THE MIDDLE STATE OF SOULS. From the hour of DEATH to the Day of judgement. BY THOMAS WHITE of Essex, Gent.  Impetremus, si possumus, à Fratribus nostris, ne nos insuper appellent Haereticos; quod eos talia disputantes nos appellare possimus forsitan si vellemus, nec tamen appellamus. S. Aug. 
MDCLIX.   

To the RIGHT honourable, the LADY MARY TUCHET etc,  
MADAM,  
AS all Translations are, without farther address, consecrated to your sex, so all that I do, in this, or any other kind, naturally and of its own accord, is dedicated to your Lap. especially this Piece, which makes, as it were, its proper appeal to the integrity of your un-biassed soul, singling you forth as the most competent patron, not only of your sex but Nation. You have often, Madam, whilst his foreign language rendered him unfit for your conversation, heard much discourse about this Treatise and its Author (for what English man is there, concerned never so little in the behalf of science, whose heart and mouth is not filled either with Admiration or Censure of this great countryman of ours?) whom if none hitherto hath presumed to vindicate to your Lap. he is therein nothing the less happy, being now to speak for himself, a task scarce manageable by any, but himself. Madam, If I may have the honour to be his Introduce▪ into your noble acquaintance, I shall boldly pass my word, that you will find the subject of his discourse truly grave and important, and such as may enrich the mind, not with trifling and unprofitable curiosities, but admirable and practical Truths. The middle state of Souls cannot rightly be apprehended without a just measure of the other extremes; nor can we duly reflect on them, without a knowledge of our present order to them, and the inevitable influence which every thought, action, and affection here, hath to our state hereafter.  
But, Madam, to enlarge herein, were not to advance, but retard your progress; in which if your Lap. meet with some one passage, less promptly obeying your first summons (I am confident there is none impervious to your resolute attaque) be not discouraged; God and your eminent virtues have furnished you with a noble and expert guide, whom, according to S. Paul's advice, you may at home apply to, where you are at a loss, seeking no further than your own Husband. To conclude (Madam) this small Treatise having served me for an excellent Country-pastime, I could not but take the boldness to recommend it to you both, at your entrance into the same state of Vacancy, assureing myself, that, when you have maturely perused it, you will avow with me that they have little reason, who tax the Author with requiring his reader's assent, purely and barely upon the account of his own credit; for, in my poor judgement, never any assertions were better fortified; at least I heartily wish it were in my power as solidly to demonstrate the truth of my being  
MADAM, Your Laps most humble servant, and most affectionate Brother, T W.   

THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER.  
READER,  
I Shall entreat thee to believe, that, had I the ambition, or vanity, to entertain thee with something of my own, I should not have taken this occasion, when I am to present thee with an employment, so much more advantageous to thyself, so disadvantageous to me. The Painter that hath some petty design of his own to put off, suffers it not to appear with a master piece of Raphael or Titian. Nothing but necessity could have extorted these few lines, at least in this place, which two dedicatory addresses already take up and overburthen; a necessity I say, of giving the world some account of this my enterprise.  
It is now about five years, since this small Treatise first came forth in the Latin tongue. I was a witness of the manisold contradictions it then encountered, and consequently aught in reason to foresee that it must now expect far greater. If it were then a crime to treat somewhat severely (though as it were behind the curtain, and in sight of few only, that is, the learned) a certain luxuriant Devotion, what temerity may it not be thought, to unveil now and expose its nakedness to the weak and soon scandalized eyes of the vulgar? They from whom I expect this reprehension, are persons, many of them, so generally friends to virtue, so particularly to myself, that I am bound not only to receive it with modesty, but thanks; and, in requital, commending their zeal, to endeavour to lend some light to its War●●●.  
I beseech therefore both them and thee (gentle Reader) in the first place to observe, how through the opposite means, they of suppressing, I of publishing, this little Volume, we all pursue the same end, that is, labour to wipe off a scandal from our common Mother the Cath. Church, led thereto by the same motives, the welfare first of those within, secondly, of those without Her.  
As to the first, they contend, that it savours of pride, not to submit our private reasons upon pretence of never so much demonstrative evidence, to the opinion of the Church; of Disobedience, to vary from Her common practice: consequently that it must needs enure Catholics to the neglect of their long gloried-incaptivation of their understandings, and this by degrees, from matters of opinion, to matters of Faith. As to the second, they urge, that all discovery of divisions in the Catholic Church, more and more occasions, and legitimates the common reproach of her adversaries, to wit, that no greater union is to be found amongst Her children, then amongst those whom she styles heretics; consequently well may they be disheartened from expecting any secure repose in her bosom. Both these charges I shall briefly, and, I hope clearly, satisfy.  
First, as to the disedification of Catholics from ill example, of pride and disobedience, I answer, that an humble and obedient duty to the Church could not decline this present task. Obedience consists in execution of her known commands; her commands in this matter, are pronounced Con. Trid. Sess. 25. That the sound Doctrine of Purgatory, delivered BY HOLY FATHERS AND SACRED counsels▪ be believed, held, taught and preached— but that UNCERTAIN points, and such as have APPEARANCE OF falsehood be not permitted to be divulged or treated.  
I ask, are the material place of, or flames in Purgatory, with all the pious revelations▪ relating thereto, the application of Indulgences to the souls there detained, the magazine of Christ's merits and his Saints for that purpose erected, the spontaneous delivery from time to time of souls before the day of judgement, or any part of them, delivered by Holy Fathers and sacred Councils? Whereas neither any council mentions such points, nor any Father, speaking as a Father▪ that is, testifying the present Doctrine of the Church of his time, avows them. Again, has that Doctrine, which takes away all the extrinsical authority of the Fathers, interpreting places of Scripture which relate to Purgatory; That which debars souls, granted to be perfect in charity, from the sight of God: That which puts God to inflict punishment, not to better the creature, but to revenge himself; That which violates all▪ Philosophy by confounding the natures of Spirit and Body; That which makes the evil of pain spring, not from the sinful defects of creatures, but from the all-good-Will of God; That which is impossible to be maintained, but by legitimating extrinsical imputation, which is fundamentally opposite to Catholicism: That which by making Purgatory not purge at all, destroys its very notion and nature, and makes even its name breath contradiction; Hath, I say, that Doctrine, which is the ground of these, and innumerable other absurdities, no appearance of falsehood? And lastly, as for their uncertainty, is there so much as one Demonstration pretended on▪ their behalf by their Patrons? Or are they, or any part of them of the substance of the Church's Doctrine? If unawares they affirm it, let them, or, at least the whole world besides take notice, how a passionate affection, to make good their credit, and the reputation of their Authors, transports them to destroy, and violate at once the whole rule of Christian Faith, and so become more fatal to the cause they own, than all the enemies it ever had or can have; that Rule of Faith, I say, which admits nothing, as such, into its sacred li●t, but what universal tradition assures us to have been unanimously delivered by our respective immediate forefathers, as delivered by the Apostles, as revealed by Christ. But, God be thanked, they do not, they cannot, they dare not. They confess, at last, that nothing of all this is of Faith, that is, that all is but probable, that is, possible to be otherwise, that is, uncertain, that is, expressly prohibited by the Church; whose commands if Duty prompt them not to obey, I know no sweeter force than that of Reason to compel them.  
I come now to the second point, the advantage of those who are heterodox, and their farther abalienation from the Catholic Communion; the reduction of whom I conceive to have been the Author's, I am sure, is my principal intention. Can any one lay a greater slumbling-block in their way, than is the confounding of Faith with Opinion, certainty with uncertainty? Can, on the contrary, any thing more invite a rational and well-meaning Protestant, then throughly to observe, how the great latitude in opinion amongst Catholics establishes and confirms the unity of their Faith? How impossible it is, that any new Tenet should creep out of one Catalogue into the other, whilst every minute question is ventilated with so much contention and scrutiny, whilst the Almighty Providence makes use of the animosities of Thomist and Scotist, Jansenist and Jesuit, to demonstrate, that what such dissenting Brethren perfectly agree in, must have a higher principle then human invention? let all those, whom education, or perhaps the indiscreet zeal of school men, hath hitherto abused, understand in God's name, that the Church, as a Church, has no partiality, no adhesion to, no obstinacy for any opinion whatsoever. She is the Guardian of saith; she permits none to add to, or detract from the Divine truths committed to he● custody, but admits all into her tuition who acknowledge them. Let them look to it who see other bounds; for my part, I shall ever value that excellent Analysis of our learned Patriot Dr. Holden (now, (as I hear) happily rendered into his native language) wherein, that it may flourish more vigorously, he hath lopped off and segregated all circumstantial excrescencies from the stock of Faith, beyond all the nice productions of the Schools.  
Thus much I have thought good to say in my own vindication. One word more in behalf of the book itself, and I have done. It hath been wondered at by some, and looked on as an argument of its falling short of the evidence it promiseth, that, in five years' time, it hath gained no greater applause, or rather that in the way of Demonstration it hath not been able, in that time, to silence all opposition. I shall say nothing of the progress it hath made, but only desire thee, Reader, to reflect that the satisfaction of those who love science is ever silent and within themselves, the opposition of those, that seek it no●, for the most part clamorous, and disquieting others as well as themselves. May it be thy fortune to farewell, and hold thy peace.   

To the most Reverend F. in Christ, RICHARD, Ld. Bishop of Chalcedon.  
MY LORD,  
I Was much perplexed when it was told me that some censure was past upon my poor Works by your Lp, whose Ecclesiastical Government, for so many years, of the Catholic part of England, hath deservedly so much influence upon our faith; whose most innocent life, exercised with continual fears at home, and combats abroad, hath begot in us a Veneration of your Dictates; but above all, whose many and excellent writings in defence of Catholic Tradition, and near fourscore years exhausted in perpetual study, render your judgement to us new-men of this Age, as it were an oracle of Antiquity. I was therefore about to apologise, and beg pardon for my too much precipitation; But your lordship's assurance by letter, dated Jul. 6. 1652. that you had passed no censure at all; and in effect the non-appearance of any such thing, satisfied me of the unnecessariness of that pains. It was a fiction, contrived by the envy of some narrow Hearts, and propagated by the unwary credulity of such as took all for Gospel which they said. You declared, that you had no other thoughts, than so to dissent from my opinion, as Divines, without the least breach of Charity, are laudably wont to do. But yet, even thus, the weight of so great an Authority overburthen'd me, and forced me to seek some support for my innocence. And I would to God you had been pleased to remark in your Letter whatsoever you disliked of mine. I would have spared no pains to give your lordship satisfaction in every particular; now I have singled out one point, but that which, being in every one's discourse, I thought I could least be deceived in. Be you judge, my Lord, whether without the suffrages of the ancient Fathers, or against the sense of the sacred Scriptures, or unassisted by the maxims of true Theology, I have undertaken what may seem exotic to this Age we live in. If I clear myself, that I have opposed none of these, as I am not ambitious of Victory, so I despair not of Pardon. However it may succeed, you have an account, by detail, as less subject to deceit, of my Stewardship. Please you, cast it up, and if you find it Just, give your Blessing to him, who prostrates himself at your knees, in quality of,  
MY LORD, Your lordship's most humble and most obedient servant, THO. WHITE.   

THE TABLE OF accounts.  

account I: The introduction, and state of the Question. Pag. 1  
II. Two proofs front the sacred Scripture, favouring the truth we advance. Pag. 7  
III. Three other Texts, and, by occasion of the third, an explication of the ancient practice of the Church in praying for the Saints. Pag. 13  
IV. That (S. Pernard only excepted) all the rest of the Fathers de●y'd not to the faithful departed the Beatifical Vision, before the day of judgement. Pag. 25  
V. The fifth proof from Scripture is again urged, and two others added. Pag. 34  
VI. The eighth and ninth Texts are considered. Pag. 42  
VII. Some places of Scripture applied by holy Fathers, to confirm the same truth. Pag. 51  
VIII. Testimonies from all antiquity maintaining the same truth. Pag. 55  
ix.. That the proofs of the opposite opinion are modern, and betray their novelty. Pag. 69  
X. The first exception against the opposite Tenet, from pure revenge. Pag. 78  
XI Two other Exceptions, from the supposition of these pains to be involuntary and corporeal. Pag. 92  
XII. Four other exceptions, from those pains being to no purpose, unproportioned to the sins, of an Indivisible duration, and endless. Pag. 100  
XIII. Two other exceptions, from the non-connexion of such pains with the sins, and their being supposed to remain due after the fauls forgiven. Pag. 110  
XIV. Of the punishments which we meet with in the sacred Scriptures, and of the remission of sins. Pag. 120  
XV. Three other exceptions, that they neither truly take off the punishments, nor rightly make them due, nor in sine make any real Purgatory. Pag. 136  
XVI. The thirteenth exception, that their opinion, is opposite to the expressions of Scriptures, of Fathers, of the Church, of the council of Florence, and Benedict XI. Pag. 144  
XVII. That the ignorance of spiritual nature's beg●t this opinion. Pag. 151  
XVIII. Objections from the holy Fathers against our Doctrine answered. Pag. 158  
XIX. Of the authority of Apparitions and Visions. Pag. 166  
XX. Of the authority of Visions compared with that of History, together with a particular examination of some of them. Pag. 17S  
XXI. Whence wonderful events come to be foretold, without any supernatural assistance. Pag. 38  
XXII. What is the benefit of prayer for the dead. Pag. 197.  
XXIII. That the practice of the Church, as far as its words make known its sense, favours the ancient opinion. Pag. ●07  
XXIV. That the practice of the Church, as it is visible in action, makes likewise for the same truth. Pag. 218  
XXV. The nature and history of Indulgences. Pag. 225  
XXVI. That Indulgences, generally taken, make nothing against the ancient Doctrine. Pag. 234  
XXVII. That particular Indulgences granted for he dead argue not the universal practice of the Church. Pag. 243  
XXVIII. That the Vulgarity of the opposite opinion ought not to prejudice the true one. Pag. 251    

The First account.  
The Introduction, and state of the Question.  
THough such be the beauty of reason, and such its sovereignty over human nature, when rightly disposed, that no force of authority can be capable to weaken conclusions once demonstrated (for what can authority presume unless reason pre-assures us of its veracity? or how can reason give it that testimony having a demonstration against it?) yet is it not lawful for me to treat the question I have now in hand; without first consulting the sentiments of antiquity. I am indebted to the unwise as well as the wise; and see them far more numerous who pin themselves upon authority; few being able to sustain the esclat of discourse, evidently and rigorously connected. Besides, it well becomes the dignity of the Church in which I live, and is requisite for the satisfaction of those without her, to make it clear that our forefathers generally do not dissent for me in this controversy.  
This then shall be my aim in the following Treatise: First, to illustrate the nature of Purgatory from the sacred Scriptures and monuments of holy Fathers; next, immoveably to establish it by Faith, or Principles evident in Nature; but before all, give me leave to sum up and state the whole controversy, as it is on both sides asserted. For the Church herself hath herein defined nothing more, then that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are relieved by the prayers and suffrages of the faithful.  
The Vulgar modern Divines 
The adversary's explication of Purgatory.  embrace in a manner generally this position, That the deficiences of men are some mortal, and punishable with eternal misery, others venial and expiable by temporary sufferings. Mortal lapses, if repented they absolve from eternal, condemning them notwithstanding to time-limitted torments. So that suppose an imperfect Christian departed, whose venial sins no satisfaction at all hath canceled, whose mortal an imperfect one hath diminished; these Doctors admit him not to the beatifical vision, but provide for him a subterraneous cave, filled with flames and horrid instruments of torture, which his there confined and imprisoned soul must, till expiated, endure. And these pains they thus far suppose like to those we here experience, that they are inflicted by extrinsical Agents, and against the will of the patient, conce●ving moreover that they take their proportion from the measure and nature of the crimes committed in the body, according to the estimate of Divine Justice. Nor can these torments by any industry or force of the soul itself be evaded, though by our prayers, who survive, they may be mitigated, and before the otherwise due and prefixed time determined. The same relief they fancy from the satisfaction or merits of the Saints, if by the Church to that intent applied.  
Thus these later Divines; from 
The author's Explication of the same.  whom in this discourse, I must for the most part, take leave to dissent. I acknowledge in human failings a difference betwixt mortal and venial nor do I deny an imperfect remission of mortal impurities. But I place not this imperfection, in that the Sin is totally canceled the pain only remaining, but in the change of an Absolute into a conditional affection, as it were instead of I will, substituting, I will not, bu● Oh that I lawfully might. This sinner therefore concludes that an eternal good is to be preferred before that which he abandons, and in his life and actions prefers it; but looks notwithstanding back upon it, as amiable with a wishful glance; not unlike the cows which bearing the Ark did bellow to their Calves shut up at home. The affection or inclination he had to temporal good is restrained, not extinguished; of mortal become venial; changed, not destroyed.  
Being therefore by the operation of death, as it were new moulded and minted into a purely spiritual substance, he carries inseparably with him the matter of his torment in the like manner as he also doth who takes leave of the body with his affections only venially disordered. Wehave no occasion here to employ infernal Architects to invent strange racks and dungeons, since the innate, and intimately inhering strife and fury of the affections te●t against reason, perform alone that execution; which is therefore proportioned to the sins because springing and resulting from them, nor ever otherwise possibly capable to ●e●se and determine, unless the soul by a new conjunction with the body▪ become again susceptible of contrary impressions. This in the resurrection is performed by a twofold operation of fire; one corporeal, which aptly disposes the matter of bodies for the ministry of Angels, and the reunion with their spirits; the other spiritual, to wit, the judgement of Christ, that is, the bodily and mental intuition of him, which transfers the dispositi on of souls, from the distortion acquired by the commerce of the body, into that state which is the immediate aptitude for beatifical vision. In this we conceive to consist the remission of pains, or (as the Scripture terms it) sins; for the procuring whereof in due time, we acknowledge the efficacy of the prayers of Saints, either such as are already glorified, or such as daily press on towards that happiness. These, to my best apprehension, are the summary heads of both opinions. Now to the work itself.   

The Second account.  
Two Proofs from the sacred Scripture favouring the truth we Advance.  
IN the very front whereof I fix 
The first Text from 2 Mach.  two evident testimonies of the sacred Writ. The first from 2 Mach. 12. where the discourse is, that Judas Machabeus sent money to Jerusalem to procure sacrifices for the sins of his Soldiers slain in battle; the holy Writer testifying that he did this act, Well and religiously, thinking of the resurrection; for unless (saith he) he had hoped they should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. For vain the Greek Text hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, foolish or ridiculous. It appears that even than when this book was written, the error of denying the resurrection had insinuated itself amongst the Jews, by the commixtion of Gentiles; so that the Writer was obliged to reprove it, by occasion of this signal action of Machabeus. His argument runs thus; 'Tis certain (saith he) that Prayers cannot avail the dead unless there be a resurrection: But as by this illustrious Example of Machabeus we learn, Prayers do avail them, Therefore there must be a resurrection.  
We affirm that from this Text, it is easily convinced, that souls before the resurrection are not delivered from their Purgatory-sufferings or State. For if they are, our prayers working that haypy effect, it were great benefit and great wisdom to pray for them though there were never to be any resurrection▪ Either the sacred Writer therefore is mistaken, or they who free such souls before the resurrection. Nor is their conjecture of any moment, who suppose it may be therefore said, unless he had hoped they should rise again, because the denial of the resurrection would have at once destroyed the belief of the immortality of the soul, at least as to the Jews; first, because 'tis known that the Heathens, by whose conversation the Jewish tenants were corrupted, did many of▪ them admit souls to be immortal, notwithstanding they denied the resurrection of bodies: and secondly, because this explication is too frank and voluntary, engaging a Writer without the least ground, against an opinion, which, whether it had at that time any assertors, is altogether unknown, and that at the peril of making a frivolous consequence, and the assuming a proposition in itself false. Nor doth it advantage them to allege that the Sadduces (against whose Progenitors this disputation may be thought to be leveled) denied spirits. The Stoics did the like, yet at the same time they acknowledged the soul's supervivency and transanimation after the decay of the body. Clearly therefore, if souls may be exempted from their suffering before the resurrection, this proposition, It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead unless there be a resurrection, is both false, and to no purpose alleged.  
Let the New Instrument keep 
The Second Text, 1 Cor. 15. examined.  time and harmony with the Old. Let S. Paul be heard preaching to the same effect. 1 Cor. 15. 29. What shall they do (saith he) who are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not again? to what end are they baptised for the dead? Some understood by baptising, affliction or mortification of the body; others a certain ceremony of washing themselves for the dead: which way soever you take it, his discourse is the same with that of the Writer of the Maccabees. Where that Writer affirms, it were superfluous to pray for the dead, the Apostle cries out, What shall we do? what benefit shall they reap? how will they be dejected seeing themselves deprived of the hopes of assisting their friends? What the one calls vain or foolish, the other phrases, To what end are they baptised? what do they mean? what do they aim at? nothing; they are fools or mad men. It is therefore apparent that pious and wise persons used this custom (whatever it were) of baptising themselves, whose action and example the Apostle commending it, urgeth as of sufficient authority again the Corinthians  
Nor n●●d w● further strain the nerves of this discourse, it being perfectly the same with the first Text; to wit, that it were folly to be baptised for the dead, if they were not to rise again. No benefit therefore is obtained by such baptism before the resurrection, nor by so doing can the souls till then be released. So that from this argument it appears, that the solution offered to the first was of no consequence; for no man that I know alleges that the Doctor of the Gentiles disputes here against the Sadduces, with whom his arguments would not have any force at all. For neither would they regard the Example of those who baptised themselves in behalf of the dead, as being Pharises; neither would what the Apostle urgeth of Christ's resurrection, or his own predication make any the least impression in them. Let these two Texts therefore remain inviolabled, as first not to be resisted without manifest violence, and secondly, as directly pointing at the very knot of the controversy. That souls once engaged are not capable of that eminent good of being delivered from their pains, before the resurrection.   

The Third account.  
Three other Texts, and by occasion of the third, an explication of the ancient practice of the Church in praying for the Saints.  
LEt us from the same Epistle to 
The Third Text. 1 Cor. 5.  the Corinthians 5. 5. add a positive proof to two negative ones already alleged. I (saith the Apostle) have already judged to deliver such a one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord. He speaks of excommunicating a notorious fornicator, that he might be made penitent, and by repentance saved. But when? In the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. His soul therefore was not to be saved till the last judgement day. But why not his as well as any others? No soul therefore imperfectly, and as it were compulsively repenting shall be saved till the day of judgement.  
Consonant and allied to this is 
The Fourth Text, Heb. 10.  that text, Heb. 10 27. Sinning voluntarily after knowledge received of the truth; we have now no other host or oblation left for sins, but a certain terrible expectation of judgement, in the interval of it, and rage of fire, when it shall come, which shall consume the adversaries; the Greek text hath it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, ready or about to eat those who are partly opposite; not to consume, but feed upon or gnaw them; that is, to take off the depraved affections of such as die with an imperfect repentance. He that denies this to be the Apostles meaning, let him side with Novatus in rejecting lapsed penitents, or fancy an extrajudicial remission, contrary to the Apostle's design.  
In the third place I cite the 
The Fift Text, 2 Tim. 1.  2 Tim. 1. 8. Where the Apostle thus prays for Onisiphoris, Our Lord grant him to find mercy from our Lord in that day. An heretic may perhaps smile at the allegation of this text to justify prayer for the dead, and pretend a great difference between praying for those who are living that they may be saved after their departure, and praying for their salvation who are already departed. But I shall entreat him to reflect more advisedly on the expression. Was it not said, that he may find mercy in that day? Is not that day confessed to be the day of judgement? Let us consider Onisiphorus now dead; will you affirm that he hath already found that mercy, which the Apostle prays he may find in the day of judgement? Why do you hesitate? If now he hath received it, how shall he then find it? If he have not yet received it, the wish of the Apostle is not yet accomplished. It hangs therefore still in suspense, and if so may be reiterated, and if it may be reiterated, then must it be lawful to pray for the dead. For Prayer is ever seasonable till the effect be granted; and consequently prayer for the dead is from hence also clearly proved.  
But methinks I see our modern pretenders to Divinity full, and longing to be delivered of this objection, That if effectually 
tun. 2. lib. 3. lect. 4. par. 11. & lect. 5. par. 8. & lect. 3. p. 15. 16, 17.  this be so, we must pray for the Saints also, they being to obtain likewise a great advantage by that day (as in our Sacred Institutions may appear) which notwithstanding any one may perceive to differ from the common practice of the whole Church. I am not of so weak a stomach as not to digest this morsel. What do you expect I should reply? That S. Paul presumed Onisiphorus should not be happy before the last day, whereas himself desired to be immediately dissolved and dismissed to the enjoyments of Christ? I dare not. How then? Shall I say he prayed not that Onisiphorus might find mercy, even after his soul was beatified? The Text on all sides confessed forbids me. What then? will our Adversaries say this was not to pray for the blessed? Common sense permits them not. S. Paul did it; Antiquity did it.  
Let S. James be our first witness, 
Proof, of prayer for the blessed from ancient Liturgies.  in his Liturgy of the Hierosolymitan Church. Be mindful (saith he) Lord God, of the spirits and all their body's whem we have commemorated, or not commemorated, who were Orthodox, from the just Abel to this present day. Thou grant them there to rest, in the region of the living in thy kingdom, in the delights of paradise.  
S. Basil's Liturgy. Be mindful also of all who have slept in the hope of a resurrection to life everlasting.  
S. Chrysostom's Liturgy. For the memory and remission of their fins who were the founders of this habitation, worthy of eternal memory, and of all who have slept in thy Communion, in the hope of resurrection and life eternal, our Orthodox Fathers and Brethren.  
The Liturgy of S. Mark, that is, of Alexandria: Give rest O Lord our God to the souls of our Fathers and Brethren, who have slept in the faith of Christ, mindful of our Ancestors from the beginning of the world: Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops, Saints and just men; all the souls of those who departed in the faith of Christ. And moreover of those whose memory this day we celebrate, and our holy Father Mark the Evangelist, who taught us the way of salvation. To the souls of all these give rest, our supr●me Lord and God, in the holy Tabernacles, in the kingdom, bestowing on them the good things thou hast promised, &c. And he concludes, To their souls I say grant rest, and admit them to the kingdom of Heaven.  
Lastly, The Roman, or Gregory the Great's Liturgy, from whom it seems at last to have received its full perfection. Remember also, O Lord, thy servants who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and now rest in the sleep of peace. To them, O Lord, and all that rest in Christ, we beseech thee grant a place of ease, and ligh●, and peace. The sense is plain and obvious, that he prays for all who were baptised and departed in the Communion of the Church.  
I am not ignorant, that Liturgies, from the bare consideration of antiquity, have not that force which other writings of the same Authors have, since as they are of public use, so can we not almost doubt, but somethings in them might, by succeeding prelates of the same Churches, by additions or diminutions be altered, as it were of course. But give me leave withal to observe, that this defect is more than supplied by their being the public instruments of Churches, the Doctrine, which in so many Liturgies is delivered, being justly to be accounted as the constant tenet of all ages, unless so great an authority can from elsewhere be undermined. Let us then argue thus. So many Patriarchal Churches, continually in their public Liturgies, beseech God in general terms to give salvation to all the faithful departed, assigning them a place of ease, light, and peace; and where none are excepted, all are included; and in our case eminent Saints particularly named, as it were by foresight and obviation to this objection. We cannot therefore doubt but that prayer was anciently offered for the Blessed.  
But let us consider more particularly. The Hierosolymitan Church is by origine the chief, she beginning from the just Abel, cannot certainly be supposed to exclude any other; and Cyril, the heir of S. James in his fifth Catechesis, will assure us she did not. Next (saith he) for the holy Fathers and Bishops departed, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and of all universally who are dead from amongst us. The Church of Alexandria was second to the Roman; she prayed for the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, and by name S. Mark. S. Chrysostom, or the Constantinopolitan Church prayed for the Builders of the said Church, whether by that appellation intending the Apostle of Constantinople, or the Fabricators or endowers of the material Church; however we cannot reasonably doubt, but he esteemed them Saints and enjoying God; and himself commends this Liturgy in many of his Homilies. The expressions of other Churches, speaking in common, may well, by the determinations of these, be understood literaily as they sonnd, and not with restriction to any particulars; as also Dionysius Areopagita, Clemens Romanus, Greg. Nazianzene, &c. in whom those universal experssions are found.  
But because the Roman Liturgy seems to speak less clearly than the rest, let us examine her own best interpreters. S. Ambrose De ob. Valent. prays day and 
And Fathers.  night for him and Gratian. He commends the souls of Theodosius and his brother to God, and begs rest for them; all whom notwithstanding he doubts not to be in Bliss, in the receptacles of eternal tranquillity, in the Tabernacles of Christ, in the supernal Jerusalem, in the company of Saints, in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. S. Hierom in like manner affirms Paulina to be gone from hence to her Lord, and to enjoy a sweet rest, for whose sake notwithstanding he commends the giving of alms. S. Gregory himself in his book of Sacraments, saith, We have received, O Lord, the divine mysteries, which as they avail thy Saints to the increase of glory, so we beseech thee they may benefit us for the cure of our infirmities. The same may be likewise gathered from the Areopagite, who teaches to pray for those who departed so holily, that be affirms them to be presented to the Priest as to the distributor of their crowns. The same from S Chrysostom, who describes at one and the same time, weeping and almsgiving, rejoicing and triumphs for the dead; clearly declaring it to descend from the Apostles Doctrine and command to offer sacrifices for the dead. It was therefore anciently lawful and customary to pray for the Saints; nor is it in our days less, the Church herself instructing thus to pray, Receive what we offer to the honour of thy Saints, that to them it may be an increase of glory, to us of safety. Nor is it infrequent amongst the more pious, when they name a Saint or Martyr, to add, Whose glory God increase.   

The Fourth account.  
That (St. Bernard only excepted) all the rest of the Fathers denied not to the faithful departed, the Beatifical vision, before the day of judgement.  
FRom what hath been said, a clear light seems to discover itself, though many hands labour to draw a dark curtain before it, to the vindication, shall I say of the Fathers of the Church, or of the Church itself, from a foul imputation laid 
The importance of clearing Antiquity in this point.  upon them or her. For I ponder with myself, that if so great a multitude of Saints be supposed to have erred in this one Article; we are almost at a loss how to excuse the Church from the same crime. These calumniators muster up Fathers neither few in number nor those inconsiderable in value, nor of one Nation, nor of one age; and the nature of the Article is such that we may not well exclude it from its concernment in order to piety, or necessity in order to Faith. They affirm (not more unwarily then audaciously) That most of the Ancient Fathers did promiscuously sequester from the face of God, the perfect with the imperfect till the last day of judgement.  
I dare not take upon me to justify them in all circumstances, but as to the substance I avow, that (setting S. Bernard aside, and John the 22. if you please to reckon him amongst the Fathers) not any one of them (for aught may be gathered out of their writings) spoke even ambiguously in the case. 'Tis true many of them did deliberately deny the Saints to be in Heaven, which by inadvertency is become our vulgar phrase to signify Beatitude. But S. Bernard reflecting on the 
How S Bernard came to be deceived therein.  difference, affirmed them to be in Heaven, as to their substance, but not so as to enjoy the vision of the Deity. Whence it appears that he light upon this singularity, whilst he wholly applied his speculation to the subtle reach of the mystical speeches in the Apocalypse, not by the imitation of his predecessors, so that unawares he let go the church's sense, retaining only her words.  
We are to consider in the day 
Two effects of the Day of judgement.  of judgement two retributions to be made good to all mankind; the degree of reward due to their merits, and the place designed for their eternity. Who denies the first makes it no judgement; for what kind of judgement is that which hath no rewards or punishments attending it, but actually finds all beforehand done for which it was intended? The latter carries too much evidence to find an opposition, since we are speaking of men, and those who are never so little spiritualised know that to be in place suits only with bodies. These two things then those holy Fathers maintain, and by their testimonies 
What the Fathers mean when they affirmed souls to be kept in certain receptacles till the last Day.  foreprize our exceptions. When we hear them say that Saints or their souls are detained in certain receptacles or storehouses till the day of judgement; conceive them to mean that they have not yet received their material places of Beatitude, S. Bernard alone to opine that they are indeed already possessed of their proper and material places, but so that the humanity only of Christ is represented to them and made their object. For as we term that to be in darkness which is not in the light, and in a manner always explicate prevationsby in compossible positives; so those Doctors phrased the not being locally in Heaven, by the being in other receptacles, either accommodating their expressions to the vulgar capacity, though conscious of the Privation, or by the force of fancy being themselves beguiled into that unwary persuasion.  
This reflection alone beats 
A particular vindication of most of them.  back most of the calumnies darted at those Saints. For Ireneus, Justin, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Origen, Vistorinus, Prudentius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Arethus, Oecumenius, pronounce no more than that the souls are detained out of Heaven, and expect at the last day their remuneration and future glory. Yea, most of them follow those expressions with others, which at least permissively insinuate that they enjoy God as to their souls. So Ireneus explicating the complete resurrection to be that of bodies. So Justin affirming them to enjoy paradise with the sense of Intelligence, that is, those joys of paradise which pure Intelligences are capable of. So Tertullian allowing them rest and joy. So Origen, declaring them to be as it were in a school or Auditory, that they may make judgement of the future, that it may sore-run, and mentally taste the joys they are awaiting; saving moreover that they expect those which can receive no further increase. So Victorinus, confessing them to be in a state of repose, free from pains and flames, where they attend in the last times, a perpetual, that is, not mutable or increasable reward. Prudentius' words may well signify Heaven, unless the use and acceptation of his Age otherwise determine them. The sentiments of S. S. Chrysostom and Augustine are elsewhere sufficiently cleared. Arethus saith, they have a certain conjecture, that is, prescience, or pregustation of the future.  
Having so great an evidence of the thoughts of most of them, we are not to doubt but that the rest, whose words are somewhat harsher, were yet of the same judgement. S. Ambrose speaks ambiguously when he saith that the soul after this life is still in suspense of the future judgement; but I conceive him to speak indefinitely, not intending that any one in particular remains doubtful, whether she shall be happy or otherwise, but that all are not to be happy, but some happy, some miserable. The place is taken out of the 10. Chapter of his Book, De bono mortis, where treating more at large of this Doctrine, he seems to explain this part of his opinion in this sort. Therefore whilst the plenitude of time is expected (saith he) the souls wait their just remuneration, some shall have punishment, some glory. Besides what he had before affirmed of the soul of Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius and his Brother gives ample satisfaction concerning his judgement. To which you may add if you please, out of his 59 Epistle, de obit● Acolij, he sees perpetual light without a Sun, now face to face. And in Com. Ep. ad Philip. Thinking it better to be present with God. And on 1 Cor. Ep. 13. The Saints going out of this world shall behold him as he is.  
Theophilact's speech is likewise somewhat difficult, maintaining the Saints to have yet obtained nothing of the celestial promises. But S. Chrysostom's piety (which he adheres to) relieves him, giving us occasion to understand by Celestial those promises which are to be accomplished in Heaven, and which Oecumenius calls the term or period of goods. S. Chrysostom himself declares that the souls unless the body rise again shall remain excluded from the Celestial Beatitude; that is, shall indeed have its happiness, but not that which makes or follows its place in Heaven. So that at last it appears to have been not a famous Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church, but an infamous calumny against them, to impose upon them the denial of the sight of God before the universal resurrection. S. Bernard alone neither having nor seeking an Example ventured to assert it; for as to John XXII. since his writings are not extant, we cannot legally pas● sentence upon him.   

The Fifth account  
The Fifth proof from Scripture is again urged and two others added.  
NOtwithstanding all which, I 
Why the rewards of the day of judgement are so much inculcated.  should think my pains well rewarded, if I could learn the reason, why the holy Doctors with so much earnestness have inculcated to us the rewards and punishments of the last judgement, since they well enough understood that pure souls might have an immediate fruition of God. The first Motive may be that the Beatifical 
First Reason.  Vision is more perfect with the body resumed, then without it; which S. Chrysostom exceedingly favours. Yet I am not convinced by it; first, because nothing of this reason appears amongst most of them, though the Thesis be common to them all; and secondly, because no proof thereof is brought by him, nor by S. Augustine himself, though he affirms it certain that the soul of man devested of the body, cannot so behold the incommutable goodness as the Angels do, and the said souls expect the redemption of their bodies, since in his Retractations he seems to acknowledge the obscurity of the Consequence. The reason we have given for it in our Theological Institution is singular, and by few valued or comprehended.  
The next Motive may be, because 
Second▪ Reason▪  Corporeal goods, which are first attained by the Resurrection, are more esteemed by the generality of Christians then spiritual, as being better understood by them. But this reason is too disadvantageous to Christianity itself; for it being the design of its profession, and task of its Doctorin to take off the minds of men, from terrene goods and place them on celestial, 'tis altogether improper to permit corporeal advantage, to be preached and inculcated more vehemently then spiritual; nor doth it stand with those encomiums of Beatitude, That eyes have not seen, ears not heard, &c. That the passions of this time are not condign to the future glory; that there is good measure heaped together, pressed down and overflowing, &c. Lastly, Because we are taught, that they compared to spiritual pleasures, principally to the Beatifical Vision, have the proportion of finite to infinite; so that it little imports the satisfaction and contentment of the person whether he hath then or not.  
The third reason than must 
Third and chief Reason.  take place. That therefore the Retributions of the last day are so inculcated, because they are universal, whereas the rewards which before that are given, are particular, and as it were privileges. I shall endeavour to explicate myself. Mankind or human nature is not integrated by a few wise or extraordinarily religious persons, but by the commonalty and universality of Christians. Them therefore God, and Christ in the predication and propagation of the Gospel, hath respect to. These things then in the bulk and body of Catholic faith are to be promised which concern the generality of Mankind. And truly whether we cast our eyes on the old or new Testament, we shall find our Faith founded and 
The Resurrection is the basis of all Faith.  rooted in the resurrection. Let us examine the hopes of Job, the threats of Ecclesiastes, the menaces or promises of the Prophets, the comfort of Toby, and instructions given to his Son: Lastly, either the valour of the Maccabees fighting, or their patient suffering, everywhere we meet with the Resurrection. Is the New stile different? Do not all the exhortations, parabies, promises, denunciation of Christ our Lord sound forth the Resurrection? S. Paul cries out that all Faith is at an end and frustrated, if you take away, the Resurrection. S. S. Peter, Jude, James and John repeat the same lesson. This is the theme which both affrighted and allured all the world; this made the proudest necks to bow, and both already hath and shall subjugate all Nations to the obedience and Laws of Christ.  
And now behold us on a sudden revolved, I know not how, 
S. Pau's prayer for Onesiphorus explicated.  to the solution of the difficulty which begat this discourse; for by this clue we readily acquit ourselves of all intricacy in the Apostles wish of mercy to Onesiphorus, not simply in the next world, but expressly in the day of judgement. For though the virtues of the person permitted him to hope no less than that his last breath would wafte him to the regious of Beatitude, yet he chose rather to express his affection in terms sit to explicate to all the Brethren and Faithful the common condition of retribution, lest he might be thought to have entertained too good an opinion of Onesiphorus' well-doing. And that this was the form of prayer for the dead among the Jews, those that are conversant in their rights do testify; and ourselves have a manner of speech not much unlike, when challenging our due, we threaten to demand it at the day of judgement, if it be not restored.  
And if I mistake not, Christ 
The Sixt Text Mat. 5.  our Lord gave us the hint, advising us to agree with our adversary 
The Seventh Text Luke 12.  in the way, lest he deliver us to the judge, and the judge to the Executioner; who shall with rigour exact the debt. You see then that both Matthew 5. 26. & Luke 12. 58. we are taught that we must smart for our offences in the last day of judgement, and then make satisfaction to those we have injured. Which passages if they be urged will convince us, that there is a remission of sins, and that not without fire and torments in the day of judgement. Especially Catholics, who not believing punishment due for every the least breach of neighbourly charity, are compelled to admit an expiation of such lighter trespasses in the day of judgement, when the adversary will be together with us, and Christ sitting the common judge, to whom he may deliver us. These two Texts then conclude the same. But what stand I enumerating every particular Text? If the whole face of the Scripture, if the universal Assembly of Saints and holy Doctors, if the belief of all ages look upon the day of judgement as the time of general reward, certainly unless we avow that the greatest part of Mankind is then admitted to Beatitude, the Majesty and utility of that grand day is annihilated, and the ostentation of those great promises rendered inconsiderable in respect of what was conceived of it. From the main stock therefore of Christian Faith springs the certainty of this truth, That whoever are once in Purgatory, that is, the greatest portion of the faithful can never be possessed of the kingdom prepared by the Father, till they have presented themselves at the supreme and august Tribunal, that it may be fitly said to them all, what is to take effect in the greatest part of them.   

The Sixth account.  
The eight and ninth Texts are considered.  
THe next Text which occurrs 
The Eighth Text 1 Cor. 3.  is so special an evidence, that I cannot omit it without the indignation of the Reader. It is found, 1 Cor. 3. 13, 14. &c. If any one (saith the Apostle) builds upon this foundation (Christ or his Doctrine planted by the Apostle in their hearts) gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be manifest, for the day of our Lord will declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire, and the work of every one, of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any one's work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive reward, if any one's work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Thus far the Apostle immediately bef●re which he had rebuked them for making comparisons among their preachers, to which also he' afterwards returns. From whence some are conjectured that these speeches refer rather to the Doctrine of the Teachers, then works of the Auditors. But the contrary appears; first in that the Builder comes after the Apostle hath done his work, whom we may well suppose to have delivered to the faithful the whole and entire Law of Christ, as himself testifies, b●dding adieu to the Asian Churches, that he had withdrawn nothing, that was profitable from them. Secondly, what kind of trial can there be of Doctrines by the day of our Lord, as the Latin Translation hath it, or that day, as the Greek reads, if the Article be taken emphatically, or simply D●ey, that is diuturnity or length of time, wherein the builder may receive reward or detriment? Thirdly, who shall be saved by suffering detriment? The Preacher or Hearer? There is no work in the Preacher by conflagration whereof he may suffer detriment, and if the Hearer suffer it, than is he also the Builder, and not only he, but whoever destroys the Temple of God within himself, him will God overthrow, that is, severely punish. But to return. The Apostle proceeds to enumerate three sorts of good, that is perfect works, and as many which abide not the trial, and adds, that of which of these kinds every ones works are, it shall be made manifest. Why? Because the day of our Lord will declare it. How? By being revealed in fire, a fit examiner of the several alloys. After this he goes on, If any one's work remain, he shall receive reward, that is, more good shall be added to him. But if any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss, that is, he shall be punished, and that which he seems to have shall be taken from him. But because his foundation is solid, to wit, the lively faith of Christ in him, he shall be saved, but as a brand snatched flaming, and charred, from the fire.  
This is the literal sense of that place, in which it is evident that 
Which must be understood of Venial sins and of the day of judgement.  the discourse runs of Venial sins, it being plain that Mortal ones cannot be built upon Christ, since by their very being in our souls they expel from thence life and Christ. The next thing we are to reflect on, is, that according to the interpretation we have given, the day of which the Apostle speaks, musts be the day of judgement, which appears partly because the Latin Text hath the day of our Lord, which shows there have been various lection in the Greek, though now all copies agree; but more rationally from the context itself. For if it be explicated thus, Every one's works shall be apparent, because the day of trial will be revealed in fire, a fit instrument of bringing them to the truth, the discourse proceeds fair and smoothly. But if it be brought to this, Every one's work shall appear, for Day, that is, length of time will clear the truth, because the work shall be revealed in fire, and the fire shall try every one's work of what kind it is: the discourse is rendered obscure, interrupted and with unnecessary repetition. Finally can the distribution of rewards and sufferings be more properly referred to any other day than the Day of judgement? Or is salvation at least by fire given in any other? 
Though S. Augustine sometimes otherwise extounds.   
I am not ignorant. S. Augustine, and that several times explicates this passage of the tribulations of this world. But if I deceive not myself, from the literal, he falls to the moral sense, a thing not unusual to the Fathers. For if the Text be understood primarily of temporal afflictions, it is too obscure and allegorical; first, to call tribulation, the day of our Lord is an unusual phrase, and though sometimes in the Prophets it may be so taken, yet that is only when the glory and majesty of God, and the declaration of his Justice in revenging wickedness is described. Next, this part of the Text, because it shall be revealed in fire, must be understood of the works themselves, and so that which follows. And of what quality every one's work is, the fire shall try, becomes a mere tautology: and moreover there begins a new allegory of fire, without any particle determining it. And again what signifies this, He shall receive reward? That is properly called the reward which is given in the end of the day, or accomplishment of the whole work, not in every part or moment thereof, as particular tribulations are to be accounted. In like manner, if any one's work burn, he shall suffer damage, what can it import? That the pleasures which inveigled his affections are now taken away? They were not his works but the matter upon and about which he did work. Again, he shall suffer damage, must signify, he will be troubled or sorrowful; but that the rather by impotency, to sin a new, and freshly, then to be amended. Lastly, He shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Shall regret and sorrow for the loss of things temporal save him? Or the loss itself by means of that sorrow? It must be then understood that this tribulation must conect and reform him, which though sometime it happens, yet not always, or indeed for the most part, which nevertheless is requisite to make the truth of the Text apparent. Whosoever having throughly contemplated this passage, and finding the interpretations given it by others to be scarce reconcilable with the Letter, whereas ours in every particular wonderfully agrees with it, shall notwithstanding profess himself unsatisfied in what we have offered, I shall be much surprised if he ever find conviction from any of the sacred writings.  
My last Testimony shall be 
The ninth Text Mat. 12.  from S. Matth. 12▪ where Christ our Lord declares, that the sin against the holy Ghost shall neither be remitted in this world, nor in the next. Which S. Mark, in like manner expressing▪ saith, it shall not be remitted for ever. Holy Fathers gather from hence, not impertinently, that there is a remission of sins after this life, and some of our Moderns make use thereof to confirm the Doctrine of Purgatory, as it is vulgarly described. But in truth, therein they fail; for whatever venial stains the departed soul had contracted, those they absolutely declare to be by a perfect conversion to God, in the very first instant, canceled. Purgatory therefore according to them doth not remit, but chastise sins; and consequently they have no right to allege this place, since remission of sins there is none according to them. But on the contrary, if the affections to sin remain after death, and in the day of judgement are rectified, 'tis evident, there must be a remission of sins in the next world. And thus by the whole series of this discourse it is made appear, that no one text of holy writ is or can be urged for Purgatory, which by some circumstance or other, does not at the same time prove, that it is no otherwise a part of Christian belief, then as we have already explicated.   

The seventh account.  
Some places of Scripture applied by holy Fat●●●s to confirm the same truth.  
IT is now time to take the votes of antiquity, and observe whether the suffrages of the holy Fathers are more numerous and propitious to our adversaries or us. And first, let us interrogate those, who by application of holy Writ, rather than by their own proper motion or design, declare this Purgation to be made in the day of judgement. S. Basil, Ch. 15. on Esay, calls the baptism of fire that probation which is made in the day of judgement. S. Jerome, upon the third of Matthem, saith, In this world we are baptised with the spirit, in the future with fire; the Apostle also giving testimony, that of what sort every one's works are, the fire shall try. Theodoret, Ephrem and Rufinus explicate the prophecy of Malachy, wherein Christ is said to purge the sons of Levi, of the last judgement. S. Augustine, lib. 20. c. 25. de Civit. Dei, conjoins the place of Esay and Malachy, and applies them both to the same day; and lib. 16. c. 24. de Civ. Dei, he in like manner explicates the passage of the fifteenth of Genesis, of the smoking furnace, and flashes of fire passing through the midst of the divided carcases to be the fire of the last day, which shall discriminate the carnal persons who are to be saved by fire, from the carnal ones to be damned in fire.  
From hence we may thus argue. The Fathers interpret those places of holy Writ which speak clearly of the purgation of sins, and that by fire to be meant of the day of judgement, therefore they teach that the purging of souls from their sins by fire, is performed in that day, and consequently that that is the Purgatory fire. Whoever then confesses and acknowledges the purgation of souls in the day of judgement by the general conflagration, defends Purgatory in the sense of the Holy Fathers, nor can any thing from their Testimonies be alleged for the cessation of, or exemption from Purgatory before that day, when they teach that souls are purged by fire.  
And hence also are they easily silenced, who cry out that such like Testimonies are to be understood of some few remaining alive to the very last hour. For the maintainers of Purgatory, waving those passages which speak so in general terms, will find it no small difficulty to make a Father or two speak out for them, and so the whole extrinsical authority fit to maintain Purgatory will be lost, both the Scriptures themselves (as hath been shown) being a verse to that conceit, and absolutely respecting the day of judgement, and the holy Fathers refusing to own it. Besides most of the Patrons of this intermedial fire conceive that all men shall be dead before the day of judgement; so that the same flames may serve to expiate them without the help of those of the conflagration and judgement; and whatever is otherwise affirmed by them, clearly is not a consequence of their Doctrine, but an invention to elude the evidence of the Fathers. Let as therefore dispel this mist also with the clear attestation of such of them as speak plainly and positively in the case.   

The Eighth account.  
Testimonies from all, Antiquity, maintaining the same truth.  
St. Denys of Ariopaguses shall usher them in, who tells us that those Psalms were wont to be sung for the Dead which make mention of the Resurrection, as also such lessons as contain the promises thereof. And speaking of the secure estate of good men departing, he saith, they perfectly understand that all will go well with them in the life everlasting, through their total resurrection. From whence it is evident that the hope which they generally had for the dead, and which was therefore fit to be expressed in the Office for the dead, depended on the resurrection for its effect, and this in the very beginings of Christianity.  
Origen is yet more clear in his third Homily on the 36. Psalm. As I conceive, saith he, we must all be brought to that fire (it went a little before which is prepared for sinners) though he be a Peter or a Paul, he must come to that fire; but such as they shall hear it said, though you pass through it, the flame shall not burn you. But when such a sinner as myself shall come to the fire as Peter and Paul did, he shall not pass through it as Peter and Paul did. In the end of the eighth book of his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans he saith, But he, who neglects to be purged by the word of God and Evangelical Doctrines, is reserved for sad and penal purifications, that the flames of Hell may cleanse him, whom the Apostolical Doctrine and Evangelical speeches could not. And in his thirteenth Divine Homily upon Jeremy; But if any one be saved in the second resurrection, he is a sinner who needs the baptism of fire, who by burning is purged, that the fire may consume whatever he had of wood, hay, or stubble.  
I cannot but foresee that my adversaries will except against Origen, because he is thought to have exempted all men from eternal punishments. But their exceptions are unjust. For what do they aim at? Because elsewhere he exceeded the truth, must he be thought never to have defendedi●? Because in some one thing he departed from others, must he not be heard in those things wherein he agrees with others? If this be so, let him deserve no place or credit in antiquity, and let them likewise be denied any use or advantage by him.  
But that Origen hath in this particular, the rest of the Fathers not only for his applauders but also followers, S. Ambrose is a sufficient witness, who in his comments of the Psalms is esteemed to have borrowed this sentence from Origen. Thou hast examined us with fire, Saith David; we shall all therefore be examined with fire,— With fire therefore shall the sons of Levi be purged, with fire Ezckel, with fire Daniel. Wo● be to me if my work burn, and I suffer loss of this my labour. Though our Lord save his servants, we shall indeed be saved through faith, but so as by fire; if we are not consumed, we shall at least be burnt. How some remain in the fire, others pass through it, the Divine Scripture tells us. And on the 118. Psalm. This baptism shall be after the consummation of the world, the Angels being sent to segregate the good from the evil, when iniquity shall be burnt up by the furnace of fire, that the just may shine as the Sun in the kingdom of God. All must be tried by fire who desire to arrive at paradise; all must pass through flames, whether it be John the Evangelist whom our Lord so loved, that he said of him to Peter, if I will have him remain, what is it to thee? follow thou ●e. Of whose death some have doubted; of his passage through that fi●● none can doubt; or whether it be Peter who received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, he must say we have passed through fire.— He will be examined as Silver, I shall be examined as Lead, till my drosi● Lead be consumed, I shall burn.— He alone could not be sensible of, or subject to that fire who is the justice of God, Christ.  
Let Tertullian bear Origen company, who in the last Chapter of his Book de Animà, explicates that Prison mentioned in the Gospel of some infernal receptacle, and the last quadrant or farthing to be the punishment of every small offence, by the delay of the Resurrection. What can be said more fully to declare that no sin whatever can be remitted before the resurrection? The same hath S. Cyprian in his 32. Epistle, where speaking of sinners (in which number he comprehends all except Martyrs) he pronounceth that they are to be amended with a long sufferance of griefs, to be a great while purged with fire, and in the day of judgement, to expect anxiously the sentence of our Lord.  
Lactantius (Constantine's Master) shall be next, who in his seventh book of Institutions, Chap. 21. saith, When God shall judge the just, even them shall he examine with fire; whose fins shall exceed in gravity and number, they shall be scorc●'d and fi●ged with the fire, but those whose justice is perfect, and whose virtues throughly ripe and mature, shall not at all feel● it.  
Let Hilary succeed Lactantius. On the 118. Psalm. How (saith he) can that judgement be desirable in which we must encounter with that indefatigable fire, wherein those severe torments are to be undergone for the expiation of the soul's guilt? A sword passed through the soul of blessed Mary that the cogitations of many hearts might be revealed. If then that Virgin, who was able to contain God himself descend to the severity of that judgement, who dares covet to be judged by God?  
St. Basil upon the 9th Chapter of Esay. The Prophet declares that terrene things shall become fuel for that chastising fire, to the advantage and benefit of souls. For he threatens not ruin and total destruction, but rather insinuates a Purgation, according to that of the Apostle, If any one's work burn, he shall suffer damage, but himself be saved, yet so as by fire. But nothing can be more clear than that place where he affirms, the same fire shall both punish the guilty▪, and illuminate those who are designed ●on eternal joys. What else is this but that the just and unjust shall experience the same fire, which to the one shall afford comfort, to the other torments?  
I shall not think much to join N●ssen with his Brother, who in this point stands somewhat in need of his brotherly assistance. For he discourses of Purgatory fire, without distinguishing the times of purgation. But whereas some heretics traduce him for an Origenist, they do therein, like themselves, impudently; so great a personage ought not for a few obscure words be suspected of so great a madness. Let his relation to S. Basil afford him this fanctuary and protection, that without evident proofs, he be not branded with impiety.  
S. Chrysostom, on the first Epistle to Timothy, saith, One siphorus shall have his reward in that terrible and dreadful day when we shall stand in need of much mercy.  
Gregory Nazianzen, in his Sermon on the Epiphany, speaking of the Novatians, who differed from the Catholics only in ill custom tells them, that perhaps, if they retract it not, they shall be baptised with the last baptism, which he affirms to be more sharp and lasting, and to feed upon the matter as upon hay, consuming all the levity of wickedness. Nor is Nicetus to be heard, who interprets this passage of Hell, which is only punishment, and not Purgation: As in like manner Oecumenius must excuse us who fancies the same in S. Basil, that he may draw him to countenance a certain singular opinion of S. Chrysostom.  
S. Jerome, T. 3. upon Amos; The fire of the day of judgement first d●vo●rs the abyss, that is, all kind of sins, wood, hay, stubble; and afterwards eats also the part, that is, reaches the Saints, who are r●puted the part and propriety of our Lord.  
S. Augustine, on the sixth Psalm: All that have not the foundation, which is Christ, are condemned in the day of judgement; but they are amended, that is, purged, who build wood, hay, stubble upon this foundation. Again in the 16th Book de Civit. Dei, cap. 24 already cited, speaking of the furnace and fire passing though the divisions spoken of in the 15th of Genesis, he saith, At the setting of the S●n, that is, now at the very end, the day of judgement is signified by that fire which divides betwixt the carnal people, who are by fire to be saved, and the carnal ones in fire to be damned. And elsewhere in the Psalms, and his Sermons, de Tempore, he repeats the same explication. And that you may see he speaks not of those only who are just then to die, on the sixth Psalm above ci●ed, he immediately adds; Make me such a one, O Lord, as that I may not need the fire to mend me; or the correcting fire.  
And that you may further perceive he was herein constant to himself, Lib. 20. de Civi●. Dei, cap. 25. From what we have alleged, saith he, it se●●es evidently to appear, that in that judgement there will be certain purging punishments for some. And whereas lib. 21. c. 26. he seems to doubt, whether such fire as consumes venial sins, may not be admitted betwixt the day of Death and the day of judgement; that intrenches not upon the certitude of what he had already established, but rather begins a new Question, especially since he explicates himself, not of material fire, but of the fire of tribulation. His intentions may perhaps be more illustrated, if we add the negative place, De Civit. Dei, l. 2. c. 24 As, saith he, in the resurrection of the dead, there will not want those, who, after the pains which the spirits of the dead suffer, shall find mercy, that they be not precipitatid into eternal For it would not have been with truth affirmed, that they should not be forgiven neither in this world nor the next, unless there were some, who, though they foun● it not here, should notwithstanding obtain remission hereafter. And in the fifth Chapter of the sixth book against Julian; If no sin, saith he, were to be remitted in that last judgement, I suppose our Lord would not have said of a certain sin, that it should neither be remitted in this world, nor the next. Finally, Confess. l. 9 c. 3. Grant him [Verecundus] in the resurrection of the just, a recompensation for the good Offices he did us, since th●● haste already made him one of thy faithful. Nor is his 80th Epistle to Hesichius to be omitted; In what condition every man's last day finds him, in the same shall worlds last day overtake him, for such as in that day he departs, such in the last day shall he be judged. What can more throughly discredit all pretence of intermedial change? Ru●●inus, if he be the Author of that work on the Psalms which is ascribed to him, is to be explicated conformably, when he saith, By anger may be understood the trial by purging fire, in which they shall be chastised, who now build things unprofitable upon Christ their foundation; as meaning by that purging fire, the fire of the last day of judgement, and so he confirms our opinion.  
To him we will join Eucherius Lugdun●nsis, if the Homilies, which carry the name of Eusebius Emissenus, be his. They who have committed things worthy of temporal punishment (saith he) to whom belongs that speech of our Lord, that they shall not go free till they have paid the last farthing, shall pass through a fiery River (according to that of the Prophet, a swift River ran before him) through horrid gulfs of flaming metal. And a good while after; The just shall pass through them, as through pleasant and refreshing baths, the flames losing their propriety, and their untouched bodies shall be honoured by the very Instruments of pain, because they were not burdened with sin. The description of the just passing through those flames with their bodies untouched, and the fiery River running before the face of Christ, give us sufficient light that the day of judgement is here spoken of. Nor need it any way trouble us, that he saith, the slowness in passing through shall be proportionable to the matter of sin; for there may well in the compass of one day be diversity of torments, and of their duration; besides, delay may, not improperly, signify difficulty in passing.   

The Ninth account.  
That the Proofs of the opposite opinion are Modern, and betray their Novelty.  
NOr hath the hasty progress of this vulgar persuasion, concerning the cessation of punishments before the day of judgement, altogether Eclipsed the contrary. For Venerable Bede himself doth not admit to Heaven those whom he supposeth to be freed; and Alcuinus is positively against it. Both S. Anselm and S. Thomas jointly confess, that the purging and saving fire mentioned by the Apostle, may be understood of the fire of conflagration. And the most eminent among our moderns confess this to have been the sense of antiquity; nor do themselves much labour to oppose or discredit it. But nothing can be more clear than the Saxon Homilies (lately set forth in the 
* By M. Whelock. 1644.  Annotations upon Bede) which having been purposely compiled that they might be read throughout all the Churches in England, evidently declare the sense of the English Church, till the beginning of the schools. What shall I say of S. Gregory, who first brought into the Church the contrary opinion, from certain stories and relations of pious, but timorous persons? Not one word can be found in him of admitting those, who were so pretended to be freed, to the Beatifical Vision; but one, who had been excommunicated, is reported to have received the Communion, others to have quitted their painful prisons. And here it may well be noted, that our Modernists, who admit the fire spoken of by S. P●ul to be the fire of the last day cannot from that Text (though none more clearly assert Purgatory) draw the least advantage to the confirmation of theirs, but on the contrary mere confusion and darkness.  
And now let us cast up the total sum of this discourse, which consists of these three constant asseverations of the holy Fathers; first, that some souls already enjoy God; secondly, that none are yet locally in heaven (since to be in place requires a body) thirdly, that all the faithful expect the day of judgement, that they may receive the reward of what they acted in their life-time, wherein all their works are to be tried by fire, and those who were not perfectly holy, to be purged and suffer detriment. From whence we may with the same constancy pronounce, that since those who die in sin (provided their foundation be on Christ) are in the last day to suffer purging flames, there can be no other material ones after this li●e, but they. For if you subtract those testimonies of the Fathers, which either expressly speak of the day of judgement, or in such general terms, that it is evident they ought to be applied to it, by consent, and in compliance with the rest, you must from them expect no authority at all for the establishing of▪ Purgatory.  
To which we may add, since all Christian belief or credulity 
Nothing can be a part of our belief but what is banded down to us by uninterrupted tradition from the Apostles.  is finally resolved into, and totally depends on Christ and his Apostles Doctrine, if any Tenet, concerning a subject not otherwise then by revelation discoverable, appear not to have been, by uninterrupted succession, from them derived unto us, it is most evident that originally it was new, and in respect of Catholic Faith, can never cease to be new; and consequently may at all times be segregated from it, and can never lay claim to antiquity, since the contrary was, and ever will be more ancient. But nothing is more apparent than that abstracting from Revelation, there remains no one ground in Christian practice or Faith, whereon to establish real flames, or fire interceding betwixt the hour of Death, and day of judgement. If therefore that persuasion can be known to have been introduced after the Apostles days, it is and ever will be new, and inferior to the other, which teaches that in the last day alone, those material flames are to act upon us.  
But that this conceit was of a 
Proofs th●● the adversary's opinion came not to us in that manner.  later date than the Apostles, S. Augustine to Dulcitius, quaest. 1. will assure us. 'Tis not incredible also, saith he, that some such thing may be after this life, and whether it may be so or not, may be examined, and either be discovered or continue hidden; to wit▪ that some of the faithful are, by a certain Purgatory fire, so much sooner or later saved, by how much more or less they set their affections upon transitory goods. Perceive you not that the Purgatory flames we are now discoursing of, and their nature were such as in S. Augustine's time had not yet been searched into, and the search such, as perhaps might admit of a discovery, perhaps not?  
After S. Augustine, let S. Gregory himself be heard, a person beyond exception, and the Father of the opinion itself. In the fourth Chapter of his Dialogues, he brings in Peter demanding, why in those latter days so many things come to light concerning the condition of souls, which were before unknown? and this question is started immediately after the story of Paschasius, freed from the baths; and his answer acknowledges and confirms the truth of the demand.  
Venerable Bede shall be our 
lib. 4. c. 22.  third witness, whose history imbued our Country with that opinion. He sufficiently declares that England embraced it upon the credit of a miracle wrought on a certain soldier, whose chains fell off, when mass was said for him, as supposed dead. We may therefore conclude that this opinion is to be accounted new, and no ways comparable to the Doctrine of purgation of souls in the day of judgement, which extends itself to all Christian times and regions.  
Lastly, the council of Florence itself shall give us Testimony. For as in other Articles then debated betwixt the Greeks and Latins, the division being made indifferent to either side, it remains confessedly safe and lawful for Catholics to hold which they shall see good; so in this which was likewise discussed, because (the Latins having first propounded it, and the Grecians abstractedly explicated theirs) the Canon was at last framed abstractedly, the Greeks were permitted to retain their own, which in a book, treating particularly of this subject, they thus declare. We from our Teachers have not received the Doctrine of Purgatory fire, and punishment by temporary and ceasing flames, nor do we know that the Eastern Church hath any such persuasion. Which gave occasion to Fisher, that learned and holy Bishop of Rochester, to think they denied Purgatory, whereas they denied it only in the sense of the schoolmen.  
And now looking back upon what hath been deduced, a kind of unexpected miracle presents itself, to wit, That so many, and so familiar expressions of the Saints, hitherto lying open and subject to censure, and esteemed, as it were criminal, should on a sudden put on a new face, and come forth adorned with truth and candour. These three Propositions I chiefly mention, That the Saints may lawfully be prayed for; that they are yet detained in the Entry, or Porch, or Avenues of Heaven: That they are all to pass through the fire of the last judgement, whereby themselves shall be approved, others suffer detriment, and finally be saved, yet so as by fire. All which from our grounds are convinced of manifest truth, and with a grateful return give no less Testimony to our Doctrine, placing it under the protection of Christian discipline and defence, and with their impenetrable files, securing it from all hostile attaques.   

The Tenth account.  
The first exception against the opposite Tenet: From pure Revenge.  
HAving thus from the Oracles of Holy Scripture and Fathers laid the foundation of our Doctrine, we ought no longer to delay the Superstructure: But be at length permitted to have recourse to Reason, which presupposes the basis of Faith; and that she may have less of disguise, 
The Adversaries suppose all venial sins to be remitted in the instant of dissolution by an act of Contrition.  let us by our first exception in part divest her thereof. Those against whom we are at present armed, maintain that all venial affections whatsoever, which at the hour of death possess the soul, are by contrition, in the very first moment of its dissolution, canceled and erased; yet that the soul herself is precipitated notwithstanding into Torments for her past offences. We on the other side, 
The author's explication.  That parting from the body, she continues in, and still pursues the same affections which in this life she had contracted, and that those very self▪ same affections become her torment till the last day of judgement, when she is again enabled to retract them. Our first exception then against our Adversaries, is, that there can be no such pains, as they suppose, which thus we prove.  
If there be any such, they must 
So taat t●● punish●… which remain 〈…〉 be infli●… purely 〈…〉 of revenge for past offences.  be purely vindicative; But it becomes not God to inflict torments upon departed souls, through the sole Motive of Revenge, Therefore there are no such torments in Purgatory as they fancy, due for the past offences of holy souls. The proof of the Major proposition is obvious, being our Adversaries own concession; for they expect neither merit nor other advantage accrueing, either to the souls themselves, or any other either single person, or community from these pains, but purely a satisfaction to the Divine Justice; which that it can have any other notion then of Revenge they go not about to show. According therefore to their opinion (as far as I am able to apprehend it) these pains are purely Vindicative.  
I come then to the proof of 
Of public Revenge.  the Minor, and observe that Revenge is twofold, public and private. In the public, I observe the Magistrate to aim at the cutting off from the commonwealth an evil member, disturbing the general peace thereof, whether it be by such chastisements as are apt to correct the sufferer, or by Death or Banishment, which exterminate his person; with this farther design, to prevent future evils in the commonwealth, by deterring others, prone to the like excesses, by the sense of their suffering●. From both these considerations a judge may fairly challenge all honest men's thanks for the penalties he inflicts.  
I am not ignorant, that there 
Of Retaliation.  is also a third ground of inflicting punishment, to wit, the satisfaction or comfort of him who received the injury, which seems chiefly to have had its place in the law of Retaliation. But here it cannot well pretend to be admitted, since neither God can suffer evil, nor even man (if I mistake not myself) when fully master of Reason, demand his injurers chastisement merely upon that account. For a rational man proposes some good to himself in every action; but another's mischief cannot be his good, unless accidentally it chance to have some good annexed to it. Indeed in a passionate man, 'tis evident that the allay of his anger is such a good, and so to him, from another's evil springs his good, but how a wise man, who regulates and governe● his anger by reason can esteem his own condition better precisely because another's is become worse, I cannot understand. For the evil of another not being, in itself good, but on the contrary, against the nature of charity, and so, considered in itself, bade even to him who was injured, it cannot be coveted, but through some accidentally conjoined good.  
It may be answered, that the equality and just proportion in 
An ebjection answered.  the Commonwealth requires this amends. But it is soon replied, that whatsoever is so challenged proceeds from Commutative, not Vindicative justice; as when for a hurt or wound, a pecuniary mulct is leavy'd, the expenses of Chirurgery, loss of time and profit, perhaps the grief and the like, are considered. In diminution of reputation, such submission is made, before the same or equivalent witnesses, as may restore the person injured to the same esteem and integrity he had before the affront. These are the intercourses and commerce of Commutative justice, nor do thy otherwise, then materially employ the Revengeful part of it.  
If we look into particular Revenges, their chief aim is, that 
Of priu●●●▪ revenge.  their grief, that is passion and irrational appetite may be satisfied, in the rest they differ not from the public; and this very difference renders them odious and impracticable to a wise man. I see no fruits of Revenge, besides those we have explicated, which may beget or nourish a desire thereof. For clearly, other harms, in themselves, as opposite to Charity, are to be abhorred, unless they be corrected with some peculiar good to ourselves. But our good is, either present, or future, in the prevention of evil; Restitution cures o●● present, caution our future▪ fo● these two reasons then alone may the damage of others be justifiably sought.  
To return now to the limits from whence this discourse hath 
The wisdom of O●d cannot permit him to in●●i● such pains as neither a●●il the sufferer or any other.  strayed. It being the practice of all Theology to transfer and apply the notion of wisdom to the Divine attributes; and wisdom not permitting punishments to be inflicted, where nei●her restitution nor Caution are concerned, neither of which utilities can take place in these of Purgatory, a● by them they are described; it remains apparent, that God never decreed such punishments; for they would violate the laws of wisdom, since neither the Souloes themselves can thereby be amended, as having already cast off their ill affections, nor their sufferings avail others by way of caution, being neither authenticated by Faith, by Reason, nor the apprehension of our senses, deeply imprinting the strokes of their objects. They must serve therefore only for pure revenge, that is, for asswaging passion, from which God is absolutely free.  
You will perhaps say, that God, 
Another objection from God's attribut● of justice.  as he is styled goodness itself, so no less necessarily is he to be accounted Justice itself. But Justice requires, that as no good without remuneration, so no evil should go without punishment. It is therefore necessary, since both sides agree, that a soul otherwise just, carries with it some evils unpunished out of this world, that there should be time and place elsewhere appointed for its chastisement. Since then this reason alone is sufficient to evince a necessity of pains, they prudently may and aught, though upon the only score of Revenge to be inflicted. To which I answer, 
answered▪  denying this proposition assumed in the argument to be universally true, That there is no good without remuneration, no evil without punishment, for neither the highest Charity which is in the Blessed, nor the highest malice which is in the damned have their proportionable compensations; there being in the next world neither capacity to merit or demerit. Whence it is evident, that axiom takes place only in this life, the reward of which we expect in the future; and we grant, that the sins, which escape in this, are to be expiated in the other world, but by such punishments as naturally spring from the sins themselves, as delay of Beatitude till the day of Judgement, and the dissension and intestine war of Appetites, which in our Theological Institutions are declared.  
And it is to be noted, that this Vindicative Justice is not a thing simply and of itself desirable, but in particular cases; and upon supposition of some precedent evil, and consequently that it is not such as is illimited, nor such whose object hath no end or bound, as those things with are expetible for themselves, but is terminated by some other virtue and therefore hath the object of that virtue for its extrinsical end. It must therefore be subordinate to goodness or charity, and is no farther or otherwise to be exercised then as it conduceth to the good of the person on whom it falls, or some other. Its limits consequently are to be fetch from the rules we have above laid down, of Restitution and Caution. 'tis not therefore a sufficient motive of punishing, to satisfy justice; but its direction must be taken from a subaltern power, and in the first place care must be had, that goodness may remain entire, and unless respect of good 
All punishments which have no respect to some good, are effects of cruelty no● justice.  prescribe the punishment, that is, unless the punishment be profitable, it becomes an exercise of cruelty not of justice.  
The evidence hereof puts our adversaries to cast about for another means to enervate our argument. They represent God injured 
A third objection from the injury done to God by robbing him of his honour.  by our sins; we have robbed him of an extrinsical good, his Honour; we must therefore make just amends, and since no restitution can be made out of our other goods, which are all his, we must lie by it, our carcases must pay for it. Thus our angry opponents. We must 
Answer.  stop their career, and first, question that proposition which affirms God hath suffered injury by us. For how? did he suffer it willingly or against his will? If against his will, he was not omnipotent, who had a desire to hinder it, but could not. If willingly, it was no injury. Besides the philosopher denies justice to have place betwixt God and Men, betwixt Master and Servant; but where no justice is, there can be no injustice. But of this more in our 
* Tom. 1. lib. 1. lect. 5  Theological Institutions.  
Let us consider the other part of the charge. We have deprived God of some measure of extrinsical good or honour due to him. Let us, I say, examine attentively what this means. Doth our 
The diminution of God's honour, what it signifies.  adversary really think God enjoys not now so much honour, as he would have done if Peter had not sinned? Or only that from Peter himself he receives not so much, though perhaps otherwise, or by some other means, he had as much, or more? If the latter, I cannot perceive any diminution on God's part, since he hath thereby as much or more honour, then if Peter had not sinned. For the honour of God consists in this, that his work, that is, the universal fabric, receive its ultimate perfection: So that, if that become more improved by occasion of Peter's sin▪ then otherwise it had been, more honour redounds to God from Peter's sinning, then from his well-doing, and this from Peter himself. But if the universe, by this sin of Peter, be supposed to become less perfect, it cannot be understood that God should do better in permitting then impeding his sin, the laws of wisdom absolutely obliging him thereto▪  
But if the intent of the proposition be, that Peter, not simply, but as much only as in him lay, did derogate from the Divine honour, than is there no necessity of restitution, where, though there wanted not will, yet it took no effect. You will urge, that though in truth and rigour, Peter took away no honour from God, yet did he not effectually pay that honour to God which was due, and consequently, by reserving it to himself, did in some sort deprive him of it. I answer, 
The true ground of well doing.  that properly speaking, a sinner hath no other obligation then to live well, and that, because an evil life of its own nature, leads him to eternal misery; other expressions are metaphorical. But to continue the metaphor however, if it were true that the defect of God's honour occasioned by Peter, were supplied and repaired by some other, the argument would carry some shadow of strength. But now that God from Peter himself, either by exemplar punishments in this world, or such as spring from the sin itself in the next, or by drawing Peter, by means of the said sin, to do for him greater things, hath made himself amends, it can no ways be thought that Peter is still tied to restitution of God's honour, or that God was injured by him, or can inflict any punishment on him, upon the account of loss of honour. It is therefore concluded to be unworthily and against all Theological evidence imposed on God, that he inflicts, or can by his wisdom▪ and goodness be permitted to inflict pains purely vindicative, that is, such as our adversaries assert in their Purgatory.   

The Eleventh account.  
Two other exceptions, from the supposition of these pains to be unvoluntary and corporeal.  
OUr next consideration must be, whether pure spirits are truly capable of such pains, as they stand committed to Purgatory there to undergo. For if they really be found incapable thereof, all this intermedial fire vanishes instantly into smoke. Let us therefore examine what pains signifies 
Of Pain, and Punishment, and Torment.  to us here immersed in our bodies, and we shall presently discover that the notion of punishment differs herein from that of pain or torment, that it does not necessarily include grief, as pain and torment do. For we properly enough, account it punishment, if any one for his offence-be taken away by the hand of Justice, though sleeping or insensible of pain: But properly pain, at least according to the Latin acceptation of the word, imports some dolorous punishment inflicted on us against our wills, in which torment agrees with it, though it differ from both in regard of demerit, or the hand of the inflicter. For whatsoever grief befalls us against our wills, though it proceed not from our merit, or the infliction of another, but from nature or accident, is still a torment.  
These are the native and genuine differences of the words, though they are oft by negligence confounded, as in this occasion we may perceive. For the nature of that pain which here we search after hath no respect▪ to merit, but consists of these two notions, that it is dolorous, and inflicted from an external Agent, on a repugning and unwilling sufferer. And from torment it either differs not at all, or only in this; that it requires an extrinsical Agent, whereas torment may take its rise from within us. Contemplating then this sort of pains, we find that by how much weaker and more obnoxious to grief the minds of those that suffer them are, the higher and more vehement they become. Not only History, but our own memory assures us, that some have expired in the defence of secrets committed to them, without consenting to reveal them; others endured the Gout, the Stone, the twisting of the guts, without a sigh. And Philosophy teaches us, that grief is heightened by thinking on it; the sharpest torments, if there be constancy and manliness enough to employ the spirits upon other objects, either vanishing or decreasing. So that pain, that is, such an action as is 
No extrinsical Agent can annoy us, but by our body.  apt to produce grief in us, no otherwise obtains that effect, then by our unableness to busy and divert the spirits elsewhere. From the body then, and the course of its spirits, it is that an extrinsical Agent gets power to annoy us. So that deliver but the soul from the body, and you have secured it from outward passion; and consequently the spirits of the departed, which are to be purged, are clearly exempt from all such pain as may be caused by any outward Agent.  
Again let us inform ourselves even of these very men, who are the maintainers of this opinion, whether the Will can, by any violence be drawn to consent? they perfectly disclaim it, firmly building upon this fair ground, that, since the will of its own nature, is a will, or spontaneous inclination, no act thereof can be but 
Every act of will must needs be voluntary.  voluntary. We subsume; But in pure spirits grief or pain is an act of the Will, therefore all the suffering of abstracted spirits is voluntary, and consequently not from without, seizing upon them against their wills, as they use to imagine.  
Again, the pain of souls that are purged, is either rational, and flowing from the understanding, by connexion of discourse, corresponding to our syllogistical inferences; or a pure affection of the Will, by some other means instilled. If the first, it is genuine, and the same which we assert, there being a plenary knowledge in a separated soul, and its nature requiring, that its motion follow the understanding. If you maintain the second; first, you defend an impossibility, because the Will clearly includes the understanding, and volition, or an act of Will, an act of understanding, either formally, or at least by consequence. Secondly, the entity of the soul being one, that is including in herself both the said powers, it is manifest there cannot be in the soul an act of the Will, without a preceding act of the understanding, into which it is, as it were engrafted, and without which it cannot be understood. We have therefore evidently proved, that pains, extrinsecally inflicted, and not as it were, spontaneously springing from within, cannot reach spirits, devested of their bodies.  
Our third exception against them is, that they affirm these purging pains to be inflicted by fire, and corporeal instruments, which is a fiction vain and altogether 
Corporeal Action, that is, Rarefaction and Condensation cannot reach indivisible subjects.  impossible. For all corporeal action requiring space, can by no means be exercised on an indivisible subject. Again, the quality of a Body extends not itself beyond its own subject, whence no corporeal action is performed without a sallying forth of parts, which touch and insinuate themselves into some other body, which how it can be in relation to spiritual substances, is above human capacity. Further, the action of bodies is performed by division; and involves Rarefaction and Condensation, from which the very Patrons of the opinion we reject exempt and discharge 
No, not Instrumentally.  pure spirits. Nor is it any thing to the purpose, to cry out that the corporeal action which they require is only instrumental; for all that endeavour to speak intelligibly, make that to be the instrumental action, which is the principal action of the instrument abstracted from the principal Agent, which being directed by the principal Agent, or by the admixture of its action, changed, acts otherwise then naturally it would have done. So that there being no principal action of bodies upon spirits, neither can there be any instrumental one.  
Nor need we fear lest they 
How man is notwithstanding subject thereto.  urge a ●●rity of the soul immured in the body. For Man being truly one Entity, the soul cannot in this life, be actually divided from the body; for so man would become two Entities, or Hypostases. And if Man be but one Entity, he must be an Entity actually corporeal, and virtually only spiritual; so that there is no inconvenience in its being changed by a corporeal Agent. And because the subject in which the change is wrought is virtually spiritual, it may be altered, as such, by the said change, because the whole is yet actually corporeal. When Man therefore shall be resolved into Soul and carcase, both parts shall be found such, as virtually they were in the pre-existing Man, after, and by the said immutation. Thus whilst the soul inhabits the body, its immutation from corporeal Agents, is not a change wrought by a body on a substance actually spiritual, but actually corporeal, and virtually only spiritual; in which there is not the least shadow of inconvenience. But those who put the soul, whilst it is in the body, to be actually distinct from it, both render it an Assisting Form, and are altogether at a loss, to explicate how it is by the body changed.   

The Twelfth account.  
Four other Exceptions, from these Pains being to no purpose, unproportioned to the sins, of an indivisible duration, and endless.  
IT is now time we should ask our Adversaries, to what end, or for what good, they suppose God should inflict such torments on these souls as neither avail them, nor are visible to us? Nay such as can have no effect upon them, since it is evident by the loss of the things that were dear to them, by the delay of their rewards, by the repentance of their past deviations, they really and naturally suffer whatsoever by the Metaphors of fire, gnashing 
That fire is taken Motaphorically as well as Darkness, gnashing of teeth, worm of Conscience, &c.  of teeth, worm of Conscience, and darkness useth to be explicated to us; or to speak more properly, being in its self inexplicable, is insinuated to us by the severest punishments we are acquainted with, that so raising our thoughts above them, we may endeavour to discover things more sublime and subtle. For that darkness is a faint expression of the privation of the Beatifical Vision, it is superfluous to observe. That fire and burning describe Love and Grief, Poets and Chirurgeons can tell us; the one observing inflammation to be the companion of pain, the other calling Love a consuming flame and devouring fire. The worm of Conscience, and gnashing of teeth aptly betoken repentance, since we find in ourselves that collision of our teeth, when we are ashamed and confounded at the foulness of some unhandsome action; and the gnawing worm of the conscience, by the very phrase, represents the dictates and instinct of natural piety. It being then apparent, from what hath been said in 
* Peripat. Institutions Book 5. Lessons 3. & 4.  our Philosophy, that all this, from the very nature of the thing must needs be verified in the souls that are purged, why presume we that fire alone is to be taken truly and literally, all the rest Metaphorically? And what can less be excused, why should God, since all this may be performed conformably to the order and government of Nature herself, superadd to natural causes other improper, 
That souls in Purgatory would endure all their Torments with extreme pleasure.  unnecessary and disproportioned ones?  
From whence a sudden and unexpected truth breaks forth, That all these pains are purely pleasures. For the souls to be purged, being on the one side, truly in Charity, and extremely thirsting after eternal Good, which they are certain to attain; and on the other side, clearly understanding that corporeal punishments are the only means to capacitate and adopt them to the fruition of that Beatitude, it is evident, They look upon these pains, as a man of invincible courage, highly inflamed, and passionately enamoured of some achievement, would upon his adventurous actions or sufferings in the pursuit; wherein reason and experience tells us, he would feel unspeakable pleasure.  
Our fifth charge takes its rise from a principle in logic, though (if I well remember) deduced by the Philosopher in the fifth book of his physics. He admonishes us, that some things there are which will by no means suffer themselves to be compared each to other; to wit, such things as are ranked under divers kinds, or predicaments. For it is madness to say, a Horse runs as much as a Swan is white: or, Rome is as far distance from London as an Elephant is great. These are the comparisons of fools. But I beseech you, can any corporeal thing so differ from another corporeal, as it doth from a spiritual? if than this be impossible, what rule of proportion can we invent betwixt burning and willing, that is, sinning? And yet upon this comparison 
There can be no proportion betwixt sin and fire.  stands all the fabric of their Doctrine; for, take away the proportion betwixt the action of fire upon the soul, and its assent to sin, and it is impossible that pains should be assigned to and compensate sins, and such a duration in flames correspond to so much heinousness in the offence. But on the contrary, if voluntary griefs be understood to be the punishment of sin, they being the very effects thereof, they must also of necessity keep exactest proportion with it, the sins themselves measuring out their own punishment.  
From the same root shoots forth another objection; that, in spiritual acts, whether they concern Beatitude or Misery, there is no proportion to Time, so 
Nor betwixt time and a spiritual Act.  as to make the pain which lasts longer to be greater, or that which ends sooner, less. These are the proprieties of things corporeal, whereas among spiritual substances, the whole difference of their duration consists in the necessity of their ●eing or inexisting▪ For as, because spirits have no dimensions, their substances cannot be compared to any quantitative bulk; as this Angel to a Perch, that to an A●re, the third to a mile, but the very lowest of them is more noble and eminent than the whole mass of Quantity; so every act of a pure Spirit, reflected on itself, being of its own nature, out of the reach of time, is not subject thereto, but greater than the whole extension of time, as being to be estimated by the necessity of its inexistence, not by the succession of its own or any other's parts.  
Nor is it unworthy our observation, 
Length of time, augments corporeal grief or pleasure, but hath no affect on pure spirits.  that corporeal grief or pleasure is therefore greater, the longer it continues, because it consists in motion; for motion is integrated of parts, and the more parts there are which constitute it, the greater is the Whole. On the contrary; let us consider, if, to a thing, which coexists with a longer space of time, nothing be thereby added, or to that, whose duration is less, nothing diminished, there can be no reason, why duration should affect that more sensible, this less; there being in them no plurality of parts, by which the excess of one's pain or pleasure above the others is measured. So that whatsoever grief of a separated soul, is, by the quality and force of its essence, greater, the same, let its coexistence with time be what it will, must be more vehement, and that which is less, less intense; nothing being gained or lost by the perpetuity or interruption of the motions of the Sun or other celestial bodies. And hence again it is apparent, that this opinion totally mistakes the propriety of spiritual nature.  
From whence we may further infer, that the grief or any other act of a separated soul, is no less indefectible, than the state of its separation; and consequently, that its pain beginning after death must continue till a new conjunction 
No act of a separated soul can bechanged without a new Conjunction with the body unless▪ miraculous●ly.  with the body, if the ordinary bounds and progress of Nature be observed. For having no parts of succession or duration, of its own nature, it must either continue but one moment, that is, not at all, or ever. For, as Points in quantity, so instants in time, not being of the nature of the whole, but pure terms and negations, it is evident, that a spiritual act, to which the duration of one only instant is assigned, hath no duration at all; but if an indivisible duration be assigned it, equal to any part of time, the very supposition itself constitutes it of a superior and more noble order, and exalts it above the reach of all or any time assignable. For, the comparison between them being to be made abstractedly from parts, what can be considered as common to them both, but merely their necessity of existing? That is, that a spirit can have no causes of its defect, a body more or fewer, but always some. So that we must confess every spirit whatsoever outvyes the most solid and durable of bodies, since evidently in this necessity of existing, every spirit transcends all bodies, as in our 
* Peripat. Inst. Book 5. l. 1. par. 2. & 3.  Philosophy is demonstrated. But imagine that one indivisible act should outlast another, and this indivisibly, without addition of duration to duration, is it intelligible in what this out lasting should consist, or how it can be any thing extrinsical? It is then irresistibly true, that every duration of such an Act of its own nature, is eviternal.  
To conclude, experience tells us, that Resolutions or Determinations 
Every Act of a separated soul is made upon full view of all circumstances, and consequently inalterable.  made upon the full view of circumstances, are, of their own nature, immutable; for reason alone, or consideration can be the motive of change in Wills▪ and it was supposed no new reason could present itself. It having therefore been demonstrated 
* Peripat. Just. book 5. Lesson. 2. 3, 4.  in Philosophy, that spirits, segregated from the dregs of matter, break forth into every act upon distinct knowledge & perfect consideration of all motives, it is also convinced, that their acts are, of their own nature, inalterable. Besides, we observe the cause of all changes to reside in things active, communicating and participating the same matter, and, with opposition one to the other, pertinaciously struggling to possess themselves of it and master it. Of which kind of contention and rivalship, spirits, now infanchised, being wholly void, nothing appears which may destroy or alter their acts.   

The Thirteenth account.  
Two other Exceptions, from the non-connexion of such pains with the sins, and their being supposed to remain due, after the fault forgiven.  
BUt because the Philosopher hath instructed us that for the utter eradication of any error, it is necessary we should retrieve the causes of it, that is, whence, and by what steps the assertors were led into its snare, we must not desist our pursuit till we have obeyed his commands. In order whereunto, let us first reflect, that God, in the Government 
God governs his World not as a Prince but as a perfect Architect.  of human things, may be considered either as a Monarch, with precepts and punishments ruling his people, or as an Artificer or expert Engineer, so contriving every part and movement of his machine, that of itself it may perform and attain the end for which he designed it. The first way, though one of the most eminent within our ken, yet by reason of the imperfection of the subject (the weakest of all intellectual substances) Man, whose providence is shortsighted, is also weak and imperfect. For Princes, amongst men ordain such rewards, both for well and ill deserves of the commonwealth, as of their own nature, have no relation to the quality of merit or demerit, but are merely connected with their Wills and commands, and which they are forced to execute with their own, that is, their ministers strength. And besides, commands of that nature suppose, in the subject, an ignorance of his Prince's reasons, and an acceptation of what is to be done or suffered by him, from the sole motive of his commander's power.  
The latter proclaims the incomparable wisdom of that Architect, who could so artificially frame at once his work, that it should of itself, perform all operations without supplement, or future minute alterations in any of its members or organs. His fabric is in all respects complete, rewards and punishments therein being not only conformable to, but also originized from their merits; the precepts which are given, are directed to the promoting nature, and increase of science, and are accepted through a sight and knowledge of their causes and utilities.  
Evident therefore it is, that, however the first way, which involves the truth in Allegory, may be more adopted to those understandings, which being but moderately enamoured of truth, bend not their whole strengths to obtain it; yet the latter is both necessary, and much more satisfactory to those, who rending the parabolical veil, fix their contemplations on the naked discovery of the thing, as it is in itself. For they easily perceive, that God being the Author of Nature, which flows from him as from its proper cause, must contradict himself if he act any thing against it, and guide not every thing according to its own nature, especially men to Beatitude. But it is clear, that voluntary assign●tion of punishment bearing no connexion with the fault, is not an action of Nature, but of our imperfect reason not sufficiently qualified to govern and steer nature in its right course it is therefore no less▪ indubitable, that it miss▪ becomes God, and ought not to be attributed to him.  
You will object, that the sacred 
An Objection from Examples in Scripture of punishments which have no connexion with the fact.  stories overflow with Examples of chastisements which have no coherence with the crimes for which they are inflicted, or at least grow not immediately out of them. That David's son died, because he had made others blaspheme the name of the Lord; That the Boys who scoffed at Elizeus were torn in pieces by a Bear: That a lion destroyed the disobedient Prophet, and a 
Answer.  thousand such like. I answer, in 
* Tom. 2. lib. 2. lect. ●. par. 2 3, 4, 5, 6.  the Theological Institutions it is sufficiently declared, that there is then a necessity of a miracle, or work beyond the usual and connatural course of causes, when our good requires it should by us be thought, that the order of Nature is shaken and overpowered When this happens in order to punishments, the connatural Government of men exacts, that the usual connexion, which is found in the ordinary series of things betwixt the fault and penalty, should be omitted, lest the Revenge which God in those cases intends to signalise, should seem an effect of chance or Nature, not of the uncontrollable power of his Deity. But these Examples are not to be drawn to the condition of ordinary punishments which are usual and customary in the common order of things.  
The same human frailty, in point of discourse, leads our Adversaries into another incongruity, which it will not be amiss here to take notice of. They affirm that God remits the guilt of sin, but not the pain. For, as they experience in themselves, when injured or exasperated, a certain ●bullition or quick motion of spirits about the heart, which though at the same time they forbear any violence, yet can they not allay; so do they persuade themselves that there is in God a certain aversion from a sinner, which though upon his repentance it ceaseth, yet do they conjecture, that an intention of punishing him may still remain. From whence they infer, that all the guilt of the soul is pardoned before it arrives at Purgatory, but the pain is there notwithstanding to be endured. But it seems they never consider, that the passion or impetuosity spoken of, is a corporeal motion, unworthy a wise man, much more unfit to be trans●●●'d or applied to God. For anger in God, signifies no more than an intention to punish. Whence necessarily it follows, 
The punishment of soul cannot outl●st their guilt.  that as much as is remitted of the fault, so much must be remitted of the punishment. Again, what can the sinner be guilty of, if not of sin? Of an Offence, say you, to God. But that, if Punishment ensue not thereon, whom doth it prejudice? The Man? He is concerned only in the Pain. God against whom the offence is? But God can receive no prejudice. And indeed in our common speech, we do not use to say sin deserves guilt, but punishment; so that the guilt of sin is the fault itself, and not a guilt or obnoxiousness to fault, but to punishment. Impossible therefore it is, that Pains, purely upon the account of sins already remitted, should be undergone in Purgatory.  
Let them therefore consider, whether the passion, we experience in ourselves, be any thing else then a beginning or first motion of the Heart to Revenge, that is, to annoy the Offender, that is, in a spiritual substance a will to punish. But though a will to punish be a different thing from an aversion to sin, yet is it subsequent thereto, and later than it, and consequently, according to the nature of the thing, will first of the two cease. It is therefore against Nature, that the aversion should be taken away, and yet the will to punish remain, which is wholly grounded and originally dependent upon that aversion. Whence those Divines are grossly mistaken, who affirm the effect, that is, the Will to punish ceasing, the Cause, that is, the aversion from the sinner is taken away; and deny that the cause, to wit, the aversion being taken away, the effect, to wit, the Will to punish, ceases. Finally, if need were▪ we could in our defence muster an army of Fathers, and appeal to the common sense and judgement of Mankind. You will 
Objection from the dissimilitude betwixt a sinner and God.  say perhaps, at least it cannot be denied, but that there is a previous dissimilitude betwixt God and the sinner, antecedently to his Will of punishing him, and that therein consists the point of offence. It is answered, no man explicates 
Answer.  the nature of offence, by dissimilitude, but by action, so that if the dissimilitude act not upon the offended party, it is no offence at all. And besides the dissimilitude itself is not so great, as that of irrational creatures, for though it disfigure, yet doth it not cancel the image of God within us. But all other things, besides Man, deserve not the honour of being called his image, but his foot-step. Lastly, this aversion is the cause of his punishing, whence, without it, there can be no liableness to Pain in Man, no appetence thereof in God.   

The Fourteenth account.  
Of the Punishments which we meet with in the sacred Scriptures, and of the remission of sins.  
TO what we have here delivered, 
Examples out of Scriptures of sins punished after remission s●ereof.  it may be objected, that nothing is more frequent in the sacred Scripture, than the account of punishments inflicted after the undoubted remission of the fault. We, his progeny, feel yet the effects of the sins of our first Father Adam, whom we no ways doubt to reign with Christ, our saviour in Heaven. We read that the sins of M●ses and Aaron were punished with death, and yet at that same time, that God familiarly conversed with them, after the offence. We read of the people sin, which God threatens to remember in the day of Revenge, and yet in the mean while acknowledge his great beneficence to them, and particularly his introduction of them into the Land of Promise.  
Now Jeremiah tells us, chap. 2. that the translation of the Tribe of Judah was that day of revenge. Is not this, saith he, done unto thee, because thou didst forsake the Lord thy God at that time when he led thee by the way? And yet betwixt those two times how often was God reconciled to them, especially in the days of Sa●●uel, David and Solomon? Of the sin of David, we read, that his son should die, and the sword never cease▪ in his house, yet are we confident of his being in favour with God, and the text assures us, that in the presence of Nathan his sin was transferred. What then can be more evident than that punishment remains due after the sin is canceled? So that it may well be concluded, that mortal sins, though remitted, still challenge their reward in Purgatory; and venial ones, unrepented, are there, by those grudging flames, to be expiated.  
I answer, Almost in all things which fall under our consideration, 
How sins are said to be remitted.  we are forced to distinguish, in the same propositions, there being predicated sometimes simply, sometimes secundum quid, or according to some one respect or notion. And so in our present case; treating of the remission of sins, we must acknowledge an absolute and a respective remission; which I shall presently descend to explicate. If first I be permitted to admonish the readder of a danger he may easily incur of being drawn into error by the manner of our conceptions or apprehensions of things. For, experiencing in ourselves that we then properly forgive an injury, when our exasp●rated minds return from their commotion to an even and calm temper, we are apt to expect the same should happen in the remission of our sins in God's part: Which notwithstanding is quite otherwise. For since there neither is, nor possibly can be any temporary or indeed any relation at all in God to his creatures; 'tis evident, that as well all relation, as all change, to which relation is subsequent, is on the creature's side▪ A sin therefore to be or to have been remitted, signifies nothing else than that the sinner himself is or was converted. From which animadversion we may easily secure ourselves against the error into which many are un●arily precipitated, believing that sint are indivisibly remitted; so that not by parts, and in process of time, but instantaneously, by a certain conversion of the Divine disposition from malevolent to benign, the said remission is effected. But if we look upon this remission as made on the creatures side, then by how much, and, by what degrees the soul is perfected and corrected, as to the object of sin, by so much and by the selfsame degrees will the remission of the sin be wrought.  
And since we have already 
Simply and respectively.  said, that the remission of sin is twofold, simple, and according to some respect; it follows evidently, that if sin be destroyed, as to that wherein its essence consists, it is to be termed simply and perfectly destroyed. But if it be only destroyed as to certain things which are accidental to the nature of the sin, we must say, that it is in some respects remitted, but simply remains; and contrariwise it may perhaps remain in some regards, though simply destroyed; 
What sin prope●iy consists in  sin essentially consists in an affection opposite to and incompossible, or inconsistent with the love of God, or Charity; that is, in such a disposition towards a created good, as is apt to render it the ultimate end of that man; so that during that affection he cannot have a will to relinquish it, or esteem himself happy, if deprived of it for ever. All other affections towards the said good, are not properly sin; as for example, the habitual inclination to desire it for itself, and the conditional appetency by which we should be actually carried towards it, unless it deprived us of our Beatitude; and whatever other way a thing may be said to be a sin.  
Now it is evident, that this sin 
its divisio● into internal and external.  is divided into the internal affection and external operation; both which are termed sin, but so, that, though the extern act more vulgarly, yet the intern, more properly, hath the nature of sin, that is, of evil; since its nature is formally rooted in the mind, and by participation only is communicated to the external action. And from hence again a new equivocation springs, which darkens the subject we have in hand, unless we steadily fix our eye on the several senses which overshadow one the other. We are then to inquire after the remission both of the internal and external sin, and that both simply and comparatively. It having therefore been said already, that according to the well-ordere providence of God the punishments of sin signify the evils which emerge from them; and again, that the guilt of sin consists in man's obnoxiousness to those punishments, that is, evil consequences of the sin; it remains concluded, that a sin is then remitted, when the sinner is no longer liable to the evil fruits of his sin. But it is apparent, that upon every actual, internal, mortal sin, an eternal privation of the Beatifical Vision must of its own nature ensue, together with those griefs, which spring either from the loss or impotence of obtaining the affected false goods, or the consideration of the true ones neglected; and that in the obnoxiousness▪ thereto consists the essential guilt of mortal sin, o● of sin properly taken; whensoever therefore, by true repentance, the affections of the sinner are so changed, that, for the love of God and Beatitude he is 
Internal mortal sin when properly remitted▪  ready to abandon the pleasures or profits which formerly he valued above all▪ it is evident, 〈◊〉 is no longer liable to the griefs and evils springing from those affections▪ and consequently, his sin is substantially, that is, simply, remitted.  
Farther, it is manifest that every 
Inter●●● venial 〈…〉 when remitted.  affection to a created Good, which, though weakly indeed, and so as not to overthrow the soul's fixed and settled appetency of Beatitude▪ is yet carried towards it not purely as toward● a means, but in some sort for its own sake, must need● cause in the soul a privation of the Beatifical Vision, and the griefs comitant therewith, till it be retracted, and consequently render the sinner obnoxious to th●se sufferings, but not eternally, because the love of preference of Beatitude above all things is a cause inexisting in the soul, which in due circumstances is fit to rectify that lesser inordinate affection. Which affection may either primarily and originally be thus conversant about its object, or be the remains of a precedent mortal distemper. If the first, it is not to be esteemed remitted, if the second, the sin may be said to be simply remitted, but in some r●spect to remain. 
Of the remission of external sin.   
Of external sin the same may be affirmed; that through the well regulated providence of God, it is punished by the ill effect● o●consequences thereof, and by degrees remitted, in the same proportion as by little and little those ill effects cease to flow from it. And thus the sense of the holy Scriptures, as to this point is ●lucidated, and the seeming contrariety opens itself into a fair distinction. For when God professes, that in whatsoever hour the sinner shall repent of his wickedness, in the self same he will remit and pardon him, it is spoken of the internal sin, and its proper punishments. For the Church acknowledges▪ that a perfect act of true contrition quits the scores of punishment as well as guilt; I mean, if it arrive at that degree, that, as demonstration chaseth away at once all doubtfulness, and staggering incertitude, so the firmness of its resolutions cuts off all manner of tendency towards the formerly beloved object. Such seems to have been that noble one of holy St. Augustine, who after that sharp and violent conflict of the Flesh against the Spirit, was suddenly translated into so perfect a quiet of mind, that from thence forward he felt no attempts upon the superior part of his soul.  
But if the resolution be not so strong and generous, but that new assaults of temptations shake it, and though they cannot overthrow, yet make the soul, as it were, to reel or stagger, as most commonly it happens; then is the sin simply remitted, but in part remains, and in this world it is punished by evils following this debility of mind, either sins or conflicts, or whatsoever other griefs proceeding from them; but in the future, by the fruit & offspring of those evils, till in the last judgement day, that tepidness, and, as it were, rust, with which the soul by contagion of that sin was infected, be burnt off. From whence you easily see, that, in a perfect repentance God remembers no longer the sin, but, in an imperfect one accommodates and adopts the pains to the state of the soul.  
From what hath been declared, 
How children are punished for their parents sins.  it likewise appeareth, how God revengeth the sins of parents, to wit, external ones, upon their posterity, and this sometimes intri●secally, when the children become themselves▪ wicked by example of their parents, but for the most part extrinsecally. Which la●●er 
Sometimes suddenly o● miraculously.  punishments are threefold, first, immediate, as when the son of David was punished with death: secondly, as it were eternal, as 
Sometimes to the 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 of their race or ●●tion.  when, for the same sin, it was threatened that the sword should never depart from his house: and likewise for the adoration of the golden calf, that they should be punished in the day of visitation. For these expressions import that those very sins should cause a total destruction of that people. Of which sort is likewise that prediction of Christ our Lord, that all the innocent blood, which had been spilled from the just Abel to his time should fall upon the 
But most common 〈◊〉 to the 3d. and 4th generation▪  Jews. The third degree is betwixt these two, as a standing rule of the divine chastisements, to wit, to the fourth generation. All this is evident in the examples which we hinted at. For the punishments of Adam, Moses, Aaron, and David also in the death of his son, belong to that rank which we have called miraculous, in which it was requisite they should seem to proceed, not from the order of causes, but the especial judgement of God. But for the posterity of Adam, their punishments whether internal or external, are 
* Tom. 1. lib. 1. lect 4.  clearly shown in our Theology, to flow from the order of causes; where it is likewise evident, that that sin 
* Tom. 2. lib. 3. lect. 10, p. 1. 2. &c.  can never be remitted till the Resurrection and last judgement. The crime of adoring the golden Calf became in like sort almost eternal, th●● is, lasted till the extirpation of the whole people, Which Ezekiel testifies, Chap. 20. reproaching the Jews, that from their departure out of Egypt, they persisted, by continual relapses, in the sins of their forefathers, who came from thence. Whence it may be seen that the stiffness of neck, which Moses so oft exprobrated and complained of, continued in that people, till their utter extermination, and that (as Christ our Lord assures us) all the just blood spilled through the world was punished in that last generation.  
The very same discovers itself in the sin of David, whose Love to Bersheba preferred Solomon before the rest of his Children, to the succession of his Crown, which was the apparent cause of emulation between Absolom and Adonia●, and of both their deaths, and of all the crimes of Absolom. From the same fountain, through Solomon's disorders, sprung the schism of the ten tribes, and all the subsequent wars, with the defection of the house of Israel from God, and the corruption and wickedness of the house of Judah, and consequently all their mutual chastisements, and final overthrow; the sons still inheriting the vices of their Parents. Lastly, from the same principles it appears, why for the most part the sins of private persons cease in the third or fourth Generation; to wit, because their memory and imitation is, for the most part, lost; the respect of kindred growing weak, and the permixion of foreign blood, in the several Mothers, rarely suffering the great grandfather's blood to boil with any notable vigour in the veins of his Great-grandchild.  
From this explication, it is easily 
What the punishment of▪ sin is.  gathered, that, according to the natural series of Agents and Patients, the punishment of sin, whether external or internal, is nothing else but the increase and exaggeration of sins in those who are perverse, and the decrease and diminution of them in those who amend. For both the internal sin, in the wicked, is punished by greater sins, and their external punishments are the extension●nd propagation of the sin, into new subjects, or into more parts of the same subject, that is, increases it extensively or intensively. And on the contrary, in those that are good, the strugglings and dolorous affections, which wrestle with the affection to sin, are their punishments, as to the internal; and their external ones are the dimintivon of the dying sin weakly, derived into other subjects.   

The Fifteenth account.  
Three other Exceptions, That they neither truly take off the punishments, nor rightly make them due, nor in fine make any real Purgatory.  
FRom hence we may observe another mistake of our Divines in their model Purgatory. For though they determine the sufferings there to be certain pains, inflicted by torments, yet when these pains cease, they neither require nor think of any pleasures, or at least good acts which may succeed them; parallelled to which kind of Philosophy neither the whole variety of Nature nor Grace, that I know of, affords one experiment. For, in vegetativ● nature, griefs are assuaged by a certain congruous and self cherishing disposition of nature, and, in supernatural works, sin is not extinguished but by infusion of grace and affections opposite to sin. To assert 
No grief can cease without the admission of some pleasure.  therefore certain pains which must be determined and assuaged by a pure cessations, and not by the entrance and subinter mission of any contrary, wholly misbecomes a Philosopher, & is altogether repugnant to the ground work of natural action, which requires an opposition of causes severally challenging to themselves the common subject.  
Our eleventh exception takes notice of another absurdity. They affirm, that in the instant of death (whether in the body or out of the body I know not) by an act of contrition, all guilt 
A perf●ct act of contrition discharges punishment as well as guilt.  whatsoever, which during the whole life had been contracted, is immediately washed off▪ I urge, since the efficacy of contrition is by both sides acknowledged to be such that it not only abolishes the crime, but equalizes, and consequently is, of its own nature, capable to extinguish also the punishment, and the act of contrition we now treat of, must needs be strong and perfect, why doth it not by its equivalence supersede all punishment? Certainly if it be made by the soul now discharged from the body, we cannot doubt but it must be of the highest degree, and much more intense and vehement than any contrition, which here with ardency of affections were able even to set the very body on fire, as some pious Histories relate to have happened. But if it be put to be made in the body, being endowed with so eminent a prerogative as not to leave uncancelled any one slight stain, upon what grounds, or how shall we deny it the power of discharging punishments also? But they will choose to put this act of contrition to be made in the term of separation, where merit and satisfaction have no longer place, and the inevitable necessity of suffering only remains. And then I shall demand from whence they have learned that blemishes can there be rectified, where penalties cannot be mitigated?  
Nor is there more strength of 
The souls i● Purgatory may as well merit for themselves as for others.  reason in this, that the merits of the living may avail them, but their own not so. For could their proper merits be regarded, all Purgatory, according their own grounds were at an end; for the perfect charity and co●●●●ition of separated souls, being exercised with the whole force of their substance would in one moment set them free. Again, what Piety, what Justice hath enacted this Law, that the distressed souls may not pray for their own delivery? Can any thing be more absurd? They make them such favourites of God, that for us they can obtain many graces, whilst for themselves they can procure none. I remember to have heard a Divine (whom a printed course of all Divinity had already raised above the lowest form) prescribing this advice or receipt, that whosoever had lost any thing, should promise upon condition he received it, to procure so many Masses for departed souls, and failing of his hopes, should fail also in the performance, thereby to compel the souls to obtain of God the recovery of what had miscarried. O pitiful and sordid Divinity! such a train of absurdities follow the admission even of one unexamined Principle.  
To make up the complete dozen. Let us reflect on the abuse of the name it-self, and observe, that, whilst they vainly labour to establish their own, 
There can be no Purgation where there is no coinqui●●ion.  they destroy and annihitate all manner of Purgatory. For to purge, cleanse, and the like expressions, clearly import a supposition of stain and blemish in whatsoever is said to be purged and cleansed; and in like sort, to amend and rectify presupposes faults and imperfections; if you then take away their stains, these imperfections, you take away all Purgatory. For certainly, to smart and suffer, is not to be purged, but finally to be condemned, or undergo the last sentence of Damnation. But the Patrons of this kind of Purgatory lay this for the very foundation of their doctrine, That the imprisoned souls are already holy and full of charity, and consequently incapable of being purged.  
Much better therefore, and more solidly than they, did the Poet philosophise in the sixth book of his Aeneids; who having after his manner, made a description of ● the torments of the damned, thus proceeds to that of Purgatory, and its causes.  

Nor when (p●or souls) they leave this wretched life  
Do all their evils cease, all plagues, all strife,  
Contracted in the Body: many a stain  
Long time enured needs must, even then, remain,  
For which sharp torments are to be endured▪  
That vice inveter are may, at last, be cu●'●,   

Some empty souls are to the piercing winds  
Exposed; whilst others, in their several kinds,  
Are plunged in icy or Sulphureous lakes  
Each hath its doom, cach one its fortune takes,  
From whence ●e to the Elysian fields is lead,  
Where few, alas! the pleasant alleys tread.   
What could any philosopher meditate more sublime and noble? That corporeal affections by depraved habits, penetrate into, and infect the soul; that they are not by death extinguished, but carried along to the next world, whereby the souls are punished, and their punishments become truly Purgatory, or expiating; that their torments are proportionate and of several degrees, which degrees are taken from the division of Elements, that is, corporeal Agents, from whence the disordered affections themselves have their roots. The pursuers of Honour and Vanity are tormented by the wind, that is, their being puffed up with Pride. Those who delighted to wallow in sordid pleasures, by the fluidness and momentariness of their fleeting enjoyments. Lastly, the Potent and ambitious affectors of Tyranny, with their own ardent and truly inflamed desires. That finally, after this state of Purgatory, they are made denizens of Paradise: and those (speaking of the times he lived in) but few; the multitude, whose sins were mortal and irretractable, remaining engulfed in eternal miseries.   

The Sixteenth account.  
The thirteenth Exception, That their opinion is opposite to the expressions of Scriptures, of Fathers, of the Church, of the council of Florence, and Benedict XI.  
ANd I would to God the inconsequence 
Scripture and Fathers still inculcate a Purgation, which the adversaries render impossible by cancelling all sin at the instance of separation.  of discourse, and defect of right ratiocination were the only inconvenience, and that their error stretched not itself to the violation of sacred truths, and contradiction of the holy Scriptures. Machabeus offers sacrifice, that the dead may be absolved from their sins; Christ affirms, that in the world to come sins are remitted: The Apostle assures us that every one's works are to be tried by fire, and some persons to suffer detriment; as though he should say, that some thing should by fire be taken off from the party, as dross from the pure metal.  
Nor do the expressions of Holy Fathers, grounded on the Scripture, any ways disagree. For whether they speak of baptism by fire, of purging flames, of fire correcting and amending, of passing through the flames of the last judgement, which shall burn the sinner, spare the Saint, of a suspension in the day of judgement, and a kind of uncertainty of the Judge's sentence, or whatsoever other expressions, heretofore mentioned, they make use of, from whence any thing can be gathered towards the explication of Purgatory, nothing can be drawn to establish pure pains; but the whole discourse runs constantly of sins, and of the purgations of sins, and depraved affections; so that nothing can be more clear, then that these later Divines change the style of the whole Church, a manifest token of their Novelty.  
Let it therefore be acknowledged, that this vulgar conceit, as it is opposite to the sense of the Church, really and effectually abolishing Purgatory, and in lieu thereof presenting us a slaughter-house of barbarous executions; destroying the tender mercy of God, whose aim is always the utmost good of every creature, and instead thereof offering us a barren apprehension of Pure Justice, and unbenefical pains; so is it also dissonant, and in a manner perfectly repugnant to the phrase, both of the holy Scripture▪ and of the Fathers explicating either it, or the sense and belief 
The Greek Church had good reason to reject their explication of Purgatory.  of the Church. Which if they are the marks of the ancient faith and persuasion, than is this other new: And if proposed to the Greeks, under the notion of a Tradition, and not only of an opinion, they certainly had ground to object against the Latins, that they endeavoured to superseminate tares▪ and bring into the Church new tenants, and such as were recommended by no ancient Tradition.  
The last, but not the least, of our exceptions against this vulgar 
Nothing but wa●● of Charity can debar separated soul from the Beatifical Vision▪  opinion shall be, their putting another impediment to the Beatifical Vision of souls freed from the body, besides the want of charity. For since the Church neither knows, nor holds forth any other way of attaining Beatitude, but that great and Royal highway of charity; since Christ our Lord, his Apostles, and all other Fathers preach no other Doctrine, to introduce any obstacle of Beatitude without their authority, were clearly to control the discipline of all Christian institution, and put a bold exception to their general Rule. Besides, true Theology assures us, that perfect charity is a disposition necessitating 
A position acknowledged by all true Divines.  or determining Almighty God, to communicate himself to those that bring it; so that he can no more deny himself to be the object of a soul in perfect charity, then forbear the concreation of a Rational soul when the embryo is fully formed, or the infusion of existence, when the actions of inferior causes requires it. But it is manifest, that those, who put the soul, in the first instant of its separation, to be endowed with the same eminence of charity, which it hath or shall have when it is admitted to the fruition of God, and yet notwithstanding, for sometime, debar it thereof, must needs suppose that disposition of soul not sufficient and adequate, but require something else, whereof neither the Scripture nor holy Fathers●●ve us the least hint, who all unanimously acknowledge no other partition-wall betwixt God and us, but our Sins.  
Finally the Florentine council 
And ●●●●●ted by the Floren●i●● council and Benedict 11th.  and Benedict the eleventh seem clearly enough to have condemned this their Doctrine; the latter determining, that the souls of the Faithful, which have nothing to be purged or expiated, do, immediately after their departure, and before the General Day, see the face of God: the former adding thereto, that the souls of such as die presently after Baptism, or such as after death are purged, are immediately received into Heaven. By both which expressions, this may indubitably be concluded to be meant, That nothing but what may be purged, that is, what stains and contaminates, that is sin, can deprive a soul from its admission to Heaven, and the full sight of God. Let us subsume▪ But, according to our Adversaries, all, who die not in mortal sin, after the first moment in which they are said to be perfectly converted to God, have nothing now remaining to be expiated, but are already, after death, cleansed: Therefore they are all immediately after the first moment received into Heaven. Is it not evident, that the determination of this Pope and council subverts their whole fabric of Purgatory? For though they endeavour to equivocate, yet the proper and dogmatical signification can be no other than that which we have given, and the secondary explication of purging, for enduring pains which do not cleanse the soul from any filth, is harsh and improper, and by themselves avoided, when they come to explain themselves, though in familiar conversation, with those especially who understand not the different senses, they make use of it, that they may not seem to vary from the language of the Church and their forefathers.   

The Seventeenth account.  
That the Ignorance of spiritual natures begat this Opinion.  
FOr a conclusion at length of this part, I shall observe to the Reader, that this mistake of the school men proceeds from a higher principle: Their not adhering to a certain Doctrine delivered by Saint Thomas of Aquine, and by his school received. 
Spirits know not by discourse but by simple apprehension or intuition, in which there can be no error.  He teaches, that, in abstracted spirits, there is neither discourse nor any manner of composition, but purely a simple apprehension; so that error and falsity can have no place in them. That holy Doctor understood that all these were originally in us, from the body, and therefore could not, in immaterial substances, be expected. For we find, by experience, that composition and discourse are begotten by the successive beatings of the memory on the fantasy, which intercourse if once you bar, it is impossible that indivisibles should be capable of succession. It is therefore certain, that pure spirits contemplate all things, as it were, with one sight or glance; and since, with them, all that relates to science is transacted by naked Definitions, which no wordish equivocation can obscure, it is evident, that falsehood cannot reach them; there being no precipitation, where no delay is required. Nither the principles then nor their connexion can be concealed from them, nor consequently the truths depending on them.  
This may perhaps become more intelligible, if we reflect, that the soul, when first infused into the Body, is such, as the quality of the Matter it is united unto, exacts and determines it to be, because a natural action, that is, which doth not exceed the rank and limits of causes, cannot but act according to the existence of the subject, and do that which 
The thoughts and affections of the soul in this life, point out its future unchangeable state, no less perfectly than the disposition of the embryo in the womb determines the feature▪ and complexion off the future▪ man▪  is conformable thereto and apt to be produced thereof. But Death also is a natural action; making that, which of a man, can be made, to wit, a spiritual substance, which we call a soul▪ And as the disposition of the embryo, or seminal concreation, delineates the future man, so that man to have had, in the course of his whole life, these and these thoughts and affections, designs and points out, by the impressions left the future condition of his Soul. So that death produceth such an Entity, as, from the man so disposed, is naturally producible; and the Entity, so made continueth such, till it be, a● it were, new moulded, which is the work of the Resurrection. For the spiritual being of the soul is what the whole course of map's life hath made it, and bears that respect to the antecedent life, which the being at Rome hath to the travelling to Rome, or the being in health hath to the cure▪ which was wrought by the Physician's hand. Whence it appears, that in the next world, there can be no more motion, since rest, and not motion, is the term and period of motion: So that for the soul to know, to be joyful, or to be sad in the future world, is nothing else but to remain in that act of knowledge, joy or sadness, into which, by the force of Death and dissolution, it was translated.  
And this is the very reason; why every resolution made is from thencesor●h immutable; because there are no instruments, no diversity of parts, whereof some may act on others; no distinctio●matter and Agent, all which are required to effect a mutation. But some may wonder how the 
Why the soul cann●● be dispossessed of her depraved affections▪ as well as from her erro●eous judgements▪ in the st●●e● of separa●●on▪  soul can be disengaged from the false opinions with which she was here possessed, and not have power to divest herself of the affections depending on those erroneous judgements? To whom we must answer, that this happens not through any discourse, but by the precise stroke of death. For it being impossible to a spiritual nature, at one and the same time, to assent to two contradictories, seeing and comprehending the contradiction, and nothing (as hath been said) being able to escape the knowledge of a separated soul, it is evident, that truth must overcome fals●●y, and since one of them only can take possession, truth must abide, and error give place, and this through the very disposition of the soul itself, by Death. But the affections, on the other side, being not contrary to each other, nor of contrary objects may at the same time subsist in the soul, death framing its creature, according to the predisposition of the subject it works on. And yet alas! these divines, with whom this dispute engages us, choose rather to wander through all sorts of absurdities, then yield to so imperious a truth.  
First, they make the soul, in man, 
The Adversaries several mistakes in explicating the nature of the soul.  to be an actual entity, which clearly renders it assistant, not informent and constitutive of one only substance or thing. Then they assign it certain Powers, against all the dictates of metaphysics. For Power being perfected by Act, how is it possible that a pure act should admit a Power, as it were, for its Act? If that Power be intellective, the soul being actually intelligible, she herself will be the first Act of her Power, antecedently to Intellection. So that to understand, will immediately be the first act of the substance of the soul, and not of her intellectual Power. Thirdly, they make this intellectual Power active on itself, against the first and most known Principles in Nature, which conclude that the same indivisible Entity cannot at once be actually and potentially. But others labour to avade these inconveniencies, by a distinction of Entities, more unfortunately pretending to correct, than the others had ●rred. For either they stock the right notion of Entity, concluding several beings or entities, under one existence, whereas an Entity imports that which hath an existence; or they multiply several solid substances, each whereof have their proper existences, in the same individual Entity. No wonder then if they are found guilty of profaning Divinity, who commit so many outrages on Philosophy.   

The Eighteenth account.  
Objections from the Holy Fathers against our Doctrine, answered.  
IT now remains we conveniently solve the objections which may be brought against us. From the holy Scriptures nothing is presented, as to this point of the controversy, whether some are freed sooner, some latter; and whatsoever is alleged to other purposes, as for the proof of pains, or fire, or satisfaction to the Divine Justice▪ I conceive it will easily meet with its solution from what hath been said heretofore. For if Worms, darkness, and gnashing of teeth are taken metaphorically, why not fire also 
When the Scriptures speak of fire they ar● either to be understood metaphorically, or of the fire of conflagration.  as well as they? Besides, they will be put to it, to show that that fire cannot be meant of the fire of conflagration or last judgement. In like manner, in what relates to the satisfaction of the Divine Justice, we must consider whether it may not as well be made good at the Resurrection, as at any other time. Which cautions being premised, I presume little trouble will arise from Scripture-proofs.  
Amongst the Fathers, they cite 
A passage of S. Aug. cleared.  S. Augustine de Civitate Dei, lib. 21▪ cap. 24. speaking of those adult, who have committed some lesser sins. Is is evident (saith he) that such being purged before the day of judgement by temporal pains, which their spirits suffer, shall not be delivered to the punishments of eternal fire. He speaks (say they) of those who are departed this world, he expressy affirms, that their spirits suffer, and that they are purged before the day of judgement, and lastly, that this is evident. But this evidence makes rather against our Adversaries. For, since, in the very next chapter but one, he affirms, that it may be true, and that he is not satisfied whether their spirits are purged both here and there, or only there; or here only, that they may not be purged there; it is manifest, that his evidence falls only upon this, that their souls are somewhere purged, and not to be delivered over to eternal chastisements; and that for all the rest S. Augustin was uncertain, save only that in the day of judgement at least they were to be purged, which assurance of his we have above made good. The sense then of the place is this, That it is certain the souls of such as die in lesser sins, being purged by pains or repentance before the day of judgement, are not from thence cast into the everlasting fire. The difference betwixt the two explications is this: I contend the Saint's meaning to be no other, then that such souls are purged by pains preceding the day of judgement, and finished either before or in that very day; but the Adversaries will necessarily have the purgation ended before the day of judgement. But the author's incertitude thereof both in this book, as also in his book to Dulcitius, and in the 69 chapter of his Enchiridion, and his constant persuasion that sins are purged in the day of judgement, compel the reception of our explication, and convince any unbyass'd judgement.  
After S. Augustine, they bring 
Eucheri●● Lugd. explicated.  forth Eucherius Lugdunensis, who supposes that the delay of purgatory pains is greater or lesser according the quality of the sins. But he having there clearly spoken of that purging fire, through which the Just also pass, that is, of the fire of Conflagration, can make nothing at all against us, since the whole though never so long cannot exceed that day. Besides, what hinders but that the word, Mora in Latin, which they render, delay, may as well be taken for the obstacle, difficulty, and labour of purgation, as for the length of time? The sense is nothing less perfect if it be rendered, that, by how much greater the sins are, by so much the more difficult, dolorous, and penal shall the purgation be.  
In the next place are advanced 
Gregory the Great, and Ve●. ●edes Authority pondered; who advance nothing herein as Doctors but me●rly as Historians.  those two Lights of their Age, the Great S. Gregory and Venerable Bede, followers of, or rather Leaders in this opinion; persons of such eminence, that their testimonies can no more be undervalued than denied, though Melchior Canus (one of the gravest writers amongst all those of the council of Tren●) seems a little to wave their authorities. For, having premised in his 11th Book De Lo●i● Theol. Chap. 6. that all things which great Authors have delivered, are not therefore presently in all respects perfect▪ he adds, They are great men indeed, but still they are men. Which I may, perhaps not unjustly pronounce of S. S. Bede and Gregory; the former whereof in his History of England, the latter in his Dialogues, set down certain miracles vulgarly reported and credited, which the critics of our Age will believe to be uncertain. I presume he chiefly points at those stories wherein the Deacon Paschasi●● and another, without name, are said, after their deaths, to have been condemned to the service of the baths; which so displeased their followers, that I do not remember any thing of the same nature ever afterwards to have been reported, unless it were in the beginning of the last Age, of a certain Nun, who professed herself to have, by her prayers, set▪ free certain souls departed, which were imprisoned in the Sands of the River Tagus: which fiction was both opposed in Spain, and d●rided in France.  
The other stories which we meet within S. Gregory and Venerable Bede, I know not why he should conceive the critics of his Age would go about to discredit, unless he takes the descriptions he meets with in Bede for things actually done, not for Visions, that is, corporal representations of spiritual pains, or allegorical expressions of the intellectual state of those souls. My exception against their dictates is no other than this, That the obedience which is to be rendered to the same persons is different, when they are considered as pious Historians, from that which is given them as holy Doctors. history cannot challenge the same Authority which is due to Theological conclusions. But these Saints do, of their own accord, profess that they receive this Doctrine from Historical Narrations, and consequently it can have no stronger support than History can lend it They cannot therefore in this Question challenge the name and Authority of Doctors and Fathers, but of Historians only, whose credit depends upon their Authors. But from these Historians, (as far as can be conjectured) the whole strength and continuance of this opinion is derived. For from that time forward reports and Visions of souls freed from Purgatory have multiplied without end, especially since that Odilo Abbot of Clugny, a very famous person, did, through all his Monasteries, by a special command of commemorating all the souls departed on the second day of November, disperse far and near this opinion.   

The Nineteenth account.  
Of the Authority of apparitions and Visions.  
THe next thing which occurs 
The difference betwixt the Visions pretended by the Advers●ries and Prophetical ones.  is, to examine what persuasive power is to be attributed to Visions. And immediately a vast discrepancy appears betwixt such Visions as these, and those which are Prophetical; in that Prophetical ones, simply and by their proper design, tend to the instruction of the people, that is, the Church. But these (as far as can be gathered from their stories) seem only to be directed to the benefit of the distressed souls, which is not a public, but private good▪ and so unknown, that the Revealer only is conscious to it. From which consideration I infer, that prophetic Visions do not communicate any veneration at all to these, but, on the contrary, that these compared to them, loose much of their credit, by the disproportion; the end, for which generally they are supposed to be, being ambiguou● and undiscoverable.  
And really, if we aim never so little above the level of sense, and demand why this soul amongst a thousand hath the favour allowed it of appearing to the living, of begging their suffrages? Why it obtained it not immediately after its separation, but rather after some days, months, and sometimes years? Why it should beg assistance from such certain persons and not from others? Why for a limited time, and not till they are absolutely free? Lastly, why particular prayers and satisfactions are required? What can with any shadow of reason be answered?— All is to be refer●'d to the secret judgement of God, to his good pleasure, no ways from reason deducible, and so finally resolved into obscurity.  
The second thing, which in 
That the former are not attested by any miracles.  these Visions may be observed, is, they are not armed with the public testimonials of Events and Miracles. For all that is pretended to be seen, being acted by invisible substances, no event can confirm the truth of the vision, nor is it proper any miracle should be wrought to that end: Nor for the most part is there any occasion of demanding them, or any custom in history of alleging them. And the vision is, of its own nature, such, that it admits no witnesser, but passes wholly within the soul of the seer, and consequently entirely depends on his veracity, who sometimes is a Peasant, sometimes a Women, or at best one little capable of judging what passeth with in our souls. And if at any time it be a man of great sanctity, or famous for that prudence which is esteemed in the world (although, to confess the truth, few such are pretended) what miracle is it that a prudent man should be once deceived? And for the pions' man, it is so frequent, that nobody wonders at it. To which we may add this reflection, that when such Novelties are once received by the itching ears of a multitude, they are magnified beyond measure; and the further they are carried, the greater they appear. Yea the very memory of the first deliverer is confounded with a multiplicity of interrogatories from such as are curious and inquisitive into things of that nature, so that he begins not well to know what it was that he saw, but to believe he saw truth; and when any circumstance less favourable thwarts it, he easily applies himself to rectify something, presuming he might in that particular be abused.  
And the suspicion, which this 
That no Rules are giv●… Div●●●s b●w 〈…〉 examine them.  sort of Revelations are obnoxious to, is more justifiable, in that Divines cannot agree upon any Rules, by which false ones may be distinguished from true. Which shows, that neither they themselves, in whom they are wrought, have any clear tokens whereby to discern them, or if they have (as S. Augustin seems to believe of his Mother) that the discrimination is not explicable to another. So that, as we cannot doubt, but that private Revelations are communicated sometimes to God's favourites▪ so we must no less avow, that the whole complex of them is subject to unspeakable obscurities and ambiguities, and altogether insufficient to administer any firm ground of argumentation, to those, at least, who have not themselves received and experienced them.  
And this exception becomes yet 
The quality of the Persons that see the●…▪  less unjust, by the consideration of the quality of the Persons, who are for the most part Women, sometimes simple men, either melancholy or dozed with assiduous musing and solitary pensiveness, sometimes by sickness indisposed, or upon their deathbeds, or recovered from a trance. Each of these hath need enough of some artificial help to secure them from lapsing in point of prudence and wariness. And the more ancient the 
That the Danger of error is greater at first then afterwards▪  Revelations are pretended to be, the more necessary is this care and vigilance, all beginnings of such things being more supposed to mistakes, till experience by degrees opens a window to the discovery and dispersion of the mists of error.  
But nothing so enervates and 
Of the force of Pantasy.  invalidates this sort of proofs as the power of fantasy, whose prodigious delusions, few, and those only who have experienced them, can perfectly avoid and detest. The power I say of that faculty is such that it compels us to believe divers things to be acted without us, which have no other stage then our own Brain. This our Dreams, and the extravagant delusions of feverish and hypocondriacal persons sufficiently convince. I remember that ruminating long since on an accident, which at that time I was very sensible of, and casting, by chance my eye on a Beam in the House, the end thereof seemed to me perfect to resemble a head cut off, insomuch that (though conscious of the illusion) I was forced to turn away my eyes, horror seizing me as often as I fixed them upon it. In the twilight of the evening, and not unfrequently in the day time, men or beasts appear to me at a distance, which drawing nearer, I find to be nothing else but certain parts of trees, or stones, or other things, which striking, in a fit line, my eye, would persuade me that things were otherwise then in tuth they are, unless experience did undeceive me. But all this is so notorious to every one, that no man of common sense will oppose it.  
Farther therefore I affirm, 
The impressions whereof are often more lively than any which are caused by our senses▪  that these deluding apparences are oftentimes more lively and penetrating than the impressions themselves which are caused by our senses. When I was yet a child, and had the small pox, I imagined I saw little birds picking up crumbs about my bed, so distinct and strongly, that to this very day their shapes and colours are fresh in my memory. A kinswoman of mine being ill of the same disease, and by order of the Doctors, having slit pigeons claped to her feet, had so rooted and deep an apprehension that she was shod, like horses, with iron shows, that, many days after her frenzy had totally left her, she did conjure me to tell her, truly whether it were so or not. I was present at another time, when a youth of fourteen years of age at least, waking out of his sleep, had so fixed an imagination of a boy in white garments standing by him, that notwithstanding the light which I brought in, and the presence of several of his companions who lodged in the same chamber and all spoke to him, he continued to sweat and fear, unable, through the fright, to close his eyes again. The Philosopher saw the reason of these accidents, when he explicated to us why little noises appear great to us when we are in sleep; which very thing I have observed in myself, as likewise that the said noises caused in me dreams. And it is from the difference of what happens to us waking. For our senses being then busied and entertained about may objects, every object striking them according 
The reason thereof from the ●●iding in of some one object whilst all the rest, are by sleep, shut one of doors.  to the proportion of its strength, and that only being perceptible which exceeds the rest, rendering the others confuse and insensible, it follows that each must of necessity be taken notice of, in that degree in which it overcomes and exceeds the rest. Now it is evident, that, by sleep, the gates are locked against this busy troop without; so that if any one thing chance to slip in, unaccompanied, it strikes the Organ with a great force, totally filling and possessing it, and immerging itself in it.  
Whensoever therefore through 
Which may happen also at other times.  sickness or any other disposition of the Body or Head, the same effect, that is, the exclusion of all objects, but one, happens, it's impressions on the fantasy must needs be vehement, and exercise a plenary jurisdiction therein, and consequently cause a very spiteful motion, and impress a very distinct and lively sensation. From whence may be infered, that an extraordinary light in an apparition doth not argue an immediate influence from God, but only a free and apt disposure of the fantasy. So that being an argument only of corporeal activity, it rather seems to justify a suspicion of fallacy, than an expectation of truth.  
The Visions then, which without 
What is required in Visions to give them some credit.  forfeiture of prudence may be credited and relied on, must be such as carry with them proofs beyond the reach of fantasy. Such as are coherent and somewhat long discourses, a discovery of some such new Truth, as either carries with it its own evidence, built on the principles of clear reason, or is backed with such special events, that they transcend the sphere of chance; such as was that (if the fact be true) which happened to Ptolemy, to whom a Dragon seemed, in his sleep, to present a leaf never before by him seen, which being immediately sought for, and by its likeness to that he dreamed of, acknowledged, cured him of the malady with which he was surprised. For by how much the evidence is more abstracted and intellectual, by so much the more doth it surpass the force of Nature to effect it. Not that I question, but that an unlooked for Demonstration, or an unexpected Verse or Poem may peradventure by a dream or natural ecstasy, be composed which much study could not otherwise arrive to, but that when any thing therein exceeds the reach of nature, it is a stronger argument of a celestial origin.   

The Twentietth account.  
Of the Authority of▪ Visions compared with that of History, together with a particular examination of some of them.  
HAving said above, that holy 
Of Historical c●r●●i●ty and its degrees.  Doctors in the proposal of these Visions are to be considered as Historians, let us examine the degrees of certitude which History can afford us. 
First  Historical certitude seems to be absolute when the thing related was done in the presence and right of thousands, confirmed likewise by numerous, or, as it were, universal testimonies. Such was the Pharsalian fight, in the view of the world, and in an Age when so many noble writers flourished. But alas! how far from this is the credit of any of our Visions.  
The next degree of certainty 
Secondl▪  in History may be the relation of a particular fact, confirmed by few authorities; such as Tully's defence of Ligarius before Caesar. But even that had sufficient witnesses, 'twas obvious to sense, the work was in every one's hand, and is at this day extant. So that hitherto History makes good its ground.  
The third step is, the delivery 
Thirdl▪  of secret transactions and practices, from some wise and faithful eye-witness, such as was Philip Comines declaring the thoughts and designs of Lewis X● I of France. And here the right which History claims over our assents begins to expire though the known integrity of Comines, and the verisimilitude of the narration itself, doth a little cherish and fester it.  
In the fourth degree are ranked, 
Fourth and last degree.  certain arcana or secrets communicatd from the third or fourth hand, yet so that they were not unknown to some that had the management of affairs, nor are in their circumstances improbable or incredible. There appears a disjoyntedness in the middle nerves betwixt the thing done and the Historical publisher. And this is the lowest floor that Historical belief can reside in.  
But the Relations upon which 
Of all which, these pretended Visions fall short.  our Divines go to establish Ecclesiastical Doctrines are far beneath even this. The thing itself is not evident so much as to the Seer, who is seldom capable to discern whether it were from God or Nature; and again, being from an undiscoverable hand, it can challenge no credulity, unless it can fasten strong, and as it were, iron chains upon the understanding. Moreover mankind being greedy both of knowing and delivering wonders, these stories are apt from every hand to receive some supplement, polishing and perfection; so that when it comes to the Writer, it is quite another thing, nor can he yet forbear to add or detract some little matters, the better to accommodate it to his purpose. What then shall we say to these Visions which are so infinitely short of other Histories? And yet we must undergo the sharpest censure unless we pin our faith upon them in a Theological point.  
If thou hast leisure, Reader, 
As appears by these related by▪ ●. Gregory.  let us more particularly take cognizance of some few. There are three Revelations of this nature in S. Gregory, two of souls condemned to the baths, the third of a Proprietary Monk. For the first, if we regard the Doctrine of following schoolmen, we must absolutely reject them. S. Thomas teacheth us, that separated souls are not active, because their proper & substantially united body is the sphere of their activity, and the instrument by which they move other things, and they were Angels, if they could work upon separated bodies. Again, how should such services be penal unto them? Do we think the Angel Raphael was designed to punishment, whilst he waited on T●bie? Moreover how could these new auxiliaries in the Bath be concealed to their fellow-servants unknown to their Masters? Had they meat and wages with the rest? Lastly, if these examples be received for Precedents, why may not all Mettal-mines ●e full of departed Ghosts? What Romances, what old wives tales may we not expect? Certainly such inventions were either designed, or, of their own nature, tend to the vilifying the belief of all Purgatory pains.  
The other example is of the Monk. He declares that it were well with him, he had now received the Communion, though▪ formally tormented in fire. It seems he was restored to the Church not to Heaven. But if his sin were absolved, why was he denied Heaven, according to our modern definitions? Again, why was he not admitted to receive the Communion after the first, as well as after the thirteenth mass? Certainly the excommunication ceased▪ when liberty was given to pray for him; and in other Revelations both of S. Gregory and Bede, the celebration of the very first mass hath power to loosen those bands. And indeed the remission of sins after thirty days is neither agreeable to the ancient nor modern stile, this supposing it to be in the first moment, that in the day of the last judgement. Finally what an uncouth thing is an excommunication reaching to the next world? would they have us believe that those, who died in mortal sin, were snatched out of the jaws of Hell? No man doubts but the souls in Purgatory are holy, and partakers of Ecclesiastical Communion, but these fables, which lead to error, what sway can they bear with a true believer?  
There is but one little sentence 
And V. Bede.  (as I remember) in Venerable Bede, (l. 5. c. 13.) which makes for the cessation of Purgatory pains before the day of doom, and that so cast in by the buy, into the Angel's discourse and explication of those sufferings, that it seems rather, according to the persuasion of some following Age, thrust in by some other, having no relation to any part of the Vision, which of itself makes an excellent and neat allegory. But it is to be remarked, that though they are said to be freed from their pains, yet are they not admitted to the joys of Heaven; which notwithstanding somewhat varies from the modern opinion, from the degrees of the Florentine council, and Benedict XI. both which jointly seem to pronounce nothing but sin, debars and secludes abstracted souls from the Beatifical Vision. The same may be said of all other Revelations; for if they are not merely frivolous and insignificant, they commonly in some particular or other shock the purity of Ecclesiastical Doctrine. Some of them will tell you of souls kept in Purgatory, for the payment of debts among the living; others that a prefixed time was set them for begging and procuring assistance. The great Odilo, and strong asserter of this opinion, is said, by his own and the prayers of his Monks, to have freed Benedict the eighth out of Purgatory, upon condition that a second alms should be given by his successor John, because the first was out of treasure ill gotten. What can we make of this? Are the prayers of Religious men frustrated, and in effectual if their Alms come out of an usurer's purse? 'tis very hard to oblige them to search into and discover this, unless perhaps it want not its convenience, if they be, in like manner, permitted to retain the first, and demand the second benevolence in case it be found to be so.  
But to speak ingenuously, all this passage is inextricable. For what shall we say? That the rich man shall in three days redeem his Purgatory, which must cost the poor as many years. Without doubt a convenient motive for accumulating riches; but such a one as I have not yet met with in all the Gospel, or Christian directions. And yet what else do they seem to regard, who make it either only care and business to accompany the Dead with a multittude of Masses? some such conceits as these the Schools have already exibitated, and immediately they have disappeared in all succeeding Visions and Revelations, that you may see they wholly depend upon vulgar opinion. From whence it happens that the Greeks, though otherwise more addicted to them then the Latins, having nothing of this nature, though much more than we of refrigerating the damned themselves, because this sort of Purgatory runs not in their fancies.   

The one and twentieth account.  
Whence wonderful Events came to be foretold, without any supernatural assistance.  
BUt what am I doing? shall I charge so many grave and holy persons with Forgery, or at least being deluded by the Devil? I cannot easily determine which were more criminal, and therefore shall by no means be transported with that arrogance. From whence then this plentiful 
And strange discourses of Apparitions received, waking or sleeping  Harvest of Apparitions? The notion of Apparition must be divided. One kind happens to those who are awake, and have their eyes about them, the other to those whom sleep or apostasy hath oppressed. The first gives a jealousy of some defective or vitiated organ, especially if the phantasm appear to one only, either alone or in company, and that in the night, when ill-disposed, or after some misfortune or long continued grief; something is probably amiss in the Brain, though it be not altogether impossible that a mere preoccupation of mind may work that effect. The other is more obvious; and intelligible; the soul contemplates many things as they were proposed from without (when the senses are by sleep or ecstasy locked up) which not withstanding have no other being than in the fantasy.  
But against this are very admirable examples, by which we are assured that in these sleeps or ecstasies things future, secret, at a distance, in fine, such as no sense could reach to, are often seen and foretold. All cannot rationally be denied, nor all promiscuously admitted. I observe therefore that for the most part, some falsity mingles with these revealed truths, which commonly gives the occasion of their being imputed to the black Art. But we must examine how far Nature 
How far they may be natural.  can herein play her part. It hath been said, that the soul, lulled as it were a sleep with dreams or ecstasy, finds the strokes or darts of memory and fantasy more sharp and penetrating, by the vacuity of its calls or receptacles, into which other objects can at that time make no incursion. We may add, that this cessation may well occasion a more calm discovery of truths; their dependency being more orderly displayed, and consequences more immediately and nimbly linking themselves together. From whence the History of S. Thomas of Aquin's being three whole days in ecstasy, and at his return out of it, professing he had, in that time, seen and learned more, than he had yet written in his whole life, or, being now near his end, could have leisure to write, seems to me no ways incredible, but altogether becoming and worthy so great a Contemplator.  
Nor do I think it impossible, 
Even to the sudden possessing of a science before unknown.  that, in the like circumstances, a science (such as Ca●optrick●, &c.) may at once be possessed; the principles by virtue of the said tranquillity discovering themselves and of their own accord flowing into theorems. Was that Po●t and Musician whom Venerable Bede tell us, in one night, to have been made both a Scholar and a Master, thus instructed? I affirm nothing positively.  
Well do I remember, when I was of an age more obnoxious to the operation and power of fantasy, to have seen in my sleep, an imaginary representation of Christ coming to the last judgement, and the Saints flying in the cloulds to meet him, in colours so ravishingly pleasant, that those which we daily behold can no ways equalise or imitate them; and withal, to have found such conformable motions excited thereby in my sensitive appetite, that awaking, I thought fit carefully to nourish them.  
A certain youth I likewise knew, who, being reclaimed from a course of debauchery with Drink and Tobacco (a thing not then so countenanced by custom and general use) had no● only (in an acute fever into which he fell) a lively portraiture of the Devil drinking to him, and puffing Tobacco by his side, but also a most distinct catalogue imprinted in his memory of all the misdeamenours of his whole life. Such apprehensions as these I dare presume to account and applaud as the sports of verdant Nature. When the effects happen to be more intricate, I acknowledge the natural disposition to be made use of, but whether it alone can perform all, I do not engage. Yet I have observed, in the narrations of some holy women, no small agreement between the motions of their fantasy, and the wonders which are said to have past within their breasts. And in the whole History of the Visions of a certain late pious Maid in Italy, that they were almost all suitable to her apprehensions, and such as might freely spring from the cogitations to which she was enured.  
Nor can I dissemble, that among the innumerable stories, ancient and modern, which pretend to foretell things future, or declare the state of things remote and absent from them, I find not many which challenge the opinion of sanctity, or the peculiar providence of God in them. Yet is it hard to determine what stock they have in nature to produce them. I may think thus. It is confessed, that those upon whom these wonders are fathered are for the most part persons dictacted▪ obnoxious to some vehement passion, ●cstatick, dreaming, whose fantasy is either free, or strongly addicted to some one object. If free, than doth it prophesy at random of many things; if engaged, then of that only to which it is affected. Women, who have an absolute and unlimited passion for their husbands or children, are said to experience this, according to that of the Poet.— Who is't that can beguile the Lover? Madmen have in like sort foreseen strange things, relating to that single object which their minds are full of; whilst those who are subject to distraction, ecsta●y or dreams discourse wonderfully and unconnectedly of several things. All these have no constant bias; and the errors interlarded with the truths sufficiently convince they are not special gifts of God's benevolence.  
Farther, then, I proceed to 
How passionate persons come to apprehend the condition of their absent friends.  conclude, that the fantasies of such persons are moved by weaker impulses than the brains of wiser men, which being employed in various negotiations, feel not those lesser outward incursions. As then certain Beasts receive the first trembling hints of the change of air, and by their proper motions, give notice of the future storm or serenity to men that are otherwise busied; So Lovers, from their Beloved, receive and acknowledge certain influences which others take no notice of. If a Dog after many hours can take the scent of a Hart or Hare, and, pursuing it, retrieve its origin; what miracle, that the like emissions (as the chaste Lover terms them) falling from his beloved, and finding him free from all others and fixed only upon this cogitation, should raise in him such thoughts or dreams as were conformable to the temper and condition of his Beloved, when that scent dispersed itself through the air, and consequently, without any other messenger, inform him of her well or ill being. The like may happen in others, whose attentions are not engaged in so many trifles, a● most men's are, about their own and others affairs. I am apt to believe that most of our stories 
Whose transport hath been the rise of most of our stories concerning the souls in Purgatory.  of souls freed from their punishments (to give an account whereof, all that hitherto hath been said principally tends) if they were examined to the bottom▪ would be found to proceed from the frequent cogitation, and passionate affection of the living towards their departed Friends.   

The two and twentieth account.  
What is the benefit of prayer for the Dead.  
BUt alas! one abyss calls upon another, nor are we so happily disengaged from one vexation, that our retreat leads us not into another. It is urged, 
The adversary's Objection, of the usefulness of our prayers if this be true.  that there can be no fruit of prayer for the dead if some at least are not thereby exempted before the common delivery. Again, what efficacy have our suffrages, if a multitude of them can do no more than a lesser number? If those who have many assistances gain no more than those who have few, or perhaps none at all? Lastly, the day of judgement is by God predetermined▪ and will arrive in its due time, 
And chiefly from the predetermination of the Day of judgement independently of our prayers.  independently of our prayers; and though it should have some respect to them, as it only hath to the predestination or will of God, that is not the thing which sets the faithful a-work to bestow or procure alms for their departed friends; but they expect that this very soul should receive some advantage by virtue of their prayers, which were not otherwise from its own merits due unto it.  
These are the Objections; among 
Which is first answered.  which I cannot but wonder to see Professors of Divinity allege that prayers are fruitless for such events as are decreed by Predestination. What Lethe have they drunk of? Have they forgotten that whatsoever good befalls us was predestinated? What do they think of their own and others' salvation? Does any one doubt but they are the effects of predestination? We need not therefore pray; and if we pray not, as little need we be solicitous. Let prayers, let good works from henceforth cease. Why so? Because all things are accomplished by virtue of their being so decreed. This they confess; but they will not have us pray for those things which we are certain will come to pass. We are still where we were. For how ignorant soever we are, whether what we ask be predestinated or no, yet are we satisfied, that unless it be predestinated, we shall not obtain it. We know then, that only which is predestinated shall come to pass; and consequently it alone is worth our asking. So that the Apostle doth not vainly exhort us to endeavour, by good works, to render our Vocation and election certain; that is, to take care to put 
By showing that the means are predestinated as well as the end.  it in execution. The error then of the Argument or Arguer consisted herein, that he so looked upon the effect as predestinated, that he saw not its cause●, or the means, by which it should come to pass, were also predestinated. So that, pure Inadvertency begat this objection.  
And from hence we may have 
In what manner and sense our Prayers benefit the dead in general.  an easy step to the other part of the Argument. For when they urge, that nothing ensues upon the account of their prayers for the Dead, we reply, all depends upon them. For if their delivery from their pains, whensoever it happens, be a requital of their supplications, and that delivery be nothing else than the communication of glory and celestial joys, all this, is, in the day of judgement, granted to their Prayers. What then? shall they have any thing more than what their pious conversation in this life promerited? Not at all. Behold the Riddle. A great Lord saith to his servant, behave thyself faithfully in my house seven years, and at the marriage of my son, I will make thee steward of his family. The servant dischargeth his duty; is he therefore controller of his young Lord's house? No, unless his Master be first married He then that shall procure a Match for the young Gallant shall do a good office for the old servant, and deserve great thanks at his hands. So he that is chastised in Purgatory, did in his life deserve to receive a reward at the coming of Christ, but that Christ should come he did not deserve▪ For that, as it is an universal good, so is it due to the merits and supplications of all, and not of any one Particular.  
For this reason it was answered to the souls of the slain, resting under the Altar, and crying out to have that day hastened, that it depended upon the rest who had not yet suffered, but were to complete the number. Whosoever then desires and loves the coming of our Lord, either for his own sake or any others▪ as every one does who prays for the retribution of the dead, accelerates that day. And thus you see, that the time, which was said to be predestinated, will notwithstanding never arrive till the number of the elect be perfected. From whence it follows, that whatsoever is predestinated, so obtains the stability of it's immutable arrest (the liberty and contingency of second causes, by which it is brought about, not impeding) that if any one of them should fail, that very thing, which we term predestinated, could not come to pass. And applying this assertion to our present purpose, if Prayer should not be made for the Dead, they would never be delivered, notwithstanding the irresistible force of predestination, through the imbecility of causes by which their delivery is promoted. He that prays then supplies what was wanting to the sufferings of the departed, without which supplement they could not be saved.  
They reply, this supposed, it 
And in particular.  is all one to this particular friend departed, whether fewer or more prayers are said for him, since the last day will break as soon to one as to another. It is answered, they cannot deny, but at least he who is the occasion that more prayers are offered to that intent, hath, as it were, a greater right to that day than he for whom fewer are offered. Whence to him it will arrive more grateful and honourable, then to the other who less contributed to its advance. But besides, these pious offices and affections of others towards him, being known by the person departed whom they concern, beget a disposition in his soul, by which, when time shall serve, his love to God, and consequently, his Beatitude shall be increased. Moreover▪ by way of impetration, they become occasions to the Divine Providence, of so disposing many things, which otherwise would be differently ordered, that in the day of Harvest, they may enlarge his either essential or accidental happiness. If any thing of this happens through the good deeds of the person himself departed, it is to be accounted amongst his merits, or the rewards due to his merits; but if such prayers spring not from any root which he himself did, whilst living, plant, but purely from the charity of some propitious persons, they are an effect of God's Providence, whose mercies are numberless.  
One objection only remains 
That it imports not what particular fancy they may have who pray for the dead, as to the relief given thereby.  unanswered, That this is not the thing which those who pray and are solicitous for their dead, do look for. But neither ought we regard what they expect, but what they ought to expect. The Apostle only admonishes us, not to be afflicted as those who have no hopes, but to retain and cherish an expectation of re-enjoying their society, and that in the resurrection. Yet if the metaphorical explications of fire and other pains be found more proper to excite affections then the truth metaphysically delivered, use them if you please, so you keep yourself within the bounds which the counsels and Fathers have set; viz. that souls are punished, and by prayers relieved, but for the time when this takes effect, leave it, as they do, undetermined. Are you still unsatisfied and urge an immediate releasement? I am contented; let it be the very next moment after your prayer. For whatsoever time intervenes betwixt it and the restauration of the world, is to them but as one moment. If you still repine and fret, I may with juster indignation protest, you are not only ignorant, but envious of their sublime state and condition, which exalts them above the 
Not whether this Doctrine become a means of lessening the number of unworthy Priests.  reach of time.  
In fine, if I be thought the occasion of restraining the profuse abundance of Alms in this particular▪ I shall withal have the satisfaction to have checked the daily increasing swarms of unworthy Priests, who, qualified neither with knowledge nor good manners, live like drones upon this stock, to the disgrace and contempt of their function, to the abuse of souls, and the common scandal both of those who live in and out of the Church. Catholic Faith shall from henceforth be no longer the subject of the derision of externs, whilst her children vainly labour to defend, against heretics, those things which have neither ground nor proof, but are introduced from the customary expressions of Law-Courts and exchanges, not from the Language of Nature or Christian Tenets. But of this enough.   

The three and twentieth account.  
That the practice of the Church, as far as its words make known its sense, favours the ancient opinion.  
FOr the last attempt they reserve the practice of the Church, which can neither deceive nor be deceived. And this they drive on with great fury and clamour, partly from the prayers which are said for the Dead, partly from the concession and acceptation of Indulgences; wherein their valour gains so much applause that it is worth our pains to give it a check. Our first encounter shall be to demand of them, when they talk of the Ecclesiastical practice, which do they mean, an universal or a particular one? Again, if an universal one, whether they intend only a present Universality, or an universality including also the ancient practice? If they admit an universality of place (as they needs must if they 
The Vulgar opinion can neither claim universality of place.  will conclude any thing; for otherwise, by their own confession, it will amount but to a probable, that is, fallible argument) let them demonstrate to me, that the practice they contend for, either anciently was, or at present is in the Grecian Church. Sure I am, neither in the Florentine council, nor in the Union of the Armenians, nor in the Profession of Faith prescribed by Urban VIII. to the Oriental Churches, any thing is expressed, from whence this Doctrine may be deduced. In 
Nor time.  like manner, as to point of time, it is evident, that before S. S. Gregory and Bede, there; was no such notorious practice even in the Roman Church, and consequently that it became not general, till after Odilo, about six hundred years ago. But such a practice no way deserves the title of Universal, according to Time.  
The question than is devolved to the Western Church, for the four or five last ages, for the universality cannot be stretched higher, since the practice appears to have taken its rise from the Devotions of the Clugniac Monks, and the effect of those Devotions, that is, Revelations springing from them, whereas before it was rare, if not unknown. 
N●r do the present Churches words or actions declare any such; practise at this day, even in the western part of it.  Our next quaere is, what they mean by practice? For my part, to avoid ambiguity. I divide it into that of actions and of expressions; both which, if they apparently favour what we have delivered, than is our adversaries last effort as in-effectual as the former. The church's expressions are visible in her missals, Rituals, and Breviaries, 
As appears by her missals Breviaries and Rituals.  by which if I stand condemned, I willingly yield the cause. To begin with the sequence of Dies irae, Dies illa, is it not throughout of the day of judgement, and the deliverance which is then to be made? What else hath the Offertory? Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, free the souls of the faithful departed, from the pains of Hell, and the profound L●ke, free them from the lion's jaws, that H●ll may not devour them, nor they fall into darkness, but let the holy Ensign-bearer, Michael, conduct them into that happy light which thou hast heretofore promised to Abraham and his seed. Thus far in general for all the Dead: then in particular. We offer up to thee, O Lord, sacrifices and thanksgiving prayers, receive them for those souls which we this day commemorate, grant them, O Lord, to pass from Death to Life. These are the Church's prayers, which, to a Catholic, what can they signify but the 
Which unanimously respect the day of judgement.  examination and sentence of the last judgement? After the person is dead, and that prayers begin to be said for him, where is he in danger to perish but in the last Day? If then the Church prays not for what is past, which seems to be unprofitable, it prays not for any other delivery of the Dead, than what is to be in that final judgement.  
I easily foresee it may be objected, that the Dead have in reality no incertitude or hazard even in that Day, wherefore these Prayers must on both sides be acknowledged to have their improprieties. My answer is twofold. First, in our way, we coin not a new Metaphor, but prosecute that which Christ and Holy Scriptures have furnished us with. For if they have styled it a judgement, not in order to an investigation or disquisition of things doubtful (for what can be obscure when God himself is judge?) but merely to signifiy the effect of the said judgement, that is the respective destribution of rewards and punishments to good and bad, which then is made, is it not evident that the Ecclesiastical manner of speech (that it may be conformable to the sacred and Traditionary expressions) must speak as it were of a dubious sentence, whilst there is yet an affection to, or expectation of punishment, or reward? These speeches than signify just the same, as if the Church should plainly say, suffer them not to be cast into Hell, but grant them eternal happiness. And so is that particle also to be understood, of passing from Death, of life.  
Though there be also another way, in which the souls in Purgatory, when they become partakers of the Beatifical Vision, may not improperly, be said to pass from Death to Life: For those souls, having (according to what hath been explicated) an impediment in themselves, debarring them from true life, which is perfect Beatitude, clearly, if death be opposite to life, they are truly said to pass from death to life, when they are freed from their sins and that impediment. I am not ignorant, that Divines, taking it from the Lawyers, suppose in these souls a certain Right to Beatitude, by which they are rendered partakers of life. But these expressions abuse us, when besides an allegory we expect propriety in them. Nor indeed doth right to a thing make a man owner of it, but right in the thing; and in reality those holy souls have not right to life, but seeds of it, to wit, the faith of Christ, which works by charity, and which assuredly will (through the last judgement) fructify to life eternal. As than s●ea is not yet reckoned among things living but dead, so these souls also. But we must observe the word dead hath a double sense, being propounded abstractedly and privatively. The damned are privatively dead, because all possibility or root of eternal life is extinguished in them; but those in Purgatory are only dead because they have not yet obtained life.  
My second answer is, that, speeches of this kind are altogether inexplicable, according to the contrary opinion, which is a certain note that they mistake the church's sense. For proof hereof it were enough to charge them with it, and put them to the trial. But I can produce the express confession of an Author, voluminous enough to appear great amongst them, who, paraphrasing upon the above▪ cited words, excuses their form, Because (saith he) those who pray often use expressions which they are altogether ignerant what they signify, or whither they tend. But surely the Rituals sufficiently declare whither these speeches tended. Make him worthy by the assistance of thy Grace, to escape the judgement of revenge, who, living, was signed with the seal of the Trinity. Again, Let us pray for the spirit of our Brother, that the mercy of our Lord may place him in the bosom of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, that, when the day of judgement shall come, he may resuscitate him on the right hand, among his Saints and Elect. Again, We pray thee to command the soul of thy servant N to be carried by the hands of thy Angels into the bosom of thy Friend Abraham the Patriarch, to be resuscitated in the last day of judgement, that whatsoever vices, by the deceit of the Devil, he hath contracted, thou pious and merciful Mayst blot out by indulgence. In the office of the dead in like manner in the Roman Breviary. Lord when thou shall come to judge the Earth, where shall I hide myself from the countenance of thy anger?— When thou comest to judge do not conde●n me. Again, be merciful unto me when thou shalt come to judge in the last day. Again, Remember not my sins, O Lord, when thou shalt come to judge the world by fire. Lastly, free me, O Lord, from eternal Death in that dreadful day, when the Heavens and Earth shall be shaken, when thou comest to judge the World by fire. I tremble and fear whilst that discussion and future anger comes; that day of anger, that day of misery and calamity, &c. To this you may add the public Litanies, instituted, as it is thought, by Gregory the Great himself, or at least by him recommended, where you find, In the day of judgement deliver us O Lord. And in the commendation of the soul departed, In the day of judgement deliver him O Lord.  
Finally, if we have yet any 
And have not one clear word, throughout them all, of any o●her delivery.  judgement left us, and are not wholly transported and fascinated with the opposite opinion, let us consider with ourselves, what a strange blindness and absurdity it had been in the composers of our sacred Liturgy (if they intend to pray in the Mass and Offices, for the delivery of souls before the day of judgement) not to express it in one clear sentence, throughout so many and large prayers, but perpetually to fix the Readers thoughts and expectations upon the last judgement. What shall I say of so many who have not only used, but corrected them, yet never durst take the boldness to violate the ancient and received style? Since then in Ecclesiastical Ceremonies the significations of the actions depends on the expressions, and the expressions are so clear for purgation in the day of judgement, it is beyond dispute evident, that this is the practice and intention of the Holy Church in all public Prayers and Masses, that is, in all that are hers.   

The four and Twentietth account.  
That the practice of the Church, as it is visible in action, makes likewise for the same truth.  
FRom what we have said, the 
Their rashness who because they can no longer presume to free the souls departed at their own time and pleasure, refuse to continue to pray for them.  temerity and precipitation of those appears, who, from the denial of a sudden and capricious delivery of souls, ●ye immediately to the refusal of supplicating any longer for them; whereas, on the contrary, they ought more assiduously, yea, perpetually and without end, to pray, both because their torments are more durable, & because our own goods are so strictly conjoined with theirs. Our method therefore instructs us, never to abandon, never to remit or slacken the charity which we profess towards our friends lately departed, and consequently by this new temporary motive fastens our souls upon the love and contemplation of the future world, whereas the contrary opinion begets a short memory and long oblivion.  
And here behold we are naturally put in mind of surveying the other branch of practice, which no less attests ours to be the Church's sense, and perfectly conformable to her practice. I mean the procurement of prayers for the souls of the Dead. Let us reflect herein on the consequences which are apt to follow from either opinion. If it be 
The consequences of both opinions examined.  true, that souls are, from Purgatory, conveyed to Beatitude, before the day of judgement, though we know not how long the time may be of their durance, yet this is certain that every one hath a limited time, let us suppose ten years (as a Divine famous enough hath opined,) the Church ought in reason to prescribe a cessation from thenceforward, of duties for that soul, that others may be benefited by what to it is now superfluous. You reply, that it is not done because the Church is uncertain how long the time may be. Very well, but how long I beseech you shall she continue uncertain? till the day of judgement? And this of every one, that is, of all? where then lies 
Which equally agree in continuing to supplicate to the world's end.  our quarrel? I may perhaps affirm it to be certain, that they are not dismissed before the day of judgement, and consequently that we ought always to pray for them; you affirm it to be uncertain whether they are sooner freed or no, and consequently conclude the same thing, to wit, that we ought always to pray for them. The practice then of praying always for them is common to us both: More strongly indeed on our side, from motives both of reason and antiquity, which ever prayed for all without exception.  
You reply, it is so uncertain of every one in particular, that notwithstanding it is indefinitely certain of some. Let it be so, because you are resolute; what is that to the practice that remains common to both sides? Can you from practice possibly convince that some indeterminately are exempted, when you pray for every one as though he were detained? practice is an action, and action is of Individuals, that is, of particular Agents about particular Patients. But to proceed: Imagine with yourself 
Where it ought rather to be converted into thanksgiving for those who are set free, if the vulgar opinion be true.  some practice which may infer that some are freed; aught there not to be a change in the Tenor of prayer, and a thanksgiving succeed to supplication, rather than that the selfsame supplication should still continue? Show any such custom, and you have won the day. But if you cannot, and, on the contrary, I can and do produce men pious and prudent who with their last breaths pray for their grandfathers and great-grand-fathers', and when themselves come to die, build Churches, Hospitals, and the like eternal institutes, with obligation to have themselves and their ancestors for ever prayed for, two things I shall esteem myself to have clearly proved, first, That Ecclesiastical practice stands with us; secondly, that our Adversaries cannot bring the least shadow of proof from thence.  
They quit not yet their station, but threaten us with sorks, now that their arrows are spent. practice, say they, consists not only in the external action, but in it with the intention, opinion and hope conjoined therewithal. But it is evident, that the opinion and hope with which men now adays pray for the departed, is that of a speedy delivery, therefore the Church-practise concludes it. In which, first, we deny the Major. For when some action is handed down to us from our 
The intention is not always visibl● i● every action.  forefathers in the Church, it doth not follow their intention must necessarily be derived to us by the same succession, for though we know not in particular what they intended, yet do we often in belief of our Parents, as the vulgar term it, do the same thing which they did. So the unlearned receiving or administering Sacraments, through the confidence they have of the Church's sanctity, do, with good intention, receive and administer them, though ignorant what intention is properly due to the action. It is not therefore necessary the practice attest that which the private intention of every actor apprehends, but only that which he intends jointly with the Church, though in particular ignorant of it. Again, it is manifestly one thing to be a practice, and another to be the ground of a practice, or reason for which it was instituted. For a practice is received by custom or command, and may have several motives or ends for its origin, so that no one end can be evinced, since any one may suffice; much less doth pure opinion belong to practise, which every Age may vary, or oftener, according to the greater or lesser science of Doctor●, whereas the practice may remain the same.   

The five and twentieth account.  
The Nature and History of Indulgences.  
THere lies yet another accusation 
Whether Indulgences either in general or particular make any thing against the tru● Doctrine.  against us, from the use of Indulgences, which we have not satisfied; and it is also twofold: For they both urge in general, that the whole force and fabric of Indulgences falls to the ground, if Purgatory-pains are not released. For what good do they do either in this world to the living, or in the next to the departed, if they neither abate nor discharge their present pains, nor our future ones? And again in particular, what shall become of those concessions which grant expressly the releasement of a soul to every third, thirtieth, or single Mass? Which with such and such fasts, prayers, alms, visitations of Churches, redeems or commutes so many days or years of sufferings? Nothing can be said why all these should not declare the practice of the Church. Thus they. And indeed both the outward apparences and inward merit of the thing challenge a deep inspection, and thorough-examination; but let us at present content ourselves briefly, and according to the smallness of our volume and ability to discuss it.  
No man that hath the least acquaintance 
The first and proper use of remission or Indulgence in general.  and conversation with Ecclesiastical antiquity, can be ignorant, that all along even up to the very infancy of the Church, Excommunications, solemn increpations, penitential ceremonies, and rigorous satisfactions were in use. That these rigours, in diverse circumstances, sometimes in consideration of the penitent himself, sometimes of externs, were not only abusively, but canonically and profitably relaxed, both the monuments of pious men, and the vicissitude of human nature assure us. This relaxation was, by the Latins, in the Apostolical phrase, called Indulgence. And thus far no rational man questions their legitimate use. These Indulgences being in order to such penalties as the governors and Rulers of the Church conceived proportionable to the cancelling and extinguishing the sin they related to (so 
The occasion of its being stretched farther.  that he who had legally performed them, was supposed to have quitted that score, before God) it naturally became a question, whether the remission granted by Bishops did free the penitent, not only for those visible penalties which the visible Church was wont to exact or release, but moreover discharge him from the account due to those sins in the sight of God, and put him in the same condition, as if he had actually performed the penalties themselves. And S. Paul 
Fron S. Paul 2 Cor. 2.  himself, 2 Cor. 2. gives occasion of this question, where, treating of the penitent Fornicator, he commands the Church to forbear to afflict him, lest too much sadness should overwhelm him; adding a general either truth or lenity, that himself pardoned whatsoever the Church should pardon. And further giving his reason, he saith, For I myself, if I have pardoned any one any thing, I have in the person of Christ pardoned it, for your sakes, that Satan may not circumvent us, for we are not ignorant of his arts.  
To this purpose the Apostle; wherein he unfolds to us the whole business of Indulgences; That their matter is that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} rebuke or correption which it was fit the Church should exercise towards the sinner: That there are two causes of remission, the first, the incapacity of the subject's bearing such Rigours, who otherwise would be swallowed up by grief; the second, the good of the Church, lest the Devil by pretext of too great severity, or the like, should provoke or stir up some to murmur and make a schism. So that two things in the infliction and moderation of Ecclesiastical chastisements are to be regarded, the good of the Person and the good of the Church. But the Apostle explicates moreover the efficient cause, which he makes to be threefold; the Church, Himself, us a Prelate of the Church, and Christ our Lord. For he saith, that what he indulged he indulged in the person of Christ. Had he spoken only of the Church and himself, it would have passed for a Rule, that as the Church knoweth not the interior things, so neither doth she judge of them, or pretend to remit them. But subjoyning that he did it in the person of Christ, he seems to extend it to all that Christ our Lord doth or may remit, and consequently to infer, that the sinner is no longer, as to that particular, obnoxious to the judgement of Christ.  
This the fathers seem to countenance; 
And some passages in the Fathers.  both universally, in as much as they apply to Church-discipline that famous speech of Christ, that sins are remitted or retained in Heaven proportionably to the severity or mildness of Apostolical proceedings upon earth. And particularly, S. Cyprian, who affirms, that Penitents may be aided before God, in the abolition of their sins, by the solicitation and prerogative of Martyrs. Yea Celerinus, in his Epistle to Lucius, beseeches those who were designed for martyrdom, which of them soever should first be crowned, to forgive the sin of two women who had denied their Faith. Could any thing be more plain for this assertion, that such sins are remitted also by God, the punishments whereof the Church hath released?  
But however that matter stood, 
The posture of Indulgences in the 11th Age.  the use of Indulgences continued till the division of the Roman Empire, and till the eleventh age, as a certain Ecclesiastical practice, but without any special form or Court of Judicature. In that age a new form was instituted, Penitential Canons ordained, which were partly redeemed by Alms and other pious works, partly by corporeal austerities, and particularly by flagellation, which thereupon took the name of Discipline. In the XII. Century their application was extended to Wars undertaken against Pirates and Infidels. In the thirteenth Century, the form of jubilee was instituted, since which time the Harvest hath been too large for the Barns, insomuch that it required the prudence of later Popes to restrain it.  
Now in the XII. Age the Schoolmen grew up; a sort of men, whilst closely adhering to the Fathers and counsels, grave and learned; whilst intent upon Philosophy and the Mysteries of Aristotle, acute and sublime; but, when vexed with the importunity of such as endlessly called upon them for answer, they so confounded all, that they neither throughout pursued the Allegory of Faith, so necessary for the people; nor yet were able (Straightened and urged by their importuners) to attend the discovery of its pure light, which is only attainable by the faithful study of true and solid Philosophy, and so bequeathed to their posterity an uneven incoherent, and uncertain course of Doctrine. These men therefore ravished with the consideration of the m●taphorical Laws of Justice betwixt God and sinners, fancied certain pure pains after death, and taught their followers the redemption of them by corporeal afflictions in this world.  
And seeing with their own 
The design of the School men to establish them on a new basis.  eyes the great fruits which some remission of penitential Canons did produce; foreseeing also, or rather already experiencing, that Ecclesiastical Rules did or would, by degrees, lose their authority, all beginning to subtilise, and addict themselves to nice inquiries, they concluded it fit to establish Indulgences upon a more solid basis; and to that end pretended that the pains of Purgatory, as they were extinguishable with penance, so also with remissions or pardons. And this they fell upon with such eagerness and numbers, that they easily over persuaded Leo the Tenth, then engaged against Luther, to propose to the Christian World their whole fabric, with the treasures of Christ's merits, and his Saints; although they could never effect or extort any such thing from the L●teran and Florentin counsels before him, 
Though they could never procure any council to favour it.  nor the council of Trent after him.   

The six and twentieth▪ account.  
That Indulgences, generally taken, make nothing against the ancient Doctrine.  
THis is, as far as I can comprehend, the Historical progress 
The School-men's Idea of Purgatory according to the Metaphorical explication thereof.  and period of Indulgences. From which it sufficiently appears, that the School-men's conceit of them depends wholly upon the Metaphorical explication of Purgatory; as the leaned Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, well observed, when he said, that men were first affrighted with the torments of Purgatory before they ran after those Indulgences; and consequently, that Indulgences are differently to be treated and explicated, according to the different 
Lead them to stretch Indulgences to the next world.  sentiments of Purgatory. Those, who believed pure pains in, and successive deliveries out of Purgatory, were necessitated to stretch Indulgences to the next world. For what would such Indulgences signify, or with what spur would they quicken the Devotions and pious exercises of the faithful, if no benefit accrue to those that accept them? But on the contrary, those, who took not that way, must go upon other grounds, and suppose, from what hath been said, that the pains of Purgatory are not purely Vindicative, but, as their very nature imports. Purgative, and not to cease till that Purgation be perfected by the fire of conflagration They must suppose also, that there is no proportion betwixt merits or prayers, and the punishment due to sins; and that this exchange and traffic of merits and pains smells too much of the Banquier's Laws, to be formally transferred into Christian Divinity, and applied to God. But let us take a strict account of this new-found treasure.  
They pretend a vast treasure 
And invent an imaginary treasure of Christ's and his Saints merits.  and magazine of Merits laid up in Heaven▪ What do they call merit? Good works recompensed, or not recompensed? If recompensed, how come they to superabound, or why do they tell us of them? If not recompensed, what conceit would they frame in us of God, who make him unable to reward his servants merits, or leave him in their debt? But we have showed in our 
* Tom. 1. lib. 1. lect. 14.  Theological Institutions, that merit is nothing else but a 
Whereas every good work of the Saint is more than rewarded.  good work fructifying to reward: whence necessarily it ensues, that it is either rewarded, or no merit. Besides, what shall become of that Axiom, God rewards beyond all merit? drawn from the clear testimonies of the Apostle, that the sufferings of this life are not proportionable to the future glory. But go too; heap sin upon sin, will these Divines say that the punishments due to them exceed the merits of Christ? nay even of one drop of his blood, or of the least particle of a drop? If they dare not, to what end do they accumulate this treasure? To what purpose do they add the merits of Saints to those of Christ? For fear peradventure lest the punishment due to sin should exhaust the whole source of Christ's merits? 
And every merit of Christ exceeds all proportion of demerit or punishment.  Alas▪ how can you value the least drop of his? How can you assign a particle so minute as not to exceed the greatest debt imaginable? If the least of Christ's merits be dispensed, it is too much, and exceeds all punishment It is therefore consequent, that Christ must long since have offered to his Father more merit than all the sins that ever shall be perpetrated can require; nor indeed could he possibly do otherwise, every least merit of his being perfectly infinite. So that Christ's merits must absolutely be taken out of the scales, if there must be an equality and exactness of communicative Justice. For it is simply impossible, even in respect of God's absolute power, that so little should be offered to God of Christ's merits, as not infinitely to overweigh all that enters the balance with them. It appears then that all this Doctrine is incoherent, and incongruous, and consequently to be rejected.  
And if our discourse have hitherto been rightly poised, we can no longer doubt of the two opinions concerning Indulgences, which balance sinks down with its gravity, which flies up with its levity. For first, whereas 
Of Ecclesiastical penalties.  they put Ecclesiastical penalties to be such as equalise the crime, that may be understood two ways. The first, that they should equalise the pains due in Purgatory, which if it were in itself true, what messenger could assure them of it? For S. Gregory bears us witness, that the Revelations which discovered the state of souls at that time were new, and consequently unknown to the Apostles and their successors. But besides, it being confessed, that the lightest pain of Purgatory out-vyes all the sufferings of this world, how can some determinate quantity of these be equivalent to those? The other explication then of equivalence, is, that such a penance, inflicted and performed, 
How such a Penalty may be said to correspond or be equivalent to such a crime.  would, by its exemplarity, cause such reparation in point of Ecclesiastical Discipline, as the fault had caused miscarriage and transgression. And this evidently may well be determined by the discreet arbitration of prudent censors of manners. So that hence also it is apparent which opinion is to be embraced.  
Let it be then established, that Ecclesiastical Indulgence remits no more than what the Church imposed, or thought fit to be imposed, for the restauration of Discipline; and that it affords no argument for remission of sin or pain, either in this world or in the next, other than the change which is made in the sinner himself, or the Church scandalised by him. As to that then of S. 
With a solution to the objection from S. Paul.  Paul, it is answered, that he who in some certain business is constituted Att●rney or procurator for another, cannot thence take upon him to do all his Lord or Master might do, but only act according to the limitations of the power entrusted to him; yet, this notwithstanding, whatsoever he doth, he doth it in the name and lieu of the person who employed him. So S. Paul, what he remitted of the integrity of Discipline he remitted in the person of Christ: the sense being either prophetical, importing that by Revelation he understood that Christ approved what he had done; or natural, signifying no more, then that, all power being from God, whatsoever, as the Minister of Christ, he dispensed with, he dispensed with upon the account of Christ.  
The places of S. Cyprian are 
And some Fathers.  of more easy solution; For he clearly seems to teach, that Martyrs have power to obtain that remission be made in Heaven, conformable to the Indulgence exercised by the Church upon Earth. He doth not then imagine, that by force of the Church's remission the sin is remitted also in the sight of God; but that the prayers of Martyrs, especially after their appearance before our Lord, are effectual to that end. And for those expressions of antiquity, that remission made on earth is ratified in Heaven; they suppose the Church made a right judgement of the Penitent; which clears the dispute. The design of those holy men was to insinuate that there is an obligation in conscience, to comply with the Church's Laws, and fulfil her injunctions: But when, through her Indulgence, they are recalled, that then this divine obligation ceaseth. And thus, by Indulgences, is the punishment from Heaven remitted which is forgiven on Earth; and whatsoever is remitted here, an obligation remains from Heaven, and by the command of Christ, to perform it. We have then answered to Indulgences in general and showed that they do not much concern our Question.   

The seven and twentieth account.  
That particular Indulgences granted for the Dead, argue not the Universal practice of the Church.  
TWO things may be disputed concerning particular Indulgences; first, what substance of truth they have in them; secondly, what they make against us. And because we have mentioned Indulgences upon no other account then in defence of our explication of Purgatory (against which they are no otherwise alleged, then as inferring the Universal practice of the Church) we are concerned to examine them no further than to discover with what strength of practice and Universality they are supported. The measures whereof must be taken either from the Giver, or Receivers. First, before 
Particular Indulgences were not app●yed to the souls departed before the Schools.  the School men, there was, that I know of, no noise of these Indulgences; for what is reported of Gregory the Great's granting the redemption of a soul to every thirty Masses, is (if I mistake not) weak, and grounded on no solid authority: And for that other story of him, that he should release seven years' penalty to those who should visit certain Churches, makes nothing to our purpose; since the custom of following Ages shows that Relaxation to have related only to penances enjoined or to be enjoined; especially in the eleventh Age, when the ordinary dispensation with Ecclesiastical penalties upon the deathbed, or otherwise, to such as were desirous to die or live in the Church's peace and communion, seems to have been instituted:  
From that time forward, how 
How thi● come since to be applied that way.  Ecclesiastical questions of practices depending on Theology, are handled at Rome, take this account: When any thing is demanded of the Pope, the difficulties whereof surpass the ordinary administrations of his Courts, a select Committee of Canon▪ Lawyers and Divines is nominated to resolve it. For the Canonists (the Prince being to them the head and fountain of all law and Power) it is no great marvel if they deny little or nothing to the Papal Commands. For the Divines, they are generally such, as, confusedly mingling authority with reason, and so wandering up and down in uncertain Principles, abhor certitude in things speculative, as the apparitions of a frightful Ghost, unless some Venerable authority define it.  
Let the question now be put, whether the Pope can do such a thing; do you not perceive the scale already inclining to the affirmative? Answer is returned, That, since there neither appears in the thing itself manifest contradiction, nor any exception against the general power given to S. Peter by Christ, it is probable the Pope, his successor, may do it; and that, if he sees it expedient for the Church, 'tis their advice he should do it. If any one oppose, that the resolution is doubtful, and, if the thing be in truth otherwise, the Pope's concession null; he is soon silenced with the return of Valeat quantum valere potest, Let it go as far as it can; the Pope hath done his part. This is the Courtstyle in things of this nature; nor do I see much reason to quarrel at it. The deliberation clearly is prudent, the concession benign and liberal.  
For the Pope himself, he neither 
Which the Pope neither commands nor commends.  commands nor commends it; to those that sue he grants it, or rather denies it not to those who urge and extort it He exhorts to exercises of piety, his Indulgences are looked on as rewards, and purchased with pious and laborious austerities. From the Granter then, this sort of Indulgences hath no Universality, since it depends not on him, but on the receivers, how many will accept them. Nor can he be supposed to strengthen or authorise the practice, who, as hath been said, behaves himself as purely passive and permissive, sometimes restraining, never extending it without compulsion.  
The same degree of liberty hath the people. He that hath a mind seeks them; upon him who is not desirous of them, they are not obtruded. If then your plea be, they are frequented by many, by most; I grant both. But if you will have that which neither is confirmed by command nor long custom, pass for a practice, and that not of Individuals, but an Universal one, and of the whole Church, I shall slowly consent. Whence doth it appear to me, how many they are who receive them, of what rank, with what intention they do it? I know some that desire not to appear singular, and therefore do as their Neighbours: I know others that openly express their dislike. There are those who are said to allow them only when there is some great cause, some extraordinary Christian necessity; and Cardinal Bellarmin himself is reckoned among these Others prefer quiet of mind before such less retired Devotions, amongst whom I find S. Philip Nereus, who is reported to have usually quitted the Roman magnificences, and frequented those Churches where in silence he might pour forth his prayers to God,  
You will urge, That may justly 
An Objection from the Prelates corn vence at least.  be styled a practice of the Church which is done by many, the Prelates seeing and not forbidding it. I answer; If the question only be, whether they do well or ill that frequent them, 
A●s●… is a V●… rather 〈…〉 Vi●e in them.  I easily admit they do well, and according to their conscience. For what can they be reproached for? the worst you can say, is, they act ignorantly, not wickedly. Nor doth the c●nnivence or permission of Prelates conclude any thing more; For what reason have they to inhibit those who of their own accord perform good duties? nothing can from hence be drawn for the remission of pains in Purgatory. For what have the Prelates to meddle with things indifferent and unknown, in which it is no crime to be ignorant, or act mistakingly? whilst the opinion stands probable, that Purgatory-pains are discharged by Indulgences, it is and will be lawful to use them What need the Prelates be troubled? let it be first demonstrated, that these pains are not releasable, then take your liberty to accuse their backwardness; whilst it is a thing indifferent, commend their ●●citurnity.  
It is delivered to us, Tradition 
And will be till the Demonstration of the contrary Doctrine be generally acknowledged.  assures us, that we are to pray for the Dead, and that our prayers are beneficial to them. That their works are to be examined by fire in the day of judgement, and accordingly remunerated; in the mean while that the condition of some is better than that of others. But for the particular reasons of all these, and how they are effected conformably to Nature, and the progress of divine operation, is a business of Theological disquisition. That which shall be clearly demonstrated to consist with the Principles delivered will finally get the Victory. Till then, that is, till the demonstration be not only found out but acknowledged, it is and will be lawful for the Prelates of the Church to follow either opinion, and accordingly to proceed to action.   

The Eight and twentieth account.  
That the Vulgarity of the opposite Opinion ought not to prejudice the true one.  
THey yet, though gasping, 
The last objection, from the universality of the vulgar opinion, at least since the Schools.  struggle and contend, that the opinion which we have called Vulgar, is, and hath been the opinion of the whole Church, at least ever since the Schools reigned; and lest we deny our assent, they argue thus: The opinion of the people is the opinion of their pastors; the opinion of the Pastors is the same with the Schoolmen (for they either are, or depend on the schoolmen.) The opinion therefore of the Schoolmen▪ is the Church's opinion. Either therefore the Church hath erred these 500 years, or the vulgar opinion is plainly its belief. In this difficulty we are to inquire, 
Answer, There are three degrees of them; the first from suspicion.  what opinion, what Church signifies. I observe that there are several degrees of assent in man. The first may not improperly be called suspicion; when there are some sympt●mes which if you narrowly scan, you easily perceive them to incline doubtfully to either part of the contradiction, though at first they inclined you only to one. These render a man suspicious, that is, more intent and propending to one side, as it were expecting thence more light and satisfaction.  
The second degree is, when the 
The second, from probabilities.  verisimilitude or probabilities are very great, and which persuade a man through their difficulties or multitudes, that it is not worth his farther inquisition; but according to the proportion of consideration which every thing challenges more or less in this life, he hath bestowed pains enough in the question. He therefore so satisfies his mind in that point, that he rejects not him that shall oppose it, but if he bring any thing new and unheard of, is ready to give ear to him, and if his proofs merit it, assent also. The third and last degree of assent is his, who will not endure any opponent, 
The third, from Demonstration.  but is certain that nothing can solidly be alleged to the contrary.  
Now I ask of my adversary, whether the first degree be of that quality, that if the Church be supposed upon any occasion to suspect one part of the contradiction to be true, this suspicion must prejudicate the opposite? I cannot think any one who is so much as fit to pretend to Divinity, can be so foolish as to deny that hitherto it is lawful to opine the contrary. For as yet there is properly no assent, 
The first, rather obliges the Church to a farther Inquiry.  and the Church by the very position of the case, resolves on a Meliùs inquirendum. Nay he that should forbid an opposition, would bind the Church to a most evident danger of erring, and that even in her own judgement, by which she is carried to a further enquiry. This being settled, we may observe, the second degree is so compared to the first, that as the first exacts, so the second admits of an inquisition. The same inconveniencies therefore 
The second still admits it.  recur again, though their danger be less manifest and more remote. It is then an injury also offered to the Church, to prohibit investigation in this second degree, or to allege the said opination of the Church, to the prejudice of the opposite Doctrine, since, by her very opining, she confesses a readiness to thank those who shall take the pains to clear the truth. For she ought not to be thought opiniastre, but a Lover of truth, wherever it be found.  
The third degree cannot otherwise 
The third is not pretended to in the Case.  be attained to but by infallible authority, or evident Demonstration; for a professor of reason▪ cannot resist the force of either of these. If then our adversary shall be pleased the declare, which of these degrees he honours with the church's opinion, it will hence soon appear what answer he ought to receive.  
As for the name of the Church, that is, of the Church supposing or opining any thing, I thus distinguish; that the Church may either be said to opine, because she hath established something by a public and solemn decree, or by private suffrages: If by private 
An opinion may be held by all the men of the Church, and yet not by the Church.  suffrage, than she did it either as a Church, or as so many men. As when all her members acknowledge Columbus for the discoverer of the West-Indies, they do it not as parts of the Church, or as faithful, (for Turks and Idolaters do the same) but merely as so many persons.  
Let the arguer, amongst these three significations of the Church thinking or opining, choose which he conceives most to his advantage. If the first, let him produce the decree; which if he could do, we should not hear so much of the Church's opinion. If the third, he exposes himself to derision; for how doth it concern faith, what the Church's sentiments are in matters of History or Philosophy? The second, as it were only useful to his intent, so is it absolutely false, the Church being a congregation of faithful, that is, of believers, that is, of such as have accepted the Doctrine of Christ, and to this day conserved it. But clearly this opinion began about Gregory the Great's time, was unknown and unthought of in the days of S. Augustine, of little credit before the Schools, not yet proposed to, or if it were, 
That is by them as believers, that is grounded upon and preserving inviolate Tradition.  rejected by, the Oriental Church. So that by what other means soever it may have speciously insinuated itself into the men composing the Church, it can challenge no sway over them as they are a Church, that is, as believers, that is, as grounded upon a perpetual Tradition.  
Hence we see how vainly they laboured in forming the proposed argument: For be it granted the people's opinion is the same with their pastors, and the pastors the same that the schoolmen's, and consequently the opinion of the men of the Church the same that the School-mens; it follows not, that it is in the Church otherwise then in the School men. So that if it be but opinion in the schoolmen, and such as may be changed, it's being dispersed through the Church will not add to its certainty, but by consent of the whole Church it will be always subject to change, and, if sufficient reason be brought, justly to be changed. It is then so far from following, that an opinion, by being the opinion of the whole Church, cannot be changed, that on the contrary, very unexpectedly, it appears to be mutable, and that in fit circumstances it ought to be changed.  
It is easy to gather from 
That the Vulgar opinion neither is nor ever was taught as a p●int of faith.  hence what answer is to be afforded them who go about to accuse the Church of circumventing us, affirming they were taught as a point of faith, tha● souls might be delivered out of Purgatory before the day of Doom, both by other prayers, and especially by those which have Indulgences annexed to them. Of whom I demand; were they taught that this was the persuasion of all the Pastors of the Church? If they affirm it, I cannot deny but they themselves were circumvented. But let them not accuse me, from whom they have received no such Doctrine. I who have detected the Legierdemain, (if any such there be,) why must I suffer what they deserve who put the sl●r upon them? Let them complain of their own Doctors, let them call upon them to prove what they have taught; which if they cannot do, let them find them guilty, and accordingly punish them, but withal give me thanks for the discovery of the cheat. But if, in truth, they have been taught no otherwise than that it is a pious credulity, 
But as a pious credulity.  that souls are, before the day of judgement, delivered (which, if they take the pains well to examine them, they shall find to be the meaning of their Doctors) who hath circumvented them, but their own selves through sloth and negligence? consequently, let them lay the guilt at their own doors.  
What I have in this whole disputation 
The Conclusion.  performed, let them, in God's name, judge whom he hath been pleased to make fit Arbitrators in Theological Controversies. What I have aimed at was this, That antiquity did believe, that men in the next world, whether their souls are beatified or no, were not admitted locally to Heaven till the day of the final conflagration. That then every one's works were to be examined; that the work● of the imperfect, whose foundation was on Christ, were to burn, and by that means their sins, not without detriment, to be remitted. That the opinion which holds pure pains, and those in the interval betwixt Death and judgement, either of their own nature, or by prayers determinable, is new in the Church, built upon slight grounds, & such as are uncapable in things Theological to beget faith; obnoxious to many and weighty objections; and finally by it's Patrons weakly defended. These endeavours I have crowded into this small Volume, for the benefit and conveniencies of such as take delight in Dissertations of this nature.   
FINIS.  

ERRATA.  
Page 12. l. penult. r. inviolable. p. 28. l. penult. r. privation●… p. 30 l. 9 r. Judgements, and for, it. r. is. ibid l. 11. r. saying 〈…〉 32. l. 26 r. soul. p. 36. l. 5 r. advantages. p. 38. l. 5. r. denunciati●… p. 39 l. 3. r. regions. p. 40. l. 11. r. eternal puni. p. 41. l. 16. for, 〈◊〉 r. that. p. 43. l. 10. for, are r. have p. 46. l. 1. r. lections. p. 〈…〉 l. 2. r whole ibid l. 15. for, the r. is. ib. l. 23. r. correct. p. 54. 〈…〉 20. r. us. p. 75. l. 17. r. decision. p. 83. l. 6. r. they. ib. 7. r. employ. 20. r. others. 23. r. connected. 27. r. secures. p. 87. l. 12. r. fetched. p. 103. l. 7. r. adapt. p. 106. l. 18. r. sensible. p. 121. l. 3. r. peopl●● p. 122. l. 8. r. purging. ib. 12. r. their. p. 123. l. 6. r. on. p. 126. l. 1●▪ r. ordered. p. 128. l. 5. for, of r. and. p. 130. l. 23. r. adapt. p. 1●●▪ l 9 r. model of. p. 137. l. 10. r. subintromission. p. 153. l. 19 ●▪ concresion. p. 156. l. 16. r. informant. p. 157. l. 16. r. stock. p. 1●1. l. ult. r. whole delay. 166. l. 2. apparitions. 168. l. 21. r. witness●●▪ p. 171. l. 19 r. supposed. p. 172. l. 2. r. detect. ●b. 16. r. perfectly▪ p. 174. l. ult▪ r. many. 175. l. 26. r. sprightly. p. 178. i. 16. r. sight▪ p. 179. l. ult. r. foster. p. 182. l. 26. r. were. p. 184. l. 26. r. decrees. p. 186. l. 18. r. Directories. ib. 25. exibilated. p. 187. l. 5. r. have. p. 188. i'th' title r. came. ib. l. 9 r. lest of. p. 189. l. 19 r. are urged innumerable. p. 190 l. 14. r. Cells. p. 123. l. ult. r. distracted. p. 212. l. 3. r. distribution. p. 238. l. 9 r. commutative.