AN ANSWER To some Queries in Mr. Whites Notes.  
Most Honoured Sir,  
NOw I receive a Present from you, which finds me so much preingaged in a subject of greater concern, that I can hardly dispense with so much time, as diligently to peruse it; you will accept this short answer to the most considerable doubts, I observe dispersed in your Notes.  
FIRST, 
 You say in your first Chapter that I Challenge the Fathers for my cause without alleging any. Whereas in that place being only praeliminary, as to them, I only refer the reader to St. John Damascen, who exactly weighs them, as also Gennadius doth, being both Greeks: to whom you may please to add (since you are impatient to expect their due place) great Athanasius in his questions to Antiochus, where he propounds your very question, & gives the Church's answer; also St. Cyril, in his Mystagogical Catecheses', where he comes home, these you know are Greeks of whom you make most difficulty. I wonder very much after, when I drew out the pith out of St. Augustine's Care of the dead, (which most perfectly speaks our Doctrine) that you say as if you were in haste, per transennam, you agree to all, whereas in truth you deny all. The Reader will observe it. You say in another place that he ad Dulcitium acknowledgeth this question of the souls relief to be never yet heard of: the truth is, he knew not how the Almighty would be satisfied, whether by temporal punishments here, as surely in some it is, or whether hereafter, as it is in others, but he never doubted of that effect of prayers in order to each. After you press harder, & with more biting Language, than I suspected. Second.  
You say you are surprised at my believing S. john Damascens relation of the dead heads spaking against your doctrine of the soul's relief in Purgatory. I must confess that I read the Saints with so great Reverence, especially such, whose Religion and learning are Solemnly Celebrated in the Church, as he is for both, that if I should find any seeming warts of humane infirmity, as our learned Countryman Waldensis saith of Counsels, I willingly do not see them but with a Christian blush endeavour to cover their nakedness with modest glosses: and this I have learned in Athanatius toward Dionysius Alexand. St. Augustine to St. Cyprian, St. Hierome to many, rather than the Church should lose such great men for the slip of a pen against their own intentions.  
But as to this passage of St. John Damascen, I am not enforced to apply any such lenitives. For why could not a dead Heathens skull answer in confirmation of a Christian truth in the name of the dead to great St. Macharius, (as St. John Damascen calls him) though himself was not concerned in the cause, as well as a Heathens skull, answer in presence of all the people in declaration of our Holy Faith, being asked by a holy Monk against Eunomius his rising Heresy, wherein he was less concerned? which without Control is asserted in John Cassian, & others, & being public cannot be denied? Saints have Privileges above our reaches; it was a more in credible business for Balaams' Ass to speak unasked. Aristotle will deny this, not St. Augustine.  
I will not enter the lists to examine St. Cyrils παντῶν ἀπλῶσ, when he saith, they prayed in some suffrages for all sorts of dead, its true according to God's ordinary Laws; there is no redemption in Hell. But it is not so certain in sums Judgements that there may not be a relevation; you know some have prayed, that mitigatior fiat poena, but I am not compelled to assert such Singularities, only en passent remind your reading, St. Gregory's relation of Trajan's soul is far higher than this of St. Damascen, yet it is Solemnly recounted by the Greeks in the Council of Florence; and the truth not questioned. I dare not therefore Aristachus like attribute so much to others Criticisms as to question the truth, but rather with the Greeks acknowledge a great miracle in the effect of prayers for the dead.  
No ingenious person who is conversant in St. John Damascens spirit, stile, and devotion, can at all question the work to be his, which was so acknowledged in the Coun. of Florence, though Cook & Rivet are prodigal upon any terms to deny the Father's works, as St. Augustine tells us, the Manichees did the Scriptures, where they thwarred with their errors. I wish you would not trust them, for they will deceive you; yet I am glad, that you acknowledge St. Hierome to allow the History.  
And truly though the Histories of Trajan's delivery, or of this dead man's answer were not true, yet the solemn bringing them without resistance in the Council, abundantly serve my design; because they declare the sense of the Greek Church, as to the Church's Tenet of easing souls before the great day.  
Where you must also further observe, that the Greeks in the council grant, that the whole Greek Church, as well as Latins, believed, that ad nonnullorum peccatorum absolutionem mortuis preces, supplicationesque pro apsis magnopere conducant; And that they understand this absolution to be before the last day, is clear; for afterwards weighing St. Gregory's Dialogues, they asse●t with him, and most manifestly in his sense, that after death, th●●● is, at the oblation o● the Church's suffrag●●, their sins are remitted, and they speak altwies in ●●e … e of the whole Greek Church; so that as to this they agreed with the Latins, & therefore they durst not deny those examples, which you so much undervalue, but esteem Trayans and others delivery from Hell, to be miraculous, rather than question the efficacy of such holy Persons prayers, or a relief before the last day. I read these passages in the Orations of the Greeks' in the Council, published in Greek in Holland, surely not to be suspected as to this.  
But you admit not St. Gregory's Dialogues to be his, upon Photius his authority, though St. Ildelphonsus, almost contemporary with him, in L. de viris illustribus, and after St. Isidore of the same subject, connumerate this with the rest of his Works: so venerable Bede, St. John Damascen, and all writes, Geek, and Latin.  
Photius, the truth, is much esteemed these books and peradventure could gladly have attributed them to his Countryman against the sense of all the world. I have read him entirely heretofore, but I remember not every particular in him. As to the points themselves in St. Gregory, I have given you the sense of the Greek Church which is enough to my design. Third,  
Whereas you say, that if the words of the Fathers, by which they Attribute purging of souls to the ●ire of Judgement, be not beyond contest, I will yield the whole cause. This is not the question, whether Fathers have asserted such a purgation, but whether they have admitted no other, which you assert: and if they say this, not I but the Church hath lost the cause: which alone may suffice as answer to the Fathers for the sole purgation at the general conflagration. I said it is easy to elude the Fathers by voluntary glosses out of blasted Authors, you interpret me as if I had said, it were easy to answer the Fathers by such glosses, the reader will observe this not to be fair. Fourth,  
There is one considerable objection, which you hint at: what the poor shall do, who have not such helps. St. Augustine in this care of the dead, c. 4. says, the Church prays for all in Purgatory, to provide for such, who have not other helps; and truly since St. Augustine rightly says, that none are helped, but qui meruerunt, ut sibi prodesse possint; no doubt but the degrees of their helps are answerable to their merits: so that in God's Counting House, doubtless there is an application of the Church suffrages so largely to some that they are sooner helped by them, than many rich by the superaddition of other assistances, which yet if they should not provide for by Almsdeeds etc. They relying on others, when they could have helped themselves, may render them justly less participant of the common Almsbasket, which is reserved for the poor.  
Again it is not certain, whether particular suffrages, though designed for particular persons, be not taken equally for the account of the poor, as well as for the rich, you know some Divines hold it, they will indeed be available for them for whom they are offered, according to their former merits, with which is consistent, that others have a communcation, as being Co-members of the Church: but as to time, or measure, we have no assurance, being the effects are not ex condigno, or ●x justitia, as I have taught. Scotus in his Quodlibets puts worthily three effects of the holy Mass: one for the whole Church; one for the Priest, one for him, or them, for whom it is offered: so that all capable of help, have benefit by this common oblation, the degrees we know not, only all do not expect Doomsday for their help. I pray read St. Bede in his History l. 5. c. 13. you say he brings relations of others. His words are Multos praeces viventium & eleemosynae & jejunia, & maxim celebratio missarum, ut ante diem judicii liberentur juvant. Note before the day of judgement: read also Sir Thomas Moor his whole tract called supplication of Souls, his design is to maintain this truth: That the merits & prayers of good folks for them may minish and abridge their pain, etc. They are his words. Fifth.  
You wonder how I can assert greater punishment to a soul from many years being in Purgatory, whose measure is in divisible. I shall easily declare these consistent: for although time is not the measure of it; neither doth the coexistence of time at all increase the pains even in bodies, as being holy extrinsical to them both, & yet our pains are longer, if we stay longer time, and consequently greater, as to our bodies; so in our souls, times coexistence is , and so augments not intrinsically the sufferances: yet as in bodies, the succession, or accession of parts of pain renders pain greater, in which is required access of parts of time for the spiritual pain being altogether in so long time, though it receives no addition of parts, as in corporal sufferings, yet here is a replication of the whole, as St. Bonaventure, & Scotus explicate Aevum, which renders it strangely greater upon longer time. This methinks is easily conceavable. Sixth.  
As to privileged altars, though that is not our present controversy, as not nearly touching Faith, yet I present you my apprehensions of the ground of that practice. Many great Divines, as you know, such as our Corduba in his questionary, Sotus, & others, are of opinion, that the efficacy of the holy Sacrifice of Mass, is so great, though only by way of suffrage to the dead, th●● we may strongly hope for 〈◊〉 effect aimed at; others more numerous, hold also that even by way of divine promise, the effect is certain to the dead. And truly when I read St. Ephrem, & others of the ancient, methinks they incline to it supposing then this to be probable out of so great authorities, in order to the opinion itself; if to it be superadded the Supreme power in the Church in order to application of Gods promise herein, as is done in those cases, though peradventure only by way of suffrage, methinks its clear, that the Popes in such grants, may rationally be presumed to proceed upon probable grounds, which, as I have taught in my Enchyridion, is enough to secure Ecclesiastical and civil Magistrates, in their practical results. As to the mercenary part, it concerns particulars, with whom I meddle not, lest St. Peter should quarter me amongst his ἀλλοτριεπισκοπόυντεσ  
As concerning supernumerary Priests, it is no less out of my cognizance; I remember St. Augustine attributes the desires of so very many Christians of his time to be Priests to their reverence & devotion of Priesthood, why may we not judge as charitable of these?  
Whereas you hint I do not take notice of your Reasons. The  reader will find answers to every considerable reason in particular of your former book, though in that being not designed against it, they are pro re nata only incidentally couched in the body, but as I conceive not less energically for being modestly hinted.  
Your other notes though they every where savour of your eminent parts, administer only matter of repetition or unnecessary explication, if duly paralleled to each Chapter; I have not leisure to be superfluous, & therefore I desire your pardon, if I wholly desist from further treating this subject, though never from being.  
You seem indeed to remit of your former rigour as to relief though not to release of souls by prayer: yet by reason first that it depends on putting the effect before the cause. Secondly, on putting more force on the foreknowledge of the future operation of the cause then upon the real operation of the cause itself when it exists, for than it hath no effect for fear of changing a soul. Thirdly, the very foreknowledge itself being of the secret decrees of God not only in order to an acceptance, but even of the degrees of acceptance of future prayers, for the soul is purely groundless. Lastly whatsoever this relief is in reality (though in apprehension you put it sooner) it is not to be had till Dooms day. I propound it to your further reflection, whether the whole machine be not insignificative as to the real sense of the Church & of all Christians in their prayers.  
Sir, Your faithful Servant, F. D. March, 26.   
FINIS.