THE RESULT OF A DIALOGUE concerning the MIDLE-STATE of SOULS.  
Wherein is asserted The Ancient Doctrine of their Relief, obtainable by Prayers, Alms, etc. before the Day of Judgement.  
By F. D. Professor of Divinity.  
Printed at PARIS, Permissu Superiorum.   

For the Right Honourable and Learned, Henry Lord Arundel of Warder, etc.  
The Maecenas of all Learning and Virtue.  
May it please your Lordship,  
SOme Aristophanes, removing the controversy of the Midle-state of Souls out of the Schools, and improvid ently thrusting it (in English) into the hands of Ladies, whose curiosity is not always proportioned to their capacity, hath been instrumental of great Scandal. Hence upon entreaty of such, who may command, I interposed, endeavouring to clear the state of the Question, as I thought, without violence, it might import; this occasioned a reciprocation of Epistles, wherein I would gladly prevent all misunderstandings, as also in the Synopsis of our Tenets, which I formerly gave in such matters, which were esteemed proper for the times.  
The Result I present to your Lordship's most judicious view, also to your noble Patronage. If it conduce to any good, I shall be sure of the guerdon I hope for. Your Lordship's hereditary goodness will pardon my boldness, encouraged by your known Virtue, and great love of Truth, who ambitiously subscribe, what by many titles, my duty obligeth me to be,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most devoted servant in all duty, F. D.   

A Table of the Chapters.  

CHap. 1. Relief in Purgatory is the Doctrine of holy Church 1  
Chap. 2. It is not matter of Opinion 11  
Chap. 3. Why the Resurrection is inculcated 15  
Chap. 4. The senses of Greek and Latin Liturgies and Fathers 24  
Cham 5. Traditions alone cannot prove faith in all Articles 45  
Chap. 6. Charity consists with Purgatory. The various operations of Charity. Wherein consists the chief penalty of Purgatory? 48  
Chap. 7. How a soul, according to others, can change? Of the horror of Doomsday. Whether it is to be prayed for? 67  
Chap. 8. Whether a soul can be changed by God, and how, in Purgatory? The true state of the controversy explicated 89  
Chap. 9 The state of the Question further explicated. The difference betwixt an instant of time, and aeviternity declared. The resolution of the Question fully given, as to change of souls 99  
Chap. 10. Scriptures and Traditions must be obeyed. How one can satisfy for another? Whether, and how, other virtues besides charity, avail towards Heaven? 117  
Chap. 11. How corporal afflictions can satisfy for sins. Whether a probable Opinion may be followed 127  
Chap. 12. The design of the Treatise 140    

The Result of a DIALOGUE concerning the MIDLE-STATE of SOULS.  

CHAP. I. Relief in Purgatory is the Doctrine of holy Church.  
IN our last Epistolary Conference concerning the sense of the General Council of Florence, and of Pope Benedict the eleventh, his Bull, against those who hold, that none went to Heaven till the day of Judgement; you much insisted, that neither of them defined a Redemption out of Purgatory before the great day. The Greeks there called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It must be confessed, that their principal design was the condemnation of Joh. 22. his error, which though he recanted, yet to prevent any resuscitation of it, it was judged necessary conciliarly to condemn it. In discussing, or rather explicating the latitude of this, they descended to particulars, Who and When each sort went to Heaven, either at, or after their deaths, according to their several conditions; and therein delivered their sense of this, as being in part involved in the former. So that it was a Conciliary Declaration of the Church's Doctrine, as to this: that is, of the whole Christian World, as all prior or posterior Doctors, not violented (for it is easy to misapply, and even elude the Fathers with voluntary glosses out of Chamier, and other such like blasted Authors) and the universal tradition orally delivered, and the constant practice of all Catholics, declare.  
See in S. John Damascen almost all the Greek Fathers, even inclusively, from great Dyonisius to himself, and some of the Latins also are recorded in him, who all assert this, and say, that from our Lords Disciples it descended, & obtained in, and through the whole Church of God with great profit to the dead. And that you may clearly by one understand the received interpretation of the rest, see there the story of great Macarius, who had from God this Answer: Quo tempore, inquit, mortuorum causa preces offers, tum sane nonnullius solatii sensu afficimur. Thus a dead man's skull answered him. We must not then expect Doomsday for an answer of our Prayers. Nay, S. Damascen saith, it is a new, absurd doctrine, suggested by the Devil, Pia omnia opera, quae mortem sequuntur, nullam omnino defunctis utilitatem afferre: & truly his ingenuous sense is, that to deny any profit by them before the day of Judgement to the dead, descends from the Devil. I refer you to all the Fathers in him; whence you will see how they are violented for the contrary by others.  
It is a most unquestionable rule in this matter, as to the affirmative, though a posteriori (as we speak) amongst all probable Doctors, who have the honour to have their memories celebrated in the Fasts of the Schools, That whatsoever is declared in a General Council, which is received, or not impunè resisted by Catholic Doctors of the age wherein it is celebrated, is by all Christians to he admitted in the same degree in which it is there declared. Which Rule comes home to all points by Sectaries now controverted, as I have particularised in my System: and especially compels us to an acceptance of this present Article, according to the same place it obtained in the Council of Florence, and the age wherein it was celebrated. The first I have specified as far as this place permits. The later is evident by all Writers then, and ever since, in the Church: though Marcus Ephesius, an eminent Greek Schismatique, if not rather an Heretic, who was present in the Council, recalcitrated in vain against it, in some particulars, but not against this at all; which still confirms us in it. Gennadius, the Patriarch saith, this Council was, ubique promulgatum, & ab omnibus gentibus receptum: only vulgares quidam homines, & indocti did contradict. He adds, if any capable of reason resisted, it was pravity of mind, not learning but foolish presumption and vain glory, which moved it. Here he glances at Marck, and others deceived by him. All this faithfully applied, irrefragably declares our obligation to accept this truth accordingly.  
And moreover as to us in particular, the general resistance made against this new Purgatory, by all at the very first dawning of it in our insulary Hemisphere, as being a novilty opposite to what all from their infancies had learned, convinces the same. Nay Mr. Whites Sonus Buccinae will infer so much, and alone suffice according to him, to prove matters even of Faith. But let us go further: if every person from hence to Cades in Spain, and from thence to Rome, and from thence to Constantinople, and from thence to Jerusalem, through both Churches were asked, whether in their prayers for the dead, they do not hope to help them to Heaven before the last day? every one would assert it.   

CHAP. II. It is not matter of Opinion.  
THerefore most certainly the hope of present easing them, was not grounded on matter of Opinion, which intrinsically involves actual fear, or doubt, of the truth, else they would have prayed faintly: but it is a traditionary doctrine, and under that notion, by all understood. Hence we never read in Scriptures, Counsels, or Fathers, any one clear assertion (as sufficiently appears in those which are most urged) That all those that go to Purgatory must be necessarily detained there, without any relief, till the day of judgement; which sure were impossible, if there had been any fluctuation in it, or if they had been of that opinion, as some gently persuade us.  
That some things have been delivered to posterity in the Church, which could never obtain more authority than opinion, I have made evident in my System, even in grave Subjects of which number this was not: but how to distinguish such from doctrines of a higher nature, in case Holy Church did not convey clearly their qualifications with them, as in some cases, evidently it did and in others it did not, as there I give instances; then the only way is to return to general Counsels, 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, as here was done conformable to all antiquity, as I have declared, and shall more.   

CHAP. III. Why the resurrection is inculcated.  
THe Holy Scriptures indeed, our B. Lord, and especially, B. St. Paul, and since them, holy Church, and Fathers, most pressingly inculcates the truth of the general resurrection, as being the basis of our hope, the motive of piety, and good works; all which would be adjudged fruitless by the generality of men, if it were not for this: though even Aristotle, who with the rest of his friends of Athens would have laughed to have heard Saint Paul Preach, and assert it; yet they would judge virtue to carry and bring with it a present reward, for which it should be embraced: but our expectations are infinitely higher by our believed, and hoped for resurrection; and therefore it always produced proportionate effects in Gods holy Martyrs, and Saints, especially in those first times, as the course of God's providence required, and therefore there was a necessity effectually to settle this radical doctrine, as also of the last judgement to inculcate a just fear, as S. Paul did. This other of relief of souls, in, and out of Purgatory, being of far less concernment, as to the generality of mankind, and being as it were a particular of it, or subalternate to it, needed not so strong & frequent inculcation, though holy Church did not take it up upon vulgar and light hear-sayes, but with, and by the Apostles Praedications: which, according to S. Augustine's Rule, are sufficiently proved by the Church's Doctrine, and practice. The holy Scriptures themselves, as interpreted by antiquity also declare it, which are obviously known: Neither do the Texts, though brought with violence, touch the contrary; nor were ever so interpreted. Some mistake also ariseth in this business, from not observing, that holy Scriptures, and from thence holy Church, and the Fathers frequently understand by Resurrection, even the assumption of souls to Heaven without the bodies, and therefore S. Aug. calleth the later of soul and body, the perfect resurrection, as condistinct from the former, in his care of the dead, c. 6. But here we treat of the Church's practice and doctrine; which are clear even amongst the Greeks' as well as Latins: You know, that according to Mr. Rushworth, and Mr. White, (whose authority cannot be denied by you) the public practice, or oral conveyance, demonstrates universal Tradition, and consequently Christian Truths.  
Therefore when I look upon the anxious solicitude, with which now, and in all former ages, good Christians, Greeks and Latins, have prosecuted their friends deceased with their Prayers, Alms-deeds, which all Christian Monuments declare: methinks it were strange now at length to have all resolved into a cold Oblation, or Prayer for Doomsday: wherein their particular Allies are no more concerned, than all others: & so all the pious endeavours of friends are of no effect, as relating to what they intended in order to particular persons, but might as well be contracted into a general Prayer for all the dead, against not only oral tradition, but the manifest writings of the most ancient and learned in the bulk of the Fathers; as S. Aug. is sufficient testimony for all the rest, in his Treatise of this subject, styled by him, A care of the dead, where he supposeth it to be the common sense of the whole Catholic Church, that particular persons dead, who have acquired merit in their life time, by which such things may be rendered profitable after death, do receive benefit by what is done for them religiously after their decease: and he speaks clean through the whole Book of actual benefit, profit, help, advantage, availment, and rest to be procured for the souls. And lest we should gloss it for the souls in their reunion with their bodies, he frequently speaks condistinctively of the soul as separated from the body, or as it is when the body is dead; and he saith, that then it receiveth secure: which, as he shows, and I have said, was the practice of all Churches in their public Liturgies. I do not esteem it constancy, but obstinacy, to intort antiquity to our sense 'gainst their own.   

CHAP. IU. The senses of Greek, and Latin Liturgies and Fathers.  
AMongst the Greeks, I observe in their Liturgies, that sometimes they pray with Tertullian, de Monogamia, that the dead may have refrigerium, that is, some ease, as S. Greg. Nazian. his Liturgy p. 34, in the Rubric. Other times they pray, that they may be put into a place of light sommesses, where sorrow is banished and groaning, etc. as in S. Basils' Liturgy. Sometimes that they may rest in Abraham's bosom, as in S. James his Liturgy. All these intimate a change, a present relief, though not always a release, as the stile evidently imports: which destroys your very ground; for you teach that no prayers can relieve, or change them till Doomsday. S. James in his liturgy prays, that God would cause the souls to rest with the Saints. You say, he means, that they may not rest, or have ease, or lightsomness, etc. till after the day of judgement. Besides, they constantly pray for the remission of their sins, as in S. Basils', and the rest; this is not for the resurrection: and finally they pray for all, who died in communion of the faithful, and for particular persons recommended to the Priest, in each particular, exactly agreeing with the Roman Church.  
Hieremias, their Patriarch, follows them, and the sense of both Churches frequently appears to be, that by their prayers they may obtain present ease, ut a poenis releventur, saith the Council of Florence in the decree in Gennadius.  
There was a question amongst some of the ancient, whether souls (except of Martyrs) had a facial sight of God before the last day: the progress of it I have examined in my System. Hence some spoke warily, touching the full release out of Purgatory; which involves a going to Heaven; but all agreed as to our present ease, and relief by Prayers, Alms-deeds, etc. The not observing this, hath made a misunderstanding of some of the Fathers in this matter.  
Truly sometimes they pray expressly, that they may enter Heaven before the last day, as St. Ambrose upon the death of Theodosius: Dilexi, & ideo prosequar eum usque ad regionem vivorum, nec deseram donec fletu, & precibus inducam eum, quo sua merita vocant, in montem Domini sanctum, etc. he will never leave praying, till by his prayers and tears he hath brought him out of Purgatory to Heaven. We need no more for both Churches: he a great Latin Bishop well acquainted with the sense of both Churches, promiseth this for the Greek and Latin Emperor, in presence of the Emperor; also a Grecian born, and of the Court where were present as well Greek as Latin Prelates, and Doctors. If this had not been the public sense of all Churches in their obsequies for the dead, there wanted not Zelots then, and after, who would have reprehended this public attempt, which you call Novelty, by them adjudged Piety.  
St. chrysostom Homil. 41. in 1. ad Cor. after a long discourse saith thus: Si Jobi illius liberos patris victima purgavit, (Job. 1.5.) quid dubites e nobis quoque si pro dormientibus offeramus, solatium quiddam ill is accessurum? This some comfort concludes a present change upon our Prayers: this cannot signify Heaven, where is no such diminutive, as quiddam solatium: this surely cannot be Doomsday; which agrees with Saint Augustine's, Neque negandum est, defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosynae in Ecclesia fiunt, etc. 9.2. ad Dulcitium: and in his Enchyridion to Laurence c. 110. as elsewhere he distinguishes three sorts of the dead, whereof the middle are only capable of this help, and in his Care of the dead, c. 4. he tells us, that Christians in their Prayers recommend the third 〈…〉 by the 〈…〉 Saints. 〈…〉 take them 〈…〉 ●●mpany when 〈…〉 rise, according 〈◊〉 you; but S. Aug. dre●●nd not of that good-fellowship, but present ease, for surely S. Aug. his easing them is a present change. I could render it fastidious to the Reader, if I should bring in particular the sense of Greek and Latin Fathers, which, in reading them, I have noted. And though some Critics do not give a due esteem of S. Gregory the great, and Venerable Bede their Histories, which Baronius elegantly defends; yet no man of reason can doubt, much less deny, but that their loud approbation of the particular releases of souls, and the worlds not resisting their truth, abundantly declare the sense of the whole Christian world to have been, That by Prayers souls might be delivered out of Purgatory, before the last day. Nay, they did not only not resist them, but both Greeks and Latins positively approved of them. For Pope Zachary had his books of Dialogues, without any restriction, in so high esteem, that he himself with his approbation, translated, and recomended them to the Greeks. And S. John Damaseen, and other Greeks, with much reverence received, and often cited them, as I have frequently noted: and therefore no wonder, that Venerable Bede, following our first Christian Master, St. Gregory (though he himself sharp-sighted) gives more examples of the like; as also S. John Damascen. These two (considering the eminency of their virtue and learning, and both great Searchers of antiquity, and both received as Assertors of truth in their respective East and West Churches) may alone suffice to witness the Church's Doctrine. Now (as S. Aug. c. 10. in his Care of the Dead, saith) if we should say, that these things were false, we might be thought to use more boldness than became us, both in regard of the writings of some faithful Christians who report it, as also in regard of the testimony and sensible experience of those, to whom such visions have happened. May not this justly be applied here?  
Also consider who St. Gregory, Pope Zachary, and St. Chriso stom were, and 〈…〉 carry on their backs both the Latin and Greek Churches. And hence the Council of Florence in the very Decree (as I have noted in another Book) speaking for, and in the name of both Churches, says: We define, etc. that those souls, who, after they have contracted the blemish of sin, are purged either in their bodies, or, being unclothed of their bodies, are presently received into Heaven: and Pope Benedict saith, Before the resumption of their bodies. We can require no more as to the Doctrine of both Churches; since, as you see, the Decree is consonant to both.  
It's true that the Roman liturgy in the Sequentia doth wonderfully inculcate the horror of Doomsday, partly to move us living to a right apprehension of our concernment in it; partly that the dead may receive comfort before the last terrible day. Neither can the words have any other sense: for certainly the souls in Purgatory are not ambiguous of their judgement in that day, as all Christians agree: and therefore the Church concluding, prays to God, to give all the Faithful rest from henceforward, to prevent the rigour of that fearful day.  
It's truly a mistake to say, the Greek Church did not admit this Doctrine before the Council of Florence, since it is most evident, that their Doctrine was not at all changed, or disliked even upon examination, as to this of easing, and delivering souls out of Purgatory, or translating them into Abraham's bosom by Prayers, etc. but only in the beginning was examined how far they agreed with Pope John's error against the facial sight of God; and this was amended by common consent. Nay, their practice was never questioned, or doubted of: which was, and is, the same with the Latins, as hath been showed; and therefore Cyril repeating, and expounding the manner of their Liturgies, saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, We believe that it will be a wonderful help to the souls, for whom supplication is offered of this holy and terrible sacrifice. Can any man refer this wonderful help to a cold expectation of Doomsday? And hence we see in the third action of the General Council of Chalcedon, how the process was admitted of Ischyrion against Dioscorus for not having distributed faithfully, the abundant Alms by Legacy left to Monasteries, for the souls of the deceased, which uniformly agrees with the Modern practice of both Churches; and therefore doubtless the sense of both Churches, as now they appear evidently to be the same; so in all antiquity they were uniform, as to hope of relief by prayers, especially by Masses, as there is clear, and in many private Latin Synods.  
Neither can it be other than a great Sophism to accuse the Roman Churches Offertory, as if in praying to deliver the souls of the Faithful a poenis inferni; which is a general term signifying both, and so used, it should import any thing else here, than from the pains of Purgatory to life: which cannot have any other sense than of Purgatory, since there is no redemption in Hell; and the souls for which they pray, die not otherwise.  
Again, the Church in the Collects prays to give them refrigerii sedem, etc. a seat of refreshment, which speaks our Purgatory. These and all other Texts assure us of the Church's sense of praying to deliver them before the great day: however by strength of wit the clearest actions may be in order to weaker judgements made dubious, as we see in Courts, the best causes by corrupted advocates, so clouded, that they seem unjust. But the knowledge of this is so universal, that here may be said what St. Augustine, lib. de duabus anim. c. 12, saith of liberty: Nun ista cantant & in montibus pastors, & theatris Poetae, & indocti in circulis, & docti● in Bibliothecis, & Magistri in scholis, & antistites in locis sacris, & in orb terrarum genus humanum. All sorts of Christians, each in their several postures, and vocations witness this truth.   

CHAP. V Traditions alone cannot prove faith in all Articles.  
THis was S. Hieroms, and all the Father's one (though not only) constant test of new doctrines. And you professedly esteeming the testimony of the present age to convey certainly the sense of the precedent, do, and must consequently hold it to be an infallible test, to discern even matters of Faith: so that ad hominem this were strong, if we had only the present age. But surely Scriptures and Traditions are the adequate source of Christian truths in the received opinion of Doctors. And the Council of Trent in the first Session seems to suppose it in order to the general. And truly all the former Counsels did no less. Neither can I see that your Topick alone will salve all occurrences, and therefore St. Paul refers the Thessalonians, to his Epistles and Sermons jointly: and S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. shows the necessity of both: So S. Aug. and the rest.  
But by endeavouring to infringe any pretence of a definition, as to this of helping souls in Purgatory before Doomsday, you struck upon a medium, which, if not rightly understood, is of an ill consequent.   

CHAP. VI Charity consists with Purgatory. The various operations of charity. Wherein consists the chiefest penalty of Purgatory.  
FOr the purport of your discourse seems to hint at this, that a necessity of retention of souls out of heaven till due penal expiation be accomplished, will enervate the dignity of charity. Cicero lib. 3. de finibus saith notably, speaking of Philosophy: Hujusmodi dicere ornare velle, puerile est: plane autem, & perspicue expedire posse, docti, & intelligentis est viri. Your almost connatural obscurity renders you sometimes to be misconstrued, to your prejudice. It is true, that charity, if perfect, is a sufficient disposition to glory; at least as far as relates to exclusion of punishment for former transgressions: which easily concludes, a soul dying in that perfect condition, not to need any other temporary expiation. But the middle sort of Christians, who only have their concernment in Purgatory, according to Saint Augustine and the Council of Florence, though they die indeed in charity, yet is supposed not to be so intense, as wholly to dispose their souls for present bliss. And therefore in order to such, the Church asserts further expiation, and penal detention, necessary for a longer or a shorter term, according to the secret rules of God's wisdom: wherein though our time is not the measure of spiritual substances, or sufferings, which have no parts to answer to the parts of our time, and therefore are not greater, or less, for the , and disparate consideration of a shorter, or longer continuance, precisely as to time; yet their inward necessity of existing in that condition of separation, not only from their bodies, but from the sight of God in the dregs of sin, till God changeth them, is highly penable, as being always present to their intuition, and affection: whereas in bodies, where every thing is measured by motion, it would be far less, as having succession of parts, than now being altogether, according to the nature of eviternity, which surely renders it incomparably greater, than if it were by one part after another. And though it is indivisible as to its essence, and existence, being spiritual; and therefore cannot be measured otherwise than by a proportionable in-divisible measure, as now I will suppose against some others; yet it hath coexistence with the parts of our time, as Aristotle 4. Phys. saith: Idem nunc secundum substantiam differt secundum esse: that is, although an instant is the same indivisible in order to itself, yet it differs as compared to time. And hence a soul, which hath been in Purgatory twenty years, is truly said to have been longer there than another, which was separate from the body yesterday; and consequently hath suffered the hard consequences of it, even altogether so long.  
If we speculate this a little further, we find, that as indeed the soul being in-divisible, it hath an in-divisible measure; yet as that instant, or measure called Aeviternity, is always and altogether present; so there is always present in it a priority, which we call of nature. As Agents which are free, in the same real instant, when they resolve to do any thing, have a priority of nature, wherein it is not affirmable, that they do resolve, but are as it were about to do it: and this continues so long, as the real instant itself doth. And therefore Aristotle will tell us, that the will, even when it doth decree any thing, it hath power not to do it, that is, as referring to that priority of nature. Whence follows even in your own principles, that the soul, which went to Purgatory many years ago, is now as capable to have an act which it never had, as then, and therefore it may be as truly said to have an act this day, which it never had; and consequently may as truly be said to be changed. But this whole matter is fit for the Schools to dispute, then for Chatechizers to instruct in matter of Faith: of which more hereafter.  
You seem under a pretence of putting a due estimate upon an abstracted or a Metaphysicated charity (for such yours almost seems to be) very much to undervalue her operations in such penal acts, or passions, as holy Church presents to our belief in the dead. Nay, even all other corporal afflictions, and austerities in this life, voluntarily undertaken, you are thought to judge superfluous (if not superstitious) and derogatory to charity.  
You know how far our neighbours have, by urging this, reduced all Christian duties of this kind, to such a pure worshipping of God in spirit, that there is no visible footstep of any old austerities amongst them: and even all these old symptoms of Christianity, are with them by a new sort of Chemistry, evaporated.  
It seems certain, according to the received doctrine of great Divines, (wherein you do not wholly descent) that all souls, which depart from their bodies, in a capacity of Heaven, at their separation, do appretiate God above all, and do hearty desire, that they had never placed any created object in his room; which is, never to have sinned mortally. Which doctrine methinks is consequent to St. Thomas his opinion of infants in their first act of reason, applying themselves too God. And this act, as I said, is esteemed naturally indelible in the dead, according to their state, with which is consistent a desire of fulfilling Gods Laws, in order to expiation of former sins: nay, that is inconsistent with itself, without a desire of compliance with God's ordinances, in this and every other kind. Whence follows, that their sufferings after death, are voluntary, as relating to their former acts of conformity to God's orders, and the virtual or habitual durance of it; howsoever by some, so palpable a truth is denied.  
The whole universe therefore having been deformed in some manner, by our deordinations, it must be reformed by our pennances. For, according to Divines, Infligitur poena, ut ordinetur culpa: and it is so, even following nature. So that the order of the Universe, by God's original position of causes, exacts this method of us. Therefore there is no necessity, which some are affrighted at so much, to attribute their penal detention to revenge in God; (though it is but quaestio de nomine, as diversely taken) since it is consequent to our peccaminous acts, to be liable to it; especially holding, as truth seems to convince, that the relics of the sins themselves, or those very sins, of which the souls were guilty in death, remain till the change of the souls after Purgation. Which doctrine is very conformable to Scotus; who holds, that venial sins after proportionable punishment in hell itself, cease to be; that is, after the remorse and punishment, proportionable to such sin, cease; which, as I have noted elsewhere, is Origen's and Gregory Nissenes clear doctrine: for they both seem to admit that only Purgatory. I said punishments, for which we now call punishments, as to the minds remorse for sin, in time of nature we would call effects of sin, as I shown, de Mundo.  
It's true, we have not injured God in our sins, who is above, and beyond, the spheres of our most malicious activity; but ourselves are principally endamaged in mortal sins, by losing all title to Heaven, or at least, by diminishing it, as in venial. Which loss caused by violation of his Laws, must be repaired by charity, directing to submit to, and to keep God's Commandments, according to that Text of our Saviour: If you love me, keep my Commandments: whereof one is, to submit to his orders in Purgatory, wherein this voluntary due chastisement at last will procure remission of those sins, which remain, at the least in their dregs.  
Charity indeed hath God himself, under the noblest motives, for its immediate object; but it is exercised, not only in a naked wishing, or willing well to God, which is to love him; but it breaks out into a hearty compliance with all his orders. Hence St. Peter, John the last Chapter, v. 15. being demanded, whether he loved God? to his triplicated affirmation was as often subnected; Feed my sheep, etc. So that this love hath a great extent, though it always terminates in God, as it gins in him. St. Paul also, 1 Cor. 13.4. tells us summarily, but pathetically, the further operation of charity: Charitas patiens est, benigna est, etc. whence will follow, that charity can be exercised, in following any of God's orders, in respect of the living, or the dead, as in those St. Paul speaks of, 1 Cor. 15.29. who were baptised, that is, suffered for the dead, as the Text clearly speaks.  
It is not then any indignity to charity, that good Christians dying invested with it, should be exercised afterwards in expiation of former deordinations, by their passive compliance with God's orders; which, dying in charity, they could not but desire. This divine order being fulfilled, and expiation being effected, the soul is rendered, through God's mercy, capable of her hoped supervestition of eternity.   

CHAP. VII. How a soul, according to others, can change. Of the horror of Doomsday. Whether it is to be prayed for.  
I will now suppose that borrowed principle out of Aristotle's Schools, that the soul is not capable of any change, once separated from the body, as having not the fancy, whence the changes were occasioned. Which doctrine although I have taught in my System, and so do St. Thomas in his School, Henricus de Gandavo, and others, as to natural causes; yet it will not reach so far, as I conceive, as to build a consequence, so remote from the common sense of Christians, as this of all souls, which do not immediately go to Heaven, or to Hell, their prestolation of the last day in Purgatory, and that then upon the reunion of their bodies, our blessed Lord shall represent to our corporal eyes his most blessed humanity: of which he made us not capable during our long expectation in the soul's separation: upon sight whereof they shall fall into raptures of divine love, etc.  
The whole complex taken altogether, is the product of a great wit, possessed of much learning, and, if kept within the Schools (as we use frequently impossible suppositions) might exercise wits with profit, and applause, as I believe was intended: but where it toucheth upon a noble particle of our Religion, as here, the putting it into a vernacular Idiom is dangerous, and against the Council of Trent, in in this particular, Sess. 25. Apud rudem verò plebem difficiliores, ac subtiliores quaestiones, quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt, & ex quibus plerunque nulla fit pietatis accessio, a popularibus concionibus secludantur: incerta item, vel quae specie falsi laborant, evulgari, ac tractari, non permittant, etc. This comes home. We are forbidden to move these questions in English.  
Prayer for the Dead, as for such as are helped by it, being in an indigent condition, is one of the most universal, most constant, and most solemn practices of holy Church, as all Monuments declare: which by this your speculation is rendered, speaking really, of no use; as being resolved by you only into a Prayer for Doomsday: which will be terrible, whensoever it cometh; as holy Church intimates in the Sequentia: Cùm vix justus sit securus; and quantus tremor est futurus. I am sure S. Hierom had a formidable apprehension of it, when he saith, He heard perpetually the fearful sound of the trumpet: and you hear how holy Church describes it, even in order to the just, in respect of whom, S. Paul in the 10. of the Hebrews calls it, Terribilis quaedam expectatio judicii, a terrible expectation of judgement: and hence S. Hillarius in Psal. 113. Quomodo desiderabile potest esse judicium, in quo nobis est indefessus ille ignis obeundus? etc. How can that day be an object of our Prayers? etc. The very Saints themselves must pass through that last fire, but as silver and gold: which can stand against the severe test: & this being done, they must be Judges of us sinners. The Apostle saith both. Out of which if we weigh the inexplicable severity of that day, Desiderare quis audebit? who, with S. Hilary, dare pray for it? and yet your main position is, that this is only prayed for, and that, till that great day, the Saints, though in an indigent condition, are not capable to receive any refrigerium, or ease, as the Fathers speak, and expressly prayed for in all the Church's Liturgies. Which is indeed a comfortless tenet to all Christians; and it toucheth too near upon the Church, and her doctrine, though most Sectaries will applaud it.  
Shall I tell you how near it presseth upon this Article? Truly (besides what I said in the former Chapters) I know not possibly, how to render the prayers of holy Church for the dead, of any considerable use at all, as applied to, and for them, either in particular, or in general, as they are condistinct from the faithful living. I spoke before, that this tenet renders prayers for particular dead persons useless, as not at all corresponding with the design of their friends, which evidently was, and is intended by all, in order to obtaining of ease and relief of such souls, for which they pray. But now by further weighing the necessary consequences of this tenet, it seems evidently to conclude, all prayers for the dead, in effect useless, even as offered in general, or for all in general, as well as for particular persons.  
The reason is; first, because if we pray only for the general Resurrection, (as you say) this concerns them not any more, nay, less, as being dead, than if they were living: because they are already sure of a happy resurrection; & in some degree, though yet in a state of punishment, as it were already possessed of it, or at least, upon entering into it.  
Secondly, the concernment of the general resurrection, in order to Heaven, is so urgent in respect of the faithful living, and being yet wholly in the clouds, in respect of our knowledge, or any certainty of it, that our Prayers in true charity, aught to be far more fervent & constant, for all the faithful living, as being in more necessity, than for the dead, or at least, for them both together, if this be all we are to pray for, by the Church's definition.  
Whence methinks it concludes, that the Article of praying for the dead, either for particulars or generals, is upon very slight grounds pressed, and observed by holy Church in your principles, surely they convince, that the same prayers which are offered for the dead, aught to be offered, either for the living and dead together, or else principally for the living. Whence follows, that there is no need at all of this article, referring to the dead, as I said, condistinct from the living; if there be no hope of present relief or release, till the general resurrection. I do but give you a hint, that you may further reflect upon it. This done, I proceed to the ground itself of your assertion.  
Indeed the great Masters of the World, and of the Schools, S. Augustine, Alexander Hales, S. Bonaventure, Scotus in his book de anima, and many other eminent persons, not esteeming themselves to desert Aristotle, teach us, the souls have a natural capacity of some change without the body.  
One ground is, they conceive the impossibility of change to be derived originally from the negation of matter (which Aristotle asserts principium corruptionis) which is supposed to accompany all spiritual things: but if materiality be consistent with the limited simplicity of our souls, as they endeavour to prove in Aristotle's principles; since they have individuation, and some composition, in their separated state from the bodies, as they conceive to be clear in Metaphisical speculations: which if true, their consequence is easy for what relates to the nature of the soul.  
Do you examine this: it wants not great weight, even the force of Demonstration, in their judgements.  
Again, S. Bonaventure holds Aeviternity to have a sort of divisibility; which I shall explicate in due place: his reason is, because otherwise it will argue souls, and Angels to have actually infinite durance, being their durance continues in infinitum, as all suppose which he esteems a great absurdity to assert of any finite thing; as arguing infinite virtue to require infinite durance together: which will conclude them to be infinite in essence; which is against all our suppositions.  
In the same manner will as easily be concluded, that a separate soul hath actually an infinite knowledge of things; since the instant of aeviternity, which is immutable, and altogether, continues in infinitum, and consequently hath infinite objects present: of all which the soul actually, and by its connatural power, produceth knowledge together: which argues infinite vigour.  
St. Bonavent. and the rest, esteem both these repugnant to a creature; though you should say, that each is derived from God: for still it stands that the soul from its own nature, though derived from God, is infiniti vigoris: which Aristotle justly appropriates to God. Examine this, and weigh well, whether it doth not imply contradiction?  
I assure you that these pressed home, will sooner be heightened to a demonstration, than most of those, which are urged for the contrary, with loud intonations of demonstrations. But if in Mathematics, which are rendered pervious to our senses, we cannot reach to demonstrations, but upon swallowing many suppositions without proof, what can we vaingloriously boast of, in these remote objects?  
It's true, that a soul separate, cannot produce new habits in itself by acts, as now we do, by reason it hath all possible disposition already, as being determined by nature to it; yet it is consistent with its aeviternity, that the soul have some new acts, at least in order to supernatural objects. Thus far S. Thomas, Scotus, and all agree; as Angels in holy Scriptures are recorded to have had in divers occurrences.  
St. Thomas, Henricus, and others, to make this good, invent a sort of time; which they call, tempus discretum, (though Aristotle never heard of it) to measure them by, that is, where there is not a continuation by parts, as in our time, but each instant follows without ties. But I think there is no need to explicate one obscurity by a greater: for indeed it is hard to conceive what one indivisible added to another, will have for the quotient, but punctum; which will leave us where we were. And therefore staying in this road, I think it clear, that the souls have acts; and that, according to their natures, they are measured by aeviternity, in its proper sense; as Scotus, and the rest, teach: though Aristotle out of a false principle of the souls absolute dependence upon the Fancy, denies a separated soul to have any act at all: but Avicen saith better, following Plato's, and, as he contends, Aristotle's doctrine, as I have done in the System, that the soul hath the species of all things within itself.  
Others conceive, that without them, it hath actual knowledge of all: and therefore, as to natural objects, the soul in state of separation hath knowledge of all; and consequently (as they think) is easily proved not to be subject to change in them: and which is very considerable, Mr. White goes no further, l. 4. lect. 4. Constans itaque est, nullam mutationem ex naturae vi, in anima separata posse existere.   

CHAP. VIII. Whether a soul can be changed by God, and how, in Purgatory? The true state of the controversy explicated.  
BUt when we speak of the soul in Purgatory, we speak of a supernatural condition: in which case, notwithstanding its spirituality, it is movable by objects of a superior order, (neither do I remember, that Master White questioneth this) of which it hath not connaturally any species. Neither doth the production of any thing to a being after it had none, hinder it from being spiritual, or aeviternal: else Angels, and our souls created in time, though not successively, or in the parts of time would miss of both.  
For example: what repugnance is there in the soul to be moved, if God shall please to present his blessed humanity to it in the state of separation, as well as when it is again joined to the body? truly I doubt not, but it would produce a far more noble, and more intense act, of the love of God in its separation; being far more powerful then, when it is united to the body, when it works only by help, and order, of the fancy: as it must do according to course of nature, at the first apparition of that blessed object; being the soul is supposed not to be yet beatified.  
I see not that spirituality renders the soul incapable of that happiness: and it is certain, that St. Paul thought it not so: whence he cries: Sieve in corpore, sive extra corpus, nescio. He would have known, if his soul extra corpus, that is, in her spirituality, had repugned to the vision.  
If it be replied, that this is supernatural.  
Is it not so, that the soul at last is reunited to the body; when you conceive it shall love God more intensely? Nay is it not so, that all ill affections, which it carried out of this world, shall remain till the reunion, and then be abolished? What natural reason will reach this? Nay, what principles of Religion will teach us, that the souls of good Christians (for so they must be) shall be detained in Purgatory, so many ages comprehended in aeviternity, as till Doomsday to no effect in order to the souls; since the very dregs of sin, with which they parted from the bodies, and their ill affections, are not at all corrected or purged, by occasion of that state, but remain till after the reunion in all their degrees of intention? so that their remainder there, seems useless, & indeed purely vindicative: against which you much insist.  
Again, the whole state of the soul here treated, is supernatural, that is, under another series of causes, then being with the body. That the soul continues in the state of sin, or dregs of it, wherein it is at the time of separation, and in a continual remorse, or sting of conscience, according to that of St. Luke, c. 18. to the rich man: Recordare, quia recepisti bona in vita tua: Remember what good things thou receivedst in thy life. Also in a most afflictive, and almost a vexatious desire of Heaven: from which, as they know, sins, or the dregs, retard them. All this is natural to it: but that this state is temporary, and relating, or tending, to a change of eternal felicity; and that it is penal, that is, inflicted, as such, is above nature. (I meddle not here with, what other punishments, do, or may, accompany this state.) No wonder then, if in this supernatural condition, it hath, when God pleaseth, these supernatural visits, by ways, which we know not; in which, the soul is subject to mutation: this I conceive sufficient for the matter here treated, which is, the souls change in order to Heaven.  
To deny this to the souls, is not to call in question their natural power, in which we are already agreed, as to the negative; but God's power, in order to them, which in our conference you granted.  
Whereas it may be objected, that still here is no diversity of parts, as an Agent and a Patient, in an indivisible soul: which is required in all actions, even to avoid contradiction.  
To this is replied, according to Aristotle, 3o. de An. versus fin. as Roger Bacon and Gulielmus Parisiensis, and others, interpret him, that God is therefore, as intellectus agens, who illuminates our understanding by a spiritual light, as the Sun doth our sight, in order to bodies; and so actuates it, in order to knowledge of things, whereof it is capable: and therefore he saith, that intellectus agens is separated a possibili, substantially; and that it knows all things; and that it is always in act, etc. which are proper to God, as they think: and indeed to make the understanding to be agens and possibilis, it is a riddle, being it is to make it Agent and Patient to itself, although indivisible.   

CHAP. IX. The state of the Question further explicated. The difference between an instant of time and aeviternity declared. The resolution of the Question fully given, as to change of souls.  
IF you ask me, how a Soul, by the power of God can be changed, from a not knowing to a knowing, in the same instant, without contradiction?  
I answer first, that our souls are indeed indivisible in their essences; as not having quantity; & in the production of their acts, or operations, in state of separation; as being not done by motion: they are also indivisible in their durances; or the measures of their durances are indivisible; that is, not by parts: with which is consistent, that their measures are not instantaneous, as ours are; but are capable, and disposed, upon Gods continuated, and, as it were, connatural influence, as the beams in respect of the Sun, to include the whole presentiality of eternity, by reason that the length, or shortness of duration doth not at all change the measure in itself; provided that it be altogether.  
It is therefore a great disproportion, rather a collusion, to argue from the consideration of an instant of our time to aeviternity: they both agree in this, that they are indivisible; that is, they are not capable of succession of parts: but the reason of this in each is wholly different.  
The instant of time is therefore so, because Physically speaking, it is nothing else but a ●egation, or termination of some thing, and hath therefore no duration at all A●vum, or aeviternity, is not capable of succession, as being, as the former is, indivisible, and altogether, but yet hath infinite durance, according to the way expressed, virtually including infinite instances, according to which it is conceivable to have mutation without contradiction; because its durance or existence now, though altogether, or not by parts, is not by virtue of the same conservation, or influx, it hath from God, as applied before; but it hath, in a manner, a new dependency of him, else both it, and its measure would cease to be: this is both Scotus and S. Bonaventures solid way of explication of this abstruse difficulty. And truly I believe St. Thomas and Henricus their tempus discretum, well weighed, will fall into it. And verily Aeviternity seems in this to differ from eternity, that it doth not necessarily involve an impossibility of ceasing to be, or of requiring a continuated, or, as it were, a new dependence of the divine influence, without which it would cease: Whereas, whatsoever is essentially aeternal, is repugnant to any imaginable change; and therefore it can only be asserted of God.  
I could answer secondly, that in the operations of Angels, or souls considered as to the simple notion of their aeviternity, there may be succession, or mutation, without contradiction (which Scotus grants without restriction.) My reason is, because the assertion, or negation of any operation, is in respect of divers instances, or aeviternal measures.  
For example, the existence of a soul is its own measure, as not being distinct from it: the operations have, or are, each theirs, as being indivisible, as well as the soul. Hence, although the soul, as to essence and existence, is immutable, as naturally its measure is; and so each operation is, whilst it is, or its aevum is: yet the soul, as to operation, or under operation, may, without contradiction, admit some change, as lying under other aeviternities, or measures, which accompany the Acts, as I have said. Whence follows, that the soul is not rightly said to be not knowing, and knowing, in the same, or in order to the same instant, or aevum; but it is not knowing, as measured by the soul's own aevum, and it is knowing, considered as to the measures of the Acts, which as I declared, must be distinct from that of the Soul: and hence it may have new Acts.  
Thirdly, I answer, that rightly putting with Scotus, that Aevum, or how you will call the measure of Angelical, or Animastick Natures, is not distinct from the things measured. You know in bodies the measures are extrinsecall as being from the motions of the bodies of the Heavens, but here is no such  Gnomon in respect of spiritual substances. We need not therefore seek, whether they may have succession of Acts in one instant, to avoid contradiction, which so much affrights us: but we only are to look upon the nature of the Acts themselves, whether there is no implicacy in them to co-exist with one another, or to succeed each other? Which sure there is none imaginable. Neither do you allege any here. It is not hard then to conceive, that a Soul hath many Acts; since also, as I said above, an aevum can co-exist to an infinity of instances; namely, as long as an Angel continues.  
I hope, out of all this I may safely conclude, that a separated soul may have mutation in its Acts, especially as S. Thomas speaks 2.2.9.58. a. 11. Quantum ad ea, quae eis divinitus revelantur, nihil prohibet, intellectus Angelorum esse in potentia.  
My solution therefore is, that the Angels, or Souls, without contradiction, are capable of revelations, or whatsoever motions from God, that is, in any supernatural way; in order whereunto nothing hinders them to be changeable, and this, as I said, is sufficient for our principal assertion of the souls capacity of change, in Purgatory.  
To this may be objected, that the soul is a pure act, as admitting no composition; and therefore the acts are not different from the essence, and therefore not mutable.  
It is as easy replied, that it is repugnant to the nature of a creature to be that, which Divines call a pure act, first as having a potentiality to a not being, and having a dependence upon composition; or having some actual composition, or componibility. Also to have been produced out of nothing, carries with it a defect of that simplicity, which is a pure act, as having necessarily a quo, and quod. And truly in this very thing, an Angel (which is the noblest of creatures) differs from God, that it is not its own act, and therefore in a potentiality to acts: which can not be said of any but God. This is as to the general.  
Besides, the considerations of a soul, render it far inferior, as being compounded Metaphysically, which is real. Besides, as cannot be denied, it is ordinable to a Physical composition, as to be a part of the compositum, or whole man: which excludes the being a pure act: for matter, and form, are therefore not simple enough, as to this (though otherwise simpliciter simplices, as Scotus speaks) because they are componible betwixt themselves.  
Being advanced thus far, you will give me leave to tell you, that I do not conceive it to be out of ignorance of the nature of a soul (though it is thought so) that all Divines grant this sort of mutability; which is consonant to holy Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, all Schoolmen, and Christian reason, but it is rather out of a non advertence of the inconsistency of holy Church's doctrine, confirmed by universal practice of relief of souls out of Purgatory before the great day, that now the contrary is so much pressed by some, as not considering their subjection to God's powerful mercy.  
A modest man would rather say with St. Augustine, treating almost of this matter, for it is in his treatise of the Divination of Devils, cap. 6. Rem dixi occultissimam audaciore asseveratione, quam debui: I have been more bold than wise to speak confidently in these remote subjects. Let us therefore return to the souls proceeding in Purgatory. For as to the other objections (which ordinarily are alleged) they have more Water, than Salt.  
In order indeed to increase of Charity, the soul hath in Purgatory some disposition, as being already invested with it; but by reason first, that it is extra viam; by reason also of the dregs, which cause, and accompany its present condition, it is not expeditely disposed, but at length, according to God's orders, by presenting forceably some supernatural object, or motive, or some other way, the obstacles are removed, and the soul easily intended to such a charity, rather charity to such a degree is intended in the soul; which joins it to glory; each by ways unknown, as being unnecessary to the Churches present condition, to know God's ways in the souls relief; importing nothing to the advance of Piety; which as you will confess, is the border of revealed truths.   

CHAP. X. Scriptures, and Traditions, must be obeyed. How one can satisfy for another. Whether, and how, other virtues, besides Charity, avail towards Heaven.  
THat learned persons use their abilities to declare the true sense of Church-customes, where there may be mistakes, is the office of Christian Divines, and highly worthy their endeavours: and the Council of Trent enjoins Prelates to do it in this particular, as St. Thomas, St. Bonav. Scotus, and the rest, do. But to call general, old customs themselves into question, or to bend them to our speculations, is, in St. Augustine's esteem (ep. 118.) the greatest madness in the world. His words are, insolentissimae insaniae est. His reason is, because, Quae universa tenet ecclesia, ab Apostolis praecepta, bene creduntur, quanquam scripta non reperiantur; as he rightly teaches against the Donatists, l. 5. c. 23. It is enough, if holy Church avoucheth any thing: yet you press this so far, as you seem to censure the public sense of all Christians, of novelty.  
St. Augustine, and St. Hierome, when they happened upon any Texts of Holy Scripture, which they found too hard for them (which was frequent) they imputed it to their want of reason; and not to the Scriptures want of Truth. Hence St. Hierome Q. 8. ad Algasiam, speaking of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, saith: Totus hic Apostoli locus, & in superioribus, & in consequentibus; imo omnis Epistola ejus ad Romanos, nimiis obscuritatibus involuta est. The whole Epistle was above his reach, yet he durst not, in the least, question the truth, but confessed his own weakness, and besides many other places, in his thirtieth ep. which is, to Oceanus speaking of Fabiola, her pious desire to understand some passages of holy Scripture in the book of Numbers, he tells her questions to him: To which, he thus recounts his answer. In quibusdam haesitavi, in aliis inoffenso pede cucurri, in plerisque ignorantiant confessus sum. He confesseth he was not able to salve the proposals, even of a woman, by reason of the intricacies in the holy Text, yet he submits to all. And no less in holy Churches Traditions, or universal customs, as you have heard St. Augustine, whereof this is one.  
Most Christians therefore having not at their deaths (as is supposed) so intense a charity, as could perfectly ordinate their faults (as Martyrs and great Saints are justly believed to have) hence after this life (that every coinquination, as St. John speaks, may be expurged) they are exercised in a due satispassion, in conformity to God's orders, before entrance into Heaven. Which though formally can only be performed by themselves, yet aequivalently by satisfaction tendered by the Church Militant, and her children, it may be estimated Theirs, as all Courts of Justice, especially where there is a commixtion of Mercy, as in this case, will admit. Although I know no Law, or express institution of God for this, whereby it may be expected in rigour of justice, or ex condigno, as we speak, That one man's Act, shall be accepted for another, but only by way of Petition, and impetration; which the children of holy Church use, especially for the faithful departed.  
When therefore all Christians, even from the time, when charity itself in our blessed Lord dwelled amongst us, did, and do, acknowledge Christian Religion to be a penitential, and humble Religion, as the Roman Persecutors exprobrated to our Primitive Martyrs; they did not, neither do we, prefer external Penances, and Humiliations before Charity, the Queen of Virtues: which only amongst Theological Virtues stands the shock of Eternity, and which qualifies, and enhances our Acts, in order to it; insomuch that although Prayers, Fast, or Alms-deeds, do avail, in order to Heaven, and for satisfaction of sins, as the Council of Trent, Sesse 14. declares; yet it is requisite, that they be commanded, or ordered by Charity; though the wise Council doth not expressly determine this. Therefore we all desire, according to the Laws of God, that Charity, which is free, according to the Apostle, may not be straightened in its operations; but, as circumstances invite, let it be employed 〈◊〉 one, by curing souls; in another, by curing bodies; in a third, by corporal Pennances; in a fourth, by suffering for the dead, or in the dead, by suffering for themselves, in each, according as the Spirit of God directs. As in the Collations of the Fathers, Col. 14. C. 4. Nestorius' the Abbot, speaking of his Religious, saith: Some choosing the care of the sick; some begging for people in misery, or teaching the ignorant; or giving alms to the poor, etc. were every one glorious in their several pieties: so that they were pieties, that is operations of Charity.   

CHAP. XI. How corporal afflictions can satisfy for sins? Whether a probable Opinion may be followed?  
IF we admit not this, we shall with Erasmus his Version, content ourselves with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, if we will, for the future commit no more Theft, Adultery, or the like, there is no need of wearing sackcloth and ashes, fasting, or any penitential works, though flowing from Charity, to take away the dregs of sin, and so appease God offended for them; against all Scriptures, and sense of all Christians: which is indeed Calvin's Libertinism, never known before in the world, nor, as I presume, by you intended: expressly also against the Council. of Trent, Sess. 13. & 14. which I entreat you to peruse; for it condemns with Anathema to say, that Fast, Prayers, and Alms, or other pious works through Christ, do not satisfy for temporal punishment due for our sins; that is, after the guilt of them is taken away by the Sacraments.  
I do not say this, as if corporal austerities, or indeed any thing else of ours were in their own natures proportionable satisfactions in order to God, for our violations of his Laws; but as all sins, even those which are purely mental, or that have not proceeded further than the will, are truly, even in Aristotle's grounds, operations of the whole man; for, Actiones sunt suppositorum. Thus far Reason will carry us, that even the Body should be instrumental in abolishing those guilts whereof it was partaker, and sometimes a shrewd Suggestor. Whereupon we know, the most speculative Divines, as Scotus his School, and Cajetan, with many others teach, that even the sensitive, that is, the corporeal part of a man, hath a capacity of venial sin in itself; and as of sin, so of goodness. Whence they rationally teach, that a man, who doth not only intent, but effectually giveth Alms, or the like, doth add a degree of goodness, and consequently may hope for a greater reward, than if he had contained himself within the bounds of his Will.  
Whence will further follow, that corporal afflictions, even in themselves, may properly serve as emanations from a soul afflicted for sin, or as exercises, of which the body is only capable, flowing from the love of God, as surely they are, in a true contrite spirit.  
And in this kind in holy Writ, they are by true Penitents sometimes voluntarily undertaken, other times by God's orders inflicted, and accepted, in order to remission of sins; and this not always miraculous, as the Texts of holy Scriptures show. If it were miraculous (as sometimes it is, and you have well pondered,) it is so far from enervating, that it demonstratively confirms God's acceptance of the Church's Doctrine and practice, as to corporal afflictions, to the end assigned: as is also clearly showed in the place quoted of the Council of Trent: as also Sess. 6. c. 14.  
And hence holy Church by God's orders enjoins Sacramental pennances (these I know you do not reject) which are deletory of the dregs of sin, that is, they may exercise the soul in intending Charity infused by God upon sorrow, and the efficacy of the Sacrament. By which means is often wrought an absolute extinction of sin, that is, even of those veleities, which frequently trouble us after the height of our former mortal malice, by help of the Sacraments (derived from our blessed Saviour's Passion) was extinguished and pardoned.  
As concerning some seeming excrescencies, which you, and some others carped at, and the like Sir Thomas More also jested at, I believe no judicious Catholic will pretend, that they have strict acquaintance with Church Orders, but are only a sort of begottery, into which, Devotion, not well regulated, easily degenerates. But you must not, under this pretence, laugh at all inferior sorts of Piety and Devotion, which are to be proportioned to each capacity.  
I conclude as to this with St. Augustine, l. 12. de Civit. c. 15. treating of Angels: Vereor ne facilius judicer affirmare quod nescio, quam docere, quod scio. I had rather be not knowing, with submission to holy Churches orders, than swell in a vain opinion of my knowledge, in prejudice of the least of them. And this must be, except we would hear from the spirit of God, ivistis in adinventionibus vestris: ye have left me, and walked in your own inventions. Christian Religion doth not receiv estrength, by the weakness of our reason, but our reason is elevated by the strength of Christian Religion. And therefore how apparent soever it is, it must veil bonnet, if a contest be interjected.  
And therefore Master White in his Controversie-Logick, and his fourteenth reflection teacheth thus, consonant to Vincentius Lirinensis, speaking of Origen and Apollinarius their failings, and falls: How mean & pitiful a change it is, to fall from the splendid authority of the whole Church, to the obscure authority of a private Doctor be he what he will. Surely it deserves an Egyptian Pyramid to perpetuate it against all innovations, and particularly, against this which we have rejected.  
Yet there are a sort of Opiniators, as Cicero calls them, who fancy each strong fancy of theirs, to be demonstrations: to which all, who will not incur the note of ignorance, must subscribe, as well in Morals, as in questions, touching faith.  
Whereas St. Augustine, l. 1. Retract. c. 21. disputing learnedly, and largely of the sense of our Lords words to Saint Peter, super hanc Petram, etc. concludes thus: Harum duarum sententiarum, quaesit probabilis, eligat lector. Antiquity then did not disallow probable opinions: nor presently fancy their own conceits to be demonstrations; much less forbid others to follow such, which they judged probable. Which is now too much cried down, and truly as to Morals, I conceive I have demonstrated in my Enchyridion Dial. that probability is enough.   

CHAP. XII. The design of this Treatise.  
WHereas you say, I dare not assert the contrary opinion of the souls continuing in Purgatory, till the day of judgement to be Heresy.  
It is easily replied, first with Bellarmine, that to prescribe any term to particular persons, and much more to the general, that is, to determine months, or years, non nisi temerè definiri potest, it is a great temerity; because, as he saith solidly, it is resincertissima: there is nothing more uncertain in all Christian principles. For indeed here is neither reason, nor revelation to conduct us. He spoke upon occasion of Scotus his opinion, who thought, according to the measures he made of God's mercies, that none would stay in Purgatory above ten years. Which weak ground brought Origen into his error, of promising a period to the pains of Hell. Thus great wits, still produce by strength of fancy, new grounds, and thence often new errors into the Church; but to assert a detaining all souls in Purgatory till doomsday, notwithstanding the Church's Suffrages, Alms, and pious helps, is, for aught I can see, a novelty; and if so, it is easily proved to be a falsehood: for amongst the ancient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were almost equal crimes, as accompanying each other.  
To what you demand further, it is easily rejoined from our blessed Saviour's example: Quis constituit me Judicem? I am no Judge of Controversies. That is referred to S. Peter's chair. Therefore I dare not indeed presumptuously censure other Catholic Doctors opinions, whose persons, and learning I justly reverence. Keeping myself therefore within the bounds of the Schools, my design is only to vindicate the Church's Doctrine, and constant practice (as I am able to understand it) from ignorance, and Novelty. In this none can justly blame me. Neither ought any to conceive themselves to be particularly concerned in it; the rather, because I do not believe (when they speak clearly of their long Purgatory) that they intent any further, than in order to natural causes: in respect of which, as the Souls are not capable to be changed, as you learnedly, and truly teach, after, and with Mr. White; so by force of such, or by order of Nature, they cannot change their posture from Purgatory to Heaven: which is a great truth.  
If any will go further, I say with St, Paul: Non sic didici Christum: I must leave them: yet with St. Hieroms Proviso, in his Dialogue against Pelagius, l. 3. In dogmatibus disserendis, non persona, sed causa quaerenda est. I touch no man's person.  
Scotus teacheth his followers, (treating St. Cyprians case) to be modest in their tenets, conceiving there may be venial sin, in being too forward, or heady, even before Canonical declarations, or determinations: and St. Hierome, Apol. l. 2. saith: Si quaestiones de animaestatu in Vrbe commotae sunt, quae est ista qucrimonia vel querela, quae utrùm recipi debeat, Episcoporum judicio derelinquitur? This must be decided by Bishops: chief by the Bishop of Rome: as he teacheth against Ruffinus in the same Apology; and in his 67 Epistle to Theophilus he saith notably: Scito nihil nobis esse antiquius, quàm Christi jura servare, nec patrum transferre terminos, semperque meminisse Romanam fidem, Apostolico ore laudatam; cujus se esse participem Alexandrina Ecclesia gloriatur: We must all glory to submit to the decisions of Rome, when Patriarches themselves are taught to do it. According therefore to our friends desire, I only let him know, for prevention of mistakes, what I have learned in Scotus, and St. Thomas their Schools; and what was the substance of our amicable Collation; in nothing (as I hope) violating the laws of true Christian friendship; which I hold sacred, as being consistent with that well measured Gradation: Amicus Plato, amicus Aristoteles, magis amica VERITAS. Which method, as you know, was religiously observed by learned Sir Thomas More, in his sharp congresses with Tindal, when he objected his great friend Erasmus his version (reduplicating in vain the notion of a friend) against the sense of Holy Church.  
FINIS.