits be bought like Salads in the market, by him that has most mony. Besides other inconveniences whereof I have explicated some in my Book of the Middle State, and may have occasion to say more hereafter; And yet, forsooth, if this sweet Interpretation be not gratis admitted of, the Church has err'd, the Church has err'd, and all's undone, well a day, well a day.

You go farther and press that my rule [Page] of faith failes me in this very point. And first you appeal to the consciences of all illiterate Persons, whether this be not their present faith. Yau have found out a Tribunal very fit to gain your cause in. But I wonder you are so little skill'd in spirituall direction, that you do not know, most illiterate men never reflect upon their inward acts, or farther then what belongs to the fancy, not one amongst ten thousand: And you deceive me if you hold faith to be an act of the fancy. Yet I dare not be too bold, for I have heard of one that wore a plush cloak and could neither read nor write. Wherefore it is enough for me to deny it, whether it be your opinion or no.

Besides do you not know that even literate Persons, unless Divines, are not to mince the doctrin taught them by their Pastours so far as to distinguish what is deliver'd for faith what as necessary to the explication of it, or to the Practise of Christian life: Further you may know that many even of your own eminent Divines differ not only in what points are of faith what not, but in what makes them to be of faith what not. Though I think they all agree that an explication against Grammar and [Page] Logick does not rayse a position into an Article of faith, though the explication be of a Popes Bull.

Next, you tell your adversary that Master White him self says Saint Gregory the great was the first founder of that faith. I know well you accompt Master White a kind of a mad man, that dares advance such propositions as he cannot but foresee what strong opposition they were like to stir up against him. But I did not think he was so mad, as holding no doctrin to belong to faith which began since the Apostles daies, who are the last revealers of publik faith that he knows of, and besides professing this doctrin so far from faith that it is not true, yet should tell you that Saint Gregory founded this faith. As far as I remember, what I sayd was, that Saint Gregory reported this novelty first broke out in his dayes by the means of certain revelations. And this I sayd upon the authority of Venerable Bede, who attributes the book of Dialogues to Saint Gregory. But now I must tell you that upon fuller consideration, I rather believe Venerable Bede's information was defective, then to attribute so unworthy a book to so grave and learned a Pope; nothing like such winter [Page] tales as are told in that book being found in his most worthy and learned works. And I will make your self, whom I know a great admirer of that learned and pious Doctour, Judg of the controversy. Do you think there is in the next world Excommunications and restorings to communion as is exprest in one of those Revelations? Do you think that one who dy'd obstinate in schism was sent to Purgatory because he did many Alms as is reported in another Revelation? do you think it is not the fancy of an Idle brain to imagin Souls are sent to bathes to scrub and rub men there to be acquitted of their sins? Other things there are in the same book worth the noting; but these are enough to shew it unworthy of St. Gregory; as indeed it is for so great a Doctour and Prelate to spend his time in gathering together private storyes of obscure and petty Relaters. This will set this Doctrin an hundred years later, and into an age one of the least cultivated since the beginning of the Church of God.

Nor is it true that this carries after it a practise testified by Foundations, Prayers, Masses, Almes, &c. For all these were in the Church before this Doctrin, as may appear in Antiquity. The Church of Afrik [Page] made a Canon to force the laity to contribute to Prayers for the dead about Saint Austins time, who yet testifies that the question whether Souls were deliver'd out of Purgatory before the day of Judgment had not yet been moved. Now Foundations contradict this Doctrin, rather then promote it. For he that makes a Foundation intends it without limit of time; and so must imagin the Soul needs the assistance of that charity so long; which would much cool the devotion you pretend, and we see practis'd before our eyes, to get Masses enow in a morning to send a Soul to Heaven to dinner. Shew me but one ancient Instance where two or three thousand Masses have been by Legacy procur'd to be said the very next morning after the Testator's departure, and little or nothing after that morning; and I will ingenuously confess it the best argument you have produc'd in the whole managing of your cause.

After the Author of the Dialogue there was no more news of this opinion till Odilo, a Monk of Cluny's, time: who being a kind of a Generall of many Monasteries, dilated this Doctrin in them, upon a goodly ground to build a matter of Faith on, to wit, the report of a French Pilgrim who [Page] sayd he had met with an Hermite (I think a French man) who perswaded himself he had Visions of Souls being deliver'd out of Purgatory by the Prayers of the Monks of Cluny. Upon this ground the good Saint recommended the devotion for the dead warmly to his subjects, and they to the people who frequented their Monasteries: and hence this Doctrin came to be common where his order was in esteem. And so, being a pious credulity stay'd about one hundred years till the School began. Which; finding it very common, easily favour'd it with such reasons and explications as they thought fit, though not universally, for some are found to have contradicted it, and so it was exalted to a probable opinion. In which state the Council of Florence found it, and practis'd it, giving communion 'to the Greeks, (who as is before declar'd) left it out of their confession, after the Latins had put it in theirs. And in this quality it persever'd till my book de medio statu was turn'd into English. Then it began first to be a matter of faith, by the power of the great letters you put in the Edition of the Bull of Benedictus, and the Council of Florence. For, before that, even the consorts of your Tenet held it no otherwise then [Page] for the common opinion of Divines.

LAST DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section the eighteenth, to Section the two and twentieth.
The Catholick Rule of Faith defended. The Vindicators weakness in making the unlearned Judges of Controversy. His frequently mis-representing my Doctrin, and manifold failings in his new attempts from the Bull and Council.

YOur eighteenth Section you begin with saying, my Doctrin (which is a close adhering to Tradition) is the way to make fools stray. You follow still the same truantly humour of using words without looking into the sence. For, if Tradition signify the delivery of the Doctrin preach't and taught by our forefathers, your proposition [Page] signifies that to follow what we are taught by our forefathers is the way to make fools go astray. Neither do I deny but that you speak consequently, if first you make the Popes veracity the veracity of the whole Church, and that all the Church but he can err, and consequently he may correct the Doctrin which was believ'd by the Church in the age immediatly going before him; then 'tis true that to prefer the Belief of the former age before the Popes word will lead fools astray. But for my part I desire to be one of those fools, and to go so astray. You run on in a full careere, and tell us of the Authority of the Church and Councils in common, and that things settled by them must not be brought in question, not seeing because you will not, that what the Church believ'd in the last Age is more the Church's decree, then what she speaks either by Pope or Council, unless she speaks the same that she believed the last Age: and so, you continue your discoursing with words, not taking their meaning along with you.

In your nineteenth Section you come so home as to judge and condemn me by mine own Doctrin, a great shame to me, I confess, [Page] if you make it good. You argue therefore what have we seen but Masses, Dirges, Almes, &c. so far is almost true; but why did you not put in, by which in express terms we pray'd for the welfare of the Souls at the day of the General Judgment? but you had reason to leave that out, for it would have set a shrewd puzzell in your Argument. We have heard constantly (say you) that Souls are deliver'd out of Purgatory by these powerfull helps before the day of Judgment? In this part you have mended your former fault, for there you sayd too little to serve your purpose, if you had prov'd all you said; and here you say more then can be prov'd to serve your purpose: do you mean that your way was preach't constantly, that is, as a certain and establisht Doctrin of faith? or that for a long time they preacht it as a probable truth? or, without engaging at all into the degree of its assuredness? but perhaps you proceed more nicely, since you onely said you heard it constantly, not that it was preach'd constantly▪ For to say a thing constantly, imports that the speaker teaches it to be certain, and it is not enough if for a long time he tells you it is likely to be so. Now so far as concerns the delivery of Souls from Purgatory by the potent means [Page] you speak of was ever constantly taught, but that the delivery should be made before the day of Judgment, was taught but as a pious opinion, if the Preacher understood the sence of the Doctours of the Schools themselves, who add no such qualification: because, their principles being either Authority or Reason, they find in Authority neither Fathers, nor Councils, nor Popes express in the point, and Reasons much less favourable, and to say the truth though they are apt enough to dispute whether there be a God, a Trinity, an Incarnation, &c. Yet I do not remember to have heard of any one who hath treated of his proposition so directly as to dispute it pro and con. Which being so, what certainty can we expect a Preacher should fix upon this Doctrin.

But to declare what I think those whom you appeal to will answer: I beleeve it is, that they never reflected to make any difference of the things the Preachers deliver'd them, and much less upon the degrees of assent they gave to this or that point, and as far as they can tell they gave the same assent to any place of Scripture the Preacher explicated, as they did to this point; unless some particular occasion put them in [Page] mind to qualify one and not the other. But, as they found by experience in other things that if any rub came to make them doubt of any thing a Preacher sayd, then first they began to consider on what grounds they were bound to believe the point proposed, so they have done in this, and of those who have spent any competent time in examining both sides, many have discover'd your grounds unsafe to build any certainty on, and some confest them too weak to sustain even so much as a probability. What the Gentleman, whose letter you cite (and with some imprudent circumstances) will say, why he was carryed away with your Arguments, I know not; but had he read my Books as much as I esteem his learning and vertue; he would surely have met with full answers to your very objections: which they who read yours cannot do; nor so much as hear of the Arguments I use to maintain my opinion; you on set purpose concealing them; and proposing, in their stead, as my whole grounds, a discourse made to a meer Philosopher or Heathen, where the method of a regular writer oblig'd me to abstract from Revelation.

But that this answer I set down is for [Page] the greatest part of those that follow this opinion, a true one, is not onely manifest to all that reflect upon what passeth within them on the like occasions, but experience hath taught me it in every country where I have conversed since the publishing this Doctrin. In all which I have found divers who upon hearing of it acknowledg'd that before they had in their hearts a certain dislike of your opinion, but they knew not why; it having a kind of an uncouth semblance, yet they could not pitch upon any thing to say solidly against it. One passage I will intreat your patience to let me tell you: Before I printed it, I communicated this point to one of the greatest Divines of Christendome, and confest to be so. He presently reply'd it was against the Council of Florence, and went immediately to his Chamber and fetcht down the Council; when we had a little debated the text, and he saw it did not reach home, he shut up the Book, with these words. Look to it, you will draw all the Regulars upon your back, meaning all such of them, as found great profit by perswading the people they should procure a sudden redemption of their friends out of Purgatory, which I believe, are those you speak of that hear not [Page]of this Doctrin without horrour. Therefore, Acute Sir, you will or may see that your Argument is two edged, and as the Auditours you speak of did not distinguish the degree of assent to this position from that they give to Faith, so neither do they make any difference between it and the sleightest assent they have. Thus may your Adversary by your Argument conclude any practise of the Church, or common opinion of Preachers, or generally receiv'd Ecclesiasticall storyes, nay even the new holy dayes to be points of faith, as well and as easily as you do this. What difference of assent, think you, do the People make between these truths, that there was a Saint Philip or Saint Jacob, and that there was a Saint Bennet, or Saint Augustin? they hear of these far oftner then of those, and seldom or never, of the severall degrees wherein they are recommended to their assents. Even the more prudent in many such points run currently on with an undistinguishing assent, till something jog their thoughts, and awaken them to look into the business, then they begin to make it a question, to examin and sift it, and at last to settle it in its true box of Catholick, or Theological or Historical faith, [Page] or of some other inferiour assent.

You go on to perswade your Readers, that those who accept of this Doctrin do it through comfortable apprehensions in lieu of great horrours before they were in, and because it eases their consciences from the incumbent care of assisting their dead friends. In the first, you manifestly shew you understand not the Doctrin of your own Divines; for, we agree in the grievousness of the punishments, or if we disagree in any thing, it is that mine is the severer. For the difference of our positions is not in what the punishments are, which we both agree to be acts of the will: Our difference is, whether these acts of the will be caused by the force of nature in spirits, as I say; or by the force of material fire, as your Divines maintain. Which was the cause why when I explicated the nature of Hell in a Divinity lecture, one of my Scholars told me, I made Hell worse then it was. For in truth the force of a material body is not to be compared to the strong activity of a subsistent spirit, as any Divine will easily guess.

In your other point you seem to have fram'd your conceit out of conversation with Women and Children, whose desires [Page] are violent at the instant, but soon pass away; and not out of the consideration of men whose counsels are govern'd by a far prospect, and aym at perpetuity. So you flatter poor Women with the hopes of relieving their friends the first morning, or the first Saturday, or in some speedy time, and get present monies fit to make merry with for one day; never reflecting that the ancient and manly charity for the dead was to establish Foundations, and perpetual Anniversaries; by which the memory of our friends, and prayers for them was often renew'd, and long continu'd; whereas taking your Principles, we need neither much fear the terrours of Purgatory, nor seek new wayes to ease our Consciences from the incumbent care of assisting our departed friends, since one Mass at a priviledg'd Altar will do the work alone, and a very little sum of mony procure that Mass without going to the cost of Dirige's and such like chargable Offices. And here I must ask my Readers & my Adversary's leave to correct one suspition I had unawares entertain'd, that Interest might have some influence upon the Defenders of this short stay in Purgatory; I was deceiv'd, and now I see they are no wayes accusable of that odious [Page] crime: anciently great alms were given, and those often repeated, for the assistance of one Soul; and so the Church and Church-men gain'd much, and grew rich apace; Now, there is open'd a far cheaper way; one piece alone, and that of silver too, dispatches the business. Surely out fair and numerous and rich Monasteryes were not built and endow'd with such petty Contributions.

After this you proceed to the arraignment of me before my Bishop or a Nuncius Apostolicus. But there want two things to make your arraignment good: first that the people be inur'd to Tradition, and to prefer the received Faith of the Church before all other Doctrins. From the danger of which your Divines will secure me, while they teach the People that the Church when it is sayd to be inerrable, signifies the Pope alone, that all the People may err, that General Councils have no strength till they be seal'd by the Pope, and so I shal have this help to appeal from them to the Pope, let my Doctrin be as opposit as it will to all that hath been hitherto the belief of the Christian world. The second thing that wants to the perfect arraignment is that you have not yet found out so [Page] weak a Bishop, that will believe a Doctrin sprung from uncertain Visions, foster'd by unlearned zeal, and strengthen'd with an Exposition of a Council or of a Popes Bull, against the rules of Grammar, Logick, and Divinity, is the belief of the present Church. In the mean while I give you great thanks both for your setting forth my plea against Luther, and honouring it with so high an approbation that it thunders and lightens home. For, besides that the knowledge of that form of proceeding against Hereticks is very necessary, it will give me a testimony that I am a good Christian, and if I be not a very beast I have not committed an errour to fall under so gross and so well fore-seen a Censure. To the charge it self, from what I have already said you may gather my clear and full Ansver; that the Doctrin I sustain is not by me pretended to be of faith but onely not against faith: as also, that the doctrin I oppose, is not and Article of faith, and supported by Fathers and Monuments of Antiquity and immemorable Custome, but onely an Opinion not very ancient, nor ratify'd by the consent of Fathers, nor of so long a standing that it's beginning is not well enough known: perhaps, the later, yet [Page] for its time as much prevailing doctrin of priviledg'd Altars may live to be as old as this is now, and as common too; will it therfore deserve to be put into our Creed? or can it ever become an Article of faith which the whole Church professes is but an Opinion now? And are not these differences betwixt Luthers case and mine, whom you so charitably endevour to parallel, sufficient to distinguish our dooms? Examin them but once more, and I will make you my Judg. Onely forget not these words which your self put down as part of my method to convince an heretick, That the Authority of things which wee stand bound to beleeve, descends handed down from CHRIST our B. SAVIOVR and no otherwise, even till this age.

In your twentieth Section you pretend to examin the Councill of Florence once more against me. Your first mistake is that it was the business of the Council in Florence to declare the faith of the Church concerning the state of Souls which depart this life. I mean not to speak to your History, for as much as was determin'd of Souls was agreed in Ferrara, but to the word business; for their business was onely to agree two points; one about [Page] material fire: the other, about the Just Souls presently seeing God, which was the business of Benedictus his Bull, and some of the Greeks were of the same apprehension with John the 22. But you like an Astronomer considering the phoenomena's of the Definition frame the question out of that, whereas all the rest was no business, but the compleating of the doctrin by dilating it out of tenets agreed without and before any controversy. Your next errour is, that whereas you pretend to compare my doctrin with the councils, you do it to the doctrin of the parts of the Council, when it is a clear case, the doctrin of one part is not the doctrin of the Council, but that in which the whole Council agrees. Your third Errour (if it be not a willfull aequivocation) is, that you say the Latins believe material Fire in Purgatory; which, if you mean by belief, Catholick faith, is extremely absurd; Since they joyn cōmunion with the Greeks, who profess the contrary; if you mean only they held it as a probable opinion, you cosen your Auditory, which expects you should speak of Faith, and not of that from which I may dissent by authority of the Council. Your fourth rather malice than mistakes is, that you impose upon me, that there is no [Page]purging of Souls before reunion; for all who know that actio is prior termino will allow a purging before a being purged, as going to London is before being there. Besides your oft repeated fault of mischarging me to hold that the Soules irregular affections are the torments of purgatory. Your fifth errour is, that you put an opposition betwixt the Latins and me where we perfectly agree in all, save onely that intruded word by this Fire which comes out of a former, and spoils the whole tenet of the Latins from being a matter of Faith, making it but a probable-opinion in whole, though the other parts belong to faith. You add, the Latins must needs have thrust me out of communion, not reflecting that they gave communion to the Greeks who dissented in all you have alledged truly against mee. As to the Greeks. First you say I hold against them that Souls are in no place. And though I cannot affirm positively what the meaning of the Greeks was at the Council in this point; yet knowing their Fathers use, when they speak of spirits, to call working in a place, being in a place, I am well assur'd they would not thrust me out of their Society for denying a true locality in spirits. The second objection is answer'd [Page] by my answer to the Latins, and the same is to be sayd to the third: Of your last objection concerning the efficacy of the helps because you say you will evidence it, I must expect the fulfilling your promise, till then it is but a threatning likely to be of little effect.

You end with a great confidence that you have dispatch't this business, and converted your adversary, unless he will stand upon the Errability of the Council. For you (imagining your self inerrable in your rash and shallow interpretation of it) cannot (alas good Christian!) imagin any other possible way to maintain the conclusion: I on the other side, hope I have sayd somewhat that may help your imagination, but dare entertain no great apprehension that I shall convert you, knowing I have not spoken to the main foundation of your opinion, which is setled in your will, upon grounds beyond my removall.

Yet in the 21 Section you are forced to retire from your fair hopes, for your great words satisfy your adversary no more then your Capital letters. His answer in substance is, that you misconstrue the Pope and Council as it hath been declar'd by him and me before? And that the purgation before [Page] the day of Judgment may be suppos'd but not defin'd. And clearly enough, such is both the Popes and the Council's meaning as is before more largely insisted on; which being the onely knot of the controversy, you do well to prepare loud clamours against it, and tell us it is a pitifull evasion. Let us then suppose it were judg'd by the Pope to be the more probable opinion amongst Divines that Souls were purg'd before the day of Judgment, though he held the other was also probable, which I think you will not say impossible for a Pope, since divers have gone that way in other matters. In this case was it fit the Pope should define what became of such Souls or no? if you say he could and should define, what is become of all your clamours against defining upon a supposition which afterwards may be found to be impossible? For he that judges an opinion onely probable, leaves a probability, that it is impossible to be true; since whoever sayes one side is but probable as far as concerns science sayes it may be false, for any thing he knows. Now, things that have a settled course in nature are so dispos'd that impossibility is concomitant to falsity, nor can it ever be prov'd to be false unless it be [Page] prov'd to be impossible. So that the Pope in defining the coming to heaven of such Souls, proceeds not consequently to his opinion if he doth not go upon a supposition that himself confesses may be impossible, and yet in all prudence he must define it as being but an extension of this his main question whether Saints go immediatly to heaven. If you say he could not or ought not to define such a conditionall case, who will or can believe you that hath any prudence; since, for the position it self, He both thought it the more probable and saw it concern'd the most ample part of his division of Saints going to heaven. For all christians imagin more go to heaven through Purgatory, then either by the vertue of baptism or by eminency of Purity and Sanctity acquir'd in this world. So that I persuade my self you would easily allow the Pope not only could, but ought, in case he thought both sides probable to proceed as he did in his definition. Now, that this was the Pope's case is absolutely certain and more then probable: since we cannot doubt but it was the case of the Latines in the Council of Florence, in which the Greeks by their leaving our the expression of some being deliver'd sooner, some later, directly wav'd that position; [Page] and by consequence refused to profess an Article of faith, if this were one, and yet, without any repugnance or quarrelling about this circumstance, were admitted to communion and a common decree made in which the Latines position was abstracted from, as you may plainly see in the Council, and is before more fully declar'd.

Now as to your argument, every one can see 'tis weakly done to talk of actions proceeding out of knowledg or apprehension, not according to the apprehension but according as things really are: He that thinks two opinions probable takes both as possible whether they be or no. For, howsoever they are in themselves, to him they appear so. Now to argue out of the nature of things, which he professes not to know, to the actions that must flow from his apprehension, is a clear inconsequence. Yet all your great clamours have no other ground, and therefore I think I may leave out your petty quarrells with your Adversary about his examples, as superfluous, and nothing conducing to the main point in controversy.

SECOND PART
Refuting the Vindicator's other scatter'd Objections; chiefly those which oppose several Doctrins of the Author in other points.

[Page]

FIRST DIVISION, Containing an Answer from Sect. 22. to Sect. 27.
The Vindicators unskilfulness in the nature of a Metaphor. The Triall of his Tenet and mine by Fathers and Liturgies. His Drollish Calumnies shown groundless by the Authours Explication of his tenets about the Church's future proficiency in science, a dispossest Governour, and the uncertainty of the Scripture's Letter by meer transcribing. His manifold abuses of the Authour in his citing him about Councils, and Hell. His miscalling God's doing whats wisest and best, Pagan Fatality.

DEar Sir, (that I may, following your Directions though not your Example, [Page] begin like a Love-Letter) by chance I had turn'd over a leaf too much, and so lighted on the beginning of your 22 Section: in which you design'd to give a clearer view of my Doctrin, and so I hop'd to have been quit of the former controversy, and could willingly upon that condition, have endur'd the bitter dissemblings wherewith you end this Chapter. But finding you fall back to the same quarrel again, I perceive you had condemn'd me to the Oar for another Caravan: And therefore I must repeat to you, that you talk so unskilfully of faith, as if there were none but in Popes Bulls, and Definitions of Councils: As if the Apostles had gone about preaching that such a Council had defin'd such an Article, and such a Pope the other. And so you ask a monstrous question. How if some Imp of Hell should arise, and admit onely a Metaphorical and not a real Son in Divinis, how could this blasphemy be repress'd by Consubstantialem Patri? A shrewd question I confess, for it so confounds the termes, that it is very hard to make sence of them. First, I would know what you mean by that terme in Divinis; Whether in the substance of God? or in The [...]logy, or speaking of God? For if you [Page] speak of the Essence, the Arrians never held a Metaphorical son in the Essence of God, but in the Essence of Christ.

Nor do I think any who understand a Modicum of Divinity, can put so foolish a Position, that to be a Son should be to be God, or the very Essence of God; and yet should be so solely Metaphorical that it should be no reality. But if you mean that there was no Son in God, but some creature, was call'd Son as the Arrians held, then what signifies this word in Divinis? rub over your old School-notions again a little, before you put your self in print. Now against these was made the Nicen creed, and not against the former. But I must advertise you that by your high skill in Divinity, you should have fram'd a new nature of Metaphors, to have come home to your position. For I doubt not, you can as well square Grammar as Philosophy to Divinity. Then, in our way, who look into nature to know what a Metaphor is, it appear's to be the use of a word in a second sence, derived from a former. And so, how you jumble together onely a metaphorical and not a reall Son, I do not understand. For they have no more connexion then green and d [...]l [...]ful, or what disparate terms [Page] you please to compound into strong nonsence? Reality speaks nature; metaphorical, a manner of speech, yet both these must be joyn'd to condemn some Trinobant to be an Imp of Hell. And why such fierce unchristian words; Miscreant and Imp of Hell? I remember indeed the furious zeal of a Pharisee let fly at our blessed Saviour, language far worse then this; but whether my Chider be Pharisee, or Publican, or both, or neither, I know not, God knows, and God forgive him, and bless me with grace to take patiently all his injuries, and I hope he will give me strength to refute his arguments.

But let us look into the thing it self, and seek how a Son is spoken of God. And, let our first question be, what those people who first brought the words of Father and Son into use mean't to explicate by them. And I know nothing, but that they mean't by Father a man▪ who by means of a Woman produc't a creature like to himself; by Son, a creature thus produc't. This then must be evidently the first signification of the words, and if another be attributed to them by design, not pure hazard, they must be acknowledg'd to be translated from this first signification to that next; as when [Page] he that converts one to faith or good life is call'd his Father, the person converted, his Son. Now, because translations are made upon divers kinds of connexions of the things signify'd, not all but such a one onely, as is translated for a proportion or likeness, is called a Metaphor, as a Governour or Gubernator in Latin, first signifies the Master or Pilot which governs a Ship, thence its translated by reason of similitude or proportion to him that in a City or Common-wealth behaves himself as the Master or Pilot doth in a Ship. Now, let us affirm something of God by this word Father, Will you say, the word was not translated to him from a former signification, but given him by pure hazard, without any respect to a fore-used sense? Sure either you or the Readers will not be so senceless. It remains then to see by what connexion it was translated. Certainly not that it was a cause or effect, or a concomitant, for all these are more improper, but because there is a similitude or proportion, seeing that in God, another Person proceeds in likeness to him, from him. Therefore a Father is spoken of God metaphorically. And if you but consider the language, you use by custom and not by understanding, you would [Page] know it were onely metaphorically spoken of God, that is to say in no other signification of the Word; not by a Metonymie, Synecdoche, or Catachresis, nor in the first signification: For these are the termes which are excluded when onely is added to Metaphorically: and not the terme really, which is a manner of being not of speaking, and so cannot be oppos'd to metaphorically, by one who understands the words he speaks. You will say you scorn these Grammatical Lectures, and I believe you; but such pride hath brought you to call the principall Fathers of the Church, and her best Divines, Imps of Hell, for all these say the same I do in this point. You must have some miscreants to accompany your Imps: Therefore you would have a miscreant teach that a moderate affection to a Concubine▪ is a less crime then an immoderate love to a Wife, and, because this latter is no breach of Gods Commandments, as your Discourse imports, therefore he must be a miscreant that should say it. O what want had Solomon of such a Ghostly Father? to tell him that to love his Wives immoderately was no breach of the Commandments, And that to love them so, as out of that love to fill Hierusalem with Idols and Idolatrous [Page] Worship, was not far worse then a moderate, or rather an ordinary (for none is moderate, none but is sinful enough) love of a Concubine. Surely you have quite forgotten that excellent sentence of our Saviour; He that hates not his Wife, can be none of his Disciple; or, as it is expres't in another place, he that loveth his Wife more then him; For I have heard say, that by these words, is signified as much as he that loves his Wife immoderately. Surely he was no miscreant, that preach't to men to loavo their Wives, if they would not let the [...] serve God quietly.

After this in your 22 Sect. you arm up your Fathers, and set St. Austin in front to make a great shew with his name, For in his words nothing is to be found for your purpose. And, indeed, it is an imprudence to cite him for your opinion, who professes expresly (ad Dulcit. quaest. 1.) the question had not yet been handled before his time, but might hereafter, but that he knew not whether side would prove true. Yet you will give him a paper in his hand to hold forth, though it contains nothing but the profession of your Adversary. And [...]ot to take notice of the doubtfulness of the two latter Books you cite, there is nothing [Page] in them that your Adbersary will deny, but has already explicated them. But if you fail in Saint Austin, you will help it out by Origen who sayes too much for you, being known to speak heretically when he uses those phrases you cite out of him. For, his opinion was that Purgatory began after the day of Judgment, and the sentence given by Christ; according to which some were to be longer, some shorter in torments, but all to be freed at last. And this he expresses by the words you cite, and you should have brought some words by which it might appear he spake of Souls before the day of Judgment. But you have a salve against this, saying, he wrote this before he was an Heretick. By which it is clear you speak at randome, for he fell not to be an Heretick, by a set occasion, as some others did, but as long as he liv'd was accounted a great Doctor of the Church, and his Heresies not discover'd untill after his death, and even then defended to be none of his, but to have been foysted in by Hereticks.

Your next Author is St. Gregory of Nyssa, a man of very great worth and au [...]hority, of whom Petavius that famous Jesuit sayes, that some in his time, more piously [Page] then either truly or wisely, striv'd to explicate some places of his which did savour of Origenism. But Germanus Bishop of Constantinople, ancienter then Photius, defends this great man; yet not without admitting the Origenists had mingled some sentences of their own here and there in his works. Now this Germanus his Book is not extant, and therefore such places as use the Origenists phrases are suspected ones. Specially the Book you cite is excepted against. Possevinus rejects it absolutely, others object against it, that 'tis corrupted by the Origenists in divers other points, so that it is neither certain the book you cite is his, nor if it be, that it can carry authority, where the phrase is Origenical, as this word Ignis Purgatorius is, and avoided much by Greek Fathers, because it is so notorious in Origen. I have not the Book, and so I cannot speak expresly to the words. In conclusion, you make the Judgment of the Ages before those strange Revelations, which Gregorius Dialogus (as the Greeks call him, and say him to be the Pope whose successour was Zacharias, who lived about the midst of the eighth Age) hath left us, or rather Odilo who lived about six hundred years agoe, out of three Fathers; whereof [Page] one sayes nothing special for your Doctrin, and is certainly against it. The second was notoriously an Heretick, and the words you cite pertinent to the explication of his Heresy. The third's words are certainly corrupted by the followers of the second, and the Book out of which you cite the place rejected by learned Catholicks, yet this you call the consent of Fathers, and the apprehension of those ages to which I appeal.

But now comes such an impiety as should make a Christian sink for shame, to wit, that I say Virgils Purgatory is more rational then yours. But what would you have me do, I did not know that all the light of Christianity consisted in certain private Revelations, quarum nox conscia sola est. Now that you have told me so, I will mend as soon as I shall believe you: mean while, till then, I may conceive a man of wit may conjecture or feign likelier thing; then we find in such visions, as go generally accompany'd with some circumstance against the nature of Christian life. Nor do I fear your exposition of the Councils will stand canonised in Christian Creeds; however you assume the confidence to nickname such shallow conceits of your own Catholick Faith all over your Book. You follow the [Page] same matter by citing places out of the publick Liturgies; of which all but one are purely indifferent to both parties, even in the very out side of the words; and that one easily explicable in a sence consistent with mine. You brave me to find out a new construction of Ante diem rationis, and I tell you I have found one of which I never heard before, and 'tis in your book, and in this very place, pag. 83. wherein striving to apply that excellent Hymn to your purpose, you mistake it I think as much as 'tis possible. First you make the Priest speak in the person of the dead, whereas the whole style of the Hymn runs clearly in the person of him that prayes, and in the singular; Quid sum miser tunc dicturus, &c. supplicanti parce Deus. Contremisco, mei finis. With which person suit these words best? that of the dead, or of the Priest? Secondly, your Argument must suppose him to pray for delivery from Purgatory; let's see how you hit it in this: Ne perenni cremer igne, can these words agree with Purgatory? Thirdly, you bring this passage to prove he asks Delivery before the day of Judgment. Sure, in this branch you will have better luck; and yet he that reads the Hymn but once unslubberingly over [Page] (which certainly you have often red over) will easily pick out another meaning from Quando Judex est venturus, &c. cum resurget creatura, &c. ne me perdas illa die. Can there be possibly words more clearly contradictive of what you pretend? which yet is more confirm'd & made plain by the fix last lines where the Hymn begins to change its meeter, and then passes evidently from the Priest to the person pray'd for, Huic ergo, &c. spare him, whereas before it ran perpetually with me; and from eternal fire to the style us'd in praying for Souls in Purgatory. But perhaps you saw the Latin would not so well serve your passion, therefore you either find or make a Translation of it into English verse, and cite us three lines of it. Truly I do not take my self bound to answer such authorities, especially when they are grosly mistranslated with a soul corruption, of which I suspect you knew well enough; since the verses are printed in a late Book whose venerable Author you often converse with, and there they are, my long black score, &c. which you hastily if not maliciously change into their long, &c. Is this the performance of your promise in this very Section, to be no Niggard to your Reader? when you thus [Page] notably, in the Scotch phrase, spare the truth. Which indeed appears to mean in this Hymn, onely an expression of fear concerning the rigorous examination at the day of Judgment, with a desire to be handled then in mercy, else what an improbable request were it, to beg so solemnly one hour, nay, one minutes anticipation of delivery, for even thus much would satisfy (were yours the right interpretation) that moderate petition of Ante diem rationis. But becaus you will cry out upon Poetical expressions, though you use them your self and those lewdly corrupted: I will intreat you to apprehend, this Hymn or Sequence was put into the Mass, not compos' [...] expresly for it, as the Gospels, Epistles, and other parts of the Mass were: but was made for a Meditation upon the Judgment day. And so the true meaning of the words are before thou comest to count with me, that is, before my death. The other citations are not worth the writing over, being common to both sides.

In the 23 Section, you begin to display your Rhetorick which I am very well contented with for two reasons. The chief▪ because It is fitter then Divinity to be made a bawble of, The other because a little patience [Page] will be sufficient to answer as many leaves as you employ in it, that is some four whole Sections, which I intend almost quite to leave out, they being made for disport and without proof of any thing save onely of this, that you mightily affect the humor of railing without sence or reason. Yet I would desire you to note, that it is one thing to say this is to be done, another to say I can do it. True it is, I think demonstrations may be made in Divinity, but I have not ever said of any particular point, that I have demonstrated it. (I leave that to the judgement of the Readers.) Nay not so much as that I ever attempted it. In my two Euclides I pretended to demonstrate, but so that I preferr'd not my self before greater demonstrators who had miss'd, and so I went with such care, considering that I also might err in some part. But, where I used not the form of demonstration, as in my Institutions and other my little Books, I never went about to demonstrate. For those who know never so little concerning demonstration, know it is one thing to put a medium which bears with it a possibility to be fram'd [...]nto a demonstration; another, to frame the demonstration. The first is so common, that we cannot talk of our business [Page] without using it, in case what we say be truly consequent. Much less can any solid Divine frame a long discourse without doing it. The latter, no body doth but he, that maketh it his proper task to proceed in form. Whence you may see how much you calumniate mee. Besides, you quite forget the qualifications I ad, in the places you cite by halves, out of my bookes; did you not read about the middle of Ratio Operis these words, Si enim non potuisse rationem, &c. to this sence, If you say Reason could never have reach't these mysteries, I freely assent, but that after Revelation it cannot be satisfy'd I unwillingly beleeve, till it be prov'd? Go on, and you shall immediately meet another omitted Qualification; That even assisted by Revelation we cannot penetrate into the Deity nor any Mystery, thorowly, that includes It. Then come the words, wherein my sentiment is plainly containd; But these hinder not, that such Demonstration as is given of God may be found out even of these Mysteries, that is, not thorowly or perfectly, but some Predicates and truths concerning them; which every Divine agrees of God, and I onely extend that kind of demonstrableness to other Articles. This I earnestly [Page] intreat the Reader to observe, and when ever he meets with this accusation laid to my Charge, that I would evacuate faith by Demonstration, evidence, knowledge, &c. to understand me still with these qualifications: which had you fairly mention'd, they would have very much allayd the heat of your exceptions. But you cite me somtimes so interruptedly, and translate me sometimes so craftily, that I fear you rather affect to contend plausibly, then improve either your self, or me, or the world with any profitable truth. One passage here you very pardonably english to the worser sense, for the words indeed are easily mistakable; and they are these, Sed haec omnia, &c. where I meant not, Things in your sence that is, Mysteries of faith, exprest by these terms, expressing those Mysteries; but the Termes which were taught us before Christ. As appears, by my words, Fides in humano nobis Idiomate tradita est, &c. words not so far off but a shorter sight then yours might have seen them.

As for what you cite out of my letter to a Person of worth, that Divines do not profess demonstration. If you mean the form of Demonstration it is so plain there can be no question of it: If you mean onely that [Page] they do not evidently prove; how can those Divines pretend it who think there is no certainty but in Faith? For the rest I say no such matter, but hold that both Saint Thomas and others have demonstrated many things, and that my self have followed them in such demonstrations. Another accusation is, that I pretend to take away Faith in the Manhood of the Church; which you should have prov'd. For though I conceive the great Scholars of that time shall have a large portion of Scierce, yet I do not know that I ever said the People should have it. The same I conceive hath ever been in the Church in a certain degree; Of which there are manifest signs in Saint Denys the Areopagite, Saint Basil, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, and others; as also in the Latin Church, specially in Saint Austin, Boetius, Saint Auselm, and others. But I conceive demonstration will be both in its matter, and in Divines much more diffus'd then it is yet. So that in the Church will ever march together Science and Faith, though in diverse measures.

Some other little nibblings at my Doctrin, (or rather at little bits of it snatcht from the Context, as your custom is, because taken entire 'tis too difficult for your [Page] teeth) interlace your jollity in these your Sections of mirth and raillery. As that of a dispossest Governour; which you deform in the worst manner you can, by leaving out the Antecedents and Consequents; which would have let you see that my discourse proceeds in the case, that onely his own private interest or particular good be oppos'd and counter-ballanc't to the publike; not if the publick good be for his restorement: For then my whole Book favours him. Wherefore to make my Doctrin invidious against the Person you mean, you must first subsume that his reentry is against the common good, otherwise I say nothing against him; but all for him; and if you subsume this; I believe you will deserve no great thanks for your officious mistake, but approve your self his greatest enemy.

Next, you are hugely troubled that in Rushworth's Dialogues (which you say are mine) I make the letter of the Scripture so uncertain. And this objection I may conceive you borrow'd from Doctor Hammond, whose Book in which he has something against me, and (as I am told) this very passage, was extant long before yours; and I doubt not but you read very diligently [Page] whatever opposes me. Unless perhaps good wits jump't in their observations, which also may be likely; for you agree much (taken as Scholars) in your method of seeking for Truth. I must profess therefore (to answer both in one) that you are two of the prettiest men that ever I met with, and most hard to please with reason. Neither of you can endure I should attempt & profess certainty and evidence in things capable of it, that is, in matters scientifical; nor yet profess uncertainty in matters not capable of certitude; as in our present point about the delivery of words by way of transcriptions of Copists or Scriveners relying upon their own human diligence; which 'tis impossible to secure against over-sight; besides divers other miscarriages which the Fathers, as well as I, complain the Letter of the Scripture was lyable to. But to satisfie your tender Conscience, and other Catholikes like yours; I profess that that place speaks of the Letter of Scripture, as left to multitudes of human contingencies and imbecillities, and as taken abstractedly from, and unassisted by Tradition or the Churches living voice and practice, to guide securely the delivery of it downwards: [Page] But I ever profess that this guidance of Tradition did efficaciously preserve the Letter untainted in all that was coincident with Christian Tradition, that is, in all points necessary to mankinds salvation; and not onely so, but so far the rest of the Scripture's Letter too, that nothing evidently contrary to the doctrin of Tradition or Christian Faith could light into it. So that Catholiks may with all security accept it and hold to it. And yet, notwithstanding the aid of tradition formerly, above 2000 faults were corrected in it by our late Pope's, since the beginning of the Council of Trent, and more still remain to be a mended, as the Preface to the same Bible grants, nor is any person living able to stint us the ultimate compleating of the true copy. Thus much to you; How I can satisfy Doctor Hammond (who holds Tradition onely then when he can serve his turn of it, and otherwhiles impugns it) by what way in his grounds he can be certain of one little of it, I know not: and therefore must leave him to the Fruits of his Labour in impugning Tradition, that is to a perfect uncertainty of any thing that can concern his Faith. In a word, to a Catholik my position onely signifies that [Page] we are beholding to the living voyce of the Church even for any Certainty of the true Copy of the Scripture; which, why it deserves more exception that Saint Austin's noted saying of Evangelio non crederem, &c. I should be glad to learn. But you think Rushworth has made too long a Catalogue of uncertainties. To which I answer that if you please to scan the occasions of that long Catalogue, and then tell us how many we may safely abate. I shall in his behalf remain very much oblig'd to you; If not, 'tis plain you do not know we can abate any, or that his Catalogue is longer then it should be in his case.

After this you give a wipe at my denying the Popes personall Infallibility; and as for the point, you well know 'tis held but a probable opinion, and that many learned Authors hold the same opinion with me. As for my censuring it, I shall hope the reasons given for it in Tabulae Suffragiales will stand to justify me, till something of greater force than clamour appears to overthrow them, that is, till it can be shown less than Archi-hereticall to say that an opinion which confessedly is no more but probable can be a sufficient ground to build Christian Faith upon.

[Page] Your next piece of Gallantry is your old and oft repeated clamour of my denying the Infallibility of Councils, which forces me to lay open to the world how far your Malice is above your Conscience in writing against me. To do which I offer the Reader those few notes. First that you onely cite here three words, non est impossible, to prove confusedly that I deny all Authority of Councils, whereas in my Tab. Suffrag. p. 277. the place where it is found (which had you quoted the Reader might have rectify'd himself) it follows immediately, ut Concilium tentet hoc facere, & tentando in errorem incidat, It is not impossible a Council should attempt This, and so err. Now what this word This relates to is to be seen in the Paragraph immediately foregoing, to wit, to the making new Articles of Faith; so that I put Councils errable onely in such a matter that is in creating us a new Faith, you by maiming purposely my words make me hold them to have no Authority in any thing. Can this consist with honesty or fair dealing? Next is to be noted that in the same Discourse there which gives account of my Doctrin professedly concerning Councils, I maintain in express terms, that Councils are of Infallible Authority[Page]in declaring Articles of Faith, that the Pope declaring ex cathedra concerning a matter of Faith is infallible, and that the same is to be said of Generall and even Provinciall Councils, if they proceed duly in their discussion. And must all this be conceald, and onely three generall words which declare neither particular manner nor matter be barely alleadg'd as a ground of all your spitefull Rhetorick! How strange a proceeding is this for a Christian! My third note is that in case Christ be a perfect Law-giver, and that the Faith he left be sufficient and no more necessary for the Church, that is, if a Council have nothing to do in making new Articles of Faith, then I onely deny Infallibility to Councils in things unnecessary for the Church, and unconcerning their duty as Definers of Faith, and give them an absolute Inerrancy in all points necessary for the Church, that is, in all that can truly concern their main purpose, that is, defining Faith. And more than this, I beleeve you will find an hundred Catholick Doctors to one, deny them as well as I. My fourth note shall be that you would make the denying Infallibility of Councils, abstracting both from all matters and manners of proceeding [Page] or acceptation of the Church (for so you treat it) my singular opinion, whereas thus spoken of, we have for their Errability amongst the Franciscans Castillo, and the learned Author of Systema Fidei, who cites him; for the Dominicans Sotus, who tells us that if God by his secret judgment suffers a Council to err, he will not permit it long to be conceald from the Church, but will take order that it be corrected by another following Council before it be receiv'd in the Church. For the Jesuits, Bacon, telling us it was the opinion of Saint Austin, and of all the writers of that Age, that the resolution of Faith was compleated in the reception of the whole Christian world. For the Fathers Saint Austin himself, whose known words are that Plenary Councils have been corrected by following ones, where he seems also to speak even of matters of Faith. Of Cardinalls, Cusanus, that it may be observ'd by all experience that an universall Council may fail. For your own Doctors, worthy Dean Cressy, in whom you may find most of these Authors cited, Exomol. c. 33. where he acknowledges the placing the Infallibility of Councils ultimately in the acceptation of the Church, an opinion at least allowable, and according to his eminent [Page] learning, and charity puts down the conveniences he observ'd in that Doctrin to the reducing the Heterodox party. Nor onely these, but indeed, who is there of any note that will say a Council is Infallilible unless it proceed Conciliariter? and that it may not proceed conciliarly, or after the regular way of a Council, I beleeve you are not unacquainted: if you be, let Pope Martin the fifth teach it you, who in the last Session of the Council of Constance, declares himself to hold and observe their Decrees made conciliariter, & non aliter nec alio modo, and this too expresly in matters of Faith, which caution of his shows he held a possibility of their proceeding illegally. Now what they call Conciliariter, I call (in definitions of Faith) attending to Tradition: which put, I hold and maintain them absolutely Infallible; whereas I believe, all except me (if you examin the matter well, and report it candidly) put more numerous, and more difficult conditions to their Infallibility, and far more liable to contingency than what I require; which is both extremely hard to fail, and when it does, must needs be most notorious to the whole world, and so beyond my power to pretend or excuse it, as you would wisely [Page] perswade the Reader, by saying this Doctrin brings all into my hands.

So that we have eminently learned men of all the chief orders in Gods Church, Cardinalls, and Fathers (to omit many, or rather all others) directly of my opinion in holding a Non est impossibile, speaking in generall; or rather I of theirs, and yet I onely must be raild at, as if none in the world held it or broacht it but I. Turn now, I beseech you, valiant Sir, the mouth of your pot-gun against all these renowned Authors, and discharge your intemperate spleen against them as abandoning the Catholick Church, denying the Authority of Councils, and such like, (which make up a great part of your worthy work) and see how feeble an attempt you will make, and whether you will not deserve as great an hiss, as you have made a noise to no purpose but to breath out some of your swelling passion. At least excuse your self to charitable Christians, why omitting to mention all others Authority who held the same Doctrin with mine, leaping over the backs of all distinctions both of matter and manner, without which your discourse signify's nothing; and, lastly, why leaving out words of mine within the same comma [Page] which should clear me, you rawly took out three onely which were generall ones, apply'd them to what particular sence you pleas'd, nay, extended them to that which was invidious, and which I never held, and by these arts abus'd the veneration which the vulgar justly have of Councils, to stir up in them an undeserved ill opinion against me. I pass by in my Book many such like carriages of yours; this, because you so often, and so maliciously glance at, I could not leave totally unreflected on.

If it would not spoil your sport, I would crave leave to right the reader in the conceit you would imprint in him of my Romancicall Hell, as you are pleas'd to term it; the ridiculousness of which lies in your expressions, not mine. One would think by your putting, Dancers, Bowlers, Fencers, &c. in other Letters, they were my words, but he would be mistaken. One would think that the words attempting now in Hell in all their severall postures, which signify'd as if they were playing tricks there, were my words or sence, but would be mistaken again. One would have thought you might have had the candor not to omit the word quasi, which would have spoild the exactness of the postures you fancy, and so have [Page] much qualify'd your jeft; Lastly, one that had not known you might have imagin'd you would have transcrib'd to the full point, and not still take two or three words single, and then you should have seen the mixture of desperation, fear and grief, marring the perfect molds your Imagination had fram'd, and made me say no more but that the shapes of the damned were frightfull and distracted.

But (to omit other little advantages by which you strive in the translating 3 lines to render my sence ridiculous) I would gladly know where you find these words spoken of damned Souls, as you would here perswade us; I would gladly know where you find the word now which you put as mine [attempting now in Hell] wheras the whole Chapter is intitled & declares it self in each Paragraph, to speak of their Bodyes onely, not Souls; and this not now, but expresly at the day of Judgment, or rather (if it could be) after it. Were ever three lines singled out from their fellows so abus'd, corrupted and falsify'd to make a little sport! Acute Sir, when you have a mind to make merry hereafter, take heed your self to sober and judicious persons who require and expect solidness and sincerity [Page] from you, become not the best part of the scene; however to Gigglers, who examin nothing, but laugh at Mares-nests, found onely in your and their fancies, you pass for a very comicall and witty blade. But, as I value the judgment of one serious examiner above a thousand of such light-headed things, so it seems by your carriage through your whole Book, you intended such onely for your Readers; I hear they are your onely applauders, and that wiser persons, even those that perhaps set you on, seeing your passionate behaviour throughout the whole, will not hazard their own credits to commend your work before any man of prudence and moderation.

Your next exception is against my sayings that the best happens to the damned that could happen, and that God himself had been worse had they been otherwise dealt with. And this you confute very learnedly with loud exclamations, as Pagan Fatality, Prodigious! and what not, wheras indeed could you rightly open the opinion, however told rawly 'tis to a vulgar head subject to misapprehension, you would have found it to be the greatest honour of God, both in his own Attributes and in the Government [Page] of the world, which mankind esteems of. In his own Attributes, because it takes God to be essentially wise, even to the least circumstance; and that he would be worse if he did any thing otherwise then according to the Rule of Wisdom, and that Wisdom in all things is the Principle to his will. Whence follows that if it be better to let the damned be damned than not, he should not have done so wisely as he now does, if they had not been damned, and therefore had been less wise, that is, worse in himself. In his Government, because it declares that in that very operation in which Creatures seem to be worft handled, even there they have the greatest goods which were possible to them. This Answer of mine perhaps you may have seen given to another upon occasion of the same difficulty rais'd. Now to oppose this Doctrin, you must either say that God in the Government of the world does not behave himself most wisely, that is, does not what's most wise to do, or permits not what's most wise to permit, which if you do, I fear any Christian ear that hears you will abhor your blasphemy; or else you must say that to behave himself less wisely is not to be [Page] worse in himself, which is nonsence; If you grant both these you fall into my paganism, as you call it. For if God does what's wisest and best, and actually such or such a creature be damn'd, it follows tis wisest and best to permit it; therefore to do otherwise had been to do less wisely, that is to do worse; and so, if nothing limited the goodness in that action but what was in himself, to be worse. This you should have reflected on and spoken to, and not still think that to make a wide month over a point of Divinity is enough to confute it, without ever weighing, answering, or so much as mentioning the reasons 'tis built on.

SECOND DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section the twenty seventh, to Section the thirtieth.
The Identification of the Soul's affections with her self. The best corporeall pleasures most conducive to Beatitude. In what sence the Soul is not the same in the Body and out of it. Affections of Souls not retractable during their separation. Mis-informations of that grief the Author puts in Purgatory, rectify'd. Our Saviour's sufferings not prejudic't by this Doctrin.

[Page]

IN the twenty seventh Section you begin to speak like a man that aym'd at a meaning and proving, and was not content with pure flashes of words as in your former Sections: Therefore I must look to my self, especially since you threaten me both with designes of your own and of abler[Page]Pens which will more largely confute my errours. And I must confess you frighten me, for I do not love to take pains. But the best remedy I can think of, is to hasten this petty answer to you, which peradventure may prevent some mistakes in others into which you are fall'n; and so shorten in part their and my labour; your first onset is to ask how ridiculous a position it is to say the affections got in the body are not distinguish't from the Soul? and your reason of doubting is because the soul was and can be without them. I give you this answer; 'Tis as ridiculous, as to say, that Relation is not distinguisht from its subject; That Intension and remission are not made by adding one degree to another; or that Charity is increast by a greater radication in the subject; That Vnion is not distinguisht from its Terms, or Action from the Agent and term, when it consists not in motion; and twenty such other position; which as I must not doubt but you have shew'd ridiculous in your Philosophy Papers; so because I have not seen them I must judge to be probable opinions in the sentiment of your eminent learned men, while so many maintain them in your Schools; and yet all the Arguments you bring, are commonly urged [Page] against all these opinions. The masters whereof peradventure may be of the same Judgment with me, that the Soul is a creature in its Essence immutable, but mutable to a certain point▪ And, so, that other things may be joyn'd to, or sever'd from her, whilest she remains perfectly the same, and neither better nor worse if we respect precisely her Essence. They who have a mind to know what I think in this point, may find it at large discours'd, in the Preface before the Latin Edition of Sir Kenelm Digby's Book, de Immortalitate Animae.

Your next question is, how I can say that sinfull acts are perfections, since the Soul is more perfect when she is depriv'd of them. Sir, my unwariness in this was, because I had heard that sin consists formally in a privation or want of something, and that all the positive act is good, and from God as far as positive, and so must be perfective, and in it self some perfection. Now, to your Arguments I reply, that in create perfections many times a greater puts out the lesser, as Science puts out Faith, Comprehension Hope, Innocence Repentance, &c. so doth the perfection of a vertuous act displace the imperfecter perfect on which is in a bad action.

[Page] Your third Scruple is, that I say the life most full of corporall pleasure is the fittest to attain eternall Beatitude. And I cannot deny but I say so, and your self bring my reason, because the Body being made for the Soul it cannot be (regularly speaking) but what is truly best for the Body, is also best for the Soul. Peradventure you can pray better when you are sick then in health and ease, and the like is of study: My imperfection is such I cannot. And, if eating my meat with a good stomach gives me health and strength to study and pray, I think I do well to put vineger or some other sauce to my meat, which may make me eat what is fitting to perform those Actions strongly and perfectly. Neither do I understand that this is either against Saint Paul, or the Doctrin of Mortification prescrib'd according to Saint Paul, who tells us, he chastis'd his body and kept in slavery in order to attaining Heaven, lest (saith he) I become a reprobate; to which end all that use mortification discreetly, employ it. I confess this Doctrin is against them who think God is pleas'd with a kind of sacrificing their bodies to his honour, without any commensuration to their own salvation, but meerly because [Page] they apprehend they make God beholding to them for the great honour they did him; as heathen Priests were anciently, and are yet us'd to do in some Countries.

You say this Doctrine befits only Epicurus his School, and the life of Hogs. For Epicurus, the Eloquent Gassendus hath taken a great deal of pains to perswade the World you are in an Errour. And for the life of Hogs, unless you be better acquainted with it then a chast religious man should, I think you no fit Judg of the Comparison. But, whatever way you go, Ile tell you mine: which is, to think we feel or (as I may so speak) see no acts of our own immediately but corporeal ones, therefore those sensible pleasures, heats, violences of charity, which we read of in many Saints lives are corporeal ones, as appears by the very narrations, telling us of bones broken, those that were neer them warm'd, those that they preach'd to materially set on fire, and the like. Now, I say, there being such variety of corporeal pleasures, the understanding man chuses amongst them, what are fittest to breed in him those thoughts and desires which are the most efficacious dispositions of the Soul to Heaven: And these I hold the best and noblest, and which [Page] make a mans life the pleasantest. Of these (speaking in abstract) are generally those that follow or accompany Charity and Science, but in practise those which be the Instruments to increase solid Charity proportion'd to the pitch of the Soul to be govern'd, which possibly is not capable as yet of so great acts as the Saints we spoke of. But there is none so low but if diligence and industry be not wanting, hath higher and greater pleasures then the Hogs which were your instructers to know what corporea pleasure is. And I cannot but marvell much on what your thoughts were wandring, that whereas you cannot but have read in the lives of Saints, and eminent Contemplators of the excessive and ravishing delight which they felt (that is, which was even in their body too, and affected it) so as they have judg'd it to be inexpressible and above all contents and delights this world could afford; yet forgetting all these, your thoughts could onely pitch on those which Hogs feel, as the perfectest. Do you think a virtuous man has not a more solid, lasting and true corporeal pleasure in the calmness of his fancy, and the undisturb'd temper of his passions, than a vitious man, who for a dram of [Page] delight which his mad phrenzy of passion gave him, and scarce left him understanding enough to know he had it, has whole pounds of bitterest gall of discontent attending it, both in the perpetuall fight of his fancy and appetite against reason, and the distemperature of other naturall parts which vice must needs disorder. Nay, why should we not think the Saints who liv'd mortify'd, lives felt not as much corporeal pleasure, taking the whole extent of their lives, as those enormous livers who cloy'd their senses with the surfet of them. We experience so high a difference in our pleasure taken in meat when we are heartily hungry, in a warm fire when we are extremely pincht with cold, that we have good ground to think their deprivement of the degrees of the thing, is recompenc't by the degrees of the perfect sence they have of what they admit of; which is by the rarity of it commended and receiv'd with as great a welcome as a necessity both naturall and rationall, that is, those powers uncheck't in that action, could give it; All which amounts but to this, that a virtuous life is in all respects the pleasantest to the whole man. If this satisfy you not, what think you of Health and Sickness? Is not [Page] the former full of corporeall pleasure, the other of corporeal displeasure or pain? Can any thing be so agreeable to the Body as that, more disagreeable or unpleasant than this? Yet I beleeve neither your self nor any understanding Christian had a scruple he was in health, but gave God thanks for it as a great benefit.

This being so laid out, what have you to except why the pleasantest life is not the fittest to attain Heaven? You add, you have a Scruple to translate this Doctrin, and you justly may to do it so raw and imperfectly, as to make a quite wrong apprehension in your Auditory of its being from what it is. But as you have a confidence of your Readers vertue to abhor the Doctrin as you set it down, so have I, that any hath heard of me will give no credit to your shameless calumny.

You begin your twenty eighth Section with my frivolous concluding that corporall affections remain in the Soul after Separation. And you seem to bring two Arguments to shew it. First, that all these desires rise from the body, which being taken away, they remain no longer in the Soul; you may as wisely perswade a man not to seal his Letter, because the impression coming [Page] from the seal, as soon as he puts that in his pocket, there would remain no more print in the Wax. No, sweet Sir, Our foul hath certain Prints of efficacious judgements, which though they begin from the flesh, yet sink into her, and become as it were Limbs of her. For, as beasts work by Legs and Arms, and Teeth, so our soul by her Judgments.

Your second Argument presses, that as it will not concern the soul to see or hear, so neither to have corporeal pleasures when she hath all fulness of knowledge, so that you would make the unpurg'd souls follow reason, and desire nothing but what is fit for them; that is, to be totally purged, and by consequence go immediately to Heaven, and all to be Saints, and that their works follow them not. At least, you think a Schollar could endure no punishment, who had no other irregular desires but of knowledge. Qui est hic? & laudabimus eum: but, putting the case (how impossible soever in the judgment of Christians, who hold grace necessary,) we must remember, he that hath much science, hath a better knowledge of his last end, how great it is, and seeing himself deprived of that, hath a larger share in the high part of damnation, [Page] which is in the poena damni then any other. But this you knew nothing of, nor care to consider, diverted by reflecting upon an admirable non-sence of mine. And, truly I do not wonder, that you who cannot understand that a thing may be changed in relation, or that water powr'd out of a square vessel into a round one, can change its figure, without taking away one company of little Jacks of the Box, and adding as many more, should conceive how a thing can be substantially chang'd, and yet remain the same thing. Neither do I intend to perswade you, onely I presume to open how the one case is consequent to the other. Which consists in this; that if a substance be divisible in the formal ingredients which make it a substance, then also is it mutable according to its substance. Now the Ingredients of substance in this pitiful way of Philosophizing, which Aristotle and St. Thomas have taught me, are called Matter and Form, and Existence. Whereof Matter and Form constitute the essence of the individuum, and if either be chang'd, the Individuum is chang'd: But it is not so of Existence. For some of your great Divines will tell you, that Christ's Humanity were the same individual Humanity [Page] whether it had a proper human Existence or the Divine. Now, that which we speak of the soul is somewhat less then this. For, we put the soul to continue the same existence, but to have it sometimes joyntly with the body, sometimes in her sole self; and, because Existence belongs to her substance, we say she is substantially chang'd, and yet remains the same. But to answer your difficulty formally, I pray remember that the notion of ens or a thing is habens Existentiam, or that which hath being. Now habens Existentiam may be understood two wayes; for one that hath actually Being; or, for one that hath an aptitude to Being. Now, if you take it in this latter sense, the soul is still the same, for in the body it is capable to have its existence without the body, and out of the body 'tis capable to have it with the body. But, in the former sence, in the body it hath it commonly with the body; when the Whole, not She, is that which hath Being; whereas out of the Body, She, not the Whole, is that which hath being, and so in this sence, she is another thing out of the body then she was in it. There is your distinction, sweet Sir, with which I must intreat you to be content, since you will easily see your [Page] arguments or inconvenients, drawn from your mistake of the opinion, have no force against it, for we speak not of higher and lower degrees of Ens or Anima ut sic, but onely of composition in the individual degree.

In your 29 Section you fall upon a kind of rational question, whether an understanding creature can wish what's impossible, and you handle it as if you had never seen a man do against reason. Let my first question be, whether in all the explications you have heard of the fall of Angels, you find any but of some impossible object? some say they desir'd to be God; some the sight of God without due means; some a supreme Government of this World; some an hypostatical Union; none any thing but what depended of God, without whose pleasure they affected it. Therefore all put an absolute impossibility in the object, which made in the Angel a damned will. Are you better acquainted with human affairs? Did you never hear of Niggards that hang'd themselves because of some great loss they had receiv'd? Never of an ambitious Courtier, that took a grief and dy'd upon a disgrace offer'd him from his Prince? Did you never hear of a Lover [Page] that made himself away, because he could not compass the enjoying of his Mistress? Our life is so full of such instances, that 'tis a wonder you could not reflect on them. Are not all these griefs for what men cannot help? And doth not a grief include a desire of the contrary?

But you reply these are phrenetick men, our disputation goes of soul's perfect in knowledg, whose understandings represent unto them the lowness, vileness, baseness, unworthiness, &c. of these objects, and above all the impossibility which (as you say) at one blow cuts off all the will's pursuit: Thus you; but give me leave to tell you, all vitious desires are a kind of Phrensy's, there is no difference but of degrees in them; one hinders reason, the other masters it: and, besides, Wilfulness is as great or greater phrenzy then Passion. So that, though Passion be not in souls, Wilfulness is. And as Passion hinders all those fine considerations which you mention of the baseness and foulness, &c. so much more doth Wilfulness.

You reply again, that according to my Doctrin, the affections remain in the soul in the same proportion which they have in the body, out of which your adversary will gather, [Page] that as they in the body conquer all good considerations, so they will in wicked souls out of the body. But you subsume that in this World they make no vast or considerable griefs, instancing that the most gluttonous or luxurious man, when he is satiated, desires no more the same pleasure till his Body be fit again. I wonder to hear one that lives (as the French call it) an grand mond, in all companies, talk so unexperiencedly of human affairs. Look upon Lovers, look upon those that seek after monies, see whether their whole employments be not to think on their Mistresses, and gathering of Wealth? Remember how many have held envy and malice a greater torture then Artificers could invent. How doth Tully seem to compassionat himself for the torment of ambition? How pitiful a man was he when Clodius prevail'd against him? But the great melancholies and disastrous ends I spake of, make all this too plain to need many words. You conceit that in this Doctrin he that goes out of the World in a great thirst, shall be tormented with the desire of drinking. No Sir, but he that is never well but when his nose is at the tap, shall have that torment. For he loves drink and makes it his last end, The other [Page] desires it out of need, not out of love, and so the need being past, desires it no longer. At last you take notice of the sordidness of Souls in separation, if they be troubled with such desires, I confess it Sir. I do conceive damned Souls in the next world, and vitious ones in this to be baser far then beasts. I confess, all you say of the contempt of drunkenness and carnality (which you seem to take for the onely corporall pleasures) to be perfectly true; save onely your opinion of Avicena, who kill'd himself by the excess of lust.

Then you go on and teach me what I should have settled for the griefs of Purgatory. And to shew how apt a Scholar I am, and how ready to follow your admonitions, I present you with two short lines out of Institutiones Sacrae, where having concluded that those who dy'd in veniall affections towards corporall objects, were not worthy the sight of God, presently add & per consequens cum illum (Deum) pro ultimo fine habeant, ex desiderio Ejus & paenitentia negligentiae suae gravissimas paenas sustinere, Tomi 2. lib. 3. Lect. 10. which is exactly your full sence, and not very different from your words: wherefore I hope since I have prov'd an [Page] obedient Scholar to my power, you will inform those your friends who intend to write against me, that we are agreed in this point, and that it is a wrong to report I say of Purgatory that the Souls are tormented with the desires of corporall pleasures, much less that I place the whole misery of Purgatory in the deprivement of those. And likewise that a farther design was cause that this would not content me, for you see I put no other but in Hell.

You charge me farther to say that all external torments in Purgatory would be pure pleasures, because they were suffered out of an extreme desire to come to Heaven by a courage that yeelded nothing to the force of the torments which the sufferers see to be their onely way to felicity. I do not see any great difficulty in this to a sober Interpreter, that what an external Agent inflicts is not the grief▪ but breeds it; nor will it reach so far as to breed grief, if prevented still with a strong apprehension of an over-ballancing advantage to be gain'd by it; which yet does not hinder, but that such outward punishments are, in their nature, properly torments; and 'tis the extraordinary considerations of the benefits they bring, that can sweeten them [Page] into pleasures; and, however, the want of Heaven must needs be cause of an excessive grief. You go on to object that this Doctrin changes all your pious Meditations on our SAVIOVRS Passion. Be of good courage man, and let no other pretence divert you, but proceed constantly and faithfully every day in those holy Exercises, and I fear not, God will assist you to satisfy all those scruples and difficulty's, which seldom become unanswerable till we grow cold and negligent in performing our Meditations. Thus then you argue, Christ sufferd with invincible courage; therefore all pains were pleasures to Him: I think you know there was in Christ two parts of his Soul, the Rational and the Animal. I do not know so much of the Souls of Purgatory. When you say then he sufferd with an invincible courage, do you mean of both parts, or onely of the rational? If you ask him, he will tell you, Spiritus promptus est, Caro autem infirma. If you reflect on his prayer in the Garden, you shall see when he speaks out of the motion of his inferiour part, how earnest he is against his passion, you shall see he did pavere, and taedere; I pray put these points into your Meditations, and you [Page] will find room enough for pains, though the rational part was still fixt upon a fiat Voluntas tua. And this our Saviour sufferd because he would. For the strength of his Soul was so great, that he could have had pure pleasures, but would not; that He might give us example, how to fix our upper Souls when we are not strong enough to confirm the lower part.

THIRD DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section thirtieth to Section thirty fifth.
The Duration of pure Spirits free'd from the mistakes of Fancy. The Identification of the Soul and Body maintaind by reason and Authority; and that this is requisit to the Souls change. The Vindicatours rude conceits of Angels. Vnalterableness of pure Spirits prov'd from the Indivisibility of their actions, His false pretence that the Author injur'd St. Thomas.

[Page]

IN the thirtieth Section you examin the Duration of separated Souls. And you readily advance a Conclusion that as it lyes I shal not deny, but onely beg leave to offer a distinction. For there being three parts▪ Angels, Souls, and their Operations, of which you pronounce, I distinguish upon your third or last branch of Operations▪ [Page] which Schollars divide into external and internal ones, in the external ones I agree with you, that they are measur'd by succession, and by succession of time, as being corporal motions: But for their internall acts of understanding and will, I hold of them as of the substances: Your Propositions so jumble them together, that I know not what you say separately of them, and what in complexion: but because I defend the same both singly and in complexion, it doth not much concern me.

But to proceed, you say, it is incomparably false, that to coexist to a greater or lesser part of time, adds or diminishes nothing to them: I ask, whether, that a greater or lesser time coexists to an Angel, makes any intrinsecal change in the Angel? I think you must be a little besides your Philosophy if you say it doth, since common sence teaches the pure passing of time doth nothing even to us, much less to spirits. My next question is, whether if there be no intrinsecal change, there can be any addition intrinsecally made? I think this also will appear a plain truth, unless the fear of the sequel force you to contradict evidence: For the inference will manifestly follow, that purely to coexist to more or less time, [Page] (which is the same as that more or less time coexists to the Angel, for the variety and quantity of coexistency holds it self on the part of time) adds nothing to an Angel.

Now let us see your Arguments. Your first is drawn from God, in whose Closet you have been, and can perfectly tell what he can do, what not, and so you press, what if on a sodain God should make a new Angel, would his duration be as long as that of the former Angels, or separated spirits?

But Sir, I would advertise you, that when the speech is of an Action done, it is not enough to examin his Omnipotence, for that onely reaches to a possibility of the creature; but you must also consult with his Wisdom as well as with his Omnipotency: For example, if you first ask whether it was in Gods power to make, or not make the World, and finding it was, presently you would suppose; then, let him have made it and not made it, the permission would not be granted you. So likewise your assumption, that if there were no time at all, God could at his pleasure create and destroy a soul, would be deny'd you, or rather that God could have the pleasure to create and destroy a soul in that [Page] case. And to shew your own consent in this point, mark your discourse; God could not do it in the same moment, therefore in two moments. Do you not see, as soon as you have deny'd time, you immediately put two moments, which cannot be without time. I pray remember St. Austin, St. Thomas, and others, answering the Heathens question, Why God made not the World sooner, say because sooner signifies in a former time, and that a former time, could not be, unless God had created it. Your other suppositions too of Gods creating and anihilating souls, proceed from an unworthy apprehension of Almighty God, as if he should make and destroy Spirits, onely to shew tricks, they having no more difficulty to be answer'd, then the plain instance of one Souls separation before anothers; and therefore is but the repetition of the same case.

But well, what must be said to St. Peters Soul and the Soul of St. Teresa, hath not St. Peters a greater duration then St. Teresa's? To this I answer, what is immediately loosed out of God Almighty's hand, hath no respect to time, but is created for eternity, as the World and the Angels are. But, what God doth by the mediation of creatures, [Page] takes a tang from them, and so hath some savour of time from the very loose. Therefore Souls when they go out of their bodies, have a kind of individual difference from the causes and time by which they begin. This is a kind of a difference, when you compare one Soul to another, nothing if you compare the same Soul to it self. And out of this is taken that diversity of duration which is found in several Souls.

Your next Argument is from the time, as the Divines call it, of the way of Angels to bliss, where you ask, who hath made evident that it could be done in one instant? to which I have nothing to say, though there want not Divines who hold it; but that St. Austin hath made it evident, that neither position prejudices Christian Religion, and therefore 'tis lawful to hold either side, and so let Divines dispute it, for no Argument can be drawn from thence, why succession should be necessary in the intrinsecal operations of Angels.

Your third Argument consists of some expressions cited out of Scripture, to which I answer, if you bring any Texts of the thoughts of Angels, I shall yield; but if they be onely of outward actions, those are measur'd by time, as by twenty dayes, &c. [Page] and so argue no special duration in the inward acts of Angels. Those cryes of the Martyrs under the Altar, are so plainly Allegorical, that it were lost time to shew they signifie nothing of importance to our controversie.

In the 31 Section, you say it is groundlesly assumed, that the Identification of the body and soul is required for the Action of a bodily Agent upon the soul, and I cannot deny you have said it. But one that had spoken like a Philosopher, would have brought the seeming grounds on which it is built, and shew'd the vanity of them, and not oppos'd his bare word against anothers reasons. You ask, who ever fancy'd such an Identity betwixt the Body and Soul? I answer, no body, no more then they can fancy that parts are not actu in continuo. But as Aristotle and St. Thomas have rais'd their speculations above fancy, and understood this, and taught it their Scholars, so hath the Church done about this Identification of the Body and Soul, if the notion of forma corporis be rightly comprehended. Then you demand who ever believ'd, our Souls in this life are truly and really our Bodies, and our Bodies our Souls? No body Sir, that I know of, is so grosly senseless; and so I [Page] think you are at the end of your Arguments.

Now let us see your belief, which is, that the Soul and Body, as two distinct parts, concur to the building up of one man, who is one, not by simplicity, nor Identification of the parts, but by substantial Vnion or composition. O how gay a thing it is to speak words and not understand them? We say the same you do; and nothing more, if you would make your words good. For if there be a substantial Union, then there must be an Unum substantialiter, or per se, or properly one. And if there be a truly one, it is not truly many, that is not many substances or things. And if there be not truly many substances or things, the parts of this truly one, are not distinguish'd really into things which are actually, but formally into things that may be made of this one thing: which is, to have its part in potentia. Now if truly and really the thing be but one thing, all that is spoken of that thing signifies nothing but that thing, so that the man is body according to the signification of one word. Another word will signifie him as he is Soul, another as he hath the vertue of holding, and so he will be a hand; another as he hath the vertue of [Page] walking, and that will speak of him by the name of foot: and all this be but one thing, which we call man. Now Sir, this is a Catholick verity, defined by ancient Councils, in the Unity of a Person, that is, an individual substance or thing, against the Nestorians. The same was done in latter times under the notion of our souls being truly the Form, or giving the denomination of being a thing. Now the difference betwixt us is, that you examin the words by fancy, and we by understanding and discourse.

You add further, it can never be evidenc'd that so much as a substantial union is necessary for a Soul to suffer from the Body. For who (say you) shall render it evident, that in the state of separation, by the omnipotent hand of God she may not be made passive by fire? Sir, I am so confident of your abilities, that I believe you are able to shew, that God by his omnipotent hand cannot turn a separated Soul into wood, or straw, or some other combustible matter, by which she shall become passive by fire. And therefore your Divines use to speak more warily, when they say, God elevates the Action of the fire, not disposes the subject or soul. But this also, [Page] he that can prove Fire is but a body, and his action either rarefaction, or locall motion, or some such other, may to such as carry sence along with their words, shew, that, seeing an action cannot be elevated unless it be, that is, Fire cannot burn violently, unless it burn; and that the Action of fire can have no place in a spirit, which it cannot divide or burn, neither may it be elevated to torment a separated soul.

Your 32 Section tells us, it is a purely voluntary and false assertion, that separated Souls know all things perpetually and together. And, as for the falsity, we may guess by your Arguments. But to say it is voluntary, you have no reason: since the proofs are set down in Institutiones Peripateticae, which I suppose you read (as all sober Adversaries do) before you went about to confute: Your Arguments are first, Our Angel Guardians every day learn our Actions what they be, as it were by seeing the outward effects of them. You speak this so confidently, that I may imagin you have talk'd with some of them, and they have told you so, and then who dares deny it? Otherwise I must confess I am hard of belief. But you ground it upon this, that [Page] Onely God is the searcher of the Hearts, which although one might interpret to signifie the revealer of Hearts, and find Texts of Scripture to that purpose, yet I go not that way; but tell you, when God is said to be the knower of Hearts, he is condistinguish'd onely to men, and if you will have the sence reach farther, you must prove it. For it is against the principles your self uses, to wit, that Angels know all our material motions of our phantasie, and sensitive appeal. Now if there be no act of the understanding without a fancy agreeing to it, Nor an act of will without a proportionate motion in the appetite, you will leave few actions unknowable to Angels. But our Saviour [say you] tells us, Angels kn [...]w not the day of Judgment. And truly if he had not included himself in the same phrase, the place would have born a great shew, but since he that is to be the Judg, cannot be thought ignorant of what he is to do, I believe the meaning is, that none makes that day known, but onely the heavenly Father, whose proper day it is, in which he shall receive into his own hands the Kingdom which he had put in his Sons hands to be administred till that day, as being his right hand, and chief Instrument [Page] of Government and supernatural motion. And this is a known Hebraism, for in the Hebrew the same Verb in one Voyce signifies to know, in another to make known; nor want we such instances in our own Language, To learn one a Lesson, and to teach one a Lesson, that is, to make him learn it, being the same signification. Your other place that they rejoyce at the new conversion of a sinner, wants one word to make it fit for your purpose, to wit, that they rejoyce of new, For if they rejoyce from the beginning, as God doth from all eternity, it will come but lamely to your design.

In your 33 Section, you go on with your questions; easie to ask, but long agoe resolved? but as to you, to little purpose, seeing you do not take the pains to understand the answers. As for the Arguments you bring out of Scripture, they are already answer'd in my Institutiones sacrae, but must be repeated, because you take no notice of them; yet so shortly that they may not be tedious to them who have read them. You object then that the Dragon drew after him the third part of the Starrs; but why this was not done in a moment, you bring not a word. You say also, this Doctrine [Page] that Angels cannot immediately act one upon the other, destroyes their Conversation for all eternity. Sure you mean their Grayes-Inn Walks, or Spring Garden, where they use to walk together and treat one another, or their Academies where they meet at Musicks, or bring their Poems or discourse of news, or some such like entertainments. Are you not asham'd to dream of such follies in pure Spirits? learn of Aristotle, that man is a sociable creature, but beasts or pure spirits not: the one being below it, the other above it: But did not in the great Battel in Heaven one Angel work immediatly on another? Yes, but not by gossiping and tampering one with another to dispute or perswade them into the conspiracy, but by example, and by being the Objects one to another: As when one scandalizes another by sinning in his sight. But say you, the Indivisibility of their Actions which is the foundation of this Doctrin is unsound, since it will never be evinced, that an act of a spirit cannot coexist to a greater or lesser part of time. Sir, If you gave us security of your spirit of Prophesie, we would believe what you say of things to come; till then we will grant your Proposition as it lies unwarily [Page] couch'd, but not as you mean it. For the Acts of one spirit may be longer then those of another, as we said before of different souls, but that is not your meaning; but that the same spirit hath successive acts, one of more duration, another of less. And this you should have prophesy'd of, why the Argument of Indivisibility did not convince. For speaking of one onely Angel, either he is in some act or in none? If in none, either his nature with the pure force of his Power, (which the schools call Actus primus) can burst into an act, or it cannot? If you say it can, then you must put a thing first not to do, after to do without any change, that is to be not productive, and productive of an Act, that is, two contradictories, without any variety. Put him now in act, either his Essence with this Act, abstracting from all other circumstances, is productive of a 2d act, or it is not? If it be not, then out of this Essence & this act abstracting from all accidents, he will never have a second. But if the Essence with this Act is productive of a second act, then as soon as he hath this act, he produces the second, that is both together (or else as we said before, the same thing without change will be productive and not productive, and [Page] so of as many acts as follow in this sort one of another, that is, all that be in an Angel by his own power, without external help or determination. So that the conclusion is, all such acts must be in the same moment altogether. Your answer is that this is true of one act but not of all. But you must shew that the Argument doth not convince as much of every one as of any one, or otherwise it is but your bare word against a convincing Reason, though you boldly term it a gross Errour.

But you press that I hold all causes are fixt, and set as to all effects whatsoever, from the very beginning to all future succession. I pray distinguish the proposition you infer against me, from this other, There is no effect but had a cause, and its cause had another cause, and so till the beginning of the World. For if you mean no more then this, I must admit it, howsoever you will please to miscall it. If you have another meaning, when you teach it me, I shall tell you whether it be concurrent with my sentiment or no. As for your crying out that 'tis Pagan Fatality, that it destroyes the liberty of God, and the Contingency of all created things, if of these three words (though I doubt not but you have talkt them over often enough) you understand any one, I [Page] will yeeld you the honour of being my learned Master, and shall not contest with you in Divinity.

But in the mean while I must defend my self from your assaults in your four and thirtieth Section, wherein you accuse me that I fix upon Christianity and the Church an Ignorance of separated substances, meaning by these great words, those that hold the probable opinion which you maintain: as also, a most gross abuse upon the Angelicall St. Thomas. My fault is, that I say the opinion of Souls being deliver'd before the day of Judgment proceeded from the not following a Doctrin of St. Thomas, That in abstracted Spirits there is no discourse, or any manner of composition of knowledg. Whence I infer, there can be no falsity in them. This is my position, of which you tell us, that it importeth not to consider whether the knowledg of Angels be by true discourse, or onely by virtuall, to which, say you, suffices a priority of causality. But if a man should tell you, that the causality you imagin cannot be without true time, then peradventure it would be necessary to dispute, whether there be a true discourse in Angels; and this is the very case. For, take away succession, and all corporeall causes which depend on time are taken away. There remain [Page] then nothing but the spirituall qualities of the Angels to be causes, which neither are distinguished from one the other, nor from their subject, and so all notion of Cause and Effect, as they are proper to the Efficient, are quite taken away, and so there will not remain any discourse at all, but a pure cleer sight fram'd on them by their Creatour, in which I beleeve you will not say there is any Errour or can be. So that the whole question resteth upon this, whether there be true discourse or no.

Now how do you prove what you say is to the purpose? to wit, that it doth not follow out of this Doctrin of St. Thomas that there is no Errour in Angels? Your proof is because St. Thomas notwitstanding this Doctrin, acknowledges Errours in Devils. Good Sir, as long as you have been a Divine, did you ever hear that it was a gross injury to St. Thomas, to say some opinion of his was not true, or not consequent to another? Truly I desire not to do an injury to any, much less to my Reverenc'd Master, to whom, after God, I acknowledg it, if I know any thing either in Philosophy or Divinity. Yet I have no fear not to follow all his opinions, much [Page] less not to make good all his consequences. And so, Sir, I hope I am rid of your objections out of St. Thomas. Onely because you often repeat, that to say every thing hath a cause to make it before it be, is an Epicurean, Lucretian, Pagan principle, &c. I must intreat you again to look to the sence of your words, and not to beat so carelesly the Ayre. If at anytime you happen to dispute of Liberty, I will endeavour to shew you your Ignorance, but for vapouring words let others judge how far they become you.

You go on in the same strain to except against the comparison of an Embryoes designing the Child to be born, and mans life framing the Soul deliver'd into the next World. But what you dislike I cannot tell, you say it has no connexion with the immutability of the future state. The answer is, it was not brought to that purpose, but to open the Readers understanding to aym at, of what disposition the Soul is at her going out. But if the Antecedent reach home, you say 'tis a position destructive of all Christianity. But you say not to what it should reach, but fain something as if you imagin'd I would have the body of a Child never grow in strength or good [Page] parts. When I shall know what you aym at I may know what to answer. So we may leave you to conclude your Chapter with a high conceit of the Victories you have obtain'd.

FOURTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section the thirty fifth, to Section the fortieth.
The Vindicators forgetfulness that Eternall Happiness was any Good at all. That Prayers for the dead in the Authours Doctrin manifoldly profit the Souls in Purgatory, and relieve them, even there. Charity asserted to be the immediate Disposition to Bliss. The Authours Doctrin consonant to the Council of Trent in the points of Remission and Satisfaction. Diverse Squibs and Insincerities of the Vindicatour toucht at.

THere follow [...] [...]our five and thirtieth Section in [...]ich you have after so [Page] long a digression, remember'd again the question of Purgatory. And intend to shew that prayers for the dead are of no profit, if Souls go not to Heaven before the day of Judgment: An objection of every Gentlewoman, but I hope seeing you have come into the lifts as their Champion, you will set it high. And so you do, for scorning the lower waies of others, who press this difficulty, That the day of Judgment will come of it self at the time appointed, and Then every one shal receive according to his deserts, whether any prayers have been said for them or no; you fly so high as to tell us, that though the prayers made for the dead impetrate eternal bliss for those in Purgatory, yet they are of no profit. Is not this a gallant attempt? What may be your Arms fit for so great an Atchievment? Why (say you) the duration of separated Souls is (according to me) above time and comprehensive of it, therefore it is but a moment whether bliss ever come or never, therefore there is no profit in the prayers, though they bring bliss, and this is the full import of your discourse. Could a man have expected such an Argument from [...] Logick Master? not to distinguish betwixt substance and an [Page] Accident? yet undoubtedly, according to his ordinary phrase, All Christianity is ruin'd unless this consequence be good. You were assuredly in a great Metaphysicall rapture, when in the same short discourse you took two such hyper-Metaphysicall propositions, as that it was indifferent to have or not to have the greatest good God hath created for a Person, and that there could actually be an infinite Quantity or Time; I must confess they are both very fit for your sort of Learning, to bolt out words without looking into what they signify.

But because this is onely your private errour, and the World is to be contented too, which doth not apprehend any great benefit in hastning of Christ's coming; I must a little shew the good that the prayers of the faithfull do for the dead. Let us then consider that our chief Good is Heaven, and the perfect sight of God, at which we aym in all our actions and progresses, from the first basis of our inclination to the End of nature, even to the highest step of Charity from whence we immediately reach it; This depends on two created causes, The perfection of the World; and The perfection of the private Person, which [Page] is to attain it. For God hath made the work of the World in so exact a method, that it shall happen to be wound up all in a day. St. Paul hath told us, he would not have the foregoers be perfected before the rest, the Apocalyps expresses the same. Therfore Christ taught us in his own Prayer, to say to his and our Father, Thy Kingdom come: Therefore he bad us, when we saw signs of the approaching Judgment, to lift up our Heads with hope, because our redemption was near. Therefore St. Paul calls the good Christians, Those who love his coming: Therefore in the Apocalyps, Christ shews himself as coming, and adds, My Reward is with me. Therefore in the end of the Apocalyps we read that importunate calling on him, Come, and let him that hears, say Come: and this was the primitive devotion, to desire to be with Christ. Now, to conclude, he that by his Prayers effects the coming of the day of Judgment, as far as he doth that, so far he procures to his Friend the eternal Reward, the main good, the compleat satisfaction of the desires of Nature elevated by Grace.

The next consideration reaches to the particular good that accrews to the party pray'd for. For the understanding whereof, [Page] you are to remember the Doctrin of the Saints, that for our selves we are heard as often as we ask in due manner what is good for us; for our friends not so, but according as is suitable to the rest of Gods providence. Yet it is agreed, that many times such Prayers bring some advantage, even to the special party for whom they are made: but when and how Gods providence doth carry such graces, we know not, unless the effect prove visible. Now we pray for the change of the soul of our friend from misery to bliss; If he be in capacity to be help'd, without doubt our prayers are heard, but when, and in what degree, onely he knows who grants it, unless he hath reveal'd it. And, as when we pray for a living sinner, the effect of our prayers (if it be fit they should be heard) is, that circumstances are so cast, in respect of this prayer, that he lights into convenient dispositions to bring on his conversion; so our prayers for the dead, work, that in the Resurrection such grace is increas'd to the party pray'd for, as is fitting to be retributed to the prayers and affections devoutly powr'd out for him.

The third Consideration reaches even to the rendring less and more tolerable to [Page] them those pains they suffer before the day of Judgment in Purgatory; which is to relieve them there. To understand which, we are to consider, that the State of Purgatory differs from that of Hell, mainly in this; that this of Hell is ever accompany'd with the horrour of Despair; that of Purgatory, with the comfort of Hope to see God's divine face. Now all Hope of a future good, if it be rational, is grounded in knowing the strength and efficacy of the causes which are to effect and bring it; and the stronger causes appear to be layd in order to such an effect, the livelier and firmer is our Hope, and by consequence more vigorous and sweet the Comfort which springs from that hope thus erected: wherefore the suffering souls, by knowing that the releasment of all in generall, and each in particular, is procur'd by the prayers of the Church; the more, and the more fervent prayers they see powr'd out for them, the stronger hope and comfort they conceive. To apply then this to particulars, as the aym and hope and present comfort of each Soul, is its future eternal Happiness as best improovable to it, by the order of Causes laid by Gods Wisdom and Goodness; so the fore-knowledg that the [Page] prayers of Friends will bring to each with proportionable advantage their due reward (as I exprest it in my second Consideration) gives each soul anticipatedly present sentiments even in Purgatory of Hope, Joy and Comforts for those advantages their Friends Prayers shall procure them in the day of Judgment, which surely none that understand it can deny to be a very great relief.

The fourth consideration extends this advantage of prayers for a particular Soul, even to the state of Heaven it self: which to explicate, we may remember the pious opinion commonly receiv'd, that S. Francis, S. Benedict, and other Saints in Heaven have new accidental Joyes there, for any good effect perform'd by the Order they founded, that is, for the arrivement of any good towards which they as Causes had any influence in this World: now, of all Goods imaginable, none is or can be comparable to the bringing of the Kingdom of Heaven or universal Bliss (this being the But and End of all our wishes, and of all, both natural and supernatural motion, nay the onely aym of his Providence, who is Goodness it self) most certainly then they who in this World layd means of many [Page] efficacious prayers for the dead and for themselves in particular, will (in my Doctrin) see themselves, and rejoyce in Heaven, to have been particularly influential towards that happiest and noblest effect of bringing that day; Add, that this will be gratefully acknowledg'd by the whole Court of Heaven, and they respected accordingly, which will cause almost infinit multiplications of the best accidental Joyes; which they who in this World neglected to use and procure this devotion, will deservedly want. Reflecting then this thought back upon a Soul in Purgatory, who has deserv'd by her carriage in this World, and taken order to be efficaciously pray'd for, that is, to have a particular share in bringing Christ's coming in Glory, she has antecedently even in Purgatory by foreknowledg of those accidental Joyes she shall futurely reap thereby, a sence of them at present, by meanes of the certain Hope to attain them; and thence in due measure a proportionable comfort, ease and relief, even in Purgatory. So that you see according to my Doctrin, both Essential Bliss, and best accidental Joyes in Heaven, and (from the foreknown efficacy of prayers to accomplish these) a present [Page] comfort accrues to the Souls in that State, through our suffrages for them.

You will say these motives will not be efficacious enough to stir up the hearts of your penitents. I can answer nothing, but that I doubt they are not well instructed and exhorted. And that it is the Preachers duty to endeavour to stir up their hearts with solid Christian truths, not by incertainties guilded over with a shew of piety. For indeed, what is not true cannot be pious. When such Inventions have taken a good effect I bless God, that shews his goodness as wel by weakness as by strength. But to advise any man to teach or preach that, out of which he and the Church thorough him may be upbraided to cozen the credulous faithfull into false and prejudiciall confidences, and make them rely upon such Doctrins and Practises as have no reality in them, I am not a fit Counsellour; I leave that to you who like it.

In your thirty sixth Section you overreach'd me again, for by your beginning I perswaded my self I was come to a period of my pains, and that the rest had been but personal quarrels, which I could easily have swallow'd, how bitterly soever prepar'd by your rash and angry hand. But looking [Page] a little farther I perceiv'd I must tug again. And first, as for that question whether you had intention to wrong me in printing your Bull, I beleive you had not because you say so, and that onely you pretended to make the Doctrin pass for an Article of faith, the contrary of which all the world knew to be maintain'd by me. Secondly, I must remember you that you do indeed and inexcusably wrong me, when you say I deny that such Souls are receiv'd presently into Heaven: if you mean by the word such, Souls purg'd after separation, 'tis no better then a cunning calumny, and would represent me as holding directly contrary to the Bull and Council. Whereas our dispute is whether Souls may be so purg'd out of their bodies before the day of Judgment; not, if they be so purg'd, whether they go to Heaven before that Day: this I agree to, and is of faith; that I deny, & is but an Opinion. Thirdly, you do not well justify your Friends for changing the Title from Concerning the Vision of God & the Beatitude and Damnation of Souls, to this shorter, but more generall one. Concerning the State of departed Souls: while your answer signifies onely that they are severall expressions for the same thing, which to a wary considerer [Page] will easily appear an artifice. Is it all one to contend about white and black, and about colours in generall? No more is it all one to define concerning Beatitude and Damnation, and to define concerning a State which is neither of them both. Fourthly, you often up and down your Book brand me with faithless Theology. What do you mean? do not your Doctors generally agree that somthing in Religion is demonstrable? are they all therefore presently to be condemn'd as faithless? cannot your self demonstrate there's a God? and will you think your self an Infidel for it. Or dare you tell the Ladyes that for your part you are not so silly as to believe there's a God, you know it, and that as for belief of such things it belongs to the simple unlearned, not to Scolars. I hope in your next work you will proceed with more candor and manliness.

Your thirty seventh Section being spent in petty quarrels, though some lines in it be both false and malicious, yet I will let all pass and go on to the thirty eighth Section where you rip up again the question, whether the matter of the Decree be, that perfect charity carries separated Souls immediately to Heaven. In which [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] you tell us your Publisher is indifferent, and may yet chuse whether he will say that good Souls at their decease be wholly purg'd from all irrationall affections or no, in the first Instant. And this may peradventure be true. But if I am not deceiv'd he will not say they are purg'd: For I am sure you would censure it deeply in me, if I should say that after this life there is any more disposing it self or meriting towards life eternal. But I must not be over confident; you may have two censures in your brest, for the same saying in the mouths of different Persons. You ask, if Charity brings a Soul immediately to Bliss: What then does your Adversary think of Lumen Gloriae? It is to me a hard question what he will think of it, for I see your great Divines cannot agree what to think of it. But I guess he may think, either Charity it self when perfect in a pure Spirit, is the Light of Glory, or causes it, as well as the Beatificall Vision. You press farther the perfection of Charity in this life doth not give the Beatificall Vision, therefore neither in abstracted Souls. But, if I should ask you how you knew the Antecedent, you would be at a stop. I can hear it defended that St. Benedict had the clear sight [Page] of God; And I was at a Sermon in Alcala made to the whole University, in which the Preacher asserted our Lady had Beatifical Vision in the first Instant of her Conception, and prov'd it out of his Text, which was Fundamenta ejus in montibus Sanctis. Fundamenta ejus her conception, in montibus Sanctis, in the heighths or tops of Sanctity. Therefore believing Divines must take heed of denying as well as of saying. Besides I have read in St. Thomas and others, both more Ancient and more Modern, that there is a certain pitch of Charity to which when men arrive, God takes them out of this World. But however that stand, I think there is a large difference betwixt the Charity of pure Spirits and of men. So that the consequence may be true of one, and not of the other.

Farther on you mention some reasons of mine against corporall punishing of Spirits: but you knock them all on the head with a Canon of the Council of Trent. To understand the state of the question, it is not amiss to consider that a Sin, specially a notorious one, hath three effects or parts. One in the rational Soul, where it is a Judgment or resolution, or affection, that such [Page] an Action is to be done: A second in the Appetite or Body, where it makes certain motions and their causes which bring a likelihood of falling into the same sin. The third part is in the external action, where it brings in some disorder, which is subject to propagate it self farther into other subjects. The disorderly Judgment and affection is that, which our School-men, when they speak formally, call the Sin; and account the sin remitted, when that is duly blotted out, whatever that signifies. But it is supposed to be done by Contrition and Absolution. And although they admit this to be sufficient to go to Heaven if one dyes, yet in a living man they with reason require that the other two parts or effects of sin should also be taken away; which is to be done by Satisfaction. So may the Reader understand what Satisfaction is required for.

Now let us see what you urge out of the Council. First you object the Council teaches that it is against the word of God to say that the fault is never remitted but that all the punishment is also forgiven. And so you see by the discourse above made that we say also. Secondly, the Council sayes, that it becomes the Divine clemency that sins [Page]should not be par [...]on'd without any Satisfaction: So we say also by the fore-made discourse. Thirdly, the Council charges Priests to impose Satisfaction so, that it be not onely as to the guard of a new life, but also as in revenge and chastisement of their past sins: which is clearly necessary for the mending of the outward excesses brought in by the sin; and so we say directly the same. You press farther that the Council sayes, in Baptism the whole pains are remitted; And if you speak in opposition to sins remitted in Penance, the cause is clear. For the sins committed before Baptism belong not to the Churches Court. But if you speak in regard of God Almighty, I fear it will require I should ask your Judgment of a Case. Your Divines tell us that he who receives Baptisme cum fiction [...], receives Baptism truly, yet if he dye immediately, I suspect whether you will send him immediately into Heaven, though neither the Councils nor the Popes words make any exception. I doubt then, when it is said, all pains are remitted in Baptism, the Councils suppose that Baptism is receiv'd with that disposition which out of the property of the Sacrament is due to it. Now, because your question is none of the intended [Page] ones, but onely by the by, I need not give a more positive Answer to it, but leave it to your consideration.

It being by this clear, that your calumny of saying I deny Satisfaction is fictitious: I may go to your nine and thirtieth Section: where having translated a long discourse of mine, you learnedly ask in what mood and figure it is? imagining your Reader to have so little understanding as to think a Demonstrative discourse ought to be just one Syllogism. How favourable, or otherwise your translation is I examin not, since your chief aym is onely to make a little sport, which you seldom have the luck to do with the least degree of good manners. The Gentleman that translated the Book you mention, is a Person whom all that have the happiness of his acquaintance know to be compleatly civil and ingenious, and one who wants but the name (which you indeed have) to be every way accounted Religious; a name I confess very honourable, and which carryes with it a presumption of vertue; but I have seen some instances where I fear it went no farther then a bare presumption. I did not say how faithfull, but how favourable; since every Scholar knows the difficulty of [Page] rendring into significant and unbarbarous English, the terms of art used by the most abstemious School-men in their discourses both of Philosophy and Theology. All whom your rashness cares not to wound so it be thorough my sides. Yet this fair offer I make you, translate but your Dictates into smooth Love-letter English, and I will freely forgive you for my part all you have unhandsomly written in this whole Section.

LAST DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section fortieth, to the End.
The Vindicators mistakes of what passes in the Soul at reunion. The efficacy of his sleightly grounded Devotions examin'd, on the by. His impotent malice in objecting Paganism. His many bogglings at Divinity-Explications, like to fright him out of his Faith, satisfy'd.

[Page]

IN your fortieth Section you are troubled that after the griefs of Purgatory the sight of Christ should change the imperfect Affections which are in Souls while they remain in Purgatory. So little do you understand the course of Nature, that precedent motion is quite of a different nature from the following quiet, which is the term of that motion. And, forgetting you had given leave to your publisher, to say [Page] his Souls were purg'd in Purgatory, now you will have it the faith of all Christians, that there is no acting for Bliss at the Resurrection. By which if you mean meriting, 'tis nothing to the purpose, for 'tis but your own fiction to put merit at the Resurrection. But, if you mean there is no change towards Beatitude, you are not well instructed. Neither is it a wonder, that this is a pleasure, seeing it is the very taking possession of Bliss after the pains of Purgatory; or as Philosophers would term it the Purgatum esse, which yet hinders not but what went before, and was their purging or purgation in via was painful enough. After this, to make your Comedy compleat, you will have a touch at Hell, which (God be thanked) for my ease, you will reserve to a new discovery. Yet you very heartily beg to know, why the damned Souls do not repent themselves at the day of Judgment, and become Saints? Which is a sign you understand not what you read, though you are able to put it in English. And that you conceive, this putting in the body again, makes the Soul not only fit to be perfected or totally fram'd to the proportion of her last end, but that she is return'd again into the state of th [...]s World's mutability, of [Page] forgetting, working by abstract notions, gaining new science, &c. which are the proprieties of her changeable condition in this World. If you please to study to understand, what you intend to oppose, I shall be willing to contribute on my part what I can. In the mean while, (having already answer'd the other things you touch at in this Section) let me follow you in what you do understand.

In your 41 Section, you accuse your Adversary of scoffing at hallowed Grains, sanctify'd Beads, &c. Which it seems you will not permit to be held external devices, (whatsoever your meaning is.) Nor Vtensils of a thriving devotion: which is a term of an indifferent signification, and there must be somewhat in you to make you wince at it. The next words of deluding priviledges I lookt for, but could not find in this place; yet afterwards reading them in the Post-script, I conceive by their nearness to Quamcun (que) voluerit, that they glance at the too much confidence of such a promise: so large, that were it true, (and Doctors say the value of Indulgences is to be taken as they sound) I should reckon it a great temptation to neglect wholly both all venial sins, and all satisfaction for mortall, [Page] in this life. The onely advantage that I know a priviledg'd Altar pretends, (if we may believe the words of the Priviledg it self) is to deliver a soul out of Purgatory, by saying Mass there. This Mass we have daily experience may be procur'd, to say truth, at no unreasonable rate. What need I then, according to these Principles, be much frighted at Purgatory, and those dreadful pains they so often preach to me, when all may be healed with a little wisely-bestow'd alms, if these men be as good as their words? But they say, 'tis advisable not to be too confident in one Mass, but to get more: and is there no suspicion incident to an advice so unnecessary, if the priviledg speak true? and, however, so convenient in all cases? Pray you tell me in your next Discovery, to how many Masses on our common Altars is one of your Priviledg'd Ones equivalent? to ten? then the Priviledg alone is equal to nine; then which I think a greater blasphemy can scarce be spoken. Perhaps you may reply▪ I hold you too severely to your word, and that by our promising a full Delivery, we mean onely to contribute extraordinarily towards it; but why do you give me your word, if I must not take it as it signifies? [Page] why do you not play fair, and tell me, that one Mass there, is something better then half two elsewhere? for at the end of the account, that's all your vast promises come to, for ought I see. Besides, may not all the other Altars, where the same great work is perform'd, justly complain, that you endeavour their impoverishment? other questions there are as easie to make, and as hard to answer: but of this enough, the Theam's too plentiful, and I am even weary with thinking on't.

Next you accuse your Adversary, that he sayes you think such things promote souls in Holy desires, though for my part, I think it is a great reason of the use of them, to make people be devout, when otherwise they would not. And for souls going to Heaven by them, if they take away the pains of Purgatory, with what face can you deny it? I remember a Doctor of Divinity, who having obtain'd a Scapular from the Carmes, and a priviledg from the Jesuits to be admitted a Jesuit, at the hour of his death, was as confident to go directly to Heaven, as if he had had a Patent for it under Jesus Christs own Hand. Why then are you so touchy, as if there could not be abuses in these [Page] things? why cannot you be patient in this case, as well as the Church is content to admit some abuses to have crept even into the administration of the Sacraments.

Your last note I believe is quite mistaken, for I do not conceive your Adversary intended to make any comparisons; both because he does not specifie any particular man to whom he should be suppos'd to compare me, and because there is no occasion for it. But peradventure he would not have the good life of any man, be an Argument to bear down a contrary Doctrin. For my self, I profess no exemplarity. If my life be such as may not unbeseem my Calling, I have as much as I desire from men: neither do I see any reason, why any one should engage for me, supra id quod videt in me. I pray let not opinion-quarrels break into Personal dissentions. Si invicem mordetis invicem consumemini.

To the same uncharitable end, I fear, tends your often repetition of diminishing words to those persons who think well of me or my Doctrin, insisting especially on their small number: but I pray you tell me, how many you think have impartially and attentively read these few Books I have made? I believe, in proportion to them, it [Page] is not a small number who profess to have met, in many points, with great satisfaction; nor do I expect they should in all; I may sometimes be mistaken my self, and there I desire none to follow me; others may sometimes be mistaken in me; and there, I am so far from being followed, that my obscurity (which I confess a defect) will not let me be found: Nor do I see so much cause to be troubled at the fewness, as to bless God for the qualities of those who profess to have found good in my writings, being Persons both ingenuous, and vertuous, and of such frank and unbyassed Principles, as well by their own inclination as the influence my way may have had upon them, that I am confident, they desire nothing more then to see my Doctrin thorowly examin'd, and speedily brought to a fair & impartial Tryal, by the sharpest Arguments that a pertinent opposer can make; and indeed they themselves have been the strongest, though not the fiercest Objectors I have met with. One reason possibly of this little number may be, that my Books have not as yet been long enough in the World to be fully perus'd by many: what time may produce God onely knowes, to whom I submit it.

[Page] But to return to my self and speak to what you dislike in me, you absolve me from being an Heretick, to make me a Pagan. Nor will I refuse to be what you shall please when you have explicated your self. But this not marking nor understanding your own words, makes all the misintelligence. You make me a Pagan, but such an one as acknowledges Christ, and every word and tittle either of the Scripture, or any other Law of his. Such a Pagan, such a Naturalist was never heard of before. Will you have me give you an Instance? take this Bull and Canons which you cite, and put them to my self or your Adversary, and see whether we will either refuse to subscribe, or even swear to them. Then our Paganisus lyes in this, that we do not think you have the right sence. And this is my Paganism thorough all things belonging to Christian Faith. You say I agree onely in words with the Church; but, saying so, you say, I agree in words; and by consequence, the whole disagreement is about the sence of the words. In which controversy because I proceed out of Philosophy and reason, and you out of what Masters Dictatts I know not, you leave a great prejudice that my explication is the more reasonable.

[Page] Wherein consists then my Paganism? Because I pretend to demonstrate what you think is not to be known but by Faith. Then if I do not pretend to demonstrate but onely profess that they are demonstrable, and exhort men to seek out the Demonstrations (which is the true case, and what you add is out of the fulness of your heart) why do I not hold all the Articles by Faith? and where is my Paganism? But suppose some great Scholar possibly or impossibly (as the Schools speak) should have the demonstration of the Articles of Faith, would he therefore be▪ a Pagan? sure you never thought what a Pagan signify'd when you spake so cholerick a word: That peradventure might make him more then a man, or more then a Christian, as a Comprehensour is, if it reach'd to Gods Essence, less it could not make him. Faith is not desirable for its Obscurity, but for its Certainty. We govern our lives by knowing the objects, not by the defect in the knowledge. Let a man see his way by the clear Sun, and sure he will be as able to walk in it as by the dimmer light of a Star.

But you complain I reduce the mysteries of our faith to our narrow brains. Sir, you [Page] are mistaken. It is the quite contrary; you should rather accuse me of endeavouring to dilate our brains to the capacity of the mysteries by the help of Faith. Why God cannot elevate our brains to understand what he hath deliver'd us to be understood▪ You have not yet declar'd to my capacity.

You say when you are told Souls are not purg'd in the state of separation but at the reu [...]ion, though the word remains, your Faith is gone. I easily believe you speak from your mind, and that truly you apprehend, the explication you frame to your self is your Faith; and so, that as many Christians as fancy divers explications of the same Article have so many faiths, but by this way I see very few in the whole Church would be of the same faith, 'pray consider a little that reflexion.

Nothing is more clear then your next Example. You say you believe that Faith, Hope, and Charity are infused by the Holy Ghost into our Souls in Baptism. A Pope and a generall Council too, declar'd that of two opinions of Divines, this was the probabler; and, by saying so, said this was not the faith of the Church, and yet if this be not true, your faith is gone.

[Page] Your next Example is to the same purpose, that supernatural qualities are of a different series then nature. It is indeed St. Thomas his opinion, and a pure Scholastical one, nor Universally receiv'd. Yet if this notion of supernaturality be lost, your faith is gone: Good Sir, take faster hold on it, and let not your faith slip away so easily from you. Again you believe the mystery of the Trinity, but if it depends as to its deducibleness on what is Essential in God, you doubt it is not your faith, though all Divines will tell you, all that is in God is Essential. If St. Thomas explicate the Unity and Plurality in God by the Unity of Action and Passion in motion, your faith is lost. But chiefly, if any miscreant, or Imp of Hell (as your Love-letter Complement is) should say the names of Father and Son were derived to God from what we observe in natural Generation of living Creatures, which being a materiall thing can be no otherwise in God then by Metaphor, then your faith is different from those who explicate it so, that is all the Divines I have either read or heard of, who universally agree in transferring Aristotles Definition of Generation to the blessed Trinity.

[Page] You go on and tell us you have hitherto believ'd that God most freely and of his own goodness built this Vniverse, and that he is not necessarily ty'd to the order and course of Nature: All this is well, but now you are taught that God must contradict himself, if he act any thing against nature. And what signifies this, but what is consequent to that? for if God be the builder of nature, He hath setled this order which we call nature, most freely, but yet he hath done it: and if he hath done it, he cannot undo it again, without undoing what he hath done? which in English is called contradicting himself. For one to contradict himself, is to change his mind or will, which it seems is your faith that God can do.

Another Article of your faith seems to be, that out of the very series of nature, Judas might have escaped being damn'd; whereas all Catholicks agree, that out of the pure series of Nature, St. Peter could not have scap'd being damn'd. At last your faith descends to flyes, and wheras peradventure if you had thought, should God have had the mind he had not formerly to make another fly, his resolution (that is his Essence) had not been the same it is now, your faith might have been the same with mine. [Page] But by falling immediately upon the fly, you have quite lost your faith. And your conclusion comes to be the same with this, that if God ties himself to any thing, and so remains ty'd, he is become a pagan Jupiter. I confess this is not my faith. You march forward, telling us, if God neither command nor forbid any thing, all morality is lost. All this would be well, if you told us what you meant by Command; if no more then Commonwealths do, when they appoint rewards for them who do well, and punishments for malefactors, upon which morality consists, your faith may be the same that mine is. For so I profess, God commands not onely by setting rewards and punishments, but by denouncing them. But if you have a special notion of commands importing a meer will or humour to command without designing any benefit to the obeyer, then I cannot help your faith, though we agree in these words, God forbids to steal, commands to honour him, &c.

Then you begin to prognosticate how you will discover out of my works a morality that Escobar never thought on. And truly I hope you will, if you take pains to understand them. But, if you only use words, [Page] and never look what they signifie, you will do good neither to your self nor others. To give an Essay of my Morality, you bring this position of mine, that Another man is no otherwise to me, then a peece of Cloth or Wood, which I cut and shape after my will. Even though I do him harm, or seek to ruin him, I do him no wrong. And you ask how this agrees with that Principle of Nature, that we ought to do to others, as we would have them do to us. I can onely say, if it doth not agree I was mistaken; for I brought it to shew the ground the second Principle had in nature, and my deduction is this. Reason teaches me to use Cloth like Cloth, and Wood like Wood, and consequently a man like a man, that is▪ to think that fitting for him, I think to be fitting for my self, seeing a man is of the same nature with the Considerer.

Lastly you are afraid, if faith yield to evidence, our notions must be chang'd; and in that you are not much amiss. For I also conceive the notions of one who understands what he sayes, are different from the notions of him who doth not, and upon this subject, I will propose you a place of St. Austin, which seems to me very home to the purpose. 'Tis too long to copy out, [Page] therefore I pray read the 26, 27, and 28 Chapters of the 12th Book of his Confessions, and specially reflect upon the divers sences or understandings which divers Christians have of the same places of Scripture, and I may say of the same delivery of Faith. The example in the end of the 27th, and the beginning of the 28th, is in a manner our very case. There are two understandings of the Creation of the World; one weak, the other strong, both necessary for divers sorts of people. If the weak man when he hears the more intelligent explicate his faith, should cry him down for a Pagan, as taking away faith, it were no wonder. For so we read of a good Monk that had been an Anthropomorphite, who when he was taught that God was a Spirit: that is, had no hands, feet, face, &c. as he before had fancy'd him, cry'd out, he had lost his God, and perhaps, was likely enough to call him a Pagan too, that deny'd God such a shape, and explicated to him, according to the nature of a Spirit and like a Scholar, those places of Scripture which begot and so suted to that fancy of his; But no Scholar would judg him a great Divine for doing so. If you read these latter Books of St. Austins [Page] Confessions you shall find that by natural knowledg he directed his understanding of Scripture and Faith, and consequently was as very a Pagan as my self. And so did all the Fathers by reason convince Hereticks follyes, when they could, and this is the duty of a Scholar, which Saint Peter preaches to us, and Saint Paul told us he practised among the Perfect, giving to weaker stomacks Milk, and not strong Meat.

By this, Sir, you easily perceive my principal aym, to wit, what I have learned by Faith and Tradition the same to understand and defend by the help of Sciences; which I think I cannot do, unless I first understand the Sciences themselves, and not frame the Sciences to Faith before we understand what Faith it self teaches us. How ridiculous is it that what apprehensions we made of our Creed when we were Children, the same we should retain when we are men. Or what Conceptions clowns frame to themselves in Religion, Philosophers and Divines should be oblig'd not to transcend, under pain of being esteem'd Supplanters of Christ and his Doctrin, Evacuaters of Faith, Miscreants, and I know not how many other such ill-favoured names as [Page] you give me too often up and down your Book. Think but how contrary 'tis to mans Nature, and the profession of the Church, to forbid Learning? to hinder men from searching the true Meaning of Gods word? from endeavouring to come to Demonstration as near as we can? to cut off all hopes of Certainty? and confound all Sciences into a Chaos of probability? Good Sir, since God hath created us to Science, and set our Bliss in the knowledg of himself, since he hath given us a strong inclination to it, do not seek to plunge us into a despair of it, and confine us to the eternal darkness of knowing nothing. If your self be discourag'd, hinder not others to endeavour. Should six persons find out but six conclusions, there's so far advanc'd: those six may each of them produce six more; and so go on with an unbounded improvement; whose multiplying fruitfulness as we cannot conjecture, so surely we ought not either to envy or obstruct.

IN your Postscript where you promise to make all such things good as depend on matter of fact, before any Person of Honour. I understand not well your meaning by this word matter of fact. But [Page] if false citations go under that name, I pray clear your self of this imputation I charge you with, that you say I put the pains of Purgatory to be the irregular affections to worldly things. A proposition you have so often rvepeated and urged, that you cannot deny it to be deliberately and examinedly done; So false and injurious, that you cannot refuse to acquit your self if you be indeed Innocent.

And for a Close give me leave against your next Vindication, to offer you this note; not as a Rule (for who made me your Superiour, that I should flatter my self with thinking you would perhaps obey me?) but as a friendly intreaty, that since we have experience enough of your power in Rhetorick, you would wholy apply your self to solid and usefull reason; This if you deny, at least let me prevail with you to put at the beginning and end of those periods where you intend to be bitter, some visible mark; that I may save the labour of reading stuff so unsuitable both to you and me; as also, that some other of your Readers, whose ears delight in such janglings, may directly pick out the parts that most agree with them, and not be diverted by your other less impertinent discourses: whereas in your last work all is so jumbled together and closely woven quite through the whole piece, that for [Page] my part I can scarce distinguish the strong sence from the blustring Satyr. If you intend to write like a Man and like a Scholar, take some Treatise or Book of mine end wayes; then show either the Principles weak, or the Consequences slack; else every one knows that in Discourses single Paragraphs subsist by their fellows; and so, to impugn such taken apart signifies nothing.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Religion and reason mutually corresponding and assisting each other first essay : a reply to the vindicative answer lately publisht against a letter, in which the sence of a bull and council concerning the duration of purgatory was discust / by Thomas White, Gent.

White, Thomas, 1593-1676.

Edition statement

1660

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A65800

ID [STC]

Wing W1840

ID [STC]

ESTC R13640

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13324736

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13324736

ID [VID]

99049

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A65800)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 99049)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 443:7)

Source

— Religion and reason mutually corresponding and assisting each other first essay : a reply to the vindicative answer lately publisht against a letter, in which the sence of a bull and council concerning the duration of purgatory was discust / by Thomas White, Gent., White, Thomas, 1593-1676..

Extent

[17], 200 p.

[s.n.],. Paris :: 1660.. (Errata: p. [17].) (Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.) (Includes index.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.