Religion and reason mutually corresponding and assisting each other first essay : a reply to the vindicative answer lately publisht against a letter, in which the sence of a bull and council concerning the duration of purgatory was discust / by Thomas White, Gent.

LAST DIVISION. Containing an Answer from Section fortieth, to the End.

The Vindicators mistakes of what passes in the Soul at reunion. The efficacy of his sleightly grounded Devotions exa∣min'd, on the by. His impotent malice in objecting Paganism. His many bog∣glings at Divinity-Explications, like to fright him out of his Faith, satisfy'd.

IN your fortieth Section you are troubled that after the griefs of Purgatory the sight of Christ should change the imper∣fect Affections which are in Souls while they remain in Purgatory. So little do you understand the course of Nature, that pre∣cedent motion is quite of a different nature from the following quiet, which is the term of that motion. And, forgetting you had given leave to your publisher, to say

his Souls were purg'd in Purgatory, now you will have it the faith of all Christians, that there is no acting for Bliss at the Resur∣rection. By which if you mean meriting, 'tis nothing to the purpose, for 'tis but your own fiction to put merit at the Resurre∣ction. But, if you mean there is no change towards Beatitude, you are not well in∣structed. Neither is it a wonder, that this is a pleasure, seeing it is the very taking possession of Bliss after the pains of Purga∣tory; or as Philosophers would term it the Purgatum esse, which yet hinders not but what went before, and was their purging or purgation in via was painful enough. After this, to make your Comedy compleat, you will have a touch at Hell, which (God be thanked) for my ease, you will reserve to a new discovery. Yet you very heartily beg to know, why the damned Souls do not repent themselves at the day of Judgment, and become Saints? Which is a sign you understand not what you read, though you are able to put it in English. And that you conceive, this putting in the body again, makes the Soul not only fit to be perfected or totally fram'd to the proportion of her last end, but that she is return'd again into the state of th••s World's mutability, of

forgetting, working by abstract notions, gaining new science, &c. which are the pro∣prieties of her changeable condition in this World. If you please to study to un∣derstand, what you intend to oppose, I shall be willing to contribute on my part what I can. In the mean while, (having already answer'd the other things you touch at in this Section) let me follow you in what you do understand.

In your 41 Section, you accuse your Ad∣versary of scoffing at hallowed Grains, sanctify'd Beads, &c. Which it seems you will not permit to be held external devices, (whatsoever your meaning is.) Nor Vten∣sils of a thriving devotion: which is a term of an indifferent signification, and there must be somewhat in you to make you wince at it. The next words of deluding priviledges I lookt for, but could not find in this place; yet afterwards reading them in the Post-script, I conceive by their near∣ness to Quamcun{que} voluerit, that they glance at the too much confidence of such a promise: so large, that were it true, (and Doctors say the value of Indulgences is to be taken as they sound) I should reckon it a great temptation to neglect wholly both all venial sins, and all satisfaction for mor∣tall,

in this life. The onely advantage that I know a priviledg'd Altar pretends, (if we may believe the words of the Priviledg it self) is to deliver a soul out of Purgatory, by saying Mass there. This Mass we have daily experience may be procur'd, to say truth, at no unreasonable rate. What need I then, according to these Principles, be much frighted at Purgatory, and those dreadful pains they so often preach to me, when all may be healed with a little wisely-bestow'd alms, if these men be as good as their words? But they say, 'tis advisable not to be too confident in one Mass, but to get more: and is there no suspicion inci∣dent to an advice so unnecessary, if the pri∣viledg speak true? and, however, so conve∣nient in all cases? Pray you tell me in your next Discovery, to how many Masses on our common Altars is one of your Privi∣ledg'd Ones equivalent? to ten? then the Priviledg alone is equal to nine; then which I think a greater blasphemy can scarce be spoken. Perhaps you may reply▪ I hold you too severely to your word, and that by our promising a full Delivery, we mean onely to contribute extraordinarily towards it; but why do you give me your word, if I must not take it as it signifies?

why do you not play fair, and tell me, that one Mass there, is something better then half two elsewhere? for at the end of the account, that's all your vast promises come to, for ought I see. Besides, may not all the other Altars, where the same great work is perform'd, justly complain, that you endeavour their impoverishment? o∣ther questions there are as easie to make, and as hard to answer: but of this enough, the Theam's too plentiful, and I am even weary with thinking on't.

Next you accuse your Adversary, that he sayes you think such things promote souls in Holy desires, though for my part, I think it is a great reason of the use of them, to make people be devout, when o∣therwise they would not. And for souls going to Heaven by them, if they take away the pains of Purgatory, with what face can you deny it? I remember a Doctor of Divinity, who having obtain'd a Scapular from the Carmes, and a privi∣ledg from the Jesuits to be admitted a Je∣suit, at the hour of his death, was as con∣fident to go directly to Heaven, as if he had had a Patent for it under Jesus Christs own Hand. Why then are you so touchy, as if there could not be abuses in these

things? why cannot you be patient in this case, as well as the Church is content to admit some abuses to have crept even into the administration of the Sacraments.

Your last note I believe is quite mista∣ken, for I do not conceive your Adversary intended to make any comparisons; both because he does not specifie any particular man to whom he should be suppos'd to compare me, and because there is no oc∣casion for it. But peradventure he would not have the good life of any man, be an Argument to bear down a contrary Do∣ctrin. For my self, I profess no exempla∣rity. If my life be such as may not unbe∣seem my Calling, I have as much as I desire from men: neither do I see any reason, why any one should engage for me, supra id quod videt in me. I pray let not opinion-quarrels break into Personal dissentions. Si invicem mordetis invicem consumemini.

To the same uncharitable end, I fear, tends your often repetition of diminishing words to those persons who think well of me or my Doctrin, insisting especially on their small number: but I pray you tell me, how many you think have impartially and attentively read these few Books I have made? I believe, in proportion to them, it

is not a small number who profess to have met, in many points, with great satisfacti∣on; nor do I expect they should in all; I may sometimes be mistaken my self, and there I desire none to follow me; others may sometimes be mistaken in me; and there, I am so far from being followed, that my obscurity (which I confess a defect) will not let me be found: Nor do I see so much cause to be troubled at the fewness, as to bless God for the qualities of those who profess to have found good in my writings, being Persons both ingenuous, and vertuous, and of such frank and unby∣assed Principles, as well by their own incli∣nation as the influence my way may have had upon them, that I am confident, they desire nothing more then to see my Do∣ctrin thorowly examin'd, and speedily brought to a fair & impartial Tryal, by the sharpest Arguments that a pertinent oppo∣ser can make; and indeed they themselves have been the strongest, though not the fiercest Objectors I have met with. One reason possibly of this little number may be, that my Books have not as yet been long enough in the World to be fully per∣us'd by many: what time may produce God onely knowes, to whom I submit it.

But to return to my self and speak to what you dislike in me, you absolve me from being an Heretick, to make me a Pagan. Nor will I refuse to be what you shall please when you have explicated your self. But this not marking nor understand∣ing your own words, makes all the misin∣telligence. You make me a Pagan, but such an one as acknowledges Christ, and every word and tittle either of the Scripture, or any other Law of his. Such a Pagan, such a Naturalist was never heard of before. Will you have me give you an Instance? take this Bull and Canons which you cite, and put them to my self or your Adversa∣ry, and see whether we will either refuse to subscribe, or even swear to them. Then our Paganisus lyes in this, that we do not think you have the right sence. And this is my Paganism thorough all things be∣longing to Christian Faith. You say I agree onely in words with the Church; but, say∣ing so, you say, I agree in words; and by consequence, the whole disagreement is about the sence of the words. In which con∣troversy because I proceed out of Philoso∣phy and reason, and you out of what Ma∣sters Dictatts I know not, you leave a great prejudice that my explication is the more reasonable.

Wherein consists then my Paganism? Because I pretend to demonstrate what you think is not to be known but by Faith. Then if I do not pretend to demonstrate but onely profess that they are demonstra∣ble, and exhort men to seek out the De∣monstrations (which is the true case, and what you add is out of the fulness of your heart) why do I not hold all the Articles by Faith? and where is my Paganism? But suppose some great Scholar possibly or impossibly (as the Schools speak) should have the demonstration of the Ar∣ticles of Faith, would he therefore be▪ a Pagan? sure you never thought what a Pagan signify'd when you spake so chole∣rick a word: That peradventure might make him more then a man, or more then a Christian, as a Comprehensour is, if it reach'd to Gods Essence, less it could not make him. Faith is not desirable for its Obscurity, but for its Certainty. We go∣vern our lives by knowing the objects, not by the defect in the knowledge. Let a man see his way by the clear Sun, and sure he will be as able to walk in it as by the dim∣mer light of a Star.

But you complain I reduce the mysteries of our faith to our narrow brains. Sir, you

are mistaken. It is the quite contrary; you should rather accuse me of endeavou∣ring to dilate our brains to the capacity of the mysteries by the help of Faith. Why God cannot elevate our brains to under∣stand what he hath deliver'd us to be un∣derstood▪ You have not yet declar'd to my capacity.

You say when you are told Souls are not purg'd in the state of separation but at the re∣u••ion, though the word remains, your Faith is gone. I easily believe you speak from your mind, and that truly you apprehend, the explication you frame to your self is your Faith; and so, that as many Christians as fancy divers explications of the same Ar∣ticle have so many faiths, but by this way I see very few in the whole Church would be of the same faith, 'pray consider a little that reflexion.

Nothing is more clear then your next Example. You say you believe that Faith, Hope, and Charity are infused by the Holy Ghost into our Souls in Baptism. A Pope and a generall Council too, declar'd that of two opinions of Divines, this was the probabler; and, by saying so, said this was not the faith of the Church, and yet if this be not true, your faith is gone.

Your next Example is to the same pur∣pose, that supernatural qualities are of a different series then nature. It is indeed St. Thomas his opinion, and a pure Scholastical one, nor Universally receiv'd. Yet if this notion of supernaturality be lost, your faith is gone: Good Sir, take faster hold on it, and let not your faith slip away so easily from you. Again you believe the my∣stery of the Trinity, but if it depends as to its deducibleness on what is Essential in God, you doubt it is not your faith, though all Divines will tell you, all that is in God is Essential. If St. Thomas explicate the Unity and Plurality in God by the Unity of Action and Passion in motion, your faith is lost. But chiefly, if any miscreant, or Imp of Hell (as your Love-letter Com∣plement is) should say the names of Father and Son were derived to God from what we observe in natural Generation of living Creatures, which being a materiall thing can be no otherwise in God then by Metaphor, then your faith is different from those who explicate it so, that is all the Di∣vines I have either read or heard of, who universally agree in transferring Aristotles Definition of Generation to the blessed Trinity.

You go on and tell us you have hitherto believ'd that God most freely and of his own goodness built this Vniverse, and that he is not necessarily ty'd to the order and course of Nature: All this is well, but now you are taught that God must contradict himself, if he act any thing against nature. And what signifies this, but what is consequent to that? for if God be the builder of nature, He hath setled this order which we call na∣ture, most freely, but yet he hath done it: and if he hath done it, he cannot undo it again, without undoing what he hath done? which in English is called contradicting himself. For one to contradict himself, is to change his mind or will, which it seems is your faith that God can do.

Another Article of your faith seems to be, that out of the very series of nature, Ju∣das might have escaped being damn'd; whereas all Catholicks agree, that out of the pure series of Nature, St. Peter could not have scap'd being damn'd. At last your faith descends to flyes, and wheras peradven∣ture if you had thought, should God have had the mind he had not formerly to make another fly, his resolution (that is his Es∣sence) had not been the same it is now, your faith might have been the same with mine.

But by falling immediately upon the fly, you have quite lost your faith. And your conclusion comes to be the same with this, that if God ties himself to any thing, and so remains ty'd, he is become a pagan Jupi∣ter. I confess this is not my faith. You march forward, telling us, if God neither command nor forbid any thing, all morality is lost. All this would be well, if you told us what you meant by Command; if no more then Commonwealths do, when they appoint rewards for them who do well, and punishments for malefactors, upon which morality consists, your faith may be the same that mine is. For so I profess, God commands not onely by setting re∣wards and punishments, but by denouncing them. But if you have a special notion of commands importing a meer will or hu∣mour to command without designing any benefit to the obeyer, then I cannot help your faith, though we agree in these words, God forbids to steal, commands to honour him, &c.

Then you begin to prognosticate how you will discover out of my works a mo∣rality that Escobar never thought on. And truly I hope you will, if you take pains to understand them. But, if you only use words,

and never look what they signifie, you will do good neither to your self nor others. To give an Essay of my Morality, you bring this position of mine, that Another man is no otherwise to me, then a peece of Cloth or Wood, which I cut and shape after my will. Even though I do him harm, or seek to ruin him, I do him no wrong. And you ask how this agrees with that Principle of Nature, that we ought to do to others, as we would have them do to us. I can onely say, if it doth not agree I was mistaken; for I brought it to shew the ground the second Principle had in nature, and my deduction is this. Reason teaches me to use Cloth like Cloth, and Wood like Wood, and conse∣quently a man like a man, that is▪ to think that fitting for him, I think to be fitting for my self, seeing a man is of the same nature with the Considerer.

Lastly you are afraid, if faith yield to e∣vidence, our notions must be chang'd; and in that you are not much amiss. For I also conceive the notions of one who under∣stands what he sayes, are different from the notions of him who doth not, and upon this subject, I will propose you a place of St. Austin, which seems to me very home to the purpose. 'Tis too long to copy out,

therefore I pray read the 26, 27, and 28 Chapters of the 12th Book of his Confes∣sions, and specially reflect upon the divers sences or understandings which divers Christians have of the same places of Scri∣pture, and I may say of the same delivery of Faith. The example in the end of the 27th, and the beginning of the 28th, is in a manner our very case. There are two understandings of the Creation of the World; one weak, the other strong, both necessary for divers sorts of people. If the weak man when he hears the more intelligent explicate his faith, should cry him down for a Pagan, as taking away faith, it were no wonder. For so we read of a good Monk that had been an Anthro∣pomorphite, who when he was taught that God was a Spirit: that is, had no hands, feet, face, &c. as he before had fancy'd him, cry'd out, he had lost his God, and per∣haps, was likely enough to call him a Pa∣gan too, that deny'd God such a shape, and explicated to him, according to the nature of a Spirit and like a Scholar, those places of Scripture which begot and so suted to that fancy of his; But no Scholar would judg him a great Divine for doing so. If you read these latter Books of St. Austins

Confessions you shall find that by natural knowledg he directed his understanding of Scripture and Faith, and consequently was as very a Pagan as my self. And so did all the Fathers by reason convince He∣reticks follyes, when they could, and this is the duty of a Scholar, which Saint Peter preaches to us, and Saint Paul told us he practised among the Perfect, giving to weaker stomacks Milk, and not strong Meat.

By this, Sir, you easily perceive my prin∣cipal aym, to wit, what I have learned by Faith and Tradition the same to understand and defend by the help of Sciences; which I think I cannot do, unless I first understand the Sciences themselves, and not frame the Sciences to Faith before we understand what Faith it self teaches us. How ridicu∣lous is it that what apprehensions we made of our Creed when we were Children, the same we should retain when we are men. Or what Conceptions clowns frame to themselves in Religion, Philosophers and Divines should be oblig'd not to transcend, under pain of being esteem'd Supplanters of Christ and his Doctrin, Evacuaters of Faith, Miscreants, and I know not how many other such ill-favoured names as

you give me too often up and down your Book. Think but how contrary 'tis to mans Nature, and the profession of the Church, to forbid Learning? to hinder men from searching the true Meaning of Gods word? from endeavouring to come to Demonstra∣tion as near as we can? to cut off all hopes of Certainty? and confound all Sciences in∣to a Chaos of probability? Good Sir, since God hath created us to Science, and set our Bliss in the knowledg of himself, since he hath given us a strong inclination to it, do not seek to plunge us into a despair of it, and confine us to the eternal darkness of knowing nothing. If your self be discou∣rag'd, hinder not others to endeavour. Should six persons find out but six conclu∣sions, there's so far advanc'd: those six may each of them produce six more; and so go on with an unbounded improvement; whose multiplying fruitfulness as we cannot conjecture, so surely we ought not either to envy or obstruct.

IN your Postscript where you promise to make all such things good as depend on matter of fact, before any Person of Honour. I understand not well your mean∣ing by this word matter of fact. But

if false citations go under that name, I pray clear your self of this imputation I charge you with, that you say I put the pains of Pur∣gatory to be the irregular affections to world∣ly things. A proposition you have so often rve∣peated and urged, that you cannot deny it to be deliberately and examinedly done; So false and injurious, that you cannot refuse to ac∣quit your self if you be indeed Innocent.

And for a Close give me leave against your next Vindication, to offer you this note; not as a Rule (for who made me your Superiour, that I should flatter my self with thinking you would perhaps obey me?) but as a friendly intreaty, that since we have experience enough of your power in Rhetorick, you would wholy apply your self to solid and usefull reason; This if you deny, at least let me prevail with you to put at the beginning and end of those periods where you intend to be bitter, some visible mark; that I may save the labour of reading stuff so unsuitable both to you and me; as also, that some other of your Readers, whose ears delight in such janglings, may di∣rectly pick out the parts that most agree with them, and not be diverted by your other less impertinent discourses: whereas in your last work all is so jumbled together and closely woven quite through the whole piece, that for

my part I can scarce distinguish the strong sence from the blustring Satyr. If you intend to write like a Man and like a Scholar, take some Treatise or Book of mine end wayes; then show either the Principles weak, or the Consequences slack; else every one knows that in Discourses single Paragraphs subsist by their fellows; and so, to impugn such taken apart signifies nothing.

FINIS.