THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF REPENTANCE AND OF INDULGENCES: VINDICATED From Dr. Stillingfleet's Misrepresentations.

Concil. Trident. Sess: 6. c. 14.

Docendum est, Christiani hominis Paenitentiam post lapsum multo aliam esse a Baptismali; eaque con­tineri non modo Cessationem a Peccatis, & eorum detestationem, aut Cor contritum & humiliatum; verum etiam eorundem Sacramentalem Confessio­nem saltem in voto & suo tempore faciendam; & Sacerdotalem Absolutionem; Itemque Satisfactio­nem per Jejunia, eleemosynas, Orationes, &c.

Printed in the Year, MDCLXXII.

The Roman Doctrine of Repen­tance Vindicated.

§. 1 HItherto I have explicated, and endea­deavor'd to vindicate, the Roman Devotions. The other matter of great consequence, wherein that Church hath suffered much wrong from Doctor Stilling fleet (as also before him, from Bishop Taylor in his Disswasive,) is the Roman Doctrine concerning Repentance, and a good life in these. 5. Particulars following, wherein this Author informs his Credulous Reader, (according to what the General current of his discourse represents), 1st, That the Roman Church holds no necessity of Repentance, but only once in ones life; i. e. in articulo mortis; Rom. I­dolat. c. 3 §. 1. p. 181. Ibid. pag. 180. (as he expresseth it out of Dr. Taylors Disswa­sive, an Author of the same fidelity). 2ly. That the Roman Repentance or Contrition doth not include, or oblige any to, forsaking of their sin, or Reformation of life. 3ly. That it holds the Sacraments to confer Grace ex opere opera­to on whatever subject,Ibid. §. 6. p. 203. or receiver of them, though never so indisposed, or unprepared. 4ly. Of the easiness for any in the Church, by this feat of the Sacrament of Penance,Ibid. §. 2. p. 184. remitting sin, and conferring Grace ex opere operato, to change the Eternal punishment of sin, (which is certainly remitted always together with the sin it self) into a Temporal one; or to change [Page 4] Hell-torments into those of Purgatory; and then of the easiness of getting out of these with a little Money or Friends. 5. Lastly of the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences charged by himG. 6. §. 4, 9, 10. with many gross Absurdities, and as ex­cusing Roman Catholicks from doing the best parts of their Religion.

§. 8 Lay these things together, and see what a Monster this Author makes here of the Roman Catholick Religion, and of that Church, which before Luthers time, when there was none, be­sides, any better than it, was called in our Creed, the Holy Catholick Church, and which is so spread over the face of the Earth, and the Nations flowing into it. And who would think, that a Church, that taught such doctrines, as he here presents to his Protestant Reader, should keep such a doe about Abstinences, fast­ing, and Penance, and Personal Satisfactions, and the Justification by, and Merit of, Good Works? about long Offices and many Hours of Prayer; about Poverty, Celibacy, Solitude, Silence, Hair-cloath, Disciplines? which, if he saith, they are not really performed, yet, he must confess in this Church, at least they are taught, and called for; Or, if he saith, they are only vaingloriously, & hypocritically performed, so, to speak truth, he must know hearts. Who would think, I say, a Church should make such a noise about these things, of many of which among Protestants is deep silence, (unless to revile them) when as, after this Author hath cast up a true account of it, this Church holds, & teaches Repentance only necessary to any person once in [Page 5]his life; and that, not extending to any reformati­on of it, or forsaking of his sin; nothing less; but only to some sorrow for his sin, and that but a lit­tle sorrow, at one time, and that at the hour of his death, sufficient? that the Sacraments freely con­fer Grace, and put every one in the state of Salva­tion, come and take them who will; prepared, or unprepared? only if he, that goes to them, con­fesseth such his sins; and doth not resolve against receiving any benefit by them, — Onely (saith he)c. 3. §. 6. p. 2.6. that there be no mortal sin unconfessed, that there be no actual opposition in the Will to the Sacrament; as for instance, if a man that goes to be baptized, re­solves with himself not to be baptized; [i. e. not to have the benefit of Baptisme], And that thus eve­ry one is rid of Sin, and its Eternal punishment. And then, for the Temporal that remains, the charges come to a very small matter, and this punishment is redeemed too; and so away, straight to Hea­ven. So that he saith of Catholicks — That it is the hardest thing that may be, Ibid. p. 212. for any one to want grace among them, if they do but suffer the use of Sacra­ments upon them; and that they are the gentlest givers of it imaginable; for all they desire of their Patients for Grace, is only for them to lye still; but if they should chance to be unruly, and kick away the Priests, or their rites, I know not then (saith he) what may become of them. And page 181. he saith — That it is impossible to imagine a doctrine that more effectually over-throws the necessity of a good life, than theirs doth: [It seems the Protestants Justifi­cation by Faith alone is nothing to it]. In all which I think, in common prudence he ought to have shewed a little more moderation, if he intended to have gained belief even with his own party.

Now, out of Charity to those who may be de­ceived [Page 6]by him, I shall, without much engagement, in the particular controversies, briefly shew to the pious Reader, that this Author, in none of these points fore-mentioned, hath dealt faithfully, or truly related the Doctrine of the Roman Church; and I desire the Readers faith to my words no fur­ther than the following Testimonies make it ap­pear.

§ 3 1. For the first then, the Non-necessity of Re­pentance save at the Hour of Death. For the con­trary hereof,1. Of Re­pentance not to be deferr'd. First, It is clear out of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent; that no person that hath the use of Reason, can enter into the state of Grace, or Justification; can be capable of the benefit of any Sacrament, even that of Baptisme, much less of the rest, the Sacrament of Penance, of the Eucharist, &c. without an Actual Repentance preceding. [See Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 6. Where speaking of the preparation for obtaining Justification, it requires in such person—sidem, spem, Dilectionem dei, and, adversus peccata odium, & detestationem, hoc est eam paenitentiam, quam ante Baptismum agi o­portet; & propositum inchoandi novam vitam, & servandi mandata; quoting the Text, Act. 2.28. Paenitentiam agite, & baptizetur unusquisque re­strum in nomine Jesu Christi, and Mat. 24.19. — Baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, &c. & do­centes eos servare quaecunque mandavi vobis. Again, for the Sacrament of Penance, after a relapse, the Council declares it to require yet a greater prepa­ration by Repentance than Baptism doth. — Ad [Page 7]quam novitatem vitae (saith itSess. 14. c. 2.) & integritatem, per Sacramentum Paenitentiae sine magnis nostris fletibus & laboribus, Divinâ id exigente Justitiâ, pervenire nequaquam possumus. Again, for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, here the worthy Receiver ought to be already in the state of Grace; & all, guilty of any Mortal Sin, are required to prepare themselves not only with Repentance, but the Sacrament of Pe­nance, Sess. 13. c. 7. — Ecclesiastica autem consue­tudo declarat, eam probationem necessariam esse, ut nullus, sibi conscius mortalis peccati, quantumvis si­bi contritus videatur, absque premissâ Sacramentali Confessione, ad Sacram Eucharistiam accedere debe­at. For the time also, the same Church requires of all her Children, at Least once a year, Repen­tance and Confession of their sins, in order to the holy Communion; though it is the practice of many to receive it every Festival, or once a week; or at Least once in a fortnight. So that those, who hold no necessity of Repentance, save at the hour of Death, must also hold no necessity of Justification, of the Sacraments, of Faith, Hope, Cha­rity, or the Love of God, of being a member of Christ, or of the Church, but in articulo mortis.]

§. 4 This being the Doctrine and Practice of the Ro­man Church, concerning Repentance, consider what just cause this Author had in disparagement thereof to sayp. 182.We dare not flatter men so [in teaching that Repentance only in articulo mortis serves the turn] into eternal misery; we cannot but declare to them the necessity of a sincere repentance and holy life in order to Salvation [as if the Church of Rome declared no such thing] And —we can­not absolve those, whom God hath declared he will not absolve, [i. e. the impenitent; but doth he not number among these men not to be absolved, the [Page 8]old sinner repenting on his death-bed, whom the Popish Priest with his two fingers and a thumb ventures to absolve? whom, he saith, God hath declared he will not absolve, if his words here have any application to his former. He goes on] Indeed for the satisfaction of truly penitent Sinners our Church approves of applying the promises of par­don in Scripture, to the particular case of those per­sons; which is that we mean by Absolution. Here (if I rightly understand him) this Author sup­poses Absolution only useful for the satisfaction of the truly penitent; not also necessary for the effectual Remission of their sin, if Mortal. And a­gain, in his describing it only, an Application of the promises of pardon in Scripture, he seems to make Sacerdotal Absolution nothing differing in its ver­tue or efficacy from a Laick's; for, surely, these may also apply such Scriptures, as they see need, to the Penitents comfort. How his Superiors may like of this, I know not.

§. 5 But here it seems necessary, that Protestants should be undeceived in this matter, and further acquinted, That the Churches Act of Sacerdotal Absolution is not only beneficial for the consolati­on of true Penitents, but necessary for the forgive­ness of all their mortall sins, by, or before God; and that, when ever such Absolution can be had, and they, not out of an invincible but faulty ignorance hereof, do neglect, or contemn it, they can have no just hopes, the Ordinance of God standing as it doth, of the Remission of any such Mortal sin, com­mitted after Baptisme, by God himself. And for this, I refer any, who think this matter worthy their further inquiry, not to the Fathers or Ro­ma Doctors, but even to Bishop Andrews in his Court-Sermon, and Comment on Jo. 20.23. — [Page 9] Quorum remiseritis peccata, &c. where concerning Sacerdotal Absolution its having a just share in Remission of sin—We are not (saith he),pa. 58. the Or­dinance of God thus standing, to rend off one part of the Sentence: There are here expressed, three Per­sons: 1 The Person of the Sinner in quorum; 2 of God, in remittuntur; 3. Of the Priest remiseri­tis. Three are expressed, and where three are ex­pressed, three are required; and where three are re­quired, two are not enough. It is St. Augustine that thus speaketh of this Ecclesiastical Act in his timeNemo sibi dicat, occulte ago paenitentiam, Hom. 29. de 50. apud deum ago. Novit deus qui mihi ignoscit, quia in corde ago. Ergo sine causâ dictum est, quae solveri­tis in terrâ, soluta erunt in Caelo: Ergo sine causâ Claves datae sunt Ecclesiae Dei; Frustramus Evan­gelium Dei, frustramus verba Christi. Thus He. where also he takes notice, that the Ordination of Priests (even those of the Church of England) is only by these words, Quorum remiseritis peccata, pag. 57. &c. — Neither are they saith he, that are ordained, or instituted to that calling, ordained or instituted by any other words or verse, than this. Yet not so, that absolutely without them, God cannot bestow it. [A thing also said by Catholicks.] But speaking of that which is proper and ordinary, in the course by him established, this is an Ecclesiasti­cal Act, committed, as the residue of the Ministry of reconsiliation, to Ecclesiastical Persons. [I add: and so properly and ordinarily, we to obtain re­mission i. e. of such Mortal sins, by their Absoluti­on, if we expect it from God's]. And according­ly the words of the Absolution of Penitents run thus in the English Liturgy— I, by the Authority of Jesus Christ committed to me [i. e. in these words here, Quorum remiseritis peccata] absolve thee, &c. [Page 10]And—God ordinarily proceedeth (saith the Bishop) in remitting sin by the Churches Act. Pag 53. And hence they have their parts in this work, and cannot be ex­cluded; no more in this, than in other acts and parts of their function. And to exclude them, is (after a sort) to wring the Keyes out of their hands, to whom Christ hath given them; is to cancel, and make void this clause of Remiseritis, as if it were no part of the Sentence; To account of all this solemn sending and aspiring [or breathing on them. Jo. 20.22.] as if it were an idle and fruitless ceremony. Be this Sacerdotal Act, then, only declarative; be it ap­plying the Evangelical Promises, or what you will else; yet it is a special Authority given to Christs Ministers, so that ordinarily for Mortal sins, which sins only, after Baptisme, put us out of the state of Grace, it seems, without the remiseritis of the Priest, there is no remittuntur by God; if we take the Judgment, not only of the Roman Doctors, but of Bishop Andrews. To whom give me leave to add the words of Mr. Thorndike on the same sub­ject, that it may make the more impression on some considering Protestant, when he sees the evi­dence of such a truth to force a confession from the pens of such Persons contrary to secular interest. He, at his Majesties happy return, in his Just Weights ch. 18. p. 122. making many proposals of the Reforma­tion of the Reformation, mentions this among the rest, the restoring the Power of the Keys, as to imposing Penances on such, whose sins have voided the grace, or, effect of their Baptisme (called by Catholicks Mortal Sins) that so by the Churches Ministry they may obtain a true and valid remissi­on thereof, — It will appear (saith he) a lamen­table case, to consider, how simple innocent Christians are led on till death, in an opinion, that they want no­thing [Page 11]requisite for the obtaining and assuring of the pardon of their sins; when it is as manifest that they want the Keyes of the Church, as it is manifest, that the Keys of the Church are not in use for that purpose. S. James ordaineth, that the Presbyters of every Church pray for the sick, with a promise of pardon for their sins. This [promise] supposeth them quali­fied, by submitting their sins to the Keys of the Church, which the Presbyters do mannage. The pro­mise belongs not to the Office of Presbyters upon other terms [but by their submitting their sins to the Keys]. And after—In the mean time (saith he) the Forgiveness of Sin, according to S. James, comes by the Keys of the Church; Recovery of Health, from the Prayers of it. Again, in his Epilogue, l. 3. ch. 8. p. 94.— If this be said [i. e. that when the Churches Ministry cannot be had, a desire thereof serves the turn, for pardon of such sin]. I will allow (saith he) that he, who refuses the Ministry of the Church (rendring him a reasonable presumption of attaining reconcilement with God, by the means of it, according to the just laws of Christianity) can have no cause to promise himself pardon without it. Thus He. Though it is true, that he maintains the Church hath no power to forgive sins immediatly, but only by the medicine of Penance; and, that he supposeth also some such cases, wherein the par­don of Mortal sin may be obtained without the Keys, as differ from the Doctrine of Catholicks. Pardon this Digression, because I hope it may be useful. Now to go on in the present matter.

§. 6 Next; setting aside these necessities of Repen­tance in order to the Sacraments, to Justification, to an Holy life upon pain of offending against the vertue of Religion, and Charity; and considering it barely, as it is an Affirmative Precept; Here, [Page 16]Though it is generally true of these Precepts, (and so of this) that non obligant ad semper; for so one ought continually to do nothing else but practise such a particular command; and as much all, as any one; and so a man must be said to be bound necessa­rily in the next instant after his sinning, to exercise immediatly an act of Repentance, or else to stand Guilty of incurring a second Mortal sin; and these Mortal sins too to multiply, as the instants do, wherein the act is longer deferred;) yet 1st. After sinning, a present Obligation is maintained by Ca­tholick writers of no further perseverance in, or bearing any affection to, such sin; For this were sinning a new; all sinning is at all times prohibited — Loquimur (saith Lugo D. Pae­nitentia disp. 7. §. 11.) de mer â dilatione Pe­nitentiae, cessante omni continuatione pec̄cati praeteriti & omni affectione erga illud. Which if any one thinks hardly possible to be observed, viz. to lay aside af­fection to sin, without an actual disaffection to, and displicency of it; not to hate God, and as yet not to Love him; this still the more hastens an act of Re­pentance? 2ly. The Act of penitency is made by Catholick writers as necessary after sin, as the Pre­cept of Loving God is; and, if we will follow the most common opinion of them, though they say, it is hard to prescribe to sinners positively a set time, after which any longer delay of Repentance would be another Mortal sin; yet negatively it is not hard to name it; viz. That Repentance is not for any long time to be deferred; and then for the positive time, they first tell us; the sooner, the better; and the safer; [Consultissimum est (saith P. Lay­man Moral. Theol. l. 5. tr. 6. c. 2.) statim post commissum peccatum ad paeniten­tiam confugere. And the Roman CatechismDe Sa­Sacram­paenitent is yet more pre [...], — Neque enim (saith it) ad ullum [Page 17] temporis punctum, cum in memoriam praeterita peccata redeunt, vel jam aliquid offendimus, contritione animus debet vacare]’ this being the Key by which, after Mortal Sin, we can only re-enter into such a condition, wherein we can have any title to Christ, or Heaven; and then they remit every one, for this seasonable time, to the dictate, and remorse of his own Consci­ence; or the directions of those whom he ac­quaints with it. Of which matter thus Suarez De Pae­nitent. Disp. 15. §. 6. n. 20. Hanc obligationem [paenitendi, i. e. sub mortali peccato] magis explicamus per modum praecepti negativi, non differendi conversionem ad Deum us (que) ad mortem; vel diuturno temporeEx hac autem obligatione negativâ necessario infertur affirmativa, al'quando excreendi hanc contritio­nem ante mortem. Illud vero tempus, si non sit positivâ lege praescriptum, prudenti arbitrio ip­sius hominis, vel alterius qui (ejus conscientiâ cognitâ) possit auxilium praestare, committen­dum est, ut pensatis circumstantiis omnibus ju­dicet, an incipiat nimia esse dilatio, ne (que) aliquam regulam certiorem, aut magis particularem assig­nare possum, tam in hoc precepto, quam in aliis affirmativis; praesertim circa actus, qui ad Deum ordinantur, solâ ac nudâ ratione naturali perspectis. [though in relation to other things mentioned before (our Justification, par­ticipation of the Sacraments, &c.) it is necessary, when ever they are.] And the very same he saith else-where of the act of the precept of Charity, or of Loving God. De Charita­te Disp. 5 §. 5. Articulus temporis non tam affirmative, quam negative assignari potest; sicut in praecepto [Page 18]restitutionis, dicitur obligare ad non multum differendum restitutionem, licet non possit assig­nari primum instans restitutionis. So Card. Lu­go de Paenitentia. Disp. 7. §. 11. n. 248. com­paring that of Repentance with the obligation of the precept of Loving God. And see Paul Lay­mann Theol. Morall. 5. tract. 6. c. 2. n. 6. quoting S. Thomas, Caietan, and others, to the same purpose.

§. 7 Yet mean while it is most true, that there is no time in this life that can be stated too late wherein to perform such a Repentance as may be Salrificall; and that, if deferred till death, yet this may be valid, [may; but I do not say, always, or often, is; nor yet the Roman Doctors; who warn all to take heed of such a procrastination, and in this matter cite that of St. Austin-Paenitentia, quae, ab infirmo peti­tur [petitur, i. e. of the Priest, to prescribe him penance] infirma est; quae autem a moriente pe­titur, timeo, ne & ipsa moriatur. And again,De Tempo­re Serm. 57. Agens Paenitentiam ad ultimum & reconcilia­tus, si securus hinc exit, ego non sum securus. And— Nunquid dico, damnabitur? non dico. Sed dico etiam liberabitur? Non. Et quid di­cis mihi? Nescio; non praesumo; non pro­mitto].’ And so, if we put the case, that one lives a wicked life for three-score or four-score years, yet I suppose, will a Protestant Minister on his death bed exhort such a one to Repen­tance, nor pronounce it fruitless; therefore neither may they expect the Catholick should do this, when such a person, dying in that Church, adds to his Repentance the Sacraments; [Page 19]Confession of his sins to the Priest, the receiving his Absolution, the Holy Communion, and Ex­trem unction.

§. 8 Lastly, if, after all this said here, this Au­thor or Bishop Taylor, can produce some Testi­monies out of other Catholick Writers to this purpose; that Repentance, considered meerly as an affirmative praecept, and abstracted from all those necessary ends mentioned before, (in respect of all which God conditionally requires it), it not obligatory, as in case of necessity, un­der Mortal sin if deferr'd any longer, save on­ly in articulo mortis; Yet this seems far from ingenuous dealing, either from such Testimo­nies to deduce in general these Authors affirm­ing that God hath commanded no man to repent sooner than the Article of his death See Rom. I­dolat. c. 3. p. 181.; or, if such things were rightly deduced from these Authors, therefore to accuse the Church of such a Doctrine: Since, where the Doctors of the Roman Church are divided in their opini­on, and her Councils are not found to have stated any thing therein, here either none of these opinions may be charged on the Church; or else, in Charity, that rather ought to be so, which to us seems the more reasonable and true. Most of the Doctors of the Church in any Age are not Writers; nor, of these Wri­ters, the major part School-men, or Casuists, or applying themselves to their Subtilties. And so long as the Church, I mean in her Councils, cannot be charged with a doctrine that seems to us malignant and corrupt, it seems vain to tell men, such a doctrine is taught by several in [Page 20]the Church, when as its Subjects have many o­ther Teachers in the same Church, that (with its allowance and Countenance) instruct them otherwise, and better. (For Example: What Catholicks are there, that do not receive from their Teachers frequent Exhortations to a spee­dy repentance for their sins, and Reformation of their lives: the chiefest Common-place in Divinity? and amongst whom they do not first lay this Foundation of Repentance from dead works, Heb. 6.1 as the Apostle calls it?) But here especially those, who defend their separation from the Communion of a Church by reason of its erroneous or corrupt Doctrines, are not excused at all in their shewing such Doctrines taught (by some) in it; but only, if they make appear that these are taught by It; and the be­lief of them also exacted from its subjects. For, where the Church hath determined no such corrupt Doctrine, we may still abide in this Church, and believe otherwise: or, if we be of its Clergy, teach what is better. Much less then, may we complain for such gross and cor­rupt doctrine taught by some, when a greater number of others give us that, which is more pure and refined. And this here said, som­times these men, when it is for their Advantage, seem to be sensible of: as this Author, speaking of the manner of the Sacraments conferring Grace, ex opere operato, Although (saith hec. 3. p. 109.) Cassander produce some particular Testimonies a­gainst it of persons in that Church, yet we must appeal for the sense of their Church to the decrees of the Council of Trent. But this he said, when [Page 21]he conceiv'd the Council to maintain a grosser sense of Opus Operatum, than several of their Writers.

And from these Considerations, I conceive may be returned a reasonable answer to Bishop Taylors defence made in his disswasive chap. 2. Sect. 1. for his charging (as he doth very frequently) that, which he calls (though indeed it is not, in that manner as he relates it, without their limitati­ons) a Common opinion of the Roman Doctors, or Casuists, upon the Roman Church. He there saith for his defence of charging the Opi­nions of the School-men upon the Church— That, if by the Doctrine of the Roman Church we mean such things only as are decreed in their Councils, it is to be considered, that but few things are determined in their Councils: [Here for his purpose, he saith few things, but else­where the multitude of them is exclaimed a­gainst by himself, and others]: But, if few; hence it follows; that few are required of him, for enjoying the communion of that Church, to be asserted or believed: But not; that there­fore a Common opinion of Casuists is to be a­dopted, or pronounced by him a Doctrine of the Church, lest her Doctrines should be few. Again he saith That, if they [the Roman Doctors] will not be reproved for any thing but what we prove to be false in the Articles of their simple belief, they take a Liberty to say, and to do what they list, and to corrupt all the world by their Rules of Conscience. I Answer. That That so many of these Doctors, as he can prove to err in any thing, he may also take as much [Page 22]liberty to reprove: but not, reprove or defame the Roman Church, or disswade her Commu­nion for that error, which she doth not own. Lastly, He saith, That their own men tell us, it is the Doctrine of the Church, when they say Communis omnium. It is the doctrine of all their men. I Answer. Communis omnium is only opinio or sententia; and that in such things wherein he cannot deny the Church to have left to all their Liberty to think so, or the contrary. But when these men would say it is the Doctrine of the Church, he cannot but know their com­com expression, not communis omnium, but that such point is De side, from which none may dissent. Again, this their Opinio omnium must admit many limitations. First, Of such School-men, or Casuists as have writ of such a Question: and this extended only to those of such time as the Author writ in, not the pre­sent; (when perhaps such opinion, better con­sidered, may be changed). Secondly, Of so many of them as he hath seen; and, as such person apprehends their sense, in which per­haps too much addiction to his own opinion may cause a mistake. And, in this particular point concerning Repentance, what ever Regi­naldus and Navarr say (though they say it on­ly with limitations omitted by Doctor Taylor,) yet that it is not Sententia Communis Omnium is clearly shewed before. I say therefore, this Injustice of some late Protestant Writers in loading all the supposed Common Opinions of School-men, or Casuists upon the back of the Church, if well considered, might save them, [Page 23]for the future much labour in raking into par­ticular Authors, and picking out some odious sentences, when their design is not the disswad­ing men from the reading or crediting such Roman Authors in all that they say, for which such search were pertinent; but, from the Com­munion of the Roman Church, as to which it signifies nothing.

§. 10 2. For the Second; Of the Roman Repen­tance or Contrition, that it doth not include,2. Of Reforma­tion of life necessary to Repen­tance. or oblige any to, a forsaking of their sins, or a Reformation of life: The contrary to this is e­vident and obvious in the Council of Trent, See Session. 4. c. 4. —Declarat S. Synodus, Con­tritionem non solum cessationem a peccato, & vitae novae propositum & inchoationem [i. e. from the beginning of the Contrition], sed veteris etiam odium continere. And Sess. 6. c. 14.—Docendum est in Paenitentiâ contineri non modo cessationem a peccatis [or a new life; so far it goes along with Protestants]; verum etiam Sacramenta­lem Confessionem, saltem in voto, & suo tempore faciendam; & Sacerdotalem Absolutionem; itemque Satisfactionem per Jejunia, &c. Thus much it goes beyond Protestants, and requires more in a sincere Repentance, and a return in­to the grace and favour of God, than they do. Again, Sess. 14. can. 13.—Si quis dixerit op­timam paenitentiam esse tantum novam vitam [as [Page 24]some Protestants are there supposed to say, and Catholicks say so with them, excepting the tantum] Et pro peccatis quoad paenam tempora­lem minime. Deo per Christi merita satisfieri pae­nis ab eo inflictis, & patienter toleratis, vel a Sacerdote injunctis, vel sponte susceptis; ut jejuniis, orationibus, &c. Anathema sit. Here also as it saith nova vita with the Protestants; so, in the rest, it presents to God somthing beyond them. Again Sess. 14. c. 8. speaking of the Penitents satisfaction—Habeant autem (saith it) Sacerdotes prae oculis, ut satisfactio, quam imponunt, non sit tantum ad novae vitae custodiam [or as before, ut vitiosi habitus male vivendo comparati contrariis virtutum actionibus tollantur] sed etiam ad praeteritorum peccatorum vindictam & castigationem. Here are satisfacti­ons or Penances required by the Church, for preserving of the Penitents nova vita; which perhaps Protestants will allow; but exacted fur­ther ad praeteritorum peccatorum vindictam too; This Protestants do not press. See Sess. 14. c. 4. in the Definition of Contrition one clause to be Propositum non peccandi de caetero; in which also is included, and pressed by Con­fessors a resolution to avoid and remove, for the future, the former usual nearest occasions of sinning: Again see in the Description after­wardIbid. of Attrition this to be one clause—Vo­luntas non peccandi [a Velleitas being not suffi­cient]. And see before. c. 2. Novitas vitae made the end of all the Labours of Repentance. Ad quam tamen novitatem & integritatem per Sacramentus Paenitentia, sine magnis nostris fle­tibus [Page 25]& laboribus, Divinâ id exigente justitiâ, pervenire nequaquam possumus. So Sess. 6. c. 6. One of the Dispositions for obtaining Justifi­cation is said to be Repentance, and in it ex­presly — propositum inchoandi novam vitam, & servandi mandata: And, when Justification is so attained,— Nemo, (saith the Council) quan­tumvis justificatus, liberum se esse ab observati­one mandatorum putare debet. And afterward Nemo sibi in solâ fide, [you know against whom this was levelled] blandiri debet, putans fide solâ se haeredem esse constitutum: urging that of St. Pe­ter-Saetagite, ut per bona opera certam vestram vo­cationem & electionem faciatis. §. 11 And in the Councils mentioning bona opera here, it is strange to see, of what contrary errors and seducements the Roman Church is impeached by her Adver­saries. Heretofore her Religion was decried, for that Catholicks held Justification by, and trusted for Salvation in, the merit of their good works: that they did them indeed, this was not denied; but did them with a saulty intention, and for a wrong end. And two of Bellarmin's five Books of Justification are written against Protestants in defence of the necessity, and of the merit, of good Works; and the Possibility of the observing Gods Commands, as to a cessati­on from all Mortal sin: But now they are as­saulted on the other side; and now Catholicks are discovered to hold no Necessity of Good Works, of a New life, or forsaking of sin: Now, for Salvation with them it serves the turn, only to procure a Sigh or two, a very little sorrow for our sin past, confess, be absolved, sin on, [Page 26]and so to Heaven. Again, it was the accusati­on of Protestants heretofore,See Ca­lv. Insti­tut. 3. l. 4. c. §. 2. Chem­nit. Ex­am. conc. Trident. De Paeni­tent. c. 4. (in their mag­nifying of justifying Faith) that the rigidness of the Roman Contrition drave men to despaire, and left their Consciences very unsettled, and tortured, in not knowing the just measure or quantity of it necessary for the remission of their sin; And Bellarmin spends two Chapters (De Paenitent, l. 2. cap. 10, 11.) to free the Roman Church of this Charge; And now a complaint is brought against the Littleness & easiness of the Roman Contrition. How shall it please them?

§. 12 We see Contrition is defined in the Council of Trent, in order to receiving the Sacrament of Penances — Animi dolor & detestatio propeccato commisso, cum proposito non peccandi de caetero; which purpose is supposed also to in­clude an actual cessation from Sin before Abso­lution and the Sacrament, for that distance of time between our exercising this Contrition, and our receiving of the Sacrament; (Cessatio a peccato, novae vitae propositum, & inchoatio, saith the Council); what more would these men have? The Continuation of an actual new life? This is that which is to follow the effect of the Sacraments, the infusion of Sanctifying Grace, our Justification, our new Birth, and Re­generation, by them. When Repentance is re­quired by Protestants to the Baptisme of the Adulti, doth it include an actual good life to precede such Baptisme? See Dr. Hammonds description of this Repentance, in his Practical Catechisme, c. 6. §. 2. p. 311. — The resolv­ing to forsake sin and live Godly, is supposed be­fore [Page 27]Baptisme, to make the person capable of it. On the other side, the actual forsaking of sin, is the consequent task of him that makes a right use of the Grace of Baptism for his whole life after. Thus He. And p. 313. The forsaking of the heart [which he calls a little before a general Cordial removing of sin] is here meant by Repen­tance [i. e. before Baptism]; and the forsaking in the actions, is that to which the strength is made over [to us] in Baptism. So he saith 1. l. 3. §. p. 56.—That sorrow for displeasing of God, and a real sincere resolution to amend and forsake sin, have the promise of Mercy belonging to them. And indeed, if an actual good life be necessarily required before the Sacraments, before remissi­on of sin, or Justification, for what certain term is it so, before these may be administred or obtained? and is not perseverance also in such a good life necessary, (for, any relapse undoes all)? and then, none are to receive the Sacrament, nor can obtain remission of sin, or Justification, but upon perseverance first; i.e. but in the hour of their Death. But if this Au­thor speaks not of the Act of Repentance, re­quisite to the Sacraments, or Justification; but of that which Dr. Hammond calls the State of Repentance, or of RegenerationIb. l. 1 l. §. 3. p. 54 there is no­thing more known than this Doctrine of the Roman Church; That there must be not only a purpose, but actual cessation from all mortal sin so long, as there is any continuance of the Per­son in such a state.

§. 13 In the Name of God then, let us here com­pare together, concerning Repentance or a due [Page 28]sorrow for, and detestation of sin, and the Living an actual New life, the Doctrine of the two Churches; to see which carries more ri­gour and severity in it. The Protestant Clergy exhort a Person, relapsed after Baptism into a vicious life, for the regaining of Gods favour and pardon of his sin, and for obtaining of Sal­vation, to a due sorrow for, and detestation of his sin, and a strict reformation of his life for the time to come: (For, a Sacrament for any fallen after Baptism, by which they may be re­stored to the state of Grace, they acknowledg none). Next: If a Penitent happen, after such sorrow for his sin, and a new life led for some time (or at least seriously purposed, or pro­mised) happen, I say, to return to his former, or perhaps a more, vicious course, they forsake him not, here; but first they either tell him, that his former faith, repentance, and good Life, obtained not at all for him any remission of his sin, or Justification, for lack of Perseve­rance (wherein they must hold that none fallen from Baptismal Grace have remission of sin, or Justification, till the hour of their death); and so, that Person remains still accountable to God for his former sins before his last relapse: Or they tell him; that such former remission, and Justification, and Gods Mercy thus despised, do so much the more aggravate this his second fall; and make his present condition worse than his former was, before any Reconciliati­on. Next, they anew refer him to repentance, and to an actual new life again, for his cure, and the making his peace; because Gods mer­cies [Page 29]cannot be bounded by them: and this they still prescribe to him in all his relapses, toties quoties: though aggravating much such his falls to him, and forewarning him, that Repentance is not to be had, at any time, without Gods Grace; and that, after so many affronts of Gods mercie, may justly be feared his absolute denial thereof. And, when such a relapsing sinner at last lies on his death-bed, they still ex­hort him to Repentance; which they do not deny may be effectual upon a sincere purpose, though without an actual performance, of a good life, where death prevents it. And, the the sick Man professing such a repentance and sorrow for his sins past, as seems to them true and sincere, and upon this, desiring Absolution of them, they give it him: i. e. (as this Author will have it)Rom. Idol. p. 183.For his satisfaction they ap­ply to his particular case the promises of pardon in the Scripture. — I said, seems to them true: for, as Doctor Hammond Catech. p. 56. 1. l. 3. §.Though sorrow for displeasing God, and from thence a real sincere resolution to amend and forsake sin, have a pro­mise of mercy belonging to them: Yet no man can certainly judg [whether his repentance be such], neither Confessor, nor Penitent himself, For 1. the man himself may through self-love take that for Godly sorrow and resolution of amendment which is truly sorrow for his own danger, &c. And 2. the sensitive expression being often as great for the one sorrow, as the other, the Con­fessor may easily mistake likewise. Thus Doctor Hammond. Yet such Patient, they say, the Confessor may absolve, in hope of the truth of his repentance.

[Page 30] §. 14 After this manner the Protestant Clergy deal with Sinners. Consider we now the Ro­man-Catholick way. Here the Ecclesiastical Governors require of one fallen from his Bap­tismal Grace by Mortal Sin in the first place Repentance; i. e. not only an hearty sorrow for offending God; but also a firm resolution of a new life; but then, exact also besides this, I say, for such Mortal sin, (which only, and not Venial sins, as those called by Dr. Ham­mond Pract. Catech. l. 1. §. 3. P. 60.Sins of Infirmity, ignorance, or sudden surreption, acted in matters of little mo­ment, reconcileable with a regenerate estate, do exclude from Gods Grace, and are the necessa­ry matter requiring such a remedy) the repair­ing to the Power of the Keyes, left by our de­parted Lord to his Successors, which relief God hath provided in case of such relapses; (of which I suppose the Reader hath not forgot what was recited but now§. 5. out of St. Austin, and out of Bishop Andrews too, & Mr. Thorn­dike,) and to the Sacrament of Penance or Re­pentance, Confession, Absolution, and Satisfacti­on: In which it is sufficient, that the Confessor, upon probable grounds of the true Repentance of his Penitent, pronounceth Absolution, be­cause, (as Dr. Hammond conceded but now) neither he, nor his Penitent, can be absolutely certain thereof.

§. 15 Here, also, such Person is instructed; that the Sacrament, he receives, conferrs more Sanctifying Grace, accordingly as the Suscipient is better disposed and prepared for it; and a­gain, that it is frustrated, and void of its effect, [Page 31]so long as he is defective in a due Repentance. And, that of such a due repentance (Contri­tion, or Attrition) none can be utterly certain: for so might he be certain of his being in the state of Grace, since the efficacy of the Sacra­ment non ponenti obicem is no way questionable: And as Bellarmin saithDe Justis. l. 3. c. 2. Nemo Catholicorum erit, qui non respondeat, posse hominem certo sta­tuere sibi remissa esse peccata, si constet eum seri­am egisse, vel agere, paenitentiam. [But saith heIb. c. 8.Hanc propositionem [Mihi evidens est me­a vera Conversio & Paenitentia] dico non modo falsam esse, &c. — And — Neque potest quis certus esse certitudine fidei se non ponere obicem; cum possit ex ignorantiâ gerere affectum ad peccatum [and so have a defect in his Contriti­on or Attrition] QuotingIbid c. 7. St. AustinHomil. 35.Quamdiu vivimus hic, de nobis ipsis nos ipsi ju­dicare non possumus, non dico quid cras erimus, sed quid hodie simus. And Innocent. 3. — Nemi­nem scire posse, an, ut oportet, egerit paenitentiam. And that is it, that keeps all more prudent Ca­tholicks, formerly guilty of great and Mortal sin, in a perpetual exercise of Mortifica­tion.]

§. 16 He is instructed also, That, where the Sin it self, and the Eternal punishment thereof (the pardon of both which go still together, and ne­cessarily depends on a right Contrition) is not remitted, there neither can be any (nor to a­ny purpose) cancelling of the Temporal. 1. That therefore this is one end of Penances and Mortifications, whether voluntary, or en­joyned, and that in the first place, that, if our [Page 32]former sorrow for sin were any way defective, & falling short of true or sufficient Contrition or Attrition, these may conduce and help to the perfecting of it, and rendring it such as is ac­ceptable to the Divine Majesty: in which Con­trition, and so pardon of sin, and freedom from Hell, lies our chief Concernment. To which end, also, such Penances were anciently given before Absolution pronounced; but are to the same end still as effectual, when performed af­ter it, in case, I say, that such repentance be still deficient.

[Of these Penances, in order to advancing our sorrow for sin into a true and acceptable Contrition, and so by it procuring remissi­on of the guilt of sin, and the eternal punish­ment, thus Bellarmin. De Pa­nitent. l. 4. c. 12.Opera laboriosa, quae cum Dei auxilio fiunt a paenitentibus sive ex con­gruo, sive ut dispositiones, concurrere, & pro­desse ad culpae remissionem, & mortis aeternae li­berationem, Scripturae & Patres perspicue do­cent: Citing that passage of Tertullian De Pa­nitentiae.Si de cruciatu Exomologesis retractatis, Gehennae recordemini, quam vobis Exomologesis extinguit. And thus he speaksDe In­dulg. l. 2. c. 18. in his answer to Chemnitius, who with other Lutherans and Reformists con­tends, that Penances were anciently imposed not for any satisfaction before God and the re­deeming and expiation of sins, but only for the preserving of Ecclesiasticall dicipline & scandal given to the Church.—Cum ipse cum Luthe­ranis caeteris contendat paenitentias veterum disci­plinae causâ, non autem satisfactionis coram Deo, & redemptionis, & expiationis peccatorum insti­tutas, [Page 33]tamen fatetar se hoc etiam post remum a­pud Patres non raro legisse [of which see much in Morinus de Paenitent l. 3. c. 11. and 12] After which he adds— sed profecto justius erat, novos Lutheranorum errores ex doctrinâ veterum Patrum corrigere, quam ex novis illis erroribus de Patrum doctrinâ & Sententiis judicare. So De Paenitent. l. 4. c. 12. — Concurrunt & pro­sunt (saith he) nostra opera paenalia ad culpae re­missionem & mortis aeternae liberationem ut dis­positiones, sicut actus sidei, &c. And see him else-whereDe In­dulgent. l. 1. c. 12. recommending the practice of vo­luntary Penances for▪ perfecting of their Re­pentance to those, who desire the benefit of an Indulgence, — Fieri enim potest (saith he) ut aliquando Indulgentia non sortiatur effectum, ob defectum ejus, qui illam suscipit, &c. [i. e. de­fect of Contrition, without which the Indul­gence, how large soever, nothing profits any.] And, for this reason, to obtain the benefit of an Indulgence, are Penances also by the Con­fessor imposed. And thus Estius 4 Sent. Dist. 15. §. 10.Satis­factio Christi per se sufficientissima ad tollendam omnem paenam: sed Divinitus sic ordinatum, ut illa nobis non applicetur ne quidem ad solutionem paenae aeternae, nisi & ipsi per opera quaedam pae­nalia Christo compatianiur, And — Sunt (saith he) Conditiones quaedam paenales ex parte nostrâ requisitae ad hoc, ut passio & mors Christi, tanquam plenissima satisfactio, nobis ad tollen­dum reatum paenae aeternae appl'cetur. And of the Fathers he saithIb. §. 13. the same as BellarminProbant manifestius ca loca, quibus satis­factiones paenitentium iidem Patres extend [...]m, [Page 34]& valere dicunt, ad remissionem paenae aeternae. [And indeed, till this secured by a sound Con­trition, all Satisfactions for the temporal no­thing bestead us]. See also Ibid. §. 14. where he cites those words of the Apostle2 Cor. 7.Quae se­cundum Deum tristitia est paenitentiam in salu­tem stabilem operatur. And the Council of Trent, in forbidding to the Priests the imposi­tion of slight Penances for greater crimes, lest so they be partakers of others sins, seems also to intimate, that where only slight Penances are performed, there many times happens to be a defective Contrition for the sins, and so they not remitted, or at least an easie relapse into those sins that are remitted. See more of this matter below §. 58.]

They tell him therefore, that, when this seeming Contrition, if not so at first, becomes afterward by the help of such mortifications true and sincere,D. Tho. Supplem q. 9. Art. 1. Sua­rez De Panit. Disp. 20. §. 5. and such as God accepts, then only it is, and not before, that the Sacrament of Penance confers its proper effect, remission of sin, reconciliation to God, & infusion of Grace.

§ 17 2. Besides this end of Penances, such Peni­tent is taught the necessity of them on two o­ther accounts. 2. The next Per modum medi­cinae, and in novae vitae custodiam (as the Coun­cil of Trent) for curing him of his former dis­eases and vitious habits, and preventing sin for the future; for mortifying the Body, its Passi­ons and Lusts, and weaning him from such things,1 Cor. 9.17. the affection to which betrayed him formerly to sin. Which cure, and prevention of mortal sin for the future, and so of our in­curring [Page 35]anew the Eternal punishment thereof (without which prevention all satisfaction for sin past is but as it were a lost labour, and no­thing worth to us, as to our Salvation) is also a special end and design of Penances. For (as Suarez. De Poe­nitent Disp. 38. §. 4. observes) — In hoc Sacramento magis intenditur salus Paenitentis [i. e. from E­ternal punishment] & ejus emendatio, quam sa­tisfactio pro paenâ [temporali] Quocirca illud praecipue debet attendere Confessor ut satisfactio­nem imponat accomodatam curationi & praeserva­tioni a peccatis; in quo oportet ut integritatem, & severitatem habeat: quod si in hac parte suffi­cienter peccatori provideat, quamvis in castigati­one [i. e. in order to satisfaction pro paenâ tem­porali] remissius agat, nunquam graviter erra­bit. Indeed according to the present com­plexion of Christianity, when the whole world is crouded into the Church, and great sins are grown more universal and common, and as they become more common, so also appear (though they are not) much lesser; and a too fa­cile commutation also of Penance hath much re­laxed the Churches ancient discipline; & Absolu­tion likewise for great Crimes done most-what anciently, only upon some considerable necessi­ty, hath been more usually joyned with Confession, the infirmity, shall I call it? or hardness of most penitents relucts now to undergoe so great and laborious Penances as may bear a just proporti­on to their faults; (i e. as to removing the to­tal punishment temporal thereof, in this world or the next): and so, if they should think them­selves over-charged with too heavy Penances, [Page 36]perhaps they would do none at all, but neglect and withdraw themselves rather from the Sa­craments, and so lose the benefit of Penances also, as they are prescribed them for the cure of sin; and thus, whilst the Confessor endeavours, by the proportionable Penances he prescribes, their release from all temporal pains, they, dis­gusted with it, and so performing no penances at all, would continue in their former Vitious habits, and so incur the Eternal; In this re­spect therefore, considering the modern indis­position of many Penitents, some relaxation of such satisfactory penances may be necessary, where Purgatory is the worst of it; and where, with, or without, such penances, Salvation is secure; But for Penances in order to prevent­ing relapses into sin, and as they conduce to the effecting a true Reformation of Life, here a convenient severity is alwaies necessary, and is by all discreet Confessors observed. The effect of which (viz. a Sinners amendment of life, and so leaving off sin, and exemption from eternal sufferings) is incomparably of an higher consequence, than is the freedom, in such state, from all temporal Purgations.

§. 18 3. This of the second; A third use of Pe­nances is per modum satisfactionis; for Casti­gation and taking revenge on himself-for for­mer Sin;2 Cor. 7 11 1 Cor. 11.31, 32 and, by this (I mean, from the ap­plication of Christs all sufficient satisfactions procured thereby) preventing Gods temporal Judgments, and punishment thereof; such, as are removable; for, some punishments of sin (as death) are not so: Of which see more be­low §. 65.

[Page 37]And here also he is taught, that the more Penance, and the more devoutly performed by him, takes off the more of such future tempo­ral punishments; and that, if the Priest im­poseth small punishment for great faults (when perhaps he aims more at the cure of the Peni­tents sinning for the future, than the expiation of the punishment of the past) that he is not therefore to think himself quitted of all the debt he owes to God, at so easie a rate; and that no whit lesser or smaller fruits worthy of Repentance are required by God in the present, than in any past ages: (therefore also are the Clergy charged by the Council of TrentSess. 14. c. 8.Convenientes satisfactiones injungere, and not levissima quaedam opera pro gravissimis delictis) and that therefore such Penitent, when, per­haps out of respect to his frailness and indispo­sition, small penances are imposed for great saults, stands still engaged, if he would avoyd the remainder of such punishments, to a fur­ther performance of such penal works, as he knows bear some nearer proportion to the weight of his former sins. And—Quando Confessor leviorem multo paenitentiam imponit propter fragilitatem paenitentis, quam peccata e­jus mereantur, debet illum admonere (saith Sua­rez, Ibid.) illam non esse sufficientem paenam; sed propter ejus indispositionem cum illo benignius agi; ne forte ex levitate paenae occasionem sumat peccandi; & ut fortasse moveatur ad alias vo­luntarias satisfactiones assumendas. And Bel­larmin De Indulg. l. 1. c. 8.—Ʋt plurimum longe plus est, quod explandum restat per non [Page 38]injunctas paenitentias, quam quod expiatur per injuntas. And c. 7. §. Ex his— Immo: Sa­cerdotes cum paenitentias imponunt, hortantur paenitentes, ut ipsi etiam sponte assumant alias, cum credibile sit impositas non esse aequales crimi­nibus. So Estius 4. Sent. dist. 15. §. 41.—Si Sa­cerdos officio suo defuerit [injungendo opera leviae pro delictis gravibus] vel etiam just â quadam ra­tione adductus minorem quam pro exigentiâ delicti satisfactionem injunxerit, omnino videtur paeni­tens, qui eum defectum vel scit, vel scire debet, teneri ad satisfactionem aliquam ultra assumen­dam; idque donec tota satisfactio perveniat ad quandam aequalitaetem cum paena temporali pro peccatis debitâ; cujus ratio est, quia quamdiu nondum fecit fructus dignos paenitentiae, nondum satisfecit divino praecepto. Matt. 3.8. And then if another Consideration be added to this, that a less penance enjoyned by the Spiritual Judg is (by vertue of the Keys) as much, or more effective, than a greater, that is Sponta­neous and arbitrary, which also wants the merit of our Obedience; (all obedience being a kind of Mortification): I say, if this Considerati­on be added, the imposing of light penances, where are great sins, though it may be to many penitents very acceptable, yet is to them no small dammage; and did they well consider their own interest, they would seriously request greater.

§. 19 Having thus shewed, that this Sacrament of Penance is no such slight business, as this Au­thor represents it, I proceed. After this Sa­crament received, and the supposed effect of it, Justification, and remission of his former [Page 39] sins; this Penitent is further instructed, that there is necessary an actual good life, which was before purposed and resolved, and an actual cessation from all Mortal sin: And that, upon relapse into such sin, and his former wicked courses, this state of Grace is lost; and he re­duced, not into as bad, but much worse condi­on, than that before his Repentance, and Abso­lution, by reason, of the Grace of God so af­fronted and despised, and as it were by force e­jected; of his great ingratitude to so great mercy; of his sinning now, when by such grace received, he might much more easily have a­voyded it; of the breaking his penitential re­solutions; lastly, by reason of the great diffi­culty, from God's Grace now justly more withdrawn, of renewing again his Repentance. So that, though, toties quoties by the same means repeated, he may possibly rise again from such a fall; (as also saith the Protestant too); Yet, since this rising cannot be without the help of Grace, even for the first step of it, Repen­tance, it is justly to be feared, lest this, before despised, be afterward denied.

§. 20 Lastly, For prevention as much as the Church can, of such dangerous relapses; if their spiritual Confessors have observed in any (notwithstanding what ever promises made in Confession), after often use of the Sacraments, no such actual change of manners, or cessation from former sins, and reformation of life to follow; the Sacrament for the future to such a one is to be suspended, and not conferred, till the sincerity of his Repentance is further clear­ed, [Page 40]and rendred more probable: Especially upon their discovery in any person such ill symptomes as these; 1. That he hath sinned as frequently after his former Confession, as be­fore it: 2. Hath neglected to use the means for avoyding such sin prescribed him in Con­fession: Hath not removed or remedied the former occasions, or temptations to sin, to which he hath been advised, or also hath enga­ged himself: Or, 3. That the sin is of very gene­ral practice, from which men are more difficult­ly weaned. The Sacrament, I say, on such a one not to be hastily conferred, till some actu­al reformation for a certain time be practised, and some penances used in order to the beget­ting a sound Contrition, and former bad ha­bits appear some way corrected, and near oc­casions of sinning removed. —Ʋt possit de illi­us dispositione & proposito vitandi peccata morali­ter constare, saith Suarez. Which cautions of not admitting habitual and often relapsing sin­ners (i. e. as to Mortal sins) toties quoties to the Sacraments occurr frequently in the Roman Casuists and Schoolmen.See Sua­rez De Paeni­tent. Disp. 38. §. 7. n. 7. Layman moral. Theol. l. 5. tract. 6. c 4. n. 10. And see the many Authorities to this purpose diligently collected by Monsieur Arnaud in his Book, De la fre­quente Communion, part. 2. c. 45. and particu­larly, the instructions to Confessors of St. Car­lo Borromeo, not long after the Council of Trent, Ibid. c. 36. & 38. The Council of Trent also in requiring Confessors not to impose slight Penances for great Crimes, ne alienorum pecca­torum participes efficiantur, Seems much more to enjoyn the non-admittance of a slight pro­fession [Page 41]of Repentance, or amendment of life for great and inveterate Sinners, in order to conferring on them the Sacraments; in as much as a defect in their Repentance or Contrition is much more dangerous, than a defect in their satisfaction; the non-remission of the sin it self, and its eternal punishment, following the one; the non-remission of some temporal suffering only, the other.

§. 21 This being the proceeding of the two Churches in this matter, Both requiring Re­pentance, and (where life continued) an actual Reformation; but the latter exacting much more also, besides these, and laying many o­ther yoaks upon Sinners (as to the Sacrament of Penance) which Protestants are not willing to bear; consider, what just cause this Author had, in disparagement of its Laws and Disci­pline, to speak on this manner.p. 181.To what end should a man [living in the Church of Rome] put himself to the trouble of mortifying his passi­ons, and forsaking his sins; if he commits them again, he knows a present remedy, toties quoties; it is but confessing with sorrow, and upon Absolu­tion he is as whole as if he had not sinned. Again,p. 182.We cannot but declare to Sinners the ne­cessity of a sincere Repentance and holy life, in or­der to Salvation. Again,p. 180.We believe, that as no man can be saved without true Repentance, so that true Repentance doth not lye meerly in Contrition [or sorrow only] for sins. Repen­tance in Scripture implys a forsaking of sin, and without this we know not what ground any man hath to hope for the pardon of it▪ although he con­fess [Page 42]it, and be absolved a thousand times over. Hence the doctrine imputed to the Roman-Church, wherein his Protestant Reader must believe him, is; in the first, that no man needs to put himself to the trouble of forsaking his sin: In the second, that there is no necessity of a sin­cere Repentance, or holy life, in order to Salva­tion: In the third, that true Repentance (where life continued) implies not a forsaking of sin; and upon this he chargeth the Doctrine of the Roman Church as prejudicial to piety. Thus men write ad Populum, and for those that can know nothing, but as themselves inform them. Now, if these men in these things do speak of some matters of Fact, or Practice only, not Doctrine; or of some Doctrines found to be held or taught by some in that Church, but not owned by It; let them then not censure the Churches Doctrine, but such particular practi­ces or doctrines. But indeed, should their stile run so (as in truth it ought) it could no way serve their design, viz. the Disswading men from such a Churches Communion; from which such partioular doctrines, or practices, cannot justly deter them, because they are such things, as none by embracing its communion, are obliged to; and any member of that Church may as freely censure, as themselves do. But supposing the very worst, that such a harm­ful Doctrine did find many Patrons, and some malignant Doctrine were very commonly taught in this Church; yet doth this afford to none a just pretence for departing out of it, so long as this Church obligeth none to the belief of [Page 43]such Doctrine, or makes it part of their Faith; and surely these persons that discover such a doctrine faulty, receive no harm by it; nor know they how soon the Governours of this Church (the Divine Providence ever watching over it) may take notice of, and rectifie it.

§. 22 III. I proceed to the Third, The Roman Doctrine (as he relates it) of the Sacraments their conferring Grace ex opere operato on what­ever subject or Receiver of them,3. Of a right disposition in the sus­cipient necessary to the Sa­crament, its con­ferring Grace. though ne­ver so indisposed or unprepared; only if all Mortal sin be confessed (he saith not, repented of); and if there be no actual opposition in the will to the Sacrament; as for instance; If a man when he is going to be baptized, resolves with him­self that he will not be baptized, or while he is baptizing, that he will not believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, Roman Idol. p. 206. [i. e. that the party in receiving it, resolves in himself against receiv­ing the effect of it]. For the Contrary of this, First, see the express Declaration of the Council of Trent Sess 14. c. 4. concerning that Sacrament that most concerns Sinners after Baptisme; the Sacrament of Penance,Falso quidam calum­niantur Catholicos Scriptores, quasi tradiderint Sacramentum Paenitentiae, absque bono motu sus­cipientium, gratiam conferre: quod nunquam Ec­clesia Dei docuit, nec sensit. To which this Au­thor, though pressed by his Adversary there­with,See p. 200. [...] returns no Answer. So also, Sess. 7. can. 7. it saith — Dari gratiam per Sacramen­ta semper & omnibus, quantum est ex parte Dei; [but] si recte ea suscipiant. And can. 6. Sacra­menta [Page 44]Novae legis continere gratiam quam signi­ficant & gratiam ipsam conferre, [But] non po­nentibus obicem. This in General.

Come we to the particular Sacraments, and see what particular dispositions and preparati­ons are required for receiving any benefit by them, 1. For the two Sacramenta Mortuoram (as they are called) the Sacrament of Baptisme, and of Penance, which confer justifying Grace; this Council. Sess. 6. can. 6. (urged by Bellar­min long ago to this purpose), declares, that such Justification by any Adult, or already having the use of Reason (for we speak not here of Infants) cannot be had, whether with, or without the Sacrament, unless the subject what-ever be thus pre-disposed; that he have 1. Fidem (where we cannot but remember the Fides sola justificat maintained by some Pro­testants, but the Council is not content with this). 2. Spem, 3. Dilectionem Dei [such a one, quâ illum omnis justitia fontem diligere inci­pit], 4. Odium & detestationem peccati (per eam paenitentiam, saith the Council, quam ante Baptismum agi oportet) and lastly 5. Proposi­tum inchoandi novam vitam: The Council, I say, declares no Justification (which Justifica­tion is the Opus operatum of these two Sacra­ments of the Dead in sin) to be received by any Subject not thus pre-disposed. And for the first of these Sacraments, see here in express terms — Paenitentiam ante Baptismum agi o­portet: and in the form of Baptisme, the Adult Catechumen is first, to profess his Faith, and his renouncing Satan and all his works. For the Second, the Sacrament of Penance; see the [Page 45]Council. Sess. 14. c. 4. declaring Contrition (as it is described in what is said on the last point) perfect, or imperfect (called Attrition), to be a necessary disposition to the Opus opera­tum of it.

§. 24 Which Attrition, that it may attain the effect of this Sacrament, or Justification; the Coun­cil declares also, that it must be (not any Attri­tion naturally flowing from danger, and the fear of punishment; but) an Attrition Super­natural, not having its original purely from our selves, but from the Holy Ghost; such as is Donum Dei c 4. and impulsus Spiritus Sancti; that it must also exclude voluntatem [or affectum] peccandi; and contain also a spem veniae from God; which spes veniae hopes of re­ceiving a favour, and that done purely for ours and none of his own interest, must necessarily include a love to the Benefactor; and though the fear of God is as yet the most predominant in such Attrition, and the Council hath not mentioned a love of him here, yet it is sufficient, that the Council hath before, Sess. 6. c. 6. affirmed in General, that there is no Justifica­tion, or remission of sin to be had by any Sa­crament without a love of God in some degree, and also hate of sin as offending him; though, this not ascending to that degree of Love or Hate, as a perfect Contrition hath, viz. to a loving of God, and hating sin super omnia, a­mabilia, & detestabilia: therefore Cajetan Opuse. Tom. 1. Tract. 4. Q 1. on the Question, An Attritio potest fieri Con­tritio, calls Attrition—Imperfect a displicentia peccati, imperfectum propositum non peccandi; [Page 46]imperfectus (que) Dei Amor. And a little before — Quâ paenitentes, in confuso, tam totum tem­pus futurum, quam comparationem peccati ad alia odibila, quam etiam comparationem Dei ad alia amabilia, l. 1. §. 3. in voluntate suâ, habent. And Dr. Hamond in his Catechismep. 56. confesseth, — That, though a bare sorrow and compunction only respecting present terrors, hath no promise of mer­cy, yet if that which begins thus by Gods Grace, using such terrors for softening the heart, im­proves farther into sorrow for displeasing God, and from thence into a real sincere resolution to a­mend and forsake sin, these superstructions have a promise of mercy belonging to them, though the foundation had not: Now such is the Council's Attrition, Donum Spiritus Sancti. Lastly, such an Attrition it is (which was said before of Contrition§. 15.) as none, in his hating sin, and loving God, yet can be absolutly certain that he hath attained that Attrition which God re­quires and accepts of, for his bestowing the Sa­cramental effect; (for otherwise, since this effect on Gods part never fails to be given to the rightly disposed; thus one might be cer­tain of his Justification, and his being in the state of Grace, which the Council saithSess. 6. c. 9. none can be, save by Revelation). The surest sign and note of such a sufficient Contrition, or Attriti­on is an actual change and Reformation of life; which is the most certain fruit of a truly chang­ed and converted heart. This of the Pre-dis­positions in the suscipient necessary to receiv­ing the effect of these two Sacraments, which indeed is no such easie preparation, if, as to the [Page 47]repentance required in the latter of them, all that be considered, which hath been said in the last Point, and that, which the Council of Trent saith Sess. 14. c. 3. That — Ad novitatem [vitae] & integritatem [remission of sin, the effect, or opus operatum of this Sacrament of Penance] sine magnis nostris fletibus & Labori­bus, Divinâ id exigente Justitiâ, pervenire nequa­quam possumus: and that therefore the Fathers call it, Laboriosus quidam Baptismus.

§. 25 But yet somwhat more than this is required as a worthy disposition to the other, called Sa­cramenta vivorum, Confirmation, Eucharist, and extreme Ʋnction. For, all these for work­ing their due effect, require the Suscipient to be actually in the state of Grace, at least for any thing he either actually knoweth, or (if not culpably ignorant, either by neglecting to exa­mine himself, or by mistaking the true weight of Sin,) might know, of himself to the Con­trary. Which when he knows, before receiv­ing these other, he is instructed to repair to the Sacrament of Penance. Now such, as are here supposed to be in the state of Grace, are also supposed to have not only the pre-disposi­tions for Justification (mentioned before), but the infused habit of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

§. 26 Only, if the Question be put, whether also, for a due preparation, suppose to the receiving the benefit of the Eucharist (to which, beyond any other Sacrament, is required the greatest reverence) an actual and sensible Devotion is al­wayes necessary, so that, without their discern­ing this in themselves, they are to desist from [Page 48]the other, It is stated by many of the Roman Doctors (yet not by all) Negatively, viz. That the want of this Devotion (or rather of their sense of it, which happens somtimes to the greatest Saints), so they use their best endea­vour to acquire it, is not necessary to obtain the benefit of this Sacrament, and an augmentation of Grace. Of which, thus Suarez De Sa­cramen­tis. Disp. 7. §. 4. against CajetanDoctrina contraria nimis rigida est, ac praeter humanam frugilitatem. Cum autem haec pendent ex Christi voluntate & institutione, pie potius credendum est, sese in hoc humanae fra­gilitati accommodasse; praesertim quia gratia ha­bitualis in homine manens tantae est dignitatis a­pud Deum, ut vincere possit & superare leves omnes defectus, ac negligentias: & ideo ipsa sola est sufficiens dispositio ad hunc Sacramenti effectum. And Mounsieur Arnaud De la frequent Commu­nion, part 3. c. 1. suffi­ciently rigid in this matter, yet accords — That such persons [i. e. deficient in a sensible Devotion], may approach to the Communion, & do receive the benefit thereof, provided their heart be right towards God, which may be known by their actions and works, which are the fruits of the heart, although they suffer some tepidity from the Aridities and sterilities that hinder them from having those sentiments of Devotion, they desire. If this then, thus circumstantiated, be the want of Devotion, this Author so often men­tions as denied by the Roman Doctors to be a­ny necessary obstruction of the benefit of the Sacrament, it is confessed. But note, that such a want of actual Devotion, that is, as is joyned with a desire and endeavour to have it, and con­sists, [Page 49]mean while, with an habitual possession of it (for who hath the habit of Charity, as all Regenerate have, cannot want that of Devoti­on); and is such, as the Holiest Persons som­times cannot remedy, and this he ought to have told his Readers together with the other. This of Devotion, required particularly to the Sa­crament of the Eucharist.

§. 17 Next; If we consider the Sacrament of Ex­treme Ʋnction (because, notwithstanding the Text of Saint James Jam. 5.14.Is any man sick a­mong you? let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoynting him with oyle in the Name of the Lord; it hath not escaped this Authors derision) the Conditi­on also, or disposition required in such sick Per­sons, to receive the Spiritual benefit thereof, is, that they be in the State of Grace (as was said before): and this Unction is (si tempus & Infirmi condit o permittat) to follow the Sacra­ment of Penance, and of the Eucharist admini­stred before it. Which State of Grace, and Contrition of such Person, since it cannot be by the Priest certainly known, therefore upon the signes of such Contrition, and a desire of the Sacrament, the Charity of the Church in such an extremity denies it to none; though work­ing, or not working its effect, according to such Persons due preparation, known only to God. And again, Since the Priest is not always at hand to apply such Holy Ʋnction, when desired; therefore in case that such Person, after such de­sire, lose his speech, or senses, the application thereof, which is only external, is not thought [Page 50]fit, for this, to be with-held, because the be­nefit thereof is conceived to depend on the Per­sons former pious and penitent inclinations, when enjoying his Reason. This is the plain Song, on which this our Author hath made such a strange descant. p. 212. &c, if somwhat to the commendation of his wit; yet little, of piety.

§ 28 Such are the Dispositions requisite to the ca­pability of the effect of the Sacraments. But now, if in particular that of the Eucharist be re-considered, not as a Sacrament, but Sacri­fice, and the Representative Oblation to God of the Passion, Merits, and satisfactions of our Lord: Here first; The Council of Trent speaks not of it expresly thus, as conferring or procuring any effect ex opere operato. 2dly. If the Schoolmen say this, they say it in no other sense of this Sacrifice, than they do of the Sacra­ments; namely, to the rightly disposed, or putting no obstacle to it, according as the Council,Sess. 22. c. 2. explaining how it is Propitiatory, saith— Per ipsum fieri, ut, si cum vero corde & rectâ fide, cum metu & reverentiâ contriti & paenitentes ad Deum accedamus, misericordiam consequamur, &c. [i. e. Quo Sacrificio cruentum illud, semel in Cruce peractum, re­praesentatur, atque illius salutaris virtus in rem [...]ssionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie com­mittuntur, peccatorum applicatur *] And the Canon of the Mass saith— Memento Domine famulorum tuorum, Ib c. 1. quorum tibi Fides cognita est, & nota Devotio, &c: In both which we see the Persons, to be benefited, are supposed to be [Page 51]rightly disposed. But Thirdly, For any, though never so indisposed, it is true and con­fessed that the Oblation of the Eucharist, being the most prevalent, and acceptable intercession, and address, mortals can make to his Divine Majesty, may benefit them by way of Impe­tration, so as do also our Prayers; and so in all Ages it hath been ever solemnly offered un­to him, as for all our necessities, and for all persons, so for such impenitent and indisposed; that God would give them Repentance, and o­ther necessary dispositions for the receiving of his sanctifying Grace, and remission of their sin; and many times such Oblation hath its effect, (as also have our Prayers) to the pro­curing such a mercy of Gods Grace for them [Hujus quippe oblatione (saith the CouncilIbid. c. 2.) placatus Dominus gratiam & donum paenitentiae concedens, crimina, & peccata etiam ingentia di­mittit]; But this effect, as to particular per­sons, not affirmed to be constant, or never fail­ing. And this Bellarmin De effect Sa­cram l. 2. c. 1. answered long ago, in expounding the language of some School­men concerning the Mass profiting the indis­posed —Loquuntur (saith he) de Sacrificio, non de Sacramento, Porro Sacrificium prodest impae­nitentibus per modum impetrationis; quia impe­trat illis conversionem, & paenitent am: quomodo etiam orationes nostrae, licet non tam efficaciter id faciunt. And as this Author, p. 204 hath mentioned this Answer, so in reason he should have told us his Exceptions to it.

§. 29 To leave this Sacrifice (to which, and the be­nefits thereof, Protestants are great Strangers, [Page 52]nor sensible of their loss); and return to the Sacrament. Of these it hath been shewed, that all, for producing their effect, require a subject rightly disposed: Next, These Sacraments are said to produce their effect, (though only on persons rightly disposed) ex opere Operato. 1st. In opposition to any necessary dignity, Sanctity, or Merit of the Minister thereof, ex­pressed in the 12th. Canon of the Council of Trent De Sacrament is in genere, Sess. 7. against that Proposition of Wicloff and his followers, and some other Reformists mentioned by Soave, p. 233 —That a bad Minister doth not confer the SacramentSi quis dixerit, Ministrum in peccato mortali existentem, &c. non conficere, aut conferre Sacramentum, Anathema sit. 2ly. Ex opere operato, In opposition to the dignity, or the merit of the Receiver of the Sacrament; which Sacrament worketh its effect on a subject, though not indisposed, yet by no such Disposition meriting it. So Gabriel Biel 4. Sent. dist. 1. q. 3.Praeter exhibit onem signi foris exhibiti non requiritur bonus motus in suscipiente, quo de condigno, vel de congruo, gratiam [Sacramenti] mereatur: Sed sufficit, quod suscipiens, non ponat obicem; [or, where an obex is, have such boni motus, as may remove it. See him Ibid. Dist. 14. q. 2.] 3ly. Ex opere operato, In op­position not only to merit, but any disposition at all in the receiver, i. e. so, that no disposi­tion, though necessary as a causa sine quâ non to the effect, or as to removing some obstacles that may hinder it, yet is the efficient, or instru­ment at all, actually conferring, or immediatly [Page 53]conveying the Sacramental Grace, but this is solely the opus operatum of the Sacrament. [And of this speaks the Eighth Canon of the Council of Trent Sess 7. (nor hath Cassander applied any other sense to it, as this Author pretends he hath)p. 209.. The words are — Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non gratiam, sed solam fidem divinae promissionis ad gratiam conscquendam sufficere, Anathema sit. against that proposition of the Reformers men­tioned by Soave, p. 264.—That by the Sacra­ments Grace is not given in vertue of the admini­stration of them, called Opus Operatum, but that it sufficeth [for obtaining such Grace] only to believe the promise [of it]: and against those Re­formed Propositions set down before by him, p. 233.—That the Sacraments are not necessa­ry; but men may attain the effect of them by Faith only. — And — That the Sacrament hath never given Grace or remission of sins, but only the faith of the Sacrament. In which Eighth Canon the Council affirms—Solam fi­dem non sufficere; not as if Faith were altoge­ther needless to such Sacramental effect; for therefore, it saith, non solam; but not it alone suffieicnt without the Sacrament; without it, i. e. as it solely ex opere operato conferring the Grace, to which Faith also at the same time ne­cessarily pre-disposeth.] 4ly. Ex ope­re operato, in opposition to any dispositions as necessary at all in the subject; but then, these School-men do mean of Infants, not of Adulti; because in all these last, there is an Obstacle of Mortal sin to be removed; and this cannot [Page 54]possibly be so, without the dispositions of Faith and Repentance. 5ly. Ex opere operato, In opposition to the Sacraments of the Old Testa­ment; in which, Grace is said to be received from the disposition of the Suscipient called opus ope­rantis, which was then signified also by these Sacraments, but not conferred: The contrary whereof is verified in the Sacraments of the New.

§. 30 Now, if things be found as they are here re­lated, I desire his Protestant Reader would consider with what integrity this Author doth affirm, p. 202. this to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church —That the efficacy of Sacra­ments doth not depend upon the preparation of the receiver, but the bare administration, or the ex­ternal work done. Again, p. 203. —That the Sacraments of the new Law do confer grace ex opere operato, i. e. by the thing it self without any dependence therein upon the internal motion, or preparation of mind in him that doth partake of them. Again, how faithfully he deduceth, from Bellarmine, saying, That the Catholicks do not wholly exclude preparations in the receiver, but only ab efficientia from the efficiency of the Sacra­mental Grace, p. 204. That the Efficacy of the Sacraments [which as I understand him is their actual producing such an effect] in con­ferring grace, doth not at all depend upon the qua­lification of the receiver. Againp. 206.That the preparation of our minds for the use of the Sa­craments is unnecessary. For if grace (saith he) be effectually conferred by the force of the bare external action, which is acknowledged by them all, what need can there be of a due preparation of [Page 55]mind by the exercise of Faith, Prayer, Repen­tance, &c? From all which his conclusion is that the Roman Doctrine obstructs the sincerity of Devotion. In all which expressions, if this Au­thor means, that according to the Roman Doctrine no qualification or disposition in the Suscipient is the instrument that effects or con­fers the Sacramental Grace, it is true, but no­thing to his purpose, or to his conclusion drawn from it, viz. That such Doctrine obstructs Devotion: But, if he means that such disposi­tion is not the efficient cause of such Grace, and therefore it is not necessary at all to the effect, (as his words sound), it is indeed much to his purpose, and infers his conclusion; but is most untrue. For many things are necessary to an effect, besides the efficient cause thereof. To make use of an instance, himself mentions: Fire is the only efficient of the burning of wood, not the driness of the matter, yet is driness in the wood, as well as heat in the fire necessary to the effect. And one may as truly argue in this, as he doth in the other; If the burning be effectually [i.e. efficiently] wrought by the fire, what need can there be of dryness in the mat­ter: Or, the efficacy [i. e. the efficiency] of the fire in its burning doth not at all depend on the qualification of the matter; or, such qualificati­on concurrs not to the efficiency, therefore such qualification is to such effect, no other way, necessary.

§. 31 Secondly, Consider with what truth he re­lates, p. 206.—That Catholicks, when saying the internal disposition of mind is necessary to re­remove [Page 56]impediments, do not mean by this internal disposition the exercise of Faith, Prayer, Repen­tance, &c. by no means saith he [when as Bellar­min, in that Chapter, this Author cites, and therefore read, saith the expresly contrary, and that six or seaven times over to this purpose —Opus operatum excludere fidem & motum in­ternum ab efficientiâ gratiae Sacramentalis, non tamen excludere simpliciter fidem & motum in­ternum [or in other places, fidem, & paenitenti­am], ita ut Sacramenta (ut ipsi calumniantur) conferant gratiam accipientibus ea sine side, & sine internâ conversione cordis]: But (saith he) they mean: That there be no mortal sin unconfessed; [Now, such mortal sin may be confessed with­out Faith, or Repentance, or any other dispo­sition to remove the obstacle of such mortal sin: And next] That (saith he) there be no actual op­position in the will to the Sacrament [which he explains thus]: As for instance, when he is go­ing to be baptized, he resolves with himself that he will not be baptized, or while he is baptizing, that he will not believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus he. Now, if any reflect on what we have proved before, is this ingenuous dealing? Is not this writing Controversies for Ladies, for Women, for Laicks, and such as cannot, or, from a contrary interest, will not make a search into the truth of his Rela­tions?

See again, what fidelity he useth, p. 209. (after his rejecting the common Doctrine of the Roman Authors, to search that of the Ro­man Church rather in the Council of Trent) [Page 57]in his citing of the Eighth Canon of the Se­venth Session thereof to this purpose: That it affirms the Sacraments to confer Grace ex opere operato so, as to render Faith, or other disposi­tions in the receiver needless; and mean while concealing one half of the Canon, that plainly shews the contrary.—Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae Legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non con­ferri gratiam, so farr he repeats it; sed solam fidem divinae promissionis ad gratiam consequendam sufficere; this he omits; and the Sola is not at all considered by him. As if, from the Catho­licks saying, Sola fides non justificat, he should prove that they hold Faith not necessary at all to Justification: What this Canon opposetli, and how it is distinguished from the Twelfth; I think I have given a satisfying account before§ — 29.: Yet, after this, see with what a strange confidence he concludes. p 211. — I dare now appeal (saith he) to the most indifferent Judg, whether what I objected to them concerning the efficacy of Sacraments, whether the minds of the receivers of them be prepared, or no, were not so far from being a calumny, that there is not so much as the least mistake in it: if the doctrine of the Council of Trent be embraced by them. Thus he— Ter­gens os suum dicit, non sum operatus malum.

§. 33 Bellarmin, and the Roman Writers affirm, that this truth, That the Sacraments are the in­strumental cause of conferring Grace, is Divine Revelation: and Bellarmin spends two Chap­ters in producing the Scriptures that evidence it; and so saith, That the particular way or manner of their conferring Grace is a thing [Page 58]not necessary to be determined, or understood, no more than that of the Trinity is, or of seve­ral other Articles of Faith. Yet, Here see p. 204. how solicitous this Author is to be in­formed of the manner, as if the whole issue of the business depended on this; whether the Sa­craments be physical or moral causes; whether by a power inherent, or assistant; whether they produce Grace, or only the union of it, &c. and, how candidly, he declaims against the imposing such absurd, unreasonable, and unintelligible things to be believed; and brings in the Alco­ron, and his wit-conferring Cap to be admitted with the like credulity: But takes no notice, that such effect is proved, (or pretended by these Catholick Authors) to be Divine Revela­tion (which they will not allow to the Alcoran, or to his Cap); nor shews he the falsity of such an assertion in the disproving of their Texts urged for it.

§. 34 The Roman Doctors affirm, that, so one be in the state of Grace, and so have the habit of Charity, and consequently that also of Devoti­on, an actual or sensible devotion, provided he use his best endeavour to be so devout, is not necessarily required for receiving the benefit of the Sacrament; (and the reason is given by them, because this indeed seems too rigorous, and would cause too many scruples in mens minds concerning the preparation of a right devotion.) See this matter thus stated by Arnauld's AdversaryArnauld de la freq. Commu­nion. part. 3. c. 1. who is held to speak the most diminutively of a necessary preparati­on. —This is the Doctrine of the Saints (saith [Page 59]he) that a man that hath not the devotion, and fervor of Charity he desireth, but seems tepid to himself, is not obliged therefore to abstain from the Communion; provided, he endeavour his best to excite himself to devotion, and humbly presents himself in hope of benefit thereby. And again, c. 9. One often thinks he hath no Devotion, and yet ceaseth not to have it. True Devotion is not a certain facility to apply ones self to it; and a contentment that one resents from it; but it is an effective will and desire to please God. Now the Communicant here, being required by these Doctors to be in the state of Grace, and to use his best endeavour to be also actually and sensi­bly Devout; see how ingenuously this Author conceals these two circumstances, and chargeth on them the admitting persons to the benefit of the Sacraments that are impenitent, and void of any Devotion, p. 207. —If want of devotion (saith he) doth not hinder Grace being received, what arguments can men use to perswade persons to it? who will undergo so strict an examination of himself, and endeavour to raise his mind to a due preparation for the participation of Sacra­ments, if he knows before hand that he shall cer­tainly receive Grace by the Sacraments without it? [i. e. without an endeavour to raise his mind to a due Devotion. But what Roman Doctor reacheth this?]. Again, p. 211. — Whether one have any Devotion or no, he is sure of Grace, if he doth but partake of their Sacra­ments; and need not trouble himself much about Devotion, since his work may be done without it. Never any Doctrine was certainly better con­trived [Page 60]for the satisfaction of impenitent Sinners, than theirs is, [representing the indevout and the impenitent, as the same; the indevout, through infirmity, or through neglect, appearingly, or really, all included.]

§. 35 The like integrity this Author useth in his re­lation concerning Extreme Ʋnction, and its effect, p. 212. where he saith— Not so much as the use of Reason is required for the effect of the blessed Sacrament of Extreme Ʋnction. And then descantsp. 213.A hard case for those who dye in mortal Sin! for if they could but express any sign of contrition by the motion of an eye or a fin­ger, all were well enough, and they are sure to re­ceive Grace. And p. 214. —To make all sure at last, the Exereme Ʋnction very sweetly conveys grace into them, whether they be sensible or not. Whereas in candid and serious dealing, instead of jesting, he ought to have represented the Roman Doctrine thus: 1. That for the Application of this Sacrament, the use of Reason in the Suscipient is not necessarily required, if the person immediatly before, when having the use of Reason, appeared Con­trite, and desired it.See be­fore §. 27—And 2. That all such persons only, as have that true and acceptable contrition (known only to God) whereof they give external signs, do receive Grace, or the effect of this Sacrament, but no other. Let this suffice for the Third Point.

[Page 61] §. 36 IV. For the Fourth Point. The easiness in the Roman Church,4. Of the Eternal Punish­ment of Sin, not easily changed into a Temporal. by this feat of the Sacra­ments ex opere operato remitting sin, and con­ferring Grace, to change the Eternal punish­ment of sin, which is surely remitted with the sin it self, into a temporal one; or to change Hell-torments into those of Purgatory; and then the easiness of getting out of these too, with a little money or friends. See Rom. Idol. p. 185, 186. The contrary of this, viz. That the procuring the pardon of Mortal Sin com­mitted after Baptisme, and consequently of the eternal punishment thereof (these two being al­waies remitted together) is no such easie thing, hath been amply shewed in the Vindication of the Second and Third Point. The Subjects of the Roman Catholick Church then are in this matter thus instructed: 1. That the due effect of the Sacrament of Penance (repaired unto by such delinquent) is necessary to the Remissi­on of such sin, and its Eternal Punishment. 2. That this effect is not conferred on all that are Confessed (as this Author seems to take for granted that it isSee p. 206. 498.) but only, among these, on the rightly pre-disposed by Faith, and a true and acceptable Repentance. Which Re­pentance includes not only sorrow for sin, but an actual amendment of life, and ceasing from sin (where life longer continued): and for the sorrow, — Sine magnis nostris fletibus, & la­boribus, divinâ id exigente justitia, ad hanc no­vitatem, & integritatem [viz. remission of sin, and former state of regeneration] pervenire ne­quaquam possumus, (saith the Council of Trent Sess. 14. c. 2.). 3. That when all is done, the person is not ab­solutely [Page 62]certain that he hath attained such a worthy and sincere Repentance, Contrition, or Attrition, as infallibly receives the effect and benefit of the Sacrament. 4. That, if there should happen any defect therein, the best way to compleat such Contrition (ad praeteritorum pec­catorum vindictam & castigationem, saith the CouncilSess. 14. c. 8.) is the exercise of much Penance, and Mortification; and the surest sign of such Contrition compleated, is, a change of life, and perseverance therein; and the surest means, a­gain, for such perseverance (ad novae vitae custo­diam, & infirmitatis medicamentum, saith the CouncilIbid.) are Penances and Mortifications.

§. 37 5. As to Penances their removing or taking away punishments, and so just Indulgences of Penance doing the same, They are taught;

First, That no such Indulgence relates at all to quitting the punishment Eternal.

Secondly, That no Penances or Indulgences are beneficial to the removing any Temporal punishment, so long as the person, by his sin unrepented of, is still liable to the Eternal: and, suppose they were, yet this infinitely grea­ter debt still uncancelled renders the discharge of the other not valuable.

Thirdly, That the remission of the Eternal depends chiefly on the sincerity of their Repen­tance and Conversion to God, and change of life; as hath been shewed before. And this thing (viz. lest by any defect of these, there should be some flaw in the pardon of the Eter­nal punishment), keeps all pious Sons of this Church perpetually on their guard (notwith­standing [Page 63]what-ever Indulgences are passed con­cerning the Temporal) to make good on their part the conditions that are required from them for the cancelling thereof. And if by the Mo­ney and Friends this Author speaks of, as a means of evading these punishments, be meant Alms-deeds, and other mens Prayers, it is grant­ed; That, both for the procuring Grace, and the Remission of Sin, and of these punishments attending it, they help much. And in this re­spect granted again; that the Rich, both as to giving Alms, and by them procuring the inter­cessions of such as are relieved, have a great advantage. And very fit they should; having so many disadvantages, and running so many hazards from their Wealth other waies. But then the Poor are no way inferiour to them; who, as they want the one, so are freed from the other. And we are told by our Lord, that more Rich incur these Eternal or Temporal punishments by the Temptations of their wealth, than escape them by the Charitable distribution of it.

§. 38 From these things it appears, that, how easie soever the releasment of such punishment is a­mongst Catholicks, it is made much more easie, or less difficult, among Protestants. For, 1st. For Sin, and the Eternal punishment; if Protestants require repentance, sorrow for sin, and an actual change, or reformation of life, Catholicks (as hath been shewed §. 10, &c.) require also these, and much more; namely, a necessary repair to the Sacrament of Penance, Confession, Abso­lution; and for the greater securing of their [Page 64] Contrition; or Repentance, of which none can be absolutely certain, fletus, labores, penan­ces, mortifications, and dignos fructus paeni­tentiae; and these not only ad novae vitae custodi­am, but ad praeteritorum peccatorum vindictam. 2ly.2 Cor. 7.11. For the Temporal punishment, 1. Catho­licks hold after the Eternal remitted, such a punishment to remain still uncancelled; Pro­testants deny it, and throw all punishment whatever into the Pardon of the Sin; and as soon as the sentence—Dominus transtulit pec­catum tuum is past,2 Sam. 12.13. clear all accounts. 2ly. Ca­tholicks hold many faithful Souls, such as have been more imperfect in their repentance, and negligent in Christian-duties here, (as it must be granted of those, who all find mercy, some are much more than others,) to be detained af­ter death for some time in a state of Purgation; Protestants send all, (that go not to Hell, and the greatest misery) straight to Heaven, and the most supreme happiness. 3ly. Catholicks make divers Penances and Satisfactions, impo­sed, or also voluntarily assumed, necessary for the discharge of such temporal punishment, that by judging of themselves they may prevent that of God:1 Cor. 11.31. But Protestants, by denying such punishments, have also no need of such Pe­nances, and so release them to their Subjects.

4. And lastly: If, in some of her Indulgen­ces, the Roman Church is said by them to sell these Pardons of Temporal Punishments very cheap, the Protestants give them to all for no­thing. This of the 4th. Point.

[Page 65] §. 39 V. Come we to the Fifth: The Roman Doctrine concerning Indulgences; 5. Of In­dulgences beneficial only to those in the state of Grace. charged by this Authorp. 518. with many gross Absurdities, and as excusing Roman-Catholicks from performing the best parts of their Religion: i. e. (saith he) enjoyning Penances, accounted among them fruits of true Repentance; severe mortification; Fasting, frequent Prayers, and Almes p. 526.

To the Contrary of this, I shall shew to his abused Reader, That neither the Absurdities pretended by him, nor the omission of any ne­cessary Duty follow either from the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences, or the commonly al­lowed Practice.

And 1st. For the Doctrine of this Church; If this Author had done her justice so far as to accuse or question no more than what he found to be her doctrine in her Councils concerning this point; and, if he had said here for right­ing the Church, what he hath said else-where,p. 209. when for his own advantage: That though some Testimonies of particular persons may be produced [for several opinions] yet we must ap­peal for the sense of this Church, to the Decrees of its Councils; how many leaves might he have spared from his discourse on this subject as wholly impertinent? Indeed so compendi­ous and cautious have the Church's Decrees been in this matter, as that those Protestants, [Page 66]who complain at other times of her oppressing their Faith with a multitude of Credends, here ac­cuse her silence & reservedness. So Doctor Taylor observes in his Disswasive c. 1 §. 3. p. 39.. That because the Doctrines were so dangerous, uncertain, invidious, by the advice of the Bishop of Modena, the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines, & all the Cases of Conscience quite alone, and slubbered [or, better, passed over] the whole matter in this Question in general, and recommendatory, termsThat they established no Doctrine, neither curious nor in­curious; nor durst they [i. e. the Council, bold enough in other matters] decree the very Foun­dation of this whole matter, the Churches Trea­sure. [And so all this our Author's Questi­ons about this Treasure, which amount to Ten of the Fifteen Queries he proposeth, p. 518, &c. and saith — That when be once seeth those Questions satisfactorily answered, he may then think better of our Doctrine, are beside the pur­pose, and to be cancell'd, if he intends only to encounter the professed Doctrine of the Ro­man Church. But we on the other side say, That these men deal not fairly, who, for de­fending their discession from the Church of Rome, and from the Communion of their Fore-Fathers urge such Doctrines, as none, in staying in this Communion, are obliged to maintain; and that the less this Church hath de­termined or required our assent to in this point, the more freely may any, holding what ever seems to him the most probable, submit to her Decrees: and hath the less cause to accuse, or reproach her.

[Page 67] §. 40 All then, that the Council hath stated and asserted in this matter is thisSee Con. Trid. Sess 25. Deer. de Indulg., (as Doctor Hol­den, F. Veron, and others have observed, who have endeavour'd for the frustrating such Dis­courses as these, to sever points of Faith from School-Opinions)—Indulgentias conferendi po­testatem ab ipsomet Christo Ecclesiae concessam fuisse, at que hujusmodi potestate antiquissimis etiam temporibus Ecclesiam usam fuisse: Hunc usum Christiano populo esse maxime salutarem, & Sacrorum Conciliorum authoritate probatum & in Ecclesiâ retinendum: Fosque Anathemate Sy­nodum damnare, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt, aut eas concedendi in Ecclesiâ potestatem esse ne­gant. This is all the Council hath determin­ed. And upon this, F. Veron in his Rule of Catholiek Faith c. 17. justly contends—That no more ought to be proposed to separatists to be be­lieved, than what the profession of the Catholick Faith, and the General Councils engage them to. That it is sufficient to render one a true Child of the Church, if he submit to these; and that other Questions, wherein the Council is silent, are im­pertinencies and digressions.

§ 41 Now, because the Council in this her De­cree, we see, defends her present Doctrine and Practice by that of Ancient times, and by what is approved in former Councils, if we look in­to Antiquity concerning this matter, we may there easily discover thus much.

1. That severe and long Penances were then imposed on greater sinners some way propor­tionable to their faults; and these not only for satisfaction of the Church, and the Scandal ma­ny [Page 68]times given to it in publick sins, but chiefly for the Satisfaction of Gods Justice, and ap­peasing his wrath, for Reconciliation unto Him, Remission of their sins and Eternal punishment due thereto, and for begetting in them a true and solid Repentance, and Contrition for their Sin, and so for saving their Souls. For which I refer the Reader to what hath been said before, §. 16. and the many testimonies of the Fathers collected by Morinus De Paenitent, l. 3. c. 11, & 12,—and l. 10. c. 24. To which effects these Penances were esteemed very ad­vantageous; and though not, as to all of them, any proper Satisfactions, yet a means very be­neficial for perfecting the Sinner's Repentance, and Sorrow for sin, and procuring the appli­cation to them of the Merits and Satisfactions of Christ: Gods Mercy and Justice still accom­panying one another, as in respect of Christs sufferings, and satisfactions, paid for our sins by Him; so in respect of some temporal suffer­ings of our own, either freely offered and ten­dered by our selves, or, if not Prevented by these, inflicted on us by God to such a degree as seemeth meet to his Divine Majesty.

§. 42 2. We may find; That there were, then, somtimes Indulgences granted of such Penances, all, or part, to some Persons, thought rightly qualified for them, upon certain just causes of a greater advancement of piety, and Gods Glory and Service thereby; either in respect of such Persons private, or some other pub­lick, and greater, good. Which cause was thought a sufficient motive for such a relaxati­on [Page 69]and prevalent with God for ratifying such indulgent act of the Church-Governors (to whom our Lord hath committed in his stead the power of binding and loosing Sinners); whereby the same punishment of sin, due to the Divine Justice, is presumed to be remitted by God to persons, if being, as they appear, suffi­ciently contrite, upon such Indulgence granted, as would have been upon the Penances per­formed: for, else, if such punishment in Gods Court (and not only that of the Church) had not been taken away by them, the Indulgence, conceded as a favour, would have been really much to the Penitents loss; whilst, after it, those heavier punishments remaine to be in­flicted on, and undergone by, them, from which their much easier Penances (if not indulged) would have discharged them: And so this po­wer of the Keys would have been rather to De­struction than Edification.

§. 43 To come to some Instances. Such was St. Paul's Indulgence, or Remission (in the person of Christ as he saith,2 Cor. 2.10. or by the Commission of Quorum remiseritis Jo. 20.23.) of part of the Penance that was formerly imposed by him upon the in­cestuous Corinthian, as for the scandal given to the Heathen, and the Church, so also chiefly for the saving of his Soul, 1 Cor. 5.5. Yet such remission of them was not without several just Motives, inciting the Apostle thereto, and which he judged more acceptable to God; & so, more effectual for procuring the application of Christs Merits for this Sinners pardon, than the remainder of his Penance, had it been fulfilled; [Page 70]Such as were the gratifying the Intercessions for this person of the Saints in Corinth; and preventing their apprehensions of the Apostles too great severity; the excessive sorrow and confusion appearing already in the Penitent; and least perhaps through a despondency of mind he should throw off the Christian Faith, and abandon himself to vice; in all which the Apostle saw Satans wiles, See 2 Cor. 2.6, 7, 11.

§. 44 Such, again, were the Indulgences used in the Primitive times upon several (judged by them) just causes moving the Church-Governors thereto, either for the private good of the Pe­nitent, or publick of Religion. 1st. Such an­ciently were, in respect of the private good of the Penitent. 1. An extraordinary diligence and fervour in their performing Penance, pro­ducing in them a great reformation, &c. and so this seeming sufficient for quitting the re­mainder of their debt; in the Indulgment of whom was also a publick good intended, that so the negligent might, hereby, be excited to like fervor, upon hopes of like favour. 2. The pusillanimity, or weakness, or temptations of the Penitent, whereby it was feared, that he might through despair sink under the burden laid upon him, or throw it off his shoulders, revolt to Heresie, or Gentilisme. 3. In times of great persecution, the better fitting and arm­ing of the Penitent for Martyrdome, by his re­ceiving a reconcilement to God and the Church; and, after it, the Holy Communion; and the same also was done in his being exposed [Page 71]to any other eminent danger of death, by sickness or otherwise; in which necessity, Ab­solution, and the Eucharist were administred, though the Penance unfinished: (As still the inability of any further doing Penance, to such persons as are supposed contrite, and otherwise well disposed at the hour of death, is thought a sufficient ground of an Indulgence.) 4. Som­times also some Heroical Act of the Penitent was accepted instead of further Penance: As persons returned from Heresie were usually re­ceived into the Church upon easie terms, and without exacting from them the Penances due to so great a sin, both for other reasons tend­ing to advancement of true Religion, and for the great Confusion such persons exposed them­selves to in the publick confessing and renounc­ing their former Opinions; and professing of that Faith, they had before censured and con­demned; Errors that prejudice our under­standing, being with much more difficulty ac­knowledged by us, than those Sins that are only the exorbitancies of our Passions. So somtimes the Lapsed, after their having denied Christ, in their returning boldly to confess and suffer for him, were for this indulged all the Penance imposed for their former lapse.See Mo­rinus, l. 9 c. 14.

2. Again, Such Causes or Motives in re­spect of the publick good, anciently was the ho­nouring of Martyrs (i. e. such who had al­ready suffered loss of goods, limbs, tortures, for the Christian profession, or were imprison­ed and destined to such tortures) in conceding Indulgencies of their Penance to such persons, [Page 72]for whom these petitioned, or gave their com­mendatory Letters, or Tickets; and for whom these Martyrs promised their Intercessions with God; and this done by the Church, to shew the power and value which she believed such sufferings and intercessions to have with God; and hereby also to encourage many others to Martyrdom. Such also was the preventing of the growth of Schismes, and the enlarging of the Catholick Faith in the receiving of Here­ticks usually into the Church with much indul­gence, and not clogging them with such great Penances as such a Crime deservedIbid. l. 9. c. 8. to encou­rage more to come in, and prevent their fur­ther infecting of others.

§. 45 Now, a strict correspondence to such anci­ent customs have the latter times of the Church observed (in their continuing of Indulgences) in these two principal points; 1. that such Indul­gence be to a person rightly disposed by Repen­tance, so far as the Church can judg of it; o­therwise without this, as no remission of Sin, so no reason to expect such divine relaxation of punishment to a yet impenitent Sinner. And 2. next, That there be a just and weighty Cause for granting it; else it would quite ruine the Churches Discipline, and abuse the power she is intrusted with, to remit the Penance, and expect that God should withdraw such punish­ments, and change that ordinary course of his justice, by which he makes men sensible of his hate to Sin, upon any light and frivolous Mo­tives, which may daily occurr. That there be a cause, I say not, exactly the same alwaies [Page 73]with those ancient, forementioned, (a thing not necessary; for the Ancient also, we see, were various); but just still, and judged pro­portionable to the quality of the Indulgence, as theirs was. In latter times then, (after a much remisser imposing of Penances for great crimes, than was anciently, because of the hardness of mens hearts; and a reluctance to receive, or bear them; When once Commuta­tions of Penances were become more in use, and Absolution frequently, in great offences also, was joyned immediatly with Confession, and the Penance deferred till afterward,) In these latter times, I say, such Causes have been a set­ting the Penitent, instead of such Penances de­clined by him, (which though now not enjoyn­ed, yet now are as much, as anciently, due from him as to the satisfying of the Divine justice), upon some other acts of piety or devotion, more willingly performable by him; and these especially such, as, by their tending to some publick and eminent good, may be more ac­ceptable to God, and proportionable to the relaxation of such Penances. Such as are the enjoyning of Almes, Prayers, Fasts, &c. for averting some imminent Judgment, or danger from the Church; for the conquering of Infi­dels, and the Churches Enemies (such was the recovery of the Holy Land); for converting of Hereticks, for relief of the Poor, in some time of great distress; for the building of Churches, Hospitals, or other pious Benefactions, where much necessity of them: And, among the rest, this motive, not the least considerable, (men­tioned [Page 74]also by Bellarmin De Indulgent, l. 2. c. 18.) namely an excitement of the people to Contri­tion, and Confession, to Prayers, and doing Pe­nances now, (when they reject these any way proportionable to their faults, and as satisfacti­ons of the Divine Justice) at least for the gain­ing of the Indulgences (which are by them sup­posed a much easier relief): the procurement of which Indulgences hath been much used by many wise and Holy Prelates; as namely, by St. Carlo Borromeo, to this purpose; and Ipso usu constat (saith Suarez) gratiam & favorem Indulgentiarum multum conferre ad Spiritualem profectum fidelium, Disp. 49. §. 1. ut melius ac frequentius a peccatorum vinculis liberentur; That men, that are not already in the state of Grace, may, by their preparation for the benefit of the Indul­gence, be brought thereto; and so, after a re­mission of the Eternal punishment by their Contrition, and the power of the Keys, be also, by this favour upon some pious work, dis­charged of the temporal, or at least of some part thereof.

§. 46 In these two things therefore, 1 a worthy person to be indulged 2 and a just cause of such indulgement, the present use of Indulgen­ces runs parallel with the ancient. And then the present difference (which is confessed) be­tween the latter and former times, 1. One, that the former were Indulgences of Penances enjoyned; the present of the self-same Penances in the same measure due to Gods justice (and to be paid now, as much as then, for obtaining from him a relaxation from such punishment;) [Page 75]but, for the Penitents indisposition, after a long desuetude of such a practice, not enjoyn­ed now, as formerly. 2. The other, that those were usually granted to some particular persons, appearing penitent; these indefinitely to all, but upon the same condition, that they be penitent (which also they must testifie, by their repairing to the Sacrament of Penance,) otherwise, they are taught, that they receive no benefit thereby. Now a difference in these, I say, seems to alter nothing in the substance of Indulgences; and, the one way to be as necessa­ry to the constitution of the present times, as the other was of the ancient.

§. 47 The Church's Doctrine about Indulgences thus delivered; As for many other Questions, touching the manner how these Indulgences be­nefit the receiver, whether by the way of Ab­solution or Solution; whether with or without a Counter-satisfaction paid to Gods Justice: and this when, or how, or by whom, paid, & the like, the present Church is no more concerned to state them, than the ancient; and what ab­surdities therein may be thought to press or prejudice the one, will as much the other. In this Author's inquiring, then, from what So­lutions, or Satisfactions, or Church-treasures, these Indulgences become admitted and ratified by the Divine Justice, much pains and his many Queries might have been spared: the Church herein hath determined nothing; and he, toge­ther with Catholicks, hath the liberty to take that opinion that likes him best. Doctor Hol­den in his Resolution of Faith l. 2. c. 6. written for in­forming [Page 76]such Protestant Questioners hath told him in this matter—Catera etiam dubia sunt, & a Theologis in utramque partem agitata, Ni­mirum, An sit the saurus aliquis meritorum & satisfactionum in Ecclesiâ, cujus dispensatores sint Romanus Pontifex, & reliqui Ecclesiae Pa­stores? And paena, quae ex naturâ rei & coram Deo solvenda sit pro peccato, sive publico, sive se­creto, possit, ab-alio quocunque adimpleri per mo­dum solutionis & satisfactionis debitae, quam ab ipsomet peccatore? And F. Ʋeron in his Rule of Faithc. 17.Since (saith he) neither our profession of Faith, nor the Council of Trent take any no­tice of this matter, why should we press such opi­nions, or propose more to them [Separatists] than these engage it to? Here then, if this our Ad­versary will grant, that there can be no remissi­on of sin, or of any punishment thereof, eternal or temporal, for satisfying in rigour the Di­vine Justice, but by the application of the su­perabundant, and infinite merits and satisfacti­on of our Lord Jesus Christ, (a thing which I suppose no Protestant will deny) no more is desired of him, or any. For the other Trea­sure of the satisfactions of the Saints; though it is certain, here. 1 That God may, if he pleaseth, accept the satisfactions of one person for the debt of another (for so he did in our Lord's); and 2 again, that, for what is im­perfect in the Saints satisfactions, he may com­pleat it with his Sons; yet I know no Roman Divines that do hold any such satisfactions of Saints in this matter absolutely necessary, but that our Lords alone are all-sufficient; and, if the [Page 77]Saints great sufferings for their Fellow-mem­bers (not to be denied) are also thrown into this Treasure; this is more to honour them, than that it needs any recruit by them. The­saurus Ecclesiae (saith Suarez De In­dulg. disp. 51. §. 3.) non est simplici­ter necessarius ut Indulgentiae concedantur, sumn­que habeant effectum. And, Sicut Christus est unicus Redemptor, ita etiam est per se sufficiens sine adminiculo aliorum sanctorum. And—Non est opus ut adjungantur satisfactiones ex passioni­bus Sanctorum passionbus Christi, quasi hae per se non sufficiant. Sed hoc tum gloriosum Christo, a quo est omne bonum Sanctorum, tum ipsis etiam sanctis perhonorificum, saith Bellarmin De In­dulg. l. 1. c. 4..

This said of the Doctrine, proceed we to consider the present practice of Indulgences, and the great dammage done to Piety & Devo­tion thereby, which this Author so earnestly chargeth.

§. 48 And here 1st. The Subjects of the Roman Church are generally instructed, that no Indul­gence can benefit them, as to any remission of the guilt of Sin, as it is an injury and offence done to God; or of the Eternal punishment thereof; or, to the making their peace with God, with which these eternal pains are incon­sistent; but only as to the temporal, that is still retained by God after our reconciliation and peace made with him, for the satisfaction of his Justice in some part, which thinks it not fit to let our former wickedness pass altogether free from some temporal punishment, (which if this Author please he may call Chastisement) to shew his hatred of sin, even when he hath re­ceived [Page 78]into favour the Sinner. For, as the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. c. 8.Divinam clementiam decet, ne ita nobis absque ullâ satisfactione pecca­ta dimittantur, ut occasione arreptâ, peccata le­viora putantes, velut injurij & contumeliosi Spi­ritui Sancto in graviora labamur. [Of which ordinary course of Gods Justice, even toward those already re-admitted into grace and friendship, he who doubts, may at his leisure consider well these passages of Scripture— Numb. 20.12.—27.12, 13, 14.—Numb. 14.34.—2 Sam. 12.10, 13, 14.—2 Sam. 24.10, 13.—2 King. 20.6, 18. compared with 2 Chron. 32.31. — 2 Chron. 20.37. — 35.22, 23.—1 King. 13.22. — Exod. 32.34. (where the punishment, threatned verse 10. being remitted, yet others less than that are reserved, whensoever their new sins should pro­voke the Lord also to remember the last.). Josh. 22.17.—Psal. 89.31. &c.— Prov. 11.31. —1 Pet. 4.18.—Ecclus. 5.4.—Psal. 98.8. —1 Cor. 11.31, 32.—1 Cor. 3.15. (which text shews a temporary suffering to remain also in the next world for faults not fully expiated and accounted-for here by our judging our selves, that we may escape the judgment of God. Of which faults, either in their nature, or by our Repentance, and the Sacrament of Penance rendred, not mortal to us, thus Caesari­us Arelatensis Hom. 8.Quicquid de istis peccatis redemptum non fuerit illo igne purgandam est, de quo Apostolus, &c. Redemptum non fuerit, i.e. as he saith before by our Penances—Continu­is Orationibus & frequentibus jejuniis & largi­oribus [Page 79]cleemosynis, &c. Nor is this postume punishment, since it is revealed and made known to us here, purely vindicative for sin; but, as other Temporal punishments here, design'd to excite us to a cleansing and correcting betimes, whatever is ill built by us for sear of it; and, by our lighter penances here, to a preventing it; And if the preaching of Hell-torments to come may profit us, so may those of Purgato­ry): Again, Mat. 12.32.De Civ. Dei. l. 21. c. 24. From which Text St. Austin collected—Sunt quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittetur [i. e. not for the eternal, remitted alwaies here or not at all, but a tem­poral pain or punishment] in futuro. Exam­ples also of such temporal punishments, averti­tible or removable by some penal works of our own; and our greater suffering from God, changed into those lesser from our selves, See in Jona 3.10. compared with 7, and 8. &c. — 1 King. 21.29.—2 Chron. 12.6, 7.— 33.12, 13. — 2 King. 7.1. compared with 2 King. 6.30.—1 Cor. 11.31, 32. I have quoted here the more Texts, to shew that Gods Mercy ordinarily includes also some personal satisfaction, in some part at least, to his Justice, Justitia & pax osculatae suntMiseri cordiam & judicium cantabo tibi Domine: that he may be both loved and feared.]

They are taught therefore, that a true Con­trition in the subject (the requisites of which see before §. 10. &c.) is still presupposed to the be­nefit of any Indulgence; and that he who hopes any gain thereby, must also, if in Mortal sin, by the Sacrament of Penance, render himself first [Page 80]in the state of Grace: Contritis & Confessis being the Condition on the part of the indulged, expressed, or implyed in all Indulgences.

§. 49 As for the ordinary expression in these In­dulgences, promising a remission of their sins, the first of this Authors hard Questions, (who asks, how it consists with this Doctrine of Indul­gences their respecting not the fault, but the temporal punishment thereof) it is answered long since by Bellarmin De In­dulg. l. 1. c. 7. (and it were well, if this Author with his old objections would com­municate to his Protestant Readers the Catho­licks old Answers; and to the Catholick Rea­ders his own Reply to them) — Id propterea dici, quod indulgentia conjungitur ordinarie cum confessione Sacramentali; & facit, ut qui per Sacramentum Paenitentiae, [which is received as a preparation for the Indulgence] fuit absolu­tus a culpâ, per Indulgentiam absolvatur a paenâ and, that the Indulgences speak of the remission of sins, quoad paenam: or as SuarezDe In­dulg. Disp. 50. §. 1.Ab­solvit a culpâ & paenâ non quia Indulgentiae utramque tollat: sed quia, ut habeat effectum, debet supponere remissam culpam, & ipsa complet totius paenae remissionem.

§. 50 Things standing thus, to what end hath this Author sought out, and cited some testimonies of Roman Writers? One sayingp. 525.That af­ter Indulgences were grown common, many men did abstain less from evil actions. A second, That they were only profitable to the Idle and Wicked. A third, That true Christian piety was destroyed by them, and that all manner of wickedness did spring from thence; and that men [Page 81]were affraid of committing no kind of sin, when at so cheap a rate they could purchase a remission of them. A fourth, That let men do what wicked­ness they will, by them they shall be free from punishment, &c. besides all his own invective stuff from pag. 415. to p. 499. or §. 3. to §. 8. (where he would perswade his Reader, that the Roman Indulgences countenance the impeni­tent to a continuance in their sins, or promise to them any the least relief as to their pardon), I say, what mean all these impertinences? when as Indulgences belong to none but just persons; and none, but the already penitent and reform­ed (as Catholicks are generally taught) are at all concerned in, or succoured by, them. And it must be by a most Gross and highly-Culpable ignorance, if any heretofore have so far mista­ken the Churches constant Doctrine of Indul­gences, as to imagine the least good from them, as to their Salvation, if they either still continu­ed in any Mortal sin, or afterward returned to it; and, if the pardon of such sin were not first procured from God by a sincere repentance. There is (saith this Author,p. 497. after his learned Collection of old Indulgences) one odd conditi­on implied in some of these Prayers (he ought to have said, in all) called being in the state of Grace, the want of which may hinder the effect from them; but a due Confession with Absolu­tion will at any time put a man into it. But, by his leave, there is another odd Condition besides, which Catholicks call Contrition, or Repentance; and what Catholicks mean by it, may be seen before, §. 10. and 23, which this Author (ac­cording [Page 82]to his wonted candor) hath left out, and without which his due Confession and Abso­lution signifie nothing; and if they have this in­deed also to put them in the state of Grace, much good may they have of their Indulgence; for also Protestants, and this Author hold this Contrition or Repentance of such a strange ver­tue, that they admit all into the state of Grace, though unabsolved, or unconfessed by it a­lone.

§ 51 What means then such a Tragical clamour a­gainst Roman Indulgences, as nourishing and licensing mens sins, and as sold dear, and gree­dily bought [i. e. with almes, and other pious works,] on this account; and at last deceiving the purchaser; whereas, suppose them all ut­terly to fail, and to be meer frauds, they can­not be said to fail to any such unpenitent Sin­ners; they fail only to those, that (however this bargain, as they call it, proves) are already in Gods Grace and favour, and the state of Salvation, and to whom perhaps the very grant­ing such Indulgence (by reason of their diligent preparation for it) was the occasion of bring­ing them into such a state; and Indulgences fail to these for nothing more, but what the same Indulgences pretend to give, viz. the re­mission of some temporal punishment, upon which failing follow; some dilation, perhaps, of the possession of their future bliss, whilst their Contrition, Confession, and the pious Work they do for such an Indulgence, are forth­coming forth their reward. But Protestants, de­nying any such temporal punishment to remain, [Page 83]after remission of the sin, consequently must affirm, that Catholicks gain much by what they do; and lose nothing at all by what they are pro­mised, though the Indulgence utterly fail them.

§. 52 2ly. As Catholicks are taught, that a right disposition is necessary in the Penitent, so, that for the Indulgence, is also necessary a just cause, or motive of granting it, and some way pro­portionable to the quality of the penance that is relaxed by it; i. e. a cause prudently estimated more acceptable to God, and sooner procuring the application of our Lords satisfactions for the remitting of such punishment of sin, than such penances would be. Nothing is more obvious than this in Catholick Authors; and upon this ground, the saying of one Pater No­ster, or giving the Almes of a penny, or the like, is not thought by them a sufficient cause (where is no other motive thereof) for the Church-Governours thereupon to concede a plenary Indulgence. Neither is it here pretend­ed, that all past Indulgences of Popes, or o­thers, that may be produced, have always therefore necessarily had, or included such a cause; neither are Popes maintained infallible in their judgment herein—Quia per indiscre­tas atque super fluas [and, cur indisc [...]etae, & su­perstuae, (saith BellarminDe In­dul. l 1. c. 12.) nisi quia ot osae, manes & irritae sunt?] quas quidam Ec­claesiarum Praelati facere non verentur, & claves Ecclesiae contemnuntur, & paenitentialis satis­factio enervatur, decerninus, &c. Thus Innocen­tius 3. long ago in the great Lateran CouncilCan. 62. And Sixtus 4. having been somwhat Prodigal [Page 84]in this kind, recalled many Indulgences for­merly conceded by him. See Extravag. Com­mun. l. 5. tit. 9. c. 5. And so Clement 8. effusas nimis Indulgentiarum concessiones restrin­gere aggressus est, saith Baronius A D. 147.. And of the possibility of the failing of the Pope himself somtimes in this sufficiency of the cause, thus speaks a JesuiteSua ez. De In­dulg. Disp. 56. §. 3.Quamvis Pontifex ex­presse declararet se moveri propter talem causam, quam reputat sufficientem ad tantam indulgenti­am concedendam, non esset infallibile vel causam esse talem, vel (quod consequens est) totam indul­gentiam esse validam. Quia talis declaratio Pontisicis non est de doctrinâ ad sidem pertinente, sed de quodam facto particulari, quod ad pruden­tiam spectat; in quo Pontisex non habet infalli­bilem assistentiam Spiritus Sancti, sed in his tan­tum quae ad doctrinam sidei, & morum spectant. And again, Quamvis Pontifex existimet aut de­claret talem causam subesse, nihilominus decipi po­test, quia quoad hoc, prudentiâ, & existimatione humanâ gubernatur, possetque etiam humano af­fectu moveri. Thus Suarez comparing the Popes dispensing in Penances with that in vows. And thus Estius In. 4. Sent. Dist. 20. §. 9.Si nullâ rationabili causâ movente, P [...]ntifex vel Episcopus Indulgentiam concederet, existimandum non est, eam alicujus efficaciae, seu, valo [...]is fore. What a many Jests and Sarcasmes now hath this unserious Writer lost here in playing upon the Pope's infallibility in this matter (the chief common-place of Pro­testants when seeking quarrels,) perhaps con­tent to seem ignorant herein, that he may shew wit? Though mean while, the Christian Humi­lity [Page 85]and Obedience in the Subjects of this Church is far from distrusting the prudence, or fidelity, especially of this their chief Pastor, assisted with so wise a Council in his dispensing these favours; and far from weighing and dis­cussing, whether the cause of such promulgati­on be sufficient, or no; Which as it is a thing of difficult resolution (where many circumstan­ces are to be considered, that are not so well known to Subjects, and such cause not express­ed, or not totally, in the Indulgence; for the pious work may be diverse from the cause, or motive of the promulgation of such a par­donSee Sua­rez De Indulg. Disp. 56. §. 3) as, I say, it seems to be a matter of difficult resolution, so the assurance thereof (as I shall shew by and by) is of little consequence.

§. 53 As for Indulgences their Valent quantum so­nant, the sonant is to be understood not of that sense which an illiterate person, not well instructed, may possibly take them in, but with those commonly-known limitations, or suppo­sitions belonging to them, and particularly those now mentioned. Valent quantum sonaent. 1 To persons rightly prepared; and, 2 if passed upon a just and sufficient cause, which are, or ought, to be, common praecognita, to all that make use of them: Scarce any promise passed amongst men, but includes some condition, which being well known, is thought not ne­cessary to be expressed. And when we find Remission in the Scriptures promised, in seve­ral places, to Faith, to Almes, to the Sacra­ment, to the love of God, to our For giving our Neighbours sins against us, &c. I hope, we [Page 86]may rightly say, these Texts valent quantum so­nant; and that the Holy Ghost in them in­tends no fraud; and yet some other Conditi­ons must be understood, which are commonly known and learnt from other Scriptures, with­out which none of these Texts rigidly and sing­ly taken, are true, and valid. If then some par­ticular Indulgences, upon the defect of some condition requisite to their validity, should fail at least in part of what they promise, yet as rashly, and untruly, as uncivilly, doth our Au­thor therefore pronounce the Promulgator a Cheat: Because one may possibly be mistaken without a design to deceive; and this Author himself, when in a calmer temper, may discover a Medium between speaking a truth, and cheat­ing. Otherwise it will follow, that himself al­so, in all he saith, is either infallible, or a Cheat.

§. 45 3ly. They are taught, that, though perhaps there should be some invalidity in an Indul­gence, by reason of some defect in the cause, as to the full effect thereof, yet is not the Indul­gence therefore totally invalid; any pious cause whatever serving for a partial effect; and so, that it would prove an oversight in any Christi­an to lose this benefit. And if the releasment of some temporal punishment, by the omitting our penances, and the Indulgences failing of its full effect, be not had; yet 1st. Some other pi­ous work, enjoyned by the Indulgence, is per­formed, which hath its reward: 2ly. Whilst some part of such temporal punishment, that remains so uncompounded for, may retard for [Page 87]some time ones future bliss; yet his preparati­on to render himself in the state of Grace, and so capable of the benefit of the Indulgence (how dimuinitive soever this be) may be of much more consequence to him, than is such punish­ment uncancelled; whilst it secures the main business, i. e. his Salvation: and this way, he gains much more by the Indulgence, than he loseth, another. 3ly. It is also very conside­rable, that the Penances now a-days remitted by Indulgences are such, as are due indeed to Gods Justice, and these as great as ever, yet most of them are not now imposed as former­ly they have been; and so we should have as much omitted such a quantity of these Penances as is not enjoyned (which is the most) without, as with, our receiving an Indulgence for them. And so indeed it is but a small penance, that the most do forbear by gaining an Indulgence; and as much temporal punishment we may think would remain unsatisfied for, without such Indulgence granted to us, as now we be­come answerable for, by any defect in it; and so, if we have no gain by it, neither is there a­ny great loss; I mean, from our neglects in doing penance upon the security of the Indul­gence. But 4ly. No loss there is but a sure gain by it, if we take care both to perform all our penances enjoyned, (in these latter times, not so burdensome, nor bearing any porporti­on to those prescribed by ancient Canons), and also to gain the Indulgence by doing the pious works it enjoyns, for that, wherein our penan­ces performed may fall short of the satisfaction due.

[Page 88]If any then shall urge here, that it is difficult to know the true validity of an Indulgence, or the sufficiency of its cause, I answer; As it is difficult, so (I have shewed here) not much necessary.

§. 55 And lastly, since Indulgences are a priviledg or favour, that none are compelled to make use of, those, who either scruple their validity, or fear a relaxation of necessary Christian Dis­cipline by them, may let them alone, do their Penance, and all is well. And those Pro­testants, who so much dislike them, are wel­come to stay in the Communion of the Church, and have none of them. Neither had Luther any just cause to run out of the Church, for fear Indulgences should have gotten some of his money.

§. 56 4ly. Though, upon the concession of a ple­nary Indulgence none are strictly obliged to the performance of any penances, either those en­joyned them, or others due for the satisfaction of any part of the Temporal punishment of their sin: Yet 1st. As these penal deeds, such as Almes, Watching, Fasting, and Prayers are numbred among other good works, that are al­ways very acceptable to, and highly rewarda­ble with God, and may possess them of an high­er Degree of Glory, so all are advised to a frequentation of them still on this account; which augmentation of glory, and our future re­ward by these penal, as they are also good works, is much more to be esteemed (as Card. Lugo observesDe Sac. Paeuit. Disp. 27. §. 2.) than the Redemption of our Temporal pain by the benefit of Indulgences. [Page 89]2. And again, as they are any way profitable and requisite to those two ends of Penances of­ten forementionedSee §. 15 17. as 1 the begetting of a true and solid Contrition for sins past, without which had the very foundation of Indulgences fails; or 2 the cure of former vicious habits, the moderating of our passions, and prevention of sin for the time to come; a relapse into which in effect as to salvation ruines again what In­dulgences have formerly procured; and much better were it for the Penitent to forgoe the In­dulgence; than such Penance, the omission whereof should betray him to be re-enslaved to sin; Here also, I say, he is still advised, espe­cially as he hath more reason to suspect his pre­sent estate, to a continuance of such Penances, notwithstanding what-ever favour done him by Indulgences [of which matter thus P. Laeymann Lib. 5. tract. 7. c. 3. out of Albertus MagnusConsultissimum esse, ut semper tota paenitentia [namely, that is enjoyned us] impleatur, quia plerumque minor, quam peccatis debeatur, injuncta est per modum medicinae reservantis a recidivâ; & saepe incer­tum, an Indulgentiam lucrati simue [touched be­fore]; vel saltem, an it a plene, ut ab omni pae­nâ immunes existamus. And — Paenitentiae, quoe pro peccat is injungi solent, exignae sunt, & saepe tantum loco Medicina seu curationis peccatorum imperatae, quas omnimodo implere expedit. Thus also Bellarmin De In­dulg l. 2. c. 13. in answer to Chemnitius, urg­ing — Non bebere relaxari per Indulgentias ex­crcitia virtutum, fructus paenitentiae, et novae vitae, & carnis mortificationem, alioqui noxiae & perniciosae essent IndulgencaeDe paenis sponte [Page 90]susceptis respondemus; non debere [...]as relaxari, quatenus utiles sunt ad novitatem vitae, & carnis mortificationem; sed posse relaxari quatenus sunt panae debitae peccatis [i. e. post novitatem vitae ad adeptam.] And elsewhere (saith he)De In­dulg. l. 1. c. 7.Hoc tempore qui se parant ad Indulgentias conse­quendas confiteri solent peccata Sacerdoti, & in­junctam satisfactionem implere; non igitur ex­istimantes, sibi tantum injunctas paenitentias con­donari, sed alias longe majores.

I said here, the Penitent, notwithstanding Indulgences, is advised to perform his penances imposed; but some Roman Dctors say, obliged, if such Penances be expresly imposed by his Confessor, not as satisfactory or vindicative for sin past, but as judged by him morally ne­cessary for preserving one from future, [of which thus SuarezCum in Paenitentiâ injuncta duplex ratio inveniri possit, nimirum vindictae, & medicinae praeservantis, quamvis ex vi Indulgen­tiae cesset satisfactio Sacramentalis sub priori ra­tions, non tamen sub posteriori, si sub illâ posita sit. — Quia Indulgentia tollit debitum; non ta­men tollitur materia sen necessitas medicina. A­gainDe Pae­nit D. 50. §. 2.Intelligendum est per has Indulgen­tias remitti paenitentias impositas, ut satisfactivae sunt, non ut medicinales; quia Indulgentia non datur in destructionem, sed in aedificationem ani­marum. And — His temporibus, considerato modo quo paenitentiae imponi solent, raro vel nun­quam omittere licet paenitentias impositas propter Indulgentias: quia rever â imponuntur levissimae paenitentiae, & quae vix sufficiunt per modum me­dicinae.] And that passage of Card. Bellarmin, [Page 91]Indulg, l. 1. c. 7. seems much to confirm this — Interdum etiam Pontifices (saith he) in lite­ris Indulgentiarum praescribunt, ut Sacerdotes in­jungant paenitentias salutares iis, qui indulgenti­am consequi desiderantRelaxare autem non intendunt paenitentias illas salutares, quas jubent imponi.] And those Doctors of a contrary opinion, yet grant an obligation still of the penitents performing them, though not from the Priests injunction, yet from the morall ne­cessity of the thing as to avoiding sin, See Card. Lugo, De Sacram. Paenitent. D. 27. §. 2. who also concludes — Consulendum semper esse paeni­tenti ut opera imposita, quoad fieri possit, adim­pleat; nec debere panitentias omitti indulgentia­rum occasione, quia illa opera imposita etiam fue­runt a medico ex desiderio salutis, & quia prosunt ad meritum; quod pluris faciendum est, quam redemptio panae temporalis.

§. 57 As Indulgences therefore are a great conso­lation to Christians in respect of the Tempo­ral Punishments, or Penances, for removing them, (longe majores, as Bellarmin, than those enjoyned), that they are liable to by their for­mer sins; so are they by prudent Christians made little or no use of for the omission of any Penances, they can well perform, in their having a continual eye to the other two ends now named, which must be made good for reaping any benefit by an Indulgence; and to the third also, for the advancing of their future happi­ness. And this, which is said here, may, I suppose, satisfie the Objection of our Authorp. 526. — that by Indulgences Catholicks are excused [Page 94]from doing the best parts of their Religion, viz. Severe Mortification, Fastings, Prayers, Almes, &c. Which, 1st, If it have any strength in it, holds as much against ancient In­dulgences, as the modern; nor presseth it the one more than the other, both these remitting the like penal Satisfactions. 2ly. So far as such penal works are necessary, as other good works, to the purchase or augmentation of e­ternal happiness; or to repentance for sins past; or to leaving off sin for the future, none are disswaded from them by Indulgences; but on the contrary, for the ampler partaking of the benefit of the Indulgence▪ are advised to, and also enjoyned them. Luther and Chem­nitius long ago moved the same Objection, and Bellarmin long ago gave such an Answer,De In­dulg. l. 2. c 1. and l 2 c. 13. which this Author (as his use is) instead of con­futing, conceals.

§. 58 5ly. It seems also reasonable (for which see Estius in 4. Sent. dist. 20. §. 10. and Layman Moral Theol. l. 5.7. tract. 5. c. and the Au­thors referred-to by them), since a much grea­ter penance by a plenary Indulgence is remit­ted to one, than to another, as such is a greater sinner; or, being an equal offender, hath for­merly done less penance for his sin; and consi­dering that the pious works, enjoyned, are not varyed proportionably to the different debts of those persons, who are by the Indulgence equally released, reasonable I say, That there be supposed in the Suscipient (to obtain the full effect of the Indulgence) a proportionable pre­paration, mortification, and degree of Contri­tion [Page 93]to dispose him for it, according to his greater offences formerly, and smaller humi­liation for them; [To this purpose Bellar­min, Del Pa­nit. l. 2. c. 14. on St. Cyprians sayingIn Serm. de Lapsis.Quam mag­na deliquimus, tam granditer defleamus, com­ments thus — Non significat dolorem absolute offensioni aequandum esse, quod fieri non potest; Sed proportionem illam inter peccata & dolorem de peccatis esse debere, ut de majore peccato magis, de minore minus doleamus. Ib. c. 11. And * — Pericu­lum est, ne homo se ipse fallat, & dum in se acrem & intensam contritionem excitare non satagit, revera ne appreciative quidem toto corde crimina detestetur. And — Non negamus (saith Lugo De Pae­nit. Disp. 2. §. 7. in answer also to the Fathers) expedire, ut pec­cator conetur summâ intensione dolere, ut certior sit paenitentia, &c. In quo sensu debent accipi Patres, qui Summum dolorem exigunt — And Concil. Trident. Sess. 14. c. 8.Sane & Divinae Justitiae ratio exigere videtur, ut aliter a Domino in Gra­tiam recipiantur qui ante Baptisnum per ignoran­tiam deliquerint; aliter vero, qui semel a pecca­tis & Daemonis servitute liberati, & accepto Spi­ritus Sancti dono, scientes templum Dei violare, & Spiritum Sanctum contristare non formida­verint. Which reason seems to hold as much for sorrow for sin, as for satisfaction, especially if we consider the like expression, Ibid. c. 2. — non sine magnis nostris fletibus & laboribus, &c.]

Reasonable also it seems, that where the pi­ous work is indefinitely proposed, as, for in­stance, the giving of Almes, without any cer­tain quantity expressed, this work should be [Page 92]performed to such a degree, as seems more to suite with the greater favour any one receives; knowing this, that the dispensations of God's Mercies by the Church-Governours (who are entrusted in them, as Stewards, and not as Lords) ought to be adjusted, as much as may be, to the receivers different capacity thereof. And, if it be said here, that this leaves one un­certain of a due preparation, and so, of the full effect of the Indulgence: I answer, that every one is left uncertain in a greater matter, than this, respecting Indulgences; namely, in his having a true Contrition, and being in the state of Grace.

§. 59 Here then we see Motives enow, (without denying Indulgences valere quantum sonant, as it is expounded before, and this Language is ordinarily understood), for Bellarmins pru­dent man both to receive and make use of all the Indulgences he can procure, nor lightly to distrust either the judgment or fidelity of those to whom our Lord hath committed the dis­pensing of them; and that also, 1 for the non­certainty of his own due preparation, and 2 the danger of a relapse, and 3 the advancing his justification and future reward, and also 4 as the Indulgence may possibly not be ground­ed on a cause sufficient, as to the total effect thereof; that, I say, for some of these reasons —Simul [i. e. together with his making use of the Indulgence] etiam studeat dignos paeniten­tiae fructus ferre [which clause this Author o­mits] ac pro suis peccatis Domino satisfacere. Of which the Cardinal gives these very reasons [Page 95]in the same Paragraph, Ad tertium— Quia (saith he) potest fieri, ut aliquando Indulgentia non sortiatur effectum, ob defectum ejus qui illam sus­cipit; vel ob defectum authoritatis in eo, qui illam concedit; vel ob defectum causae. Et Christia­nus populus non ignorat ad fidem pertinere, quod sit in Ecclesiâ potestas indulgentias concedendi; non autem, quod in particulari non possit fieri, ut indulgentia vel non sit rata, vel non prosit. As he saith elsewhere of receiving the Sacraments —De Pae­nit. l. 2. c. 14 [...] Quia nemo certo scire potest se veram con­tritionem habuisse; itaque, ut quis de adeptâ in­dulgentiâ securior sit, debet etiam omnia illa re­media adhibere, quae Deus ad peccatà purganda instituit. Which Reasons of the Cardinal our Author, (making his prudent man, for seve­ral pages, the subject of his mirth) instead of refuting (as his custome is) omits. For, in­deed, they would quite spoile his sport.

§. 60 6. For several Abuses that have been, or are still, found in the use of Indulgences; As they are by Protestants, and by this Author particularly, much exagitated, so they are by Catholicks confessed and deplored. Innocent the 3d. in the great Lateran Council held A. D: 1215. Can. 62. complains of Indulgences undiscreet and superfluous [i. e. inanes & irritae, saith Bellarmin] quibus paenitentialis satisfactio enervatur; and of the mis-behaviours of the Questors, or Collectors in those days. Cle­ment the 5th. in the Council of Vienna, held A. D. 1311. censures the evil practices of those times much more.Constit Clemen. l. 5. tit 9. c. 2; Part of which Con­stitution, I will here transcribe; to shew the [Page 96]Reader, that the blame, laid on the Pope and the Church, was the fault of the wicked Mini­sters and under-Officers of the inferior Cler­gy, to whom the publishing of Indulgences, and collection of the peoples Almes for some publick pious uses, was committed; and that Indulgences, as by these as well in their Ser­mons, as collections, misrepresented to the peo­ple and perverted, are so much inveighed a­gainst by several Roman Writers.—Cum ali­qui (saith he there) ex hujusmodi Quaestoribus [of whom he said a little before,—Mos in suis predicationibus simplices decipere, & au­rum extorquere in animarum periculum, & plu­rimorum scandalum] sicut ad nostram audientiam est perlatum, non sine multâ temeritatis audaciâ & deceptione multiplici animarum, indulgentias populo, motu suo proprio, de facto concedant; su­per votis dispensent; a perjuriis, homicidiis, & peccatis aliis sibi consitentes absolvant; male ab­lata incerta (data sibi aliqua pecuniae quantitate) remittant; tertiam aut quartam partem de pae­nitentiis injunctis relaxent; animas tres, vel plures parentum vel amicorum illorum, qui elec­mosynas eis conferunt, de purgatorio (ut asserunt mendaciter) extrahant, & ad gaudia paradisi perducant; benefactoribus locorum, quorum Quaestores existunt, remissionem plenariam pecca­torum Indulgeant, & aliqui ex ipsis eos a paenâ & a culpâ (ut eorum verbis utamur) absolvant. Nos, abusus hujusmodi, per quos censura vilescit Ecclesiastica, & cldvium Ecclesiae authoritas ducitur in contemptum, omnimode aboleri vo­lentes, inhibemus, &c. Lastly, the Council [Page 97]of Trent, Sess 21. c. 9. after the lost labour of several pre­cedent Councils to reform these persons, (who also gave so great scandal to Luther and his followers) quite abrogated this Office and the priviledges belonging thereto; and hath com­mitted the publishing of such Indulgences, and collection of Charities to the Ord [...]nary of the place, and two of the Chapter joyned with him, to be done nullâ prorsus mercede acceptâ; i. e. when these Alms are directed to some cer­tain publick work; and not left to the peoples own distribution of them, to what poor and necessitous persons themselves think good, in such a quantity, as every ones devotion shall move him to, as in many Indulgences they are; where we see, that all the Sales, Harvests, Tra­ding, Avarice, Cheating of the Pope and his Hucksters, occurring almost in every page of our Authors discourse, comes only to this; the relieving of some poor, and the occasion­ing of some deeds of Charity to the rich, where themselves judg it best bestowed; And doth this Author think, in this liberty he takes to say what he pleases, that if words spoken, words also printed, and those somwhat more than [...] shall not be called to an account?Mat. 12.36. But suppose it be a Collection of the peoples Charity for some publick work, as the building of a Church, or Hospital, the maintaining of a just War against some Enemy and oppressor of Christianity, and this amounting to some vast sum of money; may every one therefore take the liberty to charge the Pope, or the Churches Prelates with fraud, covetousness, [Page 98]putting all, or a great part thereof in their own Coffers, and pretending only not intending a publick benefit, at pleasure, and without proof? Or, this being a t [...]uth, may he therefore deny the lawfulness of Indulgences, and defame the Church that allows them, upon such a Personal fault?

§. 61 Personal abuses in Indulgences are granted, whilst the Doctrine and practice allowed by the Church are justified. A good Catholick this Author may be, and be obliged to believe, no more than now he doth, several things, which in this discourse he eagerly opposeth. Doth he condemn concessions of Indulgences for frivolous causes, and some slight work? So do the Catholick Authors. And doth he not hold the Popes judgment to be infallible in these? Neither do they. Is he for no Treasure of the Church? If the infinite and inexhaustible trea­sure of the Merits and satisfactions of our Lord Jesus Christ be only allowed by him, the Ro­man Divines hold no other Treasure necessary. Will he have Indulgences only remit Canonical Penances? Those Authors, that hold so, are not censured by the Roman Church. Doth he think, that some of the Roman Doctors, in their stating of Indulgences have swerved from the Doctrine of the ancient Church? he may enjoy the Churches Communion, and hold with others of them those tenents that please him better. I have here frequently quoted se­veral of them, to shew that nothing here said by me is singular. Doth such a frequency of Iudulgences as ruines Church-Discipline, and [Page 99]renders the Power of the Keys contemptible, displease him? So doth it the Council of Trent, Sess. 25. Decr. de Indulg. (desiring a greater moderation therein, & a re­duction to the pattern of Antiquity): So hath it likewise done several Popes, as is said before. Doth he detest the base Arts, and mis-informa­tions of the people, for filthy lucres sake, pro­mising them much more than Indulgences ex­tend to, or the Churches Doctrine warrants? So have Councils, and Popes, as I have shewn, censured and endeavoured to suppress them. Are such conplaints of the abuse of Indulgen­gences made now? So were they in St. Cypri­an's time. Of which he saidSerma de Lap­sis.Irrita pax: perniciosa dantibus, nihil profutura accipientibus. And—Epist. 11. Ad Martyres & Con­fessor. Ea concedere quae in perniciem vertun­tur, decipere est: nec erigitur sic lapsus [from the Indulgence] sed per Dei offensam magis im­pellitur ad ruinam. But not therefore, for such abuses, the use of Indulgences to be abro­gated. To conclude, the present allowed practice of Indulgences, by occasioning the examination of mens Consciences, and a sence and sorrow for their sins, a repairing to the Sacraments, and performing many penances, seems rather to improve Christian Discipline (as the times are now degenerated from the ancient) than to impair it; And ordinarily, by the Indulged his disposing of his own Alms, this practice is sufficiently cleared from Cove­tousness, Bargains, Sales, Cheating, this Au­thors main charge. Again, the Doctrine of the Church concerning them is very compendi­ous and general: Nor is there any part of this [Page 100]Authors book, wherein so much may be grant­ed him, without violating any thing taught by It. And as no Point commonly is more baited by Protestants, than this of Indulgences, so none seems to afford them less pretence of dis­content, or to give less cause of departing from the Churches Communion (yet this is said to be the first, that occasioned that of Lu­ther, and the Reformation) since it is a Privi­ledg, or Favour, that none are compelled to make use of, and those who have any fears, or scruples concerning it, and therefore would have no Indulgences, may let them alone, do their penances, and all is well.

§. 62 And here I might well pass by the Fifteen Questions, every one also containing many sub-Questions in it, with which this Authorc. 6 §. 9. p. 5 [...]8. concludes his Discourse of Indulgences, and saith, the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences with a touch of these flyes in p [...]eces like a Glass-drop, (though this Doctrine hath been touched by the chiefest of these Questions long ago, asked by Luther, Calvin, Chemnitius, and others; and the Catholicks Answers to them, seem to have made them vanish away like so many wa­ter-bubbles: Neither hath this Author, for all his terrible and destructive touches, had the courage to touch these Answers.) These, I say, I might pass by, having already spoken to all that seems material, and pertinent therein, in the precedent Discourse. Besides; He that maintains a thing as a point of his Faith, cannot therefore reasonably be obliged to resolve all manner of Questions, that may be put concern­ing [Page 101]it; It is sufficient, that he hath a good evi­dence of so much, as he doth, or is obliged to maintain; or, as the Church hath determined. Many questions may be asked, wherein there appears not light enough for giving a certain resolution; and this answer only needs be re­turned to them, that, to maintain all that the Church, or our Faith requires, it is not ne­cessary to answer them. Many Questions there are concerning Indulgences stated Pro. and Con. by learned Catholicks, whilst all of them agree in the lawfulness and benefit of them; and, Who doubts of the Holy Trinity, because he cannot clear all difficulties about it? Bishop Andrews thought it a good Answer to Bellarmin concerning the Real Presence— Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram. De modo praesentiae nil temere definimus: And especially this liberty may be claimed, when this Author is in such an unserious and drolling humour, with which, in such sacred matters, his Adversary hath no inclination to a correspon­dence, asking such Questions as these: What satisfaction Gods Justice receives for remitting a temporal punishment upon an Indulgence grant­ed, where, when, how, by whom, it is paid? Q 14. in what way the payment is made? whether so much ready cash of the Churches Treasure [i. e. of our Lords sufferings for us] is paid down upon the nail, according to the proportion of every ones sins, [or temporal punishment]; or God is told where such a treasure lies, and bid go and satisfie himself for so much as is to be discharged of the Debt? But indeed such extravagant Interro­gatories [Page 102]made in these Spiritual matters, as if the Churches treasure were kept under lock and key, and counted like money out of a bag, are rather to be contemned, than replied to. Yet, that this Author may not please himself too much therein, or his Protestant Reader o­ver-value them, I shall return to them briefly that which I conceive sufficient to undeceive him, (giving here only the sum of them, and leaving the Reader to view them more at large in the Book).

§. 63 To the First, Why in a plenary Indulgence the expression runs, Qu. 1. Remission and Pardon of all their sins, when the Indulgence relates only to the Temporal Punishment thereof? The Answer is set down before §. 49. Remission of sin is men­tioned in the Indulgence, because an Indulgence alwaies supposeth remission of the sin (quoad culpam or offensam), and of its eternal punish­ment by the use of the Sacrament of Penance, that is joyned with the Indulgence; and then It compleats all quoad paenam too, in remission also of the temporal punishment.

§. 64 To the Second. How any punishment of the fault can be stil due, Qu. 2. when the fault is already pardoned? R. One would think our Author had never heard of Reatus culpae, and paenae; or rather, he knew, the Lady had not. By Re­mission of the Sin, Catholicks mean, of the En­mity it puts between God and the Sinner, whereby he is again received into his favour, with which is also alwaies necessarily joyned the remission of the Eternal Punishment; the re­tention of which cannot consist with our resti­tution [Page 103]into his friendship, as the retention of some temporal punishment may. The sin then, as to this enmity, wholly pardoned, yet, as to its punishment, is remitted only in part; and in part still un-remitted, and to be answered-for. As a Parent, straight, upon a Childs confession of a fault, moving him to pity, re-admits him into his lost savour (which we call forgiving his fault; and do learn this Language from what Nathan said from God to David; con­fessing —Dominus transtulit peccatum tuum) but nevertheless after this,2 Sam. 12.13. for many good ends, corrects him for it, as God did David, ver. 14.—Propter hoc, filius qui natus est tibi, &c. And so saith the Psalmist of the Children of Israel in the DesertPs. 98.8.Domine Deus noster, tu propitius fuisti eis [there is pardoning the sin, and yet], & ulciscens in omnes adinventio­nes eorum; [i. e. the temporal punishment of their pardoned sins he there inflicted on them, not entring into the Land of promise, &c.] Perhaps this Questioner may better compre­hend this, if I set it him down in the Explicati­on of a Protestant, Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 2. De Satis­fact.Fide prop­ter Christum, accipimus simul remissionem culpae & paenae aeternae. Sed, quod ad paenas temporales in hac vitâ attinet, post acceptam remissionem pec­catorum subjiciuntur [justificati] in hac vitâ vel communibus calamitatibus, vel peculiaribus paenis propter certa seu privata quaedam peccata. Ʋt Adam, David, Populus Israel, Miriam. Testantur idem calamitates Baptizatorum post Baptismum. Ostendunt etiam Scripturae exem­pla, Deum aliquando & post reconciliationem, seu [Page 104]remissionem quibusdam singulares paenas ob pec­cata in hac vitâ imponere, quanquam hoc non sit universale.Scriptura etiam dicit, de reconcilia­tis; orpus mortuum est propter peccatum, Rom. 8. And 2. Reg. 12, Quia fecisti hoc, &c.—Non quasi Deus illis nondum satis sit reconciliatus, seu aliquid offensae retinuerit, etiam post datam remissionem peccatorum; Sed illis imponuntur ad castigationem sui, & ad exemplum aliorum: Ne, acceptâ reconciliatione, obliviscantur, quanta sit abominatio peccati, & quae magnitudo irae Dei ad­versus peccatum. Thus He

§. 65 To the Third. What temporal punishment re­remains to be satisfied for by us, Qu. 3. from which we may be freed by Indulgences? R. We can be freed only from those temporal punishments by Indulgences, from which we may by our Pe­nances. If asked, from what temporal punish­ments our penances may relieve us? I answer; from such, as God purposeth to inflict on any here, or hereafter, in this world, or the next (if he spare us here) in relation to our parti­cular personal and actual sins, unless our own penances and humiliations do prevent them. But then, speaking of this present life, where many sufferings and afflictions happen to Chri­stians upon many other accounts, than the pu­nishing and chastising them for some former sins; and where some of those also, that are inflicted for former sins, may be not upon any humiliation or penances avertible; which, or of what kind those be, that are avertible; or whether of any kind some, but not others; God only knows, not we. As for Death taken [Page 105]in general, it is a punishment of Original sin, not removable by Penances; but, for any thing we know, a premature, or some other kind of death, to some particular persons, may. Mean while, that Penances, Humiliations, Fastings Watchings, Prayers, Alms, &c. (such as the Ninevites used) may rescue us from some temporal punishments for our sins, that God would otherwise inflict, surely this Au­thor will not deny; For the Protestants to such an end appoint certain days of Humiliati­on. I now then demand of him, whether such our humiliations free us from all temporal pu­nishments, 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 such humiliations? Whether from the effects of the Justice of God in extraordinary Judgments? if not, how can a man by such hu­miliations be said to be freed from the temporal punishment of sin, that is as liable to it as any one else? The answer here, sitted to our humiliati­ons and penances, will serve as well for Indul­gences from such penances. And so I leave his own Answer to satisfie his own Objection.

§. 66 To the Fourth. If freed from only one sort of the temporal punishment of sin, what sort that is; Qu. 4. that the Indulged may know, what punishment he is freed from? R. The Answer to the former Question satisfies also this. I say then again: The freedom is from such temporal punish­ment of sin, as the Divine Justice purposed to inflict, unless prevented herein by our penan­ces. I add here, which punishments, what, or [Page 106] how many, they shall be, as none can tell the Indulged, so neither is he concerned to know; he certainly gaining by the Indulgence, so long as the pious work performed by him is of a less value than the punishment remitted to him. However the Roman Authors be divided in o­pinion, all maintain to the truly penitent a cer­tain benefit by a lawful Indulgence.

§ 67 To the Fifth. If it be from Canonical Penance that one is freed, Qu. 5. whether he be wholly freed from the obligation of that, or no? and if he be, what power the Priest hath to enjoyn Penance after it? [i. e. as I understand him, after a person is ad­mitted to the benefit of the Indulgence.] I Anser: After the gaining of the Indulgence, the Priest hath no power to enjoyn any more penance for sins committed before it, i. e. in order to the satisfaction of any temporal pu­nishment due thereto.

§. 68 To the Sixth. Why the satisfaction of Christ might not as well remit the temporal punishment at that time, Qu. 6. when the fault is remitted upon the account of this satisfaction, as afterward by In­dulgences? R. It might, had God so pleased to remit to sinners, offending him more highly by a relapse from their baptismal Grace, those their sins, and all the punishments by his Justice belonging to them, at once. But that the Di­vine Wisdom, for many good ends, de facto doth not remit all the punishment together with the sin, appears from the Texts alleaged be­fore §. 48.

This to his six first Questions, wherein he seems a little more serious. §. 69 The other Nine [Page 107]that remain, are all spent about the Churches Treasure, as it relates to the satisfying the Di­vine Justice for the Indulgences conceded by the Church; To all which it were sufficient to return him that litle short answer of Doctor Holden mentioned before§. 47. De resol. fidei l. 2. c. 6.Caetera omnia dubia sunt, &c. —Nimirum an sit thesaurus a­liquis meritorum & satisfactionum in Ecclesiâ; cujus dispensatores sint Romanus Pontifex, & reliqui Ecclesiae Pastores. The Council of Trent (as Doctor Taylor observes) hath said nothing of such a Treasure; neither is it more necessary to be disputed now, as to the benefit of Indulgences, than in Saint Cyprians time. There was no remission, then, or now, from a­ny pain or penance of sin, but through the me­rits and satisfactions of our Lord; and either their Indulgences are liable to the same Questi­ons, or, ours exempt. And thus I might dis­miss all the following. But, because they may not seem to some of greater concernment, or gravity, than indeed they are, I shall also con­sider them. And, this Treasure being said to consist partly of the satisfactions of our Lord, partly of his Saints, I shall apply my self first to those things that are questioned by him con­cerning our Lords satisfactions, in his 7, 8, 9, 14th. questions; and then to those concerning the Saints in Qu. 10, 11, 12, 13.

§. 70 Concerning the former of these satisfacti­ons. This is certain, that the great, rich, and inexhaustible Treasure of Christians, and of the Church (I call it the Churches Treasure, because our Lord dispenseth it by the Churches [Page 108]Ministry) by which our Redemption from Sin, and all its punishments, is purchased, are the Merits and Satisfactions of Christ. And this Treasure is not disbursed and laid out pro­miscuously for all sinners whatever, but those only, on whom, rightly prepared and disposed, the Successors of our Lord by his appointment, do confer the Sacraments, instituted by him for remission of sin. Here, therefore, we will suppose this Sacrament to be Baptisme. Upon the administration whereof, to the baptized, by the Ministry of the Clergy, are applyed the Merits and Satisfactions of Christ tendred to, and accepted by, Gods Justice for the remission of their Sins, and all punishment thereof, Eter­nal, or Temporal. No Protestant, I suppose, gain-saying this, Now I beg leave to return, to this Author, his own Questions, the better to make appear the great levity and vanity of them; only changing the subject, and asking them not concerning Indulgences but Baptisme; wherein this Author must grant this Treasure of our Lords satisfactions, to the rightly pre­pared, to be applyed for remission of sin, and its punishment; so that they may every whit as well be asked of the one, as of the other. And then, what Answers he thinks fit to give con­cerning the one, he and his party may take the same also for the other. And, if he will war­rant them for satisfactory, I hope he will think better of the Roman Doctrine concerning the Churches Treasure, according to his pro­misep 524..

§. 71 To begin,Qu. 7. then, with the Seventh question. [Page 109]Here, presupposing that our Lords satisfacti­ons are infinite, and not so exhausted by the discharging to Gods Justice the debt of the sins and punishments of all those baptized hi­therto, but that there remains great plenty of them that may still be applied in the baptism of others, and still be redundant; this, I say, be­ing true, and clear, I desire this Author would tell me, (repeating here the 7th. question) How, here, the parts of Christs satisfaction come to be divided into that which was necessary, for those already baptized, and that which is re­dundant still for others; and part of these be necessary to satisfie for the fault, another part redundant, or remaining, to satisfie for the tem­poral or eternal punishment thereof? Whether in general Christ in his Passion and Sufferings did any more than God required? Whether any thing of that, all which God required, can be said to be redundant? If the [...]e be, how some part comes to be applyed already, and the other to remain still for others in the Churches Treasure? What parts can be made of an infinite and entire satis­faction? [where note, that speaking of the ap­plication of our Lords satisfactions, part, or the whole, no other Language is, or needs to be used in Indulgences, than in Baptism. Let the entire satisfaction of our Lord be applied to one Sinner in baptism, so as it remains en­tire also still, for another; and be applyed in­tire for remission of sin in baptism, so as it re­mains intire also for remission of the punish­ments belonging to sin, temporal, or eternal; and after all, that ever hereafter shall receive [Page 110]baptism, that it remains intire still, (because infinite), for infinite more persons, if they were in being; and that it be so bestowed in­tire already, that still it remains intire to be bestowed; and as is well. For as Suarez De Pae­nit. Disp. 51. §. 1. an­swers to the silly question, In what place this Treasure is kept?—Res spiritualis est & mo­ralis, non in materiali loco, sed in divinâ accepta­tione & presentiâ existens: so may I concerning its parts; Res spiritualis est, non habens partes, &c. And it is this Author here, in making such questions, troubles us with these Notions; How it is divided? where kept? when, and how much, paid? &c. To proceed now in his questions] And if so little be necessary for all already baptized, what needs so much redun­dant for remitting any sin or punishment of others that shall be baptized hereafter?

§. 72 Come we to the Eighth. Here we ask; Whether all the satisfaction of Christ taken to­gether was not great enough to remit the eternal punishment of the whole world, Qu. 8. as well as of these that are, or that ever shall be, baptized? If it were, whether all the redundant parts of that, which would have redeemed the rest, since not all, but a very small part of the world is, or shall be redeemed, or baptized, be cast into the Churches treasure too? and who hath the keep­ing of this treasure, and what use is made of so much treasure beyond what all that ever were, or shall be baptized do stand in need of; and which, as remitting the eternal punishment, is much more useful, than that which serves only to remit the temporal in Indulgences? And what [Page 111]account can the Church-Governours give, if suffering so vast a part of the Churches treasure to lie idle, and make no use of it for the benefit of those that need it; namely, of all that part of the world to whom it is not already applyed? [Mean while this Author may know, that the Church. Governors do take their best care, that none do want this application, who need it, and are rightly disposed for it; and where God hath made any promise to ratifie their act].

§. 73 The Ninth Succeeds. In which we further enquire; If our Lords Successors have com­mitted to them the custody and disposing of such a treasure of Christs merits and satisfacti­ons to the rightly disposed,Qu. 9. in their administra­tion of the Sacraments, why may they not, if they think of it, procure another mighty treasure of the absolute power of God, which is never used, as for making new worlds, &c? And may they not by the help of this Treasure of Gods power deliver Souls out of Hell, as well as by the other from it? And if this be so much the greater kindness, they ought to think of it, and employ this treasure for these purposes. And why may they 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 purblind and aged? [Doth not this better be­come a Socinian, or an Atheist, than a grave Divine? and might he not have done well to have chosen another subject, for such un­seemly levity, than the infinite Merits and Sa­tisfactions of our Lord?]

[Page 112] §. 74 The following questions to the 14th. are concerning the satisfactions of Saints;Qu. 14. of which by and by. Review we next then the Four­teenth. Where, if satisfaction, by the sufferings of our Lord, be tendred to Gods Justice for what ever punishment of penitent Sinners that are baptized, we desire to know, when, and by whom the payment of these sufferings or satis­factions of our Lord, is made to God? If it was made by Christ (the Person whose satis­factions make the Churches Treasure) for that end, what have his Ministers to do to dispense that, now in their conferring the Sacraments, which God hath accepted long ago from our Lord when he died, for payment? But if the payment be made now by the Ministers, in what way do they make it? do they take out so much ready cash of the Churches treasure, and pay it down upon the naile according to the proportion of every ones sin that is baptized? Or do they only tell God where such a treasure lies, and bid him go and satisfie himself for so much as they then discharge of the baptized persons debt for his sins? [Disce sapere ad sobrietatem].

§. 75 This we ask of our Lords, next, for the Sa­tisfactions of the Saints; those of one being accepted for averting some temporal punish­ment from another;Q. 10. On which subject are this Authors questions, from the 9th. to the 14th. Here suppose (which not seldome happens) an Holy Man, upon some great offending of God by some of near relation to himself, Prays, Fasts, wears Sackcloath, and useth other Penan­ces, and Mortifications meerly on the others [Page 113]behalf for preventing some temporal judgment that he fears hangs over his head: And God, accepting such humiliation of his, for a person so disposed as to be capable of it, averts this judgment, which, otherwise, he would have inflicted upon the others Crimes; (a thing al­so, I suppose, this Author will grant not un­often done, or at least possible to be so. And now let us return to his 10th. Question, and demand of him: If the satisfaction of Christ be so redundant, as it is made, how comes it not to be sufficient for so poor an end, as this temporal pu­nishment of this sinner is; but that the humili­ations and penances of this holy man must make up a share in this infinite treasure of our Lords sufferings? [But note here, upon this word Must; that none say, there is any necessity of the satisfactions of Saints to be added to our Lords; or saith, that our Lords are not suffi­cient, as our Author invidiously here proposeth the case.] 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 a temporal punishment without the humiliation of this holy man? [Not enough, none saith so. All-sufficient Christs satisfactions are; but yet God to honour his Saints, and for other ends of his Wisdome, is pleased to do favours to o­thers upon the penal works and humiliations, or also prayers, of his Saints in their behalf; but all these still accepted by God through his Sons Satisfactions.]

§. 76 To go on with the Eleventh.Qu. 11. Here we re­peat [Page 114]the same again. How comes this Holy Man to do such large Penances with regard to Gods Justice and Wrath, if the sanctification of Christ were of so infinite a nature? And if he practice mortifications and penances, is he not sufficient­ly rewarded for them? If he be, how come these to help the other, his Friend, which he is abun­dantly recompensed for himself. [Here I ask al­so; How come our prayers to procure from God some benefit to others, when for the Cha­rity of them, we our selves likewise are re­warded by him; a thing not doubted of? The same pious work or suffering may obtain a ma­nifold recompence, and that as to several per­sons, by way of Impetration from Gods bounty and mercy which enlargeth its self without bounds,See Bel­larm. De Indulg. l. 1. c. 2. §. 2. Pro­positio. how far it pleaseth. But it is grant­ed, that when we speak of a strick compensation or satisfaction made to Gods Justice, thus no work or suffering of ours, that is equivalent­ly satisfactory only for anothers debt (suppose, of temporal punishments), can be also of our own: for none can so pay to Gods Justice two debts with that sum, which is due for one of them only.]

§. 77 In the Twelfth, We ask: If the satisfaction of Christ doth only obtain Grace for this Holy man to do penance himself,Q. 12. for averting the temporal punishment of his own sin, [But, who saith thus?] how can the application, or accep­tion of this Holy Mans penances free another from the temporal punishment of his sin, without his doing any penance? Or have his penances being joyned with Christs satisfactions greater [Page 115]power with God for this other person, than the sa­tisfactions of Christ have for himself? [What­ever the Authors meaning is in this Question, which perhaps I do not rightly comprehend, Christs satisfactions alone are affirmed, both for Common Penitents and Saints, all suffici­ent, and not only do obtain grace for Saints, to satisfie themselves, for a temporal punishment; but also, when applyed by an Indulgence, do procure a remission of such temporal punish­ment to them, without their own Penances or Satisfactions.]

§. 78 We continue, in the Thirteenth, the same demand:Qu. 13. Why the satisfaction of Christ may not serve [But, who are they, that say, it may not? See before §. 47.] without this Holy Mans penances to remit only the other persons temporal punishment for his sin, when the satis­faction of Christ was sufficient alone to remit both eternal and temporal to that person in the Sacra­ment of Baptisme? Or was the force of it spent then, that it needs a fresh supply afterwards from this Holy Mans penances? 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?

We have now passed through all his Questi­ons concerning the Churches Treasure; many of them, as they seem to me, very irreverent and impertinent; of which (as I said) he may accept of that Answer in his application of them to Indulgences which he gives us in ours to the Sacrament. The last Question yet remains.

[Page 116] §. 79 Viz: How came this treasure of the Church, i. e. the superfluities, Qu. 15. as he calls them, of Christs satisfactions for the temporal punish­ment of sin which are applyed in Indulgences, into the Popes keeping; and who gave him the Keys of them? when every Priest is trusted in the Sacrament of Penance, with the treasure of Christs necessary satisfaction for the remitting of the eternal punishment? R. After I have first told him (for the language is used by him here) that I know no Roman Divine that stiles Christs satisfactions for the remitting of Sin, and the eternal punishment, necessary, and of the temporal, superfluous: I Answer; That in the doubt, what persons have the lawful power of conced [...]ng Indulgences, it is sufficient that Protestants then be satisfied, when they are first agreed to admitt them. Mean while what needs our Author trouble himself, or us, with such a question? The Pope, surely, hath as much power of, and right to keep, the Keys, as any. Of those Indulgences, then, which he concedes, none needs dispute the validity: But not to leave this unspoken to. I say 1st. That, as not the Concession of Indulgences, so nei­ther the Exercise of the power of Absolution (this also being an Act of Jurisdiction and Ju­dicature) i.e. neither the application of Christs Merits and Satisfactions, for the eternal, nor for the temporal punishment of Sin, doth be­long to the Inferiour Clergy, but dependently from the Bishops and Governours of the Church; which Commission they receive also with a reservation of several Cases, wherein [Page 117]they may not absolve. Next; for Church-Governours: Not only the Pope, but other Bishops de facto have conceded Indulgences in ancient times, and do still. But whether the conceding of them doth belong to all Bishops Jure Divino, or only to the suprem Governour the Pope, is disputed among the Schoolmen. The Council of Trent, (though there they were much disputed) hath deter­mined nothing about the Limits of such Episco­pal Jurisdictions; but left them to the former current Ecclesiastical Customs and Practices; Several limitations and restraints of them have been made by the supreme Bishop of the Church the Successor of St. Peter (to whom in the first place our Lord committed the Keys [Tibi dabo Claves] not only with a Precedency to, but Power and Authority over, the rest): and have been made to very good ends, that things might be done with better order and dis­cussion, and with less confusion, and relaxation of Discipline, as it is also particularly in this granting of Indulgences; And so long as the Bishops acquiesce therein, such questions, as this, seem rather moved to the disturbance of the Churches peace, than any edification in the Christian Faith. And so I leave it. The Roman School-Divines, to this and several other of his questions, have not been silent; nor wanted his Predecessors the wit to ask them before him. If he looks so much into their Books, as he pretends, why takes he no notice of their Answers? Is it not because he finds so much Reason in them, as he is loth to divulge to his [Page 118]party, unless he could do it with greater satisfaction?

§. 80 This to his questions. But now, after all these Invectives against the Roman Indulgen­gences, i. e. against the remitting of some Pe­nances, and this not gratis; but, for some o­ther Pious Works done in liue thereof [perhaps so many times Visiting a Church, and therein for some time offering up his Devotions, Fast­ing on certain days, giving so much Alms, and the like]; and for a Cause, that, in ad­vancing some publick, or private good, bears some proportion to that which is remitted, or also far exceeds it; as warring against Infidels oppressing the Church, Conversion of Here­ticks, building of Churches, Hospitals, &c. And, again, For the remission of which Penan­ces the Person is required first to examine the quality of his sins, and to excite a Contrition sutable thereto, to repair to the Sacrament of Penance, Confession, and Absolution, and also to perform such penances as may be thought salu­tary and medicinal to the conquering his lusts, and preventing the like miscarriages for the time to come, and all this to be done by him to render himself capable of the benefit of an In­dulgence: I say, after all this inveighing against such a practice of the Roman Church, wherein (as usually in all other Points contested, she on­ly stands upon her guard and defence of Customs descending to her from Ancient Times; and the Accusers, and Invaders, are the other Party); with what greater se­verity do the Protestant Ministers treat a Per­son, [Page 119]that, after the losing his Baptismal Grace, labours under mortal sin? What Penances, what better thing, than those Roman pious Works, which they deride, do they impose? They indeed, as Catholicks also, exhort such a person to repentance of his sin, and amendment of his life; and tell him, as Catholicks also do, that these are necessary; but then the surest way to acquiring a true repentance, and the chiefest means of working in him a reformation of life, i. e. solitude, penance, mortifications, abstinences, &c. they press not to him; and of the necessity also of the Churches Keys for re­mission of such Mortal sin committed after Bap­tism they do not inform him.

They tell him, that he needs fear no further re­ckonings for his sin, as to any punishment or sufferings for it, if once repented of; that sin, & all its punishments are wiped off at once [for, saith our Author,p. 519. Quest 2. how can that fault be said to be remitted, which is yet punished?] and therefore that our doing any penance, for avoiding such punishment, is needless. The Indulgences in the Catholick Church, only somtimes used for re­mitting such penances, (yet this not without commutation) are cried out ofRom. Idol. p. 526. as excusing them from doing the best parts of their Religion; Yet, among Protestants, such penances are re­mitted always, in their being never at all im­posed; and yet their piety and Religion thrives well enough without them; and they are nei­ther required as the best, nor any part of it. They cry out of the lightening somtimes of mens burdens in the Church of Rome by Indul­gences; [Page 120]but themselves will not touch those lighter burdens (mentioned before), that are laid on them for gaining these Indulgences, with one of their fingers. Nothing is done right in the Church of Rome; whilst among them nothing is done at all; and therefore, in the other is nothing done right.

§. 81 To Conclude these discourses; let all pious Christians in general beware of such a de­structive and Negative Way of Religion, as to so great a part of the Churches Practicals: Which thus endeavours to pull down all that stands be­fore it, but it self builds nothing; and, under pretence of reforming Religion, and Devoti­ons, only defaceth them; and so leaves the ru­ines thereof to be trampled upon by Atheists. Here are (speaking of the most part, and those that stand at a farther distance from the Roman Church) no Mental prayer; no Purgation or Mortification in order thereto; no Abstracti­on of life; no Contemplation, no state of per­fection, no Aspirations, no Active or Passive Ʋnions, talked of. No Evangelical Councils; but those so called, help precepts to some parti­cular persons, of which none finds himself to be one; no recommending of solitude; of sin­gle life; of quitting the possession and cares of Riches,—Ʋt soliciti sint quae sunt Domini, quo modo placeant Deo 1 Cor. 7.32.—and ut facultatem praebeat sine impedimento Dominum obsecrandi; No Sacerdotal Confession; and so no Casuists to satisfie scruples; & so no liability of such to be misconstrued in stating such points; as the Roman Casuists are most shamefully by [Page 121]Protestants citing their words, and defalking Circumstances, which continually alter the state of the Question; No Penances, or Satisfacti­ons to appease Gods wrath for their sins, those of Christ being sufficient; and so, no need of Indulgences; No Sacrifice of the Altar: No Corporal presence of our Lords Body there; and so no solemn Ceremonies attending it; No Adoration there, and so no questioning of them for Idolatry: No Sacrament of Penance for deliverance from Mortal sin, and so no Grace expected from the Opus operatum of it; When people are sick, no care of confessing them; or of not letting them depart hence without their Viaticum; Jam. 5.15. and without Extreme Ʋnction in the name of the Lord. No recom­mending themselves to the Prayers of Saints to help them with their Intercessions to God: No Purgatory or present Middle State of any faithful Souls, however departed hence with imperfect reformation of life; but all Christi­ans sent immediatly to Hell, that do not go im­mediatly to Heaven, and to the Beatifical Visi­on of God; and so no Prayers, no Oblations, no All-Souls-days, no Anniversaries, for be­nefiting of such Souls, No saving so as by fire; No sufferings to be endured hereafter, if the most extreme be once escaped; and what e­ver soul departing hence is not worthy of the lowest Misery,1 Cor. 3.15. instantly ascends into the highest Bliss: And there too, no Degrees of Glory; but in Christ all equal. But then if it be consi­dered, how few of those, who seem to dye pe­nitent, are well prepared (by reason of their [Page 122]repentance and imperfect reformation of manners) to enter immediatly to the fruition of Gods presence, and possession of eternal joyes, and how much many Protestants disparage a death-bed Repentance, whilst thus they send no Souls to Purgatory, they send the more to Hell: In extremes they are the one way, or the other; whilst the Church, guided by Scripture, expounded by Tradition, goes in a middle way, rather inclined to mercy, than ri­gour. Again, No Vowes; no macerations of the Body; no Vigils; no Observing Fasts; hardly any Festivals, much less their Octaves. But every one left to pray, to repent, after his own way; fast, when he pleaseth; do good works out of gratitude to him, who hath done and suffered for him all that God requires; to believe firmly and without wavering the re­mission of all his sins, how hainous soever, and so to magnifie the more Gods Mercy, and Christs Merits, to read the Scriptures without asking the Eunuck's Question Quomodo possum intelligere, nisi quis ostenderit mihi, &c. and not to doubt but that God will illuminate him in the understanding of them as much as is ne­cessary, when as he stops his ears to the in­structions of those Missioners sent by our Lord to teach him in them; No such numerous Ca­talogue of the Articles of their Faith, or De­terminations of former obliging Councils, nor yoke of Assent or Belief imposed; but boast­ing of their indulging to all men liberty of o­pinon in those things, where the former Church they say hath used Tyranny. No sure Tradi­tion, [Page 123]save only that of the Scriptures, (for this alone serves their turn); no Church-Infallibi­lity; and I had almost said, no Church-Au­thority. A fine contrived way of Religion for invading others, and no need of defending it self: For on Affirmes lies the Proofe.

All these Church-Practices before Luthers appearance, are thrown off by many, (for I cannot say it of all; Those among them, I hope will consider, whom these things concern;) Nor have they any reverence to their gray hairs, or their great antiquity: But, for their defence against this (not to be denied), they bring in Antichrist to farther them; bring him not into the world only, in such early days, but into the Church; and in the Church, place him also in the chiefest Chair therof, in the latter end of the Fourth Age, or beginning of the Fifth: (for many of these Customs, rejected by them, are then found in the Church); and there he hath sate ever since, and given laws to Christianity (if we will believe them) for a thousand years, till the Reformation appeared, notwithstanding our Lords Promise to the Church of Portae inferi non pravalebunt. And, since this his coming, all these things are found Superstition, Wil-worship, Mandata Hominum, with these Reformers: and, upon the same ac­count, many other Sects, Sub-reformers of the Reformed, are hard at work to pull down the remainder of Church-Government, Ceremonies, Discipline, which these first Demolishers have yet left standing. And having thus dismissed and rid their hands of all these former Church-Customs [Page 124]they have now the leisure to make sport with them too, and call them to an ac­count. And for fitting the Churches Tenants and Practices the better for their drollery, they mis-relate, and mis-represent them so far, as that they can manifest them unreasonable and ridiculous; and the extravagancy of any Ca­suist or Schoolman is applyed, and imputed, to the Church; whilst the Protestant Reader, though otherwise never so prudent and know­ing, yet unstudied and unexperienced in these things, believes their relation as a truth; and the Learned, amongst Catholicks, are astonish­ed to see the Churches Doctrine so disguised and falsified. Tuautem exaltare, Domine, in virtute tuâ; and, as there want not many to in­vade thy Truth, so raise up alwaies those that may defend it with the strength, not which they have of themselves (that is none), but which they receive from Thee; who usest to con­found the Wise of this world with things weak, and despised, that no flesh may glory in thy sight. And, as for the Enemies of thy Church and Truth, whoever they be, Imple facies eorum ignominiâ Domine, ut quaerant nomen tuum.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.