CHAP. I. Relief in Purgatory is the Doctrine of holy Church.

IN our last Epistolary Conference concerning the sense of the Gene­ral [Page 2]Councel of Florence, and of Pope Benedict the eleventh, his Bul, 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 confess'd, that their principall 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 [Page 3]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 sence of this, as being in part involved in the former. So that it was a Conci­liary Declaration of the Churches Doctrine, as to this: that is, of the whole Christian World, as all prior or posterior Do­ctors, not violented (for it is easie to mis-apply, [Page 4]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 Ca­tholiques, declare.

See in S. John Damas­cen almost all the Greek Fathers, even inclusively, from great Dyonisius to himselfe, and some of the Latines also are re­corded in him, who all assert this, and say, that from our Lords Disciples it descended, & obtain­ed in, and through the [Page 5]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 [Page 6]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 Judgment 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 [Page 7]have the honour to have their memories celebra­ted in the Fasts of the Schools, That whatsoever is declared in a Generall Councel, which is received, or not impunè resisted by Catholique 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 parti­cularized in my System: and especially compels us to an acceptance of this present Article, ac­cording [Page 8]to the same place it obtained in the Coun­cel 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 Heretique, who was present in the Councel, recalcitrated in vain against it, in some particulars, but not a­gainst this at all; which still confirmes us in it. Gennadius, the Patriarch [Page 9]saith, this Councel 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 [Page 10]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 inferre 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 [Page 11]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 actuall fear, or doubt, of the [Page 12]truth, else they would have praied faintly: but it is a traditionary do­ctrine, and under that notion, by all under­stood. Hence we never read in Scriptures, Coun­cels, 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, [Page 13]as some gently perswade us.

That some things have been delivered to poste­rity in the Church, which could never obtain more authority then 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 conveigh clearly their qualificati­ons with them, as in some cases, evidently it did and in others it did not, as there I give instances; [Page 14]then the onely way is to return to general Coun­cels, 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, [Page 16]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 vertue 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 al­waies produced propor­tionate effects in Gods holy Martyrs, and Saints, especially in those first times, as the course of Gods providence requi­red, [Page 17]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: [Page 18]which, according to S. Augustines Rule, are sufficiently proved by the Churches Doctrine, and practice. The holy Scriptures themselves, as interpreted by antiqui­ty also declare it, which are obviously knowne: 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, [Page 19]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 Churches practice and doctrine; which are cleare even amongst the Greekes as well as Latines: You know, that according to Mr. Rushworth, and Mr. White, (whose authority cannot be denied by you) the publique practice, or oral conveyance, demon­strates [Page 20]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 Latines, have prose­cuted their friends de­ceased with their Pray­ers, Alms-deeds, which all Christian Monuments declare: methinkes it were strange now at length to have all re­solved into a cold Ob­lation, or Prayer for Doomsday: wherin their particular Allies are no [Page 21]more concerned, than all others: & so all the pious indeavours 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 onely orall tradition, but the manifest writings of the most ancient and learned in the bulke of the Fa­thers; as S. Aug. is suf­ficient testimony for all the rest, in his Treatise of this subject, stiled by him, A care of the dead, where he supposeth it to [Page 22]be the common sense of the whole Catholique Church, that particular persons dead, who have acquired merit in their life time, by which such things may be rendred profitable after death, do receive benefit by what is done for them religiously after their decease: and he speaks cleane through the whole Book of actual benefit, profit, help, ad­vantage, availment, and rest to be procured for the souls. And lest we should glosse it for the soules in their reunion with their bodies, he [Page 23]frequently speakes con­distinctively of the soule as separated from the bo­dy, or as it is when the body is dead; and he saith, that then it recei­veth succour: which, as he shews, and I have said, was the practice of all Churches in their pub­lique Liturgies. I do not esteem it constancy, but obstinacy, to intort antiquity to our sense gainst their own.

CHAP. IV. The sences of Greek, and Latine Lyturgies 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 Liturgie p. 34, in the Rubrick. Other times they pray, that they may be put into a place of light sommess, where sor­row is banisht and groa­ning, [Page 25]&c. as in S. Basils Liturgie. Sometimes that they may rest in Abra­hams bosome, as in S. James his Liturgie. All these intimate a change, a present relief, though not alwayes a release, as the stile evidently im­ports: which destroyes your very ground; for you teach that no pray­ers can relieve, or change them till Doomes-day. S. James in his Lyturgie prayes, that God would cause the souls to rest with the Saints. You say, he meanes, that they may not rest, or have [Page 26]ease, or lightsomness, &c. till after the day of judg­ment. 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, followes them, and the sense of both Church­es frequently appears to be, that by their prayers [Page 27]they may obtain present ease, ut a poenis releven­tur, saith the Councel 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 pro­gresse 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, Alms­deeds, [Page 28]&c. The not ob­serving this, hath made a misunderstanding of som of the Fathers in this matter.

Truly sometimes they pray expresly, 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, &c. he will never leave praying, till by his pray­ers and teares he hath [Page 29]brought him out of Pur­gatory to Heaven. We need no more for both Churches: he a great La­tine Bishop well acquain­ted with the sense of both Churches, promiseth this for the Greek and La­tine Emperor, in presence of the Emperor; also a Grecian born, and of the Court where were present as well Greeke as La­tine Prelats, and Do­ctors. If this had not been the publick sense of all Churches in their ob­sequies for the dead, there wanted not Zelots then, and after, who [Page 30]would have reprehended this publique attempt, which you call Novelty, by them adjudged Pie­ty.

St. Chrysostome 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 sig­nifie Heaven, where is no such diminutive, as quid­dam [Page 31]solatium: this sure­ly cannot be Doomsday; which agrees with Saint Augustines, Neque negan­dum est, defunctorum ani­mas pietate suorum viven­tium relevari, cum pro il­lis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosynae in Ecclesia fiunt, &c. 9.2. ad Dulcitium: and in his Enchyridion to Lawrence c. 110. as elsewhere he distinguishes three sorts of the dead, whereof the midle are only capable of this help, and in his Care of the dead, c. 4. he tels us, that Christians in their Prayers recommend the [Page 32]third [...] by the [...] Saints. [...] take them [...] [...]mpany when [...] rise, accord­ing [...] you; but S. Aug. dre [...]nd not of that good­fellowship, 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 Latine Fathers, which, in reading them, I have noted. And though some Criticks do not give a due esteem of S. Grego­ry the great, and Venera­ble [Page 33] Bede their Histories, which Baronius elegantly defends; yet no man of reason can doubt, much lesse 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 soules might be delivered out of Purgatory, before the last day. Nay, they did not only not resist them, but both Greeks and Latines positively approved of them. For Pope Zachary [Page 34]had his bookes of Dia­logues, without any restri­ction, in so high esteem, that he himselfe 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 ther­fore no wonder, that Ve­nerable Bede, following our first Christian Master, St. Gregory (though he himselfe sharp-sighted) gives more examples of the like; as also S. John Damascen. These two [Page 35](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 Chur­ches 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 boldnesse than became us, both in regard of the wri­tings of some faithfull Christians who report it, as also in regard of the [Page 36]testimony and sensible ex­perience of those, to whom such visions have hapned. 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 La­tine and Greek Churches. And hence the Councel of Florence in the very Decree (as I have noted in another Book) speaking for, and in the name of both Churches, sayes: We define, &c. that those souls, who, after they have contracted the ble­mish [Page 37]of sin, are purged either in their bodies, or, being uncloathed 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 Lyturgie in the Se­quentia doth wonderful­ly inculcate the horror of Doomsday, partly to move us living to a right apprehension of our con­cernment [Page 38]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 Faithfull rest from hence­forward, to prevent the rigour of that fearfull day.

It's truly a mistake to say, the Greek Church did not admit this Do­ctrine [Page 39]before the Councel 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, &c. but only in the beginning was exa­mined how far they a­greed with Pope John's errour against the facial sight of God; and this was amended by common consent. Nay, their pra­ctice was never question­ed, or doubted of: which [Page 40]was, and is, the same with the Latines, as hath been shewed; and therefore Cyril repeating, and ex­pounding the manner of their Lyturgies, saith: [...], &c. That is, We believe that it will be a wonderfull help to the souls, for whom suppli­cation is offered of this holy and terrible sacri­fice. Can any man refer this wonderfull help to a cold expectation of Doomsday? And hence we see in the third action of the General Councel of Calcedon, how the pro­cess [Page 41]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 practise of both Churches; and ther­fore 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 La­tine 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 Faithfull 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 no other­wise.

Again, the Church in the Collects prayes to give them refrigerii se­dem, &c. a seat of re­freshment, which speaks our Purgatory. These and all other Texts as­sure us of the Churches sense of praying to de­liver them before the great day: however by strengh 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 [Page 44]so universal, that here may be said what St. Au­gustine, lib. de duabus anim. c. 12, saith of liber­ty: Nonne ista cantant & in montibus pastores, & theatris Poetae, & in­docti in circulis, & docti [...] in Bibliothecis, & Magi­stri in scholis, & antisti­tes in locis sacris, & in orbe 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 Fathers one (though not only) constant test of new do­ctrines. And you profes­sedly esteeming the testi­mony of the present age to conveigh certainly the sense of the precedent, do, and must consequent­ly hold it to be an infalli­ble test, to discern even matters of Faith: so [Page 46]that ad hominem this were strong, if we had onely the present age. But surely Scriptures and Traditions are the ade­quate source of Christi­an truths in the received opinion of Doctors. And the Councel of Trent in the first Session seems to suppose it in order to the general. And truly all the former Councels 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 joyntly: and S. [Page 47] Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. shews 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 accomplisht, will ener­vate the dignity of cha­rity. Cicero lib. 3. de fini­bus saith notably, speak­ing of Philosophy: Hu­jusmodi [Page 49]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 midle sort [Page 50]of Christians, who onely have their concernment in Purgatory, according to Saint Augustine and the Councel of Florence, though they die indeed in charity, yet is suppo­sed not to be so intense, as wholly to dispose their souls for present blisse. And therefore in order to such, the Church asserts further expiation, and penal detention, necessa­ry for a longer or a shor­ter terme, according to the secret rules of Gods wisdom: wherein though our time is not the mea­sure of spiritual substan­ces, [Page 51]or sufferings, which have no parts to answer to the parts of our time, and therefore are not greater, or lesse, for the extrinsecal, 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 alwaies present to their intuition, and af­fection: whereas in bo­dies, [Page 52]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 [Page 53]co-existence 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 it self, 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 seperate 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 alwaies and altoge­ther present; so there is alwaies 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 [Page 55]this continues so long, as the real instant it self 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 followes even in your own principles, that the soul, which went to Purgatory many years agoe, 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 [Page 56]may as truly be said to be changed. But this whole matter is fitter for the Schooles 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 [Page 57]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 symptomes of Christiani­ty, are with them by a [Page 58]new sort of Chymistry, evaporated.

It seems certain, ac­cording to the received doctrine of great Divines, (wherein you doe not wholly dissent) that all souls, which depart from their bodies, in a capaci­ty of Heaven, at their se­paration, do appretiate God above all, and do heartily 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 [Page 59]in their first act of reason, applying themselves to 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 it self, without a desire of complyance with Gods 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 Gods orders, [Page 60]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 reform'd 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 Gods original position of causes, exacts this method of us. There­fore there is no necessity, which some are affrigh­ted [Page 61]at so much, to attri­bute their penal detenti­on to revenge in God; (though it is but quaestio de nomine, as diversly ta­ken) since it is conse­quent to our peccaminous acts, to be liable to it; e­specially holding, as truth seems to convince, that the reliques of the sinnes 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 [Page 62]punishment in hell it self, 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 Gregorie 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 shewed, de Mundo.

Its true, we have not injured God in our sins, who is above, and be­yond, [Page 63]the spheres of our most malitious activity; but our selves are prin­cipally endamaged in mortal sins, by losing all title to Heaven, or at least, by diminishing it, as in venial. Which losse caused by violation of his Lawes, must be repai­red by charity, directing to submit to, and to keep Gods Commandments, according to that Text of our Saviour: If you love me, keep my Comman­dements: whereof one is, to submit to his orders in Purgatory, wherein this voluntary due cha­stisement [Page 64]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 onely in a naked wishing, or wil­ling well to God, which is to love him; but it breaks out into a hearty complyance 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; [Page 65] Feed my sheep, &c. So that this love hath a great extent, though it alwaies terminates in God, as it begins in him. St. Paul also, 1 Cor. 13.4. tells us summarily, but pathetically, the further operation of charity: Charitas patiens est, be­nigna est, &c. whence will follow, that charity can be exercised, in fol­lowing any of Gods or­ders, in respect of the li­ving, or the dead, as in those St. Paul speaks of, 1 Cor. 15.29. who were baptized, that is, suffe­red for the dead, as [Page 66]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 complyance with Gods orders; which, dy­ing in charity, they could not but desire. This di­vine order being fulfil­led, and expiation being effected, the soul is ren­dred, through Gods mer­cy, capable of her hoped supervestition of eterni­ty.

CHAP. VII. How a soul, according to others, can change. Of the horror of Doomes-day. Whether it is to be prayed for.

I will now suppose that borrowed principle out of Aristotles Schooles, 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 [Page 68]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 soules, which do not im­mediately go to Heaven, or to Hel, 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 eies his most bles­sed humanity: of which he made us not capable [Page 69]during our long expecta­tion in the soules separa­tion: upon sight whereof they shall fall into rap­tures of divine love, &c.

The whole complex taken altogether, is the product of a great wit, possessed of much lear­ning, and, if kept within the Schooles (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 Idiome is [Page 70] dangerous, and against the Councel 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, &c. 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 [Page 71]condition, is one of the most universal, most con­stant, and most solemn practises of holy Church, as all Monuments de­clare: which by this your speculation is rendred, speaking really, of no use; as being resolved by you onely 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 [Page 72]heard perpetually the fear­full 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 cals it, Terribilis quaedam expectatio judicii, a ter­rible expectation of judg­ment: and hence S. Hil­larius in Psal. 113. Quo­modo desiderabile potest esse judicium, in quo nobis est indefessus ille ignis ob­eundus? &c. How can that day be an object of our Prayers? &c. The very Saints themselves must passe through that [Page 73]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 [Page 74]expresly prayed for in all the Churches Liturgies. Which is indeed a com­fortlesse 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 [Page 75]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, [Page 76]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 possest of it, or at least, upon entring into it.

Secondly, the concern­ment of the general re­surrection, in order to [Page 77]Heaven, is so urgent in respect of the faithfull living, and being yet wholly in the clouds, in respect of our knowledg, or any certainty of it, that our Prayers in true charity, ought 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 Churches definition.

Whence methinks it concludes, that the Arti­cle of praying for the dead, either for particu­lars [Page 78]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 offred for the dead, ought to be offred, 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 reliefe or re­lease, till the general re­surrection. I do but give [Page 79]you a hint, that you may further reflect upon it. This done, I proceed to the ground it self 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 som change without the body.

One ground is, they conceive the impossibili­ty of change to be deri­ved [Page 80]originally from the negation of matter (which Aristotle asserts principi­um corruptionis) which is supposed to accompa­ny all spirituall things: but if materiality be con­sistent with the limited simplicity of our souls, as they endeavour to prove in Aristotles 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 easie for what relates to the na­ture [Page 81]of the soule.

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; w ^ch 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 [Page 82]vertue 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 [Page 83]knowledge toge­ther: which argues infi­nite vigor.

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 prest home, will sooner [Page 84]be heightned to a demon­stration, than most of those, which are urged for the contrary, with loud intonations of de­monstrations. But if in Mathematicks, which are rendred pervious to our sences, we cannot reach to demonstrations, but upon swallowing ma­ny suppositions without proof, what can we vain­gloriously boast of, in these remote objects?

Its true, that a soul se­parate, cannot produce new habits in it self by acts, as now we do, by reason it hath all possi­ble [Page 85]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, [Page 86]that is, where there is not a continuation by parts, as in our time, but each instant followes 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 rode, 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 [Page 87] Scotus, and the rest, teach: though Aristotle out of a false principle of the souls absolute de­pendance upon the Fan­cy, denies a separated soul to have any act at all: but Avicen saith bet­ter, following Platoes, and, as he contends, A­ristotles doctrin, as I have done in the System, that the soul hath the species of all things within it self.

Others conceive, that without them, it hath actual knowledge of all: and therefore, as to natu­ral objects, the soul in state of separation hath [Page 88]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 controversie explicated.

BUt when we speak of the soul in Purgatory, we speak of a supernatu­ral condition: in which case, notwithstanding its spirituallity, it is movea­ble by objects of a supe­rior order, (neither do I remember, that Master White questioneth this) of which it hath not con­naturally [Page 90]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 joyned to the body? tru­ly I doubt not, but it [Page 91]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 onely by help, and order, of the fancy: as it must doe 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 happi­nesse: and it is certain, that St. Paul thought it [Page 92]not so: whence he cryes: Sive in corpore, sive ex­tra corpus, nescio. He would have known, if his soul extra corpus, that is, in her spirituallity, had repugned to the vision.

If it be replyed, that this is supernatural.

Is it not so, that the soul at last is reunited to the bodie; 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 [Page 93] 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 soules; 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 [Page 94]remainder there, seems uselesse, & 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 [Page 95]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 poenal, 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, [Page 96]it hath, when God plea­seth, these supernatural visits, by wayes, 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 naturall power, in which we are already agreed, as to the negative; but Gods 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 soule: which is required in all actions, even to avoid contradiction.

To this is replied, ac­cording to Aristotle, 3 ^o. 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 [Page 98]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 knowes all things; and that it is al­wayes in act, &c. 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 it self, 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 chang'd, 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 [Page 100]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 beames in respect of the Sun, to include the whole presentiality of ae­ternity, [Page 101]by reason that the length, or shortnesse of duration doth not at all change the measure in it self; 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 therfore so, because Phy­sically [Page 102]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, vertually 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 [Page 103]vertue of the same con­servation, or influx, it hath from God, as appli­ed before; but it hath, in a manner, a new depen­dancy 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 aeter­nity, that it doth not necessarily involve an [Page 104]impossibility of ceasing to be, or of requiring a continuated, or, as it were, a new dependance of the divine influence, without which it would cease: Whereas, what­soever is essentially aeter­nal, is repugnant to any imaginable change; and therefore it can onely 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 [Page 105] 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 exi­stance 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 [Page 106]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 [Page 107]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 ex­trinsecal Gnomon in re­spect of spiritual substan­ces. We need not there­fore seek, whether they may have succession of [Page 108] Acts in one instant, to a­void contradiction, which so much affrights us: but we onely 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 alledge 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 [Page 110]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 easie replyed, 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 [Page 111]dependance 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 [Page 112]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 forme, 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 [Page 113]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, Councels, Fathers, all Schoolmen, and Chri­stian reason, but it is ra­ther out of a non ad­vertence of the incon­sistency of holy Churches 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, [Page 114]as not considering their subjection to Gods 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 Divels, 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 al­ledged) [Page 115]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 Gods or­ders, by presenting force­ably some supernatural object, or motive, or some other way, the ob­stacles are removed, and [Page 116]the soul easily intended to such a charity, rather charity to such a degree is intended in the soul; which joynes it to glory; each by waies unknown, as being unnecessary to the Churches present condition, to know Gods waies 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 satissie for another. Whether, and how, other vertues, 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 Councel of Trent [Page 118]enjoynes Prelates to do it in this particular, as St. Thomas, St. Bonav. Sco­tus, and the rest, do. But to call general, old cu­stomes themselves into question, or to bend them to our speculations, is, in St. Augustines 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. [Page 119]5. c. 23. It is enough, if holy Church avoucheth any thing: yet you press this so far, as you seem to censure the publike sence of all Christians, of novelty.

St. Augustine, and St. Hierome, when they hap­ned 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. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, [Page 120]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 confest 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 [Page 121]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 intricasies in the holy Text, yet he submits to all. And no less in holy Churches Traditions, or universal customes, as you have heard St. Au­gustine, whereof this is one.

Most Christians there­fore having not at their deaths (as is supposed) [Page 122]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 Gods orders, before entrance into Heaven. Which though formally can onely be performed by themselves, yet aequi­valently by satisfaction tendred by the Church Militant, and her chil­dren, it may be estima­ted [Page 123] 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 rigor of justice, or ex condigno, as we speak, That one mans Act, shall be ac­cepted for another, but onely 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 [Page 124]time, when charity it self in our blessed Lord dwelt amongst us, did, and do, acknowledge Christian Religion to be a poenitential, 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 Vertues: which only amongst The­ological Vertues stands the shock of Eternity, and which qualifies, and en­hances our Acts, in order to it; insomuch that al­though [Page 125] Prayers, Fastings, or Alms-deeds, do avail, in order to Heaven, and for satisfaction of sins, as the Councel of Trent, Ses. 14. declares; yet it is re­quisite, that they be com­manded, or ordered by Charity; though the wise Councel doth not expres­ly determine this. There­fore we all desire, accor­ding to the Laws of God, that Charity, which is free, according to the Apostle, may not be straightned in its operations; but, as circumstances invite, let it be imployed [...] one, by curing souls; in ano­ther, [Page 126]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, &c. were every one glorious in their severall pieties: [Page 127]so that they were pieties, that is operations of Cha­rity.

CHAP. XI. How corporal afflictions can satisfie for sinnes? Whether a probable O­pinion may be follow­ed?

IF we admit not this, we shall with Erasmus his Version, content our selves with his [...] that is, if wee will, for the future com­mit no more Theft, Adultery, or the like, there is no need of wear­ing [Page 128]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: expresly also against the Councel. of Trent, Sess. 13. & 14. which I entreat you to peruse; for it condemns with Anathema to say, that Fastings, Prayers, [Page 129]and Alms, or other pious works through Christ, do not satisfie 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 [Page 130]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 it selfe; and as of sin, so of goodnesse. [Page 131]Whence they rationally teach, that a man, who doth not onely intend, but effectually giveth Alms, or the like, doth add a degree of good­nesse, and consequent­ly may hope for a grea­ter reward, than if he had contained himselfe within the bounds of his Will.

Whence will further follow, that corporal af­flictions, even in them­selves, may properly serve as emanations from a soule afflicted for sin, or as exercises, of which the body is only capable, [Page 132]flowing from the love of God, as surely they are, in a true contrite spirit.

And in this kinde in holy Writ, they are by true Penitents sometimes voluntarily undertaken, other times by Gods or­ders inflicted, and accep­ted, in order to remission of sins; and this not al­wayes miraculous, as the Texts of holy Scriptures shew. If it were mira­culous (as sometimes it is, and you have well pondered,) it is so far from enervating, that it demonstratively confirms [Page 133]Gods acceptance of the Churches Doctrine and practice, as to corporal afflictions, to the end as­signed: as is also clearly shewed in the place quo­ted of the Councel of Trent: as also Sess. 6. c. 14.

And hence holy Church by Gods orders injoyns Sacramental pennances (these I know you do not reject) which are de­letory of the dregs of sin, that is, they may exercise the soule in intending Charity infused by God upon sorrow, and the efficacy of the Sacra­ment. [Page 134]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 Saviours 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 Catholique wil [Page 135]pretend, that they have strict acquaintance with Church Orders, but are onely a sort of begottery, into which, Devotion, not well regulated, easi­ly degenerates. But you must not, under this pre­tence, laugh at all infe­riour 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 [Page 136]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 weaknesse of our reason, but our reason is elevated by the strength of Christian Religion. And therefore how ap­parent soever it is, it [Page 137]must vail bonet, 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 & pittiful 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 Aegyptian Pyramid to perpetuate it against [Page 138]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 incurre 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 sence of our Lords words to Saint Peter, super hanc Petram, &c. con­cludes [Page 139]thus: Harum du­arum sententiarum, quaesit probabilis, eligat lector. Antiquity then did not disalow probable opini­ons: nor presently fan­cy their own conceits to be demonstrations; much lesse forbid others to fol­low such, which they judged probable. Which is now too much cryed down, and truly as to Morals, I conceive I have demonstrated in my En­chyridion Dial. that pro­bability is enough.

CHAP. XII. The designe 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 Heresie.

It is easily replyed, first with Bellarmine, that to prescribe any term to particular persons, and much more to the gene­ral, that is, to determine months, or yeares, non nisi temerè definiri potest, [Page 141]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 Gods 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 [Page 142]strength of fancy, new grounds, and thence of­ten new errors into the Church; but to assert a detayning all soules in Purgatory till doomes­day, notwithstanding the Churches Suffrages, Alms, and pious helps, is, for ought 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 rejoy­ned from our blessed Sa­viours [Page 143]example: Quis constituit me Judicem? I am no Judge of Con­troversies. That is re­ferr'd to S. Peters chair. Therefore I dare not indeed presumptuously censure other Catholike Doctors opinions, whose persons, and learning I justly reverence. Keep­ing my self therefore within the bounds of the Schooles, my design is onely to vindicate the Churches Doctrine, and constant practise (as I am able to under­stand it) from ignorance, and Novelty. In this [Page 144]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 intend 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 [Page 145] 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 mans 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: [Page 146]and St. Hie­rome, Apol. l. 2. saith: Si quaestiones de animaesta­tu in Ʋrbe commotae sunt, quae est ista qucrimonia vel querela, quae utrùm re­cipi debeat, Episcoporum judicio derelinquitur? This must be decided by Bishops: chiefly 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, [Page 147]Apostolico ore lauda­tam; cujus se esse partici­pem Alexandrina Eccle­sia gloriatur: We must all glory to submit to the decisions of Rome, when Patriarckes themselves are taught to do it. Ac­cording therefore to our friends desire, I onely let him know, for prevention of mistakes, what I have learned in Scotus, and St. Thomas their Schooles; and what was the sub­stance of our amicable Collation; in nothing (as I hope) violating the lawes of true Christian friend­ship; which I hold sacred, [Page 148]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.