Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Chapter 6

Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Chapter 6

p. 476CHAP. VI. An Answer to the Remainder of the Reply.

The mis-interpreting Scripture doth not hinder its being a rule of faith. Of the superstitious observations of the Roman Church. Of Indulgences; the practice of them in what time begun, on what occasion, and in what terms granted. Of the Indulgences in Iubilees, in the Churches at Rome, and upon saying some Prayers. Instances of them produced. What opinion hath been had of Indulgences in the Church of Rome: some confess they have no foundation in Scripture, or Antiquity, others that they are pious frauds: the miserable shifts the defenders of indulgences were put to: plain evidences of their fraud from the Disputes of the Schools about them. The treasure of the Church invented by Aquinas and on what occasion. The wickedness of men increased by Indulgences acknowledged by their own Writers: and therefore condemned by many of that Church. Of Bellarmins prudent Christians opinion of them. Indulgences p. 477no meer relaxations of Canonical Penance. The great absurdity of the doctrine of the Churches Treasure on which Indulgences are founded, at large manifested. The tendency of them to destroy devotion proved by experience, and the nature of the Doctrine. Of Communion in one kind; no devotion in opposing an Institution of Christ. Of the Popes power of dispensing contrary to the Law of God in Oaths and Marriages. The ill consequence of asserting Marriage in a Priest to be worse than Fornication, as it is in the Church of Rome. Of the uncertainty of faith therein. How far revelation to be believed against sense. The arguments to prove the uncertainty of their faith defended. The case of a revolter and a bred Papist compared as to salvation: and the greater danger of one than the other proved. The motives of the Roman Church considered; those laid down by Bishop Taylor fully answered by himself. An account of the faith of Protestants laid down in the way of Principles: wherein the grounds and nature of our certainty of faith are cleared. And from the whole concluded, that there can be no reasonable cause to forsake the communion of the Church of England and to embrace that of the Church of Rome.

p. 478§. 1. HAving thus far Vindicated the Scriptures from being the cause (by being read among us) of all the Sects and Fanaticisms which have been in England, The misinterpreting Scripture doth not hinder its being a rule of faith.I now return to the consideration of the Remainder of his Reply. And one thing still remains to be cleared concerning the Scripture, which is, whether it can be a most certain rule of faith and life, since among Protestants it is left to the private interpretation of every fanciful spirit: which is as much as to ask, whether any thing can be a rule, which may be mis-understood by those who are to be guided by it? or, whether it be fit the people should know the Laws they are to be governed by, because it is a dangerous thing to mis-interpret Laws, and none are so apt to do it as the common people? I dare say, St. Augustin never thought that Heresies arising from mis-understanding Scriptures, were a sufficient argument against their being a Rule of faith, or being read by the people, as appears by his discoursing to them in the place quoted by him. For then he must have said to them to this purpose,S. August. tract. 18. in Iob. cap. 5.Job 5 Good people, ye perceive from whence Heresies spring, therefore as you would preserve your soundness in the faith, abstain from reading the Scriptures, or looking on them as your rule; mind the Traditions p. 479of the Church, but trust not your selves with the reading what God himself caused to be writ: it cannot be denyed that the Scriptures have far greater excellency in them than any other writings in the world; but you ought to consider the best and most useful things are the most dangerous when abused. What is more necessary to the life of man than eating and drinking; yet where lyes intemperance and the danger of surfetting, but in the use of these? What keeps men more in their wits than sleeping, yet when are men so lyable to have their throats cut as in the use of that? What more pleasant to the eyes than to see the Sun, yet what is there so like to put them out as to stare too long upon him? Therefore since the most necessary and useful things are most dangerous when they are abused; my advice must be that ye forbear eating, sleeping and seeing, for fear of being surfetted, murdred or losing your sight; which you know to be very bad things. I cannot deny but that the Scriptures are called the bread of life, the food of our souls, the light of our eyes, the guide of our wayes; yet since there may be so much danger in the use of food, of light, and of a Guide, it is best for you to abstain from them. Would any man have argued p. 480like St. Augustin that should talk at this rate? yet this must have been his way of arguing, if his meaning had been to have kept the people from reading the Scriptures, because Heresies arise from mis-understanding them. But all that he inferrs from thence, is what became a wise man to say, viz. that they should be cautious in affirming what they did not understand; and that hanc tenentes regulam sanitatis, holding this still as our rule of soundness in the faith, with great humility; what we are able to understand, according to the faith we have received, we ought to rejoyce in it as our food, what we cannot, we ought not presently to doubt of, but take time to understand it; and though we know it not at present, we ought not to question it to be good and true: and afterwards saith, that was his own case as well as theirs. What, S. Augustine a Guide and Father of the Church put himself equal with the people in reading and understanding Scriptures! In which we not only see his humility, but how far he was from thinking, that this argument would any more exclude the people from reading the Scriptures than the great Doctors of the Church. For I pray, were they the common people who first broached Heresies in the Christian Church? Were Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Eutyches, or the great abettors of their Doctrines, any of the Vulgar? If this argument then p. 481holds at all, it must hold especially against men of parts and learning, that have any place in the Church, for they are much more in danger of spreading Heresies by mis-interpreting Scriptures than any others are. But among Protestants, he saith, Scripture is left to the Fanciful interpretation of every private Spirit. If he speaks of our Church he knows the contrary, and that we profess to follow the unanimous consent of the primitive Fathers as much as they, and embrace the doctrine of the four General Councils. But if there have been some among us, who have followed their own Fancies in interpreting Scripture; we can no more help that, than they can do in theirs; and I dare undertake to make good, that there have never been more absurd, ridiculous, and Fanciful Interpretations of Scripture, than (not the common people, but) the Heads of their Church have made, and other persons in greatest reputation among them. Which though too large a task for this present design, may ere long be the subject of another.

For the authority of Henry 8. in the testimony produced from him, when they yield to it in the point of Supremacy; we may do it in the six articles or other points of Popery which he held to the last. But we think it an advantage to our cause in the matter of Supremacy, that they who were p. 482Papists, in other points as well as this against reading the Scriptures, yet contended so earnestly against the Popes Authority as Henry 8. and Stephen Gardiner, Bonner, and the rest did. Doth he imagine that Henry 8. is owned by us to be Head of our Church as the Pope is with them, so as to think him infallible? He would be Head of the Popish Church in England in spight of the Pope, but he never pretended to be Head of the Reformation, any farther than the Supremacy went; and if they will not believe him, when he was influenced, as they think, by Cranmer, neither are we to be tyed to his opinion when he was guided by Stephen Gardiner or any other, who were not greater enemies to Cranmer than to the Reformation.

§. 2. The next thing,Of their superstitious observations. wherein I said the sincerity of devotion is much obstructed in their Church was by the multitude of superstitious observations never used in the primitive Church, as I said I was ready to defend; to this, his answer is very short. 1. That I should have said to prove; but so weak was I as to think the Affirmative was to be proved and the Negative defended. 2. He denyes any such to be used in their Church. I desire then to know his opinion of baptizing bells, with God-fathers and God-mothers holding the rope in their hands, being buried in a Monks habit, Pilgrimages p. 483to images of Saints, sprinkling holy water, spittle and salt in baptisme, their rites of exorcism, Agnus Dei's, the Pageantry of the Passion-week, the carrying about of the Host, the numbering of Ave Marias and Pater Nosters to make Rosaries and Psalters of the B. Virgin, the burning tapers at noon day particularly on Candlemas day with great devotion, the incensing of images, with many others which might be mention'd: and if he can vindicate these from superstition, it will be no hard task to vindicate the Heathens in the ceremonies of their devotion; and to prove that there can be no such thing as Superstition in the world.

§. 3. I now come to the gross abuse of people in Pardons and Indulgences, Of Indulgences.by which I said the sincerity of devotion was much obstructed among them: he tells me, as an eye-witness, that there is great devotion caused by them in Catholick Countries; there being no Indulgence ordinarily granted, but enjoyns him that will avail himself of it to confess his sins, to receive the Sacraments, to pray, fast and give alms, all which duties are with great devotion, he saith, performed by Catholick people, which without the incitement of an Indulgence had possibly been left undone. I will not be so troublesome to enquire what sincerity of devotion that was, he was an eye-witness of, p. 484which was caused by Indulgences, nor what sort of persons they were who were thus devout at receiving them. I think it will be sufficient for my purpose to prove, that no persons in the world, who understand what Indulgences mean, in the Church of Rome, can be excited to any devotion by them; but that on the contrary they tend exceedingly to the obstructing of it: which I shall doe by shewing, that either they are great and notorious cheats, if that be not meant by them which is expressed in them; or if it be, that nothing could be invented that tends, more to obstructing their own way of devotion than these doe. 1. That they are great and notorious cheats, if that be not meant by them which is expressed in them. For which we are to understand first what hath been expressed in their Indulgences. 2. What opinion those of their own Church have had concerning them.

§. 4. 1. What hath been expressed in their Indulgences;The practice of Indulgences. the eldest Indulgences we meet with are those which were made by the Popes, to such who undertook their quarrels against their enemies; and the first of this kind I can meet with is, that of Anselm Bishop of Luca Legat of Gregory 7. which he gave to those of his party who would fight against the Emperour Henry 4. which Baronius relates from his Poenitentiary, p. 485in which was promised remission of all their sins to such who would venture their lives in that Holy War. And Gregorius 7.Baron. ad A. D. 1084. n. 15. himself in an epistle to the Monks of Marscilles who stuck close to him promised an Indulgence of all their sins. Gr…g. 7. l 6. Ep. 15.The like Indulgence with remission of all their sins, was granted to those who would fight against the Saracens in Africa by Victor, who succeeded Gregorius 7.; Leo Casin. hist. l. 3. c. 71.after him followed Vrban 2. who granted an Indulgence to all who would goe in the War to the Holy Land, of all their sins, Gul. Tyrius l. 1. hist. Orient.and as Gul. Tyrius saith, expressely mention'd those which the Scripture saith, doe exclude from the Kingdom of God, as murder, theft, &c. and not only absolved them from all the penances they deserved by their sins, but bid them not doubt of an eternal reward after death, as Malmsbury saith;Will. Malms. l. 4. c. 2. the like is attested by Ordericus Vitalis in whose younger days this Expedition began:Ord…r. Vitalis hist. Eccl…s ad A. D. 1095. upon which he saith, all the thieves, Pyrats, and other Rogues came in great numbers and listed themselves, having made confession of their sins; and if we believe S. Bernard, Bernard. Exhort. ad milit. t…mpli c. 5.there were very few but such among them; which he rejoyceth very much in: and saith, there was a double cause of joy in it, both that they left the Countries where they were before, and now went upon such an enterprise which would carry them to Heaven. This way of Indulgences p. 486being thus introduced, was made use of afterwards upon the like occasions by Callictus 2. A. D. 1122. by Eugenius 3. A. D. 1145. by Clem. 3. A. D. 1195. and others after them, who all promised the same Indulgences that Vrban 2. had given. And it is well observed by Morinus, Morinus de Sacram Poenit. l. 10. c. 23.that these Indulgences cannot be understood of a meer relaxation of Canonical penances; because such a remission of all sins is granted, upon which eternal life followes, and therefore must respect God and not barely the Church: and because absolution was to be given upon them, which saith he, according to the discipline then in the Church ought not to be given, but till the Canonical Penance had been gone through, or at least the greatest part of it. cap. 23.But therein he is very much mistaken, when he saith, that the Popes never granted these plenary Indulgences, but only to encourage an Expedition to the Holy Land: For Gelasius 2. A. D. 1118. granted the same to the Christian souldiers at the siege of Saragoza, as appears by the Bull it self in Baronius. Baron. ad A. D. 1118. n. 31.Honorius 2. in the quarrel he had with Roger of Sicily gave the same to all,Id. ad. A D. 1127. n. 5. who having confessed their sins should dye in the War against him; but, if they chanced to escape with their lives, but half their sins were pardoned. Alexander 3.Id. ad. A D 1177. n. 8. gave to his Friends at Ancona who should visit the 12. Churches and their p. 487own Cathedral all Lent Fasting, as full an Indulgence as if they went to Hierusalem; and besides this every first Sunday in the month as great an Indulgence, (i. e. I suppose for as many days) as a man could take up sands in both hands. Id. ad. A D. 1177. n. 76.This Baronius thinks a little too much: and therefore rejects it as fabulous, because the same Pope in an Indulgence given to the Church of Ferrara grants but a year of criminals and a seventh part of venials; but he doth not consider that the case of Ancona was peculiar, because of the great friendship that city had shewn to the Pope in his distress, and this Indulgence was transcribed from a very ancient Manuscript, and better attested than many other things which he never disputes. But if it be a cheat let it pass for one; and it is no great matter to me whether it were a cheat of the Popes, or the Church of Ancona. Ad A. D. 1179. n. 7.But he doth not at all question the Indulgence granted by the same Pope to those who would take up arms against the Albigenses, which to those who dye in that cause, is not only pardon of all their sins, but an eternal reward: but such that refused to goe, no less than excommunication is denounced against them. And Honorius 3.Bzov. ad A. D. 1219. 3. in the same cause, granted an Indulgence in the same terms as to those who went to the Holy Land: and Gregorius 9. to all who should take his part p. 488against the Emperour Frederic 2.Id. A. D. 1239. n 8. which Bzovius confesseth to be usual with the Popes, to give to those who would fight against Saracens, Ad A. D. 1208. n. 5.hereticks or any other enemies of theirs.

This practice of Indulgences being once taken up was found too beneficial to be ever let fall again; and private Bishops began to make great use of it, not in such a manner as the Popes, but they were unwilling not to have as great a share as they could get in it; thence they began to publish Indulgences to those who would give money towards the building or repairing Churches or other publick works, for this they promised them a pardon of the 7. or 4. or 3. part of their sins according as their bounty deserved. This was first begun by Gelasius 2. for the building of the Church of Saragoza A. D. 1118. and was followed by other Bishops; Morinus de Poenitent. l. 10. c. 20.in so much that Morinus is of opinion, that Mauricius Bishop of Paris built the great Church of Nostredame there in that manner; and he saith, he can find no ground for this practice of Indulgences before the 12. century; and answers Bellarmins arguments for a greater antiquity of them, and proves all his testimonies from Gregories Stations, Ludgerus his epistle, and Sergius his indulgence in the Church of S. Martin at Rome produced by Baronius to be meer impostures. But the Bishops of Rome, p. 489finding how beneficial these Indulgences were,Baron. ad A. D. 847. soon resolved to keep the keys of this Treasury of the Church in their own hands; and therefore quickly abridged other Bishops of this power; and made great complaint that by the indiscreet use of Indulgences by the Bishops, the keys of the Church were contemned and discipline lost; so Innocent 3. in the Council of Lateran, can. 62.; and therefore decrees that in the dedication of a Church, though where there were several Bishops together, they should not grant any Indulgence above a year, nor any single Bishop above 40. days. But we are not to imagine that the Popes ever intended to tye their own hands by these Canons; but they were too wise to let others have the managing of so rich a stock as that of the Church was; which would bring in so great a harvest from the sins of the people. Thence Boniface 8. first instituted the year of Iubilee A. D. 1300,Extravag. Commun. l. 5. tit. 9. c. 1. Bzov. ad A. D. 1300. n 1. and in his Bull published for that end, grants not only a plenary, and larger but most plenary remission of sins to them that (if Romans for 30, if strangers for 15. days in that year) should visit the Churches of the Apostles. This was brought afterwards by Clem. 6. to every 50. years, and since, to 25. or as often as his Holines please: but in all of them a most plenary remission of sins is granted. It were worth the while to understand the difference p. 490between a plenary, larger and most plenary indulgence: Bell. de I… d…l. l. 1. c. 9.since Bellarmin tells us, that a plenary Indulgence takes away all the punishment due to sin. But these were the fittest terms to let the people know they should have as much for their money as was to be had, and what could they desire more? And although Bellarmin abhorres the name of selling Indulgences, yet it comes all to one, the Popes gives Indulgences and they give money; or they doe it not by way of purchase but by way of Alms: But commend me to the plain honesty of Boniface 9. who being not satisfied with the oblations at Rome, sent abroad his Iubilees to Colen, Magdeburg, and other Cities, but always sent his Collectors to take his share of the money that was gathered, and inserted in them that Clause porrigentibus manus Adjutrices, which in plain English, is to those who would give money for them: without which no Indulgence was to be had, as Gobelinus Persona saith.Gobelin. Pe…so…a Cos…odr…aet. 6. c. 86. Who likewise addes this remarkable passage, that the preachers of the Indulgences told the people to encourage them to deale for them, that they were not only à poená but à culpâ too, i.e. not meerely from the temporal punishment of sin, but from the fault it self which deserved eternal; this made the people look into them, and not finding those terms but only a most plenary remission, they were p. 491unsatisfied because they were told that the fault could be forgiven by God alone; but if they could but once find that the Pope would undertake to clear all scores with God for them, they did not doubt but they would be worth their money. Whereupon he saith those very terms were put into them: then the wiser men thought these were counterfeit and made only by the Pardonmongers; but upon further enquiry they found it otherwise. How far this trade of Indulgences was improved afterwards in the time of Alexander 6. and Leo 10. the Reformation which began upon occasion of them, will be a lasting monument which was the greatest good the world ever received by them.

§. 5. But we are not to think,Of I…d…lgences at Rome. since Indulgences are such great kindnesses to the souls of men, that they should be only reserved for years of Iubilee; for what a hard case may they be in who should chance to dy but the year before? Therefore the Popes (those tender Fathers of the Church) have granted very comfortable ones to many particular places, and for the doing some good actions, that no one need be in any great perplexity for want of them. Other places it is probable a man may goe to Heaven assoon from as Rome, but there is none like that for escaping Purgatory; if a man confess his sins and but stumble into one of p. 492the 7. Churches, it is a hard case if he doth not escape at least for one thousand years. I need not reckon up what vast Pardons are to be had there at easie rates; since they have been so kind at Rome to publish a Catalogue of them in several books;Hen. Foulis preface to the History of Romish usurpations. Bell. de Indulg. l. 2. c. 20. an extract out of which is very lately set forth in our own language. Those who have gone about to compute them, have found that Indulgences for a million of years are to be had at Rome on no hard terms: Bellarmin would seem to deny these pardons for so many years, as far as he durst, as though they were not delivered by Authentick writers; but I desire no more than what Cnuphrius hath transcribed,On phrius de 7. urbis Eccles…s. Caesar Raspon de Basilicâ Latera…ensi. l. 2. c. 14. p. 204. from the Archives of the Churches themselves; and we may judge of the rest by what Caesar Rasponi a Canon of the Lateran Church and a present Cardinal hath written lately of that one Church, in a book dedicated to Alexander 7. He tells us therefore there is so vast a bank of the Treasure of the Church laid up there, that no one need goe any further to get full pardon of all his sins; and that it is impossible for any one to reckon up the number of the benefits to be had there by it. In the Feast of the Dedication of that Church, at the first throw, if a man be well confessed before, he gets if he be a Roman a pardon of a 1000. years, if a Tuscan 2000; but if he comes from beyond sea 3000. years; p. 493this is well for the first time. The like Lottery is again at that Church on C…ena Domini. But Boniface 9. would never stand indenting with men for number of years, but declares, if men will come either for devotion or pilgrimage, (no matter which) he shall be clear from all sin: and what would a man have more? But besides this, there are other particular seasons of opening this Treasury, and then one may take out as much as they can wish for: As when the Image of our Saviour is shewn, all that come thither, have their sins pardoned infallibly: and many other days in the year, which the Author very punctually reckons up, and are so many that a Canon of that Church may dispose of some thousands of years, nay plenary remissions, and yet escape Purgatory at last himself. But besides what belongs to the Church it self, there is a little Oratory or Chapple belonging to it called the Holy of Holies, Raspon. de Basil. …ater. l 4. c. 19.where it is impossible for any man to reckon up the number of Indulgences granted to it. These vast numbers of years then are no fiction of Pardon-mongers, as Bellarmin is sometimes ready to say; unless he will have the Popes called by that name, or charge the Holy Churches at Rome with so gross impostures.Of Indulgences for saying some prayers.

§. 6. But suppose it should be a mans fortune never to see Rome (as it hath many a good mans) must he be content to lye and p. 494rot in Purgatory, or trust only to the kindness of his Friends? no, we that live at this distance, have some comfort left: there are sonne good prayers appointed for us to use, which will help us at a need; or else the book of the houres of the B. Virgin secundunm usum Sarum is strangely mistaken; but herein I am likewise prevented by the autho… of the preface lately mention'd; but my edition being elder than either of those mention'd by him seems to have something peculiar to it or at last omitted by him.

As when it saith of the Prayer Obsecro te Domina Sancta Maria, Horae B. V. Mariae. s… cundum usum Sarum. p. 38.&c. Tho all them that be in the state of Grace, that daily say devowteli this prayer before owre blessed Lady of pity she wolle show… them her blessed vysage, and warn them the day and owre of deth, and in there last end the Angells of God shall yield there sowles to heaven, and he shall obtayn 5 hundreth yeres and soo many Lenttis of pardon graunted by 5 holy Fathers Popes of Rome. That is pretty well for one prayer!

But this is nothing to what follows to a much shorter prayer than that.

Our Holy Father Sixtus 4. Pope hath graunted to all them that devoutly say this prayer before the Image of our Lady in the sone eleven thousand years of pardon.Pag. 42. A prayer said to good purpose! p. 495I confess I can hardly stoop now to those that have only dayes of pardon promised them; yet for the sake of the procurer I will mention one.

Our Holy Father Pope Sixtus hath graunted at the Instance of the highmost and excellent Princesse Elizabeth late Quéen of Englond and wyfe to our Soveraign liege Lord King Henry the 7th. God have mercy on her sweet soull and all Cristen soulls that every day in the morning after 3 tollinges of the Ave …ell say 3 times the hole salutation of our Lady Ave Maria gratiâ that is to say,P. 45. at 6 the klock in the morning 3 Ave Maria att 12 of the klock at none 4 Ave Maria and att 6 a klock at even, for every time so doing is graunted of the spiritual treasour of holy Church 3 hundreth dayes of parden totiens quotiens. To which is annexed the pardon of the two Arch-bishops and nine Bishops, forty dayes a piece, three times a day, which begun, A. D. 1492. the seventh year of Henry 7. And the summ of the Indulgence and pardon for every Ave Maria is 800 days totiens quotiens.

But if a man thinks himself well provided already, and hath a mind to help his Friends, there is nothing like the 15 O.s of St. Brigitt:

p. 496Thys be the 15 O. Os. the which the holy Uirgin S. Brygytta was woente to say dayle before the holy rode in S. Pauls Church at Rome,P. 50. who soe says this a yere he schall deliver 15 soulles out of Purgatory of his next kyndred, and convert other 15 sinners to gode lyf and other 15 righteous men of his kynd shall persevere in gode lyf. And wat ye desyre of God ye schall have it, if yt be to the salvation of your sowle.

Not long after we find a better endowment with number of years than any we have yet met with.

To all them that before this Image of pytie devoutly say 5 Pater Noster and 5 Aves & a Credo,P. 54. pityously beholding these Armes of Crystys passion, are graunted thirty two thousand seven hundred and fifty years of pardon; and Sixtus the 4. Pope of Rome hath made the 4 and the 5 prayer, and hath doubled his foresaid pardon.

The Prayer with Boniface 6. his Indulgence of ten thousand years pardon will hardly down with me now:P. 58. much less that niggardly grant of Iohn 22. of a hundred dayes pardon. What customers doth he hope to find at such sordid rates?

Sixtus 4. for my money; witness this Indulgence.

p. 497Our holy Father Sixtus 4. graunted to all them that beyn in state of Grace,P. 61. sayeing this prayer following ymmediately after the elevation of the body of our Lord clene remission of all their sins perpetually enduring. And also Iohn the 3 Pope of Rome at the request of the Quéen of England hath graunted unto all them that devoutly say this prayer before the Image of our Lord Crucified as many days of pardon as there were wounds in the body of our Lord in the tyme of his bitter passion, the which were 5365.

It is well Sixtus came after him, or else his market had been spoyled, the other so much out-bid him.

Next to clean pardon, Iohn 22. offers fair; only the task is somewhat harder, it being for three Prayers.

Thys 3 prayers be wrytton in the Chappelle of the holy crosse in Rome otherwise called S…cellum sanctae Crucis 7 Romanorum, P. 66.whoo that devoutly say them shall obtayn 90000 years of pardon for dedly sins graunted by our holie Father Iohn 22. Pope of Rome.

Methinks he should have come to a full hundred thousand, when his hand was in!

But there is one odd condition implyed in some of these prayers, called being in a state of Grace, the want of which may hinder p. 498the effect of them; but although due confession with absolution will at any time put a man into it, yet is there no remedy without it? we will try once more for that, and end these Indulgences. And I think the prayer of S. Bernardine of Siena will relieve us.

Thys most devoutly prayer sayd the holy Father S. Bernardine daylie kneeling in the worship of the most holy name Iesus.P. 72. And yt is well to believe that through the invocation of that most excellent name of Iesu, S. Bernard. obtayned a singular reward of perpetual consolation of our Lord Iesu Christ. And thys prayer is written in a Table that hangeth at Rome in S. Peters Church nere to the high awter, there as our holy Father the Pope duely is wonte to say the office of the Masse. And hoo that devoutly with a contrite heart dayly say this Oryson yf he be that day in the state of eternal damnation, than this eternal payne shall be chaunged him in temporal payne of Purgatory, than yf he hath deserved the payne of Purgatory, yt shall be forgotten and forgiven thorow the infinite mercy of God.

This is enough of all reason.

And so much shall serve to set forth what the practice of Indulgences hath been in the Church of Rome and what is expressed in them.

p. 499§. 7. 2. I now come to give account what opinion hath been had of these Indulgences in their own Church,What opinion hath been had of Indulgences in the Roman Church. wherein some have freely confessed they have no Foundation in Scripture or Antiquity, others that they are only pious frauds, and those who have gone about to defend them, have been driven to miserable shifts in the defence of them.

1. Some have confessed that they have no foundation in Scripture or Antiquity. Durandus saith, Durand. in sentent. l. 4. dist. 20. q. 3.that very little can be affirmed with any certainty concerning Indulgences, because neither the Scripture speaks expresly of them, and the Fathers Ambrose, Hilary, August., Hierome speak not all of them: and therefore he hath no more to say, but that the common opinion is to be followed herein.Ioh. Major in sent. l. 4. dist. 20. The same is said by another School-man, who addes this, that though it be a Negative argument, yet it is of force, because in the time of those Fathers they were very much skilled in the Scriptures,Cajetan opusc. de Indulgent. init. and it were very strange if Indulgences were to be found there that they did not find them. This is likewise affirmed by Cajetan, Dominicus Soto,Soto in sent. l. 4. dist. 20. and all those who assert that the use of Indulgences came into the Church upon the relaxing the severity of the primitive discipline,Greg. de Valent. de Indulg. c▪ 4. Estius in sent. l. 4. dist. 20▪ …. 2. which they say continued in use for a 1000 years after Christ. But the most express testimonies in this case are of p. 500Bishop Fisher,Morinus de paenitent. l. 10▪ c. 20. …. 9. who saith that the use of Indulgences came very late into the Church; and of Polydore Virgil following his words, and of Alphonsus à Castro,R…ff. c. Luther art. 18. Polyd. V…rgil. de Iavent. l. 8. c. 1. who ingenuously confesseth, that among all the controversies he writes of, there is none which the Scripture or Fathers speak less of, than this; but however,Al…hons. à Castro adve…s. haeres. l. 8. v. Indulg. he saith, though the use of them seem to have come very late into the Church, they ought not to be contemned, because many things are known to latter ages, which the ancient writers were wholly ignorant of; for which he instanceth in Transubstantiation; procession from the Son, and Purgatory. But he ought to have remembred what himself had said before in a chapter of finding out heresies,Alphons l. 1. c. 12. that, the novelty of any doctrine makes it of it self to be suspected, because Christ and his Apostles did give sufficient instructions for attaining eternal life; and after the Law given by Christ no other Law is to be expected, because his Testament is eternal. Let this be applyed to his own confession of these doctrines, and the consequence is easily discerned. And it is an excellent saying of Bellarmin,Bellar. de am…ss…gratiae l. 6. c. 3. resp. ad …bj. 6. that, in things which depend on the will of God, nothing ought to be affirmed, unless God hath revealed it in the H. Scriptures. Therefore according to the opinion of these persons who assert the doctrine of Indulgences to have no Foundation in Scripture or Antiquity, p. 501it can be no other than a notorious Cheat.

2. Some in the Church of Rome have called them pious frauds. This appears by the Controversies which arose upon Indulgences, at the same time when they began to grow common.Aquin. s…pplement. sum. q. 25. art 2. Bonavent. in sent. l. 4. dist. 20. q. 6. For Aquinas and Bonaventure tell us, that there were some in the Church who said, that the intention of the Church in Indulgences was only by a pious fraud to draw men to charitable acts, which otherwise they would not have done; as a mother which promiseth her Child an apple to run abroad, which she never gives him, when she hath brought him to it. Which is the very instance they used,Greg. de Valent. de Indulg. c. 2. as Gregory de Valentiâ confesseth. But this Aquinas rejects as a very dangerous opinion, because this is in plain terms to make the Church guilty of a notorious Cheat; and as, he saith, from St. Augustine, if any falshood be found in Scripture, it takes away the authority of the whole; so if the Church be guilty of a cheat in one thing, she will be suspected in all the rest. This, saith Bonaventure, is to make the Church to lye and deceive, and Indulgences to be vain and childish toyes. But for all these hard words, they had a great deal of reason on their side: for the Indulgences were express for the remission of the sins of those who did such and such things, as the giving a small summ of money towards p. 502the building of a Church, or an Hospital; they therefore asked whether the Indulgences were to be taken as they were given or no? if they were, then all those had full remission of sins on very easie terms; if not, then what is this else but fraud and cheating, and can be only called pious because the work was good which they did? This put the defenders of Indulgences very hard to it; Praepositivus, one of the eldest of the Schoolmen confesseth that it looks a little oddly for a man to be absolved from all his sins for three pence, Apud. Morin. l. 10. c. 20. n. 5.given in three several places; and that the rich by this means have a mighty advantage over the poor: but he resolves it all into the power of the Church. Petrus Cantor confesseth the difficulties great,Ib. n. 7. but only for the Churches Authority; and especially in those general Indulgences which are pronounced without any distinctions. Therefore he saith Greg. 4. as he calls him (Morinus thinks Greg. 8.) in the Dedication of the Church of Benevento, told the people it was much safer for them to undergoe their penance than to receive an Indulgence from him of any part of it: and another Bishop, being desired an Indulgence would give it but for two dayes; but if any one asks, whether the remission of sins were presently obtained after Indulgence, or only when they are uncapable of penance, viz. after death; for his part, he saith, he desires them p. 503to consult the Pope or the Bishop that gives the Indulgence, whether of these opinions is true; and when the Bishop of Paris shewed him the magnificent Church he had built by vertue of Indulgences, Cantor told him, he had done much better if he had let them alone, and perswaded the people to undergoe their penance.

But because the form of Indulgences ran in such large and general terms; it grew to be a great Question among the Schoolmen, Whether the validity of Indulgences was as great as the words of them? which in other terms is whether the Church did cheat or not in giving them? for if they were not to understand them according to the plain words of them; what is this but a gross imposture to abuse the credulous people, and laugh in their sleeves at them for their simplicity. For while the people have so good an opinion of their Church as to believe the truth of what she declares, and to take Indulgences according to the sense of the words; if their meaning who give them be otherwise than is expressed, it is one of the most abominable cheats that ever was invented by men. For picking purses, forging deeds, or betraying men are tolerable things in comparison; but to abuse and ruine their souls under a pretence of pardoning their sins, is the utmost degree of fraud and imposture. Let us now see how p. 504these Hucksters defend their Church in this case; for the Question hath been debated among the Schoolmen ever since Indulgences came up. Some resolve it thus, that Indulgences do signifie as much as the Church declares,Guil. Altissiodor. sum l. 4. tract. 6. c. 9. but with these conditions, that there be sufficient authority in the giver, necessity in the receiver, that he believes the Church hath power to give them, that he be in a state of grace, and give a sufficient compensation, which is to overthrow what they said, unless those conditions were expressed in the Indulgences. Some say that common Indulgences held only for sins of Ignorance,Morin. l. 10. c. 21. n. 3 others for venial sins, others for penances negligently performed, others for Purgatory pains. Some again said that these could signifie no more than a relaxation of Canonical Penance, whatever the words were, and that they were introduced for no other end; and they do not reach any farther than the Churches Canonical power or judgement doth, and not to the judgement of God. But this opinion,Greg. de Valent. de Indulg. c. 2. saith Greg. de Valentiâ doth not differ from the Hereticks; and withall, he saith, upon this principle, Indulgences do more hurt than good; for if it were not for them; the sinner by his penance might take away some part of his punishment, but now he relyes upon his Indulgence and does no penance, and so undergoes his whole punishment. p. 505Albertus M. saith,Albert. M. in sent. l. 4. dist. 20. art. 17. they are much mistaken who say that Indulgences are to be understood as large as their words are, without any farther condition; and that this is to enlarge the Court of Gods mercy too far; and sayes many conditions are to be understood, which are not expressed in them. This gave the first occasion to the Treasure of the Church, invented by Aquinas to satisfie this argument of Albertus concerning the mercy of God being extended too far by Indulgences; for hereby what punishment is taken away from one is made up by the punishment of another, which is reckoned upon his account. And therefore, he saith, the cause of the remission of punishment is not the devotion, work, or gift of the receiver, but the Treasure of merits which was in the Church which the Pope might dispense; and therefore the quantity of the remission was not to be proportioned to the acts of the receiver, but to the stock of the Church? This rich Banck of the Churches Stock being thus happily discovered, they do not question now but to set all accounts even with it; and therefore Aquinas confidently affirms, that Indulgences are to be understood simply as they are expressed; for God, saith he, doth not need our lye or deceit; which he grants, must have been if Indulgences had not been meant as they were expressed; and all men would sin mortally who Preached Indulgences, p. 506Yet to obtain the Indulgence, he saith, that every man must give according to his ability; for the objection being put, concerning an Indulgence being given to three several places, that whosoever gives a penny towards the building of a Church in every one of these places, shall for each of them have the third part of his sins forgiven him, so that for three pence a man gets a plenary remission; he answers, that a poor man may indeed have it so, but it is to be understood that a rich man ought to give more. For it is all the reason in the world that a rich man should pay greater Vse for the stock of the Church, than a poor man can do: and it is reasonably to be presumed that he had more sins to be pardoned than the other, and therefore whatever the general terms are, there must be some reserve to hook in more from the rich than was expressed in the first bargain. But if the rich man should plead Law in the case, and cry out it was Covin and Fraud, to demand more than the first Contract was; I am not skilful enough to determin what action the Church can have against him. But there is another shrewd objection mentioned by Bonaventure, which is, that a man gets by sinning, as suppose two men to receive the remission of a third part of their sins by an Indulgence, one owes but it may be 90 years penance for his sins, and another hath run p. 507upon the score so far that he owes 900 years, both receive a third part Indulgence; in which case we see plainly the greater sinner hath mightily the advantage of the other, and where one gets but 30. the other gets 300. And therefore Bonaventure is fain to run back again and to say, that Indulgences are not to be understood as they are expressed, and that they are not equal to all; but it was not fit to express it so, because this would hinder peoples esteem of the Indulgence. Which in plainer terms is, that it is necessary to cheat the people, or else there is no good to be done by Indulgences. Petrarch. ep. 5.Thence Petrarch called them nets wherein the credulous multitude were caught; and in the time of Boniface 9. the people observing what vast summs of money were gathered by them cryed out they were meer cheats and tricks to get money with,Gob…l Persona…aet. 6. c. 68. upon which Paulus Langius (a Monk) exclaims.Paul. Largii Chronic. Citizens. ad A. D. 1395. O God, to what are these things come! Thou holdest thy peace, but thou wilt not alwayes, for the day of the Lord will bring the hidden things of darkness to light. U…sp…rg. Chron. p. 307.Conrad. Vrspergensis saith, that Rome might well rejoyce in the sins of the people, because she grew rich by the compensation which was made for them: Thou hast (saith he to her) that which thou hast alwayes thirsted after, sing and rejoyce, for thou hast conquered the world, not by religion, p. 508but by the wickedness of men. Which is that which draws them to thee, not their devotion and piety. Platina in Bonif. 9.Platina saith, the selling Indulgences brought the Ecclesiastical Authority into contempt, and gave encouragement to many sins. Ursperg. Chron. p. 322.Vrspergensis complains, that plenary Indulgences brought more wickedness into the world; for, he saith, men did then say, Let me do what wickedness I will, by them I shall be free from punishment, and deliver the souls of others from Purgatory. Gerson saith,Gerson. de Indulg. co… sid. 8. none can give a pardon for so many years as are contained in the Popes Indulgences but Christ alone: therefore what are they but cheats and impostures? In Spain, Indulgences were condemned by Petrus de Osma a Divine of Salamanca and his followers,Bull. Rom. Tom. 1. Sixt. 4. Co…st. 17. as appears by the Popes Bull against them, A. D. 1478. In Germany by I…hannes de Vesaliâ a famous Preacher of Mentz; S…rrar. Rerum Mo…untiac. l. 1. c. 34.for Serrarius reckons this among the chief of his opinions, that Indulgences were only pious frauds and wayes to deceive the people, and that they were fools who went to Rome for them. About the same time flourished Wesselus Groningensis incomparably the best Scholar of his Age, and therefore called Lux mundi, he was not only skilled in School Divinity (almost the only learning of that time) but in the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee and Arabick, having travelled into Greece, Aegypt, and been in most p. 509Vniversities of Europe, and read the most ancient Authors in all kinds of learning; on the account of his learning he was much in favour with Sixtus 4. and was present and admired at the Council of Basil; but he was so far from being a friend to Indulgences, Wesseli Groning. oper. p. 867, &c.that in his Epistles he saith, that no Popes could grant an Indulgence for an hour, and that it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that for the same thing done, sometimes an Indulgence should be granted for 7 years, sometimes for 700, sometimes for 7000, and sometimes for ever by a plenary remission; and that there is not the least foundation in Scripture for the distinction of remitting the fault and the punishment, upon which the doctrine of Indulgences is founded. That the giving them was a design of covetousness, and although the Pope once sware to the King of France's Embassadour, that he did not know the corruptions of the sellers of Indulgences, yet when he did know them he let them alone, and they spread farther. That God himself doth not give plenary remission to contrition and confession, and therefore the Pope can much less do it: But if God doth forgive, how comes the Pope to have power to retain? and if there be no punishment retained when God forgives, what hath the Pope… to do to release? Against him writes one Iacobus Angularis, Iac. Angular.in ep. Wesseli.he confesseth there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity expresly for Indulgences; but that p. 510ought to be no argument, for there are many other things owned in their Church as necessary points which have as little foundation as this, viz. S. Peters being at Rome, and Sacramental confession; and therefore at last he takes Sanctuary in the Popes and Churches authority. To this Wesselus answers, that Indulgences were accounted pious frauds before the time of Albertus and Thomas; that there was a great number of Divines did still oppose the errours and practices of the Court of Rome in this matter; that supposing the Church were for them, yet the authority of Scripture is to be preferred before it, and no multitude of men whatsoever is to be believed against Scripture: that, he had not taken up this opinion rashly, but had maintained it in Paris thirty three years before, and in the Popes poenitentiary Court at Rome; and was now ready to change it, if he could see better reason for the contrary. That the doctrine of Indulgences was delivered very confusedly and uncertainly, by which it appeared to be no Catholick doctrine: that it is almost impossible to find two men agree in the explication of them, that the doctrine of Indulgences was so far from being firmly believed among them, that there was not the strictest person of the Carthusian or other orders that should receive a plenary Indulgence p. 511at the hour of death, that yet would not desire his Brethren to pray for his soul: which is a plain argument he did not believe the validity of the Indulgence: that many in the Court of Rome did speak more freely against them than he did. That, the Popes authority is very far from being infallible; or being owned as such in the Church; as appeared by the Divines at Paris condemning the Bull of Clement 6. about Indulgences, wherein he took upon him to command the Angels, and gave plenary remissions both from the fault and punishment. Which authentick Bulls, he saith, were then to be seen at Vienne, Limoges and Poictou. It is notorious to the world what complaints were made in Germany after his time of the fraud of Indulgences, before any other point of Religion came into dispute; and how necessarily from this, the Popes authority came to be questioned, that being the only pretence they had to justifie them by: and with what success these things were then managed, it is no more purpose to write now, than to prove that it is day at Noon. The Council of Trent could not but confess horrible abuses in the sale of Indulgences, yet what amendment hath there been since that time?Bell. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 12. Bellarmin confesseth, that it were better if the Church were very sparing in giving Indulgences: I wonder why so; if my Adversaries p. 512experience and observation be true, that they prove great helps to devotion and charity. Can the Church be too liberal in those things which tend to so good an end?

§. 8. But Bellarmin would not have the people too confident of the effect of Indulgences; Of Bellarmins prudent Christian.for though the Church may have power to give them; yet they may want their effect in particular persons; and therefore, saith he, all prudent Christians do so receive Indulgences, as withall to satisfie God themselves for their sins, i. e. in plain terms, that all prudent Christians are too wise to believe them, and none but Fools do rely on them. For if there were any thing but fraud and imposture in them, why may not a prudent Christian trust a Church which he believes infallible? If the Head of the Church publishes an Indulgence, wherein he remits to all that are confessed and contrite, upon doing such actions of charity and piety the remaining temporal punishment of their sins: I desire to know why a prudent Christian of that Church may not, yea ought not to rely upon his word? Doth he suspect the Head of his Church may cheat and abuse him? if he doth, what becomes of infallibility? if he verily believes that the Pope cannot erre and will not deceive, why must not his word be taken? and how can his word be taken for the remitting of a debt, p. 513when they take as much care of payment as if he had said nothing? I know not how those things pass among the prudent Christians of that Church, but to me they look like the greatest suspicion of a cheat that may be. As suppose a great person out of kindness to one that is in danger of lying in Prison for debt, gives him a note under his hand, that upon the acknowledgment of his debt to his Attourney, and paying him his Fees, he will see his debt wholly discharged; and a Friend of the Prisoner tells him openly, he ought to receive that Favour in an extraordinary manner with all thankfulness; for that person is one who can never fail of his word; and he need not question his ability for he hath a vast treasure in his hands, to be disposed of for such uses; can we otherwise think, but that the poor man would be strangely surprised with joy at it; and if he hath any money left, he will be sure to give it to the person imployed in so good a work? But withall if he should secretly whisper him, that he advises him as a Friend, that he would look out all other wayes imaginable to satisfie his Creditours, and that all prudent persons in his case had taken the same Course; what must the thoughts of such a man be of such a large and noble offer? Truly, that the Gentleman was a great Courtier, but a man must have a care p. 514of believing him too far; and his Friend understood the world, and that one thing was to be said and done in shew not to disoblige so great a person, but for all that, a man must mind his own business, or he may be choused at last if he trust too far to such large promises. This is just the case of Indulgences in the Roman Church; a man is affrighted with the dreadful Prison of Purgatory, as the temporal punishment of his sins, which God will certainly exact from him, either here by satisfactions and penances, or there in the pains of that state; while the man considers with himself the hardness of his condition, he hears of Indulgences to be had; and after he hath enquired the meaning of them is very well satisfied, that if he can get one of them, he shall do well enough. For he is told that his Holiness is infallible, and that he cannot cheat or lye, or deceive like other men, and therefore of all persons in the world he would soonest trust him; but because many others are in the same condition with him, he may a little question, whether his stock will hold out or no: here his Friends assure him the Treasure of the Church, (of which the Pope hath the Keys) is so large, that if it were a thousand times more, he need not fear it; only he must confess his sins and have contrition for them, and do some charitable acts, and pay some customary p. 515fees and duties, and he shall have a total discharge. Well, sayes the man in a transport of joy, this is the bravest Church in the world for a man to sin in, if he may escape thus: and what need I question, since the Pope is infallible, and the treasury of the Church is inexhaustible? how am I freed now, not only from the fears of Hell and Purgatory, but from crabbed and hateful penances? that honest and kind-hearted Gentleman the Pope hath struck a tally for me in his Exchequer, and I shall have my share in my course and order; without lashings, and whippings, and fastings, and mumblings, and I know not how many odd tricks besides: but soft and fair, saith Bellarmins prudent Christian to him, be not too confident of your ease and discharge, you must use as great severities with your self, and undergoe as many penances, and say as many Prayers as if you had no Indulgence at all. Say you so, I pray what benefit then have I, saith he, by this which you call an Indulgence? what is it an Indulgence of? Is there not a full remission of sins contained in it; and I have been always told by that is meant the discharge of the temporary punishment due to sin either here or in Purgatory? Shall I be discharged, or shall I not upon it? if I shall, what do you tell me of that which I am discharged from? if not, the Indulgence is a spiritual Trapan, and the p. 516Pope and Infallible Cheat. I cannot see how a man can think otherwise, that made such account of the great benefit of Indulgences, and at last finds they come to nothing but deceiving the people and getting money.

§. 9. By this we see already,The absurdity of the doctrine of Indulgences, and the Churches Treasure. what miserable shifts they are put to, who defend Indulgences but as an honest contract, but they who will justifie them as containing something divine and satisfactory for the punishment of mens sins, are fain to build the doctrine of them upon such absurd and unintelligible notions, that it is almost as hard to understand as to believe it. It cannot be denyed, that there are some in the Church of Rome whose doctrine of Indulgences is easie enough,Cassander in consult. art. 12. but then it marrs the whole Markett,Barns Cathol. Rom. Pacific. S. 9. and this doctrine is therefore condemned by others as heretical in sense. Which is, that Indulgences are nothing else but a relaxation of the ancient severity of Church discipline, White de medio anim. statudem. 26.according to the old Penitential Canons; which doth not respect the justice of God, but the Discipline of the Church over offenders. This is a doctrine we have nothing to complain of the difficulty of understanding, but we know not to what purpose, (if this be all) any particular Indulgences are ever given, since there is so general an Indulgence by the practice of the whole Church among them, wherein they cannot pretend to observe any p. 517of the old Penitential Canons. And to give a man an Indulgence to omit that, which no body requires and is wholly out of use, would be like the Kings giving a man a Patent not to wear Trunk-hose and Ruffs, when it would be ridiculous to use them. And if this were all intended, why is it not so expressed if they meant honestly? but they know, if their Pardons ran so, no one would give a farthing for them. What need any talk of the Churches Treasure for this? which Clement 6. made the ground of Indulgences in his Bull: and hath been asserted by the most zealous defenders of them. This way of explaining Indulgences then, though it be easie and intelligible, yet it is not reconcileable with the practice of the Church of Rome, nor with the suppositions on which that practice is built. We are therefore to enquire what they can make of it, who go about to defend it as it is practised and generally understood among them. To this end they tell us, that although the fault be remitted upon the Sacrament of Penance, yet the temporal punishment of sin remains, which God must be satisfied for: that this temporal punishment is either to be undergone here or in Purgatory, that every man must have undergone it himself, if there had not been a treasure of the Church made up of the satisfactions of Christ, and the p. 518Saints, to make amends to God for every one to whom that Treasure is applyed. That, the dispensing of this Treasure is in the hands of the Pope, who gives it out by Indulgences, which being applyed to any person upon the condition required, he is thereby discharged from the debt of temporal punishment which he owed to God.

This is the received doctrine of Indulgences in the Roman Church; which holds together till you touch it, and then it presently flies in pieces like a Glass drop, or vanishes into smoke and aire. It is of so tender a composition that it can endure no rough handling; if you like it as it is, much good may it do you, but you must ask no Questions: But however I shall, to shew the monstrous absurdities of this Doctrine.

1. Why if the Indulgence only respects the punishment and not the fault, the terms of the Indulgence do not express this, that the people may not be deceived? Why in all Indulgences since this doctrine is so explained as in the Iubilees of Clement 8.Clem. 8. const. 58. To. 3. Bull. U…ban 8. const. 16. To. 4. and of Vrban 8. (the former of whom is applauded by Bellarmin for a reformer of Indulgences) the most general expressions are still used of most plenary Indulgence, remission and pardon of all their sins? why is it not said only of the temporal punishment p. 519due to sin, the fault being supposed to be remitted?

2. How punishment doth become due, when the fault is remitted? if the punishment be just, it must have respect to the fault, for to punish without respect to the fault, is all one as to punish without fault; if it have respect to the fault, how that fault can be said to be remitted which is punished? So far as a man is punished, it is nonsense to say he is pardoned, and so far as he is not pardoned, his fault is charged upon him.

3. Suppose temporal punishment remain to be satisfied for; whether all or only some one kind? whether diseases, pains, and death be not part of the temporal punishment of sin, and whether men may be freed from these by Indulgences? whether from the effects of the justice of God in extraordinary judgements? if not, how can a man be said to be freed from the temporal punishment of sin that is as lyable to it as any one else?

4. If only one sort of the temporal punishment of sin, why is not that one sort declared what it is, that all men may be satisfied from the Pope himself, whom some believe infallible, in his Indulgence? Others we find are not agreed about it; some say it is only the punishment due to sin above the Canonical penance; some, that p. 520it is only the Canonical penance and not that which is due from the justice of God, some that it is for both, some only for negligence in performing penance, some that it is only for injoyned penance, and others that it is for all that may be enjoyned. In this diversity of opinions what security can any man have what punishment he is to be freed from?

5. If it be from Canonical Penance whether a man is wholly freed from the obligation to that or no? if he be, what power hath the Priest to enjoyne penance after? if he be not free, what is it he is freed from? and in what tolerable sense can this be called a most full remission of sins, which neither remits the fault, nor the natural or divine punishment, nor so much as the Canonical Penance enjoyned by a Priest?

6. Although there needs no treasure where nothing is discharged; yet since so great a one is spoken of for this purpose, wherein the satisfaction of Christ bears the greatest share; it were worth the enquiring why the satisfaction of Christ might not as well remit the temporal punishment when the fault is remitted on the account of it, as afterwards by Indulgences?

7. How the parts of Christs satisfaction come to be divided into that which was necessary, and that which was redundant; so as the necessary satisfies for the fault, and p. 521the redundant for the temporal punishment? whether Christ did any more than God required? whether any thing which God required can be said to be redundant? if there be, how one part comes to be applyed and the other cast into a treasure? what parts can be made of an infinite and entire satisfaction? and if so little were necessary, and so much redundant, how the least part comes to satisfie for the fault and eternal punishment; and the greatest only for the temporal punishment?

8. Whether all the satisfaction of Christ taken together were not great enough to remit the eternal punishment of the whole world? if it were, whether all the redundant parts of that, be cast into a treasure too? and who hath the keeping of it, and what use is made of so much more useful a treasure than that which serves only to remit the temporal punishment? What account can the Pope give of suffering so vast a part of the Churches Treasure to lye idle and make no use of it for the benefit of those that need it?

9. May not the Pope, if he thinks of it, gather another mighty Treasure of the absolute Power of God which is never used, as for making new worlds, &c? may he not by the help of this deliver souls out of hell, as well as by the other out of Purgatory? and if this be so much the greater kindness, p. 522he ought to think of it and imploy this treasure for these purposes. Why may he not think of another treasure of the light of the Sun that is more than enough for the use of the world, and to lay it up in store for the benefit of the purblind and Aged?

10. If the satisfaction of Christ be so redundant; how comes it not to be sufficient for so poor an end as Indulgences serve for; but the satisfactions of the Saints must make up a share in this Treasure too? Is not this worse, than to light a Candle to help the Sun, to suppose Christs satisfaction so infinite, as to be sufficient to redeem more worlds, and yet not enough to deliver from temporal punishment without the satisfactions of the Saints?

11. How come the Saints to make such large satisfactions to the justice of God, if the satisfaction of Christ were of so infinite a nature? and if they did make satisfactions, were they not sufficiently rewarded for them? if they were, how come those satisfactions to help others which they were so abundantly recompensed for themselves?

12. If the satisfaction of Christ doth only obtain grace for the Saints to satisfie themselves for the temporal punishment of their sins; how can the application of this satisfaction by Indulgences free any p. 523from the temporal punishment of their sins? Or have the satisfactions of Saints being joyned with Christs greater power now in common penitents, than the satisfaction of Christ alone in the greatest Saints?

13. Why the satisfaction of Christ may not serve, without the Saints to remit only the temporal punishment of sins; when it was sufficient alone to remit both eternal and temporal in the Sacrament of Baptism? or was the force of it spent then, that it needs a fresh supply afterwards? but if then it could be applyed to a higher end, without any other help, why not where it is to have far less efficacy?

14. If satisfaction be made to God for the temporal punishment of penitents by Indulgences; I desire to know when and by whom the payment is made to God? If it was made by the persons whose satisfactions make the Churches treasure, for that end, what hath the Pope to do to dispense that which God hath accepted long agoe for payment? If it be made by the Pope, in what way doth he make it? doth he take out so much ready cash of the Churches treasure and pay it down upon the nail, according to the proportion of every ones sins? or doth he only tell God where such a treasure lyes and bid him go and satisfie himself, for as much as he discharges of his d…bt?

p. 52415. How came this Treasure of the Church into the Popes Keeping? who gave him alone the Keys of it? if there were any such thing, methinks those who are trusted with the greater treasure of Christs necessary satisfaction for the remitting of eternal punishment, as every Priest is by their own doctrine in the Sacrament of Penance: should not be denyed the lesser of the Superfluities of Christ and the Saints sufferings for the remitting only temporal punishment. When I once see these questions satisfactorily answered, I may then think better of this doctrine than I doe at present; for the best I can think of it now is, that there never was a doctrine more absurd in the ground of it, or more gainful in the practice than this of Indulgences in the Roman Church; and therefore ought to be accounted one of the most notorious cheats that ever was in the Christian world.

§. 10. But let us suppose it otherwise,The tendency of Indulgences to hinder devotion. and then we are to enquire, whether this would tend to promote or obstruct that very way of devotion, which is most in request in the Roman Church? there are but two ways to judge of this, either by experience or the nature of the doctrine it self. For experience my Adversary alledges his own, and that he hath seen great devotion caused by them: but by his favour the question is not, what outward acts of devotion p. 525may be performed by some ignorant and silly people, who are abused by great hopes of strange benefits by Indulgences, and therefore prepare themselves with some shew of devotion to receive them especially when they are unusual; but the question is, whether they have these effects upon those who understand the nature and designe of them and the doctrine of their Church about them.D…and. in sentent. l. 4. dist. 20. q. 4. For as Durandus resolves it, the validity of the Indulgence doth not depend on the devotion of the receiver, for then saith he, the Indulgence would contain a falsity in it, which is, that whosoever doth such a thing, as going to the 7. Churches, shall have plenary remission of his sins; therefore saith he, whoever doth the thing, shall have the whole benefit of the Indulgence, or else the Indulgence is false. And to his experience I shall oppose, that of greater observers of the world than he hath been. I have already mentioned the testimony of Vrspergensis and others concerning the effects of plenary Indulgences in their times, how men encouraged themselves to sin the more because of them.Polyd, virg. de invent. rer. l. 8. c. 1. Polydore Virgil observes, that when Indulgences were grown common, many men did abstain less from doing evil actions. The author of the book called Onus Ecclesiae saith,Onus Ecc…. c. 14. 8. 28. that they take men off from the fruits of repentance, and are profitable only to the idle and wicked. The Princes p. 526of Germany in the Diet of Norimberg among the grievances represented to the Pope, Centum gravamina act. 3. 4.by the consent of them all; upon the mention of Indulgences reckon as the least bad consequence of them, that the people were cheated of their money by them; but that they say was far more considerable, that true Christian Piety was destroyed by them; and that all manner of wickedness did spring fr…m thence; and that men were afraid of committing no kind of sin, when at so cheap a rate they could purchase a remission of them. But setting aside the experience of these things, let us consider what the nature of the doctrine it self tends to, to those who believe it. The least benefit we see allowed them is a freedom from enjoyned penances; and what are these penances accounted among them, but fruits of true repentance, a severe mortification, fasting, frequent prayers and Almes? so that the short of this doctrine is, that men by Indulgences are excused from doing the best parts of their Religion, and if this be a way of promoting devotion I leave any one in his senses to judge.

§. 11. I proceed now to the denying the Cup to the Laity, Of communion in one kind.contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ. To which he answers 3. ways (1) that the receiving in one or both kinds was p. 527ever held a matter of liberty in the Church. (2) that it was as much in the Churches power to alter it after a 1000. years, as in the first or second century. (3) that the believing whole Christ to be present in one kind tends more to excite devotion than receiving both elements without that belief. This is the substance of his answer.Vindication of Arch-Bishop Land. Part. 3. ch. 3. 8. 14. 15. 16. 17. But I have else where at large proved, and need not repeat it here, that the Institution of Christ, as to both kinds, was of an universally obligatory nature, not only from the will of the first Institutor, but from the universal sense of the Church concerning the nature of that Institution. And there I have largely answer'd those very testimonies produced by him, and shewed that they are so far from proving the use of one kind in the Catholick Church, that Leo in that very place shewes, that it was the token of an heretick not to receive in both kinds; and the other Instance in the Greek Church is only of a woman in whose mouth the bread turned into a stone, that she had not patience to stay to receive the Cup. So very pittyful are the proofs brought against the use of both kinds for a 1000. years after Christ, which being supposed and acknowledged by some of the most learned and ingenuous of their own Church, I wonder what authority the Church afterwards can have to alter, what was always looked on p. 528before as an obliging Institution of Christ? Might it not as well alter any other Institution on the same grounds? and wholly forbid the bread to the Laity as well as the cup; and I doe not at all question but as substantial reasons might be brought for one as the other. I had thought the Gentlemen of the Roman Church had pretended a mighty reverence to Apostolical Traditions, and the Practice of the Catholick Church, for a thousand years after Christ. But it seems this signifies nothing to them, when it is contrary to their present doctrine and practice. Then it makes a great noise as he saith but nothing else: Thus we Protestants have at last gained Antiquity of our side, it is now yielded that though the Church were for us, for a thousand years, yet if it now decree or act otherwise, this is enough for them. And we are contented to have Christ and his Apostles and all the Primitive practice, for so long a time on our side; and to leave them to enjoy the satisfaction that follows, taking the part of the Church of Rome against them all. But however their opinion tends more to devotion? Alas for us! we doe not account it any piece of devotion to believe nonsense, and contradictions such as the doctrine of transubstantiation implies: we know not what devotion there can be in opposing a plain Institution of Christ, and p. 529not meerly in leaving the people at liberty to receive in one or both kinds, but in prohibiting the far greatest part of Christians to receive as Christ appointed; we know not what devotion there can lye in worshipping a piece of bread for the Son of God; and believing that when a wafer is taken into our mouths, that God himself is personally entered under our Roof. O horrible devotion and detestable superstition! to give the same adoration to a wafer which we doe to the Eternal God; and to believe Christ to goe down as personally into our bellies, as ever he went up and down when he was upon earth.

§. 12. That which followes is,Of the Popes power of dispensing. the Power of a Persons dispensing in oaths and marriages contrary to the Law of God, which I therefore made a hindrance of the sincerity of devotion because it is apt to possess mens minds with an apprehension that Religion is only a Politick Cheat, if any person shall be thought able to dispense with those things which are universally received among Christians as the Laws of God. That which I meant, was the Popes taking upon him to dispense with oaths of allegiance to Princes, and the incestuous marriages of some great Princes. And now let any one consider what his Answer signifies: he saith, that some kinds of oaths may be judged in some circumstances to be hurtful p. 530and not fit to be kept: and the dispensation in them is no more than to judge or determine them to be so: and for Marriages, he addes that the Church may dispense in some degrees of Affinity and consanguinity, but in nothing contrary to the Law of God. But this doth not at all reach to the busines; for dispensing in this way may as well be done by a Casuist as the Bishop of Rome; but the Question lyes here, whether those things which otherwise would be sins by the Law of God, doe therefore cease to be so, because of the Popes Power to discharge that obligation of conscience which lay upon the Person, either in oaths or marriages? Let him answer directly to this; for the other is shuffling and not answering. As, it is granted that a subject hath an obligation of conscience upon him to obey his Soveraigne by vertue of the Law of God; and the universal sense of the Church hath been that there are some degrees of consanguinity and Affinity which it is Incest to marry within: I desire to know whether the Popes power can make disobedience lawful in one case and marriage in another, which without that Power were utterly unlawful? This he could not but know was the thing meant, but not fit to be answered.

p. 531§. 13. The last Instance is,The ill consequence of asserting marriage in a Priest to be worse than Fornication. making disobedience to the Church in disputable matters, more hainous than disobedience to the Laws of Christ in unquestionable things, as marriage in a Priest to be a greater crime than Fornication. To this he answers. 1. That the Law of the Church being supposed forbidding the marriage of a Priest, that is no disputable matter: but it is out of Question by the Law of God, that obedience is to be given to the commands or prohibitions of the Church. 2. That marriage in a Priest, the prohibition of the Church being supposed and a voluntary vow against it, is no better than Adultery in the language of the Fathers, and therefore worse than Fornication. 3. That the state of single life is much more convenient for Priests, than the married state is. This last answer is nothing at all to the purpose, for in matters of conveniency not determin'd by any Law, every one is left to be his own chooser; but the case I put, was not between a married life and single life, for we know no harm, either in one or the other of these, but every one is to judge as most tends to the comfort of his life and the ends of his calling; which hath now far different circumstances from the Apostolical times, which is a sufficient answer to the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7. 32. having a particular respect to the state of the Christian Church in that time of unfixedness p. 532and persecution: but the opposition was between marriage in a Priest and Fornication, whether the former were not by them made a greater crime than the latter, and whether this were not dishonour to the Laws of Christ to make the breach of a constitution of the Church, in a matter left at liberty by the Law of Christ, a greater crime than the violation of an indisputable Law of his? And S. Paul hath given a general rule which equally holds in all ages of the Church, If they cannot contain let them marry, 1 Cor. 7. 9.1 Cor 7:9for it is better to marry than to burn. So that if S. Paul may resolve the case he makes no question, that where there is but danger of Fornication, marriage is so far from being a greater crime than that, that it becomes a duty to such a one. But hold, say they of the Church of Rome to S. Paul, this is only meant of those whom the Church allowes to marry, but if the Church once forbid it to any they are not to marry, let their case be what it will. Here then lyes the dispute between S. Paul and them; S. Paul saith, to avoid fornication a man ought to marry; they say, that to marry after the prohibition of the Church is worse than Fornication: S. Paul might it may be ask, what authority their Church had to determin contrary to what he had done in this case; Or men to make vows, against the most proper p. 533remedy of some of the Infirmities of humane nature, and which God hath not promised to any to keep them from: If obedience to the Church be indisputable, it is only in such things which God hath not antecedently determin'd by his own Law; but in the case between marriage and fornication God himself hath given a Law before hand, which no Church in the world can reverse. And however indifferent a thing in the general it be to marry or not, yet when it comes to that point, either marriage or Fornication, I wonder at the confidence of any, who dare upon any account whatsoever, make marriage a greater crime than Fornication.

But, he saith, it seems strange to them who either cannot or will not take the word of Christ, that is his counsel of chastity, that marriage in a Priest should be a greater sin than Fornication. It doth, I assure you seem strange to us, because we are desirous to keep the Commands of Christ, and we are sure marriage is against none of them, but Fornication is. Doth that man take Christs counsel of chastity, that rather chooses to commit Fornication than marry? What admirable chastity is that? and what a beastly institution must marriage be, if Fornication be a less crime than that? But what a reflection is this the mean while, on the author of it, and that state of innocency p. 534and purity wherein it was first appointed: They must needs think themselves very holy men, who look on that state as too impure for them, which was allotted to man in his greatest Innocency. But although the first Ages of the Christian Church were so full of hardship and difficulties, that if ever it should have been required of the Governours of the Church to have been above this state, it should have been at that time; yet we find no such thing in the Apostolical times or afterwards, when the necessities of affairs would most have required it. But when the Christian Church came to have settlement in the world, and by degrees persons were fixed with endowments to particular places, and some care of affaires of the world was necessarily joyned with those of the Church; there was far less reason to make such a prohibition of marriage to the Clergy than ever was before. And the scandals were so abominable where those restraints were most in force, that on that very account the wisest men (though as fond as any of the Churches authority) thought there was more reason to give liberty to Priests to marry, than ever there had been to restrain them from it. I am not bound to defend all the extravagant and indiscreet passages which fell from some of the Fathers concerning marriage; but I am sure p. 535the Church preserved her liberty in it notwithstanding them, as I might easily prove if it were suitable to my present designe. And S. Cyprian speaking of those Virgins, Cyprian. ep. 62.who came nearest to vows of virginity as Rigaltius observes, saith, that it were better for them to marry, than to fall into bell by their sins, when they either will not or cannot keep their promise; the same thing is said by S. Augustin, August. de San. Virginit. 1. c. 34.by Epiphanius, by the author of the epistle ad Demetriadem as Bishop Iewel hath long since proved;Epiph. c. haer. 61. and need not here be repeated.

Two things he objects to prove marriage worse than fornication after a vow of continency;Hieronym. ep adv. demetriad. Jewels defense of the Apology part. 2. p. 174. one from the authority of S. Paul, who saith the younger Widdows that marry after the dedicating themselves to the service of the Church, doe incurre damnation, because by so doing they made void their first faith, i. e. as the Fathers expound it, the vow they had made. But doth he really think, that they did not break their first faith and incurre damnation by Fornication as well as by Marrying? If they did, how can this prove marriage worse than Fornication? I grant, that by their first faith hath been understood the promise made to the Church, and who denies the breach of promise to be a bad and scandalous thing, which is that S. Paul means by damnation; and is not Fornication much more so, where a p. 536thing in it self evil is committed besides the breach of the promise? Can any one think that is not more waxing wanton against Christ, than meer marrying is? Therefore S. Paul would have the younger Women to marry and not make any such promises;… Tim. 5. 14. which they would be in danger of breaking; he would have none admitted into the condition of Church-widdowes but those that were 60. years of ages, v. 9.and so in reason to be supposed passed the temptations to Fornication. Whereby he shews what rule ought to be observed in all such promises, and that none ought to be brought under them, but such as are to be supposed past the common temptations of humane nature in those things. But his second authority is more to his purpose, (if it were good for any thing,) which is the 104. Cannon of the 4. Council of Carthage as it is called; but he might have found in Iustellus his preface to the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae; Bibliotheca furis Canoni…i. p. 317.that this 4. Council of Carthage is of no Authority at all; and we need not be concerned for any Canon contained therein, which is not in the Code of the African Church as this is not; but seems taken out of some Decretals of the Popes, as will appear by comparing the 101. Canon in the Collection of Cresconius with the 104. of this Council. And it would be very strange if S. Augustin were present in p. 537this Council, that he should herein oppose what he had said elsewhere; for he determins, that the marrying again of the widdows that had vowed continuance in that state was no Adultery, but a lawful marriage; and that husband and wife ought not to be separated from each other upon such marriages,August. de bono viduitat. c. 9. 10. 11. and by that means make the husbands truely Adulterers, when they separate from them and marry other wives: and therefore, saith he, that which the Apostle condemns in them, is not so much their marrying as their will to marry whether they doe or no, whereby they break their first faith, So that it is not marriage but lust which the Apostle condemns; from whence it appears that S. Austin could never, if he spake consonantly to himself, condemn marriage after a vow of continency to be worse than Fornication. Indeed, he saith, that this falling from that holy chastity which was vowed to God, may in some sense be said to be worse than Adultery; but he never imagined such a construction could be made of his words, as though the act of Fornication were not a greater falling from it, than meer marriage could be.

So much shall suffice for the Instances produced in the Roman Church, of such things which tend to obstruct a good life and devotion.

p. 538§. 14. The 3. argument I used to prove the danger a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church, Of the uncertainty of faith in the Roman Church.was because it exposeth the faith of Christians to so great uncertainties; which he looks on as a strange charge from the Pen of a Protestant. As strange as it is, I have at large proved it true in a full examination of the whole Controversie of the Resolution of faith between us and them;Vindication of Arch-Bishop Laud part. 1. ch. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. to which I expect a particular Answer before this charge be renewed again. To which I must refer him for the main proof of it, and shall here subjoyn only short replyes to his Answers; or references to what is fully answered already.

1. His distinction of the authority of the Scripture in it self and to us, signifies nothing; for when we enquire into the proofs of the Authority of Scripture, it can be understood no otherwise than in respect to us; and if the Scriptures Authority as to us is to be proved by the Church, and the Churches Authority as to us to be provved by the Scripture, the difficulty is not in the least avoided by that distinction. And as little to the purpose is the other, that it is only an argument ad hominem, to prove the Infallibility of the Church from Scriptures, for I would fain know upon what other grounds they build their own belief of the Churches Infallibility than on p. 539the Promises of Christ in the Scripture? These are miserable evasions and nothing else. For the trite saying of S. Austin, that he would not believe the Gospel, &c. I have at large proved that the meaning of it is no more than that the Testimony of the Vniversal Church from the Apostles times is the best way to prove the particular books of Scripture, c. 7. sect. 9.to be authentical and cannot be understood of the Infallibility of the present Church; and that the testimony of some few persons as the Manichees were was not to be taken in opposition to the whole Christian Church. Which is a thing we as much contend for as they; but is far enough from making the Infallibility of our faith, to depend on the Authority of the present Church; which we say is the way to overthrow all certainty of faith to any considering man.

2. To that of overthrowing the certainty of sense in the doctrine of transubstantiation; he saith, that divine revelation ought to be believed against the evidence of sense. To which I answer (1.) that divine revelation in matters not capable of being judged by our senses, is to be believed notwithstanding any argument can be drawn from sensible experiments against it; as in the belief of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the future state of the soul, &c. (2.) that in the proper objects of sense to p. 540suppose a Revelation contrary to the evidence of sense, is to overthrow all certainty of faith where the matters to be believed depend upon matters of fact. As for Instance, the truth of the whole Christian doctrine depends upon the truth of Christs resurrection from the dead: if sense be not here to be believed in a proper object of it, what assurance can we have that the Apostles were not deceived, when they said they saw Christ after he was risen?

If it be said there was no revelation against sense in that case: that doth not take off the difficulty, for the reason why I am to believe revelation at any time against sense must be, because sense may be deceived, but revelation cannot; but if I yield to that principle that sense may be deceived in its most proper object, we can have no infallible certainty by sense at all, and consequently not in that point, that Christ is risen from the dead. If it be said, that sense cannot be deceived, where there is no revelation against it: I desire to know how it comes to be deceived supposing a revelation contrary to it? Doth God impose upon our senses at that time? then he plainly deceives us; is it by telling us we ought to believe more than we see? that we deny not: but we desire only to believe according to our senses in what we doe see; p. 541as what we see to be bread, that is bread; that what the Apostles saw to be the body of Christ was the body of Christ really, and substantially, and not meerly the accidents of a body. Besides, if revelation is to be believed against sense; then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to our minds, which is to make every one a Prophet that believes transubstantiation; or mediately by our senses, as in those words this is my body: if so, than I am to believe this revelation by my senses, and believing this revelation, I am not to believe my senses: which is an excellent way of making faith certain. All this on supposition there were a revelation in this case, which is not only false, but if it were true would overthrow the certainty of faith.

3. To that I objected, as to their denying to men the use of their judgement and reason as to the matters of faith proposed by a Church, when they must use it in the choice of a Church; he answers, that this cannot expose faith to any uncertainty, because it is only preferring the Churches judgement before our own: but he doth not seem to understand the force of my objection which lay in this. Every one must use his own judgement and reason in the choice of the Church he is to rely upon; is he certain in this or not? if he be uncertain, all that he receives on p. 542the Authority of that Church must be uncertain too: if the use of reason be certain, then how comes the Authority of a Church to be a necessary means of certainty in matters of faith? And they who condemn the use of a mans reason and judgement in Religion must overthrow all certainty on their own grounds, since the choice of his Infallible Guide must depend upon it. Now he understands my argument better, he may know better how to answer it: but I assure him I meant no such thing by the use of reason, as he supposes I would have, which is to believe nothing, but what my reason can comprehend; for I believe an Infinite Being, and all the Doctrines revealed by it in Holy Scriptures, although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those conceptions we call reason. But therefore to argue against the use of mens judgements in matters of faith, and the grounds of believing, is to dispute against that, which all wise men ever did, and will do to the worlds end.

4. I proved they made faith uncertain, by making the Churches power to extend to the making new articles of faith. This he grants to be to the purpose, if it were true: but he saith, the Church never owned any such power in her General Councils, (which doth not hinder but that the Heads of their p. 543Church have pretended to it and in case it be disputable among them, whether the Pope be not infallible, that unavoidably leaves faith at uncertainties.) Yet he yields what I contend for, which is, that it is in the Churches Power to make that necessary to be believed which was not so before: for whether it be by inventing new Articles, or declaring more explicitely the Truths not contained in Scripture and Tradition; it is all one to my purpose, as long as men might be saved without believing them before and cannot afterwards; which is to make the conditions of salvation mutable according to the pleasure of the Church; which is the greatest inconveniency of inventing new doctrines.

5. I shewed, they made faith uncertain by pretending to infallibility in determining Controversies, and yet not using it to determine those which are on foot among themselves. The force of the argument did not lye in this as he imagines, as though faith could not be certain, unless all controversies were determined, which was far from my thoughts, but that pretending there can be no faith without infallibility in their Church to end Controversies, they should give such great occasion to suspect that they did not believe themselves by imploying that Infallibility in ending the p. 544great Controversies among themselves; of which I have spoken already, and to this he gives no answer at all.

Thus much in Vindication of the third Argument, I made use of to prove, that all those who are in the Communion of the Roman Church, do run so great a hazard of their salvation, that none who have a care of their souls ought to embrace or continue in it.

§. 15. I now come to the third answer to the first Question,The case of a revolter and a bred Papist compared. which was, that a Protestant leaving the Communion of our Church, doth incurre a greater guilt, than one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Rome, and continues therein by invincible Ignorance, and therefore cannot equally be saved with such a one. Three things he objects against this Answer. 1. That this makes them both damned, though unequally, because the Converted Catholick more deeply than he that was bred so. 2. That this reflects as much upon St. Austin as them, who rejected the Communion of the Manichees, and embraced that of the Church of Rome upon their grounds. 3. That it is contrary to our distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental. To which I Reply:

1. That the design of my Answer was not to pass the sentence of damnation on p. 545all who dye in the communion of the Roman Church; but to shew that they who forsook a better Church for it do incurre greater guils, than those who are alwayes bred up in it and live and dye in the belief of its being the true Church, and therefore are not in an equal capacity of salvation with them. I shall make my meaning more plain by a parallel Instance or two; many in the Church of Rome have asserted the possibility of the Salvation of Heathens (though some Bigots have denyed it to Protestants) suppose this question were put concerning two persons: Whether a Christian having the same motives to become a Heathen, which one bred and born and well grounded in Heathenism hath to remain in it, may not equally be saved in the profession of it? and a third person should answer, that a Christian leaving the communion of the Christian Church doth incurre a greater guilt, than one who was bred up in Heathenism and continues therein by invincible Ignorance: doth this answer imply that they must both be damned though equally? or rather doth it not yield a greater possibility of salvation to one than to the other? Or suppose, (to come nearer our case) the question were put, concerning one that revolted from the Church of Iudah to the ten Tribes, (which were guilty of p. 546Idolatry, though not of the highest kind,) whether he were equally capable of salvation with one who was bred up in the communion of the Church of Israel all his dayes? I should make no question to pronounce his condition more dangerous than the other; & yet not therein damn them both, but only imply that it was much harder for to escape than the other. For he that was bred up in the Church of Israel, believing it was the true God he served, and in a right manner, and looking on the Church of Iudah as a Schismatical Church, and seeing the greater number of Tribes on their side, and wanting that instruction which was in the Church of Iudah, might in the sincerity of his heart serve God in a false way, and pray to him to pardon all his errours and corruptions, and have a general repentance of all sins, though not particularly convinced of the Idolatry of the ten Tribes, I dare not say, but God will accept of such a one that thus fears God and works Righteousness in the simplicity of his heart: but I cannot say the same of one who revolts from Iudah, where the true God was worshipped in a true manner, where he had sufficient means of instruction, and either wilful Ignorance, or temporal ends, or unreasonable prejudices makes him deliberately choose a worse and more impure Church p. 547before a better, for that very sin makes his case much more dangerous than the other. Our business is not to enquire into the salvation or damnation of any particular persons; for that depends upon so many circumstances as to the aggravation or extenuation of their faults, the nature and sincerity of their repentance, the integrity and simplicity of their minds; which none but God himself can know: but to find out the truest way to salvation, and to reject whatever Church requires that which is in it self sinful; for though God may pardon those who live in it in the simplicity of their minds, yet their hopes lying in their Ignorance and repentance, none who have a care of their souls dare venture themselves in so hazardous a state. Setting aside then the consideration of the danger common to both, I say the case of a Revolter from us to the Church of Rome is much worse than of one who was alwayes bred up in it, because he might far more easily understand the danger he runs into, and wilfull Ignorance only keeps him from it, and he doth upon deliberation choose a state of infinite hazard before one of the greatest safety.

2. This doth not reflect on St. Austin or the Church in his time, which was as far different from theirs as the Churches of Iudah p. 548and Israel were from each other: neither can it destroy the distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals, for the possibility of salvation allowed to any in their Church is built upon the supposition that they have all that is fundamentally necessary in order to it, though there are many dangerous errours and corruptions in that Church whose communion they live in.

§. 16. The Answers to the first Question being thus vindicated;The motives of the Roman Church considered. there remains little to be added concerning the second. For he tells me, that he agrees so far with me, that every Christian is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church. But which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the doctrines it teaches, to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles. And to be even with him, I thus far agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity, viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; and that that Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest evidence of that consent; and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest Motives for it and to embrace the communion of it.

Being thus far agreed, I must now enquire into what motives he offers on behalf p. 549of their Church; and what method he prescribes for delivering ours. For the former, he produces a large Catalogue of Catholick Motives (as he calls them) in the words of Dr. Taylour, Liberty of Prophecy, Sect. 20. And I do not know a better way of answering them, than in the words of the same eminent and learned Person, which he uses upon a like occasion to his demonstrating Friend I. S. But now in my Conscience,Preface to the second part of his dissuasive. (saith the Bishop) this was unkindly done, that when I had spoken for them what I could, and more than I knew they had ever said for themselves, and yet to save them harmless from the iron hands of a tyrant and unreasonable power, to keep them from being persecuted for their errours and opinions, that they should take the arms I had lent them for their defence, and throw them at my head. But the best of it is, though I. S. be unthankful, yet the Weapons themselves are but wooden Daggers, intended only to represent how the poor men are couzened by themselves, and that under fair and fraudulent pretences even pious well meaning men, men wise enough in other things may be abused. And though what I said, was but tinsel and pretence, imagery and whipt Cream, yet I could not be blamed to use no better p. 550than the best their cause could bear: yet if that be the best they have to say for themselves, their probabilities will be soon out-ballanced by one Scripture-testimony urged by Protestants, and thou shalt not Worship any graven Images will out-weigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church.—But then I. S. might, if he had pleased, have considered, that I did not intend to make that harangue to represent that the Roman Religion had probabilities of being true, but probabilities that the Religion might be tolerated, or might be endured: and if I was deceived it was but a well meant errour, hereafter they shall speak for themselves, only for their comfort, this they might have also observed in that Book, that there is not half so much excuse for the Papists, as there is for the Anabaptists, and yet it was but an excuse at the best. But since from me, saith he, they borrow their light Armour, which is not Pistol-proof; from me if they please they may borrow a remedy to undeceive them, and that in the same kind and way of arguing; for which he referrs to a letter written by him to a Gentlewoman seduced to the Church of Rome; out of which I shall transcribe so much as may over-ballance the probabilities produced elsewhere by him.

After p. 551directions given rather to enquire what her Religion is than what her Church is,Polemical discourses p 705. &c. for that which is a true Religion to day, will be so to morrow and for ever, but that which is a holy Church to day, may be Heretical at the next change, or may betray her trust, or obtrude new Articles in contradiction to the old, &c. and shewing the unreasonablness of believing the Roman to be the Catholick Church; he descends thus to particulars. You are now gone to a Church that protects it self by arts of subtlety and arms, by violence and persecuting all that are not of their minds: to a Church in which you are to be a subject of the King so long as it pleases the Pope: In which you may be absolved from your Vows made to God, your Oaths to the King, your Promises to Men, your Duty to your Parents in some cases: a Church in which men Pray to God and to Saints in the same Form of words in which they Pray to God, as you may see in the Offices of Saints, and particularly of our Lady; a Church in which men are taught by most of the principal Leaders to Worship Images with the same Worship with which they Worship God or Christ, or him or her, p. 552whose Image it is, and in which they usually picture God the Father and the Holy Trinity to the great dishonour of that Sacred mystery, against the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church, against the express doctrine of Scripture, against the honour of, a divine Attribute; I mean the immensity and spirituality of the divine nature: You are gone to a Church that pretends to be infallible, and yet is infinitely deceived in many particulars, and yet endures no contradiction, and is impatient her Children should enquire into any thing her Priests obtrude. You are gone from receiving the whole Sacrament to receive it but half, from Christs Institution to a human Invention, from Scripture to uncertain Traditions, and from ancient Tradition to new pretences, from Prayers which ye understood to Prayers which ye understand not, from confidence in God to rely upon Creatures, from intire dependance upon inward-acts, to a dangerous temptation of resting too much in outward ministeries in the external work of Sacraments and Sacramentals. You are gone from a Church whose Worshipping is simple, Christian and Apostolical, to a Church where mens Consciences are p. 553loaden with a burden of Ceremonies, greater than that in the dayes of the Jewish Religion (for the Ceremonial of the Church of Rome is a great Book in Folio.) You are gone from a Church where you were exhorted to read the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, from whence you sound instruction, institution, comfort, reproof, a treasure of all excellencies, to a Church that seals up that Fountain from you, and gives you drink by drops out of such Cisterns as they first make and then stain and then reach out: and if it be told you, that some men abuse Scripture, it is true, for if your Priests had not abused Scripture, they could not thus have abused you; but there is no necessity they should, and you need not unless you list; any more than you need to abuse the Sacrament or Decrees of the Church, or the messages of your friend, or the Letters you receive, or the Laws of the Land, all which are lyable to be abused by evil persons, but not by good people and modest understandings. It is now become a part of your Religion to be Ignorant, to walk in blindness, to believe the man that hears your Confessions, to hear none but him, not to hear God speaking but by him, and so you p. 554are lyable to be abused by him, as he please, without remedy. You are gone from us, where you are only taught to worship God through Jesus Christ, and now you are taught to Worship Saints and Angels, with a Worship at least dangerous and in some things proper to God; for your Church Worships the V. Mary with burning Incense and Candles to her, and you give her presents which by the consent of all Nations used to be esteemed a Worship peculiar to God, and it is the same thing which was condemned in the Collyridians, who offered a Cake to the V. Mary. A Candle and a Cake make no difference in the Worship; and your joyning God and the Saints is like the device of them that fought for King and Parliament, the latter destroys the former. To which he subjoynes, that the points of difference between us and the Church of Rome, are such as do evidently serve the ends of Covetousness and Ambition in them: and that very many of her Doctrines are very ill Friends to a good life, and that our Religion is incomparably beyond theirs in point of safety: as in point of Praying to God alone and without Images, relying on God as infallible, which are surely lawful; but p. 555it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible, that we may put our trust in Saints, or Worship Images, &c. From whence he concludes; So that unless you mean to preferr a danger before safety, temptation to unholiness before a severe and holy Religion, unless you mean to lose the benefit of yours prayers by praying what you perceive not, and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christs Institution, and taking half instead of all; unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images, and man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust; unless you will choose a Catechism without the second Commandment, and a faith that grows bigger or lesser as men please, and a hope that in many degrees relyes on men and vain confidences, and a Charity that damns all the world but your selves, unless you will do all this, that is, suffer an abuse in your Prayers, in the Sacrament, in the commandments, in faith, in hope, in Charity, in the Communion of Saints, and your duty to your Supream, you must return to the bosome of your Mother the Church of England, and I doubt p. 556not but you will find the comfort of it in all your life, and in the day of your death, and in the day of Judgement.

Thus far that excellent person, and I leave you now to judge between the Motives on both sides, as they are laid down by him whom my Adversary appeals to, and I must thank him for the kindness of mentioning him against me, without which I had wanted so good a representation of the Motives of either side, and so full an Answer to the pretences brought for the Church of Rome. The other Motives which he adds of Fathers, Councils and Tradition, he knows are utterly denyed by us; and I wonder he should insist upon them, since in the matters of our debate, Antiquity is so evidently of our side, as against Worship of Images and Saints, against Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Prayers in an unknown tongue, and he thinks it no great matter to allow us a thousand years against communion in one kind; and yet all this while Scripture, Fathers, Councils, and Tradition are all on their side. For the testimony of the present Church; we deny that S. Austin speaks of it as of it self sufficient; and though he did, that concerns not the Roman Church any more than other parts of the Catholick Church; and he may assoon prove Tyber p. 557to be the Ocean, or S. Peters at Rome to have been before the Temple at Hierusalem, as prove the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church, or the Mother of all others.

§. 17. But I must conclude,The saith of Protestants reduced to Principles. with the method he prescribes to you for satisfaction from me; which is not to meddle with particular disputes, (which we know very well the reason of) but to call upon me for a Catalogue of our grounds, and to bring things to Grounds and Principles (as they have learnt to Cant of late) and then, he saith, Controversie will soon be at an end. I should be glad to see it so; notwithstanding his Friend I. S. accounts it so noble a Science, unless he hath changed his mind, since for so many years now, he hath failed in the Defence of his Demonstrations. But to satisfie the men of Principles, and to let them see we can do more than find fault with their Religion, I shall give an account of the faith of Protestants in the way of Principles; and of the reason of our rejecting their impositions, which is all we can understand by Negative Points; and if we can give an account of the Christian faith independently on their Churches Authority and Infallibility it evidently follows that cannot be the foundation of faith; and so we may be very p. 558good Christians without having any thing to do with the Church of Rome. And I know no other Answer necessary, not only to this present demand, but to a Book called Protestants without Principles, the falsity of which will appear by what follows.