A VINDICATION OF St. Gregory HIS DIALOGUES: IN WHICH The Great St. Gregory is proved The Author of that Work.  
LONDON, Printed for John Crook, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1660.   

A Vindication of St. Gregory his Dialogues, in which the Great St. Gregory is proved the Author of that Work.  
CErtain modern writers have not long since affirmed, that the Opinion, avouching souls to be deliverable from Purgatory before the day of judgement, was an Opinion which St. Gregory the great brought into the Church, by certain petty stories. That he was the Father of this Opinion, and the leader unto it, and that clearly this Opinion began about his times. Yet as clear as they reported this to be, now of late, this Clarity is clearly acknowledged by them to be a flat falsity, and that in two several books: whence upon fuller Consideration, they profess themselves to discover the Authority of venerable Bede, attributing the book of Dialogues to St. Gregory the great, to be defective; yea they openly profess this book to be unworthy St. Gregory. Why so? because (say they) nothing like such winter tales, as are told in that book, can be found in his most worthy and learned works. By this they being enforced to seek out another Author; upon whom they might Father these Dialogues, they fall into so great a weakness, as to ascribe this work to that Pope Gregory, to whom Pope Zacharias did succeed, whom they say to have been by the Grecians called Gregorius Dialogus, who lived about the midst of the eight age, that is to St. Gregory the third, a Syrian. All this they confirm by the the authority of Photius, a Man who could not (as they conceive) be well ignorant thereof, being so learned a person, especially in books and Authors. By this invention they imagine themselves to make our doctrine a hundred years later, and to make it first appear in an Age of the least cultivated, since the beginning of the Church of God.  
For our parts we are no ways ambitious to have so worthy a Father, as St. Gregory the great, to be Father to our Opinion. For we esteem our doctrine of the deliverableness of souls before the last day, to have had no later beginning, than the doctrine of Purgatory itself, which was delivered (as part of the first faith) by the Teachers of that faith: neither will they ever be able to show any other Origin of it, which is an evident proof of its verity. But because St. Gregory the great is so clear an Assertor of this verity in his Dialogues, and a Man so far from introducing any novelty into the Church; or from believing any novelty to be confirmed by miracle (as he believes this verity to be) his authority is not to be wrested from us, by so groundless a denial of his Dialogues, which, upon this their fuller consideration, they most inconsiderately affirm not to be his work, but to have been written by Pope Gregory the Third. An opinion so full of most enormous and palpable absurdities, and that in so great number, that their adhering to it upon fuller consideration, shows how inconsiderable, their authority ought to be esteemed, even when this fuller Consideration is used by them. Against this Opinion we argue thus.  
First, that holy and learned St. Ildefonsus' Bishop of Toledo (who died Anno. 667.) in his book de viris illustribus C. 1. (whose Original manuscript is still kept in the Vatican library, as Baronius certifies, Anno. 604.) writeth thus of St. Gregory the great. He did set forth four books comprised in one Volume, concerning the lives of the Italian Fathers, which he would have called by the name of Dialogues. In which books how great secrets of Diviniy lie hidden, and what wonderful Documents, of the love of our Heavenly Country, any careful Reader may easily perceive. Do you not see here these books known and highly esteemed in the Church before either Gregory the Third, yea or Gregory the second, was of age to write or read a book? Again, do you not see how, according to the Judgement of this great Father, that Reader of these Dialogues is no careful Reader, who doth not easily perceive great secrets of Divinity hidden in this book of Dialogues? Which our Adversaries, upon their fuller consideration, think unworthy of St. Gregory, and like to Winter Tales.  
Secondly, St. Julian Bishop also of Toledo, (who flourished, Anno. 688) citeth these Dialogues in his Prognosticon L. 1. C. 7. L. 2. C. 8. C. 19 C. 24. An evident proof that they were made before either of the other two Gregory's (especially Gregory the Third) were known in the World.  
Thirdly, our Adversaries do indeed take notice that Bede citys these Dialogues, and ascribes them to our Apostle St. Gregory. But they did not consider, in their fuller consideration, where, and when Bede did say what he said. Where said he this? In his History of England. When did he write that History? He himself, in the end of this History, tells us, that he did end it, Anno. 731. So that Bede did write what he writ concerning these Dialogues, that very year in which Pope Gregory the Second died, and Gregory the Third was made Pope. How surely then might Bede know that these Dialogues, (out of which he transcribed the complaint of St. Gregory, concerning the loss of his former retirement, by being advanced to the Popedom) were not made by Gregory the Third, who as then was not made Pope, neither could so fresh a work of Gregory the Second, which must have been made in Bedes own flourishing Age (for Bede was 59 years old when he ended his History, as Baronius proves Anno. 731) be so much mistaken, by such a Man as Bede was, for a work s●t forth above a hundred years before.  
Fourthly, Joannes Diaconus, who most accurately did write the Life of St. Gregory the great, is an Author, both more ancient, and of more Credit, than Photius, and a Man particularly versed in the works of St. Gregory the great. And yet he writeth thus, L. 4. These books (of St. Gregory the great his Dialogues) Zacharias Bishop of the holy Roman Church, almost a hundred and seventy five years after, translated into Greek. These words Baronius in his notes upon the Martyr: Dec. 23. having cited, goeth on thus. How much the Grecians esteemed these books, you may hence understand, that when they cite Gregory, they call him by the very name of Dialogus, that is the Dialoguist. And again in his Annals (Anno. 726.) speaking of an Epistle of Gregory the Second (The Second I say, and not the Third) he saith, That Epistle falsely bears the Inscription of Gregorius Dialogus, an error with which we find many Grecians, and some Latins to have been deceived, whilst this Gregory (the Second) is called Dialogus, which surname, it is manifest out of Greek and Latin Authors, to be appropriated by the Grecians to Gregory the great, ever since Zacharias the Pope did translate his Dialogues into Greek, so to distinguish him from the three other Gregory's, Thaumaturgus, Nazienzen and Nyssen. Therefore our Adversaries are much mistaken, who, in their fuller consideration, will have Gregory the Third to have been called Dialogus. But least retiring themselves to consider more fully, they should Father these Dialogues upon Gregory the second (who died Anno. 731.) I desire them to ponder how demonstratively the contrary is proved, by the arguments already brought. And yet more demonstratively, (if it may) the same is farther proved by such arguments, as I am now going to produce out of the book of Dialogues itself, which, if they had perused in their fuller consideration (as any considerate writers would have done) they would have been ashamed of so unexcusable an ignorance, as apparently is committed in averring these Dialogues to have been written by Gregory the second; and much more, in ascribing them to Gregory the Third, made Pope. Anno 731. I pray note this year and then you will soon note the grossness of this absurdity.  
Fifthly then, the books of Dialogues need only an attentive Reader, to make it evident that Gregory the great was, and that neither Gregory the Second, or Third, could be the Author of that book. In his Preface to his second book he writes thus. What I intent to recount of St. Bennet (who died Anno. 543.) I had by Relation of four of his disciples. Of Constantius, who was next Abbot after him; of Valentinianus; of Simplicius; of Honoratus, who now is Abbot. These Men were disciples to St. Bennet almost 200. years before Gregory the Third was Pope. How then could he have what he related from their mouths? Or how could any of them be living in his time?  
Again he saith, L. 3. C. 4. now I will relate such miracles as happened in my own days. Then C. 11. He relates, how Cerbonius was brought forth and cast to a Bear, to be devoured, in the sight of King Totilas himself, and his whole army, the bear doing reverence to the Saint. Many of them who were present and saw it, be yet living. Now it is evident that Totilas died Anno. 553. so that you must make these many eye witnesses to have lived a hundred and fourscore years after they did see this wonder, that so they might be yet living in the time of Gregory the Third. And C. 12. A certain old Priest (saith he) who yet liveth, was present, when Fulgentius Bishop of Otricoli was taken by Totilas, see here the same argument again. And it recurs again in the next Chapter, where it is said. Floridus told me a notable miracle of Herculanus, who did bring him up, and in whose time Totilas besieged Perugia for seven years together. And yet again, in the fourteenth Chapter it is made further evident, that the Author of the Dialogues was a near borderer upon the day of Totilas. For there he saith, at such time as the Goths (by Totilas) first invaded Italy, there was a holy Man, Isaac, well known to the holy Virgin Gorgonia, who now dwelleth in this City. And presently after he saith. This holy man Isaac, was not born in Italy, and therefore I will only speak of such miracles as he did here in our Country. Do not these words tell you that the Country of the Author of the Dialogues, was Italy, and not Syria? But what can demonstrate more clearly, that the Great St. Gregory was Author of these Dialogues, than what followeth Chap. 16. There was (saith he) a Reverend man in Campania, called Marcius, whom many of our acquaintance knew very well, and many things concerning him I have heard from the mouth of Pope Pelagius my Predecessor. Now whose Predecessor was Pope Pelagius? All the World knows St. Gregory the great did succeed him immediately. As also that no Pope called Pelagius lived nearer to Gregory the third, than this foresaid Pelagius the second, who died Anno 590. How then could either Gregory the third or second Hear many things from the mouth of Pope Pelagius, who ceased both to speak, and to live a whole age before either of them were born? Yet again C. 19 We had in our days one other miracle. For not long since, John the Tribune told me, that when the Earl Pronulphus was there, and himself also with Antharicus the King, almost five years since, when the River of Tiber became so great, that it ran over the walls of Rome. Behold here two manifest proofs that the Author of the Dialogues did write the said books five years after the Inundation which happened Anno 589. as you may see in Baronius. At what time Antharith was King of the Longobards, so created by them Anno 585 Though he called himself Flavius, as the same Baronius in that year testifyes. All this demonstrates our opinion and shames the contrary. It followeth in the Chap. 31. that which the Roman Breviary did transcribe out of St. Gregory the great concerning St. Hermenigild, in which be these words, St. Hermenigild was converted by Leander Bishop of Sevil, a man long since joined to me in familiarity and friendship. This Leander, with whom St. Gregory the great was so entirely acquainted, is the same to whom he writes, L. 1. Epist. 41. L. 4. Epist. 46. L. 7. Epist. 125. And our Adversaries (to verify those words in Gregory the third) must make him acquainted with one, who died above a hundred years before he was born. Again Chap. 33. it is said, in the time of Justinian the Emperor, the King of the Wandals commanded the tongues of certain Bishops to be pulled out by the roots for preaching against the Arian Heresy, yet they did as perfectly afterwards speak in defence of the true religion, as before. And at such time as I myself was sent to Constantinople unto the Emperor about the affairs of the Church, I found there a Bishop of good years, who told me that he saw them himself, speak without tongues. Now it is notorious, that St. Gregory the great was sent about the affairs of the Church to Constantinople, and that Justinian began to riegn Anno 587. that is, full two hundred years before Gregory the third was Pope. How then could Gregory the third speak with any Bishop, who had seen those worthy Bishops, whose tongues had been pulled out in the days of Justinian.  
Again the Author of the Dialogues in his fourth book, not only frequently citys his own Homiles (which are known to be the Homilies of St. Gregory the great, of which see here by and by N. 18.) but C. 16. he saith, I will here repeat that which I remember also to have spoke in my Homilies concerning my Aunt Tarsilla. To this Woman Felix my Grandfather, sometimes Bishop of Rome, appeared in vision. Who is so blind, as not to see that these words cannot be spoken by Gregory the third, who had no such Italian kindred, for he was a Syrian? But they are clearly spoken by the great St. Gregory so well known by his Homilies, and by his Aunt, and by his Grandfather. And C. 26. He thus describes the year in which he did write these Dialogues, Likewise (saith he) in that mortality which three years since lamentably afflicted this town. It is notorious by History, that this great plague raged in Rome the first year of his Popedom, of which see Baronius, Anno 590. who well proves from hence that these Dialogues were written Anno. 593. see him in that year. Moreover C. 30. The writer of these Dialogues speak thus, Julian who died almost seven years since, told me this Story. In the time of King Theodoricus (quoth he) my Wife's father being then in Sicily, Theodoricus began to reign Anno 493. How could Gregory the third (made Pope Anno 731.) speak these words? Lord! where is these men's fuller consideration?  
The Church in her Breviary is, a most exact deliverer so historical Verity, and not a follower of such as deliver Winter tales. This Church, upon the feast of St. Hemenigildus April 13. taketh the lessons of the second Nocturne out of these Dialogues of St. Gregory. And upon the feast of St. John Pope and Martyr, May the 27. the same Church recounts out of these Dialogues of St. Gregory one of these stories (which they are pleased to Nickname Winter tales concerning a holy Eremite, who did see the soul of Theodoricus cast down into the fire of Sipara the same day & hour upon which he died, of which see L. 4. C. 30.  
Secondly, the same Church is known to have used most accurate diligence in the History of her Roman Maryrologe, which she appoints to be read daily in the Choir at the Prime, as part of the divine office, in which it were most gross to follow the Relaters of Winter tales: yet in a short time, I found above twenty several places in that martyrologue, in which St. Gregory in his Dialogues is cited in confirmation of what is here related, of which I shall speak more hereafter. N. 15.  
Lastly, to all these convincing proofs I add the testimony of St. Gregory the great in that undoubted work of his epistles. Where he tells us clearly that he did write the book of Dialogues, and upon what occasion. Thus than he writeth Epist. 50. L. 2. Regist. Indict. 11. C. 89. To Maxmianus Bishop of Syracuse. My Brethren who live familiarly with me do enforce me by all means briefly to commit to writing some miracles of those fathers which we have heard done in Italy, for effecting whereof I stand in great need of your charitable assistance, to wit, that you would signify to me such things, as came to your memory, or it hath been your chance to know, for I remember well, You told me some things concerning Abbot, Annosus, who lived near Anastasius, etc. Now it appears by his first book of Dialogues C. 7. that this Maximianus did write back unto him what he there relates of Abbot, Annosus. And by all this, any man may see how inconsiderately, in their fuller consideration, they have proceeded, who, never opening their eyes to any of these so apparent verities, did most unadvisedly deny these Dialogues to be written by the great St. Gregory, and fathered them upon Gregory the the third. But now they have heard our arguments, which are so wholly unanswerable, let us hear their very weak proofs of the contrary.  
First, they object the Authority of Photius (ascribing these books to Gregory the Third) a Man so learned in books and Authors, that he cannot be conceived ignorant of the truth. I answer, that this Photius was a Grecian, and nothing well skilled in sacred, and Latin Authors. Hear what Nicetas writeth in his Life, in which he saith, that he was eminent indeed in secular sciences, being secretary to the Emperor Bardas'. But wholly devoid of all sacred literature. And no wonder. For, as he tells us, That of a Lay man, he, in space of six days, was transformed into a Patriarch of Constantinople. From which dignity he, for his most notorious wickedness, was the second time deposed, Anno. 880. By which account you see also, of how late a standing he is; And how despicable in comparison of the Authors I have cited.  
Secondly, they object that this book is unworthy of St. Gregory the great. This is directly to oppose the Judgement of St. Ildefonsus, St. Julian, St. Bede, and of the holy and learned Pope Zachary, who thought this work worthy his translation, by which also Greece came so highly to esteem of St. Gregory, as hath been showed out of Baronius. This is also to vilify the authority of the Latin Church, so much relying upon the authority of this book as hath been said, and shall now farther be declared. For you pass on farther, and.  
Thirdly object, that this book contains many stories like Winter tales. I answer, that it is an unsufferable injury to the Church to say, she yields so much credit to such a book, so stuffed with such Winter tales, as you will have them. An unsufferable injury to our great Apostle St. Gregory, whom we have proved to be the writer of these stories, concerning which he himself saith in the Preface to that work. I have followed the example of St. Luke and St. Mark, who learned the gospel, which they writ, not by sight, but by the relation of others. Yet lest any in reading should have an occasion to doubt whether such things as I writ, be true, or no, I will set down by what manner, and of whom I have learned them. I know Melchior Canus (whose words our Adversaries much applaud) was so bold as to say that some Anastarche, or Critics, of our age would account some of the miracles related by him to be uncertain. But I know also, that the great Baronius (whose exactness in History is famed through all Christendom.) examining this censure of Canus (in his notes upon the martyrologue December 23.) pronounceth it to be a calumny, very inconsiderately vented against a work, which both the East and West Church, for these thousand years held worthy all highest credit, veneration, and praise. And then he beats down this calumny, by a multitude of most grave testimonies, I do cite thee (O Canus saith he) I do cite thee before the Tribunal of thy own most holy and most learned Spanish Doctors, S. Isidor, S. Ildefonsus, S. Julian. S. Isidor after he had enlarged himself in the endless praises of S. Gregory comes at last to conclude thus, He is happy and over happy who is well versed in all his works. S. Ildefonse affirms, That all antiquity could show nothing like to him (that is to the great S. Gregory) That he surpassed, Anthony in sincerity, Cyprian in eloquence, Austin in wisdom. Behold he preferreth this Writer of the Dialogues (which there he names with a special Encomium of that work) before the great St. Austin, even in point of Wisdom: And yet these men dare compare him to a teller of Winter tales. But Baronius goeth on and shows with what respect these very Dialogues were cited by S. Julian, cited by whole Assemblies of Holy Fathers, (namely in Concilio Triburiensi C. 17.) cited by Pope Adrian in his Epistle to Charles the great; cited by Ionas Aurelianensis as most powerful weapons to defeat the monstrous Opinions of Claudius Taurinensis; translated in fine by the most holy Pope Zachary into Greek by reason of their excellency: And upon this account so much esteemed by the Greeks that they from these Dialogues gave the great St. Gregory the surname of Dialogus. Nunquid his omnibus caecutientibus tu solus vides? saith Baronius to Canus, and I say the same to any one who sides with him in this Paradox. As for the rest I refer my Reader to Baronius, who will easily see how far more bitterly that most modest Cardinal would have Written against Canus, if he had dared to compare these Stories of St. Gregory's to Winter tales. To us it sufficeth, that the Church, in her Breviary, embraceth his strange story of the soul of Theodoricus, and also others no less strange in her Martyloge. Febr. 13. 15. 25. March the first, August the seventh, yea, (that which you will dread to hear) in the thirtieth one day of May, be these words. At Rome of St. Paschasius Deacon and confessor of whom St. Gregory the Pope maketh mention, see you not that the Church holds forth to us that very Paschasius for a Saint, of whom we find St. Gregory to make no other mention, but that he was in purgatory, and thence delivered by prayers? So that you see the Church owns that very story, which, most of all, they would have accounted to be a Winter tale. Here than we have our Opinion of souls being delivered from Purgatory before the day of Judgement, credited by the Church. For otherwise she could not propose to us a Man to be worshipped for a Saint, of whom she commends to us what is related by St. Gregory, the substance of whose Relation is, That being in Purgatory, be did miracles That, he appeared in the baths to beg prayers, That by these prayers be was released, wherefore.  
Fourthly. they in vain object against this story of Paschasius, that he died obstinately in Schism. And that it is the fancy of an idle brain to imagine that souls are sent to the baths, there to scrub and rub, so to be acquitted of their sins. For first to say Paschasius died obstinate in Schism, is to abuse both St. Gregory, and this Saint, and the Church, and the Reader, St. Gregory is abused, for in the same breath, in which he told his Reader how Paschasius was freed from Purgatory, he tells him clearly. That seeing his fault proceeded not out of Malice, after death he might he purged from that sin. And we must think that his plentiful alms obtained this favour, etc. The Church is abused, which recommends to us a Man to be worshipped for a Saint, who (as they say) died obstinate in Schism. The Saint recommended by the Church is abused, whilst they thus pluck him from Heaven, to Hell. The Reader is abused by such gross falsities obtruded unto him, after their fuller consideration. Far more considerately, that incomparable Baronius, pondering those words which I now cited out of St. Gregory excusing the fault of Paschasius, expounds by them these his other words which said. That he remained in his Opinion until his dying day, that is, exclusively, so that his Repentance happened before his death, or (which I most approve) that his death happened before that controversy was clearly decided, which seems most conformable to those words of St. Gregory L. 4. C. 41. saying that Paschasius whilst he lived thought it no sin to do what he did. Secondly, for what concerns the appearing of Paschasius in the baths, it is not St. Gregory, but some idle brain that speaks of scrubbing and rubbing. I confess St. Gregory to speak both here, (L. 4. C. 40.) and again C. 55. that such as were in purgatory did appear sometimes performing, to some particular person, some inferior kind of services in the bath. God permitting this, that so they should declare the lownes of their present condition, and also to give them occasion of begging the prayers of such particular persons, which could and would best assist them now, though Raphael the Archangel, without feeling any regrete, performed all bumble service to young Toby, because all this while he enjoyed the sight of God, and voluntarily performed his gracious pleasure. Yet if God, in his wrath, had cast him from his sight, deprived him of glory, banished him from Heaven, and for his offences deputed him to those inferior offices in revenge of them, it is not hard to conceive, that this had been a most sad chastisement, as it contains the debasing of so noble a nature, by the just wrath of his Creator against him.  
Wherefore I wonder to hear those men say, that no grave Divine now living will undertake to justify these revelations, whereas Baronius hath done it so fully. And whereas they most carp at this Revelation in particular, the very Prince of Divines, St. Thomas, doth give his approbation of also it in particular. For thus he Writes in Suppl. Q. 69. or 1. Moreover this is made evident by what St. Gregory saith, L, 4. Dial. where he relates that souls after their departure are led to several corporal places, as appears by Paschasius, whom Germanus the Bishop of Capua found in the baths. And a little after. There be allotted to souls after their departure certain corporal places by a certain congruity according to the degrees of their dignity. And so we place souls, which are in a perfect participation of the Deity in heaven. But we say those souls to be deputed to contrary places which are hindered from this participation. That is, We say they be deputed to Hell, if they be hindered from participation of Deity, by damnable sin. Again, we say they be deputed to purgatory, if they be hindered from this participation by only venial sin. again, these venial sins may be many, and great; and so sink a soul down to the bottom of of Purgatory, that is, depute that soul to the most painful temporal punishments. as also, they may be very few, and of the lightest kind of sins, and those also expiated (in great part) by contrary great good works; as they may truly think of the sins of St. Paschasius, seeing that he did miracles upon earth, when his soul was suffering this lighter kind of punishment. Wherefore, though such a soul, be deputed to a purgative state; and is purged by being banished from the sight of God, yet the other penal pains be of the lightest sort, such as may (to our capacity) be fitly expressed by being out of the fiery prison of purgatory, yet in some low, abject, dark, smooky place in the ground, deputed there to contemptible employments, as those in the baths were. Of which the merciful indulgence of God made particularly choice, that so those souls might the more connaturally have commodity of begging the assistance of such persons as God should connaturally dispose to come thither. This is agreeable to what St. Thomas now cited, saith, (ad 2) That as lightsome places are commonly assigned to enlightened spirits, and obscure darkened holds to spirits darkened by sins. So those hot, and smoky, close, and stifling places, of the baths, bear a convenient Metaphorical expression of such as are yet darkened, unwashed and unpurged souls. It is also agreeable to what St. Gregory there L. 4. C. 42. saith, discoursing upon this purgatory of Paschasius. For having cited these words. Thou hast delivered me from the lower hell. He presently adds so that the higher Hell (and place of lighter torments) may seem to be upon the earth, and the lower under the earth. Now, as it is not absurd to express the joy of spirits unto us, by saying they did sing merrily (as it is said of the Angels in Christ's Nativity) though singing be an act as unnatural to an Angel rejoicing, as serving in a bath to a spirit purging: so it is not absurd by these kind of actions to express unto us the low, and sad estate of those souls which should be singing with Angels, if their lighter sins did not banish them from those joys to these abect Offices. The like is to be said of that other example related by St. Gregory L. 4. C. 55. To which (and the farther declaration of the former) we may fitly apply what St. Thomas above cited, saith art. 7, ad 8. q. 69. Although separated souls are sometimes punished in the place of our abode; yet it is not because that it is the proper place of punishment. But this done for our instruction, that seeing their pains we may be withdrawn from offending. So surely is to be understood what is said of the soul of Theodoricus cast into the gulf of Vulcan, at which those, who are disposed, might carp as much as at his other stories, though it be contained in the Breviary of the Church, yea they might as well carp at some contained in Holy writ, as that, the Devil (who is a spirit) should be chased away from Saul by the material sound of David's harp. And they might say that it is like a Wintertale which we read Tob. 6.9. That a piece of the heart of a fish put upon coals, the smoke of it so chaseth away the devil that he returns no more. All this is by way of supererogation, said in defence of this story of Paschasius. For though that should be false, yet it doth not follow that those Dialogues were not written by St. Gregory. And still it doth follow that St. Gregory thought it to be true, and consequently he judged it to be a truth confirmed by Revelation; That souls are deliverable from purgatory before the day of judgement, and the Church judged the same, vvhilst she in her Martirologe credited what Saint Gregory mentions of Paschasius.  
Fifthly and lastly, they object that nothing like such Winter tales, can be found in the other worthy works of St. Gregory. A strange objection to proceed from a Scholar, upon his further consideration. For the least consideration of any mean Scholar might have made him reflect, how often St. Gregory, in this very fourth book of his Dialogues (out of which only they have gleened the few stories, at which they take so great exceptions) doth relate the very self same stories, which, he himself tells you, he had formerly related in his Homilies. His Homilies be so esteemed by the Church, that she hath transferred more out of them into her Breviary, than out of any other holy Father. Yet how thick be these his Homilies stored with these stories.  
L. 4. C. 14. I remember (saith he) that, in my Homilies upon the gospel, I told a story of Servulus, which here he repeats out of Hom. 15.  
Again C. 15. in the same Homilies, I remember likewise how I told a certain thing of Redempta and Romula ..  
Again C. 16. I will here report this, which I remember also to have spoke of in my Homilies concerning my Aunt Tarsilla. To this Woman Felix my Grandfather sometime Bishop of Rome, Hom. 39  
Again C. 19 By the relation of the same Probus, and other religious men, I came to the Relation of such things, as in my Homilies I told to my Auditors, concerning the Venerable Father Steven.  
Again C. 27. Concerning the Earl Theophanius, I did in my Homilies make public mention of such strange things as happened to him, Hom. 36. verbatim.  
Again C. 37. There was one Theodorus (which story I remember in my Homilies to the people, I have spoke of also) who was a very unruly lad, etc. Hom. 19  
Again, he word for word C. 38. Relates that dreadful story concerning Crisaptius just as he had related it, Hom. 12.  
Now Note I pray, that these two last cited chapters have but one chapter between them and the chapter which contains the story of Paschasius, at which they take so great exceptions. And yet these considerate writers neither marked what was said so often, either in the same fourth book, or in these two so near bordering chapters, but boldly deny that St. Gregory in his other works hath no such stories, as occur every wherein his Dialogues.  
Though I need not seek further to refute this apparent falsity then what hath been already cited out of his Homilies, yet I cannot but tell you that you shall find some of his Epistles also most plentifully stored with divers such stories, as they are pleased to compare to Winter-tales. L. 3. Register Indict. 12. Ep. 30. And L. 9 Register Indict. 4. Epist. 38.  
I do not here answer a weak cavel, which I find them to use, so to discredit that most credible story, which St. Gregory relates of a Monk in his own Monastery, whose soul was freed from Purgatory, after he had appointed sacrifices for forty days together to be offered for his soul: for when I shall bring this story in proof of our opinion, I shall demonstrate that cavil to be wholly grounded in ignorance of antiquity.  
I will end by giving my Reader an account out of what shop all this false wares have been fetched. The Enemies of the Roman Church seeing such a multitude of stories, related by the great St. Gregory, to be directly opposite to their novelties, have devised all the shifts they can, to cry down the Authority of his Dialogus, as you may see in Criticis sacris Riveti Lib. 4. C. 29. Where he citys the very place of Canus so much magnified by our adversaries, to disparage these dialogues. But Rivetus could allege no one more ancient than Clemnitius, who relished not this work, though he found some who imagined Pope Gregory not the third but the second of that name, to have been the Author of these Dialogues, which we have demonstratively (as I dare say) shown to be most false. And whereas Chemnitius saith, that neither the stile, nor the contents of this book suit well with the other works of St. Gregory, we have showed the falsity of both, by the Authorities cited out of his Homilies, against which work Rivetus hath not a word to say, but most ignorantly carps at Baronius and Fronto Duceus, for esteeming the great St. Gregory to have been called Dialogus by the Greeks; for if it be true which he saith of Cedrenus, that the occasion of this surname proceeded from the Book of Dialogues written by this Gregorius, than this Gregory must needs be the person who did write these Dialogues: but the person who did write these Dialogues could neither be Gregory the Second or the Third, as hath been demonstrated, but evidently is Gregory the First, whom we usually call Gregory the Great; whence it remains most clearly convinced, that the Great St. Gregory is the Man who by occasion of his Dialogues was by the Grecians surnamed Dialogus, as being the Author of these Dialogues we speak of.  
FINIS.