DEVOTION AND REASON, FIRST ESSAY. WHEREIN Modern Devotion for the Dead, is brought to solid Principles, and made Rational; In way of Answer to Mr J. M's Remembrance for the Living to pray for the Dead. By THOMAS WHITE, Gent.  In quo quemque invenerit suus novissimus dies, in eo eum comprehendet mundi novissimus dies. Aug. Epist. 80. ad Hesychium. 
PARISH, MCDLXI.   

PREFACE To the Gentleman who sent me Mr. J. M's Book.  
SIR.  
PEradventure you may desire as well my Judgement of Mr. J. M's Book, as the answering of it. In Brief then. The man I knew many years ago, and conceive a good Idea of his honesty, and such Learning as could then be expected from him. He went after beyond the Seas, where (as I heard) he followed other studies, and at his return I saw him once, but had a good Character of him from a common friend, as touching his Honesty. For, as to his Learning, either my friend had not tried it, or we had no occasion to discourse of it. With this Character of his Person I undertook the reading of his Book. In which I find all the Arts necessary to the defending of a bad cause with as little shame as is possible. He brings known Heresies for his defence: of lawful Authors he stretches their Persons to the height; their words beyond their extent; if he lights upon an Authority of some Church Book, you would think it were the Definition of a General Council, he so presses the Authority of the Church for it. By Interpretations and Translations, he makes them say what he lists. He imposes upon his Adversaries Erroneous Doctrine, sometimes because he hath not taken the pains to understand them, and other times, because otherwise his cause would be openly gone: He specially presses my opposition to Pope's Bulls, as aiming, by confirmation of them, to have me censured. Of two, the one he corrupts, the other he understands more like a Banker than a Divine, and yet sets his rest upon them. Most of his Arguments are from places common to both sides. A great weapon with him is, to tax his Adversaries Arguments as employed by Heretics to prove Errors; not knowing that it is a principal Method of gaining Science, to use the Arguments of extreme Errors to conclude the middle Truth, a way much practised by Aristotle, and very laudable. For as Aristotle teaches there is n● famous Error without some truth in it, seeing wi●h ●t show of Truth, Nature could not receive it. He hath made a Collection of good and bad; I think of as much as can be said, but seems to make no distinction between those that have some weight, and those which have none. His Answers are sometimes the admitting of plain Contradiction, sometimes admitting of all we say, and for the most, some difference in words more than in meaning. Yet he brags fearfully of his great Exploits and Triumphs. When he pleases he explicates my opinions in disguised Language, and ordinarily imperfectly. I hope his Book will prove the decision, if not of the cause, at least of the handling of it. He hath had two great Advantages against me. One by which a witty Spanish Preacher called Padre Mancio overcame his corrival to a Sermon in a Country Parish. For putting him to say his Pater noster in Latin before the People to try his learning, when his corrival said it right, he would correct him according to the false pronunciation of the common People, which the People applauding preferred him. So your Author has the Advantage by explicating Spiritual things corporally, to have the apprehension of Ordinary, both Men and Divines, and consequently the applause for him. The secend is, that he hath commodity of Books, which to me, being a stranger, and unknown, and in a Town not extraordinary bookish, are hard to find, for which reason I am fain to be content with the faults his citations afford, without being able to give so ample satisfaction as the seeing of the works themselves might have made me able to exhibit. Yet all this doth not cause me to make an evil apprehension of the man. I know the nature of the cause, and the persuasions he hath been imbued with, must needs have this effect, that he must help himself by all the means he can, and very likely is conceited that he doth Sacrifice to God in making my opinion seem the worst he can: His way of Piety, his instruction to handle Divinity by the Authorities of Authors whose Votes have no force, his Obedience, and the Utility of his Friends, all drive him to this. I on the other side am forced to treat sometimes his opinions rudely, sometimes his Arguments, because the English Tongue makes our Controversy exposed to such Judgements, as are to be told what the nature of proofs or saying are, and well it falls out when even after telling it they be able to see it. But I do not desire any of my sayings should reflect 〈◊〉 his Person, for his Learning beseems well enough the Narrative Divinity that he hath followed, which hath no deeper root than whether some Classical Author (under which nation comes many a mean Divine) hold such an opinion: and, if some Number hold it, than it is Canonised for good Doctrine. But it is not my Theme here to declaim against the weakness of vulgar Divines, but to recommend my pains and self to you, desiring yours and your friend's opinion of them, and of  
Your ever Friend and Servant Thomas White.   

FIRST PART.  
Refuting the Arguments from Authority, and Reason, against the Doctrine of the Middle State.  

FIRST DIVISION Containing what in the first four Chapters concerns the Author to answer.  
The Adversaries misrepresenting of the Author's Doctrine, and mistakes of the Council of Trent. His Arguments to prove that some Saints of the Old Law reassumed not their Bodies, drawn from Authority and their remaining Relics, shown inefficacious and springing from shallowness in Philosophy.  
SIR,  
1. THE Book you sent me, put me in mind of a punishment St. Hierom reports to have been used to some Martyrs; whom first the Pagans anointed with honey, and then exposed to be tortured with flies and gnats. For so it serves me; first it declares my opinion reasonable candidly; It testifies that I aim at showing the Fabric of the World to be a perfect work of Wisdom, and not a wilful and arbitrary government. Thus far is Honey; for, if I do perform it, questionless I play the part of a good Divine; if I do not, at least he gives me the commendation of intending it. Some parts of my opinion he explicates not well, but I conceive it is our of mistake. One thing he fumbles in which was plain enough. Whereas I put in a sin three parts; the strong and resolute Affection, Relics in the Soul after the resolution is changed, and lastly the outward Action, and give to all these for punishment their several proper effects, so that the Resolution, which is properly the Sin, may be forgiven and cancelled, and yet not those effects which follow the other two parts; so that part of the pains remain due after the sin is forgiven; and if this had been plainly delivered, it would have cut off his chief imputation, that I say the sin being forgiven there remains no punishment due; he was fain to frame such a piece of nonsense, as you may see in his third Chapter, N. 3. etc.  
2. This being understood, I may proceed to his fourth Chapter; in which out of Scripture he pretendeth to prove the deliverableness of souls out of Purgatory before the last day. His first proof out of Scripture is to cite Scripture for that, in which we both agree; to wit, that some pains remain due after the sin is remitted. So that his argument must be purely out of reason, Scripture serving but for a stalking-horse, and indeed in this point is utterly unserviceable to him. But, whencesoever it be drawn, let us see the force it carries. The Council of Trent accurseth those, who say a man cannot satisfy God for temporal punishments due after the sin is remitted by fastings, etc. (where we are to note there is never a word spoken of Purgatory.) Therefore, (must he infer to make it carry fully home to his designed point) we may satisfy for souls in Purgatory. Two things be wanting in this Argument; One is some Speech of one Persons satisfying for another, for the Councils words seem to be plainly of a man satisfying for his own sins; The other is, that there is no mention of any satisfaction for the sins of the dead. So that the whole Argument is nothing, but his own assertion or supposition. The rest of his Texts of Scripture are drawn after the same trifling manner, having never a word worthy the explicating; but, their sayings being plainly common to both parties, he frames some weak Argument under them; the which being out of pure Reason I expect to find hereafter, where he pretends to bring Reason for his Opinion.  
3. In the mean while I may pass to the fifth N. where there comes into play another question. For so he argues, Christ in his resurrection delivered souls out of Purgatory, therefore their acts were changed from acts of grief into acts of joy, and this without any change made in Body. He proves the Antecedent largely, nor will I dispute it with him. But the consequence I must utterly deny. For both in St. Mat. 27. it is expressed, that many rose, and came into the holy City, and appeared to many; And, if we do consider that the gifts of God are perfect, or, as Saint Paul terms it, sine poenitentia, we will easily see that it cannot be rationally thought that they ever died again; specially they rising in glorified Bodies, for else they would have been publicly seen, and not appeared only to whom they listed. Besides that the Union to the Body perfects the very beatifical Vision, and if they had died again, they should have lost that perfection once possessed. If again we consider that no apparent difference is mentioned in Scripture why some should have that bliss, and particularly that many should enjoy it, and not all, we shall find this privilege fit for all; and if for all, then that none were changed without some change in their Bodies. And, that I may not speak this without Authority, I call him to witness, who was present, our Saviour Jesus Christ, in the fifth of St. John, where he makes mention of two resurrections, the one of only good which he says to be at hand, the other of all both good and bad which was to come, in both which he was to be Judge as he was man.  
4. He would persuade a man that the position of saying, all the Just of the Old Testament rose with our Saviour, was so absurd that no man would say it, though he had read it in my Book, and comes prepared to oppose it, which he doth, or may do out of divers Histories of the Relics of some of the Ancient Fathers yet extant, or at least found long since our Saviour's Ascension. But I wonder that a man of so much Criticism as he either is, or I mistook him to be, should never consider what the power of History is, and what it can witness. Take the stories of the invention, or translation of the Prophet Samuel; History can testify there was carried from Jerusalem to Constantinople, a Body withgreat solemnity; That the body was said to be Samuel's, and for such presented; That it was found in a Tomb, which was by some probable tokens held for the same, in which Samuel was buried: But that the Body was truly Samuel's, is beyond the power of History to testify. For History can testify nothing but what men can witness, nor men witness more than they can hear or see; Nor could it be judged either by eye, or ear, whether this was the true body of Samuel, or no; Therefore History cannot assure us of any of the examples which he brings against our position, and the truth must be resolved either into probable conjectures, or to some obscure revelation, neither of which is sufficient to make a Theological Argument.  
5. Yet, because I will not discourage the good man, I will pass all his sayings, and grant him those he citys were the true Relics of the Saints, whose Bodies they were esteemed. Then he triumphs, and finds a Saint John, who hath two or three heads in the World, to have none in Heaven; and the Saints, who have left their bodies in Earth, to have none in Heaven. And, if I should say they were either replicated, or at least by divers Ubications in two places, he might easily rap me over the fingers, and tell me such solutions are fit for more Metaphysical Schools, that look beyond nature; and not for me, who ought to say no more than I can understand. Wherefore keeping myself to Aristotle, and Saint Thomas, I must declare that the things we call Relics are not the very Bodies of the Saints, but new substances made out of the living bodies of such Saints, as much different substantially as if the bodies had been turned into ashes or grass, though morally keeping a respect to the Persons whereof they were made. Whence it follows, that in Heaven the Saints may have the same bodies they had upon Earth, though these Relics remain in the Tombs. Peradventure this lesson will seem a hard one to him; But, let him study well how in Aristotle and Saint Thomas' way there is but one materia prima, or pura potentia under all forms, and how there is a compound made of this Matter and the Soul without any middle Entity to cement them together, & he may come to understand this mystery: the which I explicate no farther, because People, for whom Books are printed in English, for the most part are not capable to reach and judge such points.  
6. Here I should have made an end of troubling you with this Chapt. but that I found it necessary to put you in mind to reflect how in all this Chapter he hath said nothing to the purpose: Neither Scriptures, nor the Council any way touching the Controversy, but brought out to cover a silly Argument, which I expect will be often repeated over. But chiefly that the Fathers he citys are for the most part besides the game, speaking of what was done at our Saviour's resurrection, wherein we and he all agree very friendly, as far as concerns our present task; that is, that our Saviour set them all free that were then in Purgatory; but I say withal, that he bestowed their Bodies on them, in which they should rise and accompany him to Heaven. The which I think he would not mislike, if it sprung in his own Garden: Now I know not how circumstances may blast it in his opinion.   

SECOND DIVISION. Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter.  
Three Heresies clubbed together to prove Antejudiciary Delivery. Nothing evinced from th' Testimonies of the Greek Fathers.  
1. IN the fifth Chapter he gives very great words as if he would do wonders out of the Greek Fathers. To judge of the effect let us put some Notes, which I believe will be common to us both. The first is, that Origen, otherwise a great Doctor and Father, held how at the day of Judgement wicked men should begin to be punished; every one should be tormented by fire, some more, some shorter, according to the quantity of their crimes; but in fine, all at last set free, and received into Bliss. And, it is well known, that he had many followers; but at last was condemned, and it settled in the Church, that the damned were damned for all eternity.  
2. My second Note is, that, though this Error of Origen was quelled in the Church, yet the Venom of it remained in the hearts of many under other words, and this question, whether it be lawful to pray for the damned. I say the malice of the former Error remained in this. For the Article of our Faith is, that the wicked deserve and have at death eternal damnation. Now, he that saith, that they may be prayed for, says that by Prayers this sentence is revocable; and, by consequence, that whosoever is damned eternally it is for want of Prayers; and so evacuates the main Article of our Faith, engages all good men to have charity towards the damned, and wish to them the good which they are taught is possible, and makes the communion of the faithful to reach into Hell. No wonder then, that St. Gregory the Great judged the opinion that Christ at his resurrection had freed some out of Hell to be Heretical, and would much more have condemned this opinion that it is lawful to pray for damned souls; which gives every man, though he live and die never so wickedly, hope of salvation, if he has but money to get Masses enough.  
3. My third Note is, that there was amongst the Ancient Christians an Heresy called of Chiliasts or Millenaries, which our Fifth-Monarchy-men pretend to resuscitate in England. They said, that there were two resurrections; the first of the Just, who were to live and reign with Christ here upon Earth for a thousand years in all corporal prosperity before the general resurrection. And there wanted not great, and otherwise Holy men, who were deluded into this opinion, by the apparency of some Texts of Scripture.  
4. These be my Notes. Now the Conclusion, for which I drew them, is, to let you understand, that this great Divine makes a Gallimawfry of these three Heresies to present his unwary Reader with a dish of Purgatory; and, taking away these, and the speeches of some Fathers concerning the delivery of souls at Christ's resurrection, his Chapter will be both very thin and lean, his testimonies few, and of no efficacity, if not contrary to his design.  
5. As for Origenism, he citys Origen himself, and Saint Gregory Nyssen, and would fain pull in St. Basil by the way of Brotherhood. As for the Error itself, it hath two points in it, which makes it nothing to the Purpose; the first is, that whereas Purgatory ends amongst Catholics at the day of Judgement, Origen's Purgatory begins then. So that Origen's Testimonies are very unskilfully applied to Purgatory. The second is, that this Divine aiming mainly to prove, that a soul separated from the Body can receive change, can make no use of Origenism otherwise then to cozen his auditory, seeing Origen puts the souls to have resumed their Bodies before any change be made in them. As for the Person of Origen, it is so famous for this Error, that our Divine cannot choose but be ashamed to say he knew not this was his Error. As for Saint Gregory Nyssen, it is a confessed thing both by Ancient and Modern Authors, that his works have been corrupted by the Origenists, and particularly the Book our Divine citys, as I persuade myself he had read in my answers to the Vindicatour and Result; though it was not to his purpose to take notice that his Arguments were already answered. But I, for not being too troublesome to my Readers with repeating over the same things, must refer them to the second Part of Religion and Reason, Divis. 〈◊〉 in the answer to the 22 th'. Section. Out of which it will clearly appear, that we are not to seek Saint Basil's opinion out of Saint Gregory's, which we cannot know perfectly, but rather Saint Gregory's out of Saint Basil's.  
6. His Testimonies from Authors of the second Heresy begin (as he would have it) from the great Saint Macarius, that is to say, is fathered upon him, as this Divine citys it by Rufinus Aquileiensis; but it imports not by whom, for the story carries discredit enough in its own bowels, so that there is no need to look into the Authors credit. Yet something I have said to this in my Notes upon the first Chapter of the Result: So that here I have need only to note that Gloss of Saint Thomas which he mentions, That the comfort which the damned Oracle speaks of, is no other than such Joy as the Devil hath when he makes men sin. Which signifies, that the damned souls are glad, that men sin in praying for them, which seems to be quite against the Intention of your Heretical citers of this story, and in a manner a rejection of the effect of it.  
7. His next citation of this rank is out of the Oration of the Dead attributed to St. John Damascen, and is so shameful an one, that I wonder any man; who esteems St. John Damascen for a grave Doctor, and one who holds not that the damned are to be prayed for, should attribute that Oration to him. For, besides that it is directly against Saint John Damascens Doctrine, who teaches expressly that souls cannot be changed, what an unexcusable impudent assertion was it to say, that in his time both the whole East and West did testify the delivery of Trajan's soul. Wherefore either this Writer lived after Joannes Diaconus, that is some 150 years after St. John Damascen, who could find no Testimony for this fable in the Latin Church of any weight, but that rather it was contradicted in Rome as against Scripture and Catholic faith, and had it out of him, or else he feigned it by all probability. Neither did I ever hear of any authority for it in the Greek Church ancienter than this Oration.  
8. Another excellent History he hath of the Emperor Theophilus, exempted from Hell by the Prayers procured by the Empress his wife called Theodora. The substance of the History is, that this Theophilus was extremely wicked all his life time, embrued in the blood of divers holy Martyrs; A little before his death he put a Gentleman to death upon false surmises, and taking his head by the hair in his hand, spoke his last words. Thou shalt be no more Theophobus (that was the Gentleman's name) nor I Theophilus. So far public Histories. After this he is reported to be strucken by God with a disease of gaping so wide, that men might look into his bowels (of which how unlikely it is, let Physicians consider.) In this case it is reported he repent, but sure he was speechless, and by all likelihood could make but few certain signs. Howsoever, the story goes, he died and was cast into Torments. But the Empress making great multitude of prayers to be said for him, she had a Revelation of his delivery. This is the story; in which his wickedness is certain, his repentance surmised, his delivery known by Revelation. If you ask whence he was delivered, it is answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of torments, properly such as are given to make one confess, that is, laid upon one by others, by which, and by the whole strain of the Authors, who generally speak of damned Persons, you may see it was not out of Griefs, such as the Grecians put in Purgatory, that he was delivered, but from Hell. The Author of this story he citys Triodium and Gennadius, both admirers of the delivery of Trajan, as likewise the Euchologium, out of which he citys this prayer to God, that he, who delivered Trajan an infidel, should deliver N. N. a Christian,  
9 But, to conclude the Testimonies of this quality, I must not forget two Authorities; the one out of the pretended Oration of St. John Damascen, the other from Gennadius. They both tend to the same purpose, that the stories concerning these things which are in the Lives of Saints, and Divine Revelations, are not to be counted. Of which proposition, I pray take special notice, that you may see the truth of my proposition, that the Greeks have as many stories of relieving the damned, as we have of the delivery of the soul● in Purgatory. Now, Sir, I pray if you can have that freedom, by friend's cause it to be asked of the Author, whether he thinks the opinion of delivering and relieving the damned to be true, and I think he will say no. Then let him be pressed, whether these stories be true, or false: It must necessarily follow they are false in his Judgement. Here I would entreat to know what greater certitude there is in our Revelations then in the Grecian ones, or why it is more unlawful for me to give little credit to ours, than it is for him to refuse the Greeks. And so hitherto I believe I may safely say, I have heard nothing, by which I may understand the Greek Church holds the antejudiciary releasing of souls out of Purgatory; the two questions being very divers, of an ordinary releasing out of Purgatory, and an extraordinary releasing out of Hell.  
10. Though my case be very hard, yet I must not conceal it, that I am condemned by Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and at last the Aethiopian Church. And as for the Jews, I cannot deny it, but they hold a true Jew can be but year in pains for his sins, and therefore I must be liable to have erred against the Thalmud. The Alcoran is known to have taken divers points from the Jews, thiough the Turks are said to wear a tuft of hair, by which Mahomet must catch them to carry them to Paradise, when he comes to fetch them, which now, they cannot tell when it will be, seeing the eight hundred years are passed, which he prefixed. Zaga zabo's Aethiopical faith, that in Purgatory there are kept Saturday, and Sunday Holidays every week, whence it hath any ground, I can no more guests, than I can, how Plato, whom he also citys, got such fine stories of the other world. Wherefore helping out his account by Aeneas his returning from Hell through the Ivory Gates of Hearsay, and remembering his prayer to the same purpose; 
Si Fratrem Pollux alterna morte redemit,  
Itque reditque viam toties, etc.  I end this rank of his Testimonies, Noting only, that his inconsequent descant upon the Council of Florence, p. 76. was prevented by me in Religion and Reason, p. 60. Though he thinks it the safest way not to take notice of my former Replies, when they disable any Testimonies, which he concieves bear some show of weight and Authority.  
11. Besides these his Arch-Patrons, he hath some by-helps, which I must examine. I find them of two kinds, some express that at that very time, in which Prayers are said for the dead, the dead feel some relief. For this his chief Testimony is from the story of the Idolatrous skull, whose words he citys to be. At what hour you make commemoration of those, and pray for them, who are in pain, they feel some comfort. And I cannot deny but the Doctrine agrees very well both with the Devil who spoke it, and the Pulpit, out of which he preached.  
12. His next Authority is out of one Leontius, an holy Bishop, who wrote the life of St. John the Almoner, a man who spent great Alms upon all sorts of poor, and specially upon those who were plundered by the Persians, who in those times took the Holy Land, and amongst other Captives, one a Cypriot, who having been prayed for by his friends as a dead man, was thrice in a year set free from his bands (but not from his Prison) for one day's space, and found fast the next day. And it is added, that the Holy Bishop St. John relating this story was used to say, From hence we learn, that the dead have then rest when we make Collects for them. This is the story, and for the authenticalness of it, this Divine mentions how this work of Leontius was attested in the second Council of Nice. But he does not tell us, that the authentical copy of this book is not extant, but only a Paraphrasis of it made by Metaphrastes, of whom good Authors have that opinion, that he added many things of his own, and that he wrote Saints lives, not as they truly passed, but as they might have passed, and this Judgement is not of him only in common, but particularly of this life of St. John. And concerning this very story, you may note two things, The one, that he telis the story to have passed in Cyprus, whereas St. John lived in Alexandria; Secondly, that, whereas other stories of the same nature in Pope Gregory, and Venerable Bede, make the Bands remain loose, this story makes them to be supernaturally bound again; which seems to be against the nature of God's gifts, which are given without repentance, but much favours the Doctrine of Relief in Hell. Wherefore it is vehemently to be suspected, that those words then and when come from his Paraphrase, and that the Saints words reached no farther then what we read in others, that this story argued that prayers relieved the dead; As truly no more can be gathered out of such Histories, which are Parabolical; and it were very absurd to parallel small circumstances betwixt corporeal Allegories, & spiritual things signified by them. Howsoever the Authority can be no greater than of Metaphrastes, who is held in a Rhetorical way to fain many things; and it is to be noted, that he lived after Gregory the Third's d●ys, and peradventure after the time of the Oration De dormientibus was written.  
13. Being freed from these sleight stories, we may see what Testimonies of solid Fathers he brings for his opinion. He citys St. Denys, but never a word, which brings the Testimony home to our Controversy, he speaking but in common of the remission of the sin. His second Author is St. Athanasius. The words, that The souls of sinners feel some benefit when good works and offerings are performed for them. This Testimony has three faults. First the Author is not St. Athanasius, as is so manifest by the work itself, that it is a gross mistake to cite it as his, though this Divine be not the first who objected it to me; and farther it is clear, the Author wrote since the Turks were Masters of Greece, by the phrase of calling the Romans Frenchmen. His second fault is, that he distinguishes not dead, but pronounces of all dead men's souls: which argues the opinion of those, who hold relief in Hell. Thirdly, these words, When good works, etc. are equivocal, and may be as well interpreted, that good works are the causes of relief, as they do the time, unless other words force them to be taken emphatically, which do not appear here. St. Ephrem is also cited, but not in what work, nor of what certainty, for his works are very ambiguous. Besides, that he is cited out of another Author named Severus Alexandrinus, who, what he was I know not; One I read of, but an Arch-heretick. The Testimony itself smells of the intervals, which the comforters of Hell invent; and the works attributed to St. Ephrem are so uncertain, that no guess can be made of what value this Authority is.  
14. The Testimonies he citys out of St. Epiphanius, and St. Chrysostom are more certain, but they favour my opinion, not his. For to help, and not cancel the sin, and that some comfort accrues to the dead by the sacrifice of the Mass, are the very expressions, which we use. But the other words, to wit, that it may happen that a total pardon may be obtained for them by our prayers, comes out of a false Translation. The true Translation is, that it is possible to gather pardon from all sides by prayer, that is, that abundance of prayers may be gotten either from all sorts of persons; or all sorts of actions towards getting of pardon: for St. Chrysostom makes mention of both. And these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies motion from the circumference to the centre. His last place of St. Chrys. out of the 21 Homily upon the Acts, I must tell him if he had not another Text than I, he hath much abused the good Saint. The words as I read them are, est enim, si voluerimus, leve ipsi supplicium facere. If we will, it is possible to make his punishment light. Which he translates lighter, to which he adds as his own descant to make out the Testimony, than it was at first. Much from the Saints mind, who, though he be earnest to persuade to prayers and good works, yet never descends to more particulars then that they will do some good, or else that the Living shall get good by them; nobis Deus placatior erit, which St. Austin also glances at, to wit, when the soul is damned. Now if the torment of the dead be sooner ended, your Divine will not doubt, but that it is lighter.  
15. But I must not forget his citation of St. Greg. Nazianzen, of which he seems to make great esteem, and it is least of all to the purpose. For, as it is true St. Gregory speaks of a Purging before Resurrection, so is it clearly to be understood of that, which is made by death, as is evident by that expression, either purged or laid aside; For nothing can be understood to be laid aside, but the body, and what is laid aside with it. So that all his expression is of the effect of death, and nothing touching what is to be done in the pure spirit. And so I am quit of this troublesome Chapter, without any mention of delivering souls out of Purgatory in the Greek Fathers.  
16. As for the Greek Church he brings me a Letter from some Town, wherein there lived many Catholic and Learned Grecians, from whom his friend received this Character, that all the Grecian Catholic Church approves, and admits privileged Altars and Indulgences for the souls in Purgatory, the which they believe go straight to Heaven as soon as they have satisfied. And I am so far from discrediting this Letter, as that I sincerely believe it, and yet think what I said to be true. For this word Catholic Greek Church is not exempt from the Law of other words, to wit, that it may be understood in divers senses by divers speakers; so that if this City he speaks of signifies either Rome, or Venice, which are the likeliest Cities of Christendom to have Grecians of that quality living in them, and the Greeks in those two Cities communicate with none but such as either live under Latin Governors, and so do easily follow their customs, or otherwise are instructed by such Missionaries as go from the Greek College in Rome, I do not wonder, that they should answer that the Catholic Grecians hold Indulgences; as they do in Italy: Nay, peradventure may think the rest no Catholics even upon this score. But, when I spoke of the Greek Church, I spoke of the descendants from the Greeks, which made the Union in the Council of Florence, without receiving any new Doctrine since.   

THIRD DIVISION, Containing an Answer to his sixth Chapter.  
Testimonies from Latin Fathers before St. Austin, either savouring of Millenarism, or opposite to the Alledger, or (not found, but) framed to his purpose by Additions of his own; and, lastly, his only express Testimony, uncertain.  
1. IN the sixth Chapter he pretends to show that the Latin Church before St. Austin held the delivery of souls out of Purgatory before the day of Judgement. His two first Testimonies, according to the custom of those whose chief end is to make a show, hang in the position which is common to both sides, being but pure prayers that deceased souls should go to Heaven, without specifying when. But because his devotion was so hot, that it could not expect God's pleasure and determination, he would have us believe it was meant presently.  
2. His next two Testimonies are drawn from the Heresy of the Millenaries, praying to God, that the soul may rise in the first resurrection. For the former Testimony being Tertullias, of whom it is known that he was of that Sect, and the words being proper to that Sect, it cannot be doubted of his meaning. The second Testimony is from the Gothick Liturgy, the which of what authority it is I know not. We well know the Goths were Arrians for the most part of their Flourish in Italy, and a great while in Spain; we know that this Millenary Error was greatly dispersed even amongst Catholics, but more amongst Heretics, who have not the rule of Unity and Tradition, which keep Catholics from easy changing. The words of the prayer are the proper words of the Millenarians. The glosses he seeks to make, as they may be good to the Text of the Apocalypse; so is their sense too far fetched to be the sense of a prayer for common People. Wherefore either it is a pure piece of Millenarism, or at least he must first vindicate it from being so, before it can serve him for a Testimony. Now the Chiliasts Error was, that Christ was to reign upon Earth corporally with his Saints for a thousand years before the general resurrection, then to give the hundredfold of what his Saints had forsaken for his sake in this world, according to his promise in the Gospel. But, because this was a corporal resurrection, therefore, though there had been no Heresy in the position, it could serve your Divine to no purpose. Now it serves only to show how short his performance falls from his bragging promises.  
3. His next authority comes truly after St. Augustine's time, being a story out of St. Gregory of Tours contemporary to the Great, yet because it is of St. Martin it must speak for St. Martin's age. The story, as he relates it, is of a Holy Virgin, to whom St. Martin after her death procured bliss. His first Note is, that Saints, whose Sepulchers are visited for Saints Sepulchers, may yet stay some while in Purgatory: I easily grant him that, without the Authority of this story. For the fallibility of People's Judgements in such things is very well known. And I should not boggle at it, though it were until the day of Judgement. His second Note is, that St. Martin in the primitive Church believed as we do. But for this, I know not that the name of the Primitive Church reaches after Constantin's time, and St. Martin was but a young man in Julian's time, when, being but a Catechumen, he gave half his Cloak to our Saviour. Farther to think he believed as we do is a hard matter. For I must first believe the story to be true, which may be doubted, since St. Gregory gives testimony of it only as a report he had heard from some old men, who lived where this Tomb was, and none of them could have had been witness of the fact, which was passed 1●0 years before. So that it has no better Authority then of a Country tale. Nor does St. Gregory's Vote (which is his third Note) much mend it, as he may easily see, if he reads Baronius his Opinion of St. Gregory's History, T. 2. An. 109. Sect. 49. And in the true History (which he sets down but by halves) there are divers inconvenient circumstances. One he makes mention of, to wit, that the Holy Maid was kept from Heaven by reason of a no very great fault; but in the History you cannot perceive there was any fault at all. His fourth Note is, that St. Gregory the great was not the first, that began to write such stories: but St. Gregory of Tours before him. Those that will be accurate say seventeen years before him, if that, in such a question as this is not to be together. But truly I believe it was one hundred at least. For the Pope Gregory tells so many of like stories, that a popular Error can hardly be thought to grow so fast, as that the first should have been, but seventeen years before it could grow so common.  
2. Then he comes to St. Hierom, out of whom he recounts what words a soul delivered out of Purgatory may say. And if you ask what this is to the purpose, he answers by adding to the words of St. Hierom, that the soul speaks this before the resumption of her body, and proves it; because the Saint passing to other things saith, they shall be done in the consummation of the world. Is not this goodly stuff for a Divine to fill a Book withal?  
3. Next in rank is brought in St. Ambrose with the Elegy of the Father in Christ to St. Austin. Out of him he citys two places. The first out of the Preparatories to Mass assigned for Friday. His words, to entreat that the Mass may this very day (in great Letters) be a great and full banquet of thee (Jesus Christ) the living Bread, which came from Heaven. I would he had taken the pains to apply his Text to our question: for I find a great difficulty. Yet I think I can find two pretty good constructions. The one is to understand it objectively, the other efficiently: For the proposition being, that the Mass should be this banquet, either it must be meant, that the dead should rejoice of his saying of Mass by way of the devotion, that is used to be called, communicating spiritually, or else that the Mass should be cause of their seeing of God. Whether way soever it be taken, the effect of the prayer is, that he may this day say Mass with that Charity and Devotion, as that it may be profitable to the souls of the dead. But both these may be done without any change in the souls. For if his Mass prove so good, the souls knew of it, at their first going out of the body, and were to have the effect of it in its due time, merely by the position of the Action this very day, without any great Letters. But to understand it as it must be understood to serve for his purpose, that this very day the souls should receive bliss, was a very uncivil request, to expect Purgatory should be emptied for the saying of one Mass; and surely takes away all excuse from the Pope, why he likewise doth not give such Indulgences as at lest once in the year to make a Goal-delivery of Purgatory, that Christians might have as much privilege as the Jews to lie but one twelve month in that place. But specially this request befitted not St. Ambrose, whom we shall have our Divine bring in promising to pray longer for one soul, than one Mass comes to.  
4. By occasion of the great Letters of This very day our Divine remembered there wanted great Letters in a former citation of the commendation of the soul, and therefore repeats it adding great Letters that the soul might show a patent to go out of Purgatory that day. But he had forgot, that the soul which is there prayed for is taken to be not yet in Purgatory; nor to have received her judgement. And if he look into the Fathers, and see how hopefully they speak of dying Christians, he will not wonder at such prayers.  
5. Into which Doctrine if he had looked he would not have been so confident of his next citation out of St. Ambrose, as if St. Ambrose had intended to starve himself in Prayer for the delivery of Theodosius his soul. For he may find that St. Ambrose thought Theodosius to be in Heaven when he pronounced the words he citys. Wherefore if the answer I gave to this Testimony in my Notes on the fourth Chapter of the Result does not please him, let him distinguish the two goods that belong to the soul, the one beginning at death, the other at the day of Judgement, and take notice, that he that has the one may be prayed for to come to the other, as St. Austin seems to do for Verecundus. So then these words he citys belongs to the good to be received by Judgement, as likewise those in the same Oration; Da requiem perfectam servo tuo Theodosio, requiem illam quam praeparasti Sanctis tuis. And let these others, Regnum mutavit, non deposuit, in tabernacula Christi; jure pietatis ascitus in illam Hierusalem supernam, etc. And again, Manet ergo in lumine Theodosius, & sanctorum caetibus gloriatur; And again, Nunc se augustae memoriae Theodosius regnare cognoscit, quando in regno Domini Jesu est. Let these, and such others explicate that he was not in Purgatory, or Torment, of which there is no mention, nor of delivering him from them, but not as yet corporally in Heaven, whither nevertheless St. Ambrose expected his prayers should bring him: So that nothing can be more direct and plain for my opinion, than this Oration of St. Ambrose.  
6. His last witness is St. Paulinus, who could not speak home enough, and therefore our Divine teacheth him his duty, that he should not pray only, that the dew of Grace should refrigerate the souls which lay scorched in burning darkness, as the Saint spoke; but that this change should be presently made, for else it is nothing to his purpose.  
7. And thus have we got through his sixth Chapter, where there is nothing more for this purpose; then that there was an uncertain tale of St. Martin told in St. Gregory of Tours his days, and unwarily accepted of by him. St. Ambrose notoriously for my side, and the rest common for both sides, and inched out by our Divines devices.   

FOURTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his sixth Chapter.  
Pretended Testimonies for St. Austin' s opinion, partly abusing that Father, making himself-contradicting and blasphemous, partly inefficacious without the Allegers assistances, opposite to the te●et they are brought for, or utterly unauthentick. The great rarity of Mr. J. M's. unanswerable demonstration, coming off very unfortunately.  
1. HIS seventh Chapter is wholly spent about St. Austin, to make him for the present delivery, or at least refreshment of souls in Purgatory. A hard task, but truly he behaves himself manfully in it. For he sticks not to give St. Austin the lie to his teeth, and tell him and us that he says what St. Austin in plain terms says he knows not. Two places then he draws out of St. Austin in the front, which the rest must second. The former is in the Chapter 109. of his Enchiridion. His words, The time, that is place between the death of man, and his last resurrection contains souls in hidden receptacles, according as each one of them is worthy either of rest or of misery as she has made her fortune when she lived in her flesh. And after some words of his own, he adds. And of these souls he saith, It is not to be denied, that then when the Sacrifice of our Mediator is offered for them, they are eased. He adds the Latin words, Relevari cum●pro●e●s offertur. He tells us farther that the Conclusion of the Chapter is, that to whomsoever they (prayers) are available, they avail to make the forgiveness complete, or at least to make the pain itself more tolerable. This is the main place; for the second is but as it were a repeating of the last words of this in his Book of eight Questions to Dulcitius: So that it is a confirmation, that St. Austin spoke the first words not slightly, but upon a constant resolution.  
2. He adds divers caveats to make his argument sure, and some replies upon answers which I shall not give him. The which therefore I shall partly omit, partly touch as far as they shall open the question. For the present I only ask whether if any man being asked whether Mr. J. M. were gone to London, should answer, truly I do not know, but if he be gone to London, 〈◊〉 am sure he went by Dunstable, for there is no other way; whether I say, that man could take it well at one's hands, who would take his oath he had said Mr. J. M. was gone to London by Dunstable, and justify it to his face. Now, my Answer is, that Mr. J. M. doth so to St. Austin. He brings two places, in which he tells St. Austin he says souls are released, or refreshed in Purgatory: And St. Austin in the very same Books in precedent Chapters, expressly professes he doth not know whether there be any such purgation, or no. The one place is in the 19 Chapter of the Enchiridion he citys, whereas his Chapter is the 109th. The second is in the resolution of the first question to Dulcitius, whereas his is in the second question: The words are these in his own Translation, about the end of this Chapter, It is not incredible also that some such thing may be after this life; And whether it be so or no, it may be examined, and either be discovered, or continue hidden, to wit, that some of the faithful are by a certain Purgatory fire, so much sooner or later saved, by how much more or less they set their affections upon transitory goods. And the same words has he in his E●chiridion, out of the which he repeats them in this. I might take notice, that St. Austin's word being qu●ri potest, it may be inquired, or sought for, which signifies that as yet it had not been looked into, he interprets it examined, as if it had been doubted of. Secondly, that whereas St. Austin expresseth the question to be, whether some faithful People be sooner or later saved, by his own Translation, and therefore this was that which might be found or not found out, your Gentleman will draw that St. Austin says that it cannot be proved that their opinion is false, but only that it may lie hidden. And I cannot deny but that his Cavil is cunning. But I pray when the question is of being, or not being, cannot the solution be either that it is, or is not, and if the question be not solved (which is, the solution to lie hidden) are not both parts hidden, and not only one? So that this answer is expressly against the Text.  
3. His other solution is no less either against the Text, or unreasonable, for indeed it is a mere puzzle, and not an answer. For what matter is it whether the object be lawful or unlawful, if this be confessed that the affection is sinful? Therefore it is not to be doubted but the question is, whether sins in Purgatory be shorter and longer punished, according to their gravity? For, let him look whether St. Austi● speaking of the punishment in this life, puts it for any thing but sin. Wherefore, if Bellarmin had no better solution, it was not worth the looking for, and he rather disgraced the Catholic cause then helped it by so poor a discourse. Therefore I can conclude no otherwise then that your Divine gives St. Austin fairly the lie to his face, seeing that where he professes expressly he doth not know, nor that it had as yet been brought in question whether in Purgatory some souls were purged sooner than others, This Divine tells him he does know, and brings his words to make him eat them. But what are these words of St. Austin. It is true he saith, The souls are help● by prayers, which is the position common to us both. But then when is your Divines liberality, whom I find light fingered enough in his Translations.  
4. St. Augustine's adds that to whom prayers are available, aut ad hoc prosunt ut sit plena remissio, vel aut certe tolerabilior fiat ipsa damnatio. Your Divine explicates it, that in Purgatory, either all the pain, or some part be remitted. But reading St. Austin makes me think that he speaks of Purgatory and Hell. For he speaks in common of the dead, & descends particularly both to the damned and those in Purgatory; and of the Damned he pronounces that, Etsi nulla sunt adjumenta mortuorum, qualescunque vivorum consolationes sunt: As who should say their damnation is less, because it is good to their living friends, according to the prayer of the rich glutton in Hell, who would not have his Brothers come to him; which if it be the true meaning he will put that all prayers for those in Purgatory obtain full remission, to wit, when the time comes. And though it be clear, that seeing these words can be spoken no otherwise then upon supposition of a truth which he expresses to be unknown to him in the same Book (and in the one hath these words, Sive ergo in hac tantum vita ista homines patiuntur, sive etiam post hanc vitam alia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret, etc.) they truly signify nothing to our Controversy, yet let them be taken in all the rigour the words can bear, they say nothing against our opinion: For both full remission in virtue of the prayers may belong to the day of Judgement, and the more tolerableness of the pains argues not that the pains are lessened after the beginning, nor that they receive end before the day of Judgement. For God being the imposer of the pain in their way, and all things being present to him, he can, when he list, that is, at the first instant, proportion the pains as well to prayers as to sins, and set such a pain to endure to the day of Judgement, that the merit of prayer may have its value notwithstanding the equality of the duration: This I speak in your Divines manner of discourse, so that you may see that this conclusion may stand with their apprehensions of Purgatory, so Revelations were set on side.  
5. Out of the explication of this place, all other places out of St. Austin are plain, though indeed even without this place they have no difficulty. For who doubts but that the dead are helped by prayers; and if helped, dealt more mercifully withal? or that this is come to us by Tradition? Likewise there is no question whether these torments begin before the day of Judgement, or at the very hour of our death, but whether they end before that day. Nor likewise do we question whether they be purged after resurrection: For our position is, that Resurrection is the end of their torments. But these I easily pardon him, for I easily apprehend he understandeth not fully my opinion. Wherefore to talk to him in his own Language, let him compare an Instans Angelicum to the time it dures for example sake some grief, that in a soul would be purging to the time which runs parallel to it, and see whether it will not be a purging in every instant of time, and yet will have purged nothing until the Resurrection, which we put to be the ending of the pains of Purgatory: by which you will understand how far he looks awry, to say we put no purging before the day of Judgement, but all at or after it.  
6. Yet were he content to abuse St. Austin in a small matter, we had reason to have patience. His insolency grows so high as to condemn him of no less than Blasphemy. Read in his fifth Number. After he hath told us that St. Austin speaks of spirits being purged before they receive their bodies, not distinguishing betwixt Purging, and being purged, which later St. Austin speaks not of, He adds to make it more evident that he speaks of a purgation wholly ended and dispatched, before any one resume their body: And tells that St. Austin moves the question if any die so immediately before the day of Judgement, that there is not time enough for prayers to be said for them, what shall become of them; And St. Austin's resolution he doth not let us know, but he presses that St. Austin requires time that they may be cleansed before the day of Judgement. To which is answered, I see well that the objection seems to do so, but why the objection St. Austin makes should be taken for his Doctrine, I do not know. And if I were to answer the question, I should doubt whether the great Persecution of Antichrist's times, and the wonders of the dying world, can stand with that tepidity, which carries men to Purgatory. But what says your great Divine? He tells us St. Austin stands in doubt whether a man who died then in the state of being to be purged, should not be damned if there wanted time to purge him; That is, that St. Austin is of mind that a Venial sin becomes a mortal one by an extrinsical accident, that changeth nothing in the soul. Can you take this man either to be a solid Divine, or to bear any respect to St. Austin, that sticks not to impose such an abominable Error and Blasphemy upon him? As to say, that God is so cruel as to punish a man eternally, who loves him as his last end, and otherwise deserves it not merely for want of time to punish him: St. Austin would persuade himself that God would rather keep off the day of Judgement, and let all the world stay for their resurrection, so abominable a Blasphemy he would take it to be.  
7. In his seventh N. he tells us news of an unanswerable demonstration against us: but because it belongs not to St. Austin, I shall let it alone until he comes to his Reasons. Another Authority than he brings out of this, that St. Austin praying for his Mother, says, that he doubts not but that God had granted his request. So your faithful interpreter translates these words, Credo jam feceris quod te rogo, I believe thou hast done already what I ask thee: which is no more than that he believed his Mother was already in Bliss, to wit, from the first hour she died; but that she had gotten it by his prayers not a word, if not expressly contrary; for he expresses that his prayer was after the dead.  
8. The next Text I know not whether he means to bring it for himself, or for me, but surely it speaks for me; that is so expressly of the day of Judgement, that there is no comparison. The fire which the Apostle testifies to go before Christ's coming to Judgement, being the chief subject of the place, and himself confessing the literal sense of the Prophecy to be so, but that St. Austin (to do him a pleasure) might apply it to Purgatory. Nay, that St. Eucherius does plainly, which put together makes this Conclusion; that Purgatory is terminated with the last Judgement, as my position holds forth. His last Testimony is out of the Sermons, ad Fratres in Eremo, the which he says have crept into the times of St Austin. But whence? Baronius answers you, calling the Author of them Impostorem & fictorem frigidum, qui multa delira, vana, fabulosa effutiat, & portentosa mendacia blaterat.   

FIFTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to the eighth and ninth Chapter.  
Testimonies from St. Austin to Bede, either unsound in Faith or Divinity. St. Gregory's mis-translated and maimed. Canus his Rule opposite to the Allegers intention, Venerable Bede not engaged in our Controversy. The first Allegation from him misinterpreted. Drithelmus his Revelation opposite to the Church's Doctrine.  
1. HIS eighth Chapter contains the Authors betwixt St. Austin and Bede. The which to make the fuller, he divides one Author into Eusebius Emissenus, and Eucherius Lugdunensis; and, if I am not mistaken, it is the same, whom before he cited for St. Austin. The words be afore answered, and the answer is, that they deliver directly my opinion, seeing they mention both the fire of Judgement, and the Condition of Purgatory, that the last farthing must be paid in it.  
2. After this Trinity and Unity, he brings in two Fathers, whose works I cannot yet get to see, St. Isidore, and St. Julian of Poledo; Their Testimonies both seem to be derived from St. Austin, but with their own explications or additions, which I must desire your Divine to make consonant to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church before I accept of them; Otherwise I must think the Text some ways corrupted. Peradventure when I see the Texts, some solution may appear. In the mean while he makes Isidore tell us, that suffrages profit the dead, not to any merit of eternal life, but ad solutionem poenae; which he interprets the payment of their pains; And I, the releasing, or dissolving of their pains. And I think more properly. For suffrages are Votes or Intercessions, and belong to Impetration, not to Bargaining: Which as far as I have heard, was not thought of in those days. But this by the way: My difficulty is, how, seeing we see all the prayers for the dead to be supplications to bring them to Heaven, and enjoying of God, it can be denied that these suffrages of the Saints profit the dead towards the gaining of Heaven, and merit of eternal life. Surely he must say one thing is prayed for, and another thing given. I doubt if I get the Book I shall find some other dash of a cunning Painter i● this citation, yet take it as it lies as far as concerns our question. the same solution we gave to St. Austin's words, how the pain is mitigated or released, serves for the meaning of this Saint, who seems clearly by the very words to have drawn it of St: Austin.  
3. St. Julian's Testimony also as far as he adds to St. Austin's words contain this Doctrine. That the torment of fire in Purgatory is equal to all souls, and only different in duration. He gives us the words thus, What is performed in those who are reprobate by distinction of their torments (into sharper or milder, is his comment) that is performed by the measure of time in those who are saved by fire. For to them lesser or greater punishment of Purgatory fire shall be so much the more extended (according to the measure of time, adds your Divine) by how much they have here more or less loved temporal goods. So that the addition this Father Father maketh to St. Austin is that the Variety of Purgatory pains rises purely out of the measure of time. The which Doctrine I have not heard of either before this Saint or after. And yet I cannot but confess it is a Doctrine necessary to the maintenance of this opinion, that souls are released from Purgatory, some sooner, some later: For, putting that the pains of Purgatory are some more grievous than others, that variety would take away all just occasion of ones being delivered before another; for the lessening of pain would recompense the length of time in him that is longer there for lesser faults, and leave the proportion of justice still constant in both: Now, as it is not impossible this Holy Father might hold this Doctrine, though I believe your Divine if he should speak his conscience, would say he thought it false, so why your Divine should be so stiff upon one half of the proposition, and refuse the other, let himself answer, specially one depending upon the other, and having no ground but upon the other, which itself hath no ground at all.  
4. We are come to his ninth Chapter, and the Visionarie Ages. And first he brings in St. Gregory the Great, and he accuses me that unskilfully and injuriously I make this our Apostle and Father in Christ to be Father of their opinion. And I cannot deny but I was in the wrong and liable to his blame: But I hope I have given him satisfaction in part in my answer to the Vindicatour, which by all circumstances he could not choose but have heard of before the printing his Book, yet pleased not to take notice of. He may find it in pag. 77. and repeated in my Notes upon the Result, pag. 32, 33. 70, 71, 72. So that, supposing my confession will deserve his absolution, I confess my fault to have laid that Book so flatly to St. Gregory's charge, whereas I find now some reasons to doubt of it. But yet I cannot deny but that the Author of that Book was the main Origin and supporter of the opinion. Nor doth his opposition remove me from believing the Author, who telleth it me with his own mouth. Your Divine himself citys the words, but not without the mystery of a Translator. For the Pope's words in the Person of his Deacon are. Why in these Testimonies (by the answer, I conceive he means towards the end of the World) so many things concerning souls, (clarescunt) become clear, which before lay hidden: In so much that the world to come seems to open and press itself upon us by plain Revelations and Manifestations. Your Divine instead of do grow clear, which signifies the present time, puts were discovered. For which before were hidden, he translates, had remained undiscovered, as if they were not things, which needed Revelation, but only Discovery. The last words by which its manifest that the discovery is made by Revelations and not by our endeavours, he quite leaves out. He fairly grants that the Pope acknowledges the case of the question to be true; And gives the answer, to wit, that the nearer this world araws to the next, the state of the next is by more signs made manifest, as the latter part of the night partakes of the dawning of the day. I wonder if the question were divided, and first asked, did this knowledge begin in this Age? What could be more plainly answered then, in these latest or ending times. If it were asked, was the Doctrine delivered before? what more plain than Ante latuerunt, they were before unknown. If it were asked by what means do they now come to be known? what more plain then, by plain Revelations and Manifestations or Apparitions. I wonder where is the sincerity I saw, or thought I saw in this man at my first acquaintance with him that he should bring so manifest and plain an assertion into question? I fear a new Divinity hath taught him also new Morality.  
5. For his own defence he objects that St. Gregory in the former Chapters, for nine Chapters together had recounted strange things of souls, wherefore it may be the Author meaned of them. Nor will I deny that; but, seeing the story is the occasion of the question, and immediately advances and brings it in, there is no probability this should be none of those he speaks of. I should be tedious to my Reader to press a thing so clear beyond enough. Therefore I will only note how unlikely this Testimony and the alleging of it is to the practice of Magdeburgians, by which he would obscure it. For here is expressly held forth; Now it begins, it was unknown before Revelations, and, the pressing upon us of the next world; not old Tradition, doth manifest these things, of which kind if the Magdeburgians would bring proof, this Divine would find a hard task to maintain the contrary.  
6. He makes mention of the Judgement of Canus concerning these stories of Pope Gregory, and venerable Bede, and expresses it, that the Nicety of this Age will not credit them; so he translates Aristarchi, which word signifies the grave Censurers or good Divines, to whom Censuring belon●… And truly I do not doubt but if such stor●●s were written now, they would be forbidden as some have been: For indeed they undermine Christian Divinity, by introducing vaga bond Purgatories, Circumstances not according to the Rule of faith to be required to Salvation; and scarcely can you find a story of any length, but it hath a smack of somekind of superstition in it. He adds a Rule of Canus to distinguish Histories as to their truth; to wit, to see whether the Author relates what himself saw or had from those who saw it. In which kind of stories he says it is an heinous offence, to suspect that approved Doctors will recommend a lie to eternal memory.  
7. This Rule being settled, he produces the story of the simoniacal Monk, whom his Abbot, Author of the story, caused after 30 day's Purgatory to be redeemed by thirty Masses. Well then, according to our Rule let us not deny any thing that the Author saw or had from those who saw it. We must confess then, that the Monk was simoniacal; His fellow Monks forbidden to assist at his death; His body with the money buried without Christian Ceremonies, No prayers for him for a whole month, and Mass for the second month. All this was seen, and therefore we should wrong the Author, and offend against Canus his Rule if we denied any of this. After this follows how after thirty days the Monk appeared to his Brother (who as I remember was an Apothecary, and the Apparition in his Sleep) telling him hitherto I have been in bad case; but now I am well; For this day I have received the Communion, which (says your Divine) I understand to be the full effect of the Communion of the Saints. I pray, Sir, do you think Pope Gregory, or Copiosus who had the Vision were eye-witnesses of this gloss? and yet the verity of the History depends chiefly and mainly upon it. For, if it be not true, there is somewhat that stands not well with ordinary Divinity, and so the whole History the which subsists upon Copiosus', whether you call it vision or dream, will fall to the ground. Now I see the forbidding of his fellow Monks to assist the Simoniacal Person at his death, and the burying of him unchristianly, was a kind of Excommunication to him; and this without question we are to think he alluded to whatsoever the dark meaning of the word be, which seems rather to be a fancy that run in Copiosus' head, out of what he had seen done to his Brother, then to bear any perfect sense with it.  
8. Your Divine here hath another pretty invention, which if he can prove, I shall submit to all he saith of Purgatory. He lays it forth in these words. Lastly, some are so ignorant in Antiquity, as to account it an exotical kind of Excommunication which is extended to Purgatory. And I confess myself one of those. Yet, he must not bring instances to me, how dying or dead men were excommunicated. For all that I shall not stick to grant him; but I shall tell him, Christian Burial and public Prayers and Ceremonies, were forbidden to be exhibited towards them, tó terrify the living, not to endamage the soul. And so the present History tells how much other Monks were terrified by the example of this punishment laid on the Simoniacal Monk: I know some Greeks have been of the opinion that the bodies also of excommunicate persons could not dissolve into Earth until Absolution was given to them: But I know likewise it was held to be an Error. And, as for this action of the Abbot, I confess I understand it not. For had he had the apprehension that the torments of Purgatory be so great as Divinity tells us, he could never methinks have with a Christian heart spoken those words, It is now a good while since our brother who is departed remains in torments of fire, and therefore we must show him some charity. As who should say, I am content he hath suffered the pains of Purgatory for one month, nay two, for so long it was before he designed him to be released. Imagine he had caused him to be racked or impaled so long, would not all the Christian World have abominated the cruelty? What conceit then had he of Purgatory, that would let his Brother burn in that cruel fire so long without showing him any Charity? I would to God your Divine had told us where we might find that Vindication o● the Book he speaks of; For the more I consider it, the more unworthy it seems to me to be our great Doctor, and savour more of the Monk then of the Pope. Though, besides, he tells us that this story happened three years before his writing, and Baronius tells that the Book was written in the fourth year of St. Gregory's Popedom, at which time St. Gregory could not be in his Monastery. Nor do I think Baronius can rattle Canus for this opinion then, since he held it himself in his eighth Tome, and revoked it in his ninth; Therefore he may have patience with one who falls into the Error, into which himself fell before.  
9 Let us omit that ridiculous opinion of excommunicating souls in Purgatory, and answer the question he puts, what any Judicious Catholic can say to the story? Which is, that the Author of this Book showeth no such exact inspection into every circumstance, as that any man should be bound to believe that he could not be deceived, either in his Judgement, or in his narration, as that truly Copiosus knew not of the saying of the Masses. And I wish you to note your Divine's advice he gives, that when the Author makes this Argument that concordante visione cum Sacrificio res apertè claruit, he speaks like a Doctor. Is this Tradition, or Scripture, or Councils, upon the which Doctours proceed, or a common and ordinary prudence, by which every man conducts his private business?  
10. There follow two stories out of Venerable Bede, written as an Historian should write, and as it was worthy of his Learning and Wisdom. The first is nothing to the Alledger's Purpose, being but of the profiting of the Mass to the dead, which is the position common to us both. That which he chiefly takes notice of, is this word delivery, or losing, as if we held the souls were never to be delivered, or that their delivery came not to pass by prayers and other good works: So that this being agreed on, and that there is no specification of time, there is nothing particular in this story, but that many who heard this story were devoutly inflamed in faith; to wit, to pray for the dead; by which we understand that this story was the occasion of their apprehension of sudden delivery, which hath no other ground then the parallelling of the losing of his fetters to the help in Purgatory, which every man would guests of according to the principles he was before imbued with: So that both the effect is common to both opinions, and the ground every one's application of the Miracle to a spiritual effect, which they saw no otherwise then in a corporeal allegory. But your Divine explicates inflamed in faith, which as it lies, signifies no more than that they grew fervent towards good life, to signify that they had received this faith from the beginning, which, seeing there is no ground for it in the Author, is but a kind of a corruption of the Text by the Divines addition to it.  
11▪ The later story of Drithelmus hath one circumstance that favours your Divines opinion, but the very same words have a blot to mar it, that is, what you● Divine (I doubt) will acknowledge to be a flat Heresy. I mean that these words. all shall come to Heaven in the day of Judgement, include some who have no Obstacle of Sin, to wit, those in the fourth place. So that he affirms them not to go to Heaven as soon as purged, against the Council of Florence and Benedictus his Bull. Whence, by the Rule that no Revelations are to be admitted, which contain any thing inconsonant to Faith, this Revelation is to be rejected: not so far as concerns venerable Bede, who truly relates what Drithelmus not only reported, but truly thought: But that he, Drithelmus, was some way deluded, either because the Vision was a natural effect of foregoing thoughts, or that he mistook himself in the rehearsal, or some such like cause, whereof the contingency of sublunary causes furnish us with store. I pray take notice also that the works of the living help many to be freed before the day of Judgement, be the words of the Angel, not of Venerable Bede; narrative, not doctrinal. Whence you may see this Divine continues still his practice, of proving earnestly that which is not in controversy, and saying little or nothing of that which is the true difficulty.   

six DIVISION, Containing an Answer to his tenth Chapter.  
Of the Nature and Certainty of private Revelations. The rare Spirit in the Jesuits House at Vienna. His Relations (for what in them concerns the Alledger's purpose) found to be in likelihood, what himself entitles them, Stories.  
1. IN his tenth Chapter we must launch into the Ocean of Revelations, for after once by the foregoing Relations they grew into fashion, every Spiritual body had of them, either truly, or at least put upon him. Nay, this very day there want not spiritual directours, which profess a kind of skill in such a space of time to bring their Ghostly Children to Ecstasies and Revelations. And who doubts but that if a Devout soul of herself, subject to those passions which Galen and other Physicians call Extases or Enthusiasms, light into the Government of a Ghostly Father delighted with admirable accidents, both their thoughts being continually busied upon spiritual matters, the Ghostly Father having such a pitch of Divinity as to correct in his Ghostly Child's apprehensions what is plainly naught and contrary to Faith and Christian life, both being constantly conceited that God uses to discover extraordinary verities to those who much converse with them, who, I say, can doubt but many relations of wonderful sights must needs proceed from them, nay many times of things which verily fall out as they see them (as all Heathen Histories recount some which happened so as Philosophers teach us by a secret combination of the soul with outward causes) amongst which the Divine Providence, mingles itself to work its proper ends.  
2. But your Divine and I frame, about these, two propositions, seeming contrary yet so well agreeing that one good conclusion will follow out of both joined together. His proposition is that these Revelations are undeniable because the Authors are known to be of great virtue and integrity, who for a world would not recommend what they thought to be a lie, or not as they deliver it; and the Relatours are either those who had the Vision, or some who had it from them immediately; so that there can likewise be no moral difficulty or doubt of their true relating. This proposition I fully acknowledge, and a man would think that in so doing, I give him full content. Here must I advance my Proposition, which, if it please him as well as his does me, I hope we shall agree in the conclusion to be drawn out of both. Mine then is, that Revelations, Visions, Apparitions, &c. cannot be certain to any body but only to whom they are made, and by consequence it is a folly to seek to prove them to any one who doth not of his own good nature take them for true. As for the party to whom the Revelation is made, I doubt not but God may have such a kind of influence as to make it beyond all doubt that it is himself who speaks to the party; But that it must not rely upon the Authority of this party whatsoever is communicated to others, that is the position I deny. I say therefore, the security of a Revelation may be as great as the Authority of the party to whom it is made: And it must be certain to others, that such a party neither was nor could be deceived in this kind, before we can make any argument from the Revelation. Out of these two propositions I gather this conclusion. That private Relations for the most part can neither be proved nor denied, and therefore make nothing probable or improbable, and so by Divines are to be let alone and laid by, to let the Historians first resolve of them whether they be true or false; which is impossible to do, unless there be some outward effects, which seldom happen in matters of Purgatory of which we treat.  
3. I must add one note about his undeniable stories, that divers of his Authors are known sometimes to have miscarried in their Revelations, as by name St. Brigit, and St. Bernard, as likewise St. Catharin of Sena, St. Mathildis and others. And since I know no more assurance for others then for these, I believe that prudent men will neither doubt but that divers Revelations are true, nor precipitate easily to believe that this in particular is to be held for such. Nevertheless I except those apparitions which come out with Authority beyond exception. As I have light upon one which the Author brags of, that its Authority is not begged from ancient writers, but signified by present experiences, the year the Author printed the seventh Edition of his Book: So that it may be of as great Authority as our Authors Latin book which was translated into many Languages. It came to Sevill where Father Martin de Roa a great Jesuit printed his brave Book in the year 1634, on Monday the twenty ninth of May, when his seventh Edition was quite done; and so it was fain to be put after the end to give you a faithful Testimony of the duration of the pains of Purgatory. The Title of the Book is, Estado de las almas de Purgatorio; and you may have in it, both for Theological resolutions, and for fine stories concerning Purgatory what your heart can wish. Having told you where you may find what you want, I may contract the story itself. Not forgetting that it past at Vienna in Austria, in the Jesuits house there, which I do not know, for they had three in that Town. The substance of the story carries, that a woman one hundred and thirty four years before had killed her two Children with poison, and died six and thirty years and an half afterward, having received the Sacraments, and suffered incredible torments ninety four years and four months. And the Author notes that surely they all three had no body to pray for them that they lay so long in Purgatory. First appeared one of the sons to a lay Brother as he went to see whether all doors were well shut, and laid hands on him to carry him to the Church; but being contented with the promise of three Masses, let him go to bed: Yet as it seems, repenting of his bargain, two hours after came to his bed, to get him out of his bed to go to the Church, though being fed with the promise of four Masses more it left him; but so broken with resisting the violence of the spirit that he could not stir himself. Some three weeks after he came again two several nights with the like violence, and some eight days after came again (as it seems) more gently, and waking him out of his sleep bade him say nothing and follow him, but the Brother speaking and ask what he was, vanished away. Now whether the souls in Purgatory want civility to treat one so rudely of whom they desire succour, or that they do not understand how to insinuate themselves without frighting of People I leave to your Divine, for the Author gives no account, nor likewise why he could not endure to be spoken to. A while after the spirit came to his chamber, and led him silent into the Church, where were other two spirits; but all vanished as soon as the Brother being frighted cried out: and he was found on the Floor in a Town, from which the Physician freed him; yet was he not for some days able to go, he was so weakened. Eight days after he had a new vision, and the next night the apparition of two of the Spirits, who after a great entreating that he would not speak, told him the story above mentioned, and having entreated some prayers, and that he would keep fast and silence 34 hours, let him alone so long, and then appeared all glorious, though two of them before had appeared all white, and the first ever, yet they were all three delivered together. It seems the two Children expected their Mother. They told him how they meant to have led him to their Mother's grave, whom he should have seen in such a case that it would have killed him, if they had not negotiated for his life by the Intercession of their good Angels, because it was revealed unto them, that by his prayers they should that year be set free.  
4. I doubt not but that the great Divine, will out of this Revelation draw high points of Divinity, and enrich the Art of Apparitions greatly. It must needs be more certain than Venerable Bede's revelations, seeing at least three housefull of Jesuits were witness to the whole Process. Therefore it is no doubt but it is as strong a princple of Divinity, as any, if not all the Revelations hitherto cited, and set forth expressly to inform the Christian World of the conditions of Purgatory. I pray then use your diligence to your great Divine to know of him some points in particular. As why the children who could be but young when they died, should be ●●x and thirty years in Purgatory longer than the Mother, since that there is no mention of such enormous sins of theirs as that of their ●other, ●or of any extraordinary penance the Mother had done. Secondly, Why they should stay in Purgatory or at least out of Heaven until their Mother was released. For First one appeared all in white, the other in black; afterwards they both in white, and the Mother partly white, partly black, as if some sins were forgiven, and o●hers not. Why Souls are sent to straggle with People? Why they stand not to their bargains but after having been contented, return again to molest the Party? Why they afflict their Benefactors? How, if a separated Soul offered violence a man could resist it? Why they forbid him to speak, Whereas in other Visions they can not speak until they be spoken to? Why the Spirits vanish if the man spoke or cried out? Why he must fast just 34. hours, and keep silence so long? and you may add what yourself shall think good to enlarge the Science of the st●… of souls in Purgatory. For as to myself I c●… consider such fine stories, without a great suspicion of folly and superstition in those who tell and believe them. And if you ask me what I can guests to be the very truth. I think some body of the House (for he notes it was a College) had a mind to abuse the poor Brother, and when they had begun and saw it take well, they ●ought how to bring it unto such an end as might hinder it to be sought into. Therefore they had a great care he should not make any noise, and as soon as he did, got themselves away: therefore the one came once with a cudgel in his hand, that if any one should come, they might not lay hands on him. Therefore when there was company with him, they came not into the Chamber: And therefore, when they would give the upshot to the whole story, they caused him to fast and ●…under upon his own thoughts until his brain was so weak, that he might believe he saw whatsoever they would have him say. As for the Jesuits of Vienna, I concieve they went innocently to work, further than what much talking and verdicting upon the business, did (unawares to them)▪ after the story. You may object that the Book is licenced by the 〈◊〉 inquisition. I do not deny it, and that as for one of the qualificators (as they call them.) I knew him and bear him very willingly this witness, that he was a very pious man, of a sweet condition, a clear wit, and, according to the course of the Jesuits chools, a great Divine. But all this makes no authority that cannot be deceived in a matter of fact, as the Divines speak, as all Apparitions and Revelations be.  
5. But per adventure your Divine will reply he brings Testimonies which were evident. Here (saith he in his 3 N.) is no secret Vision, no private Revelation, cujus nox conscia sol● est. The words of this dead man professing that he should soon be freed from Purgatory, and his refusing life upon the score were spoken before thousands, and therefore it has the very first degree of Historical certitude. His story is the famous and known relation of St. Stanislaus, how he raised one Peter that had sou●d him a piece of ground, and brought him into the Court to bear witness that he had paid him for his ground, which being done, the man retired to his grave again? Thus far the History hath the grounds he makes such a noise with But your Divine adds that St. Stanislaus offered Peter to continue in this life if he would, which Peter refused because of the uncertainty of salvation in it, and that now his Purgatory was almost at an end, yet prayed the St. to make it shorter by his prayers. By which story we may learn many things which heretofore we were ignorant of. As that it doth not affright a man so much to be in Purgatory, as to see Purgatory, since Drithelmus only by seeing it lived so secure a life that there was no danger of losing Eternity. Secondly that Peter had not got the Charity which some Saints professed in this life, that it was more pleasing to God to live in this world with hazard, to do good for our neighbours, then to go to Heaven immediately. Much less had he learned the Charity of St. Christina mirabilis to live in torments to save others out of Purgatory. Nor also did he consider of this world are lesser than those of Purgatory. Nor had he got the skill that souls have learned since, to know how many Masses or Alms will set them free: Neither that one Mass of so great a Saint at a privileged Altar would free him instantly: Nor (it seems) not so much as that St. Stanislaus was not deaf: Seeing your Divine testifies that he spoke so loud that thousands might be witnesses of them. Nevertheless this Argument of your Divine has that advantage over the rest, that it hath the Authority of being a History, and deserves the Credit which we give to Livy, or Plutarch, or Di●, when they tell us of prodigious events. For Longinus the Canon of Cracovia, out of whom the other Authors have this History, is esteemed of good Judgement, and although he lived long after the fact, and had it ex antiquioribus▪ ●on●mentis, as Baronius testifies, and so the story be not of the first degree of Historical certitude, yet because he is a grave man, an ordinary Historical faith is not to be denied him. But, since your Divine charges me amongst other Readers to take notice that this History is contained in Cromerus his Books of Lessons, approved by the Sea Apostolic; Surely he imagined this Approbation to be a Definition ex Cathedra, or would have his Reader think so: For he could not be ignorant how many times 〈◊〉 Lessons of the Roman Breviary have been corrected, old ones put out, and new ones p●t in. The like in Missals, Rituals, etc. he could not be ignorant that such an Approbation breeds no more Authority then of a grave History, which Cromerus hath of himself; though he be taxed to be the first Broacher of that sweet History of Pope Joan, and therefore no rest of truth.  
6. At least we cannot doubt but the ensuing History is in the first degree of Historical credit. For it was performed in the sight of the whole two Countries of Liege and Brabant, The recounter of the story, schoolfellow to St. Thomas of Aquin, and writes he could bring innumerable witnesses to testify the truth of all he did write. Jacobus, also, de Vitriaco, a famous Cardinal, is an irrefragable witness of the same story; And Cardinal Bellarmin holds it to be undeniable. Who then dare doubt of such a History so throughly authenticated? 〈◊〉 confess it is against my will to make any doubt of it, and should easiler hold it for a History not to be mentioned, then to write my opinion of it. For, considering the story wi●h abstraction from the Author who wrote it, no man could judge it worth the degree of a Romance, but rather a pure Fable of Garagantua, invented for to please Children, or rather to disgrace the Catholic opinion concerning Purgatory. It hath no respect to nature, making this supernatural Ghost, to be now a Bird, now a Fish, now a kind of an Insect to live in fire. And, for acts of Christian life, and to increase in virtuous actions and examples, little or nothing: All miraculous, all hideous sufferings, a life not imitable, wholly corporeal, little spirituality: that setting aside the imagined good of freeing souls out of Purgatory, would not be fit to mention before a prudent Auditory. What necessity can be thought of in the soul of Purgatory for those forty years of her life that was neither before not since? All St. Odiloes and the Clunie Monasteries prayers were begun before: I hear no body of opinion that there go fewer souls to Purgatory since, then in her days. What extraordinary zeal of God. Almighty was it to raise such a great assistance to the souls for one Age? Let us think a little farther. Could so strange a miraculousness endure forty years, and not all Christian People from all parts of Christendom resort to it? Would not all Princes, specially neighbouring one's, cause it to be examined, and have authentical relations brought to them? Would not innumerable foundations for the dead have been made out of the Astonishment of the world at such rare miracles? Would not all Histories, all Chronicles have made mention of it? Would not the Popes themselves have sent to have examined it? Where are ●ll these Testimonies? Cantipratanus was a worthy man, and has at large written the story, true it is. But if you confer him with Gregory the Author of the Dialogues, you may think he may as well be decieved as he was, and was no less given to collect pious stories than the Pope. He affirms he could bring innumerable witnesses then living for what he wro●e. This is a sign it was much talked on, and a popular story in every man's mouth, but how many of this great number would have proved eye-witnesses is not let down; though when a famous story is in vogue, every one who hath been in the Country will be ashamed to say he had not seen it. The Church hath done wisely and worthily in later Ages to command Miracles, should not be published without first being examined: which if it had been done by Cantipratanus, I doubt this story would have fallen very short. Yes, but it hath the authentication of two Cardinals, to wit, of Jacobus a Vitriaco, and Bellarmin. As for the former, he is accounted an able man; but the quality of his approbation being not set down by your Author, I may easily conjecture it is but some memory of fame and hearsay, which gives no great confirmation: And as for Bellarmin, this story puts me in mind, how that good Cardinal was newly dead when I went first into Rome, and the report of his worth in every man's mouth; and amongst other commendations, one was of his Christian simplicity, and that he was according as we phrase it in English, a mere Scholar, and understood not the ways of the world, but was subject to be deluded by fraudulent Persons: And some Learned men have extended the same Censure to his works; full of great reading, but without any great choice and judgement in his Arguments.  
7. There wanted yet a piece of canting Rhetoric to set forth these goodly Merchandizes. You shall have it in the fifth Number: There he tells you that without holding yourself wiser than St. Gregory, and the rest, you have heard of all this while, you cannot hold the contrary. Who would have expected so absurd a proposition from a Divine? In a manner their whole study and pains is to impugn one the other, and descent from great and little, and must we be bound to think they think themselves wiser or better than all from whom they descent? He himself confessedly will descent from two of the chief of these he citys St. Bernard and St. Thomas about our Lady's Conception, peradventure also from Snarez and Vasquez in other points; shall we therefore think he esteems himself wiser than they? As to the particulars we have already answered, and many of those he citys, they are not the men themselves, but the writers of their lives, whose information how good it was we cannot tell; though it be but too evident, that the writers of Saints lives are for the most part desirous to speak the most good of their subject, which they admire; and therefore a slight information is sufficient to make them give credit to what is spoken in their favour; specially in miraculous things. To end his Chapter, he hath another pretty subject; to wit, to persuade his Reader that I think that anciently there were no Visions; and so citys St. Austin, testifying there were many who had seen the pains of Hell; the which as it is nothing to the purpose, so is it a cunning slander to suggest to people that we utterly deny such Miracles.   

SEVENTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to the eleventh and twelfth Chapter.  
His weak Attempts from Liturgies, Rituals, and Offices. With what folly he charges Heresy and Excommunication upon the Doctrine of the Middle State. How the Pope truly applies the merits of the Saints to the assistance of souls in Purgatory. The Pope's Bull corruptedly alleged. The Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther, not touching the Authors Doctrine. What Authority the Council of Trent gave the Pope. No Authentic Testimony of the Antiquity of Indulgences for the dead.  
1. HIS eleventh Chapter pretends to show out of the Liturgies and Rituals, the Testimony of the Church against the delivery at the day of Judgement. But to fill this new head he repeats first divers of those he brought before, as that from St. Ambrose's prayer before Mass; The Church's prayer that the dying person may never come in Purgaiory; He mingles the prayers for the dying with the prayers for the dead, as if they must needs signify the same; specially because the Church so lately prayed for her not going to Purgatory, therefore she must needs after death pray for it again; as if in different cases the time ought to make the request the same. Otherwise, all he brings after death is common to both opinions; and still he presses that to be going out of the body, and being in Purgatory, be the selfsame occasions. The like is his confirmation out of a prayer common to the living and dead; as if we had not the wit to know their necessities were different, but that we must pray that God should give both the same gifts. I am ashamed to spend time and paper on so gross mistakes, not without admiration how zeal and obedience can blind so far a man of otherwise a good understanding.  
2. There follows the repetition of the Gothick Liturgy; the which, if it be found to be a Catholic Liturgy, notwithstanding the Phrase be Millenarian, at lest cannot serve him, For the Text of the Apocalypse doth plainly speak of Martyrs who cannot be prayed for otherwise then for the receiving of their bodies at the last resurrection, or honour in this world.  
3. His last Authority is from the Church's acceptation of the custom St. Odilo began of praying for the dead generally the second of November. But it is not enough for him unless he adds of his own that the Church did it for the same end, or upon the same Motive on which St. Odilo did; the which if he could prove he would say something: But there is nothing but his conjecture for that, seeing St. Odilo himself is like to have taken it from an higher origin, it being known that this custom was in the Church two hundred years before, though not universally; and the reason of it, that as All-Saints-Day was instituted for such Saints as had not private days, so this day for those dead who had not private service said for them, which is likely to be the Church's intention in celebrating this office, though St. Odilo was the occasion of it. For the Church is tenacious of Ancient professions, and is not lightly to be thought to take up new opinions, which that it did your Divine will be hardly able to prove, and so he may put in his pocket his sentence out of St. Austin concerning the opposing of what the whole Church practices. For one thing is the Practice, which he acknowledges; another thing the Reason, which stands only upon his slight guess.  
4. The like invention ●e ●btrudes upon us, that all the stories of the martyrologue be Articles of faith; a position that never wise man thought of. Yet forsooth because the name of Paschasius is in the Martyrosoge, the Church must hold it forth for a truth. Is not this an unsufferable abuse, both of the Church and of all her faithful Children? to impose upon them a necessity to believe stories partly corrected, partly of new corrigible when it shall please the Church to look into them, for inerrable Doctrines of that uncontrollable Mistress? And these men forsooth must pass for great Divines whose verdict must carry the world.  
5. His twelfth Chapter is all fire, and to nothing but Excommunication and Damnation. As for my Doctrine, he tells us that it professeth that the Church to the living remitteth not the satisfaction due to God alone, but that which belongs to God and her; and as far as experiences can guide us, I think the Church holds with me. In the Roman absolution is pronounced Quicquid boni feceris vel mali sustinueris sit tibi in remission●m peccatorum; This I ever understood to belong to the satisfaction due to God, and I see the words may extend themselves to Purgatory as well as to this world. But I never heard that what we were to do or 〈◊〉 in this world was remitted by Indulgences. Of Purgatory I can only say, we that walk by five Senses have no experience what Indulgences do there: But nevertheless if your Divine can bring any Rule of Faith for it I shall not any way resist. His first proof is out of Maldonat. His discourse is that Indulgences are proportionable to Church-p●●ances, but Church-p●●●nces are imposed to satisfy not only before the Tribunal of the Church, but also before the Tribunal of God, so then do Indulgences also. This is the first part of the excellent declaration of Maldonat, which had the ill luck to ●ight upon such a dull Reader that understood not the consequence, how it followed, that because the Church's penance (if it had been performed) would have diminished the pains which should have satisfied God; therefore if they be not performed, so it be by the Church's consent, they will nevertheless satisfy for those which were due to God. I never understood that either the Church knew how much was due to God, nor, that God's judgements were to be bound up to the Churches; but that the Rule that, man judges according to the appearance, and God according to truth had run in this as well as in all things else.  
6. This then is the first folly of this discourse, that whereas binding and loosings being ratified in Heaven, means that Christ ratifies it here towards the Government of the Church, this excellent explication without the least proof applies it to God's Spiritual Tribunal, and confounds the external Tribunal set up in this world with the secret Tribunal of God's inerrant judgements. His next folly is that he takes this Principle, that God doth not punish twice that which himself confesseth was never punished but once, but remitted. But the most bold folly of this discourse is, that the whole discourse is common to punishments in this world, as well as in the next. For the Council of Trent declares expressly, that good works and sufferings of this world do satisfy for the pains due to sin in God's judgement, which are to be paid in the next world if not in this. Then the plenary Indulgence which exempts from all pain due in Purgatory, frees from all which in this world would have served for the remission of Purgatory pains; so that a plenary Indulgence will save the Drunken man from the dropsy, the quarrelsome man from being beaten or wounded, the luxurious man from soul diseases, nay, the Robber from the Gallows; For no man can deny that all these are due punishments of sin, or that received 〈◊〉 judgements of God, they do not diminish the f●tute torments of Purgatory, if not q●it● take them away. So that none of all this 〈◊〉 fall upon him who hath received a plenary Indulgence; but God, by this excellent Doctour's discourse, must punish him twice for the same fault.  
7. Upon this solid Foundation your Divine buildeth the bloody scaffold of no less than Heresy and Ex●…cation against ●●y Doctrine. The censure of Heresy began 1478 laid upon it as he tells you by Six●●s Quartus. The proposition upon which it is laid (as he recites it) is that the Bishop of Rome cannot pardon the pains of Purgatory. Then followeth the Thunder and Lightning. I persuade myself when you read this you could think no otherwise then that I was fallen into open Heresy, for the censure says it contains manifest Heresy: unless your Divine gave you occasion to think otherwise, by adding to the same words in his next Number, denying that the Pope by any Indulgence can pardon the pain of Purgatory. Now this word by any Indulgence being not in the proposition, your Divine will permit me not to fall under the censure of the Bull, if I confess the Pope can forgive the pains of Purgatory otherwise then by Indulgence; and seeing he finds nothing spoken in my Book but of Indulgences, before he can press this Decree against me, he must show there is no other way of remitting Purgatory pains; Which certainly there is, since all Catholics agree, that the satisfactions and prayers of the faithful, and almsgiving, do assist the souls of Purgatory: So that the Pope by such means may redress the souls of Purgatory more assuredly then by Indulgences. And when this is done by way of Command, it is as full and perfectly a pardon to the souls, as if it be done by the application of the merits of the Saints: For they are assuredly in the Pope's Jurisdiction, and may be applied by him; of the others it is questionable, and otherwise the way is the same, both being the applying of the Church's merits.  
8. Yet have I one scruple more about this point●, Why your Divine changed the words of the Sentence condemned by the Bull, which I find to be Quod Papa non potest indulgere alicui vivo poenam Purgatorii. Now these words alicui vivo, quite altars the question, and makes that the Bull doth no way touch what the Pope can do to the souls in Purgatory, and the leaving out of these words wholly disgraces both the Bull and the Pope, making him speak against the received opinion of Divines, both before and since his time, who for the most part agree that the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over Purgatory, and cannot absolve men from the pains of it: Which is contradictory directly to the words your Divine citys; to wit, that the Bishop of Rome can pardon the pains of Purgatory. For a proposition taken abstractedly to be censured, must be understood in the proper sense of the words; and the proper sense of these words, The Pope can forgive the pains of Purgatory, is that he hath Power and Jurisdiction over Purgatory to forgive punishments there; which some one Divine may have ●eld, but 'tis generally rejected even by Martinus Roa that great Visionaire. What should I think of this ●…eless proceeding and corrupting a Pope's Bull in so main a point? Truly the good opinion I have of the Author of the Book, will not let me think he did it maliciously, but rather to guests that the Bullary consened him, having copied this Bull out of some negligent Transcriber, to whose Error I impute this fault. ●or the Ballary is not a public work, but the collection of a private Author who cannot be free from such mischances. Wherefore I let him understand, that the Text I cite is out of the Authentical Copies which are conserved in Spain.  
9 Next he brings in the Bull of Leo the tenth against Luther; to what purpose is hard to say. For I do not know, that any man makes difficulty of the three propositions he citys as therein condemned. The propositions are these. The first that the Treasures of the Church whence the Pope giveth Indulgences are not the merits of Christ and his Saints. This proposition was well condemned in Luther, who denied Indulgences, and the Pope's Authority in them; but what it hath to do with my opinion, who profess that the Pope, when he remits sins, or the pains due unto them, doth it in the same Authority in which St. Paul did, who clearly says he does it in Persona Christi, I do not understand: For I think that includes the merits of Christ; and to be an immense Treasure, if it can be called a Treasure, that cannot be consumable in the least part of it.  
The next condemned proposition is that Indulgences to those who do truly gain them, do not avail them to gain pardon of the pain due to actual sins by the Divine Justice. This proposition may well be Luther's, a boisterous fellow, more clamorous than understanding. But how it can be applied to my way of discoursing, who profess all punishments Natural, Civil and Ecclesiastical which follow sin, to be the punishments due to God's Justice, which is the plain sense of Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils, falls not into my brain. For assuredly he gains not Indulgence, who gains not the remission of some of these pains.  
11. The third proposition brought for condemned, is that to six kinds of men Indulgences are neither necessary nor profitable, to wit, to the Dead, etc. As for this proposition I think his want of Divinity is cause why he applies it to me, because he understands not how any thing can profit the dead, unless it be immediately put into their hands. Which Error of his likely enough is the cause of applying all the rest to my Doctrine. For when he hears the Pope pronounce these propositions to be false, he presently appprehends the Pope had the same fancies which he has, and therefore can mean nothing else but what rings in his Ears; Whereas Pope's use to hear all opinions, and then to declare so abstractedly, as not to hurt any Catholic Tenet, but only what is against all Catholic Doctors.  
12. But to understand more fully the case, it is not amiss to set down a discourse related by Francisco Chiericato, Bishop of Fabriano, and Nuncio to the Diet of Noremberg against Luther, sent by Adrian the sixth, with whom he had much acquaintance and confidence. He wrote a Diary of what passed in Rome in the beginnings of Adrian the sixth's reign, and in it this History. How this good Pope had (as it is yet to be seen in his works) written of the nature of Indulgences, and his opinion was, that when an Indulgence was granted to any one for doing a good work, the work might be so done, that the whole Indulgence might be gained: But if the work were not performed perfectly enough, than the performer gaineth so much of the Indulgence as answereth in proportion to the imperfect work. This thought the good Pope to decree ex Cathedra, and propound it to the whole Church, but first communicated his thoughts to Cardinal Caietan, who had been a great Student of this question by o●der of Leo the Tenth, and by the necessity of dealing with Luther; and both a better Divine, and more practised in the World then Adrian was. This man, as to the substance of the Divinity-question agreed with the Pope, and told him, that he steadfastly believed the Doctrine in his conscience, yet had so carried it in his writings, that none but the most Learned men could draw it from his words. Further he gives reasons why he thought it not fitting this Doctrine should be made too public to the common people.  
13. This story the Author of the Roman History of the Council of Trent doth much disparage. And, as far as concerns the Historical Verity, it concerns not me; but that at least it is ben trovato, that is a likely and rational History, seems to me evident, out of the opinions of the two men extant, not only in their works; but confessed in the Roman History. For he confesses, tom. 1. l. 2. c. 4. that the subtlety, that Adrian the sixth invented, consisted in this, that every good external act might bud out of so great a charity, that it might deserve the concession of any Indulgence never so large; And that the Pope intendeth never to give any larger Indulgence, then what may be discreetly given in regard of such an act including the charity with which it is done. Now the question is wherein consists the difference of these two explications; The Pope gives proportionable to the desert of the Act, and the Pope gives what is fit to be given according to the proportion of the Act. And considering that the Pope hath no means to judge of the quantity of the Charity, nor of what part of Christ's satisfaction is proportioned to a known degree of Charity, I believe the Pope's Judgement must be referred to Christ's Judgement, which is known to be proportioned to that Charity, making the effect of the Prayer according to the Desert of the Prayer. I not deny but that the way of explicating this same verity may be made with taking a greater or lesser compass, or by divers mediums in one way, then in the other; but that the effect is not the same in both, that is it whereof I am not capable. Whether the Reasons fathered upon Caietan, why it was not fit to publish this Doctrine be good or no, concerns not me to dispute, but rather to execute. For when niceties which are beyond the ordinary capacity, are disputed before unlearned and unstudious people, they will be sure to follow the easier part, let the truth lie where it will. The Author of the Catholic History is so favourable to this explication of Adrian the sixth, that he citeth for the same St. B●…nture, Rich●rdus, Gabriel, Maior, Gers●…, Felinus, and Pope Innocentius: And thinks the cause why Adrian did not decide this question was, because divers Divines held the contrary opinion: Which, if the other History be true, cannot be so, for he was resolved to have determined it before; though he could never be ignorant that others held the contrary, having himself set down four divers opinions of Catholics concerning Indulgences.  
14. To apply this story to our purpose, I understand that these two explications differing not in the Effect, but only in the Way to the End, the Definition of Leo the tenth is truth in both, and so when he saith that Indulgences are granted out of the Treasure of Christ's Merits, it is true whether those Merits be that which giveth the efficacity to the Pope's grant, or whether it be that it is the matter he useth. Likewise, when it is said, Indulgences received profit the living, that is true and maintained whether the debt be paid by commutative Justice, giving God one thing for another, or whether God cancels the debt by good will as pleased with the action done. Neither is there any substantial difference in respect of the Dead, by what means the good they receive from the living comes to them, so it comes from the livings receiving the Indulgence: Whether I mean it comes by the virtue of the Action done by the receiver of the Indulgence, or by the like Commutation as some Divines put in the living.  
15. I was about to have made a distinct explication of this question in this place, but being pressed here to clear the Authorities, and expecting there will be a place for Reason hereafter, though not in his Doctrine, yet when he comes to oppose mine, and foreseeing that the explication would make this Chapter very long, I thought better to defer it, and to go on with the answering of his Authorities. Only I would entreat you to comfort the good soul, and tell him, that if I could have foreseen those lamentable tears, which he shed for my sake, I would have done my endeavour to have presented him with some crumbs of comfort beforehand, that might have stopped the dissolving of the melting humour; Now I shall present him with a clean handkerchief to dry his watered Cheeks: and it is no other, than the censure of the Author of the Catholic History of the Council of Trent, on the Bull of Pope Leo, which so much distempers his brain. This Author then, whose Authority I doubt not but is sacred to him, in his first Book, Ch. 21. N. 4. being to give an account why the form of the condemnation of Luther's propositions was given respectively, without qualifying every proposition with a singular censure, hath these words: The Pope therefore intended not by his Constitution to take away all doubt, of which kind of doubts God's will is that all the knowledge of this life should be full, and chiefly Divinity: as that which hath her objects more obscure, and more above our understanding: But only intended we should have as much certain as was enough; that is, he declared those sentences to be per●…cious to teach, and dangerous to believe. Now, in case all that this Bull condemns, if it be not otherwise known to be false, may be true, let him wipe his eyes with the charitable, conceit, that he who holds any of them may have found that truly those which he holds are true, and therefore now no more dangerous to believe, and much less to teach: and out of this charitable persuasion keep his fool-pious expressions to entertain Children with. As for his Readers, he sends them away to B. Fisher, to know what opinions I hold; for otherwise I do not know how he can teach them, that I hold propositions in the same sense that Luther does: It seems it is the mode of this Age, to look the farthest off they can from an Author, and his Writings, when they will determine what his meaning is.  
16. In his eighth N. he asks, who can say the Doctrine contrary to all these Articles 〈◊〉 not the Doctrine of the Universal Church? And my answer is, that for my part I doubt not of it. But, whosoever believes the Author of the Catholic History of Trent, will tell him he does not know why these Articles be not of those which God will have to be doubtful, and that it is a Blasphemy to call that the Doctrine of the Universal Church, which is as yet uncertain, and as far as we know, false. Nevertheless he will now put it out of all doubt. For he tells you the Council of Trent doth expressly decree, that not only in the censuring of a few Articles, but even in the censuring of whole multitudes of Books, all Christians should stand to the decrees of the Bishop of Rome, and that every doubt of that nature shall be terminated (and quite ended) by his Judgement and Authority. And after some few lines he adds, And this must be admitted as undoubted by those who will and must admit this Definition of a General Council. You see a horrible charge; Will you know the truth of the business. The Council of Trent had given the charge to a Committee to review such Books as they thought fitting to have conversant in the hands of Catholics; When they were ready to break off, these men came in and told the Council they had performed their charge. But, because it was time to end, the Council referred the execution of the Decree to the Pope, as also of the setting forth the Catechism, and reforming the 〈◊〉 and the Breviary; and ordered the Pope's determination in 〈◊〉 question that rose abo●… these Books should be held for deci●….  
17. If I had been left to mine own Judgement, I should have thought this no great honour to the Pope, further than as it was a good Action in him to concur to the good of the Church. For, if the Pope had refused it, they must have appointed some Congregation to have done the same, as we see the Inquisition and Provincial Councils to have done the like in divers▪ Countries. Now your great Divine finds in this great Mysteries, that the Council gave the Pope Authority to determine the Verity of all propositions. Was there ever such a p●ece o● Mountebankery? Or is not the Pope well se● up to have got such Champions to proclaim his Power and Authority? And what again h●…. Divinity made, that now we have so many Articles of faith confirmed by the Definition a General Council, that must be received, as there be sentences either put out, or allowed in the Books censured in the Index Expurgatorius? I must not conceal his Demonstration for this Learned Conclusion▪ Could (saith he) the Council give him▪ Authority to do that after the sitting of the Council, which by his own Authority he could not 〈◊〉 by himself before the Council? And out of this infers, that the Pope does it by his own Authority. As for his question I will not meddle with it, but hold it at present for one of those doubtful Articles, which God will not have known, though he may find many Divines▪ who would answer him that the Council could: but what I am certain of is, that the Council could not give him that which he had before, and therefore your Divine contradicts himself in alleging the Council for giving the power, and saying he had it before.  
18. The following Numbers until the twelfth are but Repetitions of the same. Only one Argument of his tenth number is worth the nothing, where he asks Who can say the Council of Trent approved not the the Pope's proceeding in this point? It is answered, only they that read the Council, or otherwise have understood that the Council never took notice, neither to nor fro, what the Popes had done in this kind▪ But he urges, that the Council left to the Pope the ordering of the faults and abuses in the matter of Indulgences. And who knows not (who knows any thing of those times) that the Pope promised to reform what belonged to the Court of Rome by himself? So that the Council had no need to meddle in such points, in which it is expected the Pope would do well of himself. Now, whether the Pope reform all that deserved reformation, or no, is a thing impertinent to our question, in which there is all agreement to the Pope's decrees, and 'tis a thing not fitting to be made public table-talk, as our Books are like to be.  
19 In the twelfth Number he seeks the Antiquity of the use of Indulgences for the dead. And no wonder he cannot find any great Antiquity for them, seeing Caietan, and our Holy Bishop of Rochester, had looked before him, and could find none. Caietan's words be Opusc. 16ᵒ 〈◊〉. No Holy Scripture, no written Authority of Ancient Doctors, either Greek, or Latin hath brought this (the beginning of Indulgences) to our knowledge: But this only concerning Ancient Fathers is written some three hundred years since, that St. Gregory began the Indulgences of the Stations. These Indulgences were, as I remember, of seven years' penances remission for visiting certain Churches, no mention of any for the dead granted by St. Gregory. But what says the great Bishop? It persuades (says he) ●er adventure ●any not to trust very much to these Indulgences, that the use of them seems to be too new and very late invented amongst Christians. I answer (saith he) That it is not certain who first began them, and some say that amongst the most Ancient Romans there was some kind of use of them. Nor, doth any man doubt but that later wits have both better examined, and clearly understood many things, both out of the Gospels and other Scriptures, than their Predecessors. So that you see this great man thought that the Scriptures explicated only by h●man wit, were the solid Foundation upon which Indulgences were to be grounded, for want of Ancient Testimony. Not so your Divine, but he can prove it out of Ancient Records; and first of Paschal the first, some eight hundred or more years since, which is a very long time (as he well notes) for the Church to be in Error. This Paschal is said to have given an Indulgence to the Church of St. Praxedes in Rome, for the freeing of one soul out of Purgatory. But the ill ●●ch is that this Monument is accounted to be Apocryphal in Rome itself, and not esteemed of by men accurate in History of that nature: And so neither Caietan who was very inquisitive, nor Baro●… ever alleged it. And Fabers story of its being approved by eleven Popes, if properly understood▪ must needs declare as much; seeing it is impossible any writer living in Rome could be ignorant of so notorious a thing. But I pray take notice by the way of the spirit of these men, to abhor it. See how they keep the souls of those who will believe them in an Egyptiacal slavery, persuading them that if this Pope had committed a private fault, the Church had been in an Error 〈◊〉 years, even though no more know of the Pope's mistake, then have heard of this piece of Paper lying in a private Sacristy. As to Bell●r●ine's approbation we answer, he is to be thanked for his pains, of gathering so many things together; not to be proposed for an Authority, for the reasons I alleged above in the like occasion.  
20. The next instance is out of Baronius, or Spondanus in the year 878▪ how Pope John the eighth gave an Indulgence to all whose h●p it had b●en to die in the war for the defence of the Church, or whose hap it should be hereafter? Before we look into this Testimony, I must not omit to note, that this very Spondanus was bred a Minister, was very conversant with Beauties' works; and, after his conversion, with his Person; and, as it is reported, had Baronius his approbation to the compendium of his History which he made; and clear it is such a man must needs ●e zealous to put in his work whatsoever was to help the Catholic cause; and this, if it were not in Baronius, in notes of his own; as he doth divers times. This I note to let you understand that this man could not be ignorant of the former Testimony of Paschalis, and living in Rome when I first went thither after Bellarmin's death, could want no commodity to search out the truth of the citation; nor if he had found it true could have forborn to give a note on it in his History; wherefore we may justly conclude, that both Baronius and he held it for Apocryphal. Now to his Testimony. He saith, the Pope in a Letter to the Bishops of France, in the Government of Lewis the third, who had assisted him to recover his Seat, granted an Indulgence to all, etc. Had he cited the words of the Pope's Letter, or expressed the fact more larger, we might have guessed how much this Testimony was to our matter: Now the words going equally for the quick and the dead, or rather only for the dead, and given immediately to the dead, (which is a new story in the Catholic Church, if it be spoken in the new sense of Indulgences) no mention made of remission of sins or pains, this being the first mentioned towards the dead, and Spondanus in no reputation of a Divine, I see not why this word Indulgentia should be taken for the remission of sins or pains due to Go●, rather than for the relaxation of some Ecclesiastical Duties or Obligations which such Soldiers might have incurred in their life times; in which times the stories record great violences offered by the Gentry to the Clergy, and Ecclesiastical Liberty. And if you object; that it is not to my Divines purpose, unless it be understood of the pains in Purgatory; I answer it was his duty to have made his objection home, who could not choose but have the command of good Libraries, in one whereof my last interview with him happened. For this Pope was no such man as to authorize a new Institution in the Church, being infamous. both for his loose life, by which he is suspected to have given occasion to the tale of Pope Joan; and for prudentia carnis, that is Worldliness. So that he is not much to be suspected of beginning of spiritual customs, nor would such novelties have come gracefully from him. Wherefore I know no elder than Gelasius the second, who lived in the twelfth Age, and though he were a little Ancienter than Peter Lombard, yet cannot be esteemed before all Schoolmen, for Rome was not built in a day. Wherefore, if I had said the Scholastic Divines were the first inventors of these Indulgences, it had neither been concluded false, nor to have proceeded out of the ignorance of Antiquity. Since your Divine acknowledges, that St. John Damascen was Prince of the Scholasticks of the Greek Church, who lived divers Ages before Peter Lombard. But the truth is my chief aim was at this manner of explicating Indulgences, by a Treasure whence every one got from the Pope a share to pay his debts; which, as far as I find, came not into the indultive Bulls, until Clement the sixth's time, which was two hundred years after Gelasius the second. Of the which manner of explication your Divine treats until the end of this Chapter. But because it supposes many by-questions, is not to be treated by snatches, and therefore I shall put it off until a more commodious place, when all his Authorities shall be answered.   

EIGHTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to the twelfth and thirteenth Chapters.  
Remarks of several Follies and Mistakes of the Author's Doctrine; as also of Councils, and Pope Benedict his Bull.  
1. I had conceived good hopes I might have passed over the next Chapter with silence, having found the Title of it concerns the two Councils of Trent and Sens, & knowing the Council of Sens went no farther than Trent, & that the Council of Trent was already showed to have nothing against our opinion, and to contain itself within the verities acknowledged by both parties, which also I found to be true; and that the whole Chapter is employed to show how really he thinks and would prove, that we put no pains due to God's justice after the remission of the sin; which if it were true, yet it followed not that we opposed the Council, but that we miss in some Doctrine consequent, which he would draw to be a contempt of the Council. And the truth is for the main Doctrine of this Chapter, I intent to remit it until after the explication of my opinion, for there is nothing in it to require any explication of the Councils, but only to see how consequently we proceed to the Doctrine of the Councils which we profess. Nevertheless, as the Scripture warns us, in much talking there must needs drop some folly, and so I am forced to some notes even upon this Chapter, for fear I should afterwards forget them.  
2. My first note shall be that in his third Number, he puts it for the Doctrine of Councils, that sinners that be only imperfectly contrite, when they are with due disposition baptitized, go immediately to Heaven: Which is a false Doctrine, and no where to be found in the Councils or Fathers, but only in new Divines.  
3. My second note is, that he imposes on us (N. 8.) to say all the punishments cited against Heretics by the Councils are miraculous; Where as in the very example of David we put part of the punishment Miraculous, and part to follow naturally from the sin. Where also is to be noted that sweet Argument, that the examples would prove nothing against Heretics if they were miraculous: Whereas it is evident, their proof is so much the stronger, the more manifest God's hand is in punishing after the sin was forgiven.  
4. My third note is that (N. 10.) he would persuade his Reader that we deny Bodily austerities are undertaken to satisfy the pains due to God's Justice: and after he has made an exclamation in the same Paragraph he puts us to affirm that they are to be done for the taking away of passions or ill motions left by sin, and that this is to satisfy for the sin passed: And this himself calleth a weak reply made in our defence; by which he confesses we hold the contrary to what he imposes, and therefore it is injuriously laid upon us; For how weakly soever we defend what we hold, yet assuredly we hold it. As for his oppositions I refer them to their proper place, for they concern not authority.  
5. My fourth note than is, that (N. 11.) he explicates the receiving of Baptism duly, to be the receiving it sine fictione; an explication I never heard before, nor ever was given by good Divine. For, although it be necessary to come ●ine fictione to the effect of receiving Grace, yet to say that this is all that is due or fitting, or that men should endeavour to have to receive Baptism as they ought, is a Doctrine I have not yet found in any Casuist; and yet it is a point deeply concerns his discourse as we hereafter shall show.  
6. In his fourteenth Chapter he intends to press the Council of Florence; and the decree of Benedict the eleventh. It seems therefore the oppositions made by former opponents are judged by him not sufficient; and his friends, indeed seemed to confess those were satisfied, with a threatening of a greater Champion to follow: yet I must take leave to remit my Reader to that Answer when your Divine goes no farther than the Vindicatour. As for your Divine, my first exception is that in his first number he affirmeth that both sides agreed, that what was left to be purged, at death, might in some time before the day of Judgement be often truly said to be now wholly purged, and he adds in Latin, Jam Purgatum ex toto. I see it is happy for him that he has a good pair of Spectacles, such as can make him see deep into a Millstone. For I that can see only the outside, find no such sense in these words. I find nothing in the words cited by him that speaks of Esse Existenti●, as Philosophers term it, but only of Esse Essentiae, that is, of this consequence, These men are purged, what follows: That they go to Heaven, or no. I never learned in Logic, that an Interrogatory form was affirmative. Had he said that both parties had agreed that this should be the question; I perforce must have submitted; but to make the world believe that he who asks what is to be said in such a case, should be supposed to think the case true, is beyond my Logic. But you may reply that it is no great matter, for his Logic may be far beyond mine. Nor can I deny it; specially if he can make them agreed of what they never thought of. For in the same Paragraph he tells us, that before our unhappy age he finds no mention of any Catholic who denied such Souls to be deliverable before that day. He had done me a great pleasure if he had set down what Heretics before that time had denied it: For than we might have gathered all Catholics had agreed against those Heretics. Now the Agreement must be such as was the Solution a School-fellow of mine was wont to give to the difficulties he found in his dictates, which was to forget them. So this Agreement was never to think or motion it, or at most to hold it no way concerning the difficulty then proposed.  
7. This I believe is the substance of this whole Chapter. For I see he tosses it and tumbles it in divers expressions, but gets not a foot farther. For what he tells us in the next Number, to wit, that this question concerned much the souls in Purgatory is very true, but how he can inser it belongs to the Pope's question is what I make difficulty of. For I do not understand the Pope either meant to handle all questions, or any one of Purgatory, or to make an exhortation to pray for the dead by this Definition, but only to declare the efficaciousness of Grace to carry people to perfect bliss, as is evident by the Popes so much insisting upon the explication of the fullness to which men arrive.  
11. In his fourth Number he presses what an intolerable thing it is to keep the souls of one who hath spoken but one Idle word, so long not only from the sight of God, but also in most afflictive punishments. I do not remember I have any where declared that any man was sent to Purgatory for just one Idle word. I think my way teaches that the next world depends on the habits, not on the acts, otherwise then as they are causes of remaining dispositions in the soul: I do not know also where I have determined how far the pangs of death do satisfy for sins, so that I take his supposition to be very aerial; but it is not here place to discuss it. In the mean while I see it was a providence of God that your Divine lived not before our Saviour's Passion, for had he gone to Limbo, he would have so murmured against God for keeping Holy Abel so many years out of Heaven for Original sin, which Divines hold to be less than any Venial sin, that it would have troubled the whole company.  
9 He seems to press that this will retard men in their progress towards Heaven. But he that were to speak for my opinion, would say no, but that it would press them so much the more, to be of that number that sh●ll not be stayed so long from their desired reward, seeing it is in their own hands to go immediately to Heaven if they will. For the case the Pope speaks of, differs from ours in this, that in his case it was not in the power of the living, to obtain their coming to Heaven, but in our case it is. For Purgatory must needs be a place for tepid people, seeing it is written of Heaven that Violence doth carry it.  
10. In his fifth Number he tediously repeats the same Argument of pressing the word esse to signify existence; only he adds a more silly confirmation. For, where the Pope speaks of all three sorts of souls being in Heaven in common and uses the three tenses have been, are, and shall be, he presses that these 3 tenses must be true of all 3 sorts of souls, whereas any one soul is enough to verify those three tenses, seeing who once has been in Heaven, is there and ever shall be: And this, upon no other ground then because it is fit for his purpose. So wilful an Interpreter he is.  
11. In his sixth Number he finds a gross Error in him that shall say the Pope made but one Definition concerning the state of souls departed. What a piece of Divinity is this? It is agreed upon by both sides, what the Pope determins, and in particular there is no disagreement of any point whether it be defined or no; And your Divine finds a gross Error whether it is to be called one Definition or more. And I take it for so piddling a question, that though the Book lie by me, and to my memory it is sufficiently resolved in former writings, yet I do not think it worth looking the place to see what the resolution and proof is, but only that it is a great impertinency to count it a gross Error though it should be found to have miss.  
12. In the same sixth Number your Divine finds the Pope's definition concerning the point in difference in these terms, That if there shall be any thing to be purged in them, when, after death they shall be purged, they presently after the afore said purgation even before the resumption of their Bodies, and before the general judgement, were, are, and shall be in Heaven, have seen and do see God. Now I am so blind that I can find neither good sense nor true English in these. He begins with, if there shall be any thing to be purged, and ends with, were, are, and shall be, have seen, and do see; So that in the same proposition the mediu● is future, and the effect passed. Which is a rare piece of Grammar, and newly invented to make the Pope's Definition reach to what the Pope thought not of. Would it not turn a man's stomach to see men so wilfully seek to blind themselves, and others in a question as clear as that two and three make five? Suppose, of those Divines whom the Pope heard in this question, the one held that souls were delivered before the day of Judgement out of Purgatory, and the other as stoutly denied it; And the Pope asked them whether at least they agreed in this, that whensoever the souls went out of Purgatory, they went strait to Heaven, and both answered, yes; they both hold that the Pope could not without nonsense tell them he would define that which they both agreed upon, without m●dling with the question they disagreed in. And, if this be as plain as that two and three make five, if it were the ordinary Rule and proceeding of the Fathers in the Council of Trent, as every one may see in the Catholic History of it, is it not pure frowardness and pertinacy in your Divine to spend some four leaves to prove this Nonsense? But you may reply for him, that there was no such opposition of Divines. First I ask how he knows it, for he hath cited never a Diari●… of what passed about making of the Bull. But suppose there was not, doth what passed a day or a month before, make the Pope's proposition as it lies to be Sense or Nonsense? And the substance of this answer, by all probability, your Divine had read in Religion and Reason pag. 69. since (though without naming it) he often citys it, and yet resolvedly rambles upon other solutions without taking notice of this, which was the main. I would entreat my Reader who shall not be satisfied with this, to read the place newly cited: for this Divines Catching of Larks and Pope Joan, is such stuff as deserves not to be looked into.  
13. In his twelfth Number he falls upon the Council of Florence, but speaketh nothing of any consequence which hath not been answered: Wherefore I re●it the Reader to Religion and Reason, p. 58, 59, 60.  
14. N. 13. he turns us back to his fifth Chapter, where he had mentioned Gennadius; and the truth is, my answer there was short, and must be still▪ For, although I am secure that what I there said was true, yet I am desirous to see the Book itself before I give a fuller answer; not to your Divine, but to another who before him objected the same Authority a great deal more strongly against me. There remains no more in this Chapter, but to join in prayer with your Divine, for the good man who published in English this Bull of Pope Benedict, and the Council of Florence, that every Judicious man may see who truly stand to their words and meaning; and who do violently strain▪ them against both words and sense.   

NINTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his fifteenth and sixteenth Chapters.  
Universality of Opiners no way obliging to Belief. His bold, and weak Challenges. That the imagined Corporeity of Spirits grounded the Opinion of their Mutability.: What fo●…ed and spread it. A short Account of J. M's weak performances hitherto.  
1. HIS fifteenth Chapter carries for title. The Verdict of the Catholic world for us. A brave title 〈◊〉 and I will do him that right as to testify he follows it handsomely. His first Argument is, that, suppose the delivery of souls before Judgement had been but a probable opinion, yet Universal to all Pastors, Doctors, and leading Teachers for five hundred years, it would be far more rational to follow it then another which should be pretended a Demonstration, but (for whatsoever the Auditor can tell) may have some horrid Error lie for a while couched in it, which might in time be discovered. To this I give two answers.  
2. The first is, that in Metaphysical rigour of truth, no multitude of men can be so vast, no gravity and wisdom of them so high and great, as to oblige any ingenious man to believe that which themselves profess they do not know whether it be true or no. ●or all Belief is grounded upon the knowledge of another. If I be secured he does not know the thing I should believe upon his credit, I have no ground of belief; for upon this point he is a pure Ignorant. If you reply, though he do not know it to be true, yet he thinks so; I must answer that I ought to believe him the less, seeing he is not so honest to himself but that he will cozen himself, by trusting that to which his own conscience telleth him he ought not to trust. Now this is the condition of all those who hold a proposition as probable: And therefore, though all the world for five hundred Ages had held the deliverableness of souls out of Purgatory, only as probable, in rigour it made no advantage at all.  
3. My second Answer is more accommodated to human practice, and it is taken out of Nature and Experience, out of which St. Austin took it. This distinguishes Mankind into two degrees; One that is able fully and properly to judge of a truth proposed with due proof, and as it should be; The other that either for natural dullness, or for unwillingness to take pains, is not in state to look upon truth in itself, and therefore is fittingly to be governed by Authority. To the former, no multitude nor time can bring obligation to refuse a well proposed Verity as long as the contrary Authority is uncertain: The other ought indeed not to meddle, but if by any necessity he must do beyond his reach, it is clear the greater number ought to oversway with him as far as he is not able to weigh the worth of both sides. By these two Answers you will see the pleading of multitudes of Opinatours, will not much advantage your Divines opinion further then amongst them who ought not to meddle in such questions.  
4. Although this evidently ruins his Argument, yet I cannot omit to show another weakness unsufferable for its plainness. For, he adds that if they had no other witness then of the Latin Church for these last five hundred years, this alone were not to be slighted. I pray why not? Is not the contrary Testimony of the Greek Church predominant over the Latin, where there is but an opinion of five hundred years on one side, and one thousand five hundred on the other. Nay, put case the Greek Church were not against it, considering that the subject is a matter not otherwise to be known then by Revelation, were it not intolerable to bind any man to the belief of it otherwise then because it is revealed? which if it were but of five hundred years standing were impossible to be: For the Church professes no Revelations for her guide since the Apostles died: If then your Divine professed no farther, he must confess it to be a weak and ungrounded Innovation. For, supposing it cannot be known but by Revelation, and that there has been no Revelations these six hundred years, it is clearly wholly ungrounded. And, because the subject is a subject of Revelation, that is, that on their side can have no ground but Revelation, this ungrounded Innovation is in matter of Revelation, and we know only Faith is the proper matter of Revelation: Their opinion then is a piece of Faith as to the matter, and should therefore have, but hath no ground of Revelation.  
5. Your Divine replies that he groundedly challenges also six hundred years before. It is a folly to dispute this Question. He speaks in supposition that he has laid solid grounds: My answers are since made. The two being compared, men of wisdom and learning are to judge how solid his grounds are to make such a challenge upon. He challenges us to show one Author who doth so much as by one Word insinuate that our opinion did grow to be more Universally received in the Church these last five hundred years then before it was. A strange and shameless confidence! Did not Odilo make it Universal in the Order of Clunie? Did not the Pope command the Feast? Did these make no more Universality? See how many Revelations were before those days, and how many since; do all these signify no more Universality? And this may serve until his fourth Number, all before being but the supposition of what he hath not done.  
4. In the fourth Number he tells us it cannot be denied but for these five hundred year; all who have prayed for the dead were instructed by their Ancestors, to pray for the present, either ease, or delivery, of the Dead. Yet it is denied him that their Ancestors taught it them, as likewise it is impossible to prove, and improbable to believe, that all were so taught. We know Doctrines that are new, first infect one part, and then another, and so by little and little get a popularity. The reason why it easily attained to this, is because the Corporality of those substances which we hold to be spiritual, was long held in the Church, nor is yet perfectly out. I have heard men learned, as they are generally called, that is of much reading, affirm that there were no simple substances but God, and declare that this was the common opinion of the Fathers. You see this opinion is very conformable to the apprehension of all who are not Metaphysicians: And our opinion depends wholly of the Spirituality of Angels and Souls, the which even those who follow, follow but imperfectly. For the nature of Science is to be attained by pieces and degrees, so that we must not expect that all who hold the Soul and Angels to be Spirits, should discourse of them as pure Spirits ought to be discoursed on. St. Thomas took away proper Locality from them, but is weakly followed, not only by other Schools which are filled with Ubications, but even in his own. Now Immutability which Aristotle demoristrated of Spirits, is not as yet accepted any thing commonly: But if once it come to be thoroughly looked into, it will be as well as Illocality, and your Divines opinion of Purgatory as much rejected as the Corporality of Spirits is.  
7. To return to our purpose. This apprehension of Corporal Torments, and succession, and parts in them, being so natural to man's understanding, also the ending of them was naturally apprehended as a thing conformable to the rest, and so all this Doctrine when it began to be superadded to Tradition, was received as conformable to it; men not penetrating the consequences that followed out of the souls being a Spirit: And otherwise seeing nothing contrary to Christian Piety, before the excess came to be so great that it grew but a sport to deliver souls out of Purgatory. This began to make men reflect; and abhorring the excess to look into the causes of the mistake, and to find it proceeded hence, that some who ventured to meddle with Divinity without sufficiency in Philosophy, in lieu of explicating the Metaphorical words in which Scriptures and Fathers deliver Christian Doctrine, that it may be common to learned and unlearned (the which is the proper duty of a Scholastical Divine) undertake to justify that the Metaphors and Allegories are to be understood according to the very bark of the Letter, and to force the learned to have no other apprehensions than the unlearned have, and so to understand Spiritual things corporeally, and to cry out against them who seek to apply Incorporeal modifications to Incorporeal Substances. So that the reason of the vulgarity of this opinion, is because Animale is before Spirituale. For what was delivered by the Apostles, was only that Prayers should be made for the dead. You may note specially in St. Austin and St. Chrysostom, that having much occasion to speak of Prayer for the dead, they are earnest to report that this could not be unless some good arrived to the dead thereby, but are as careful not to tell any good in particular, for fear of missing in what they had not found sufficient ground in Scripture 〈◊〉 declare. Weaker men finding the question started, resolved by the proportion to what they saw in human actions, without reflecting upon what the Conditions of Incorporeal natures required; and upon this apprehension followed the multitude of Visions and Revelations to confirm this position; the which being coloured with two grateful sightfullnesses, Piety and Wonder, easily got a great strength amongst the meaner sort of learned men, and the multitude of the unlearned.  
8. In his fifth Number he presses that the Apostles taught the faithful why they should pray for the dead, and therefore he argues that motive must still remain in the Church. I answer, the Apostles taught them to pray for the dead to receive their reward at the day of Judgement, as is beyond exception plain in St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, and abundance of Scripture and Fathers, as may be read in my Treatise of Purgatory, and is still conserved in the Church Offices.  
9 In his sixth Number he repeats the pressing of the Bulls so fully answered, and of the cause of the keeping the Holy Commemoration of the dead, and this holds to the end of the Chapter. Only I must note, himself confesses Number the sixth, that the Pope's Decrees are not of the point itself, but of others necessarily connexed with the point. So that, if his discourse do fail him, there is no prohibition, even by his own words of our tenet; and out of what we have said it is easy to see it doth fail him; And by consequence that all the ground they have is but a pious credulity.  
10. In his 16 Chapter, and the last of his proving discourse (for afterwards follow the answers to my Grounds) he professes to deliver the fundamental reason of his opinion; And I suppose in his first Paragraph he would say (if he did dare speak out) that he had none. Yet not to scandalise his party he must make a show, and so in the midst of his third Number he saith our opinion is Paradoxical, which is all the reason I can find. And as for that I must remit him until we explicate our opinion, which will notnow be far of. For, the rest of this Chapter he spends in saying his Doctrine is conformable to the Councils of Trent and Florence, and to St. Austin; all which I confess, for they speak but of Purgatory in common, and so both our opinions are conformable unto them; our difference being only a particularity of Purgatory, and not about the sense of it.  
11. Here if it please you to cast an eye upon what is passed, you will find his first proofs to be out of Scriptures, speaking Doctrines common to us both; the second out of Fathers, who say Christ at his Resurrection delivered souls out of Purgatory; which we grant. His next from Fathers who are known to have fallen into Errors in the points he citys them for, that is, he citys three Heresies for himself. In the fourth place Revelations out of Greg. Turonensis and Metaphrastes, insufficient Authors. Fifthly some Fathers and Councils who speak no more than what both sides agree of: Later Revelations enough, but they are such Testimonies as are insufficient (I think even in his own judgement, to make a Theological proof. Two Bulls of Popes, whereof the one is grossly mistaken. And lastly, a false apprehension of the Churches present devotions; which he takes not out of public Prayer-Books, but out of private intentions. These are the most substantial passages of his discourse; others of less moment I neglect, not to make my period too tedious.    

SECOND PART.  
Maintaining the Arguments brought by the Author from Authority and Reason for the Doctrine of the Middle State.  

FIRST DIVISION. Containing preparatory Grounds for the ensuing discourses.  
That God being Alwise and Self-Blessed, acts only for the Good of his Creatures; and especially Man, what God's Honour signifies, and how he governs Man. The Nature of Sin, and its Effects. How God's Justice is satisfied. Of Merit, Impetration and Satisfaction. A Breviate of the Adversary's opinion.  
1. BEfore I begin to look into his Impugnations of my Doctrine, I think it expedient to lay down a brief explication of mine own thoughts in this question, entreating my Reader's patience, if he thinks I fetch it too far about; whereof he will see the necessity hereafter. I settle therefore, or rather explicate, some Principles, necessary to the seeing how intimately my Doctrine is connexed with Christian Faith.  
2. Let the first be, that God is Essentially Wise and Wisdom, or Truth, or true Understanding of his actions and the Government of them. For if any man sees what he should do, but by passion, or rather distraction doth not what he sees should be done, we may call him Understanding or Knowing, but not Wise. Therefore God whose Essence it is to be Wisdom, cannot swerve from what he sees to be done, or best to be done: ●or it is all one to him who is governed purely by Wisdom, to be best to be done, and to be to be done; because nothing but true Good can move such a Will; and, betwixt two unequal goods, the greater is only the true Good.  
3. My second Principle is that God is essentially Bliss and Blessed; and that in so high and pure a degree, that no Good which is adventitious from either his own action, or the action of any other Substance, can be wanting to him, or desirable by him: and because Good signifies desirable, that there is no extrinsical good that can truly challenge the denomination of a Good to God. Honour for example is the Good of a Man upon two scores; one, because when he hears himself commended, he hath an act of pleasure which perfects him intrinsically; the other, because Honour brings him help to do somewhat which perfects him; for example, to get Wealth or some Office, out of which he can gather contentment: So that still the interior contentment is that which makes the exterior instruments to have the name of Goods. Wherefore seeing Christian Religion teaches us that God gets no new contentments out of the effects his action has, it is also necessary to believe, the honour that all Saints give him is no Good of his.  
4. Out of these two follows the Third; that, whatsoever God does, he does it for the Good of his Creatures; and that, when he says that he acts for his own Honour, the meaning is, that he works that other men (whom the Action toucheth not) seeing those he acts upon well governed, may be bettered and praise him, and conceive a greater apprehension of his wisdom and goodness, and by that means the good of his whole Mass of Creatures be perfected. So that the Honour he speaks of, is nothing but the well ordering of his Creatures; in which one principal and main part is, that his rational creatures have Faith, Hope, and Charity, which are all parts of praising him. So that we are not to look for a farther end of God's works, than the perfection which is intrinsecal to the Universal Mass of his Creatures.  
5. The fourth is consequent to these; to wit, that seeing the Good of his Creatures is his main end, and the Good of a Creature is that which is desirable to that Creature, and every Nature desires its own Perfection, and that perfects Nature which makes it able to do those actions to which such a nature is instrumental (or for which such a Nature is made) in perfection: It follows, that if we consider the whole Mass of Creatures, God's action is still that which is most conformable unto it, or to the Nature of all Creatures. But, if we consider a particular Nature upon which God acts, God's action is that which is most conformable to such a Nature, as being in such a posture of Nature in common; or the best to this particular Nature, as far as it stands with the greatest good of the general Mass. Whence it is evident that God never did nor will do any thing but conformably to the Nature of Creatures. And this you see evidently out of the Attributes of his Wisdom and Selfsufficiency, which are main Articles of Christian Faith.  
6. The fifth Principle is that because Man is the end of all material Creatures, and Man is to be governed by his own Understanding, it is necessary that some things or actions be so done, that the effects be not only performed, but that they may be persuasive to man. Further, because Mankind is of a short apprehension, and subject to follow his senses, whereas his Beatitude and chief Good is beyond his reach; Therefore it is necessary God should be the Teacher of Mankind, and speak immediately to him in words and Doctrine, as he did to Adam, Moses, and the Apostles: and that they should know that the words spoken were from God; and therefore some extraordinary actions which are above the power of those natural causes with which we are familiar, should be in convenient occasions exhibited; out of which it should be known that a higher hand gave Testimony to the words and Doctrines delivered. The special conveniences which require such actions God alone knows, but it seems rational to think, that a very private good cannot exact them, but only such which either singly or in multitude concur to a Public Good. Other circumstances which prayers made by Faith may require to be heard, may be supplied by the subtle twisting of causes by the Divine providence, unpenetrable by us, which fulfil the desires of weak Persons who with great Faith demand the help of God. Howsoever, this is the main Principle, that God never does such actions but when they are to be known, and to govern men by persuasion Out of which it follows, That whensoever such Actions have not connatural ways to be known and manifested, they ought not to be supposed to be done, but that God proceeds according to the course of natural second causes. Nor must it be omitted that even in these miraculous Actions, God proceeds more according to Nature in general then in the others. For, this being the main point of Nature to bring Man to Bliss conformably to his nature, that is by the way of Persuasion; what is most conformable to Persuasion, is most conformable to the chief part of Nature, that is to Mankind in the greatest effect, which is in ordering him immediately to Bliss.  
7. Hitherto my Principles have been somewhat abstracted, yet necessary to be known and taken purely, either out of faith, or out of evident and confessed natural Truths concerning man's nature. The following Principles will be more close to our subject.  
8. The sixth therefore is that a Sin is an action against Reason; that is, against the Nature of Man, and therefore hurtful to him, first in soul, the which it most principally corrupts; next in Body, both according to his internal faculties, and many times also in his external and vegetative qualities. Thirdly, if it be an external act, it prejudices Mankind, that is, his Neighbours; either in their souls by Scandal, and evil Example, or also in their Bodies or Fortunes: and out of these Considerations, the Sinner remains subject to Satisfaction towards himself, (which consisteth in the reparation of the damages done to himself) towards the Church, and towards the civil Government. As for the damages of his Soul, if he repairs them not with penance and good works, he goeth, through the violence of his affection sinful into the next world; and there suffers the sorrows and contradictions which follow distracted affections. As for the damages of his inward Bodily powers, those breed in him, or increase in him, either more sinful actions, or at lest greater strife betwixt the rational and the material part; and, if they be not remedied in this world, cause the disposition of the parting soul to be worse and imperfecter than it should be, and so subject to ill effects in the next world. As for the other damages to himself or his Neighbours, unless he hath the will to repair them, he doth not quit the sin, as is manifest in the case of Restitution: But, if he do what lies in his power, and truly is not negligent, they hurt him not in the next world: But all Negligence and Tepidity is carried into the next World, in quality of a sinful disposition, and so accrues to the punishment due to the sin.  
9 The seventh Principle is, that by God's order all the evils which follow sin either by its proper nature, or by the orders of Ecclesiastical and Civil Government, are ordained by God to be punishments of that sin; and therefore whosoever by way of penance doth prevent the punishments which other ways would fall upon him by this order of God, doth plainly extinguish the dueness of the pains; as St. Zacchaeus when he paid four double of all that he had wronged any man, quitted the score of what he had offended human nature civilly: He that did willingly undergo the Penitential Canons, or like a Holy Mary Magdalene, or Mary the Egyptian, did retire to a voluntary penance, did satisfy the Church; And those who have perfect Contrition, satisfy for all the defects of the soul and her interior powers in the body. I find it is a clear case, that he who leaveth nothing due to any of these parties, hath satisfied for all the pains they can exact of him.  
10. The eighth Principle is, that God's Justice may be taken either for the virtue of Justice in himself, or for the effect it hath in its creatures. If it be taken for this later, it consists in this that every creature hath that which is fitting to him, in respect of its proportion to the rest of the world, and its situation and order in it. Therefore it is clear, that he who satisfies for his sins as it is explicated in the former Principle, doth absolutely satisfy God's Justice in this sense. But, if you take God's Justice, as Justice signifies a virtue in him; then to satisfy God's Justice adds to the former explication, that the satisfaction the man does, is that which God by the virtue of Justic● exacts to have done; the which because it is that which the repentant sinner has done, it is clear that the sinner hath satisfied God also in that sense.  
11. The ninth Principle is, that all and every good act done in state of Grace, and proceeding from Charity, is meritorious; that is, deserves a reward. And the Reward may be the extrinsical or intrinsecal good of the actor; that is, either a good to his own Person or to his Friends. For who does an act of Charity increases Charity in himself, and becometh more Holy than he was before, and therefore a greater and better member of God's Church: And, because we know that all things (as the Apostle teaches) be made for the Elect, and do cooperate to their good, we know that they are more made, and do more cooperate, to the good of them who are more just and more Saints. Hence it comes that God orders by his ordinary Providence (for it is not an infallible rule) that the friends of the just man fare better, because he is Just; and and so the just man by being just, merits, not only for his own Person, but also for others. Again, because God doth this in respect of the desire of the just Person, whether that desire be actual, or only in preparation of heart, this which we call meriting, is also obtaining or impetrating: And, because what is merited or impetrated, may be either addition of good, or diminution of evils; when it is diminution of evils, it is called Satisfaction: Wherefore the same Action by the same virtue is meritorious, impetratory, and satisfactory. I know some scruple at saying one man can deserve for another, taking that to be the property of Christ: but I see the Fathers use the word merit freely in this sense, and therefore I do not scruple to do the same. Wherefore I do not put these three Words to signify three Qualities of the Action, but one quality according as it is related to divers Causes or Effects.  
12. Hitherto you have read the explication and deduction of my opinion, and I do not think my Adversary will quarrel at much of this; not that I think them to be his opinions, but because partly he knows them to be the opinions of other Divines, and partly they are so rational that any sensible man will condemn him at first sight. Now therefore it is time to lay down the Adversary's opinion as I apprehend it, leaving him all liberty to explicate himself in what I shall miss in, at his own pleasure.  
13. You must know therefore, that the Scriptures preach the Doctrine I have laid down minutely and Philosophically, in few and Metaphorical terms. They represent you God like a Man-Law-giver, tell you that he hath laid up fire for those who will not obey, in the next world. My Adversaries take this as a word and a blow, and conceive that Sin is an Action to which punishment is due of its own nature, and that God should not be just if he did not bestow it on the sinner; so that they put the relation between sin and punishment, and both them to God: nor will they hear that this follows out of the Order of Causes, which are set for the carrying of Mankind to Heaven, that there may be a proportion natural of the sin and punishment; but that God appoints what punishment he thinks best. After this, they put that the three conditions or names of the Virtue of every Action, be three divers Virtues or Qualities, whereof one concerns not the other, or at least may be separable. So that the Action may be meritorious, and yet neither impetrate nor satisfy; likewise, may be impetrative▪ but not satisfactory; and may be satisfactory without impetration or merit: And hence they say, some Saints have had Actions both meritorious and impetrative that satisfied for nothing or little; because they owed little, or little pains were due to their offences: Whence it comes that there be great heaps of Actions as they are satisfactory, laid up in the Treasure of the Church, and that the Pope hath the power to take what quantity seems to him fitting, and to p●e●ent it to God fo● the s●ns of living or dead, and that he is bound to accept of it for the debts or pains of such men or souls; whereas my saying is, that the abundance of the merits of Christ, and the Saints give the Church and the Pope all power and virtue to relax sins and punishments always that are for the Churches good. This I understand to be the substance of their opinion And now the Reader may be prepared to understand what shall be said on both sides.   

SECOND DIVISION, Containing an Answer to his seventeenth Chapter.  
That we agree with others in the Torment, and disagree only in the Instrument; Ours, more connatural and ●it. His self-contradiction, and false imposing of unheld Doctrine. When Baptism remits all pains; and how a soul in Purgatory purgeth herself. Several petty mistakes. No place for merit in the next world. That souls in Purgatory are Saints, and may be prayed to. The effect of those Prayers which accelerate the day of Judgement. Divers intolerable errors and weaknesses in Divinity.  
1. IN his seventeenth Chapter he professes to show my Principles to be ill grounded, and that there are bad sequels following from them. And if that showing signify no more than saying, so I believe fully he will do what he promises, but if it be taken for proving, I doubt he will fall very short of his Title. The reason of my suspicion is, because I find it so, as far as I have hitherto looked. For example, the first Principle of mine he makes, that the venial affections which men's souls carry into the next world, are cause to them of great griefs and torments of mind; he farther says, I put no other torments in Purgatory but the grief of this affection being joined to the soul, and the privation of bliss. And I tell him on the other side, that he puts no torments in Purgatory, but that I put the very same. I confess this proposition is a very bold one, for I know not how absurdly he may talk of those pains; but in hope he speaks as commonly his fellows do, I venture upon this affirmation.  
2. To make which good, I distinguish between the Torment, and the Instrument of the torment; as to say Burning is the torment, Fire the instrument by which the torment is inflicted. And then I make this discourse. Let him look into the ordinary explication of Divines, and see whether they put in Purgatory any other torments than Acts of the will which they call griefs: Now the question being of souls in Purgatory, that is, holy Souls, I cannot imagine they will put them to be of other objects than such as deserve grief, as of their sins, of the want of ●lory, and such like. Now all these I put in the souls of Purgatory; It is clear then, then, that I put the same torments in Purgatory that he doth, not one excepted. The difference than is only that I do not put the same Instruments of torment which he does; but I put connatural Instruments, he strange and forced Instruments: I the nature and eminency of a spirit, he a dead body, which cannot be imagined how it can hurt a soul. Ask which is the stronger Agent, and fitter to torment the soul; it is clear that her own nature is infinitely more strong, infinitely more fit. Why then doth not my way satisfy him? Because he does not understand that the words of the Scripture are Metaphorical; because he understands not what signifies God's Justice: because the Bells ring in his ears that the Councils signify other punishments than their words express. He vaunts the Councils be against us, but when he declares them, he cannot find one word beyond what is common to both opinions.  
3. In his third and fourth Number he would persuade his Reader that we fall into his own Error of denying Purgatory, because we say these purging torments end not until the day of Judgement; and hath not so much reflection as to remember that there is no place for Purgatory when purging is done: As long as we profess Purgatory, we must profess not purged. This is the Doctrine perpetually before his eyes in the Council of Florence and Pope Benedict, and he looks so a squint that he cannot see what is plainly before him, that as soon as purging is turned to purged the soul is in bliss. About what then doth he quarrel with me? because I say the ill affection is in Purgatory all the while the soul is there: and yet he says the same. Let him reflect upon these his own words N. 4. Whereas Purging cleansing, etc. signifies the taking away of something which contains the nature of a stain or blemish. If this be so, then clearly something containing the nature of a stain or blemish is in the soul as long as the soul is in Purgatory. Then he unjustly accuses me of saying this which himself is ●ain to confess, and I think against his own opinion, who puts (if I am not mistaken) no stain or blemish in the souls of Purgatory, and therefore no purging nor Purgatory: and so all the Fathers he repeats anew be plainly against himself.  
5 In his fifth Number he imposes a new falsity upon me, to wit, that I say the souls at the day of Judgement pitifully burn in their Bodies, but that that fire purgeth nothing that can be called sin. I wonder where he found this imagination. For my Doctrine is that the fire of Judgement is ministerial to the Angels, framing the Bodies to Resurrection, and by this precedent service is instrumental cause of what is done in the instant of Reunion and Resurrection, & in that instant all the Action of fire ceases, and is turned into the Purgatum esse, which Purgatum esse is the sight of Christ and God, in the very first instant of Reunion. And this Doctrine may he find in my second tome of Institutiones sacrae, pag. 244. and, in my book De medio statu by pieces here and there. So that all this good man's discourse is built upon a fancy of his own, and touches not my Doctrine.  
6. In his sixth Number he argues from the difference betwixt Baptism and Penance, that the one takes away all the punishment due to sin, the other leaves some punishment to be expiated by satisfaction▪ And puts the case of an old man who comes to Baptism after a wicked long life with an imperfect sorrow and disposition; yet says he, all the punishment is remitted to him though there remains many vicious inclinations in him: Now if this man dies soon after with some small Venial sin, he shall lie in great torments until the day of Judgement according to my Doctrine; This is his Argument, which he repeats now the second time, and therefore it requires an answer. I tell him therefore that it is very true, that Baptism being taken with a fitting disposition to the nature of the Sacrament, remits all pains, and the Sacrament of Penance does not, as is plain, seeing Satisfaction is one part of this Sacrament: But I would gladly know, by what Authority your Divine changeth the Councils Definition, and that which the Council speaks of men coming to Baptism with a disposition conformable and proportionable to the nature of the Sacrament, he enlarges it to them who come with an imperfect and unproportionable disposition. All men know Baptism is a Regeneration in which we are made nova creatura, in which our Vetus Homo is buried, And therefore the connatural disposition is that a man come with a resolution of a perfect change of life, such an one as we see in St. Austin at his conversion, which made him feel no more tentations of his former imperfections; such as we acknowledge in people perfectly contrite; such as is supposed to be in men who relinquish the world to be Carthusians, Eremites, Anachorites, etc. in all which we acknowledge that their repentance cancels all pains; but likewise we acknowledge it takes away all inclination to former Vices, at least out of the spiritual part of men; and so leaves no matter for the fire of Purgatory to work upon, which burneth only ill affections.  
7. In his seventh Number, he cries out against this Principle, that the Soul, now become a pure Spirit, should retain her Affections to Bodily Objects, and thinks this misbeseems a Philosopher to say; therefore I think my best play is to say, I speak as a Divine: For I hope so to have the protection of all those, who say, that in Hell the Souls are unrepentant, and obstinate in their sins, and sinful desires. Nevertheless, if he will needs appeal to Philosophy, let him consider what Plato 10. de Rep. What Cebes, what the Pythagoreans teach, and Virgil, out of Philosophers.  

Conjux ubi pristinus illi  
Respondet curis, aequatque Sichaeus amorem.  
And again;— Quae gratia currum,  
Armorumque fuit vivis, quae cura nitentes,  
Pascere equos, eadem sequitur tellure repostos.   
But let us see what he objects against this received Doctrine of Divines, and Philosophers. Is, saith he, such a Soul purging herself? I answer; Yes, forsooth: I pray, if you ever looked into the strife betwixt the Spirit, and the Flesh, either how a man purgeth himself in his whole life, or in some great Battle, and Pitch'd-Field, see whether both are not compounded of vicissitudinary Victories, now of the Spirit, now of the Flesh. Reflecting now, that the eminency of the separated Soul, contains in itself, at once, more than the whole life-time of an incorporated Soul; what must, or can we think, but that all this contradiction of Wills, must be at once in an imperfect separated Soul? which is, in our life, in parts, and separated in time.  
8. He says again Philosophy teaches him, that no body loves evil, clearly apprehended to be evil, & that no disguise of good can cheat a separated Soul. I must confess both these Propositions to be true, and therefore I am forced to say, that in Purgatory their love is not about evil objects, but truly good, and conformable to Nature, and their fault consists only in excess of love, which makes them apt to follow their objects, where, and when they should not.  
9 His third Objection is, How we know the Soul will embrace this wilfulness, since it is voluntary, and therefore, in her liberty, not to accept of it, or choose it. This Objection hath two faults; the one, that it doth not distinguish betwixt Voluntary, and Free; their own Philosophy teaching them, that the love of our last End, or good, in common, is a voluntary act, but not free. The like they teach of the accepting of a medium, when there is but one to gain the fore-embraced End. The other is, that he thinks that this wilfulness begins at Death, whereas it doth but continue, and began in the Body. As the very words of remaining, and being conserved, do signify.  
10. His last Objection is, that there is in Purgatory, an efficacious repentance, and therefore no will to do the like again. I answer, this word repentance doth stick in my stomach: for if it means only an act of a contrary affection, I easily accord it to him; for in this consists the torment of a Soul, that is vicious either in this World, or in the next; that she has contrary Affections in herself, one fight against the other: for the general inclination to her last Good, can never be rooted out, and no Vice can be, but contrary to this inclination. But if Repentance be taken for the revoking, cancelling, or blotting out of the unlawful desire, I doubt it would prove an Heresy, to put that, and that the Soul shall remain in Purgatory; for than she would have no blemish in her.  
11. In his eighth Number he prosecutes the same, but against all Divinity, and himself. For whereas he puts that after this life there is no place for merit, he will here needs make an act of Charity not begun in the Man's life, but in the first instant of his great knowledge of the next World, enough to make such a weak one as I am worse than an Origenist: For I know not why, by his Argument, any body should be damned, or rather could be damned; for, questionless, every Soul, whatsoever it be, hath, at her separation, so clear an understanding of the goodness of God, and the variety of all corporal goods, that if there were then place of Repentance, and making of new an act of Charity, she could not choose but cancel all her idle desires, and turn to God. For, if there be Repentance, it may be as well in the choice of her chief good, as of the ways to it. But whence shall we know the good Thief was violently set upon his evil courses? For my good Nature inclined me to think, he had been for want or ill company, brought into inconvenience: But seeing it is fitting for the Divine's Argument, let it pass; what will follow? That if he repented in this life, there is place of Repentance in the next, for all that have a perfecter knowledge of God's Goodness, and their own Folly?  
12. His ninth Number showeth a great fear, that some in Purgatory may be honoured for Saints. But what if they were? Are not they God's Friends? Are they not truly Saints? Why then should the Church err in declaring them so? But that he may not be afraid, I would desire him to believe, until he gains knowledge, that it is the Habits gotten in this life, and not the acts which make Saints. For the Acts pass, but the Habits remain, and bud into Affections of their own Nature in the next life: So that if his Saints have no evil Habits, the obreption of an act will do them no harm; besides, that the anguishs of Death have virtue in such men to purge slight sins. As for his Stories, he will understand that I am more a Lover of good ones, than a Creditor of unlikely ones; as of that out of St. Peter Damian, concerning Saint Severinus; for I cannot judge his act to have been irrational, as far as you recount it. The Story also of Paschasius, I believe, is of no better credit than of Baronius, who was, as I take it, the last Corrector of the Roman martyrologue, and gave more credit to the Dialogues, called St. Gregory's, than I do.  
13. Now are we arrived to the tenth Number, in which he puts a Second Principle of mine, though you will find, in effect, it is the same with the former; or, at least, so joined with it, that he hath already impugned it. Yet that is nothing to me, so he brings new matter. That which most terrifies me, is, that he threatens, after he has done with it here, he will make a new Chapter of it: So desirous are People of making great Books, though it be with the tedious repetition of the same thing ten times over. But (says he) this Point is attended with so long a train of absurdities, that one Chapter will not serve, and so one must be largely prosecuted in this Chapter. The Principle is, that what affections the Soul embraces at her separation, she persists in the same the whole time of her separation. His inconvenience he finds in this Doctrine is, that he must find some present assuagement of the pains in Purgatory, when the Prayers are made for the Dead: And repeats over the Authors he cited before to that purpose, whereof the Devil in the Skull, and Metaphrastes, a Tale-finder, are to his purpose; All the rest speak but what we will hold as well as he, yet must be plain for him. Only I must note, that he changes the former Text he cited out of St. Isidore into paying part of the pain. I must desire him to look well into his Books, and see whether his own Fellows teach the Doctrine which here he presseth, to wit, that at that very time when a Mass is said, or an Alms is given, there be some relaxation of pain given, as his fine Stories relate. For I know the ordinary way is of delivering Souls, or, at least, of the shortening the time of the Souls punishments; whereas present Refreshments would rather make the pains longer, and the delay of Heaven greater, which would be worse to the Souls in Purgatory, then to be without such relief and so by the greatness of the pain to make the time shorter: therefore if there be not a perfect release, the comfort should stay until the end may come, with, or by it. Another acquaint conceit is, that all the above-used Authorities, makes relief flow from the pious acts effectively. Truly this is to be a great Divine. The Authorities, all that are esteemable say, that good Prayers and Works help the Dead, and we agree with this saying; But it is necessary for him, that it be presently done, and immediately these very words no whit changed signify, that it is presently done.  
14. This is not enough for him, but he requires that the Prayers should do them effectively, and, upon his least beck, the words ply themselves to signify an effective causality. Is not this strong Divinity, to make the words of Councils, and Fathers, so pliable to his Will, that without any change, they signify what he pleases? What would not Simon Magus have given, to have had the Holy Ghost so in a string? He objects that the relief of Souls is certain, and must not be made depend of the probable opinion that Souls know future things? Where should I have learned this Divinity, if I had not met with it here? I might have read all Suarez and Vasquez over, and have found all the Mysteries of our Faith explicated by probable Opinions, of which they descent among themselves, without ever understanding that therefore the mysteries depend of those Opinions. But hereafter I must be waryer, and know that probable Opinions are not to be employed in that kind; and therefore I pray let him think I hold it for certain that separated Souls know future things, as we have an example of Samuel, Moses, and of Onias, and Hieremias. He citys next the Author of the Supplement at the end of Saint Thomas his Sum; which Work hath not the Authority of Saint Thomas, no not when the Author uses the very words of St. Thomas. For St. Thomas having in his Sum much change of his Doctrine in his other Works, the Sum is the absolute Work, which beareth the authority of St. Thomas; the other Works as far as they disagree not with the Sum, are confirmations of it, or consequent to it. Which I mark, because this Divine freely useth the name of St. Thomas when he citys this Work; whereas in truth what is in the Supplement must first be proved to be St. Thomas his Doctrine, at least in other Books, before it can be fathered upon him. For the very name of Supplement shows the credit of the Doctrine, to depend from an Author of less esteem then St. Thomas; though I do not deny, that ordinarily the Doctrine of the Book is, or was, St. Thomas' Doctrine in his younger days.  
15. And now we are brought on to the twelfth Number, in which he advances a difficulty which is truly Theological, and deserves to be discussed. But whereas it hath two parts, that part which is chief, and should go fore-most, he leaves to be discussed in his 22. Chapter; to wit, Whether continuance of an indivisible Entity makes it greater or no: Wherefore here I must only treat the second part, which is, what good Prayers do, which do but accelerate the Day of Judgement. And to do this, I must explicate a Doctrine, whereof he should not be ignorant, yet I perceive he is. I lay forth therefore this Proposition; No Prayer is heard by God Almighty for any particular effect, but for such as are fore-determined by God, not only to be, but to be by this Prayer. Another I add to this of the same quality; to wit, that no effect which God hath fore-determined to be for such a Prayer, can be, if the prayer be not. These two Propositions, as peradventure to the ordinary sort of Faithful may be unknown, or rather unreflected on, so is it a shame that any Divine should doubt or question them. As for the former, he that will maintain the contrary, must say God foresaw not what he would after do, or fore-would not what he after did; which are both notorious Blasphemies. And he who opposes the later Proposition, must say that some cause which God hath ordered to be the cause of an effect, is superfluous, and hath no influence into the effect, since the effect can be without such a cause; which is no less a derogation to God's Wisdom, and the perfection of his ways. Out of ●hese two propositions it follows evidently, that if God hath ordered the Day of Judgement to come by the prayers for the Dead, the Day of Judgement would not, nor could not come, unless those prayers were said. And, if this be evidently true, it is an evident want of Divinity, to ask what good the prayers for the Dead do, if the Dead receive no other profit, than the advancement of the Day of Judgement? Against this Doctrine, Number 17. he objecteth, What then shall become of Christ's Promises? This is a good Objection for a Catechumen who learns Christian Doctrine, but a poor one for a Divine, who should know that Christ governs the World, not, as Aristotle puts, in common, by moving the first Mobile, but as Faith teaches, by foreseeing, fore-willing, and ordering every particular act of Angels, Men, and irrational Creatures; and, as far as the acts have any good in them, setting and settling the whole Frame of the Causes inerrantly: So that Christ's Promises rely upon this, not only power or foresight, but (as I may so speak) a kind of foreacting in his Providence, all the good Creatures shall ever do. Therefore it is silly to talk so, as if Christ's Promises would fail if this particular man did not say this particular prayer, for it proceeds upon the actual ordering of this prayer. The like, or weaker, is the Objection, that Christ's Judicative Power will depend of particular prayers; First, because in some way of speaking, it is evidently true, as it is that Christ could not damn Judas, if Judas were not, or had not betrayed him. Another way, and that in a proper manner of speaking, is, that it doth not follow, that Christ's Judiciary Power dependeth from these prayers, but these prayers of it; For, seeing no body doubts, but that Christ hath in his power what acts shall be, and what shall not, it is clear, that what shall be, depends of him, not He from what shall be: So that this, which with his great Divinity he deems the worst of shifts, is as certain as any Article of our Faith, and Blasphemous and Heretical to deny.  
16. To justify this proceeding of his, he brings another piece of sweet Divinity. It is, that there be some things which God resolves shall come to pass by certain prayers, and some, that he resolves to effect quite independently of any such means, upon other motives. To give you his true meaning in this distinction, is hard: yet I think his meaning is, that the means or causes of some effects are such, that though de facto they are causes of the effect, yet God would have done the effect, if these causes had failed; and other causes are such, that if these causes had failed, God would not secure the effect; that is, his meaning is, that some causes which are truly causes, notwithstanding God's Providence that they should be causes, might have failed, and therefore God had cast, if these causes should fail, to provide others which should supply, that the effect might not fail, Quantum capio, quantum sapio, what is this, but to put that God's Providence, as far as concerns that this prayer should be, or should be cause of this effect, is fallible, and not certain? Are we there great Divine, that you tell us God's Providence is errable? That neither by his Power, nor by his Wisdom, he can ascertain that which he order to be done? Or, if peradventure you will not venture to deny his Power, at least that his act falls short? That some good Action is done, which he did not will efficaciously should be done? Is this Catholic, or Christian, either Divinity, or Metaphysics, to make God's Providences fallible, to make the Essential Wisdom doubtful of what he is to do? casting about like a man, If this day will not do, I will take another; O pitiful stuff! O three halfpenny Divinity!  
17. He objects it were superfluous to pray that St. Francis be not turned out of Heaven, because God is resolved not to do it whether any body prays for it or no? What ill luck have I to meet with such Counselors of God Almighty, who know upon what motives he doth all his Works, and what things must be wanting to break God's intentions? I am bred simply to believe, that if the least dust or straw in the streets should not fall, or be cut, when it does fall and is cut, it would change the greatest effects of God's Providence: So exact be the Rules of God's foresight, so just and fitting all that he determins. To us is revealed, what is fitting to promote the saving of our Souls; that is, as concerning our purpose, to pray for those things; the solicitude of which stirs us up to pray heartily and willingly, and therefore it is revealed to us that we ought to pray for the Dead, because it causes in us a fervent and great recourse to God. It is not revealed to us, to pray that St. Francis should possess his bliss eternally, because that motive of prayer would either be of small efficacy, or have other inconveniences annexed. And yet I do not doubt but this, amongst the rest, may be an effect even of the prayers we say for other motives. And comformable to this we ought to understand that rule, that it is an injury to a Martyr to pray for him; to wit, as we pray for other Dead, or for remission of his sins. But that we may not join our prayers with theirs, for the glorification of their Bodies, I do not know. Their prayer is recorded in the Apocalypse; and the Answer, that they must expect until the number of their Brethren be filled up. Nor do I see how we can leave praying for them, as long as we say, Thy will be done; for in that we pray for all things which we know to be God's Will that they shall be done. And I fear 'tis only a blind Reverence, not any knowledge in Divinity which keeps him from quarrelling with the Church, as doing a superfluous action when she prays in the third Secreta of the Sunday Mass in Lent, ut omnium fidelium nomina beatae praedestinati●nis liber adscripta retineat.  
18. Out of what is hitherto discoursed it is evident, that to accelerate the Day of Judgement, is to cause it, and all the good that shall be there done to any body, and that therefore it cannot be questioned but that it is a great good. But he presses the term of Acceleration, and I must give account why we use that term: which is, because we find it to be Christ's own word. He told us that propter electos breviabuntur dies illi. And, though he spoke literally only of the time of Antichrist, yet we know all the rest hath proportion and Analogy to that. What good is it which the Elect gain by this shortening of those days? What, but to be saved? This same good get the Souls in Purgatory, their Beatitude. But your Divine's Fancy is so fixed upon their pains, to have them decrease, or increase by time, that he cannot think of the substantial change from Pains to Bliss. The which if he did consider, he would not tell us Christ did no considerable favour in delivering the Fathers out of Limbo; He would not tell us he that had more prayers got no more than he who had fewer; unless he imagines prayers can get no other good than the relaxation of pain. If in this World prayers can get all sorts of goods, can it get nothing in the next World? Do not the Saints tell us, that prayers accompany Souls to the Tribunal of God? that there they bring respect to the Person? How this is to be understood is another question. Two things are certain, One that this is another thing then releasing from pains; the other, that these prayers make his reward the greater. All therefore your Divines Arguments, that he who hath no prayers shall have as much as he that hath many, miss of their aim. For in the payment comes the difference, and your Divine cannot cast his eye once upon that, his heart is so frighted with the pains. By this you easily see, that the apprehension of this good from the first instant in Purgatory, must needs be a lessening of their pains in Purgatory. For we do not esteem the Doctrine he learned from the Devil, that it is just when the prayers are saying or said. And, though our Divine's discourses, that then they begin to have efficacy, is conformable to the Nature of the Prayers, it is not to the Nature of the Souls which are to be helped; which also is to be respected. As for the Fathers, they must be inched out by his good Translations or Explications, or else they will not come home, but favour our opinion.  
19 The first part of the proposed difficulty we delay until the 22. Chapter, in expectation of a fuller account. The later we find chiefly to be grounded on one Error, and one Carelessness. The Error, that he makes God's Providence uncertain, irresolute, and, depending on, not making the comportment of the Creatures. The Carelessness, that he wholly neglects the good gotten by prayers at the Resurrection, which has its effect in the whole state of Purgatory; fixing his discourse only upon that which is no good, So that of this Principle he hath no more to say now, then that he saith that to put the acceleration of the Day of Judgement to be the fruit of the prayer for the Dead, is an unheard novelty. And I conceit it to be the chief fruit of all our prayers commanded in our Lord's Prayer, containing our final Beatitude, which should be our greatest, if not our only prayer. He adds, it will make many lay aside praying for the Dead. I can say no more, then that I wish they were better instructed. But he is afraid that if the Day of Judgement come sooner, fewer will be saved, though our Saviour was of the contrary mind, and tells us that if the time were not shortened, non fieret salva omnis caro. God was forced once to drown the World and shorten men's lives, because all flesh had corrupted their ways; to wit, by the great adhesion to corporal objects through the long enjoying of them. Once again will he be forced to destroy the World by fire for the like malice of men. In the mean while he is forced to contract the length of it, that more may be saved, and the number of the Elect come up in a shorter time. I cannot omit his pleasant consideration that some will have a horror to pray for the Day of Judgement, because then the bodies of the wicked shall go to Hell. O pious meditation! to have a horror that that should be done which Christ shall command with his own mouth; and themselves, if they will be partakers with Christ, must have a share in! O pitiful hearts! that will not pray for the glorifying of their own bodies, for fear that thereby others bodies may be cast into torments! Yes, but there is another secret, which is, that peradventure their own body may be one. I perceive he makes them as prudent as the Spanish Soldier, who lying on his Deathbed, is reported, when he had occasion to speak of the Devil, still to term him Senor Diablo, and being evil used if he fell into his hands; as he had experience that it happened to Soldiers to fall into their Enemy's power by the chance of War.  
Numb. 22. He comes to the third Principle, of how the Fire of Conflagration works upon those in Purgatory, of which we have declared our Sentiment in the fifth Number, to which I must remit you, not knowing when I answered it, that it would be repeated here over again. Only I must note, that he understood nothing at all of what I said, so that his Objections are against pure mistakes. Numb. 24. he repeats very stoutly that I deny any pains to be due after th● remission of the sin, though it be most manifestly against my Writings and Doctrine, in all places where I have occasion to speak of it in my Sacra Institutiones, in my Book of Purgatory, and Reason and Religion, etc. He is so out of the way in the whole, that I cannot set him right; for he mistakes all, and makes no sense of my sayings of this point, and corrupts what he citys of other points. Therefore I must seek the remedy of desperate evils, to cut out all this discourse as incurable, until he having read what I have written upon his fifth Number, become capable of speaking and hearing fence in this matter.   

THIRD DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his Eighteenth Chapter.  
Bellarmin's Errors advantageous to Heretics. The Arguments in the Middle-State from Scripture maintained to be solid, and the Adversary's misinterpretations shown weak and inconsistent.  
1. SO through many Brambles we are come to his eighteenth Chapter. In the Preface of which he gives me two warnings. The first, that in reason he should expect some clear demonstration to justify the abandoning the known persuasion of the Church. And although I have already justified that it is no persuasion of the Church, but only a popular Error which I forsake; yet will I not insist upon that, not to make needless repetitions. But I must tell him he must not expect to see clear demonstration; For that belongs to them that have scientifical eyes, and not to them who learn only to babble of what they understand not. A Demonstratour must begin from the first Principles of Philosophy, and drive them on to his Conclusion, not take up his opinions upon Reasons, that fall into his mouth out of the Ayr. What he takes out of Faith, he must not be only able to say the words, or cite them out of some good Book, but he must be sure to understand them well, and see that his Explication contradicts neither Divinity, nor any other Science. And of these two courses, neither he nor his Masters (as far as I could see) were ever guilty. They take Texts, and urge the letter; without ever penetrating the sense; and foregoing all principles, they fly at every question with fantastic flashes, like Hawks at their prey where ever they spy it.  
2. His second warning is, that my Arguments are the outcasts and refuse of their Authors; And I am far from denying it, For indiscreet people are as subject to reject the best as the worst, and if I be not mistaken in h●s Authors, they ordinarily choose the worst Opinions for themselves: being men that in Sciences hunt after vanity, and the pleasing of the unlearned mustitude, and so are fit to make a show in discourse, until the weaker sort be beyond their speculation; but never understand things solidly, nor are able to give satisfaction to sober Wits, who look into the depth of a difficulty. He concludes that we never take notice of the Answers so fully made to the Objections we take out of his Authors. I will not return this upon him, and ask him how many Answers he has read in Religion and Reason, and my other Writings, which he hath read, as appears by the impugning of the Doctrine, yet will not cite, that he may say he knew not of those Solutions which he impugns not. But I will only say, let this encounter betwixt him and me bear testimony how fully and solidly the Answers are made.  
3. He begins his plea with telling his Reader that I borrowed the first and chiefest Objection from that infamous Heretic Ochinus. How does he know this? Bellarmin says Ochinus uses this Argument, What then? therefore I found it either in Bellarmin, or Ochinus. How proves he that? The Spirit with which he writes tells him so. And my Spirit tells me, that the Spirit which tells him so is the Spirit of Error and Calumny. For when I wrote my Book, I had neither Bellarmin, nor Ochinus. Nor did I ever study Bellarmin so much as to remember such particularities out of him. I am not ashamed if I had taken any thing out of Bellarmin to acknowledge it. For I acknowledge him to be the best Dictionary of Controversies I have seen; but a man must beware how he trusts either his Arguments, or Solutions: Yet he is very good to suggest to a man occasions, and matter that may be well used. Neither should I be ashamed to use any Argument I had found in Ochinus, or any other Heretic, so the Argument be solid to my purpose. And it is the prognostic of cozenage in the carriage of the cause, to make such exceptions. An Argument is good and bad by itself, not by his Author; and Aristotle used to find the middle truth, by comparing the falsities extre●mly opposite; and so, if I by comparing Ochinus, and your Divine, should find the truth to lie in the middle, I should think my action deserve honour, and to be profitable to the Church. Let us then look into the Argument itself. Ochinus, to prove there was no Purgatory, argued, if there be a Purgatory, than Souls are delivered before the Day of Judgement by prayers, but that is false by the Text alleged, etc. Now Bellarmin if he had been a solid answerer, would have denied his first proposition, and told him, whether prayers delivered them before, or not, yet Purgatory remained safe, and Ochinus choked that he could not have opened his mouth, and this Answer I have found printed at Rome against the Greek Heretics.  
4. This Error produced a greater, to wit, that their great Bellarmin was forced to confess that the words of the Scripture as they lie, or in the plain sense, are false; and so he fairly betrays the Catholic position of Purgatory to set up his own fancy. For his solution says that these words, If there were no Resurrection, signify ' If the soul were not immortal; which be so different meanings, that by many Philosophers the one was confessed, and the other denied: So that the two propositions are neither the same, nor such as that their connexion is plainly seen. Therefore to make this good he feigns a third, either falsity, or at least not proved, nor very probable; which is, that the writer of the second book of Macchabees, wrote after Jonathas his time, when by reason of a firm peace, the Jews fell to dispute about their Law, and so into great divisions and sects: Whereas by probability this Book was written in Judas his time. For it makes no mention of his death, which it had been a fault to leave out if it had passed before the book was written: which if it be true, these words must not be spoken against any infection of Sadduces, but of Greeks who had long domineered over Jury, specially in Antiochus his time.  
5. His fourth Error is, that he makes our Saviour also make a false Argument, and to conclude the Immortality of the soul in stead of the Resurrection, and to make this consequence; Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob's fouls are alive, therefore Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob's bodies shall rise again. The which would not have silenced the Sadduces, but rather have made them contemn our Saviour; For they better understood Resurrection, than the being of an abstracted spirit; which we see amongst even our Moderns, many profess not to understand; and many of those who profess to understand it, by their gross explications show they do not penetrate it. But you may ask, what then is the force of our Saviour's Argument? I answer, that we have it from our Saviour himself, who told his Apostles that Lazarus was asleep, not dead, and the like he spoke of the Prince of the Synagogues daughter; and the phrase amongst Christians is used of all the Faithful, and so we sing, Regem cui omnia vivunt, venite adoremus, and St. Paul expresses it in the words, than (says he) those who have fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. When then our Saviour says God is not God of the dead, this word dead must be taken for perished, according to what St. Paul comforteth the Christians, and tells them they must not be sorrowful at their friends deaths as Gentiles were, and giveth the reason qui spem non habent; that is, who expect no Resurrection, but think their dead for ever perished, and not to be as it were in a sleep until the last Trumpet awakes them. There is yet a deeper Mystery in our Saviour's words, which neither pleased Bellarmin nor his admirer; to wit, that because all things are present to God in eternity, therefore no future thing is absent to God, so that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did live to God, and as to God were really living.  
6. He presses also that St. Paul urgeth the like Argument, saying, that if there be no Resurrection, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die. But this Argument showeth plainly that his former solution was naught. For St. Paul speaks not to Sadduces, but rather to Pharisees, to whom belongeth the custom of often Baptisms, which he there urges: therefore it depends not out of the connexion of the Immortality of the soul and Resurrection, but rather it supposes the Immortality of the, soul to be a thing not known to the vulgar. For, according to that saying of his, sapientiam loquimur inter perfect●s, he applied his Doctrine to his Auditory. To the multitude he preached what they were capable of, 〈◊〉 is, he proposed the Goods proper to the whole man, and as it were an excellency and height of those goods whereof they had experience, reserving the declaration of goods purely spiritual to the special audience of the more understanding part. Wherefore all his public preaching being of the rewards 〈◊〉 be received in the Resurrection, be m●ke● this Argument; if there be no Resurrection we are the most miserable of men, for in this world we enjoy no pleasure, and in the next we have no reward. So you see this solid resolution of Bellarmin to be compounded of pure mistakes and improbabilities. And yet, if his worship had been so curious, he might have found it confuted in the third account of the Book whence he read the objection made, though Bellarmin is not by name cited, not every petty confirmation impugned, the which I should have done if I had taken it out of Bellarmin.  
7. He yet presse●. That those who were seduced by the Gentiles would not esteem of 〈◊〉 Authority of Judas Maccab●●● in which he shows either little experience or much cunning. For, as an Ordinary Protestant, such as depend from the Authority of their Preacher, if he see it proved that all Antiquity is against what his Preacher teaches, is presently strucken with a horror, and begins to waver, because it is natural, to men to love and adhere to their Ancestors so those who were wavering amongst the Jews upon the persuasions of the Gentiles, when they saw the public profession of their Country in the fact of Judas Maccabaeus, would be much solicited to forgo the apparent reasons of the Gentiles, and prefer their Country's belief before them. Either therefore your Divine did not understand this, or else under the colour of some obstinate Persons he would cunningly make his Reader believe that no body would take good by this example of Judas Maccabaeus.  
8. His opposition to my second Text is already answered, for St. Paul did not speak to the Sadduces but to such as received the custom of Baptisms or praying for the dead; and his Argument is as strong, as that when we, out of praying for the dead, prove a Purgatory and remission of sins in the next world; so does St. Paul prove the Resurrection. Whence it is manifest that he taught the Christians to pray for that good to the dead which they were to receive at the Resurrection, and by consequence, that all the good the dead can receive before that day is already received before they are prayed for.  
9 The third Text he dissembles to understand, and for that reason with his Paraphrase corrupts the Text: The Text itself says; that his spirit or soul may be saved in the day of our Lord. He paraphrases Saved to signify to appear with great honour and glory. But every one who understands the word, know● it signifies to be freed from some danger or harm: and all Catholics, by admitting a particular judgement, know all danger is past; therefore the meaning must be that in that day he shall be freed from punishment and misery. At length he turns off this Text with a jeer, telling us St. Paul was not so uncharitable as to wish no good to Onesiphorus befor● the day of Judgement. As if it were not charity mistaken to wish him what St. Paul knew was not to be had St. Paul therefore in this expression wisheth Onesiphorus all good that could happen to him which as yet, he possessed not, and so shows there was no good to be expected for the dead, but either what they have before prayers, or else are to receive 〈◊〉 the day of Judgement.  
10. In his eighth Number he goes over this Text anew, and says, or rather grants, that indeed it is the common phrase of Christians to speak so, but that as it cannot be inferred thence that the wicked go not to Hell before that day, no more can it be in●…ed that the just commonly receive not their reward before that day. But the difference of the two 〈◊〉 is very manifest. For the damning of the wicked is not proposed to us as a thing to be desired and effected by our prayers, and therefore concerns not us when it is done. But the Reward of our Benefactors is proposed to be gained by our prayers, and therefore we ought to know what to pray for; and he confesses that Universally the phrase, which is the witness o● our thoughts and of what we are taught, runs so as to wish good in the day of Judgement. The consequence therefore is most infallible, and in a manner belonging to Tradition, that all our prayer for the dead must be that they may receive their reward at the day of Judgement. For although Tradition doth not expressly teach the Negative, yet because it Universally teaches the positive to pray for good at the last day, it follows clearly that the position putting another time is added to Tradition; and being in a matter that depends of Revelation, and therefore cannot be known but by Tradition, it appears not only to be a Nov●… but also ungrounded, and not to be followed. I must here note how your Divine who heretofore asked for but 〈◊〉 A●…r who should say that the acceleration of the day of judgement was that which we were to pray for, can here tell you that such speeches ●re in most common use, and that the usual phrase ru●s of this day; that, as the 〈◊〉 of speech is so usual in Scripture, it is no wonder that the Fathers and our Liturgies do sometime make use of it: Where you shall see a gradation made, that in Scripture it is the usual phrase, but the Father's and Liturgies do sometime make use of it; As if the Fathers did not usually speak as the Scriptures, not the Liturgies were made by the Fathers, and at least follow their customs, though every man of judgement cannot choose but see the use of Fathers and Liturgies must of necessary be the same with the Scriptures whence they are taken; which were it confessed, as it is evident, what Testimony could I desire at his hands greater than this?  
11. N. 7. he impugns the Text taken from the tenth to the Hebrew●, where the Apostle threateneth a Purgation of 〈◊〉 to them who 〈◊〉 after Baptism; which Bellarmin is forced to gloss against the Text, to avoid No●●tus his Error. For whereas the Text speaks of a fire that should feed upon those who were not quite contrary to God, which words cannot be understood of any ●●re but Purgatory fire, he very freely without any ground of the Text, and only because otherwise it will not stand with his opinion, takes no notice of the properties which particularise this fire, and by his own Authority puts in Hell fire, and a distinction of the effects of these two fires, to which sense a Cable is not strong enough to draw the words.  
12. In his ninth and tenth Paragraphs, he impugns the Texts taken out of St. Matthew and St. Luk●, concerning agreeing with our Adversary in the way, that is, in our life time, that we may not be delivered to the eternal Judge: And he thinks we urge this Text for not reflecting upon the particular Judgement at the hour of death, and I cannot well deny it. For I do not remember that in any place of Scripture Christ is called Judge in regard of the next World, but either at his Resurrection, or at the last day. And besides what passeth at man's death, I ●●ke to be very improperly called Judgement; and, if it were a true Judgement, this Formality of your Adversaries delivering you ●ver to the Judge, I do not know that any one attributes to particular Judgement; Which circumstances, though they were pressed where he found the Argument, he totally neglected and presses for himself those words of being sent to a Prison, there to remain until he pay the last farthing. This saith he, is most unnaturally spoken of the day of Judgement▪ after which there remains no prison but eternal. And his discourse were good, if this delivery of our Saviour were not Allegorical; that is, a human expression of things above human reach, and therefore not to be expected to be verified entirely to the material word: which taken away, it signifies no more than at the day of Judgement the sinners shall be punished without remission. But to think there shall be other Prison than the man's own guilt, or other to●…rer than his own knowledge and conscie●…, is to be proved not supposed. And why this must require length of time more than what precedes the sentence, and of the which the sentence is the approbation as of all the rest that shall be executed all that day, I expect some better declaration before▪ I frame a new Judgement properly so called, without any ground in Scripture or Antiquity.  
13. In his eleventh Number he treats the famous place taken out of the third Chapter of the first to the Corinth's, but so as if he aimed not to give the sense of it, but only to wave the force from his opinion, no matter how much against the words themselves. For it being agreed between parties that the Apostle speaks of the day o● Judgement, and of material fire, yet he hath three solutions. First that it is meant of no material fire, but of the fire of the district Judgement. But this is to prevaricate against themselves, who agree there is a true material fire at that day, which is the faith of all Christians, and the Apostles words are plain, that that great day shall be revealed in fire. Now so far being the common▪ Faith of Christians, it is against all sense to say this is not the fire which shall try the works of all men. For the Apostle gives for proof or ground why all men's works shall be tried by fire, because (saith he) that day shall be revealed in fire. What a strange perversion then of the Text is it to make the Apostle make this Argument. The day of Judgement shall be revealed in material and elemental fire therefore the works of men shall be tried by God's judgement or spiritual districtness; and yet this is the sense given to the Apostles words by this Interpretation. His second Interpretation is, that the meaning is, the sinners shall be saved as it were by fire, but fire precedent to the fire of Judgement, and this explication 〈◊〉 more against the Text than the other. For this ground which the Apostle takes, that the day of Judgement shall be revealed in fire, can be no more brought for the cause why the sinners works shall be tried by a precedent fire, then why they shall be tried by God's judgement. And besides, the Apostle so expressly says that every one's work shall be tried by the fire in that day, or, of that day, that nothing can be spoken more plainly against the Text, then to say it is meant of another fire which went before. Likewise that speech that whose work abides the fire he shall be rewarded, but if any man's bourn, he shall suffer detriment, is plainly spoken of the fire of that day, so that such an interpretation is a plain corruption. And no less can be said of his third explication, that the meaning is, that the fire shall manifest, that is, show what was done before, but not do any thing. For those words If any man's work burns, he shall suffer detriment, cannot be understood of what was passed before the day of Judgement, but of what is done in that day. And therefore the trying he speaks of must necessarily be the working of the fire upon the sinner's works: so that it is evident he and his Bellarmin do not explicate, but corrupt the Text against the plain words of the Apostle.  
14. The ninth Text concerning the Remission of sin in the next world, is brought to show, that some sin remains truly in Purgatory to be purged, and that if only pains are put in Purgatory, it is no Purgatory. This consequence we handled before, when he pressed we put no Purgatory because there was nothing purged until the day of Judgement, Ch. 17. N. 4. Where I showed how he himself acknowledges that there must be something that hath the nature of a Blemish, that purgation be necessary. His first objection is that Calvin uses this Argument. I answer it was the fault of them who explicated Purgatory as Bellarmin and he does, to give such an advantage to Heretics by evil explicating our Faith, that their argument though otherwise weak against Faith, yet are demonstrative against it in their Explications. His second solution is to fall into that condemned Heresy, that after the souls are perfectly purged, yet they remain in Purgatory. For he will needs put a most intense act of charity and contrition, for the first act of the soul separated, which expels the guilt of Venial sin; and by consequence, the souls after they be purged, remain to be tormented. Besides, he doth not reflect that if this act can deserve the Remission of the sin, it can also the Remission of all pain, which Doctors assign to perfect Contrition. His third solution is, that by the name of sin is to be understood lyability to punishment: Which is very true if it be taken proportionally as it ought, for there can be neither sin without pain due to it, nor owing of pain but by s●n; But the mystery is, that he will not understand this, though a man should beat it into him with a pestle; but will, if you say the sin is not wholly remitted as long as pains are due for it, cite you I know not how many Texts of Councils against you, and yet now he can cite out of St. Thomas, that the Remission of the pain belongs to the entire Remission of the sin, and promises he will show it to be the sense of the Fathers; which I shall be thankful to him for, because it is a most plain truth. But yet I cannot allow his consequence, that when our Saviour says that a Sin shall not be forgiven either in this World or in the next, it must in this World signify guilt, and in the other only pain. For our Saviour does not use to make his words straddle so wide, as within three words, and continuing the same proposition to make a double sense of the same word. He concludes that hitherto his Adversaries have brought no Demonstration. Which whether it be true or no, let wiser men than judge: I can only say, that he hath solved no one Authority with any colourable answer, but either by falling into Errors, or abusing the words of Scripture by Paraphrases or inconsequent explications, which are easily made appear to any one who attentively reads my Replies.   

FOURTH DIVISION, Containing an Answer to his nineteenth Chapter.  
The Testimonies from Fathers and Antiquiquity brought for the Authors Doctrine, in his Book of the Middle State, maintained to be assertive of it; and the Adversary's Interpretations shown to be most weak and senseless distortions of their words and meanings.  
1. HE begins his nineteenth Chapter with the Comparison of the multitude of Fathers he hath brought to the paucity of mine. To which I have nothing to say, for a comparison ought not to be made before both parts are seen, and he will have the Reader judge before he hath made any discussion of mind. Let the Reader therefore remember what is passed concerning his Fathers, which he professeth to have cited plentifully, to wit, one class of them who speak of our Saviour's Resurrection in which we are more forward than he, that all souls were then delivered, Another class of such Testimonies as are confessedly Erroneous and Heretical. The rest of Fathers speaking in common what we both agree in, unless St. Julian of whom I cannot pronounce, having not seen the Books: Lastly, certain stories which some Father's mention, your great Divine making no difference betwixt the stating of Divinity, and telling of news, but parallelling what a Father says he heard, to what the Church receives from Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Is not this think you a goodly score to vaunt so much of? He adds, for the last thousand years, not so much as a whisper of any one Father. In what age then lived Alacinus, St. Anselm, and St. Thomas, who are cited for holding the Fire of Judgement to be the fire of Purgatory, and were in a manner the beginners of the Schoolmen?  
2. In his second Number he comes to the objections. Before I begin them, I must give you a short note of the state of the question. You are therefore to take notice of two famous propositions in Antiquity, which modern use has much relinquished. The one is, that in the primitive Church the day of Judgement was hotly proposed to Christians, as in which both rewards and punishments were to be expected; Whereas now adays all the preaching almost tends to the present going to Heaven or to Hell. And this is so plain thathe himself renders causes why it was so: The second Doctrine was, that because some souls needed purging, and this was apprehended to depend of Judgement, also the day in which the rewards or punishments were given, was deputed for the purging of the souls which needed purgation. This purging was by the Saints generally taken to be done by fire, & therefore of the last conflagration; and other purging we hear not of, until private Revelations took Authority to build Divinity, new Principles; since which time almost all the Devotion of the Latin Church runs after the delivery of souls from present pains of fire, which the Greek Church professed in the Council of Florence not to have heard of. But as in the former proposition, the difference betwixt Antiquity, and the present use maketh not either reprehensible, so in this later question there is no formal opposition, but the Essence Purgatory is conserved in both, to wit, that some souls are in torment until they be delivered: But Antiquity makes no mention of any delivery, but at the day of Judgement. Our later Revelations make irregular deliveries upon divers occasions. Now what I aim at in the citation of Fathers, is to show that the Test●… brought out of them for purging of souls, all, or generally speak of the day o● Judgement: so that as to the Fathers the question is all one, if whether there be a Purgatory, and whether the souls be released at the day of Judgement; and all the Authorities which prove Purgatory fire, be such as to prove that fire to be at the day of Judgement. Whence it follows, that who will put a Remission before, must look for Fathers who say that directly, and not rely upon the common speeches. Farther, the question is of that nature that it depends from solid Revelation out of Scripture or Tradition, and no less Authority is able to make it a Schola●●cal Doctrine. It is likewise to be noted, that because the cry of Antiquity is for the day of Judgement, it signifies not that some sew shall suffer that fire, but that all, good and bad, better and worse, every one shall from that fire reap their deserts, the good rewarded, the bad damned, the middle ●ort purged. This solution therefore that some few shall be purged by that fire, is excluded by the Universality, which because it includes all others, good and bad, must include likewise the purgable part.  
3. His first Reply is against my citing Saint Basil, and Saint Hierome, to explicate the Baptism of fire to be the Fire of Judgement. He answers, Bellarmin citys these Fathers for the fire of Purgatory. Wherein I note two weaknesses; the one, that he takes Bellarmin to be some Oracle not to be contradicted; for otherwise he should have been bound to show that Bellarmi● had done it solidly, and not only that he had done it. But the more concerning weakness is▪ that he understands not the question. For I also cite this Text for the fire of Purgatory; seeing that I say the fire of Judgement is the only purging fire. We are like to have good solutions from this man who marks not what the question is. Such a one is that which he citys of Ven●rable Bede, who, as far as can be seen in the words, says, some men explicate Purgatory fire of the tribulations of this life, whereof St. Austin is one.  
4. In his third Number he plays us the like trick. For whereas we cite three Father's, not the Scripture, he answers what St. Hierom says is the meaning of that place of Scripture, which is nothing to our question, but what the cited Fathers say, whom he tur●s over with his old song, that some shall be purged by that fire, without giving any ground out of the Father's words for it. St. Augustine's Testimonies he here omits, peradventure he will remember them afterward. He goes on to St. Denys, whom I cite, to show that all the good to be expected for the dead, was to be expected at the day of Judgement, because the prayers for the dead tend to that effect. This he cavils at, as if I made the consequence that therefore happiness might not be hoped for before, whereas I only say that our intentions are directed to that day as is before explicated.  
5. I cited farther Origin, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, Lactantius, St. Hierom, and Rupertus, all most manifestly declaring the trying and purging of the last fire. But he hath a salve for all sores, to wit, Bellarmin says, that by the name of fire is understood Gods exact Judgement. I wonder a man of his worth can be so silly, as to think Bellarmin's ver, dict without alleging other proof must pass for a demonstration. The man is one who hath taken much pains, and laboured for the Church of God, and it grieves me to be forced to diminish any way his credit, but this impertinent manner of proceeding obliges me to remember, what Possevinus of his own order said of him, to wit, that Stapleton's solutions were better than his. And for the present, his solution is particularly absurd out of this head, that seeing both these truths are acknowledged, that there is at the Judgment-day real fire, and district Judgement; the one naturally signified by the word fire, the other improperly; where there is no occasion to understand the word improperly, it is doubly absurd to take it so▪ both because it violenteth the nature of the word, and brings a calumny against the reality of true fire in Judgement; and because it makes the speeches of Saints improper▪ without any ground or necessity. He citys St. Gregory Nyss●● again; but because it is certain his works; particularly that which he insists upon, are corrupted by the Origenists, whose Error that was, which this good Divine offereth us for water of life, as is heretofore declared, I need not trouble myself about him. He takes notice of a place of Origen cited by me, in which he says the pain● of Hell may cleanse him whom the Apostolical Doctrine could not, and he says this is Origen's, Error of purging men in Hell after Judgement, and I will not peremptorily deny it, since it is certain he held that Error which his followers have sprinkled in St. Gregory Nyssen's his work, but I may freely say that it is not known out of these words whether it be or no: For Orig●… held the fire which began in Judgement, to become afterward the fire of Hell. So that the word Gehennae, or of Hell must not be explicated of Purgatory, but truly of Hell; but materially, as the fire which will be Hell fire.  
6. He taxeth another place of Origen, N. 6. where Origen says, that in the second Resurrection sinners are purged by burning, which he says is against us; because we say that smarting in fire is punishing, not purging, which I acknowledge to be very true. But Origen says, that the fire he speaks of consumes what ever he ●ad of Wood, Hay, Stubble; and this is plainly purging, and as plain, saying that the sinner brought this to the second Resurrection. After this he brings for himself Origen's known Error, that some are longer, others shorter time purging after the Resurrection, for that is known to be his meaning.  
7. Number 7. He explicates those words of Tertullian, Modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis expenso: In English, Every small fault paid for by the delay of Resurrection; That is (saith he) in the interval betwixt Death and Resurrection. But I would willingly know of him, by what Grammar an ablative case governed by expenso can signify the same, as if the Preposition in were added. If it be governed by expenso, Mora was that which was weighed against the sin. If it be not governed of expenso, what is weighed against the sin? If it be lawful for him to make new Latin Rules and Phrases to make the Fathers speak for him, I do not wonder at his great bragging of his Fathers and Councils; For there is no more to be done, then to say, These words shall signify my opinion, as he hath often done already. Nor needs he to bring his Examples of in this year. For the ●ore is in the Latin which wants an in, which he puts in the English example.  
8. His abusing of Saint Cyprian is much worse, whose words he translates so. It is one thing to stand (before the Tribunal of Mercy) for pardon, and quite another thing to come presently to Glory: It is one thing to be cast into Prison without going thence until the last farthing be paid; and quite another thing to receive presently the reward of Faith and Virtue. It is one thing, by a long grief of torments to be cleansed from their sins, and to be purged for a long time by fire, and another thing by sufferance to have purged all their sin. It is one thing to hang in suspense concerning the sentence of our Lord in the Day of (their) Judgement, and another thing to be presently crowned by our Lord. In this Translation, He puts in two words, the first before the Tribunal of Mercy; the other Their which break the sense of St. Cyprian, for other faults I mark not. We must first note that all this is spoken of the next World, as the antithesis proves. For, to come presently to Glory is in the next World, so then must also be the waiting for Pardon, which he explicates to stand before the Tribunal of Grace for Pardon, whereas it signifies no more than as yet not to be pardoned. Again, what the Saint calls to pendere in die Judicii ad sententiam Domini, which signifies plainly to depend of the sentence our Lord shall give in the Day of Judgement, he translates to hang in suspense concerning the Sentence of our Lord in the Day of [their] Judgement. So that by false translating and adding, he changes the whole mind of St. Cyprian, because it will not fail with his opinion; And against all sense, puts one part of the Antithesis in this world, and the other in the next. What Saint Cyprian speaks plainly of the Day of Judgement, by adding their he makes it to be spoken of the Day of Death. For it is plain the Day of Judgement taken without determination, signifies the last Day, the private Judgement being called so, neither properly nor at all, without one explicate himself to signify so much. He objects, to excuse his violence by necessity, that the Souls of Purgatory are not in suspense of their Sentence. It is answered, not S. Cyprian, but he only uses that expression; And that there is no doubt but that the Souls in Purgatory depend for their delivery from the Sentence of that Day, which is the natural sense of the place. He would fain persuade his Auditory, that this place is against us, because there is an expression of length of time, as if I held that time stood still betwixt the death of a Sinner, and the Day of Judgement.  
9 In the next testimony cited out of Saint Chrysostom, telling us that One siphorus should have his reward in that dreadful day when we shall stand in need of much mercy, his Solution does so waver, that 'tis hard to find where it lies. As to that part that One siphorus shall then receive his reward, he seems to say nothing, but rather to deny that most faithful men shall need mercy at that day; whereas, it is not only St. Chrysostom's, nor only Saint Hierom's, or Saint hilary's, whom he cited when he would persuade us that we should not pray for the acceleration of that day, chap. 17 Nu: 21. but the apprehension of all the Christian World, and for this reason, because 〈◊〉 must then render an account of ●ll our actions, Saint Hillary specifies of every idle word; And here denying their standing in need of mercy, he infers, that then they must be in a sad condition until then. How will he excuse this from being a contradicting the general apprehension of the Church? But the good man seems to be afraid, that if we pray for mercy at that day, we should pray to have none before: a very superficial and weak consequence; seeing the means ●o have mercy then is to have mercy in other things beforehand, and that the mercy there will not hinder the foregoing mercies, but rather complete and increase them.  
10. Lastly he comes to St. Augustin, and first to a place in which St. Augustin says that at the Day of Judgement, those who have not Christ as a Foundation are condemned, those who build upon that Foundation Wood, Hay, and Stubble, are punished (for that is the force of the Latin emendantur) that is, purged; His answer is, that they are said to be purged by that fire, because that last fire by not touching them, shows them to be formerly sufficiently purified. Is not this a very curious explication; they are punished, id est, not touched; they are purged, id est, not purified. If these be good explications, let that pass for good also, that a Poet making an Argument to the first Chapter of Saint Matthew▪ wrote Pri●●ipium vita Christi lib●r a●stinetiste; and set in the margin Absti●et, i. e. c●●tinet.  
11. The next Text of St. Austi● tells us, that the fire of Judgement divides betwixt the carnal People who are to be d●…ed, and the car●al who are to be saved. Yes, says your answerer, by not touching them; or, if it doth touch some, quickly dispatching. But this fine Solution is against the word Carnal, which signify that there is in them purifying matter, which is not in spiritual ones. His second Solution, by not refu●ing the universality of the word carnales, admits that this fire belongs to all c●r●ales sal●●nd●s, as well as to all carnales ●…s.  
12. There follow two places out of St. Austin, in which St. Austin saith that in the Day of Judgement the sins of some are to be remitted; which he easily puts off by saying those some are such as die so lately that they have not been purged. But the evil luck is, that St. Austin makes this Argument in the later place, that unless this were so, there would be no remis●in of si●s in the next world. Which is to say, that all that are remitted in the next world, are remitted in the Day of Judgement; which is invincibly to say there i● no re●ission of 〈◊〉 before that d●y i● the ●●xt wo●ld. A●…●a●● Argument is repe●… in the ne●t ●itation, to which he answers, he verily thinks that it is spoken not of remission, b●t of manifestation. How rationally he thinks so, you may judge ou● of Christ▪ s words, which are, shall not be remitted in this world, nor in the next. Did any man ever hear such a hobbling construction, as to make the same word remittetur, not as much as repeated, joined to in this world, to signify true remission, and joined to in the next world, to signify manifestation? Have we not need to study Grammar again, to understand so obscure speeches? As for Pope Gregory, I cannot remember his very words, yet as far as I do remember them, they reach only to prove that there is a r●…ion in the next world; but not that it is made at the Day of Judgement.  
1●. The last Text of St. Austin is, that in what state a man dies, in that he will be found the last Day. This ●e says we esteem much, and I think with good reason, for the words are plain. His Solution is, that after this life there is no more merit, nor demerit, which he proves to be St. Austin's opinion; but needed not, for we not only agree, but hold it more rigorously th●● he and his Bell●rmin whom he citys. But we question what has that position to do with these words, I● what condition every 〈◊〉 l●st day finds him, in the same shall the world's last day catch him. For these words signify no kind of change to be made in him, and not only concerning merit and demerit. Likewise the following words are, For such as in that day he departs, such in the last day shall he be judged. Which sentence plainly says, if he dies impure and deserving to be purged, the last day shall find him impure and deserving to be purged; what stories soever Bellarmin tells us of another thing.  
14. There follows ●●ffinus his Testimony, which of itself might have been common to both opinions, if it had not clearly alluded to the words of St. Paul, which he and Bellarmin with him acknowledge to be spoken of the day of Judgement, and which by consequence draw the words of Ruffinus to be meant of the same. To E●cheri●s Lugdun●●●is he answers, that he hath showed his words are against us; and there where he endeavoured to show this, that is, Ch. 7. N. 8. I have answered his proof. Only I must note that he citys the words for St. Austin's, whereas 'tis clear they are not; nor that homily, of which the one half where these words are, is taken out of E●cheri●s, and therefore the whole Homily must be of an Author later than St. Eucherius, whence his pressing of St. Austin's other places to confirm this, is nothing to the purpose.  
15. He concludes his Chapter with saying, there is no one Authority alleged by which it is made clear that every one, though he died never so long since, is to be detained in Purgatory until the last day, though he had but one Venial sin to answer for. In which words there are so many circumstances, that it were indeed very hard to find the proposition formally, and in terminis in Scripture or Fathers. Therefore I deem it enough for me, if I find that the faithful who die in sin, without exception, must be purged by the fire of Judgement; if I find no mention of any ending of purging but by this fire; nay, if I find that there is no remission of sin in the next world, unless it be at the day of Judgement; and, finally, if I find the whole direction of Scripture and Fathers publicly to be to that day, without any mention of any change in the Interim. This I think enough for me, and plainly enough laid down, since your Divine hath not given a plausible solution to any one place of Scripture or Father alleged. He confesses the trial by fire, but puts it to be a manifestation, against the force of the words, without other reason then because it would be against his opinion: He confesses the Universal direction to be to the day of Judgement; He confesses there is no true Remission of sin in the next world, unless it be in the first instant, or be, as we say with the Fathers, in the day of Judgement. What can I ask more? unless it be, how the fire acts upon the good and bad. For he not putting it to have this force by preparing their Bodies to Resurrection, must of necessity make some fine procession of all who rise through this fire, and a great discretion in it to know which it must touch, and which not, and how much every one must suffer, and when it will be time to end the dance, and tumble with the wicked down to Hell, which will make a curious piece to contemplate; and so I must expect his farther leisure, and prepare myself to his next Chapter.   

FIFTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his twentieth Chapter.  
Of Vindicative Justice, and in what sense 'tis transferrible to God. His Ignorances' and Mistakes of our Doctrine and Arguments. Why Fire cannot be an Instrument to torment Spirits. His rare Mystery of surceasing from Action by pure cessation, and of Obediential Power.  
1. THough his twentieth Chapter bear in the front of its title, to answer the objection of Novelty, yet it discourseth of other circumstances. As that Pope Gregory puts not any to go to Heaven, but only to be delivered out of pains, and Venerable Bede the like; out of which we do not infer Novelty, but Error and want of Authority in the Revelations they bring. For Alcuinus I do not remember I cited him for any such matter; but, for the opinion itself, to be for us. Nor do we make this consequence because Abel went not to Heaven, therefore others go not now; but only by this example re●ute the importunity he makes from the length of Time. He says no man can deny that St. Anselm and St. Thomas, held this delivery out of Purgatory, and brings for witness his first Number of the tenth Chapter, where there is nothing but stories written in the two Saints lives, which to take for their Authorities is a great mistake. For the Authority of those stories belongs to the writers of the lives; who how prudent and exact they are, and by how many hands they received them, are guesses in the air. I was told within this week a story, how the Devil fetched away a Minister at Zurick. It was read me out of a Letter of a man against whom I had no exceptions, but because it came through more hands, neither he to whom it was written, nor I could find faith enough to trust it.  
2. As to his defence that their opinion is not new, I remit myself to 〈…〉 Answers in the places he citys; that is 〈…〉 Answers of the fifth and sixth Number, Chap. 9 his N. 12. Ch. 7. N. 11. and 12. Ch. 5. N. 11. and 12. Ch. 14. And as to his solid Judgement that those proofs are sufficient to make this opinion be defined for an Article of Faith, if it be not already, as of one side the Church expects no new Faith since the Apostles time, so on the otherside what he brings in his fifteenth Chapter is not able to make his opinion as much as probable. For the matter being a matter not knowable of his side but by Revelation, seeing it depends wholly upon God's free counsel and will, beyond our reach otherwise then by Revelation, so it must needs follow that the Verdicts of all men who go not out of solid Revelations, are the Verdicts of blind men judging of colours.  
3. In his second Number, he tells his Reader as concerning whether God sets pains purely vindicative, that we dressup old Arguments in new Clothes, the which I must needs confess to be a custom not only laudable, but necessary. For, otherwise, no Argument that were old could be good, whereas experience teaches that oftentimes they are the best, and by the regular course of nature they must be so, for what is strongest endures the longest. But let us look into his process▪ 〈…〉 citys out of the Supplement two Arguments to prove there are no pains in Hell, and concludes, Thus you see these Arguments do the Devil as good service in taking away Hell, as they do our Adversaries to take away our Purgatory. So that your Gentleman, after he hath spent so large a book, to make people believe that the pains of Purgatory are not so great as we make them, now will persuade the world we take away pains out of Purgatory. Who would have believed that towards the end of the book we should be put to lay open the question? I pray then take notice, that (as 〈◊〉 have before also declared) we put the pains of Purgatory to be the very same that they do, only longer, and by more connatural means, and of their natures stronger and more powerfully tormenting. The question betwixt us is only about the Instruments and manner of effecting these Torments. Wherefore if the Supplement giveth answers common to Hell and our Controversy, they are to be suspected not to be solid, or rather, not well applied to our case.  
4. To open therefore the particular case so it stands. Where men live under Government, by the course of Law certain actions or things are due from one Fellow-citizen to another, these are as well negative as positive, as it is equally due not to hurt my neighbour, as to pay him what I owe him. If I offend by not giving him his due, the Magistrate forces me to observe the equality, and keep Commutative justice as they call it; but, if I hurt my neighbour, than the Magigistrate himself imposes a penalty upon me, either in purse or body; and this is said to be Distributive Justice, and particularly vin●…ative. Ask the reason of it, ●●is because I have offended the Magistrate. For if I had only offended my neighbour, Restitution, that is ●…ative Justi●● had satisfied him. In what then is the Magistrate o●●ended? Why, the good of the Magistrate, as he is a Magistrate, is to have his Government not hindered, but easy to him. Now his Government becomes easy when every one does as he should do, and when they do otherwise, his Government becomes difficult, both because he is gorced to put his own hand to hard work; and because the example, if the offender be not punished▪ maketh others prompt to do the like. Here you see two reasons making Vindicative Justi●e prudent and good▪ but both reasons concern the common Wealth. There is in private men a third occasion of Revenge; which is, that a harm done to a private man, makes him angry, that is grieved, and as it were sick for the time, and this he seeks to amend by Revenge. This is plainly the Revenge of fools, as proceeding out of passion, not of reason: but it is the most spectable in human Conversation. By this a sensible man will easily understand, that if Revenge be to be attributed to God, the translation is to be made from the first sort of Revenge, which because it i● rational, may by reason be transferred to God who works, like the Author of Reason, according to Reason; and not out of the second which grows out of passion, and is an affection of the Beast that i● in ●an joined to Reason. Notwithstanding this ●o so plain, nevertheless weak Divines make the Translation from the later, not distinguishing the one from the other, because of the common name, leaping from word to word, without considering the different fignification. Taking therefore Revenge to be an act of Justice, and Justice to be 〈◊〉 Virtue, they think the beastly act of Revenge to be a virtuous action, and attribute it to God.  
5. Now to descend to the Answers of the Arguments out of the Supplement; it is plai● that the Author makes the pains of Hell not purely Vindicative, because he says they are ordered for the correction of those who are now in the Church. And when he says that the exercise of Divine Justice is grateful to God for its own sake, who can doubt but that he speaks of a rational exercise which is done for some end? Likewise that he saith that the punishment of sinners rejoiceth the Saints, it is plainly true, 〈◊〉 this makes the pains not to be purely Vindicative, and therefore are nothing to my Argument, which speaks only of such kind of pains, for of others there is no question; and if there were any, it would press us more than them to answer them. But the question betwixt us and your Divine, is of the quality of the punishment, and the manner of executing them, and that special end to satisfy God's Justice as they take it. For they explicate God's Justice not as it regards the square and frame of the world, but abstractedly from circumstances, they think one act to be good, another to be bad of its own nature, and that God is bound to give a reward to good acts, and punishment to bad ones, purely out of a virtue whose nature it is so to do, which is called▪ Justice. We on the contrary side put acts to be good or bad, in order first to the Doer, afterwards to Neighbours, in both to the End they were made for, and the Fabric of Causes ordered to bring them to their Ends. This is the difference specially touching this point of Vindicative Justice, which they apply to the acts immediately, we proportion to the ends of Persons and the whole World. Conformable to this riseth another difference, that we put the punishments of the next world to spring connaturally out of the behaviour of the Persons in this World, and so can give some account of their Quality. They put the punishments to be chosen by an arbitrary esteem of God Almighty, which is neither revealed, nor is there any Ladder to climb so high as to have a s●ght of it: to help which defect they bring us Revelations, some of which may be proper, some allegorical, all imperfect, uncertain, and ungrounded, having nothing for the most part, but the word of some one Person in a trance, or some other doubtful plight.  
6. Hence you see that the Arguments of the Supplement are so far from being ours, that we stand more obliged to solve them then they, for they are against torments in General, and concern Revenge in the first signification, and our Arguments are against Revenge in the bestial meaning, and against this voluntary framing of torments; and therefore he is deceived, when in ●his third Number he says our two best proofs are solved: For they are not as much as touched. And to answer them he must not show that pains in common, but this quality of pains, is profitabler than if they were natural, which he never goes about; and, for the other part, that it is rational to do them for pure Revenge, he shows plainly he understands not what what is objected, framing his answer in his fourth Number, about Revenge inco●…n, and showing out of that common place, not that pure Revenge is rational, but that Revenge for a farther end is good. For all that is spoken of Revenge in common is questionless fulfilled in that branch, whereas pure Revenge is an irrational and unfitting action.  
7. In his fifth Number he attempts to solve an objection which truly does invincibly confute that principle that to every good act is due a Reward, and to every ill one a Punishment. The Argument is that the best deeds are in Heaven, the worst in Hell, neither rewarded. His answer is, that the time of merit and demerit is passed; which is true; but nothing to the purpose. For nevertheless it quelleth that Principle in common; that to every act a proportionable payment is due. Therefore the ground of their Doctrine is false, and they must make pains due to sins for some farther end, that is, by rational Revenge not for pure Revenge.  
8. Number sixth, he treats an objection which he mistakes. For, because in explicating corporal torments, we said that by diversion they were alleviated or hindered; (as it is written in the life of St. T●…; that when his L●● was to be ●ear'd, ●etting himself to study hard, he 〈◊〉 not the burning;) he imagined the same to be meant of abstracted spirits, and that they could also divert themselves; whereas before he acknowledges for my Doctrine, that acts are unchangeable in pure Spirits: and our of this apprehension he teaches us, that some actions are voluntary, but not free, a Doctrine true, but not to the purpose. My Argument then is out of the Doctrine of St. Thomas, taken by most Divines for an Axiom, that the will cannot be forced. And the demonstration of it is plain and set down in St. Thomas: Because force is against the inclination of the Person or nature forced, the Will is the inclination of the person said to be forced; therefore the act of the will is still according to the inclination, and by consequence never forced. This is so plain, that every common Divine knows it; and yet so mistaken by him that he distinguishes not between doing an outward action at which a Spirit wilfully grieves, and the making by force an Action of the will: and upon this score, sets in array a squadron of places of Scripture to fight against a shadow.  
9 Number seventh, he advances another question, to wit, why the omnipotent a●… should not ha●e power by himself, or other instrument to make in the soul an afflictive Quality? I gave you three answers. One, for want of a subject; for in the Will there can be nothing but voluntary, since voluntary signifies no more than the act of man's inclination. The second Answer is, because there are no such Entities as you call Species or qualities makeable, as every one who knows more than trivial Philosophy can tell you; And thirdly, because God is no hangman, but has all nature to serve him when he pleases to punish a creature, and defiles not his own hands with such actions. He steps on to fire, and asks why that cannot torment a soul by some unknown way to us? I answer because it cannot burn us, for all that put fire, put burning; but, burming, seeing it is the dissolution of a thing that has parts, cannot by all the Invention he can give to God, be in a thing that has no parts; therefore fire cannot torment but Metaphorically. He says our Arguments have a thousand times been solved, but because he takes not the pains to repeat either the Arguments or Solutions, I also may pass them in silence. Mine be in the eleventh account of my book of the Middle State of souls. He may assign the solutions where he pleases. Only to his saying, They are solved, I must oppose my word, that they neither are, nor can be to sensible men, that have not speculated beyond all reason. He objects St. Austin. I answer St. Austin affirms nothing of this point, but only presses an Argument of the Unity of the body and soul. I answer, Philosophers affirm that Union to be of Actus and Potentia, and that such an one cannot be betwixt a Spirit and Fire. The meaning of those words, and the reason why the same cannot be said of fire, here is no place to declare; It is enough they are Terms common in the School.  
10. He proceeds to prove, that at least there is corporal fire in Hell, because our Saviour shall say to the damned, Depart from me you accursed into eternal fire, prepared for the Devil, and his Angels. Another man would have proved out of this place, that there was no corporeal fire in Hell. For what can be more incongruously taken, then to say, that one had prepared corporeal fire to punish Spirits withal? Wherefore this qualification of prepared for the Devil doth clearly manifest the fire to be spiritual. If one, who found his Garden dried with the hot Sun, should send to Londen to buy a Penknife to water it withal, would not any man that heard it judge him to be mad? This sport he makes with God Almighty, telling us that, when he would punish pure Spirits, he took corporeal fire, which is far less fit for such an effect, than a Penknife to water a Gurden. And yet Christ expresses, that the fire, into which the damned were sent, was fit to punish Angels, that is, nothing less than corporeal fire. As for his Testimony from the Author of the Dialogues, I hope to have a time to answer it more largely than is here fitting.  
11. He presses farther St Julian's words, that no wise man denies the souls of Reprobates to be detained in fire. But to have made an Argument, he should have added the word corporeal. For truly the Scripture so frequently using the word of fire, it is not for a good Christian to deny the word; which were to affront both the Scriptures, and all such as ●se, without examination, the same words: But yet 'tis the part of a Divine, to admit of the literal word, and understand the sense so, that it may stand with God's Wisdom. As for Bellarmin, and Maldonatus' censures of temerity for resisting the consent of Schoolmen, I have answered it fully in my MUSCARIUM, Ventilatione deci●●, to which I remit my Reader: For such questions, amongst ignorant people, are ●ot to be much handled. He presses farther, how our explication of Torments is not convenient. As to that of loss of past pleasures, he says their state sets them above it. In the which he shows himself ignorant of the nature of material sin: for it doth subject the soul to things under its worth, and therefore is sin; and this subjection is far greater in Hell, then in this World. As to the delay of future glory, he says we forget ourselves to make that grieve the Souls, since it is but one moment, though it were of Millions of Ages. Nor can I deny, that I forget myself sometimes in speaking truths to them, who are not capable of them. Therefore I entreat him for the present, to put instead of delay, the not having of glory, and if he pleases he may add, while so much time ran: for all this he knows to be my constant Doctrine, that the Soul knows, and grieves for. And as for farther explication, he himself hath remitted us to his 22. Chapter. As for disordinate affections remaining, he says there are none, as he hath proved: but we replied, It was Heresy to put Purgatory without them.  
12. In his twelfth Number ne seems something to stumble at his fire, because the Grecians explicate it a fire not combustive; and the good man does not perceive, that that signifies no corporeal fire. For, as if one should say a knife, but not made to cut; a beetle, but not made to maul; an eye, but not made to see; it were plain he must needs take away the essence of the thing signified by the word, and by consequence the property of the speech: so he that says a fire, but not a burning one, clearly speaks of no material fire. For Fire is as properly an instrument of Burning, as a Beetle of knocking, or a Knife of cutting.  
13. In this thirteenth Number he pretends to reveal a mystery (as he calls it) of surceasing fr●m action by pure cessation. An high mystery, that surceasing is cessation! Well; But let us seek to understand this mystery, if we can reach to it. Painfully purging fire (says your Divine) being elevated as an instrument of God's revenging will, to produce in such intenseness that afflictive spiritual quality, with which the Soul is tortured, acteth so long, and no longer, than his Justice moves his Will to apply it: Then that fire that acted only as obedientially elevated by his Will, can now act no farther. Behold the mystery, etc. And I submit: for what is said passes all understanding. Philosophers, which use commonsense in their Philosophy, tell us, that a Knife of itself hath a fitness to cut; But when a Carver takes it to make a Statue, or other pretty Work, Art doth elevate the Knife to an higher work, than it hath by the proprieties of its Nature, which make it only able and fit to cut. Likewise a Pipe, or Recorder, of its own qualities, is fit by the inspiration of air to make one sound, as we see in the drone of a Bagpipe; but, when a Musician useth it, there comes from it a song, which the Art of the Musician makes dependently from the natural sound of the Pipe. This now understanding Philosophers call elevating the Knife, or Pipe, that is, to make the natural Action of the Pipe more perfect and excellent, than their proper qualities did dispose to. But in later ages, Mysterious Divinity by the assistance of canting Philosophy is soared beyond all wisdom, and tells you, That all Creatures have in them an Obediential power to do what God will have them. As for example; If God will have a Knife to create an Angel, the Knife will presently do it in virtue of its Obediential power. And if you say a Knife signifies an instrument, or power to cut, and look that it shall make an Angel by cutting, as it makes a Statue, they take you for a dull fellow, and repeat to you that it doth not this by its nature, but by its obediential virtue. So that if you will stick to the solemn Principle, that nothing doth but what it can do, and nothing can do but what is virtually in it, this Knife must be by Obediential power, which nevertheless they say to be the very Entity of the Knife, the nature of all things, which it may be elevated to make; to wit, a Man, a Horse, an Eagle, an Angel, and all sorts of Angels. O height of Learning. Is not this a pure MYSTERY? Truly it seems to me no less. But yet his Mystery is higher, for when the time comes that the punishment is enough, God, and Fire, and Soul remaining unchanged, the fire leaveth to work by a deep understanding of God's Judgement, and without changing becomes changed from an actor, to a thing not able to act. Is not this pretty stuff to beat poor Pulpits withal? Are not the Scholars brought up in such Principles like to be great Lights of the Church? and their Masters worthily held for the Masters of the World? Who shall tell us, that every thing is all things, and the same thing without any change now able to work, now not? against common sense, and the first notions common to Mankind.   

six DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his twenty first Chapter.  
Our Saviour's sufferings not forced. More mistakes of our Doctrine. The improportion of the pains he puts. Places from Scripture answered. His success in impugning of our Opinion, concorning the indivisible duration of Souls. His Ignorance of the Ground of Eviternity.  
1. HIs 21. Chapter beginneth with that question, Whether the pains, his way p●…ts, are to any purpose? In which, it is explicated already, how by the name of Pains are understood the Instruments, which are proper to his way: For as to the griefs, seeing we both put the same, no question can be between us. Now to show any utility in their proper explication, he never goes about it, he penetrates the matter so little▪ Nor is there any fruit imaginable to the Souls there, to be reaped out of this, that the pains come from an extrinsical Agent, but rather they are more profitable, if they come from an intrinsical source. Nor to us can there come any profit, seeing they cannot be known but by Revelation, of which there is none; since it is constantly known, that the Latin Church consented to the Greek Church, to hold without opposition there was no true fire, besides, so the torments be the same, what matter is it how they are made? But he presses, that whether the Fire be corporal, or no, concerns not the main question. The which, though it be true immediately, because to be corporeal fire may stand without the ending of the torments before the Day of Judgement; yet peradventure the ending of Torments before the Day of Judgement is not necessary, yet rationally is joined with the succession of the pains, and that with the corporiety of the causes.  
2. My Objection went higher, and said, such kind of pains would prove no pains, but pleasures to the Souls of Purgatory; being they could not but rejoice at the means of gaining Beatitude, and even in this World great courage takes away the force of the torment, which they could not want. His Answer is, that our Saviour's courage was greater than any man's, and the good to be obtained by his Passion motive enough to rejoice, yet hindered not either sorrow in his soul, or that his pains were unparallelled. This Objection I answered already in Religion and Reason, pag. 146. wherefore I may be shorter here; only admonishing him, that the divinity, which says our Saviour had those griefs by force, and that his Soul was not able to have hindered them even by the natural perfection it had, is too low for a Champion of his Company. Let him look, upon the Transfiguration, and there see what the power of Christ's Soul was over its Body: Let him look how he died cum clamore, which moved the Assistants to knock their breasts, and say, Vere Filius Dei ●rat. Which your Divine may do well also to do, for divulging this Doctrine so prejudicious to Christ's honour, as to put him to have been forced by natural causes to the sorrow, and pains, which he suffered: Out of which Doctrine depends a very ill consequence, that not only Christ's fancy, but even his concupiscible part was subject to tentation, and passion. Now if your Divine doth not hold this, why doth he apply it here, to show that the constancy of the Souls in Purgatory cannot abate their sufferings from extern causes, and turn them to pleasures? Another pitiful answer he adds, that 〈◊〉 Torments of Purgatory do not cause the entrance to Heaven, but only remove what hinders it. As if he, that destreth Heaven, were not glad to have the hindrances taken away.  
3. In his third Number he p●etends to answer the improportion betwixt corporeal pains, and spiritual offences; but, by his great skill in missing of the question, his first Answer returns the question upon us, as if we held that some are burned more grievously, or longer than others at the Day of Judgement. The which is a pure mistake of our Doctrine, as I have often repeated. His second Objection is of the bodies of the blessed, and damned, the which he mistakes also, thinking those pains, and glories to be immediately proportioned to the Acts of Virtue, or Vice, which they are not: But the immediate proportions are of the Acts of the blessed, or damned Souls in their lives, and in their ending states. Now as these Acts are stronger, so do they diffuse into their bodies different qualities; and hence it followeth, that the bodies are proportionably rewarded; not that the good, or ill of the body hath any proportion to the merits, or demirits, but because the dispositions of the bodies follow 〈◊〉 of the final acts, and dispositions of the souls, which have proportion.  
4. He presses Scripture: First out of the Apocalypse, where there is no mention of corporeal and spiritual, but merely of demerits and punishments. Secondly, from Job Chap. 〈◊〉 desiring that his offences and punishments ●…ight be weighed in a pair of S●ales. What shall I say? If your Divine were asked, whether the least venial sin be not worse than all the Torments Job suffered, he would say questionless, Yes; What then doth he mean to make of this saying of Job? That Job was a Fool to make such a proposition? Surely in his way no less can be understood. But, that we may not only confute simplicity, but deliver true Doctrine; we must tell him, that Job cast his eyes upon the Providence God useth over the good and bad in this World, to show to his unpitiful friends, that those harms were not come upon him for his excess of misbehaviour beyond others, but out of God's special pleasure. So that this example is nothing at all to our question, since it speaks nothing but of God's external Providence in this World.  
5. Like to this is his next out of Levititus; where to several sins several offerings were paralleled, the which (it seems) he would have to be understood, as if the gifts were the true worth of the offence: which I believe our Casuists, and Ghostly Fathers will not allow of. Another Objection is from the Proposition made by our Divines to the Greeks, and by them not admitted, which in great words he vents, saying, All the Latin●▪ Church stands accused of folly. Here the force of the Objection lies in the word folly; a worthy Objection as the most of his are. For no man doubts, but every speculative proposition, which is false, may be in rigour called folly, but civility gives this name only to such falsities, as are avoided by the most of that Art, or Science, to which the discovery of such follies appertain. Now to make an Argument, this Proposition must be termed folly, though in the same breath he professes few do avoid it. He repeats divers other Authorities, which, as far as we got the books, we examined in the places in which they were first urged. He adds the practice of Indulgences. But every man knows they are proportioned to the Penitential Canons, not the Laws of Purgatory, when it is said, so many days, or years pardon; and for the plenary delivery, it hath been heretofore discussed. At last he comes to reason, and there he tells us, that God looks not on the Physical Nature of the Acts, but upon the Moral; But what this Moral signifies he declares not. Now according to my skill, I must profess, that I take it to be a mere nonsensical expression, when it is applied to spiritual acts. For an act of the will is Morality itself, and how much it is physically harmful to the soul, so much is it morally naught; and how far profitable, so much is it morally good: so that to distinguish moral and physical in intrinsecal acts of the will, is but to give a bob instead of a bit, a name instead of a thing, a covered mess without any meat in it.  
6. In his fourth Number your Divine (as it seems) feels himself in some straits, for he cries for room, and not without effect, for he hath found a matter of twenty Leaves to examine one discourse: yet I fear he has not made room in his brain for truth, which is so elevated, that a fancy stuffed with corporeal imaginations, and the sounds of unexamined words, can afford it no place. Nevertheless I must try to break in, if not into his, yet into our common Auditors apprehension: Si qua fata aspera rumpam.  
7. In his fourth and fifth Number he explicates my Arguments, for the most part truly, whether sufficiently, or no, our encounter must declare. Number sixth he begi●● his hattery with telling us, that he hath showed it to be contrary to the Doctrine both of the Church and of our own profession, Ch. 17. N. 12. and 13. Where our answer also is given as far as depends not from this place. The substance of it is, that a present relief of the dead by prayers, is neither the expectation of the Church, or understanding Persons of their own opinion: who all teach we must remit circumstances and substance also to God's high Counsels, and will. And besides it is declared, how the unchangeableness of spirits hinders not, that the souls have relief in Purgatory, and that Relief at the very time of prayers is contrary to the very sense of their own Divines.  
8. After this your Divine is equivocated something strangely, not distinguishing between the duration of a Spirit, and our measuring of that duration. For no man disputes this with him, whether we apprehend the duration of Angels, or Souls, as we do the durations of Bodies, and so say, that such a thing, or action, endured so many days, weeks, months, or years; But whether their proper duration be conformable to our apprehensions, or that our apprehensions be, as to the truth, a weak babbling fit for us, but far below the truth of the thing, and no more like it, than a Body is to a Spirit. So he need not trouble himself, whether our expressions be by true time, for they are by that same time, by which we measure our actions and all corporeal motions. Therefore all his examples are easily, I will not say answered, but assented to, as not speaking of the question, that is, what the duration is in itself, but of how it appears to us, or how we apprehend, and express it. But not to leave him thus in the dark, I will exemplify a little. When we apprehend God is, is Wise, is Just, is Good; St. Thomas his School will tell you, that Being, Wisdom, Justice, Goodness, doth not signify the same that they do when they are spoken of St. Peter, or St. Paul: But that God is of a notion unknown to us, yet of such an one as we are sure in our low Language, and conformably to our incomparably-undervaluing-God apprehensions, is to be not so much explicated, as vestigiated by the notions, which are signified by these words of Being, Wisdom, Justice, Goodness, etc. So likewise true it is, that Christ was three days in the heart of the Earth, but in such a manner, that wise men understand that these words have not an Univocal signification in the duration of his Soul, and the duration of his Body: but in this, in a signification known to us; in that, in a signification so above our knowledge, that nevertheless we know it is to be so explicated or expressed to a human apprehension in the weakness of this life.  
9 In his seventh Number, he attempts the explication of the necessity of existence of divers creatures, and tells us, that all that can be required is most briefly and accurately expressed by St. Thomas, 1. P. Qu. 10. A. 5. Where another man would have told him, that every man doth not follow St. Thomas his explication; I only inquire of him whence he hath certainty of this his saying, that St. Thomas hath in this place declared all that is necessary. For having treated it more largely in other places, it is to be suspected he thought somewhat necessary in other occasions, which had been superfluous to his Theme in the place cited. His ninth Number he begins with Whence you see the Eviternity of souls, etc. Whence I see, he takes all, which he hath cited out of St. Thomas, for coined money, so that I may conclude that the certainty of his Doctrine is no more than that it is St. Thomas his opinion: which is a poor payment for him, who seeks the contentment of his understanding. I reverence St. Thomas his Doctrine, because I find many and great truths in him, but to give him the privilege of Scripture, that things are so because he says it, that I am tanght by himself not to do. And in our own present case I am forced to specify one particular: which is, that some things are removed from permanency in being, because their Essence neither consists in Mutability, nor is the subject of Transmutation, yet those things have Transmutation joined unto them. This St. Thomas exemplifies in the Heavens: But later Phoenomena's have shown that the Essence of the Heavens is subject to Transmutation; Wherefore that example fails him. The other example is of Angels, which truly St. Thomas says, but proves not here; so that until that be proved, we know no substance that is not the subject of Transmutation, and yet hath Transmutation joined to it, and he who is acquainted with St. Thomas his Principles will expect that there can be no such, since St. Thomas teaches that Accidents have no existences of their own, and are but modifications of the Substances to which they belong, and consequently their existence must be of the same nature of which is the existence of the Substance, seeing it is the very same. He tells us also, that St. Thomas saith that Angelical intellections are measured truly by time, or as he says afterwards by true time. But I remember not that word true in him, nor do I think it stands with the exact Logic of that Prince of Divines. For Time signifying a common measure, how can there be true time where there is not a common measure? but every act must be its one measure, and one be longer, another shorter, without any common rule. Besides St. Thomas knew the motion of the Heavens had appropriated to itself the name of Time before any Spiritual actions of Angels were talked of. Wherefore the name of time could not be attributed to Angels but in respect of the motion of the Heavens, because the duration of the acts measures the acts, as the duration of time measures our actions and corporeal motions, which is plainly to take time as applied to Angels and their actions in an improper sense, and one derived from the former.  
10. After this to the end of the Chapter, he doth nothing but lay forth his own conceits, without any likeness of Proof or Argument. In so much that all he saith for himself, is nothing but the acceptance of St. Thomas his words without any proof. Only Inote that he lets us understand by the way, that he knows not what signifies the Necessity of Existence, upon which is built the nature and notion of Eviternity. To declare which, you are to look into the Metaphysical Principles of nature, as Arist●tle does in his two first Books of Physics. There you shall find that a corporeal substance is divisible into two parts, the one which makes it be what it is, the other a pure possibility to be any of many; and how it is clear out of this, that the former part is it by which Existence is had; and which hath nothing betwixt itself and existence, and therefore is inseparably connected with existence. The later part because of its indifferency to divers forms, is separable from any particular existence, and so is cause of the corruptibility of the whole; the existence of the whole perishing in the separation of the Form from the Matter, in all things but in man. Hence it follows, that if such a thing as we call a form be capable of existence without the support of matter it can never perish, because it is of itself, and without mediation bound to existence. Therefore such a substance is called Eviternal, and is so because it is such a form, and so annexed to existence. The cause then of Eviternity is nothing changed, whether the form be to be reunited or no to the matter; nor depends it of having no contrary, but the having of no contrary flows from this, for contraries are only found where there is a common subject; nor from I know not what obligation in God, which are the principles he seems to conceit to be the grounds of Eviternity.   

SEVENTH DIVISION, Containing an Answer to his two and twentieth Chapter.  
How Angels understand, and why necessarily all at once. His Ignorance of what is meant by true Time; and mistake of St. Thomas. His unskilfulness in applying allegorical places of Scripture (like the Anthropom●rpbites) to Spirits literally. The fruit of his superabundant Demonstrations. His self-contradictions and Absurdities, and how weakly he refu●es a pretended Demonstration of an unknown Author.  
1. WE are now come to the so often promised two and twentieth Chapter, and hope to have the happiness to see the Mysteries worthy of so great expectation: but they lie not in the first four Numbers, whereof the first contains no more than a weak explication of my Tenets, the which I will take notice of as occasion and his Errors themselves shall present. In the second Number your Divine wonders to see all Schoolmen taxed of Ignorance: So should I to see his wonderment, if I did not know the cause of it. For every School-man who thinks himself sure of his conclusion, cannot choose but tax all that be against him of ignorance in that point: But those Divines who think nothing to be certain, or (which is all one) true (for what is not certain is not true to him to whom it is uncertain) have no reason to tax others of Ignorance, knowing themselves to be ignorant, & in verity thinking there is no Science, upon this Argument which to them seems evident; We have as much knowledge as any body, but we have no Science; therefore no body has any. The Major Pride and Vanity makes evident to them; The minor experience demonstrates to them and others: And the conclusion is not only the Condemnation of all Schoolmen but of human Nature itself. But this must be born withal, because they say it, who call themselves, All the world, the whole Church, etc. though never so impudently. I that do nothing but what every good Divine doth, and is obliged to do, that is to say, who apprehend that all who hold not that which I conceive to be true, are amiss in this point, am unsufferable, and to be condemned upon the score of many being against me. Again, your Divine wonders to see St. Thomas stand accused to have mistaken somewhat that followed out of a former Verity acknowledged by him. And, because it was apparent that this bore no blame, but is a thing necessarily befalling to any Divine who writes very much, and arises from the weakness of our nature, your Divine adds out of his own Treasure, that he is accused of missing grossly; the which all who know my respect to that great Doctor, know I would not say even if I thought it true. His third and fourth Numbers are but a repeating of the same Doctrine and Testimony of St. Thomas.  
2. In his fifth Number he proposeth to show that Angels and Spirits have▪ change of Intellections and Affections. And first he tells us how Angels and Souls come to know, to wit, by Gods infusing of certain Entities called Specieses, of the which he bestows upon every one what is conformable to their natures, and this in his first Number he takes for my Doctrine. Which because it is not so, I am constrained to lay forth a short declaration of my Doctrine in this point: Which is, that in an Angel, out of the force of his creation, his Essence is actually in his intellective Power, that is, is actually underderstood. Now to understand a thing connected to his Essence the Essence itself is cause enough; as the hollow of a bowl seen, is sufficient to make us understand what globosity is necessary to the filling of that vacuity. So out of the Essence of an Angel is to be understood both the quality of the cause which is to make it, and the quality of such matters upon which the Angel can, or is made to act: that is, God above him, and Bodies below him, as far as they have connexion with him: And these two parts we think to be connected with all other Creatures whatsoever. Whence the extent of his knowledge we conceive to be all existe●t substances, and all their actions, which follow the substances. As for the manner of his knowledge, instead of syllogistical discourse we conceive to be such an intuition as sometimes we have after we have found a truth by discourse, and for the most part have in the assenting to those Verities which we call per se nota. So that an Angel sees in his Essence that there is a God as clearly, as we see the verity of this truth, that the whole is greater than its part. And in the same manner he sees in God, that God hath made the world, and so every other verity, as it hangs to these by a connexion, in virtue of which we might draw the same consequences, if we had Science & time, which he draws without time, by force of pure intuition, and intuitive strength. He cannot then know the farther conclusion, without knowing the nearer; nor any other, without knowing his Essence.  
3. You will easily see by this, that an Angel cannot have the knowledge of a particular thing or accident, without having the actual knowledge of all the causes on which it doth depend; and therefore that his actual knowledge is extremely large. To which if we join, that whatsoever is foreknown, strengtheneth and prepareth the understanding towards the succeeding knowledge, you will not fear the understanding's being clogged with too many objects; And out of that you will see a necessity that the Angel must see all things at once, unless there be some that have no connexion with those which are linked to his Essence, and that such he can never see unless by some unnatural means. And so you have my thoughts of the manner and extent of Angelical knowledge. And the like apprehension I frame of separated Souls, though there be some differences which concern not our present quarrel.  
In his sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth Numbers, he pretends that this our Doctrine is against many verities which we know by Faith: Whether these, that Angels know not future things depending of hazard, or the present secrets of men's Hearts, or the number of elect or damned, be any of these which he thinks to be of Faith. I know not; but I well know, that I know no ground why they should by any understanding Divine be so accounted, and since there is nothing for them but some places of Scripture enlarged beyond the intention of Scripture, and one prayer of the Church, and all these in common without any special mention of Angels attributed to God alone; in which kind of speeches God is commonly understood to include his Ministers, and to be contradistinguished only against the knowledge of Men, without entering into the nature of Spirits unknown to us, and not concerning our government in way of Christian life to be curious of. The like is of the souls knowing what their posterity do in the Earth taken out of the 14. of Job. Which out of the Hebrew Text we understand to be that the dead man takes no notice of his posterity, non advertit eyes, to wit, he meddles not with it or them, which is also a legitimate sense of the word ignoravit, when it is said Esay 6●. Abraham nescivit nos, & Israel ignoravit nos, See Muscari●m. Ventilatio 7.  
4. In his tenth Paragraph he citys out of St. Thomas that the Angels were not created in Beatifical Vision; and in the eleventh, that it is against Scripture to say the Devils were not once in state of Grace, and not bad; but seeing he citys nothing for it but the Authority of St. Thomas, sure he does not mean to make it undeniable: seeing St. Thomas' authority is so professedly denied by 〈◊〉 own Divines. And, as for the places of Scripture, seeing they are Allegorical, to build so nice a Verity as of the duration of one instant, upon corporal similitudes and comparisons is a weak Argument, and as freely denied as affirmed. For the opinion itself, St. Austin and Scotus justify it from being erroneous or impossible, though where there are no other Arguments brought against it, it is superfluous to bring in Auxiliary forces.  
5. In the thirteenth Number he urges the Illumination of Angels, and in the twelfth their speaking to one another, which both are explicated in my sacred Institutions. To. 2. l. 2. Lectione 8. and are too subtle questions to divulge in vulgar Languages. He presses farther, that the souls in Limbo just upon good Friday began their Beatifical Vision, though the Bodies rose not until Sunday, and that it was not true upon Maundy-Thursday that St. John Baptist's soul was in Paradise, but on good Friday it was. If you are persuaded he hath some special. Revelations you may believe him, I must know some better proof before I be of his mind.  
6. In his sixteenth Number he tells you, that Moses' soul spoke with our Saviour, Mat. 27. Luke 9 but the Scripture speaks of Moses, not of his soul; And St. Thomas●ill ●ill tell you that a soul can govern no body but its own! and so will make you think it was an Angel in the ●●keness of Moses that spoke to Christ. In his seventeenth he tells us that the Devil did contend w●●h St. Michael about Moses his Body. He should have said scolded, for otherwise contention may be some outward action about the Body itself, and so nothing to us. Likewise he tells us that Dives spoke to Abraham by a new Act. Indeed there is mention that Dives had a tongue, for otherwise we should have thought that story to be parabolical, and that there needed no new words to ve●f●y it. Again he tells us the Devil had a new act by which he heard the ●…itth of En●… call for samuel's soul. This it is to be well acquainted with the Devil, so that he can tell what passes in his very breast: Whereas simple Divines like myself should have thought that it was not the Devil, but a good Angel which represented Samuel in that passage. Yet this will not serve me, for he knows likewise what passes in the breasts of Angels, and so he tells us how Raphael by a new act did offer Tob●as his prayers to God. But he should have expressed whether it was in a dish or a censer that he offered them, and likewise with what kind of rope or ●●ain he tied up the Devil. Also what bustling there was for one and twenty days, between the two Angels of Persia and Israel. For I, that think all these expressions to be allegorical, and some of them at least done by outward and corporal actions, find no necessity of new acts in the Angels to any of these effects, no more than we are bound to put new acts in God Almighty when he is said to do so many new things of which the Scripture is full. As the the Son of God to be incarnated, to create every day souls of new, to speak to our Saviour out of a cloud, and many such other things.  
7. His Tediousness in multiplying divers particulars of the same kind, to which the same solution (that all the same things or the like are verified of God without any novelty in his acts) has quite wearied me; yet I cannot omit his last Argument, because it hath something particular. He says then that the Devil's sin did at first please them, but now these affections be their torturers; therefore he thinks they are repent, and have changed their acts, and adds, Mark how you contradict yourselves. Mainly without doubt, seeing we say that the Devils were damned in the ve●… instant of their creation, that is had all the same sorrows even during that complacence, and that they have still the same complacence with which they sinned, and that the very sinning is continued until this very day, which is a Doctrine often repeated. By this you see how sleevelesly he puts me to trouble and to so much loss of time. His most solid Arguments are the Testimony of St. Thomas; in verity a great Doctor, yet such an one that it was never taken for a fault with modesty to refuse his sayings. Other Arguments are taken out of Tenets, for which are pleaded no more than some criticisms of the word solus, or some supposed Antonomasia excluding, if they be not well looked to and helped out by additions, known truths; as when the knowledge of chances to come, or the secrets of our hearts, is so verified of God as to exclude Prophets, unless you put in that they, or Devils, and Angels, do not this by their natural power, which is not in the Text; Other Arguments rely upon the applying of Allegories to Angels, as if they were proper speeches. And whereas to a reasonable Divine this cannot be unknown, that we misapprehend Angels and their Actions, by our usual conceits and words, as we do likewise God; yet our Divine presseth the same things which are to be solved in God Almighty, as rigorously to prove a true change, as if he saw with his eyes all that past in their breasts: And then cries out he hath super abundantly demonstrated that in which the main difficulty lies, when as he has not brought one word fit to come out of a Divines mouth in way of being a proof. Which rev●…eless I do not impute unto him as a fault, for it is not his fault, but of that pitiful Topical counterfeiting of Divinity, used by them amongst whom he was instructed.  
8. Now would it pity any Scholar to see him, when he has caught the word time by the end, as applied to that which hath no other reason to be called time but because we have no other names then of corporal things to design out spiritual qualities, (whereof though we want the true notions, yet we are forced to speak) so to play with the words, and insist upon the words of true time, showing plainly he understands neither what time is, nor what a word to be true means. For as for time, he will tell us that the motion of the Heavens are not true time N. 3. but that our time is measured by those motions; which is most unlearnedly spoken: Again he puts that there is an extrinsical measure of Angels intellections, in one part of which a proposition is true, and in another false: Again he tells us that Angels are not above time by their acts, as if the duration of every Angelical ●…ellection did not hold up more parts of our time, and therefore must needs be higher than our time. But he will say they have a time of their own, and so cast us upon the other question what it signifies Time to be true which he understands as little, not knowing that in Analogical Terms, or such as are by design equivocal, no secondary sense, but only the primary is the true sense of the word.  
9 Out of this he proceeds N. 21. to exemplify in the Locality of Angels, in which he tells us that we know they are truly in a place in St. Thomas his Doctrine. Whereas St. Thomas tells us it is per se notum sapientibus in corporalia non esse in loco, That to wise men it is known of itself, or without need of proof, that spirits are not in place. He concludes that men should content themselves to know that St. Michael was ever in Heaven, as properly as Christ descended in-Hell. I must answer so they do, but that is to know that neither is properly spoken, no more than it is properly spoken, that the S●n of God descended out of Heaven at his Incarnation: And, because they know that both are improperly spoken, therefore they endeavour to know in what sense they are spoken, that they may not chatter words without understanding, like Magpyes, as is the use amongst his Divines. He adds it is no hard matter for a Scholar of ordinary capacity, to conceive the succession of Acts in Angels. Which is very true, but peradventure it is a hard matter to overcome that apprehension, and to see that Angels cannot be governed like Bodies, nor are to be apprehended to have such a succession. To the like purpose is it that he says, that our absurdities will be infinitely increased by putting that the acts of a spirit are her very substance For the good man understands not, that the plastering and mason-like Philosophy he has been bred unto, is the most prostituted absurdity that can be taught.  
10. Pag. 378. He begins to answer objections, and first this: that if there be no in●rinsecal change, the torment cannot be greater for the passing of time: And he doth ingenuously confess it cannot: But when he comes to apply his Doctrine, he first advances this absurdity, that in our corporal torments there are no parts, but the same part of the torment is put in more parts of time: I do not wonder that an oversight might escape him, whom peradventure weariness had dulled; but that he had never a friend or overseer of his Book, that could tell him corporal torments were motions, and had their divers parts proportioned to the parts of time, I can hardly believe mine own eyes when I see it in his Book. I pray consider to what absurdities their positions leads them, it. The next absurdity is nothing less, though peradventure more covered. He grants that if there be no real change, there is no greater pain, and he puts that time purely makes no real change but what? it puts the same pain in a new time. Be it so. Where is the real change? in the pain? No, for you say it is the same: To be the same signifies not change. Where then? in the ti●…▪ you say that adds nothing. Where then? in the putting of the pain to the time? He says not so. And it is plain that signifies but perma●…e, or that the pain is the same in a 〈◊〉 time: Where, all novelty or change is in the time, and only in the time: So that he puts both parts of the contradiction, the pain without change is no greater, and the pain without change is greater, and in matching of these lies his solution.  
11. After this he hopes it will not be hard to answer another objection he will put, and he has reason. For such solutions which admit both parts of a contradiction to be true, are most easy to be made, and impossible to be replied well against. But let us hear the objection. Saith the objectour, if two acts be indivisible, they cannot succeed one the other; but they will be together. This your Divine makes to be the objection, and answers, No they will not be together, but succeed one the other. And then says, St. Thomas well observes this, and that Aristotle for want of knowledge in Scripture knew not this, and that he has proved it by above a dozen better demonstrations, than this so often miscalled by that ●ame. What can I say to this great Doctor? Whence your Divine hath taken this Argument I cannot remember, though my fancy gives that some where I have used Letters in this or some like subject, but I cannot find the place. I find the substance of the Argument is in my twelfth Account of the Treatise of the Middle State. But there it is put in this Tenor, that seeing the act of a Spirit hath no parts, nor is capable of them, either it will dure but for only one moment of our time, or else by by its nature it will dure for ever: To dure for one moment of our time, is not to dure at all, for there are no instants in time or motion, for they signify nothing but the not-being of motion. Now if you assign a part of time in which this indivisible act continues, you give it a duration essentially above the nature of time, and therefore by its nature to endure all time, if not longer than time. There is added to this Argument this confirmation; suppose of two acts which begin together in divers Angels, one be put to dure longer than the other, without any real addition of duration, wherein can this consist? that is, it consists in nothing, and therefore is impossible, and Chimerical. Of this Argument he brings no more, then that of two acts succeeding, one must needs be together with the other, without any proof why; which makes me think he aimed not to bring this Argument, though he professed to answer all he had ever heard of. By the form of the Argument as he relates it, the Author of it seems to aim at this Conclusion, that two acts of the same Spirit cannot be disjointed by an intermission or Cessation from all act, because there would be no medium: but this your Divine seems not to ●ym at▪ So that I can see nothing into this Argument, but that it is imperfectly related. Unless peradventure the Arguer takes the duration of Angelical acts to be purely Instantaneous, as are the instants of time; and your Divine speaks so ambiguously, that a man cannot understand by his words whether he ever looked into that point, or desired to meddle with it. For Aristotle hath demonstrated that two such instants cannot be together; and that St. Thomas made no scruple to admit, though your Divine seems to contradict Aristotle in his Doctrine, which may easily be, for not understanding either St. Thomas, or the question, or the force of a Demonstration. As he plainly shows by bringing in Zeno's Error, in comparison to Aristotl's demonstration, and saying that in Aristotl's way there be insuperablr difficulties, which uses to be the saying of those who understand not this Demonstration of Aristotle; which is fundamenta to Philosophy, and acknowledged by all who deserves the name of Philosophers. And so you may see I did well to promise him no demonstrations, who know not what they signify, but thinks every Anthropomorphitical explication of Scripture to be Demonstrative.   

EIGHTH DIVISION Containing an Answer to his twenty third and twenty fourth Chapters.  
Our Opinion avouched by true Philosophy. Hi● Calumny of our Te●ets. God's G●… of the Synagogue, different from that of the Church. The notion of the word Merit. The connaturalness of the pains we put, and the needlesness of his. The many ill-consequences and absurdities of the Opinion, that all Venial affections are blotted out by Contrition in the first Act of Separation. The ●illiness of his Opinion that souls in Purgatory cannot help themselves. His probable Divinity. His non-s●… that lyability to be punished, without Fault, is 〈◊〉 blem is● refu●ed.  
1. I cannot but complain of your Divine, that having promised such wonders in the last discussed Chapter, he came off so pitifully, that where he had the advantage of human apprehension against me, he gave me not as much as occasion to explicate my Doctrine, unless I should have gone and strayed from his Text. His oppositions were pure opinions without any sight of Evidence: His Authority for the most part of St. Thomas, from whom in this point we professedly recede: His Scripture such as he himself is bound to solve in respect of Almighty God; So that in its words it has no force, and all the force must come out of this, whether the nature of Angels requires to have the words explicated improperly or no; which he may suppose, but goes not about to prove, otherwise then from uncertain Authority: His solutions, to admit contradiction, or else propose some Argument by halfs: The rest of his Chapter, high words.  
2. Howsoever I hope his three and twentieth Chapter will make amends, for the question is not so Metaphysical as the other was. It begins with an explication of my Doctrine, disguised in high terms, yet true ones for the greatest part. In his second Number he accuseth it of being against Philosophy, to say that God so ordered all things in the beginning, that he need not since put his hand to it. By which if he understands that God doth not continue conserving of his creatures, it is not my Doctrine▪ If he grants Conservation to God, though the truth is that Conservation is but the very Act of first Creation, though in name and notion it be divers, than I must see how he proves it against Philosophy. For (saith he) no natural cause can produce the soul of a man, and therefore God must do some new action when there is an exigence of creating a soul. I grant no creature can create a ●oul, but affirm that the first act of Creation creates every soul when time is, without farther or greater Influence of God. He may reply he understands not this. To which my answer is, that I believe him, but cannot help him, seeing it is not here place to explicate Mysteries of incident Philosophical points. He may help himself, if he pleases, with my Institutiones both Peripaticae and Sacr●. He adds two other Philosophical necessities he finds: one of the necessity of God's actual concourse with second causes, the other of Gods choosing Individ●…s for the second causes to produce. The former as far as it hath sense in it, is done by the Action of Creation or Conservation, by which God sets the Angels on work to move celestial Bodies, from whose motion actual motion flows into all other causes; and this is the true either premotion or concourse of God with creatures plain and visible. The other which I fear he means, hath no kind of Philosophy, nor Divinity in it. The choosing of Individ●… is the rascallest, and the ridiculousest Position that ever was affirmed by any scum of Philosophers. You see what sound maxims ●e takes to impugn the perfection of God's Wisdom.  
3. In his fourth Number he begins to employ his Divinity. And first he asks what natural cause can raise dead bodies, and give them due torments? And I must answer with a reply of a question; to wit, when this is to be done? While the Fabric of Nature holds? or, when it is ended? If when it is ended, how comes it to our purpose? Or is not he grossly mistaken to put this amongst the workings of Nature. Yet that the course of Natural Causes does prepare the World even to this unmaking of Nature, you may find in the last book of my Institutiones Sacr●. For the proportionable pains, the Soul of themselves will cause those, as you may see in the same book. To fill up here a Page with his own opinion of Purgatory was besides the matter, for we doubt not but that he puts more Wilfulness than Wisdom in God Almighty's Actions.  
4. His main Answer begins N. 3. where he tells us, that it is Heresy to make natural causes to have virtue sufficient to bring man by themselves alone to his final end of Eter●… Bliss. And then he tells you, that our prime Argument is the same that P●…gius's, to wit, that every natural Agent ought to have power given it from the Author of Nature, to bring itself to its natural perfection. But first I would inquire where ●e sound in any Writing of mine the Propos●●on he condemns? If I say that God h●th ordained second causes to do all effects, which are not to be seen to be miraculous, do I exclude supernatural causes? Are not Christ's coming and Preaching, the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Habits of Faith, Hope, and Charity, the Prayers, and Preaching, and good Works proceeding from men through such Habits, the Sacraments, the whole ●orm of the Church, all Supernatural causes interwoven with natural? To what purpose then doth this man talk, that natural causes are not sufficient to bring a man to Heaven? Is it not plain he knows neither what I say, nor what himself. See how just our Argument is the same with the Pelag●●n's? Out of this you see his Answer is like to be a good one, and so it is. For Numb. 8. he hath, so I answer. As man's last 〈◊〉 cannot be re●ched by Nature, so is it out of the reach of natural causes, by their natural operation, to chastise man's sinning proportionably to his voluntary acting against his supernatural end. My Reply is, that he must seek out to whom to answer; for I never talked of purely natural causes, but natural and supernatural together, as they compound all second causes. But the good man could think of no supernatural causes, but God himself working immediately, and so strayed to seek out why such actions were not miraculous, which we will not follow him to, because it is not concerning to our Theme.  
5. Yet I may deliver one Doctrine, which I know not whether he has reflected on or no: which is, that before Christ, Miracles belonged to the Ordinary Government of the Church by God Almighty; since Christ and his Apostles time, these are become parts of Extraordinary Providence. This I speak by reason of his great insisting upon pains in the Old Testament, which followed not connatural to the sins. For no small part of the motives proposed to the Jews were temporal Commodities, which are propounded unto Christians merely as accidents, not to be sought for; according to that saying, Qu●rite primum regnum Dei & caetera adjicientur vobis. And St. James tells us, Siquis indiget sapientia post●let a Deo & dabitur ei; but for any thing else he does not tell us so: but we know they are sometimes granted, and sometimes denied. But in the Old Law the Prophet's foretell both punishments, and rewards, and they failed not: Now that sort of Government is turned into a better, and we have order to govern ourselves by Reason, and Faith is given us to help and strengthen our Reason, that it may reach the motives propounded to us out of the state of the next World, and to expect rewards and punishments there which spring out of our lives here; according to the words of the Apostle, that Afflictions here do work glory in Heaven; and the other, that their works follow them. And this to those who use understanding Divinity is signified by the word meritorious. After this he makes a repetition of some Arguments many times told over; and at last Number 12. he tells us, that he never said, that after that God is in part pacified, there still remains in him a boiling of his fury not quite allayed: But (says he) we speak of a most just and rational proceeding in God, etc. What mood the good man was in, when he wrote this, I know not. For the words express, as if he meaned, that before God is in part pacified, there were in God a boiling of fury, and not a just and rational proceeding.  
6. I told you somewhat of the signification of this word Meritorious, but I fear I must eat it again. For in his 24. Chapter, Number second, he tells us, that when Nature, by Death, hath put a man out of this World, she hath put his soul out of her reach, etc. So that now in this state the nature of a meritorious cause occurs to be considered by Divinity, and Aristotle his Philosophy must stand in great part out of doors. Farewell then poor Aristotle, and his Philosophy. Yet because he is a Philosopher, he will ask a cause why he should be turned out of doors. Let us then look into this Mystery. If that a Workman hath bestowed a days work upon another man's ground, he receives at night what according to the manner of living in that Country, and the quality of the work, is esteemed equal to his labour. If a Soldier in a Battle, or Siege, did eminent service towards the winning of the ●attle, or Town, his General consults what is fitting to stir up others to dare the like, and the Soldier receives it. And both the Workman and the Soldier are said to have deserved their rewards. Another Workman, for example a Watchmaker, makes a Watch, and hath it; and the fruit of it, to know the hour of the day, but is not said to deserve the Watch. And another Soldier goes out upon his enemies, and getteth a good booty, and is not said to have deserved it. What is the reason of this variety of language? Why the later used the natural causes of the effect, which by their own force produced it; The other got not this particular reward by a natural, but by a rational means, that is, by pleasing one in whose power it was to bestow it upon him. If this be well discoursed, then also concerning Souls rewards, if they be such as follow not out of the force of the disposition, which their works have made the Soul to have in the next world, but God by his arbitrary will determins to give them what he thinks best out of the General Principles by which he governs the World, these rewards will be said properly to be deserved. On the other side, if the rewards are necessarily consequent to the disposition on which the Soul departs out of her body, they will be properly called Effect, improperly to be deserved.  
7. Applying this to our case, that is, to the pains of Purgatory, let us see what is to be said. And first I ask, what pains doth the fire of Purgatory inflict upon the Souls? I suppose your Divine will answer, Griefs and Sorrows. The next question, are the griefs of Objects that deserve to be grieved for, as it is fit for Holy Souls to have? I suppose he will again say; Yes. The third question, Would not she of herself have all those griefs? I think he cannot choose but say Yes, and not put a new fault in the Souls not to have a grief which they ought to have. The fourth Question is, If she have this grief, is it not a punishment laid upon her by God, notwithstanding that it proceeds from their natural inclination, which God gave them, amongst other Reasons, to punish their faults? I know not what he can deny. The fifth Question, What then does the fire do? make the same over again, or increase it? The former answer is absurd. To the later, we ask the sixth Question. Is not the grief of a holy and separate Soul proportionable to the offence or ill it did in this World? If it be, God's Justice requires no greater. If it be not, a probable cause must be rendered why a less sorrow would have quitted the sin in life, and now such an excess will not: Or else, for any thing that I see, Aristotle will claim a share for his Reasons in the next World, as well as in this; which if your Divine will grant us, we will in silence pass over his two first N. N.  
8. In his third Number he cuts out a new piece of work to his friends, which is, that an act of contrition (which they put in the first instant) of its nature taketh away pain, as well as guilt; therefore, say we, it must take away the p●ins of Purgatory, if it hath there power to take away the guilt, as in this World it usually does, and would do, if that act were here done, seeing it springs out of the whole Heart and power of the Soul. His first answer is, that Bellarmin hath said much to this difficulty, which your Divine passes over with a Besides, and upon so good an authority I cannot doubt but that it deserves to be laid aside; His second Solution is out of Saint Thomas, which neither your Divine does stand to, nor as it seem Saint Thomas himself, making no mention of it in a later work, where he handleth the question largely. Wherefore omitting it, let ●…me to the third, which he says to be ●…isfactory. Which I believe, if he takes 〈◊〉 comparatively, for of the three it is the least faulty; but if he means truly satisfactory, he must first clear me a doubt or two, before I can be of his mind. First in it, is supposed, that we must necessarily say that Venial Sins are remitted after this life: Which is true, but unless the time be specified, it may be at the Day of Judgement, and so nothing to our present question. What he adds that the remission of sin doth take away all impediment of going to Heaven, but abateth nothing of their pains, I do not understand for three Reasons. First because it is only said, and no other cause rendered, but because the state of merit ceaseth after this life. But why to take away the guilt of sin, and the impediment of going to Heaven, is not the effect of merit, is not declared, and seems that it cannot be denied. Secondly, there is no reason given why it abates nothing of the Souls pain. For why should this be accounted a merit more than the other? Seeing it increaseth not Charity, nor the reward of Charity, and is but a remov●ns prohibens, as well as the other. Why then is one admitted, the other rejected? Thirdly, since the Council of Florence, it is not to be tolerated to say, that to a Soul●…ins ●…ins any impediment of going to Heaven▪ And this answer puts the Soul to be pure.  
9 Another difficulty I have about that Proposition, We must hold that in the life to come, there is no essential change in the will; to wit, for that which belongs to the increase of Charity; First, about the Truth of it; For, I doubt not but by the Beatifical Vision whensoever it begins Charity is increased; and likewise, that at the reunion of our Bodies, Charity and the reward of it shall both increase. Neither do I take it to be spoken consequenter to put many acts of Charity, and not put them to increase the habit, though you put the acts to be of the same degree of intention. For we cannot deny but one and one makes two, and that two are more than one; and (ad hominem) if the same pain put in a new time, makes the pain greater, much more two acts of Charity are more Charity. If it be answered, the time of merit is passed. I reply than you must put no more merit, But with one breath to put merit, and cry the time of merit is passed, is to oblige us to believe Opposites.  
10. A third difficulty I have, how it is proved that in Purgatory there is an act of Charity with detestation of a Venial sin inconsistent with the affection of Venial sin. For only to say it is so, is not to answer the Argument, but to repeat your conclusion, or ask the question. It is confessed by both parties, that Charity, not only in habit, but also in act stands with venial sin, for otherwise every time we make an act of Charity, we should revoke our affection to Venial Objects. St. Thomas' known Doctrine is, that a will once taken resolutely in the next World is unchangeable, and truly that one act remains, until a contrary be put out; We must therefore either say that the Soul hath a new deliberation at her going out of the body, or that she keeps the same she had in the body, until she return to it: If we put a new deliberation, it may be as well of the End, as of Venial Objects, and so the Soul shall change her state of Salvation after Death, and all place of merit will not be denied: It follows then that there can be no act in the Soul incompossible to the affection of venial sin until Resurrection. Wherefore I doubt not but to a man of a not-preoccupated Judgement, this Answer will be so far from being satisfactory, that it will manifestly appear that the holder's of your Divine's Opinion, as much as they cry up that there is no room for merit with one breath, so much they pull it down by their inconsequent positions on the other side. Besides another thing, which in a Divine is a manifest defect, that they render no rational cause of the impotency to merit, which in our opinion is most manifest.  
11. In his sixth number he falls upon another question not properly against us, but amongst his own Divines, which I must a little rip up, because it so clearly shows the huge weakness of their Doctrine, and Doctors. The Question arises out of this difficulty, that it seems inconsequent, that if the Souls in Purgatory may be helped by others they cannot be helped by themselves. And it is as true an absurdity as it seems to be, and rises out of the denying of our Opinion. He seems to give an answer, by saying, that they have deserved in this life time to be helped in the next World. But this doth rather aggravate the difficulty then solve it. For, it shows they are helpable, and then the difficulty is greater why they cannot help themselves: For to say it is precisely, because God will not give them leave to help themselves, is to call God unreasonable, and wilful and cruel, instead of playing the Divine, and giving an account why to do so, is conformable to God's Goodness and Government. But to fall to the Question; Some of their Doctors seem to deny to the Souls of Purgatory power to pray, which how it can fall into a Christian's head, much less a Divine's, I am not capable. Are not the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, prayers? Will any body deny them these? Are not the acknowledgement of their sins, and the desire of forgiveness, prayers? Do they doubt of this? Can they wish the relaxation of torments from men, and not from God? How absurd a Position is this? that God whose whole endeavour is to bring men's hearts to him, should send abstracted Souls from himself to men? The very absurdity of this saying to an impartial man would condemn the whole Opinion: And yet more, that they can impetrate that the Living may pray for them, nay impetrate Graces for the Living, but none for themselves; whereas we are taught, that God grants us easilier for ourselves, then for other men. These sayings are so empty of all Divinity, and Solidity, that depending as they do merely from this uncertain and unlikely ground of the Souls present delivery from Purgatory, they make it like to themselves, uncertain, and unlikely also.  
12. In his seventh Number he tells us, that perhaps God was moved by his Justice to ordain, that the pains due in the other life be not ordinarily remitted, but by satisfaction, made either by themselves, or others. An excellent piece of Divinity, to ground so substantial a point, as whether the Souls in Purgatory pray for themselves or no, which every man of any Judgement cannot doubt but that they can no more cease from doing, than they can cease from loving themselves, from hoping and desiring Beatitude, and from saying adveniat R●gnum tuum, all this being nothing but praying for themselves. So learned are his Divines, who question and dispute this: Now to say such ardent prayers have no effect, is as great an absurdity on th'other side. The like is of that nonsensical division of Works into three as it were parts, and to say quatenus they are impetratory of pardon, they are not satisfactory for sin, or quatenus they are meritorious of grace; they are neither impetratory of remission of sin-, nor satisfactory for it; a quibbling of terms, without ever weighing the signification of the words. Towards the end of his ninth Paragraph he says, that though some have inconsiderately said, that this Divinity is brought out of the Scullery, or Kitchen, yet it may be maintained as probable, even when a most rigorous, examine shall be made of the Principles from which it is deduced. To which I reply, that he who said those words, will say again, that all such Opinions as have no more to plead for themselves then that they may be maintained to be probable, are fitter for Skulleryes, and Skulls, then for Schools and Divinity. For a Divine should not advance any Opinion which he thought not he could make appear certain to any well-disposed understanding; though the Proposer might be deceived in his confidence, and deserve pardon, as a Man, not an Angel; but what in his Conscience he does not persuade himself to be true, it is unworthily done to propose it for a Divinity conclufion, either to be taught in the Schools, or preached in Churches.  
13. In his tenth Number he begins a new Objection, to wit, that because pains are neither sin, nor foulness or blemish, if there remains in Purgatory nothing but pains to be paid, nothing is there to be purged, and by consequence there is no Purgatory. This is the Objection; His Answer is, That when one sinneth, he committeth a fault, and gains the Lyability to be punished; that this Lyability is a blemish, and so there is somewhat to be purged, and by consequence a Purgatory truly so called. Our Proverb is, that an old Daw is not to be catched with chaff. Therefore I desire not to be bobbed off with two words, signifying the same thing, whereof one being affirmed, the other denied, the Answer comes to be a pure contradiction. I know there is nothing more frequent in his Divines mouths, than the distinction of the guilt of fault, and the guilt of pain: But what meaning corresponds to these words, that is my difficulty. I look upon a mortal sin remitted by Contrition or Sacrament, and I see if any pain remains after Contrition presently men say his Contrition was ●ot perfect, for had it been perfect, it would have quitted all the pain. Now the work of Contrition is by detestation, to expel the affection to the detested Object. I see therefore that some inclination to the same object remains, that is, some infection of sin, whensoever all pain is not taken away by Contrition. Remission by Sacrament is held to be done by a weaker disposition than is to be found in perfect Contrition; Therefore, I doubt not but rather more dregs of sin remain in the Soul after the Sacrament, then when the sin is remitted by pure contrition. I see likewise a satisfaction required in Penance, by which we seek to equal Contrition, and so greater pains also to be generally esteemed to remain after Sacramental Absolution, then are thought to be left after Remission by 〈◊〉 contrite heart: But in both I find dregs of sin left inwardly, besides the pains due exteriorly. Nor do I remember, that I have had any certainty of pains remitted without the sin: nor of sin remitted with no pain at all; for, the Councils specify directly that in the remission of the sin all pain is not remitted, but some to be is evident, in the remission of mortal sin, where eternal pains are acknowledged constantly to be remitted. So that looking into practice and things as far as we have any certainty, neither pains are remitted without sin, nor sin without pains. So we see the Church provide in Indulgences, that there go before Penance and other Acts, which are supposed to help to the Remission of sin.  
14. Now let us look into the words. There is (say they) guilt or Lyability of fault, and guilt, or lyability to punishment. Here I note the impropriety of their Language, that in the same distinction they must change the phrase, from Lyability of, to Lyability to; a certain sign of imperfect Language, but necessary. For what could lyability to fault signify. Did any thing go before fault by which the Person was made liable to commit the fault? Again, ask why a man deserves to be punished, which signifies the same, as by what he is liable to punishment? is it not answered, because of such a fault; fault then signifies lyability to punishment; and lyability to punishment signifies fault. Does God or Man▪ do harm to another by reason, unless he wishes harm to him? To wish harm to him, is not that to bear him ill-will? and can a fault be called pardoned or remitted, as long as God wishes him harm, and evil? Yes (say they) but a man may remit death to a man, and yet keep him in Prison, as we see David remitted his banishment to Absalon, yet for two years would not admit him to his sight. 〈◊〉 is not this clearly not to be so angry as before, yet to be somewhat angry? What plain nonsense then do these Divines speak? And what a solid Solution do they give, when they tell you there remains no fault, but there remains a lyability to be punished? that is, as a Lawyer▪ I have heard of used to say, when one told him what he knew to be false; it may be so (he would answer) but it is impossible. Such is our great Divine's distinction, and goodly subtlety. Further, this lyability either is in the sinner, or not? If not, how can it be purged away, or he purified from it? If it be, it must either be some ill affection, or some natural quality; Ill Affection is sin, a natural quality is not to be purged, seeing it is not hateful to God. In a word, it is senselesness to put lyability to be any thing that is neither sin, nor some extrinsical denomination. Therefore nothing can be purged out of a Soul but sin. The Fathers plainly call it Stubble, H●y, Wood They talk of consuming of Earthliness, of feeding upon, mending, and many such terms, which signify a real subtraction from the Soul, and not only of smarting, as the Divine would persuade us.   

NINTH DIVISION. Containing an Answer to his three last Chapters.  
His Gross Error concerning the Efficacy of Almsdeeds to remit Sin. His needless Repetitions; his blundering in one Council, and open abuse of another, and of his Adversary's Tenet. The publishing uncertain Revelations punished by the Church with Excommunication. The efficacy of Prayer in common, and to what 'tis efficacious, particularly of those Prayers, which are made for the Dead. The Charity and Prudence of the Donour, not the exterior Action availing him. That the impetratory power of Masses is to be weighed by the Charity of the Priest who says them, not by their multitude said indifferently by any, or the external Action. How the Mass is the most efficacious Prayer. The Church's Prayers, and practise in Foundations opposite to him.  
1. HIs twenty fifth Chapter is made up of Repetitions of what is before said, and therefore to avoid your trouble, and mine own, I say at once that we have already answered the most part of it. Yet we must see whether he hath not sprinkled some new aspersions on our Doctrine. When I object that Scriptures teach us to pray for remission of Sins of the dead, He answers it means the Lyability to punishment, which is lately confuted. He brings some places of Scripture in which he pretends the remission of only pain to be signified by the remission of Sin. The answer to one will clear all. He citys the giving of Alms to quit sin, and proves out of St. Paul that giving of Alms is to no purpose but to avoid pain. A foul error! for the Alms-deeds St. Paul speaks of are done without Charity, and so according to his own Doctors cannot remit pain, and St. Paul expresses that they are nothing worth, which would be false if they could remit the pain due to sin. When as our Saviour teaches us date Eleemosynam & omnia vobis munda sunt, he means as they ought to be given, to wit, out of Charity, for Charitas operit multitudinem peccatorum, not only as to pain, but as to fault. And as in this, so in all the places he citys, if the works be done as they should be done, they remit sins, by being joined to a good heart, and without that conjunction they remit nothing.  
2. In his sixth Number he seems to charge me to hold that souls are in suspense until the day of Judgement. But he knows I hold no such thing, ●●d am▪ bound to explicate the Fathers w●…seem to favour that way as well as he. From hence to the eleventh Number are pure Repetitions, saving a place of Genadius, whom as yet I have not found. In his eleventh Number he hath this propositition. It is the unquestioned Doctrine of the Church, that a soul truly penitent hath that Charity which Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers hold to be requisite to Beatitude, and to suffice thereunto in its rank. This is a blundering, equivocal, and blinding proposition. For if truly penitent signifies of all Venial sins and fully penitent, the proposition is true, but nothing to the Council of Florence, which speaks not of such; and, how often doth he himself put people to die in Venial sin, whom he will not deny to have Charity sufficient in its rank to Beatitude, and will not deny that the Council of Florence speaks of such, and of these it is nevertheless certain they have not that Charity which is necessary out of its own force to bring them to Bliss. So that the word Truly penitent must be distinguished to make any clear sense; and likewise sufficient Charity, or else he blunders and speaks words without any certain meaning.  
4. The twelsth and thirteenth Numbers have nothing not before con●…ted. In the fourteenth he seems to acknowledge it lawful to be held, which before he had called a gross Error, that the Pope defined but one question, though with many branches, which was never denied. Nothing more but Repetitions.  
4. In his fifteenth there is a slipperiness worth the noting. For repeating an Argument in which the main force stood in the word difference: In the answer he turns it to debate, and solves the Argument by saying there was no debate, which was the very thing that the Argument aimed at: Whose force is this. About the Antejudiciary delivery there was a difference between the Greek and Latin Fathers in the Council of Florence, but no debate; therefore it was not thought a matter worth debating. His answer is, there was no debate, therefore this flashing Demonstration is evaporated into smoke.  
5. I believe the remaining Chapters will be of the same tenor. Yet in Chap. 26. N. 2. I must note, that the Testament of St. Ephrem (as indeed all his works we have) is uncertain. For St. Hierom notes in his works sublime Ingenium, a lofty 〈◊〉. The works we have are accounted pia sed non docta. This Testament which is cited contradicts his narration of his conversion, so that we cannot judge whether of the two is true; or, if either be, we have them from such uncertain Authority.  
6. Likewise N. 3. your Divine adds to the Council of Chalced●n by virtue of interpretation bequeathed to Monasteries to recommend the so●ls of those who had left these Legacies unto them, whereas in the Council there is no more than that such Legacies were given for the good of the doners soul which speaks much less.  
7. I leapt over the former number unwarily, not marking one proposition which is, This is certain, that either those whom the Church worshippeth for Saints have been the most deluded Persons that ever lived upon the Earth, or else many things in this kind are true, which some are pleased very freely to carpat. What he sp●ke before was of Revelations, Apparitions, and Visions, so that he would make his Reader believe we admitted none of all these, whereas himself concludes presently after, that exceeding great caution in ●st be used in crediting things of this nature after a narrow and judicious examine. He adds In which though some writer have not been so punctual, yet it will be a great discredit to God's Church to say that all of them have been Universally to blame in this point. I pray mark how venomously he is malicious against his own conscience. He cannot doubt but that we admit of many Visions, Apparitions, and Revelations: He finds nothing in my writings but conformable to his own saying, that exceeding great caution is to be used: He finds me except against none, in which there is not either plain absurdity, or at least in which I suppose to find ill Divinity, and as he professes of me, that I think to demonstrate it. And yet will he persuade his Reader that I am an enemy to all. One thing it is to admit Historical relations in the degree of History, which their nature is capable of, and another thing to set them up upon so high a throne as to command Divinity; this is that I refuse. Though I blame not him for thinking that no man is able to discourse like a Doctor about Visions and Revelations without great danger of Erring, unless God hath made him partaker of such extraordinary favours, because he speaks according to his pitch; yet I may take the boldness to tell him he knows not what he says, and in this temerarious proposition, he wrongs all Universities, and learned men, and the very Science of Divinity itself; All Prelates of the Church, not excluding the Pope himself; none of these in their qualities and degrees by which they are Judges of Christian demeanour, pretending the extraordinary favours he requires to make them speak like Doctors. I wonder he is not acquainted with the Bull of Leo the tenth beginning Supernae Majestatis: In which he lays Excommunication upon all Preachers who in their Sermons do lay forth any such Visions or Revelations before they are approved by the Church, because ordinarily they are but Illusions of Melancholy Persons, who in their prayer have conceited such dreams, and imposed them upon their Directours. I pray persuade him to consider how much worse it is to preach such things, then to point them in a vulgar Language, by which they run amongst the unlearned sort, and consider how far he and the divulgers of his Book are from deserving Excommunication. Again, how many of these Visions in particular have passed the examine, and approbation of the Church, for which they may not be accounted the dreams of waking men?  
8. To return now to our former course in his third Paragraph he citys the 63 Canon of the Council of Nice, the which though it be known to be none of the Council, yet because the custom it speaks of is laudable, I except not against it. For we doubt not but the multiplication of pryers is ever good, St. Paul hath taught us that: but the question is only of the end for which the custom was instituted. Yet I may note this, that peradventure your Divine is mistaken in the number, for we find in the first ages, that though there were forty Priests in a Church, only one said Mass upon private days. But it is a tedious thing to walk in the dark, and to handle a question whereof the Roots are not understood. Wherefore I shall to my power lay down the grounds of the question, out of which Authorities may be the better understood.  
9 There are therefore two questions to be displayed, the one whereon relies the efficacy of Prayer; the second to what it is efficacious. First therefore we must note, that this word prayer hath two significations. In the one it is nothing but the praising of God, in the other it signifies the begging something of God. Prayer in the first signification chiefly consists in the acts of the Theological virtues. By Faith and the qualities consequert to Faith, we acknowledge and admire the attributes of God; and the perfection of his works, & so break out into those motions which follow such Acts. By Hope and Charity we love ànd desire God as our proper good, whether by his Essence, or by and his Creatures. Out of this follows that we ask him what we apprehend as necessary to us, in which consists that prayer which is properly called Petition. Now let us consider God as we would consider a wise man, and we shall see that if we beg any thing of a wise man, he considers two things; one is whether the Petition be convenient for itself; which if he finds, without difficulty he grants it: The other is, that though it be not convenient in itself, yet he considers whether the friendship of the Person who begs it, makes it convenient to be done or no; And if he find it does, he grants the request. So then likewise must we esteem of God, that he doth what is begged of him, because of itself it is fitting to do it, even if there had been no prayers. At other times it is not good unless it had been begged. Further in the Beggar we find two Considerations; one of the Person, the other of the Begging. This later consideration is not considerable before God, more than as it makes the Person more acceptable. For whosoever begs of God, addresses himself to God; and, by that, exercises some virtue, for which he comes to be more acceptable. But then the begging obtains because of the worth of the Person: Abstract from this, and begging is but the affection to a created thing, and so hath more imperfection than perfection in it, unless it be the desire of what is commanded us: as when it is said Quaerite Reg num Dei, and again, siquis indiget sapientia postulet a Deo. And it is added in fide nihil haesitans, which if I be not mistaken, signifies that he shall certainly be heard. Of other things we hear Pater vester scit quia his omnibus opus habetis, and if we will nevertheless ask them we have the form shaped out to us, sed tua volunt as fiat, non mea.  
10. That this explication of Gods hearing our prayers is true, depends of the Principles long since explicated, that God under forfeit of his Wisdom and Goodness is bound to do what is best for his creatures, and nothing else; Wherefore what he does is either therefore best because begged, or of itself: therefore on one of these motives to be granted. Now if it be best because begged, since the title of begging is the favour the Beggar has, he must by the act of begging be in greater favour than without it; for if it had been convenient otherwise, it would have been done without begging; and so not for the begging; for God needs no Monitor to tell him what and when it is best. And so you have the first point cleared that Charity, and only Charity on the Peggars' part is the cause of the effect.  
11. The other point was what God grants in respect of our prayers. That is to what our prayers are efficacious. In which the first proposition is that God grants nothing upon our prayers but what first he stirs us up to pray for, and ordains our prayers to be causes of the effect: the which is both evident of itself, and formerly declared. The next proposition is, that God stirs up no body to pray for any thing, unless the action of praying be good to him that prays; So that, whether the effect be granted or not, the good of praying never fails him who prays. A third proposition is, that all things considered, no extrinsical good is the good of the man who prays for it, but is absolutely indifferent▪ whether it be the spiritual good of Father and Mother, or Children, or whatsoever it be; and therefore by a perfect soul none of those things is to be absolutely prayed for, or desired, but only under the good will and provideoce of God. This is clear also to all those who understand the nature of Good to be respective to him who desires it; and that it signifies what according to reason is to be desired by him; and, that every man is a part of the World, and cannot with reason desire the World should be conformable to him, and therefore may or must desire his own good, because he is made for it, and hath that charge from the Author of nature to procure it, and be solicitous of it; But, as his Beatitude is but the end of him, so the Beatitude of others how near soever bound to him, hinders nothing the confecution of his Beatitude, and so is desirable no farther than the procuring of it is the best means to gain his own, and that is by desiring of it wholly indifferentlyas concerning the providence of Almighty God.  
12. A fourth proposition is, that the desiring or praying for the goods of others is many times good for us when the obtaining it is our good, to wit, when we are not ra●…onal enough to abstain from wishing, and desiring such a good; For than our desire of such a temporal or accidental good hath the strength to make us lift up our Hearts to God, and exercise Acts of Virtue, which is a great good to us; when peradventure if the effect were granted. us it might be our harm or destruction. A fifth proposition follows out of these, that there is no certainty of effect when we pray for others, unless we pray for known goods, and undoubtedly conformable to God's providence; such as are the good spiritual and temporal of the Church in common, or else we have some particular instinct from God Almighty to pray for such a thing in particular, the which peradventure happens oftener than ourselves know, or can give account of. The conclusion is clear. For, seeing all other Goods are indifferent, and depending from God's providence, and only these kind of goods determined to us to be under God's providence we can have no certainty of the grant of others, seeing we have no warrant of being heard for any but for our own good; as the experience of so often missing the effect of our prayers when we pray for te●…poral things, do put out of all doubt. And for any man to contend that our prayers are still heard where we cannot perceive whether they be or no, though it be evident in things where we have experience that the event is very uncertain, is to play the Juggler, as Astrologers and other Fortune-tels do, and to be contemneed and condemned.  
13. Coming now to apply this Doctrine to our question. As it is certain that prayers for the dead in common have effect, so to come to particulars, and to say that it hath effect upon this soul, or that soul, is wholly uncertain; but certain it is that it hath good effect upon him that prays. Therefore clear it is that prayers for the dead are to be recommended to the faithful for the livings sake. For it is a clear case, it doth a great deal of good upon them. It puts them in mind of death, of Judgement, of hope of Resurrectfon, and loving it, where they shall meet their friends, and towards which alone they can assist their friends. It makes them see and loathe the Vanity of the World, out of which they lose their friends, and see that they must have their time to follow and quit all this good which here delights them. It makes them love their friends and kins-folks or children more spiritually. And, because it hath all these effects the stronglier, how more vehement their affection is to their deceased friends, therefore they are to be more incited to pray for them then for others. But because man's nature is framed so so as to expect an effect of his prayer, God hath not left us without hope of great goods to our friends in the day of Judgement by our prayer, and the Church likewise in all her offices puts us in mind of it, and to pray whatsoever faults our friends carry out of this World, they may be all forgiven then, That day comprehends all God's gifts from death forwards. It is the full of Christian hopes and desires. Fear not, that if there be any good to be granted before this day, but that praying for this day, you pray for it. It is all preparation to this day, and if it go before it shall not be lost for this days coming so late. But, praying for this day, we pray for what we know, out hopes are certain, we shall not find our expectations deceived. Those who aim at receiving good in the mean while, trust upon promises no where given, upon the presumption of men speaking without ground, upon a hazard: as if the goods which are certainly promised, were not enough to satisfy the longing of man's natural Appetite. The teachers play with their Auditors, as Nurses do with Children, tell them lys to still them until their longing be passed, and then care not whether it prove true or false. This is not Christ's way who is Verity itself; this is not the Church's way which is the Pillar of truth, but the Inventions of such as would dandle weak souls with a present content.  
14. It is time now to look into what your Divine objects, for he seems to be in choler. He tells us we use loud exclamations, purposely to cool the laudable practice of such, who by their Will and Testament leave a strict obligation to their Executors to procure the next morning, or as soon as may be, all those Sacrifices to be offered, which they intent for the relief of their souls, though they should be thousands, yea, though they should take no special order to have many offered after that time. He does as he was wont to do, and as Don Quixot gave him example, to mingle some false, and some true to shadow the false; For the multitude of Masses I no ways dislike, so the intention and practice be right, and conformable to the Circumstances that the Church requires. That which I dislike is, that the practice of huddling up of Masses seems to make a great dependence on the Execution of the work more than on the Charity of the Donour: If the Action of the Donour be out of Charity and discretion, I make no difference, as to that consideration taken alone, whether the Masses be said in three days, or three years. I do not believe God's foresight is so short, that he cannot accept of that this day which is ordered to be done three years after. I depend not from the explication taken out of the Author of the Supplement, whatsoever later Divines follow it. I pronounce, the Masses to do so much more good to the Soul, the more good they do to the Church of God, and the Priests who say them. No man can deny, but the Action of causing so many Masses to be said is the better, by how much wiser and commodiouser it is. I expect the profit of the Soul from Charity and Prudence. Therefore I conclude, where there is more Charity and Prudence, there is also more profit to the Soul. As your Divine has read, Make unto yourselves friends of the Mammon of Iniquity; so I have read, That the poor Widow offered to God more than the rich men. And shall I not think that her two Mites redeemed more pain due to sin, than the Sacrifices which were made by the Rich-man's Gobs? He that will teach otherwise, let him seek other Auditors, I will not be of his School. I believe that the poor man who gives but a shilling, or has but the hearty will to do what were fitting for the Church of God towards the good of his Soul, shall find as much relief as the rich man, who distributes an hundred pound in all haste for four thousand Masses. Yet do I not say the like to rich men. For in a Rich man, a small thing is no Charity; The Charity which dilates not his heart towards his Neighbour is no Charity; to give that which he would not stoop to take up, is no Charity. If what he gives be not sensible to him, if it doth not diminish his love to Money; if greediness doth not miss it, it is no Charity. Therefore the Richer man must give more than the less Rich or poorer, that it may do him first good in this life, and thereby to his Soul in the next.  
15. He objects, that if the Opinion which hath prevailed for five hundred years be true, it cannot be but solid prudence, to procure the Souls delivery as soon as may be: But he mistakes the question, which is not n●…; Whither the Soul be deliverable before the Day of Judgement; but by what means she comes to gain the good she may receive; Whether by the pure execution of the External action, or by the internal Charity; which is, where it can be, the necessary and unfailing cause of the exterior act. And, as for the opinion that the external act gains the remission, I am afraid it is subject to that curse, Pecunia tua sit tecum in perditionem. For who can doubt but the remission of sin or pain, and the coming to Heaven are Dona Dei, and cannot pecunia possideri. I abhor to hear, that where there is no difference of Charity and internal goodness, there should be a difference in remission of sins, and purchasing of Heaven. Now in this huddling of Masses, regularly there is less internal virtue, then when they are dispensed with choice and commodity of the Church.  
16. By what is said, his second and third Arguments are annulled; for, the value of the gift, and the good of the Soul is the same, whether the Masses be said a hundred years hence, or upon the obit day, or even not at all, so there be no fault in the Donour. And if you object, that then the Prayers are not said; I answer, that is an harm to those who should have said them, and peradventure to the Church, if God's Providence doth not supply it other ways, but no hurt to the Donour, whose work, that is the Prudence and Charity by which he ordered it, shall follow him, and procure by their own strength what is due to him. What then? Do the prayers no good, or impetrate nothing to him? We know that impetration f●r others is uncertain, depending from God's Providence, no ways due to the prayers, but as much, and how, and when they agree to God's Providence; and therefore not to be relied upon for any effect, but every one must look to bear his own burden, and to receive according to his deserts. He tells us in the end of his fourth Paragraph, that if he had ten thousand pounds at his death, to leave for his Souls good, he would expressly order that none should be touched by them, who think it indifferent whether they pray for him this year, or next, etc. I answer, that I am of that mind also. For, who will take Alms must follow the Donour's conditions, not his own knowledge. But if I had but five shillings to leave for Masses; I would rather seek out the Priest on whom I thought it best employed, though he should say never a Mass for it, than another who had a privilege to say two Masses that very morning, but who was not so prudently relieved by my Alms. It was my fortune to have recommended to me by a Gentlewoman upon her Deathbed, about 4●. for the good of her Soul. She died in poverty, in a strange Country, yet had saved this to be prayed for, according to the course of Piety she had been instructed in. She had a Child to be put to Nurse, without means to pay for the nursing. I openly confess, I procured her not one Mass in virtue of her money, but caused it all to be bestowed on the keeping of the Child; out of opinion, that in this I did supply the imprudence of the Mother, and that to do so, was to employ the money best for the Soul of the Mother. And such a mind I pray God I may have for myself at my death, if I have any thing to leave, to make my last Act of the greatest Charity to my Neighbour that I can; and I hope I shall do mine own Soul the greatest good that lies in my power to do by disposing of Temporal Goods.  
17. In his fifth and sixth Paragraphs, he takes that Souls are chiefly to be helped by the Sacrifice of the Mass, according to the Council of Trent: But if one can help (saith he) many much more. What (says he) can be here denied by any Catholic? I answer easily, that nothing is to be denied, but something to be understood. And, first, because that out of the Principle laid, Charity is the ground of all impetration, therefore to understand how it is true, that the Mass is the greatest help for souls inPurgatory, we ought to understand how the Mass is the greatest act of Charity: Which to do, we must remember the Mass to have these two relations. The one, that it is the Christian Sacrifice: The other, that it is the Commemoration of the Passion of our Saviour. The first Consideration stirs up our Intellectual power towards the Admiration, and Adoration of his Essence, and Thanksgiving for all the benefits which we have received, and are to receive, from his Almighty hand, and to vow all our love and affection to him upon that score. The later stirs up the man, the Compound of Reason and Passion, to the apprehension and esteem of the Mystery of our Redemption, of the good received by it, and of the penal course Christ took to do us this good. Both these considerations are helped, by an awful reverence to the Action we do of handling Christ's own real Body, and of presenting to God, not our temporal goods, as in Alms, nor our own bodies, as in Penal Exercises, but the true and real Body of Jesus Christ, accompanied with his Soul and Divinity. If all this raises not Charity to the height that Charity can have in this life, it is not the fault of the Work, but of the Person. Wherefore, clearly, if Souls can be helped by nothing but Prayers, and that Alms-deeds, and Satisfactions, can have no place but as they are Suffrages, or impetrations; who can require greater evidence, that of all exterior actions, the Mass of its nature, is the most impetrative and helpful to the deceased faithful? But presently you see that Masses are to be weighed, not numbered, to increase the power of prevailing. I might add to all this, that the very procuring of Masses is the greatest Act of Charity that a Layman can do, speaking of exterior acts, and regularly. For the procuring of Masses, discreetly performed, and of its own nature, works not only that Priests be maintained, but also makes them devout and good. The goodness of the Priest is the very health and happiness of the Parish. The Spiritual good of the Parish, is the greatest good that, speaking of regular and not extraordinary heroical Works, is found in Man's life; therefore the procuring of Masses, is the greatest extern Charity, that any private Layman can do, when it is done with prudence and discretion.  
18. I believe the rest of his Chapter is already answered. For, we scoff not at the multitude of Masses, but at the indiscretion of using them, and procuring them. Nor do your Arguments persuade us, that Rich-men are in any thing in better state than the Poor, not only for accidental considerations, but for the very substance. The Rich may do greater-acts of Charity, but not acts of greater Charity; they may relieve other Bodies and Souls more than poor men, but poor men have as much power to help their own as the richest. The Rich may procure more to pray for them, but the Poor can pray for themselves as well as the Rich, which is the certain and essential good. And, if you ask me, whether these be not great enticements of Avarice; I answer, no Avarice but keeps its goods until death; these men, for the most part, do their Alms while they live; which makes no Avarice, though they should procure Riches for such an end; the which I believe is rare. Our Wisemen have a saying, I will make my own Hands my Executours, and my Eyes my Overseers. Whose Estates permit them, this is their way; for this perfects the heart, extirpates or moderates the love of Temporalities in them, which is the main good. But the hope of good, by what Nature takes away from them, leaves the desires as great as ever to the last gasp. St. Austin advances an Opinion, that he who fears God, and behaves himself like a Christian, only upon the fear of Torments in the next World, is no good Christian, and shall not reach to Heaven. He says it is the love of Heaven, and not the fear of Hell, makes a good Christian. I will not interpose my verdict in this Controversy: but will not he say the like of those, who only for fear of the pains of Purgatory, part with their Goods to the Church, when they cannot keep them; when by Nature, they are their Heirs Goods, not theirs; Will he not say, it is no act done out of Charity, and therefore doth them no good? And as for the prayers of them who pray for the Donour, besides the uncertainty of whether, how, and when they shall have effect, let us but reflect that we cannot doubt but that if prayers can do the effect, they cannot want the prayers of all Saints and Angels, which must needs be more acceptable than ours. But the difference is, that they pray for nothing but what they know shall take effect by their prayers, because they see what God's Providence and determination bears; We pray blindly, and many times for that which is not decreed by the Eternal Providence, and so cannot be granted. And this many times through concupiscence, like to St. James' phrase, Petitis & non accipitis, quia petitis ut in concupis●…s vestris insumatis. So do we through natural desires, or love, without sufficient resignation; and so give cause on our own parts▪ to be denied.  
19 In his eleventh Number, he answers the abuse of multiplying Priests to ferve in dead Masses to the devotion of the people, by saying, that if the Decrees of the Council of Trent were observed, notwithstanding these, Opinions, Priests would not be over multiplied. The which, as I will not contest, so I may well say, your Divine doth not consider that the maintaining of these Opinions, is the cause why the Orders of the Councils cannot be observed, through the importunity of credulous People, which leaves not Bishops free to look to the observation of the Holily instituted Canons, chiefly to thi●, Incerta etiam & qu● speci● falsi laborant evulgari ac tractari non permittant. The Council forbids uncertain opinions to be handled before the People, your Divine teaches the People to leave the Ancient and Apostolical devotion to pray for a happy Day of Resurrection, to fix their thoughts upon the uncertainty of being freed from imaginary pains; which the Holy St. Catharine of Genua (commended by my Adversary's for one of the most illuminate Saints of our Age) says they would not be freed from, but by satisfying God's Justice. Towards the end, he citys us a speech of G●nadius, to say that it (whatsoever that relates, for the doth not declare i●; but I think▪ 'tis praying for the Dead) was not decreed, that the Priests might thereby gain their maintenance, but for the good of the Dead; which is to be understood with discretion, as not to deny the one, but to prefer the other. For seeing St. Paul, and God himself tells us, that the Priests are to live by the service of the Altar, it would be a very unadvised speech to deny the maintenance of Priests to be a secondary intention of the Church, though the first and chiefest were the good of the Dead▪  
20. He begins his last Chapter with telling us how invincible Arguments he has brought out the practice of the Church, which makes me think the good man means honestly, and verily persuades himself he hath done wonders. His Arguments, and my Answer, may be compared together, and the Reader thereupon give judgement. As to what is particular in this Chapter, in his second Number he, not content with the translation made before him of those words, Donum fac Remissionis; himself mends it so, Thy Pardons grant not to delay, until the last accounting day. Where he puts in the word last; and, in stead of saying, Give Pardon, he puts not to delay the Pardon. The which, though they leave the true sense, yet they change the face of the speech, and make show, as if until the very last day there were place for remission, of which, in the Latin there is no appearance, but only a desire of pardon while time is, to wit, in this life, insinuating nothing whither after death there is place for Pardon until the Day of Judgement or no, which his words make show of; such craft there is in daubing.  
21. He seeks many ways of solving the plain prayers of the Church; as saying the Church imagines this to be yet before the Soul is departed, or that they are not spoken by the Dead, but by him who prays. And I cannot deny, that if such explications be admitted to be the explications of men who proceed sincerely to understand the mind of the Church, and not who seek to draw the words of the Church to their own Error, any words may be so coloured. As I remember, my Master of Philosophy taught all to explicate Aristotle when he was against us, by saying Aristoteles loquitur cum vulgo. But if this be an unworthy practice, let us see what his fourth Number offers us. To wit, that, whereas we object to them how the whole face of the Church's prayers is directed to the Day of Judgement, and not one word insinuated of remission of pains before that day, which is an irrefragable testimony of the Church's meaning; he seeks to retort the same Argument, by saying, Why does not the Church pray for the acceleration of the Day of Judgement? To which we answer, she does it perpetually. For he that prays for good at the Day of Judgement, prays for the Day of Judgement, and he that prays for the Day of Judgements coming, prays it may come as soon as possibly: So that the Church prays perpetually for it, when she prays for the Dead, but their fixedness on their Opinion permits them not to see it.  
22. In his fifth Number he answers our Argument from Foundations, for prayers until the Day of Judgement, because those who made them were notoriously of their Opinion opposite to ours. But we must expect more ground to believe that. For such Foundations are said to be in France ever since the Children of Charles the Great's time, who were instructed by Alcuinus. And therefore were of his and our English Saxon Opinion: And later Foundations were made by the imitation of the former; and though, since the University of Paris got a great Vogue, this new Opinion hath been amongst the Doctors, yet it cannot be doubted but for a great while the Churches governed themselves by their ancient Customs, and by little and little admitted the Opinions of learned men: Wherefore it is not to be admitted without proof, that the Authors of perpetual Foundations proceeded out of an Opinion contrary to their practice. He wonders how the Church should prefix a time to praying for the same soul. I answer by Revelation, if she did accept of Opinions by private Revelations; for why might not some Saint have a Revelation that no Soul lay in Purgatory more than 100 years, as well as that such a Soul laid but three days. What discretion of Prelates can provide, that particular souls may have proportionable prayers I understand not; for where there is not knowledge enough to found a guess, there discretion has no place.  
22. Here we might have made an End, had not a saying of our Holy Bishop of Rochester stuck in his stomach▪ I do not remember where I have made u●● of that place; But I less find to what purpose he brings it, more than to frame an irreverent Interpretation of his own▪ and impose it upon me, and to take occasion to leave the Reader's mouth seasoned with a scandalous calumny against me, as if that I favoured Luther. Whereas, it is one of the greatest signs of Truth to be betwixt two opposite Errors Luther's and his; and therefore no wonder, if he cries it s●ells of Luther's Doctrine, as ever the middle Truth is wont to be calumniated by the extreme Errors. He repeats here that I deny the three Propositions he mentioned in his proof against me, because I understand them like a Divine, and not in his gross Market-way. He tells us, that supposing the Pope's Definitions be not infallible, yet it is rashness not to admit such determinations, and for so much he citys Veron. But this ●olly, to think Propositions (and the like is of actions) to be temerarious in common, I have spoken of before: In particular, an Action is rash, when it is not done upon good grounds: But to say there cannot be good grounds to oppo●… a Proposition supposed to be false, is beyond Logic. As likewise it is against my Divinity, to say that a true Proposition may have opposition to Principles solidly deduced from F●…. Which if it be not directly condemned in the Later an Council under Leo the tenth, it is by consequence. The words are these: S●…g that one truth is not contrary to another, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Propositions contrary to a truth known by Faith, to be wholly false; and do strictly co●… it not to be lawful to teach, any otherwise. And decree that all such as adhere to such Propositions are to be avoided and punished as Heretics. And so leaving him, and the Divulgers of his Book this Bit to chaw upon, I remit what is said on both sides, to yours, and all judicious Readers Judgements.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
SIR,  
I have teceived the second part of Mr. J. M's remembrance to pray for the dead, but to what purpose you sent it I do not know. I cast my view over it, and find it divided into two parts; The one contains the Motives of praying for the dead, the second ●…e Practise.  
As to the first, saving that he supposes his falsity for truth, and the Divines imagination of the separable virtues of Satisfaction, and Merit, and Impetration in every charitable act, which hath been sufficiently discoursed of, his whole Doctrine is common to both opinions. The proper Motives are contained in the three first Chapters, in which there is no difference more than some applications of the same words diversely.  
The seven following Chapters comprehend Motives common to all charitable actions; and so, unless it be in some considerable passages, are common to all good books that exhort to any good work.  
The five last Chapters lay forth a petty manner of devotion, fit enough for weak souls, and therefore not to be hindered. What he says of Indulgences hath been twice answered in the book. Some things there are in these last Chapters which deserve to be excepted against; but, because they require the declaration of some Principles of Devotion, which I have not as yet explicated, I hold it better to speak nothing then to speak without profit. Those who understand any thing of devotion and perfection, know that Charity is the end of it all; and therefore know that those good acts, whatsoever they be, that increase Charity in our own souls, are the best; and that Charity is the love of God, or of Bliss, for so St. Thomas, out of St. Austin, defines Charity that it is motus Animi ad Deum ut fruendum. The minds moving itself to the enjoyment of God. Who then will understand what acts are best, let him consider how much they advance this Love of God; and whether he be only a Christian, or also a Director, let him select to his charge such actions, as have the greatest power to make the soul he looks to, more solid and fervent in the Love of God, as of his last end. For the substance of actions, the nobler actions fit the nobler souls, and foe are to be proposed unto them; and, as no body can doubt but it is better to hinder a soul from going to Purgatory, and much more from going to Hell, then to free it out of Purgatory, so actions which cause men to be good in this world are more to be recommended to comprehensive souls. But if any one through subjectness to passion, and shortness of discourse, is more moved to Charity by corporeal apprehensions then by strength of reason, this praying for the dead is well proposed to him. Though the truth is, it doth enervate the perfection of Charity, not only in itself by entrenching upon true resignation, but also concerning the special fruit of praying for the dead: of which the wise man admonishes us, saying, it is better going to the house of wailing then to the house of banqueting, because in the former we are put in mind of the end of all men. And J. M. himself citys out of St. Austin, that when we celebrate the days of our dead Brethren, we ought to have in our mind that which is to be hoped, and that which is to be feared; that is to say, the day of Judgement. What a strange humour than is this of men who pretend to devotion, to cast away the substantial, certain, and ever in all Antiquity practised part of praying for the dead; to set up a new, fallacious, uncertain way, against the orders of the Church forbidding uncertainties to be taught publi●…y to the people; against the perfection of those who pray, to whom they preach to determine God, and to desire a particular effect, of which we neither have any promise that it shall be granted, nor know whether it stands with God's providence, and even common rules of Government. Let then Priests say their Masses and Offices according to the words they find in their Missals and Ceremonials, and not frame senses that are not in the words; Let them pray as all the former Church hath done, and not frame out of Origenical or Chiliastical Principles, new inventions, to magnify themselves by having some privileges, or more power than others. Let them first make it plain, that what they profess hath better grounds than such as the Popes call the dreams of devout Persons in their prayers, before they impose upon our belief new Articles of Faith. Let them not oblige Divines to think that falsities may be solidly connected with Faith, and such like Doctrines destructive of Truth and Religion, and Devotion.  
I pray also inquire where he found those words in St. Austin, whence he fathered that gross absurdity upon him, that some should be damned for want of time to be prayed for. For I read the Chapter he citys twice over, and could espy nothing like it  
Your Servant T. W.    

Errata.  
PAg. 28. l. 25. as this, is. 48. l. 1●. in these 〈◊〉. 63. l. ●8. swoon. 65. l. 19 struggle. 66. l. ult. alter the story. 67. l. 〈◊〉. ●…ir Inquisition. 68 l. 11. severe. l. 20. consider how much the torments of this. 77. l. 27. we acknowledge. 109. l. 28. that; the Pope, 154. l. 28. If this way. 160. l. 18. for fear of being. l. 28. knowing, 180. l. 6. then we ●udg. 181. l. 23. if mine. 182. l. 15. Alcuinus. 183. l. 24. essence of 184. l. 6. one, whether. 190. l. 20. not suit. p. 19●. l. 6. by ●s. 24●. l. 23. change: but. 249. l. 16. Peripateticae 253. l. 2. for we.  
FINIS.   

A short Letter sent after the former.  
SInce I writ the former, I have found commodity to see the cited Books which before I wanted; And can give this account of them. The Author of the Oration imposed upon St. John Damascen is an unexcusable Heretic: The intent of the Oration to persuade men that however they live, they may come to Heaven by other men's Prayers. He puts Infidels to have been delivered out of Hell by our Saviour Jesus Christ at his descension; which St. Gregory declared to be Heresy. He puts perfect good works without Faith, against the constant Doctrine of St. Paul; which is perfect Pelagianism. He puts that the Heathen Philosophers knew almost all the Mysteries of our Faith, as much as we hear of the Sibyls. And to make it wholly sure that he is an Heretic he doth more than half profess his Doctrine is his own invention, and that he has evinced against the Prophet, saying; In inferno quis confitebitur tibi; and against the present persuasion of Christians, that there is confession in Hell.  
As for Gennadius, whom he presses likewise, he is of the same stamp. He teaches St. John Damascen found this Doctrine of praying for the damned; He takes the whole sum of Doctrine out of that Oration. He only cozened the Latin Fathers in pretending in common to hold prayer for the dead; And being returned into Grece joined with Marcus Ephesinus, to annul the Union made in the Council of Florence.  
The work of St. Isidor I find to be none of his, but of some Author who lived about the beginning of the Schools, he so perfectly useth the School-terms; and so his Authority is no more than of a School-Doctor.  
As for St. Julian of Toledo, it is true, that he holds the opinion of our Adversaries, but so that he confutes their intention. For having proposed the question, he is so far from saying it was the opinion of the Church, that he resolves it as upon his own head, and that uncertainly, with a Puto, I think, alleging St. Austin for his saying, whose sentence you have heard examined already. So that his Authority is no greater than his guess, that so it is; as St. Austin guessed there might be some such thing. So that we have out of St. Julian that it was not the credulity, or received opinion in his days. By which you will understand how small performances accompany the good man's great boastings. And see the growing of their opinion. St. Austin guessed it possible at most, for he professes only not to oppose it. The Author of the Dialogues credited unlikely Revelations. St. Julian guessed it positively. St. Odilo and those who followed him, took it up for certain upon private Revelations. The later Greeks upon the like Revelations took praying for damned souls; And upon the combining of these two, your great Doctor seeks to make it an Article of Faith. These short Notes I thought fit to acquaint you with to complete your satisfaction, which done I rest  
Your Servant Tho. White.  
FINIS.