NOTES ON Mr. F. D's RESULT Of a Dialogue concerning the MIDDLE STATE OF SOULS: In a LETTER from Thomas White Gent.  
PARIS MCDLX.   

To his much esteemed Friend Mr. F. D.  
Ever honoured Sir,  
FOR such both your Prudence and Learning have made you to me, and specially your rich system, the citing whereof in this your Result, gave me full notice of your Person, though many good passages in your Book did partly interpret to me the fairly prognosticating Ciphers of your Name in the Frontispiece. I am glad to encounter an adversary who knows what Divinity is, and can in due proportion mingle together subtlety with civility. Therefore I also intend to my power, to join the satisfaction I am able to offer you with the respect your grave carriage of the controversy deserves, being really persuaded it was no interest nor passion moved you to write, nor vain glory to put it in print, but the entreaty of such who may command, as you ingeniously express yourself; and a cordial persuasion of the truth of your Tenet.  
To begin then with your Preface, give me leave to advertise you of a mistake (as I think) in the word Aristophanes, which I will courteously hope, you conceive imports no more than a Divulger of high and mysterious truths among people uncapable of such doctrines, for so your following discourse intimates. But because Aristophanes did it with Flouts and Jeers (for which the sect of Poets whose writings were called Comaedia prisca was silenced) some Readers may possibly interpret you to cast a blemish on a Person, whose true worth and virtue as much secures him from deserving it, as your discreet and friendly nature can restrain you from meaning it.  
Afterward you add that the Gentleman who rendered that Treatise into English, was instrumental of great scandal. You are not ignorant that scandals must come; nor am I, that woe be to him by whom they come. But both you and I are bound to understand those words with this necessary caution, by whose fault, no● by whose act they come. Else even our Blessed Saviour himself was an occasion of scandal; but such, as woe be unto them who are scandalised in Him. The Quality therefore of the cause, not the effect is chiefly to be examined ere we charge on any so foul an imputation. Turn then your impartial eyes on the two sides of the Controversy, and see the great and many inconveniences visible and sensible that grow upon the Church, in case the Affirmative which you sustain, be false.  
You are not one, I'm sure, who think Priests cannot be too many, but wisely judge their number well contrived, when the ends they are ordained for are fully complied with: so that the Church be neither overcharged by the multitude, nor unprovided by the paucity of her spiritual governors. Consider the dignity of the Office, and the difficulty of observing its Obligations, and you will soon discover 'tis too high and perfect a Calling for a multitude. Consider the mischief if the unworthy Priests (of which some few I confess must still be tolerated while we live in this World of flesh and blood) bear any notable proportion to the number of the worthy ones, how the sacredst Profession on Earth is undervalued, their Sermons inefficacious, their Sacraments neglected, and the whole life and vigour of Christianity extenuated and endangered. Consider what a vast crowd of young Scholars thrust themselves into these holy Orders by occasion of getting Souls suddenly out of Purgatory; to which they often think themselves sufficiently qualified with a very mean degree, God knows, of virtue or Learning.  
Consider how apt this opinion is to breed in all the World a neglect of venial sins when they shall be taught that a Mass or two, or a few prayers put a period to all their pains they can fear in Purgatory. And, as for mortal sins, even they also will find too much encouragement from so slack a Discipline. 'tis but being afraid of Hell; and upon that, receiving Absolution; and then, procuring some devotions (especially if in a proper place) and the Soul that has lived its whole life in folly and worse, is instantly taken up into all the glories of Paradise. What can more dangerously weaken if not quite abolish that best and only immediate disposition of our Souls for Heaven, the hearty love of God above all things? what can be possibly more prejudicial to them that are in the Church, or more scandalous to them that are out of it?  
Consider farther, how widows and poor folks defraud their children and Parents of such helps as else they could afford them, did not the eager hope of a hasty release from those dreadful pains, divert their charities another way. And truly in my conceit, with a great deal of reason, if your opinion be the right: for who to deliver himself from the rack, would not think it fit, his friends, how near soever, should suffer a little hunger? or who, that believes your tenet, is not bound, in true and wise charity to purchase at any rate, even with the disinheriting his posterity, so great a happiness to his own Soul as the enjoyment of Heaven within a day or week after his departure from hence? nay, more, what heir is not obliged in duty to give away the vain riches of this transitory world to gain so speedy an Eternity for his Father, whose overloving him perhaps made him need it?  
Add to this, the unedifying imputation of Avarice and Fraud upon such as gain by these offices (and I pray God it be without just cause;) while they promise far more than they know they can perform. The words they expose to the people on the faces of their Churches and Altars speak roundly, like fair chapmen, let a Mass be said and the Soul of your friend Shall be delivered; or, to that effect: and who can be uncharitable enough, or such a silly Merchant as not to disburse a little to procure so great a benefit at so cheap a rate? but when you come to examine the performance on their side, it amounts to no more than this short payment; They have offered up their prayers for you, and must leave the success to God's mercy, and this is well, and the truth; but why then did you tell them, when you took their money, that their friend should be delivered, in what Court would so fraudulent a Plea be allowed? If you will expressly undertake, for my ten or twenty pounds which I really give you to pay my debts and free me out of prison; and when I look for Effects as real as my money, you put me off with this cold comfort, that you have entreated for me, but must leave the decision of the cause to the sentence of the Judg. May I not expect you should show me at least some assurance from the judge himself, that he will effectually release me? & that within the time you made me believe, when I parted with my money? and may I not, if you fail in that, charge you with deceiving me? Is not this case a little too near that unhappy scandal on which Luther took so fast hold that he pulled down the Churches of whole Provinces by it? What shall I say of the averting men from cultivating the inward affections of their hearts, in which the Kingdom of God resides, to the too much relying on works done by others? what of the laying even to God's own charge as it were a kind of Simony, such practices being easily interpretable to a bad sense as if he dispensed his spiritual goods with a respect to the quantity of what is given, and that the poor widow's mite cannot have so great an effect as a dives' talon. And though much of what I now am discoursing be chiefly appliable to privileged Altars and Scapulars, and such like abused devotions, yet is it in a degree true of those who to invite Customers boldly assure them if they shall procure so many Masses, of a very delivery; quick, though not determinately known. But suppose the Affirmative of intermedial Release be in itself true; yet how does it appear to us? the effects concern not any living person, but are altogether invisible and out of our reach; which till they are sufficiently evidenced to us, must needs be uncertain to us, and so continually disputable, if not improbable, whose settlement must depend on the determination of this Question, before which final decision 'tis not improper that Scholars try their utmost endeavours, to examine and prepare both sides for discovery of the truth. Nor is it in the least my intention to charge the Church with any of these irregularities; but only to refute the errors, and reprove the abuses of particular persons; wherein I have the sure warrant of the Council of Trent, which while it forbids such incertain doctrines, commands to oppose them that preach'em.  
These and many other such observations (of which no subject, that I know, more plentiful) well considered; permit the Ingenious Gentleman to think the rescuing Ladies devotions from slight and hazardous practices to solid and assured pieties, judiciously preferable to the small and short dissensions that possibly may spring out of the more general divulging such discourses: Nor did he this, till the loud and many clamours of some busy heads against the Opinion, while it lay close wrapped up in its native dark Latin, rendered the Translation, in his judgement, absolutely necessary. For the Latin Book I am to answer; for the English, they who talk so much in English against it, and, were the People such as they should be, those kind of Controversies might easily be managed without any breach of charity at all, or the least diminution of their mutual correspondence; it being our duty as in matters of Faith to be zealous and exactly uniform, so in other debates to be temperate and prudently condescending. Let every one but seriously read the 13 Page of your Result, and I doubt not they will proceed in this point as calmly and warily as you do. There you tell us, that some things have been delivered to posterity in the Church which could never obtain more authority than Opinion, as is made evident in your System, even in grave Subjects: but how to distinguish such from doctrines of a higher nature, in case Holy Church did not convey clearly their qualification with them as in some cases evidently It did, and in some cases It did not, as there you give Instances; then the only way is to return to General Councils, that they according to their Office may Conquisitione facta, after the Example of the Apostles, juridically appoint to each their Seats, where all must acquiesce. Thus you; and excellently well: and to this trial I freely submit all my Opinions, how evident soever they may appear to myself. You cite not the particular place, and I happened to light on one which treated such businesses, and finding it very proper I contented myself, and 'tis System c. 32. p. 335. &c. where, (as indeed all over that Book, it being a Magazine of curious Questions and Antiquities) I met with some instances, which as they satisfied me, will I hope, if diligently perused, content my Reader too, there he should see collected together, not only universal Catholic persuasions, but some Conciliary Definitions unallowed by Divines to be Points of Faith. But you say, this Point is not among 'em, and I say as tender Points as this, are among 'em; What think you of the Assumption of our Lady? What of the Spirituality of Angels? this, embraced by all Scholars; that, by all People. Besides, do you not there yourself acknowledge that very many Orthodox Divines hold, though all the Fathers admit this or that Point, it does not follow, we should presently pronounce it of faith; and this, even when the matter is of weight and consequence. To conclude this introduction, I shall take leave to transcribe out of the same Place only these few sayings, recommending them to the serious Consideration of the passionate and biased Reader. The first shall be that of Bellarmin; In Consiliis maxima pars Actorum ad Fidem non pertinet, sed tantum ipsa nuda Decreta, & ea non omnia, sed tantum quae proponuntur tanquam de fide. Another, of Innocent the third, Judicium Ecclesiae nonnunquam opinionem sequitur quam & fallere saepe continget & falli. The third, of Saint Aug. Sentiat quisque quod libet tantum contra Apostolicam manifestissimam Fidem non sentiat. And now Sir, methinks the Question betwixt you and me is reduced to so narrow a compass, that we may see it all with one prospect, and hope by that means to see it well; whereas, they that spread their view wildly at too much at once, have many things before their eyes, but nothing in their sight.  

Notes on the first Chapter.  
YOur first Chapter did somewhat surprise me, for being used to expect in your writings, Authorities express and driven home, I was amazed to find the main question of your work, passed slightly over with a general assertion that the Fathers say what you intend, without directly producing Testimonies of sufficient either weight or number to evince your position. The Council of Florence I have taken notice of sufficiently in my answer to the Vindicator, which I shall endeavour to get presented to you. The Result of my discourse there in short, is that I acknowledge all the Council and Pope assert, and show they do not affirm what you pretend.  
Your only Testimony out of Saint John Damascen perplexed me, for I know your goodness so great, that you would not wittingly impose upon your Auditory, and esteemed your Criticism in Fathers so exact, that you would not permit such a notable mistake to gain credit upon you: How then happens it that you so confidently cite an Oration of Saint John Damascen, which Catholics either doubt not to be his, or make a shameful excuse for writing it, saying he was too credulous to fabulous narrations? In it are recorded the famous tales of Trajan and Falconilla, saved from Hell by the prayers of Saint Gregory and Saint Thecla. There is the monstrous story which you are pleased to recount to your Readers of an Heathens scull that told a good Eremite they received some comfort when they were prayed for. Which story is taken either out of Palladius his Historia Lausiaca, or else Evagrius his Vitae Patrum, of which Saint Hierom testifies only the first life to be true, and even in it, is that notorious Romance of Macarius Romanus. And of the former, the same Saint Hierom testifies he was an Origenist: wherefore the author of this Oration attributed to St. John Damascen is justly feared to have himself also been one, seeing his fine stories aim at the comfort of the damned. Besides, our critics tell us this story is imposed on the great Saint Macarius, being originally written of another of the same name, and the orator adding that the answer was from God, whereas the Original attributes it to the scull of a dead heathen Priest, and so far likelier came from the Devil.  
All the rest you say in this Chapter is just the doctrine of your Epistolar Antagonist as far as you let us understand his mind and mine too; to wit, that to deny prayers profit the dead cometh from the Devil. The general resistance you plead against this doctrine of Souls continuance in Purgatory, finds a parallel in all popular persuasions how weakly grounded soever, which none but discreet persons can endure to hear opposed; And for the answer I entreat your pardon, if I remit you to my late Reply to the Vindicator. For the rest you seem to press us that we must take your sense of the Fathers and Councils, telling us it is the only ingenious one, and others are but extorted meanings. Truly I believe you speak what you think, but I desire you, think what you speak, that is, examine it well, for I believe your thinking is bred ex consuetudine videndi; your education hath been amongst them who daily practised it; you hear the Bells ever ringing to such devotions; you see the custom spread over all the Western Church, and do not lift up your eyes to the beginning of it, and therefore you think it was ever so, and that it is the sense of those great Authorities.  
But I cannot omit a byword of yours, that it is easy to elude the Fathers by the voluntary glosses of blasted Authors. Is this spoken like a Controvertist? like a victorious and crowned Champion over heretics, and that by weapons out of the Fathers, as you are esteemed, and worthily too? When you bring Fathers against any of them, do you profess they may be easily answered by blasted Authors? Whence then comes it, that in this controversy you fly to an evasion so unprofitable to yourself, injurious to the Fathers, and advantageous to the common Enemy? but that you esteem the Fathers you bring come not home to the point, and that they must be inched out by a pious affection; whereof, to tell you my mind, I believe all speciousness of piety, which prevents the understanding from being indifferent to judge of the truth, is in very deed a piece of impiety and temerity. And in our present controversy, if the words of the Fathers by which they attribute purging of souls to the fire of judgement be not beyond contest, I will yield the whole cause: (Some I have cited in my Treatise, and more I can cite, if necessity requires,) but if they be, why is it not lawful for me to allege them, though heretics make use of them for an evil end? charge either the Fathers for writing so, or the heretics for abusing them; however I I am free.   

Notes on the second and third Chapters.  
THese 2 Chapters go without Proofs, being as it were but inferences from the pretended Ones of the First; and consequently their fate depends on the fortune of their Leaders, which I hope I have already sufficiently disabled. Yet give me leave here to add one Caution that may accompany you in your journey to ask all the Catholic world, whether they believe a Release of Souls out of Purgatory ordinarily obtainable before the day of judgement as an Article of their faith; or only assent to it as a current truth, which they never doubted, nor ever examined. Should you proceed thus warily, I believe your number would strangely diminish: how many think you would fall off, as not conceiving themselves able to examine so hard a Question? how many of the learned would confess, the more they impartially consider it, the more they discover reasons not to be too confident of its being a point of Faith: especially, if they have the fortune to compare it with other common persuasions, which themselves acknowledge Universal and ancient, yet not of Faith, as that of material fire now in Hell and Purgatory, &c. how few than will the number of your Voters be? set but aside all those who think there's literal fire there, (which you are bound to do, because they believe it cerraintly, yet is it not of Faith) and presently your multitude in Spain, Italy, Turkey, and Soria▪ whither you went for witnesses, will shrink into a slender and inconsiderable number.  
Whereas you add, we never read in Scriptures, Fathers, or Councils, that all those that go to Purgatory must necessarily be detained there without any relief till the day of judgement. I answer, first, 'tis but a negative Argument. Secondly, It plainly agrees with my Opinion, who hold them relieved there as well as you, though I explicate my Tenet another way. Which here I intend in brief to show you.  
Wherein, that we may proceed more safely, let us first see how far we agree, and where we begin to differ. We agree that there is a Purgatory; and that souls there detained, are helped or relieved by the prayers of the faithful. We begin to differ, in explicating what we conceive by relief; and we wholly disagree in the time of ordinary deliverableness.  
Your conception of Relief, I imagine, is, that when prayers are said for the departed, their souls are really changed from the state of pains they were in before, to one of a milder affliction; where they must expect till some new cause raise them a step higher; and so by degrees, having past over all those steps, are at last admitted into heaven; yourself will agree these words are metaphorical, and translated from our manner of speaking; and I gather, and conceive the sense too, of these words, is translated from our thinking; and indeed, if we mind ourselves well, we shall still find our words of the same piece with our notions: now we, being conversant only with our bodies, frame all our notions after their measure, and speak, and think too, generally, of spirits, and even of God himself, as of things we daily commerce with. Do we not still fancy such motions, changes, and other operations among Angels as we see here among ourselves? Does not the very Scripture in condescendence to us, use the same method? In most of which cases, both you and I are equally engaged to seek out a wiser meaning, than appears in the naked expressions; this task is common to all Divines to endeavour the verifying these phrases (so grossly absurd in their bare letter) by an explication that may strictly and rigorously maintain them to be true.  
The Spirits I shall treat of to this purpose, are God, the blessed in heaven, and the souls in Purgatory. And to begin with God, the beginning of all things, what do we conceit of him, when we read of his being angry, and pleased; his resolving to punish, and afterwards repenting; his having eyes and hands; his going from place to place; his abiding from generation to generation; his seeing successively, and decreeing conditionally, and a thousand other instances; all this Divines must, and do find ways to verify of One simple and absolute unchangeable Essence, whose being and knowing, and willing, is altogether, without the least shadow of succession for ever. All this Divines will say, was perfect in God from the first instant, as I may call it, of his Being; that is, from eternity; and yet our condition obliges us to speak, and even think of all this, in a way infinitely below the severe truth, though more or less approaching to it, according to the pitch of our capacities.  
For Angels, as we read many of the like passages concerning them▪ and their actions; so the like explications (with observance of a due proportion betwixt the Creator and the creature) be applied to them. The Angels, we know, rejoice at the conversion of a sinner; and sure it were no blameable practice to allow for that joy some little share in our intention; and perhaps to begin a particular devotion, directed to the increase of joy in the Saints and Angels, would be as laudable an invention as some that are highly commended. Every day new sinners are converted; every day new joy is among the Angels for those conversions. How must we fairly reconcile the difficulties? the Scriptures say they receive joy, and Divinity says their nature is fixed: In our solemnest oblations we pray it may profit the Saints to glory: and our Doctors hold they are in termino, and no longer in the Way. Can a change consist with fixture? and a going on, with being at the end? in rigor we see it is impossible, and therefore must cast about to find out the Riddle, which is not so hard as we imagine, if we take the right course to seek. First, let us sever the parties: Scriptures and Liturgies are on one side, Divines on the other. Were the question of the truth of the words, without precisely determining the particular sense, I should clearly follow the former: but if it be only of the Propriety of their signification, and what is severely verifiable of them, I make no scruple to adhere to the later; and this, without the least diminution to the other. The authority of those, I confess, is more sacred and venerable: but the reasonings of these, I cannot deny, are more exact and artificial; each fittest for its peculiar office. Those undertake the instruction of the world, and perform it according to the capacity of the persons they deal with; these only intend their notions for the Learned, and their highest praise is, to illustrate and fortify and improve true Religion by true Reason.  
But, to come nearer our particular question; when we pray to Saints or Angels, do we not hope we move them then to go make their addresses to God for us, which they were not doing before? do we not expect that at the time of our prayers to them, they should entertain a new affection of charity to us; and even ground our devotion on this expectance? and wisely too, till our understandings be elevated to more perfect apprehensions; yet in a strict examine, all these our conceits are very unsuitable to what really passes among these pure spirits.  
Nor are we disappointed in the least of the fruit of our prayers, though we never so much apprehend the manner either of their hearing us, or interceding for us: which assurance ought to suffice the unlearned; whose sincere devotion will infallibly save them without these subtleties: the more speculative heads will find, if they search for it, other satisfaction.  
To these inquiries, perhaps this one consideration may give some assurance; it is clear, in God, (as we said above) all is eternal, and whatever we read or imagine as done successively in Him, must be entirely verified of his first instant, were there any such beginning of existence in his perfect eternity. Why may not the same be affirmed proportionally of Angels, whose being, though neither independent, nor infinite, yet is purely spiritual, and their duration altogether? and consequently the joy, our good works give them, was really in them at their beginning; with relation indeed, and dependence on our conversions, which were to happen afterwards in succession of time, but lodged in their breasts altogether at first, by the large sore knowledge wherewith their bounteous God endued them: else what a strange perpetual motion would there be in heaven, if every good or bad work of all the men on earth, should beget a new affection of joy or grief in all the Angels of heaven, (I suppose our sins displease them, as they do God; and contristate them, as they do the holy Ghost) nor shall I so far distrust my Reader as to doubt his admittance of the same conclusions for Saints as well as Angels; since they both agree in the common notion of Spirits.  
To apply this now to our present Case; As our conversions procure joy to the Angels, without making any new change in them; why may not our prayers procure relief to the souls in Purgatory without making any new change in them? As all that we express in terms of succession when we speak of Angels, is in Theology sufficiently verified, by referring it to the first instant of their fixed being; why may not also the Relief we impetrate in succession of time for souls departed, be sufficiently verified by referring it to the first instant of their fixed being or separation?  
I confess I know not how to find an unevenness in the two sides, they are so exactly parallel: Addition of joy in one; diminution of pains in the other: new honour to the one; new relief to the other; and both from the same act, the same prayer, the same oblation. If the whole body of Catholics expect to alter the sorrows of the souls departed, do they not also expect to advance the honour of the Saints and Angels, nay, even of God himself? If that be universally practised, and with such hope, is not this so too? If the common people feel their imaginations check at our interpretation of that; would they not be as much startled, did they strongly reflect on't, at the schoolmen's explication of this? both contain the same difficulty; and therefore both require the same method to answer: and, as whatever belongs to man in the quality of a living creature, belongs to a horse or lion by the same title: so every attribute incident to Angels purely as they are spirits, may justly be claimed by any to whom that notion of spirit is truly appliable.  
Now, souls departed have, in my opinion, so large a knowledge given them immediately upon their first separation, that they assuredly know all the good that they have done for them, both by occasion of what themselves procured, and by the voluntary charity of others; as also what shall be their portion at the day of judgement, compounded of all these concurrent causes; and so are now, from the first moment of their unclothing, in that degree of hope and joy which those foresights produce: which yet ought not in the least to cool our devotions towards them, since they never should foreknow that our prayers obtain for them those advantages, if indeed we did not really pray for them.  
Thus far I am drawn in defence of truth and myself, both beyond my intention, and against my inclination: but still it sometimes happens, that what is not enough for some, is too much for others.  
To conclude then, As prayers for the dead with hope of procuring them relief; is a traditionary doctrine and practice, so prayers to Saints and Angels (and even to God himself) with persuasion of advancing their glory. is a traditionary doctrine and practice: but whether any real intrinsic change among those spirits be wrought successively, and occasionally after our sublunary fashion, is merely a Theological inquiry, and no traditionary either doctrine or practice.  
In the third Chapter, you touch upon the Reasons of praying for the dead in particular; but because you handle it afterwards on set purpose; I may lawfully defer the answer till I meet with it again; in the mean time, I freely subscribe to every word of the testimony you bring from Saint Austin.   

Notes on the fourth Chapter.  
Here you pretend to deliver the sense of the Liturgies, both of the Greek and Latin Church. My first note is that where Saint James prays God to cause the souls to rest with the Saints; You seek to persuade the Reader, that we explicate it to pray, that they may not rest till (nay more till after) the day of judgement: which I confess to be a jeer, fit enough perhaps for the merry trifling Vindicator, but you much undervalue yourself to use scoffing in stead of Reason. You tell us too, the Fathers pray constantly for a present help, but when you cite words, nothing appears, but the common effect in which both sides agree.  
One place you have out of Saint Ambrose which hath some show, I loved him, saith Saint Ambrose, and therefore I will accompany him to the kingdom of heaven, nor will I forsake him, till by tears and prayers I bring him whither his own deserts call him. These words you interpret to signify material time, that he will pray so long till he hath brought him out of Purgatory into Heaven. I on the other side conceive it only an expression of the fervency of the prayer which he would make for him. Let us weigh whether explication be the more rational. To undertake what I say, was in Saint Ambrose's power, being no more than to promise the assistance which was in the church's power. The other sense which you make, requires that Saint Ambrose should expect a revelation to know when his soul went to heaven, else he must never give over praying for him; that he should enter into the counsels of God, and understand both what punishment was due to Theodosius, and what quantity of prayer was enough to release him. Add to this the doctrine of both Fathers and Schoolmen, that there is no promise of God that a good man's prayers shall be heard for others; and therefore, as to us, 'tis wholly incertain. Wherein then are the prayers of those who think with me less fruitful to their departed friends, than theirs, who call to God for a determinate or immediate delivery? If the release be granted when it suits with the justice and mercy of God, as doubtless it is, than both their prayers are equal, and this only difference is between them, as to the time, one prays with more importunity, the other with more submission; but, as to the desire of benefiting, both with the same affection.  
Next you urge Saint Chrysostom, saying, the dead receive some comfort if offerings be made for them; and conclude from that word some, as if it could not signify heaven. But as you prettily press quiddam, so will I beg leave to press the future Participle, accessurum; which quite spoils your pretence of present change upon our prayers; and being indeterminately future, may signify indifferently, the day of judgement, and that solatium quiddam (as you put it) let it mean what it will, is given them. Now the word some, being abstractive, suits very well with the intention of him who would evince, that prayers did assuredly benefit the dead; as is the method of all wary men, to use the commonest and surest terms, without engaging into particular degrees, unless those degrees were the very question. And do you think there are not degrees too of rewards in heaven? is there not the reward of a Prophet? and that of a Disciple? that which is proportioned to the giving a cup of cold water, and all this in the essential part of beatitude; every act of charity increasing it to its worth and degree? Besides, will you deny accidental rewards in heaven?  
Then you insist upon revelations of Saint Gregory and Venerable Bede, and make an advantage of their not being contradicted, which consequence I do not understand. For how many things are there written in divers Authors, both ancient and modern, neither believed▪ nor contradicted? or if contradicted, both themselves and contradictions generally neglected? you add, that both Greeks and Latins positively approved to them. True it is, Gregory the third, according to Photius (who could not well be ignorant of it, being so learned a person, especially in Books and Authors) was the Writer of those Dialogues; a Syrian born, and for his piety, exalted to the popedom; and Zacharias, by birth a Grecian, and for his goodness promoted also to the same dignity thought them fit to be communicated to Greece, but with what success I cannot give you any account. Yet I dare say, no grave Divine now living, will undertake to justify those Revelations, as having ever some smack that agrees not with Catholic doctrine. Venerable Bede's Revelations likewise have certain twangs of strangeness in them, which show that they cannot bear the touch of a theological examination; and so, in a fair word, I answer you the Revelations both of the one and the other, are generally contradicted by Divines, and you can make no argument from them; but rather I may infer the effect of such an origin is to be suspected, and dangerous.  
You say the Sequence of the Mass for the dead, inculcates the horror of doomsday, to move good people to help the souls out of Purgatory before it come: As if you conceived that day would be worse to them, were they not helped before; which Position, I confess, I understand not: Since it is the general doctrine that the same doom is given in the particular judgement, and there is nothing then to be decided but Eternity. You bid me consider, that these three alone, Saint Gregory, Zacharias, and Saint Chrysostom, carry the Greek and Latin Churches on their backs; but give me leave to say, that the Fathers and Authorities I have cited (of which you take no notice) are so far more numerous and strong than they, that (to use your own phrase) they carry both their Churches and them and all on their backs.  
You come at last to the Council of Chalcedon, and Ischyrions' action against Dioscorus, for mispending a Lady's moneys, bestowed at her death, for the good of her soul, so the text hath it, if I remember right, and not for the souls of the deceased, as you write it; though if it were so written, it were conformable to the use of the Church, and true Doctrine, and so I must put this also, amongst your other proofs, which want a little of that pious affection to stretch them home to the purpose: For your argument hence, seems to stand thus; alms given for the dead are to be distributed faithfully; therefore souls are delivered before the day of Judgement.  
After this severe consequence of your own, you entertained the confidence to censure my explication of the offertory, for a sophism; because I think the punishment expressed there, signifies that of Hell, not Purgatory. But certainly, it is a spice of great weakness, to believe the contrary without a stronger proof than your bare word; since the expressions are so horrid, that greater or more significant can scarce be found, as, the jaws of a Lion, or Devil, the deep dungeon▪ that Tartarus (or the deepest sink of Hell) should not swallow them up. And in the Office of the dead, where no order dwells, but everlasting horror; and other such dreadful phrases. And the Greeks use to call it in their rituals, Gehennam, But why sedes refrigerii should speak your purgatory, I am not capable of the consequence. It may be said by Writers, that refreshment is given there, but sure none before you, ever called that suffering state, the seat of refreshment.   

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

Notes upon the sixth Chapter.  
IN the beginning of the sixth Chapter, I find little difference betwixt your doctrine and mine; For though you explicate Aristotle's Nunc otherwise then I should do, yet not being necessary to our purpose, it is not fit for me to take notice of it. Only I understand not how after you have very learnedly declared that the soul by its aeviternity hath the succession of the parts of pain all together, afterwards you put that a soul by twenty years' duration in pain hath suffered so long the hard consequents of that duration; For if the extension of time as far as concerns the intrinsical existence of the soul was all resumed in aeviternity, and aeviternity was all together by the very initiating of it; I cannot apprehend the running of time by it, can add any intrinsical consequent, which was not in it by the very making.  
You seem to add yet a greater Paradox, telling us notwithstanding the being of aeviternity all together, yet there is a priority of nature in it: which though I can conceive in causes and effects, as being different things, yet in a pure indivisible it passes my understanding; specially when the priority must be in succession, where, when one part is, the other is not, Neither doth Aristotle help you, in whose doctrine the decreeing of the will is a successive action, as depending on a corporal motion in the body. But this being the subtlety of a Scotist, I pray do not persuade yourself, that in our doctrine (which makes the duration of the acts of the soul, the very duration of the soul) a change of act can be connaturally admitted.  
You insinuate something of a metaphysical charity, and that our doctrine is suspected to account voluntarily assumed penance to be superfluous, if not superstitious. Sir, I desire you by the freedom you see in my writing, to speak meaning loud, not to mince any sinister conceits framed of my Tenets. Truth loves light; and in this particular point, I will openly declare you my sentiment: All austerities or extern actions which either conduce to the breeding of charity in ourselves and neighbours, or to the conserving and increasing it in those that have it, and to the extending of it by diffusion into divers subjects; all this, though there be no obligation for the actions in common (which is meant by their being voluntary) I esteem holy and sanctified. But if any one should think God takes pleasure that we should weaken or afflict our bodies, without intending profit to our souls, but merely because it pleases God, by and for itself, I am of opinion that he makes God a tyrant, and that his action is both superfluous and superstitious.  
After this point, I find no disagreement between us in any thing that concerns our question; some words, at the very ●nd, of the souls being exercised in a passive compliance, seem improper in our natural and vulgar apprehensions; but not false, and therefore not to be excepted against. Rather I congratulate among many other learned passages in this Chapter, your truly Catholic explication of the church's Tenet, that while they are in Purgatory, their sins remain, and that their sins once perfectly taken away, they are straight in Heaven; which is in my mind, the true sense of the Bull and Council. Though I cannot approve what you attribute to Scotus, that in Hell, venial sins after certain proportion of punishment, cease to be, which I think a misgrounded and exotic conceit.   

Notes on the seventh Chapter.  
IN your seventh Chapter, you give Aristotle's Reason for the unchangeableness of an abstracted soul, a very true and good one; but so dangerous, if not perfectly understood, that it hath precipitated divers peripatetics into the suspicion (if not the reality) of being Atheists, because a substance without an action, is accounted among Philosophers frustraneous, and superfluous and incongruous to nature; to avoid which inconvenience. I must note that this is one difference betwixt bodily & spiritual substances, that bodies are essentially instrumental, and therefore, where they are the directly and primarily intended parts of nature, they are frustraneous and idle, if they have not motion; but spiritual substances▪ especially separated souls, are certain beings, which are the end of bodies, and of all changes: which end succeeds to changes as standing still and quiet doth to local motion, as being at home to the journey by which we come thither, as health to curing, and manhood to growth▪ therefore souls are of themselves uncapable of motion, as being now grown above materiality, which is the possibility to change and motion: and so by the negation of materiality in Peripatetic Philosophy is demonstrated the unchangeableness of souls. And who ever supposes a change in spirits, must suppose them also to have a potentiality to somewhat, which is to be attained by motion, as indeed those Divines do, who put change in them.  
This is Aristotle's way throughout his Philosophy, which those peripatetics understood not, who drew the mortality of the soul out of the deficiency of fancy in her. I am glad in the mean while, to meet an Adversary so learned, as to penetrate the truth of Aristotle's and S. Thomas his Tenet, and so ingenuous as to attest those great Lights are on my side; by which it appears I am not left singular in my opinion; A favour the Vindicator would not aford me, but made it injurious in me to pretend or assert I built on Saint Thomas his Principles.  
It is now time to retire from this digression to the imputation you lay upon the Translator, out of the Council of Trent, where it forbids difficult points to be preached to the vulgar; which you extend to the putting them into vulgar Languages, not without some wrong to all such great wits, who are as capable of high speculations, as the Greeks and Romans were, and yet know no other Tongues than their mothers; and what Languages, I pray you, did those Greeks and Romans themselves use in their sublimest discourses, but their mother Language? In fine, the practice of other Nations testifies, that the Councils prohibition reacheth not so far, if you think it did, I wonder you pressed it not home; look in his Preface, and you shall see this performed by him, both to his and my justification; of which yet you vouchsafe not to take the least notice.  
But I would heartily entreat you to consider likewise those branches of the Decree which concerns your party, and is a great deal more moral and important to virtue. Incerta etiam vel quae specie falsi laborant evulgari ac tractari non permittant. Uncertain devotions ought not to be divulged, how much less violently pressed? Were there but one clear sentence of a Father for the opinion of souls being freed before Judgement; Were there any ground of it but unproveable revelations before the School? Did there any ancient School man censure the contrary, did it not pass in the Council of Florence for an indifferent opinion, and the contrary not to be exacted; Did not even at this day the gravest School men temper themselves from censure, whatsoever their private opinion is, I might think this command might less concern you. But if none of this I have said can be confuted, then lay your hand upon your heart, and think what is to be done. Remember in what language the scandalous delusive promises annexed to certain prayers are printed, and improvidently thrust, as your Epistle calls it, into Lady's hands; look but a little about you, and you may perhaps, find motives enough to proceed very temperately in applying the Council of Trent against that worthy Person that translated the Book, whose conclusion you dislike, but confute not the Premises.  
Your next opposition is about the day of judgement, which you say is not to be prayed for, and your grounds are the dreadfulness of it, and a place out of Saint Hilary. And as for the dreadfulness, I pray consider the words you cite: Cum vix justus sit securus, which if you please to mark, say the just shall be secure, that is, out of all fear. Consider also the triumph the book of Wisdom describes, Then that the just stand up in great assurance, &c. And you yourself know it is the sense of the whole Church, that even in Purgatory they are all secure of their salvation. As for Saint Hierom, he was yet in the state of uncertainty, and therefore no wonder if he had a deep apprehension of it, being perpetually in thought of his sins. But this was not the way which the spirit of God led Saint Martin, Saint Ambrose, and a late Saint, who professed, he rather desired to live in uncertainty of his salvation so to gain souls, then to die immediately with security of going to heaven; nor the mind of Saint Paul, who desired to be dissolved, and accounted death a gain; so you see, one Saints apprehensions are not to be the rule of the Church. We have our saviour's warrant & exhortation even to them who shall see the disorder of the heavens in way to judgement, to lift up their heads with joy, that their redemption is near. And Saint Paul calls the Saints, those who love Christ's coming. And our only Master teaches us to say, Thy Kingdom come.  
Nevertheless, I admit that the frightfulness of that great scene of the universal conflagration, may deter spirits, weak and not confident of their strength, from desiring to be alive themselves at that day, but not from desiring to come when God hath prepared elect Saints fit to encounter those terrors, and to pray that such men may quickly be raised, which is more regardful in their way, who think that even in aeviternity the addition of time is of eminent consequence. Briefly, in the day of judgement, there are two things considerable; One, the terrors and dangers; in relation to which part, none can conceive we ought to pray for it: the other, the great rewards and benefits to be then distributed to such as are found worthy; and in that respect nothing can possibly be more desirable to a Christian heart erected with hope, and inflamed with love of such infinite felicity▪  
Your ensuing part brings in the difficulty of the fruit of prayer for the dead, of which I may truly pronounce, it is both the easiest and hardest part of all this question: easiest to understand, hardest to persuade. And I hold myself bound to thank you, that you handle it like a grave and solid Divine, and not with whimsies (like my Vindicative Answerer) unworthy to be regarded, and able to turn a man's stomach that is bound to answer them; And yet fame threatens the world, with a second Tome of Christian doctrine, turned into jests by our Divine Tarleton.  
Now to come to the point of the profit of prayer for the dead; wherein there are three considerations to be managed; first, what is the fruit of this prayer; secondly, what is obtained by it: and lastly, what comes to the special share of him who is prayed for. As to the first, remember that prayer is the substance of Christian life, recommended to us to be constant and perpetual in all our actions; and let me add what you will not deny, in all our passions and defects: If we be so imperfect as to desire what is not fit for us, yet it pleases God, that even that, as long as it stands with ignorance that 'tis against his will, be demanded at his hands. For still there is a conversion of the soul to him, and many times so much the greater, by how much the passion in us to the thing we desire is the greater.  
Turn your eyes on a Gentlewoman that hath lost her husband, or dear child: see the passion she is in, the sorrow she suffers, so far as she conceives, her beloved loss to be in misery. Remember the words of Saint Paul, Sicut qui spem non habent, that is, inconsolably; put this Lady with all her passion into a conceit that her loss is recoverable, that by her prayers to God, she shall eternally enjoy the missed comfort in a plenitude of bliss and happiness. With what earnestness of affection, with what a flood of tears, with what impetuousness of heart doth she embrace God and his goodness, and the hopes of heaven for herself and hers: And will you after this tell me there is no fruit of prayer for the dead, and this dead in particular; since it hath so deep a stroke upon the living friends?  
But your eye lay only upon the fruit of impetration. I pray therefore (not to repeat again how punctually all our expectation of successive relief for those souls by our prayers is verified in their simultaneous enjoyment of it;) tell me, is it to be understood, that a cause can make a thing be sooner, and not make it be? It is plain then if impetration be a causing or making the eternal reward come sooner, it is the causing of the eternal reward itself to come.  
I can put this more home to You, who make no doubt but God so orders Beatitude to be the End of our works▪ that withal he orders our works to be the means of our Beatitude: so that it is perfectly true, if the works precede not, Beatitude shall not follow, notwithstanding the effectual will by which God hath ordained it. For you understand that in God's resolutions, there are no ifs and and's, as in ours; but that with one intuitive and strong act, he orders the means for the end, and the end by the means; and that all priority and posteriority is purely in the effects, none in his acts: And that God's free disposition of creatures consists not, in that he can now determine what he list; but in that he hath determined what he listed; or rather, that he is essentially the very determination of what he lists.  
But I exceed the bounds of what you think fit for a discourse to be vulgarly communicated, and therefore I return to my Theme, and conclude, if impetration of the day of judgement be such a cause of it, and of all that passes in it, true Divinity must confess, if this impetration be not, the day of judgement shall not be, nor any effect in it; how can any Divine who understands the exactness of God's working, deny, but, that the prayers for the dead by which its coming is procured, procure the very happiness itself of the party for whom he prays, and brings him to the crown to which his merits call him, as saint Ambrose speaks; so that you see the difficulty of this point consists in this, that those who are not Divines, do not understand the connexion of God's works, and how it is true, that if any one circumstance ordained by God to bring about such an effect should fail, the effect itself would have no success.  
By which the third consideration is made manifest, that the party for whom the prayer is made obtains by virtue of such prayer, not only his own glory and every accidental part of bliss allotted to him, but besides, obliges all the Saints of God, by being the occasion that by the prayer made for him, all their bliss respectively comes to atchieument▪ how hard so ever it be to stamp a full conceit of this into the heads of the common sort.  
Your second Argument presses that the coming of the day of judgement concerns the living as well, or more, than the dead; I will not question whether it doth or no, but I ask, what doth that prejudice the prayer, if it helps more than the maker of it thinks on? unless you imagine the good people pray like the little boy, whose prayer was, that God would bless his father and mother, and brothers and sisters, and nobody else. I have not learned any such restriction of charity, nor did he teach it, who bids us in his own Prayer call him Pater noster, not Pater mi; And told us he knew well (that is better than we) what we wanted, and that our desires should be after the Kingdom of God, and all other things would be added to us; as, to Salomon's Petition of Wisdom, besides the grant of it, were added those felicities he did not pray for.  
And methinks the reason is clear; for if our charity be the adequate cause of impetrating what we beg rationally of God, and God is not ignorant of what is fit for us, certainly, in respect of our charity, he will do it, so we be careful to increase that▪ whether we ask it him or no. Look the Pater noster thorough, and see if you find any other object of prayer than the good of the world in common, and the necessaries to our own perfection. Other prayers are framed in condescension to our weakness, who do not cleanse our souls from particular desires, and are good and commendable to the proportion of divers abilities. But if all could attain the perfection of desiring nothing but what charity commands, it would be better both for the living and the dead, even in the way of impetration, though particulars were never thought on. Nevertheless, since the world is the world, this Article of praying for the dead, is as necessary as our imperfection (which is not like to leave us) must needs make it, both in common and in particular, as we see it used.  
The rest of your Chapter is so speculative, that I could willingly have omitted it, but because you recommend it to be weighed, I cannot neglect it. I pray then take notice, that in Saint Thomas his way, the composition of spirits is not of materiality and spirituality, but of essence and existence, a composition whose separability or conjunction belongs purely to the activity of God, and is not a potentia▪ but a non repugnantia, and so can have no cause under God, whose essence is in the order of existence, or rather the order itself, no other substance reaching to that order. Out of which is inferred, that as to create and annihilate, that is▪ to change existence per se, belongs only to God; so likewise doth any change in a pure spirit which cannot have its source in a conjoined body. Those who put a kind of materiality which they do not explicate, whether they speak consequently or no, I cannot judge, but I know Tully makes sport with the Epicureans for giving their gods, quasi carnem, and quasi sanguinem, without being able to explicate them further. Besides, that a demonstration could be grounded upon propositions whose sense was not comprehended and explained, I never read in Aristotle.  
Saint Bonaventure (if his ordinary citers do him no wrong) makes duration to be truly divisible in infinitum, which, that it should agree to any thing, but either quantity, or by quantity, peripatetics or any other solid Logician, think to imply as much as being divisible, without divisibility. To his Reason and the two following inconveniences, saint Thomas' Scholars use the distinction of infinite in its particular kind; and infinite simply, or in all kinds; and say this later only belongs to God Almighty; and that if there were an infinite quantity, it would not therefore be God, nor that if an Angel know all species of numbers or figures, therefore he knows all things. Nay, that because the intellect is but a passive faculty of itself is there any infinite vigour required to knowledge, though infinite, so it be purely infused, as likewise that the vigour of infinite duration is in the Conserver, not in the thing conserved; so that I doubt much how valuable these arguments can be made, though you seem confident of them, even more than of the Demonstration of Euclid and Archimedes, whom you think apt to swallow suppositions without proof, which is mistaken, unless you speak of some self-known Axioms, which I think you also will admit.  
By the way I would entreat you to quote me some place of Scripture in which any Angel is recorded to have had a new internal act, for I know no such; though external actions they have manifold; and so I end this Chapter, noting, that whereas you cite my peripatetical Institutions for my opinion of Purgatory, that their testimony is not sufficient to declare my opinion in Divinity matters; the necessity of good method forcing me to abstain from theological resolution in a Philosophical Treatise. I could rather have wished you had taken more notice of the little book I wrote expressly concerning this very question; where the whole business is largely treated, the Objections raised, and Answers offered; many authorities produced, and many Reasons; to none of which, can I any way conceive, you have much applied your thoughts; and so if they perhaps deserve no answer, I am sure they have none.   

Notes on the eighth and ninth Chapters.  
IN your eighth Chapter you trouble yourself, whether it be possible for the souls in purgatory to see the humanity of Christ, which I am so far from disputing with you, that I willingly acknowledge it; and withal, that it raises a great height of charity in him, so that their state in Purgatory is far beyond the state of this life for charity, but yet that it takes not away the dregs of sin left in them at their death. Not that I think Saint Paul speaks of any such matter in the place you cite, but the meaning of those words▪ In corpore an extra corpus nescio, is, that he knew not whether his body was truly carried locally into the third heaven, or only that he had a sight of it, as Saint Stephen had of Christ in the place where he stood, and so the sense may be, whether the rapture was in his body, or only in his mind. For else we must conceive him dead in the mean while, which I know not that any affirm; and otherwise these be two species of the three which Divines make of Visions.  
To inquire then why the sins are not taken away in Purgatory; though I could answer you, that it is because they are in termino; and you Divines tell us they cannot merit nor demerit; Yet both I and you may ask how this is proved, and whither we go consequently. I could answer again, that it is for want of fancy, or of an intellectus agens. But you would reply, God supernaturally supplies that, and I should think God doth not nor cannot prudently change his settled order of causes merely by favour, and because he will, without the profit of the world. Therefore I must briefly say, it is the result of nature, and that the coexistence of compossible desires impeaches not the duration of these weak affections, since God acts not but by infusion of new existence, as in the resurrection. He that will assert miracles without proof, plays not the Divine, but puts all in confusion.  
For this Interrogation, Cannot God do it? carries such an awful aspect, that it seems to lay the imputation of Atheism on him who dares so much as doubt it; yet you, and all good Divines know, it signifies no more, then whether the effect implies contradiction; which may be disputed without horror, nay, peradventure not so much; for if God cannot do in particular, but what is best, he that can show a thing to be not best (how possible so ever it be) exempts it from the force of that Interrogation. And although I could largely discourse of this later part, even by your own occasion, who grant the course of nature to be for me, yet to make this speculative part as short as I can, I will only insist upon contradiction, how ever I fear, few more than yourself will be capable of the discourse.  
I pray therefore reflect that when Philosophers agree, Identity of Time is necessary to contradiction, it is not out of the nature of Time itself, which being an extrinsical accident, hath not power to make any thing compossible or incompossible in the subject where they imply contradiction; but it must be the nature of the subject itself, which being susceptive of as great mutability as time hath mutation, is in potentia another thing to the proportion of the changes of time; as, because a man who walks can stop, and the flame of a candle go out in an instant; therefore the consistency of a material subject, as to our mind's consideration, is but moment-strong; and we can affirm nothing of it in force of contradiction more durable than the unchangeableness or identity of time, which is purely a thought or an abstraction: Out of this it follows, that if we put in spiritual substances, a more than momentanean constancy, we must also put the force of contradiction in them proportionable to that constancy or identity of itself to itself. Now yourself seeming to admit this constancy under the name of aeviternity in spirits, for a future eternity; it seems to me you should admit nothing in spirits that is not compossible together in the subject, and by evident consequence that not to have an act, and to have one in the same aeviternity, is as impossible as not to have, and to have in the same instant of time.  
You will peradventure tell me, this position ruins some common opinions in Divinity, and my brittle Vindicator would tell me it mouldered away his faith: Sir, if you be of the opinion that Theology is arrived to its non plus ultra, I am not. I think many now common and probable opinions, will in after ages be demonstrated against, and prove erroneous: and therefore the pure authority of Divines, who build upon pure reason, hath no farther force with me then their reason. And I think I have learned this lesson out of Saint Augustin, as I am sure yourself also have, how ever in practice apparences may seduce you from the exercise of it; as if you believe it consonant to Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, &c. without a legitimate examination of them: which when you go about, you find them to be easily eluded by the glosses of blasted Authors, many of which kind of Authors nevertheless Saint Hierom in his Comments upon the Scriptures was used to cite, that men of understanding might see in the variety of divers conceits what truths might be picked out, even of blasted Authors, as Aristotle out of the verities mingled among false opinions drew his own demonstrations. The rest of these Chapters is but an explication indifferent to both sides, in which as you admit in Purgatory a disposition to charity, so methinks you should to the change of affections by it: And whereas you say that the soul is extra viam, the common Tenet of Divines should admonish you that she is not in state to have new revelations and changes which are the propriety of Via.   

Notes on the tenth Chapter.  
WHich is, for its Positions, entirely true and holy; but you seem to suppose as true, some misinformations, or misapprehensions concerning your Adversary, as that he questions general traditions, and calls them novelties; which how you can do who know Saint Austin testifies in his time, as yet the question was not agitated and that each part might prove either true or false, and that the author of the celebrated Dialogues expressly teaches they were unknown till his days, and from thence till Saint Odilo's time very little esteemed or noised; How such an opinion can choose but be a Novelty in respect of the Church of God, I cannot understand, or that six hundred years ago with a known beginning, can enrol it into the practices or doctrines delivered by the Apostles, passes my reach. As for the universal sense of the Church, I hope the Council of Florence's act will demonstrate the contrary, as you may see in my answer to the Vindicator; whither I beg leave to remit you.  
The Text you cite out of Saint Austin is excellently true, Quae universa tenet Ecclesia ab Apostolis praecepta, bene creduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur; but with these cautions▪ That the Church (that is, the community of Believers, as such, not as a multitude of men) hold them as of faith, not opine them only to be current truths; else every common persuasion grounded on any probable Reason or Authority, would become an unchangeable Article of Christian Religion; and in this, I think, I have your consent, if I mistake not the the 32. Chapter of your Systema, which I formerly cited, and desire my Reader to peruse the whole Chapter, being excellently pertinent to this purpose: As also Verons general Rule of Catholic faith, which I hear is newly translated into English.  
There you shall see how warily that experienced Controvertist proceeds in separating faith from opinions: No doctrine, says he, begun since the Apostles, though confirmed by miracles, and those miracles reported by Saints, or approved by general Councils, or attested in the Bulls of canonisation can ever be an Article of faith; Nor is the practice, says the same author, even of the universal Church a ground firm enough to build a point of Catholic faith upon; because the object of faith is truth, and the Church often guides her practices by probable opinions, which upon occasion she may change. And for Decrees of Councils, the same Doctor maintains, and citys Bellarmin for his opinion; that unless the Council proceed conciliarly, that is, by due examination, &c. and define properly, not barely affirm a thing by simple assertion, and occasionally, as it were, en passant: it does not oblige our belief; and which is highest of all, though the Council decree expressly and professedly a doctrine debated, yet unless it be defined as a truth to be believed with Catholic faith, they are not properly heretics that hold the contrary.  
What you deliver that one man's satispassion may by way of impetration satisfy for another, and profit him, is very acceptable▪ and none but they who mistake the words, can dislike the sense; for we see humiliations accompany solemn prayers, both in the Law of Moses, and Grace; and nature itself teaches us, it is a convenient habit for him that entreats mercy.   

Notes on the eleventh Chapter.  
WHere I see very little for me particularly to except against, but that you term our Tenet, an Innovation, which name better becomes your own: But this is an Indulgence to be granted to the conceit every one has of his own arguments; For the opinion, that the sensitive or corporeal part of man is capable of venial sin in itself, and so of goodness; I neither have nor will have any thing to do with it; You say 'tis taught by the most speculative Divines, as Scotus' school, and Cajetan, &c. I dare not meddle with such great men. As for your Opiniators you speak of, I cannot point you to a fairer example than the Vindicators Creed, which he hath declared to be his faith, in his Discourse against me. To the touch you give about probable opinions, the question is too great to engage in on so slight an occasion. The place you quote out of Saint Austin, seems not to concern the question, being only about the meaning of a Text of Scripture; however the saying is a very good saying.  
Concerning some seeming excrescencies, as you call them, in practical Devotion, you speak like a grave man: you dislike them indeed, but in such soft and gentle words, that none but a very tender ear will feel the stroke; they have no strict acquaintance with Church orders, they are only a sort of bigotry; which is a dark word, and many of the persons most concerned, will least understand it. Much after this fashion did old Eli chide his sons, who had got an ill-favoured trick to fetch up with a new invented fork, part of the sacrifice out of the cauldron▪ and cheat the people of the fat of their offerings: What says the old father to his sons for this? Quare facitis res hujusmodi, &c. Nolite filii mei, non enim est bona fama quam ego audio, ut transgredi faciatis populum Domini. And almost thus far you seem angry too, but is this enough? Have you sufficiently contributed to the secure disparaging such exorbitances, like a free and zealous Divine? should you not have branded 'em particularly and smartly, as being not only (sure even in your own judgement) not good, but abominable & detestable? let any indifferent person seriously consider the intolerable flattering promises, unwarrantably and scandalously applied to certain prayers, and other actions (good enough of themselves, but incredibly abused by such false and covetous Merchants) and he will find you might have seasonably applied a little sharper correction, than what imports they are only in strict account not justifiable. This, I confess, is not our direct Controversy, yet it is more censurable, only in degree, than an eager inviting of people to bestow alms, with promise of a speedy delivery out of Purgatory, especially, if they name the day, as I think some privileged Altars venture to do.   

Notes on the twelfth Chapter.  
IN which, you justly say, it is a most uncertain thing to determine of souls in Purgatory, how long they stay there, and that indeed, there is neither reason nor revelation to conduct us in that speculation; which is very true, and I shall seek to confirm it by the testimony of the Church of Rome, or at least, of the Pope, who takes the granting of Indulgences to be his personal privilege; If we believe the Author of the Roman History of Trent, who seems to speak it out of good warrant. I give you the words of an Author, writing and printing in Rome, not full twenty years since, and therefore who credibly was an eye-witness of what he wrote. Audiatur (saith he) verborum formula qua utuntur Romani Pontifices in suis de liberandis Animabus concessionibus, and annexeth for the form these words: Nos divina misericordia confisi concedimus, ut quotiescumque sacerdos in tali loco Missam celebraverit pro liberatione unius animae in Purgatorio existentis quae per charitatem Deo unita ab hac luce decessit, & piorum suffragiis juvari meruit, ipsa anima, quantum Divinae bonitati placuerit, opportunis de thesauris Ecclesiae subsidiis adjuta, peccatorum remissionem consequatur, & de poenis Purgatoriis facilius valeat ad coelestem patriam pervenire. Where you see, that notwithstanding a soul enjoys the privilege granted to such Altars; she may stay in Purgatory till doomsday. And that none of our opinion have reason to abstain from the use of priledged Altars, and the like Indulgences for the dead, or do well, if they speak against them; but aught to cry out against the abuse of those who persuade innocent souls of strange virtues which were never granted them, so delude them with hopes for which they have no ground.  
Nevertheless, I desire you to reflect, that if this be the profession of the Roman Church, concerning the souls which seem to have an eminent favour & degree in Christ's merits and the prayers of the universal Church, that it can be no greater in respect of those souls which have only the private intercession of friends; whence we may gather, that such mediations make them not come sooner than other souls, but easilier to the Kingdom of heaven.  
I wonder also that you being near a Jubilate Divine, should make difficulty to censure an opinion; what is there more of difficulty in censuring then in approving, nay then in determining a case to be Usury or Simony? Are there not divers kinds of censuring? Some juridical, and they suppose superiority: Some unappealable, and they suppose supremacy: Some only rational, and they need no more than Equality; and with reference to this last branch, you and I may freely censure or approve of one another's sayings, as we see cause; In this very Chapter, do not you charge my opinion with Novelty, and consequently with falsehood? which surely is a kind of censure: and as for the consequence itself, I shall easily admit it in Faith, but not in Opinions; which I conconceive may possibly be new, and true too.  
I have no more to note concerning your Book, unless I should mark that you seem to make Participem esse fidei Romanae, all one with submitting to the decisions of Rome; but that concerns not our present question; yet I desire you would be more rigorous in your interpretations, that so the credit of your citations may be the greater. Only three things come into my mind, which I forgot to note in their proper places; one should have been about the middle of your fourth Chapter, where you would escape the Argument drawn from the frequent mention of the Day of judgement in the Roman Liturgy; by saying, 'twas partly, that the dead might receive comfort before the last terrible day; neither can the words have any other sense. Pray read over the sequentia again. Can these words, Ne me perdas illa die, inter oves locum praesta, &c. Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis, voca me cum benedictis; &c. have no other sense but delivery before the day of Judgement? Join to these the prayers of the Breviary; Cum veneris in novissimo die: dum veneris indicare seculum per ignem, libera me Domine de morte eterna in die illa tremenda, &c. And indeed, all over the offices for the dead. Can none of these words have any other sense, then release before the day of Judgement? Is it possible the church's prayers should be thus cross interpreted, that where we expressly pray for delivery in the day of judgement, you should think we must necessarily mean before the day of judgement?  
Another note which I omitted concerns your first Chapter, where you treated of Revelations. For farther answer to which, I would offer you a notable example of no less a Person than Gregory the ninth, who considering the ill success of the designs he had undertaken at the instance of Peter of Arragon, and upon the assurances of St. Bridget, and St. Katherine of Sienna (who spoke with great confidence of knowing the mind of God) being now in his last sickness, took the B. Sacrament in his hands, and with most solemn and fervent entreaties, conjured his successors not to govern themselves by the Visions of such persons as give no reason for their counsels. Compare now the probabilities of your Revelations with these that deceived this good Pope. Reflect first on the persons engaged; a famous Ermit, and two canonised Saints pretend to have it immediately from God, on the one side: on the other, (that is, on yours) some well meaning people perhaps, and devout Pilgrims (the graver Persons that write of such curiosities being generally, if not altogether, bare relaters of what they hear from others) tell strange tales of Visions and Apparitions sometimes to themselves, sometimes to their neighbours, of which not one in a hundred but has something of ridiculous or superstitious: Remember the poor soul that was put to scrub and wash in the Baths at Rome, mentioned in those you will call Saint Gregory's Dialogues. Read well Saint Bede's Revelations (I mean those he as an Historian recounts to have happened to others, as they said) and you will find besides heaven, hell▪ and a penal place where imperfect Christians are punished (that is Purgatory) that Revelation tells us of a fourth, where was no punishment at all, but in it agmina laetantia, foelices Incolae, &c. Now, let us ask in the name of Faith and Divinity what place is this? The Revealer puts it utterly void of pain, (and so neither Hell nor Purgatory) and full of joy; nay so full, that he could not imagine greater, and so took it for Heaven; but the Angel which guarded him checked him in that thought, and showed him Heaven afterwards. What Divine can acquaint us with so much as the name of this place, or explicate to us why in Justice the very little imperfect Christians whom he places in this gay place, should not feel some pain proportioned to their fault, as well as the venially more imperfect souls had to theirs; and these so horrid too, that he who had the Vision, took the place for Hell. Again, he affirms absolutely of those very little imperfect souls that they all go to Heaven in the day of judgement, and the self same of those seen in Purgatory, which makes the words following concerning some coming sooner subjoined to this later, seem an addition, no such words being annexed to the other state; whereas methinks according to the doctrine even of my opposers, those who needed little or no purging, should come to heaven sooner. In a word, this fourth place either contained souls perfect in charity, and then 'tis the heresy of John 22. to hold it; or imperfect, that is, to be purged, and yet in no penal place, that is, not in Purgatory, which is equally opposite to Catholicism. How strange a thing is it then that men should build us Articles of Faith upon Revelations, which are at least subcontrary to Faith. Besides, which is remarkable, Saint Gregory and Saint Bede, are not pretended revealers, or ascertaining the Visions on their own experience, but upon the testimony of others they could never be assured of; whereas those other engaged the testimonies of the Saints themselves, and yet miscarried most utterly.  
After these two Revelations of the Dialogues and Bede, there is none (for any thing I know) more authentic for this point, then that which you recount in your first Chapter, usher in so solemnly, and rely on so assuredly; how that once upon a time, a certain dead man's skull told a certain holy man, that every time he prayed for the dead, we feel, said the deaths-head, some comfort. Now, as ill luck would have it, this was the skull of a mere Heathen; and so, if heathens use to go to Hell and not to Purgatory, it might sound indeed in behalf of the damned, but not the least concern those in Purgatory, for whose relief only the Church prays. Next, consider the things they meddle with; the one side fairly foretold what in time we could discover the truth of, and so was concerned to be wary; and the matter itself so far from incredible, that it was not improbable: Your side tell stories far more craftily, such as can never be disproved, such as may defy all the world to discover any falsehood in them; but hold a little, all this high confidence, I doubt, is not granted on their assuredness of truth, but impossibilty of trial: for who can detect the fraud of such subtle Merchants, who pay us in coin that no touchstone can examine? who can charge them, as those mistaken ones in Gregory the ninth's case were by dear experience of the whole Christian world in the miscarriage of the Holy War lamentably confuted? Many other instances there are, which all conspire to the confirmation of the holy Pope's wise advice; let them give Reason for their promises.  
The third note, which I think, I also omitted, relates to your cencession that by the order of Nature souls in the state of separation are absolutely immutable, and cannot change their posture from Purgatory to Heaven, but supernaturally they may: If you mean by supernaturality, the extraordinary power of God, I agree with you; and so our controversy will be at an end: but if you mean any constant ordinary way appointed by God to effect that change before the day of judgement; I conceive it very reasonable some clear evidence be produced, such as may warrant an Opinion, that by your own Tenet so directly crosses the course of nature: when I see that, you shall immediately find me most ready to submit: till then, I hope neither you, nor any of my fiercest opposers will have the least just cause to condemn me.  
If after this you demand, How shall we distinguish what the Church or Councils teach to be believed as of Faith from other doctrines promiscuously delivered? First, I do not remember this Objection anywhere insisted on by either of my late Opponents; and I am very slow to stir farther than I am moved; and indeed, think it inconvenient to start new game, before we have hunted down the old. Secondly, Are not you obliged as well as I, to provide an answer for such a Question? I am confident that the strictest of you do not hold all that is taught in the Church, or defined by Councils, even in doctrine and manners, are apostolical Revelations; if you agree with me so far, why do you think me bound to sever the points of rigorous Catholic Faith from Tenets of an inferior degree, rather than yourselves? where we are all indifferently concerned, why do you exact the performance from me alone, as if it were not your duty as well as mine? not that I conceive it impossible to be done to full satisfaction, but that I am no more engaged to do it than you; though perhaps upon occasion of a second Essay, I may offer my endeavours towards the clearing that point; especially should my Vindicator proceed close and pertinently like a serious man, and an ingenious scholar; for so I should have more time to attend on the weightier matters. And most of all, if he would enlarge himself a little upon the same Question in his next Vindication, for I shall be glad to be directed and assisted by any one.  
But if any be so unexperienced as to imagine all that is delivered or decreed is absolutely of Faith, let him satisfy the instances commonly urged by Divines of the Assumption of our Blessed Lady, of the souls being the Form of our body, and many other such truths universally assented to, but not admitted into the Catalogue of Articles. In fine, if this last be your opinion, you will find very few wise men of your mind; if the former, you are equally concerned with me to separate Catholic from theological Faith, or any other Proposition of inferior qualification.   

The Conclusion.  
THus have you my Opinion on your Result, as full and particular as can be expected from a weak understanding subject to negligence and oversight; yet to my power, sincere and captive to the love of truth. I hope you cannot be offended at my oppositions, for I have that esteem of you, that you are a lover of truth, and not swayed by passion or interest, but only prejudiced by the force of custom, and the reverence of School-opinions. Censures, though I think they belong to the duty of a Divine, fit to show his works to the Sun, yet in this piece I have used none. And though the unwary compliance of this age with Error makes me esteemed censorious, yet my heart told me I was obliged to do so when ever I engaged my Pen into it, and that I spared far more Opinions justly blameable, than I censured; because I deemed them not so pernicious as to force me to it. The style I have not much regarded, holding that both the matter and my age warn me not to be solicitous of it, but rather to speak, quinque verba in meo sensu, quam decem millia verborum in lingua. In a word, if I gain your Opinion of my sincerity, let the Controversy itself speak for the truth, and the reasons which are on both sides. I must acknowledge myself ever obliged to you, that you have shown our Catholics how to demean themselves with moderation towards one another in litigious disputes, and with these thanks make way to your credulity, that I am  
Your cordial Friend and Servant, THOMAS WHITE▪    

Postscript.  
BEing informed that some few scrupulous, and I fear, unsatisfiable persons object against my Religion and Reason, that it takes no notice of those words [even before the Resumption of their bodies, &c.] on which they chiefly ground; I could not, I confess, at first, but wonder at their prejudice, which had so imprinted those words in their fancies in capital, that they could not see or know them in a lesser Character. For I not only took notice of them in my 34 and 35 pages, and put them down at large, as in the Bull cited by themselves, but addressed myself purposely there to show them as impossible to favour their Cause, as 'tis that the Subject of a Proposition should be the Predicate; which every smatterer knows to be in logic the highest absurdity imaginable. Besides, in divers other places of my Book where any thing was attempted or urged from those words, I offered my satisfaction to their difficulties: with what success the Books must show. In the mean time, I crave the favour (upon occasion of their miscarriage in this) that none would lend too easy credit to objections whispered in corners, which are afraid to appear and justify themselves in writing under their hands. If any such be offered, I shall both take it as a favour, and acknowledge it my duty to satisfy them. If not, 'tis so like the way of clamour and detraction, that all persons meanly prudent, will, I hope, neglect them; and so shall I.   

INDEX.  
AEviternal things not changeable by Time. 
p. 37.38  S. Ambrose's Testimony not prejudicial, 
p. 29.30  The opinion of ant judiciary Delivery by occasioning the multitude of unworthy Priests, harmful to the Church, p. 5.6. impairing solid Devotion, p. 6.7. injuring civil Duties, if followed, p. 7. Fraudulently practised by many, ibid. The Effects of it, is true, uncertain. p. 9.10. The Church not chargeable with these Abuses, 
p. 10.  Censures allowable among Divines, 
p. 67.  S. Chrysostom's Testimony not prejudicial, 
p 31, 32.  Charity to be used in managing Opinions, and why, 
p. 12, 13.  Composition how found in Spirits. 
p. 51, 52.  Delivery in the day of judgement, not singular in being universally held, yet but an Opinion, 
p. 12.16. 
18.19.26.61. not prejudiced by privileged Altars, and Indulgences rightly understood, and sincerely practised, 
p. 65, 66.    Delivery from Hell prayed for in the offertory, 
p. 34, 35.  Devotions not warrantable, glanced at, 
p. 63, 64, 65.  Identity of Time, why necessary to Contradiction, 
p. 57  judgement-day desirable, 
p. 43, 44, 45.  Language concerning Spirits, how verifiable, 
p▪ 21, 22, 23, &c.  Penance, how held by the author, 
p. 38, 39  Prayer, when perfectest, 
p. 50, 51.  Prayer for the dead manifoldly beneficial, p. 45. to p. 50. of equal efficacy in the deniers as the holders of ant judiciary Delivery 
p, 30, 31.  Priority of Nature not found in a pure Indivisible 
p. 38.  Relief in Purgatory in the author's doctrine, from 
p. 20 to p. 28.  revelations even of great Saints, how errable, p. 69. Those of Gregory and Bede generally contradicted, p. 32, 33.72. This later unconsonant to Faith, p. 70.71. That of the dead Skull examined, 
p. 14, 15, 16.72.  Sins remoining in Purgatory, granted, 
p. 39  Seuls separate why unchangeable in true Peripatetic doctrine, p. 40, 41. This Incapacity of change, the Result of their nature, p 55, 56. In what sense supernaturally deliverable before judgement, 
p. 73, 74.  Tradition alone sufficient for Faith, 
p. 35, 36.  Translating the Middle State not criminally scandalous p. 4, 5. but judiciously pious, p. 10. occasioned by others, p. 11. Not this, but the adversary's carriage, forbid by the Council of Trent, 
p. 42, 43.   
FINIS.