disturbances which have been among us upon their account whereas among them the Government of the Church is so ordered as to keep all in peace and Vnity This makes it necessary to examine that admirable Vnity they boast so much of and either they mean by it that there hath been less disturbance in the world before the Reformation or no Schisms among themselves or no differences in the matters of Religion But I shall now prove 1. That there have never been greater disturbances in the World than upon the account of that Authority of the Pope which they look on as the Foundation of their Vnity 2. That there have happened great and scandalous Schisms among themselves on the same account 3. That their differences in Religion both as to matter of Order and Doctrine have been as great and managed with as much animosity as any among us 1. The disturbances in the World upon the account of the Popes Authority I meddle not barely with his usurpations which work is lately and largely done but the effects of them in these Western Churches For which we are to consider what authority that is which the Pope challenges and what disturbances hath been given to the peace of Christendome by it The Authority claimed by the Pope is that of being Vniversal Pastor over the Catholick Church by vertue of which not only spiritual direction in matters of faith but an actual jurisdiction over all the members of it doth belong unto him For otherwise they say the Government of the Church is imperfect and insufficient for its end because Princes may easily overthrow the Unity of the Church by favouring Hereticks if they be not in subjection to the Pope as to their temporal concernments because it may happen that they have a regard to no other but these if it were not therefore in the Popes power to depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleagiance when they oppose the Vnity of the Church his power say they is an insignificant title and cannot reach the end it was designed for Besides they urge that all Princes coming into the Church are to be supposed to submit their Scepters to Christ so as to lose them in case they act contrary to the Catholick Church of which they are made members for whosoever doth not hate Father and Mother c. cannot be my Disciple And what officer is there so fit to take all Escheats and Forfeitures of Power as Christs own Vicar upon Earth But to adde more strength Bellarmin very prettily proves it out of Pasce oves for every Pastor must have a threefold power to defend his flock a power over wolves to keep them from destroying the Sheep a power over the Rams that they do not hurt them and a power over the Sheep to give them convenient food now saith he very subtilly if a Prince of a sheep should turn a Ram or a Wolf must not he have power to drive him away and to keep the people from following him This is then the only current doctrine concerning the Popes Authority in the Court of Rome although some mince the matter more than others do and talk only of an indirect power yet they all mean the same thing and ascribe such power to the Pope whereby he may depose Princes and absolve subjects from the duty they owe to them And how much in request this Doctrine continues at Rome appears by the Counsel given by Michael Lonigo Master of the Palace to Pope Greg. 15. Printed A. D. 1623. about perswading the Duke of Bavaria then newly made Elector to receive a confirmation of his title from the Pope to which end he saith some skilful person ought to be imployed to acquaint him that the power of the Empire was the meer issue of the Church and did spring from it as a Child from the Mother and that it was a great sin for any Christian to call this into Question and consequently the Popes power and authority to determine concerning the State and affairs of the Empire and this he attempts to prove by no fewer than nineteen arguments all of them drawn from the former Usurpations of the Popes and encroachments upon the Empire from whence he concludes that the Electorship could not be lawfully taken away from one and given to another without the Popes consent and authority and that such a disposal of it was in it self null and of no force The same year came forth a Book of Aphorisms concerning the restoring the state of the Church by the decree and approbation of the Colledge of Cardinals collected by the same person and by him presented to the Pope wherein the same power of the Pope is asserted and that it belongs to him to transferr the Electoral dignity from one to another and that it ought to be taken away from the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg for opposing his Authority and that to allow the Emperour authority in these things was to rob the Apostolick See of its due rights By which we may understand what that Authority over the Church is which is challenged by the Pope as supream Pastour in order to the preserving the Unity of it § 2. We now consider what the blessed effects of this pretended power hath been in the Christian World and I doubt not to make it appear that this very thing hath caused more warrs and bloodshed more confusions and disorders more revolts and rebellions in Christendome than all other causes put together have done since the time it was first challenged and this I shall prove from their own Authors and such whose credit is the greatest among them The revolt of Rome and the adjacent parts from the subjection due to the Roman Emperour then resident at Constantinople was wholly caused by the Pope The first Pope saith Onuphrius that ever durst openly resist the Emperour was Constantine 1. who opposed Philippicus in the matter of Images which the Emperour commanded to be pulled down because they were abused to Idolatry and the Pope utterly refused to obey and not only so but set up more in opposition to him in the Pertico of St. Peter and forbad the use of the Emperours name and title in any publick Writings or Coines The same command was not long after renewed by Leo 3. upon which saith Onuphrius Gregory 2. then Pope took away the small remainder of the Roman Empire from him in Italy and Sigonius more expresly that he not only excommunicated the Emperour but absolved all the people of Italy from their Alleagiance and forbad the payment of any Tribute to him whereupon the inhabitants of Rome Campania Ravenna and Pentapolis i.e. the Region about Ancona immediately rebelled and rose up in opposition to their Magistrates whom they destroyed At Ravenna Paulus the Emperours Lieutenant or Exarch was killed at Rome Peter the Governour had his eyes put out in Campania Exhilaratus and his Son Hadrian were both
the Spirit of God who Questioned whether those revelations came from it or no. And therefore Blosius is so far from denying any new or strange revelations among them that being a devout man he prays God to pardon those who questioned the authority of these revelations But if no new revelations are allowed among them what means that saying in the spiritual exercises of the Iesuits p. 31 32. of the Impression A. D. 1574. It is the great perfection of a Christian to keep himself indifferent to do what God shall reveal to him and not to determine himself to do what he hath already revealed and taught in the Gospel This is speaking to the purpose and lest I should seem to charge any unjustly this passage not appearing in the latter impressions it may be found in the Moral practice of the Iesuits from the Bishop of Malaga But the Iesuits are not so much Mr. Cressy's Friends that he should be concerned in their Vindication I can tell him therefore of a Friend of his whom I am sure he is concerned for that is for new and strange revelations too and that is the worthy publisher of the sixteen Revelations of Mother Iuliana and if those be not new and strange I think none ever ought to be accounted so But supposing they have new and strange revelations among them yet Mr. Cressy saith they are not seditious and troublesome to the World no dissolving unity or crossing lawful authority by them because these are enjoyed in solitude and retirements and supposing they be mistaken no harm would accrew to others by it As though persons were ever the less mad for being chained and having a keeper assigned them such in effect do they make the office of a confessour to these contemplatives The mischief to the world is not so great while they are kept up but that to Religion is unsufferable while they lead devout persons in such an unintelligible way that the highest degree of their perfection is Madness But I have already proved at large that they have not been able in some cases or willing in others to keep up these Enthusiastical persons among them but they have done as much to the disturbance of the peace and been as unreclaimable among them as ever any Fanatick Sectaries have done or been in England And we are not to think that the Principles of their Church are such quiet meek and obedient things that not a man among them would ever lift up his finger to give any disturbance to the peace of a Nation For § 16. I now come to prove that they are as much guilty of the second sort of Fanaticism as any Sectaries among us have been which is the resisting authority under a pretence of Religion This I shall prove by two things 1. That the Principles and practices of the Iesuitical party in the Roman Church are as destructive to Government as of the most Fanatick Sectaries which ever have been among us 2. That this party is the most countenanced and encouraged by the Court of Rome 1. That the Principles and Practices of the Iesuitical party in the Roman Church are as destructive to Government as of the most Fanatick Sectaries which ever have been among us What effects of Fanaticism have we seen in England so dreadful which may not be paralled with examples or justified by the principles of that party Is it that so many mens lives have been destroyed under a pretence of Religion and do they think the Massacre at Paris and the Rebellion in Ireland can ever be forgotten by us Is it that Government was supposed by them to be so originally in the people that they by their representatives may call their Soveraign to an account and alter the form of Government This is the express doctrine of the Iesuits for saith Bellarmin Civil power is immediately in the people as the immediate subject of it and is indifferently transferred by them either to one or many and if they see cause may change it as they see good from a Monarchy to an Aristocratie or a Democratie But because after the writing that Book some persons had published a doctrine contrary to his therefore in the recognition of his works he endeavours to strengthen what he had delivered and produces a saying of Navarre that the people never do transferr their power so far to the King but they retain it habitually in themselves and may in certain cases resume it into their own hands Iohn Mariana whose name will never be forgotten in these matters determines the case plainly That if there be no hope of a Princes amendment the Common-wealth may take away his Kingdom and because that cannot be done without War they may raise armies against him and having proclaimed the King their publick enemy may take away his life Reynolds in his Book of the just abdication of Henry 3. of France saith that all the Majesty of the Kingdom is in the assembly of the states to whom it belongs to bridle the Kingly power and to settle all things that belong to the publick Government This is a doctrine fitted for such a season wherein there is hopes to prevail upon a considerable party as in the League in France to do their business but in case the States of the Kingdom be faithful to their Prince they have easier wayes of dispatch And to this end they declare it lawful for any person to take away the life of a Prince excommunicated by the Pope But here their juggling and shuffling shew their meaning is not good for they who mean honestly are not afraid to speak plainly If any one ask them Whether it be lawful to kill their Soveraign they will tell you by no means and that none of them ever said so but being excommunicated they do not account him their Soveraign and so they may lawfully do it Nay it is avowed by some of them that it is a point of faith to believe it is in the Popes power to depose Heretical Princes and that subjects are upon their being declared heretical thereby absolved from all duty of obedience to them Nay that there needs no sentence of the Pope to be pronounced against him and Mariana makes an intention of publick good or the advice of grave men sufficient such as the Jesuites in France were to Clement Chastel and Ravaillac the first and last the actual Murtherers of Henry 3. and Henry 4. and the second shewed his good intention when he stabbed Henry 4. in the mouth If any Priest or Fryer should attempt it they have an excellent salvo for him that being a spiritual person acording to their doctrine of exemption he is no Subject to the King If the Authority of the Council of Constance be objected by them as the doctrine of their Church against these Principles they have withall given us an answer that it meddles not with the case of Soveraign Heretical Princes excommunicated by
and the more fervent will their supplications be If it be enough for some to understand them it may as well be enough for some to pray them if their prayers who understand them prevail for those who do not then it is no matter at all whether they be present or no unless the efficacy of the others prayers be confined within the walls where they meet And if their prayers be most prevalent who understand most then it were ten times better if all the people understood what they prayed for and it must necessarily follow that praying in an unknown tongue is a great obstructer of the devotion of the people and that which hinders the efficacy of their prayers If it be enough for the people to be present and to pray their own private prayers there in publick to what End is there any publick Liturgy at all Why should not all of them be at their private prayers together Why should the Priest with his Iargon of hard words interrupt them for it can be no more to them who know not what he saith and why may they not as well say their private prayers at the chiming of Bells as at the words of a Priest for they understand both alike and both seem to sound as such wise people will have them But he tells us The effects of this devotion were admirable in the charitable and pious works of our Ancestors who used this way so many Ages together I pray Madam ask him whether he really thinks they would have done none of those things if they had said their prayers in English If they would not I do much admire the force of the Latin Tongue If they would then that was not the cause and so these things do not prove what they were intended for And so Tenterden Steeple was not the cause of Goodwin Sands We do not go about to disparage our Ancestors we bless God for the good they did but do not think that doth oblige us to think them infallible in their opinions or without fault in all their practices But our true Ancestors in Religion are Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Church and all these are yielded to be of our side by the most zealous Adversaries we have and give us leave to think their examples ought to have more force with us than any other whatsoever We pretend not to be wiser than they were nor to know what is more expedient for devotion than they we are content to be condemned for error with those who are allowed to be infallible and to want devotion where we follow the examples of the most holy persons the world ever had If the practice of the Primitive Church in this point were not given us for the first six hundred years and more it were an easie matter to evince it by express testimonies but that is not the thing insisted on but that this is a matter of Discipline and the Church hath the power to determine it in one Age as well as another § 4. Which is the next thing to be considered Here I shall desire but two principles to resolve this by 1. That the Churches power is only to edification and not to destruction for this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more but this is a principle of natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended beyond the benefit of it or to contradict the end or design of it 2. That the Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church and what they declared did tend to that end no succeeding persons ought to condemn as contrary to it This depends upon that infallible Spirit which the Apostles had and the mighty care in them of the Churches good which we cannot think any since them can exceed them in These things being supposed we are only to consider whether the Apostle hath not delivered his sense in our present subject viz. that prayers in an unknown tongue are contrary to the Edification of the Church It seems somewhat hard to us to be put to prove a matter so evident from St. Pauls discourse 1 Cor. 14. and we could not imagine any would go about to reconcile prayers in an unknown tongue to 1 Cor. 14. but those who think they can reconcile the worship of Images to the second Commandment The abuse St. Paul corrects with so much sharpness in the Church of Corinth was an impertinent use of the gift of Tongues such I mean as did not tend to the Edification of the Church as for Instance one man made a long Harangue in Hebrew and pleased himself mightily in the sound of the words when not a person there it may be understood a word that he said another of a sudden begins a Hymn in Syriack or Chaldee another falls a praying in Ethiopick but all this while no man interprets what these several men said to what purpose is all this saith the Apostle only for by-standers to think they were Children or mad men could they imagine God gave them these gifts of tongues to make uncouth and insignificant sounds with where the people were met together for the worship of God If they were so much tickled with the noise they might make that at home and not in the Church of God where all things ought to be done to Edification For they met together as a company of reasonable men to receive some benefit that might be common to them all and therefore the gift of tongues in a society of Christians could be of no use without an Interpreter But lest all this should seem to be spoken only of instruction of the people and not of prayer to God and that the case were not alike in both these he adds If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful i. e. I may exercise my gift but it is to no use at all in the Church How so One of the Roman Church might have told St. Paul when I see him pray and know what he is doing may I not joyn my intention of praying with his as our Embassadour and pray my own private prayers at the same time that he doth I know the substance of what he designs to pray for and although I do not know his meaning God knows mine and therefore I can see no hinderance of devotion at all in this that when one begins a prayer in an unknown tongue all the people fall upon their knees and pray too This is the plain answer they must give St. Paul who justifies prayers in an unknown tongue But we are content with St. Pauls judgement in this case and the reason of it that the acts belonging to the worship of God in the Church ought to be of so common concernment that all may have a share in them and receive the benefit by them Or else they
about A. D. 1254. who was General of the Franciscan Order but the Book was received and defended by both Orders as will presently appear But it will be first necessary to consider what the doctrines are which are contained in this Book and if ever there were higher Fanaticism than is therein or rather greater blasphemies let them have leave to triumph The most perfect account we have of it is from Nicol Eymericus who was himself an Inquisitor and tells us these Heresies or Errors are contained in it 1. That the doctrine of Abbot Ioachim a great Fanatick excelled the doctrine of Christ and consequently the New and Old Testament 2. That the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the Kingdom and therefore is not edifying 3. That the New Testament is to be evacuated or lose its force as the Old hath already 4. That the New Testament shall not remain in force above six years longer viz. to A. D. 1260. 5. That they which shall live beyond that time shall be in the state of perfection 6. That the Gospel of Christ shall give way to another Gospel and so instead of the Priesthood of Christ another Gospel shall succeed 7. That no simple man is fit to instruct men in spiritual and eternal things but they that walk barefoot 8. That although God afflict the Iews in this world yet he will save them though they remain in Iudaism and will in the end deliver them from all the opposition of men remaining such as they are 9. That the Church hath not yet brought forth Children nor will do before the end of the temporal reign which shall be after six years and by this we are to understand that the Christian Religion which hath brought forth many called to the faith of Christ is not the Church 10. That the Gospel of Christ brings no man to perfection 11. That the Gospel of the Holy Ghost coming or Ioachims work obtaining called the Everlasting Gospel or of the Holy Ghost the Gospel of Christ shall be done away 12. That no man in Religious Orders is bound to expose his life for defence of the faith or preserving the worship of Christ but other men are 13. That as when Iohn Baptist came the things that were before must needs be confuted because of new things coming in their place so when the time of the Holy Ghost shall come or the third state of the world the things that were before must be confuted for the sake of the New which are to come from whence it must be understood that the New Testament must be refuted and the old cast away 14. That Christ and his Apostles were not perfect in the contemplative life 15. That the Order of the Clergy shall perish but one of a Religious Order shall be perferred above all in dignity and honour and that as the authority under the Father was committed to one of the married order so under the Holy Ghost to one or some of the order of Monks 16. That those who are over the Colledges of Monks ought in those dayes to think of departing from the Seculars and prepare themselves to return to the ancient people of the Iews 17. That the Preachers which shall be in the last state of the world shall be of greater dignity and authority than the Preachers of the Primitive Church 18. That the Preachers and Doctors of Religious Orders when they shall be infested by the Clergy shall go over to the Infidels and it is to be feared lest they go thither for that end to bring them in battel against the Roman Church according to the doctrine of S. Iohn Apocalyps 15. These may suffice out of twenty seven to let the world know where the height of Blasphemy and Fanaticism was first hatched and no one could imagine that any who had the face or name of Christians should own these things yet they came from those excellent and inspired persons of the newly founded Religious Orders And if it had not been for the mortal hatred that then was between the University of Paris and the Mendicant Fryers who usurped the Professors places in the Vniversity against their will God knows how far this doctrine might have prevailed without the least censure For the Popes were extreamly partial to the Fryers and would hear no ill of them they now finding them their most useful instruments in all their quarrels with Princes the Secular Clergy and the People So Matth. Paris relating the Story of the quarrels between the University and the Fryers tells That though the King and the City were for preserving the priviledges of the Vniversity yet the Fryers being at the Popes devotion and doing them a great deal of service were more acceptable in the Court of Rome and therefore got the better of the Vniversity Nay so zealous was Alexander the fourth in the cause of the Fryers against the Vniversity that in the six years of his Popedom he sent out near forty Bulls against the Vniversity of which not one now appears in the Bullarium but most of them are preserved in that accurate Preface before the Works of Gul. de Sancto Amore the zealous Defender of the Vniversity against the encroachments of the Fryers and in the late History of the Vniversity of Paris In the midst of these heats some intimation was given the Divines of the Vniversity of such a Book which was in great esteem among the Fryers called Evangelium aeternum wherein were very dangerous doctrines which were saith Matthew Paris preached read and taught by the Fryers and were put together by them in a Book called Evangelium aeternum and taken saith he chiefly out of the Books of Abbot Joachim and Richerius acknowledgeth that the Book was composed by the Fryers and that the Divines of Paris by some art got a Copy of it and extracted some Heads out of it which were contrary to faith and upon that as Du Bouley saith they caused it to be burnt publickly at Paris But not being satisfied herewith they preached against it as appears by a Sermon of Gul. de Sancto Amore at the end of his Works wherein he saith That he had seen no small part of that Book and he had heard that it doth in all contain more than the Bible and therein he saith it is taught that the Sacraments of the Church are nothing that the Gospel of Christ is not the true Gospel and that the Book it self is the Gospel of the Holy Ghost and the everlasting Gospel and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but for five years to come that then men shall have another Rule of life and the Church shall be otherwise managed Which saith he is execrable and abominable to be spoken But not content with bare preaching against them he writ a very smart Book in the name of the Vniversity of Paris de periculo novissimorum temporum of the dangers of the
why is it not so expressed if they meant honestly but they know if their Pardons ran so no one would give a farthing for them What need any talk of the Churches Treasure for this which Clement 6. made the ground of Indulgences in his Bull and hath been asserted by the most zealous defenders of them This way of explaining Indulgences then though it be easie and intelligible yet it is not reconcileable with the practice of the Church of Rome nor with the suppositions on which that practice is built We are therefore to enquire what they can make of it who go about to defend it as it is practised and generally understood among them To this end they tell us that although the fault be remitted upon the Sacrament of Penance yet the temporal punishment of sin remains which God must be satisfied for that this temporal punishment is either to be undergone here or in Purgatory that every man must have undergone it himself if there had not been a treasure of the Church made up of the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints to make amends to God for every one to whom that Treasure is applyed That the dispensing of this Treasure is in the hands of the Pope who gives it out by Indulgences which being applyed to any person upon the condition required he is thereby discharged from the debt of temporal punishment which he owed to God This is the received doctrine of Indulgences in the Roman Church which holds together till you touch it and then it presently flies in pieces like a Glass drop or vanishes into smoke and aire It is of so tender a composition that it can endure no rough handling if you like it as it is much good may it do you but you must ask no Questions But however I shall to shew the monstrous absurdities of this Doctrine 1. Why if the Indulgence only respects the punishment and not the fault the terms of the Indulgence do not express this that the people may not be deceived Why in all Indulgences since this doctrine is so explained as in the Iubilees of Clement 8. and of Vrban 8. the former of whom is applauded by Bellarmin for a reformer of Indulgences the most general expressions are still used of most plenary Indulgence remission and pardon of all their sins why is it not said only of the temporal punishment due to sin the fault being supposed to be remitted 2. How punishment doth become due when the fault is remitted if the punishment be just it must have respect to the fault for to punish without respect to the fault is all one as to punish without fault if it have respect to the fault how that fault can be said to be remitted which is punished So far as a man is punished it is nonsense to say he is pardoned and so far as he is not pardoned his fault is charged upon him 3. Suppose temporal punishment remain to be satisfied for whether all or only some one kind whether diseases pains and death be not part of the temporal punishment of sin and whether men may be freed from these by Indulgences whether from the effects of the justice of God in extraordinary judgements if not how can a man be said to be freed from the temporal punishment of sin that is as lyable to it as any one else 4. If only one sort of the temporal punishment of sin why is not that one sort declared what it is that all men may be satisfied from the Pope himself whom some believe infallible in his Indulgence Others we find are not agreed about it some say it is only the punishment due to sin above the Canonical penance some that it is only the Canonical penance and not that which is due from the justice of God some that it is for both some only for negligence in performing penance some that it is only for injoyned penance and others that it is for all that may be enjoyned In this diversity of opinions what security can any man have what punishment he is to be freed from 5. If it be from Canonical Penance whether a man is wholly freed from the obligation to that or no if he be what power hath the Priest to enjoyne penance after if he be not free what is it he is freed from and in what tolerable sense can this be called a most full remission of sins which neither remits the fault nor the natural or divine punishment nor so much as the Canonical Penance enjoyned by a Priest 6. Although there needs no treasure where nothing is discharged yet since so great a one is spoken of for this purpose wherein the satisfaction of Christ bears the greatest share it were worth the enquiring why the satisfaction of Christ might not as well remit the temporal punishment when the fault is remitted on the account of it as afterwards by Indulgences 7. How the parts of Christs satisfaction come to be divided into that which was necessary and that which was redundant so as the necessary satisfies for the fault and the redundant for the temporal punishment whether Christ did any more than God required whether any thing which God required can be said to be redundant if there be how one part comes to be applyed and the other cast into a treasure what parts can be made of an infinite and entire satisfaction and if so little were necessary and so much redundant how the least part comes to satisfie for the fault and eternal punishment and the greatest only for the temporal punishment 8. Whether all the satisfaction of Christ taken together were not great enough to remit the eternal punishment of the whole world if it were whether all the redundant parts of that be cast into a treasure too and who hath the keeping of it and what use is made of so much more useful a treasure than that which serves only to remit the temporal punishment What account can the Pope give of suffering so vast a part of the Churches Treasure to lye idle and make no use of it for the benefit of those that need it 9. May not the Pope if he thinks of it gather another mighty Treasure of the absolute Power of God which is never used as for making new worlds c may he not by the help of this deliver souls out of hell as well as by the other out of Purgatory and if this be so much the greater kindness he ought to think of it and imploy this treasure for these purposes Why may he not think of another treasure of the light of the Sun that is more than enough for the use of the world and to lay it up in store for the benefit of the purblind and Aged 10. If the satisfaction of Christ be so redundant how comes it not to be sufficient for so poor an end as Indulgences serve for but the satisfactions of the Saints must make up a share in this
Treasure too Is not this worse than to light a Candle to help the Sun to suppose Christs satisfaction so infinite as to be sufficient to redeem more worlds and yet not enough to deliver from temporal punishment without the satisfactions of the Saints 11. How come the Saints to make such large satisfactions to the justice of God if the satisfaction of Christ were of so infinite a nature and if they did make satisfactions were they not sufficiently rewarded for them if they were how come those satisfactions to help others which they were so abundantly recompensed for themselves 12. If the satisfaction of Christ doth only obtain grace for the Saints to satisfie themselves for the temporal punishment of their sins how can the application of this satisfaction by Indulgences free any from the temporal punishment of their sins Or have the satisfactions of Saints being joyned with Christs greater power now in common penitents than the satisfaction of Christ alone in the greatest Saints 13. Why the satisfaction of Christ may not serve without the Saints to remit only the temporal punishment of sins when it was sufficient alone to remit both eternal and temporal in the Sacrament of Baptism or was the force of it spent then that it needs a fresh supply afterwards but if then it could be applyed to a higher end without any other help why not where it is to have far less efficacy 14. If satisfaction be made to God for the temporal punishment of penitents by Indulgences I desire to know when and by whom the payment is made to God If it was made by the persons whose satisfactions make the Churches treasure for that end what hath the Pope to do to dispense that which God hath accepted long agoe for payment If it be made by the Pope in what way doth he make it doth he take out so much ready cash of the Churches treasure and pay it down upon the nail according to the proportion of every ones sins or doth he only tell God where such a treasure lyes and bid him go and satisfie himself for as much as he discharges of his dâ—bt 15. How came this Treasure of the Church into the Popes Keeping who gave him alone the Keys of it if there were any such thing methinks those who are trusted with the greater treasure of Christs necessary satisfaction for the remitting of eternal punishment as every Priest is by their own doctrine in the Sacrament of Penance should not be denyed the lesser of the Superfluities of Christ and the Saints sufferings for the remitting only temporal punishment When I once see these questions satisfactorily answered I may then think better of this doctrine than I doe at present for the best I can think of it now is that there never was a doctrine more absurd in the ground of it or more gainful in the practice than this of Indulgences in the Roman Church and therefore ought to be accounted one of the most notorious cheats that ever was in the Christian world § 10. But let us suppose it otherwise and then we are to enquire whether this would tend to promote or obstruct that very way of devotion which is most in request in the Roman Church there are but two ways to judge of this either by experience or the nature of the doctrine it self For experience my Adversary alledges his own and that he hath seen great devotion caused by them but by his favour the question is not what outward acts of devotion may be performed by some ignorant and silly people who are abused by great hopes of strange benefits by Indulgences and therefore prepare themselves with some shew of devotion to receive them especially when they are unusual but the question is whether they have these effects upon those who understand the nature and designe of them and the doctrine of their Church about them For as Durandus resolves it the validity of the Indulgence doth not depend on the devotion of the receiver for then saith he the Indulgence would contain a falsity in it which is that whosoever doth such a thing as going to the 7. Churches shall have plenary remission of his sins therefore saith he whoever doth the thing shall have the whole benefit of the Indulgence or else the Indulgence is false And to his experience I shall oppose that of greater observers of the world than he hath been I have already mentioned the testimony of Vrspergensis and others concerning the effects of plenary Indulgences in their times how men encouraged themselves to sin the more because of them Polydore Virgil observes that when Indulgences were grown common many men did abstain less from doing evil actions The author of the book called Onus Ecclesiae saith that they take men off from the fruits of repentance and are profitable only to the idle and wicked The Princes of Germany in the Diet of Norimberg among the grievances represented to the Pope by the consent of them all upon the mention of Indulgences reckon as the least bad consequence of them that the people were cheated of their money by them but that they say was far more considerable that true Christian Piety was destroyed by them and that all manner of wickedness did spring frâ—m thence and that men were afraid of committing no kind of sin when at so cheap a rate they could purchase a remission of them But setting aside the experience of these things let us consider what the nature of the doctrine it self tends to to those who believe it The least benefit we see allowed them is a freedom from enjoyned penances and what are these penances accounted among them but fruits of true repentance a severe mortification fasting frequent prayers and Almes so that the short of this doctrine is that men by Indulgences are excused from doing the best parts of their Religion and if this be a way of promoting devotion I leave any one in his senses to judge § 11. I proceed now to the denying the Cup to the Laity contrary to the practice of the Church in the solemn celebration of the Eucharist for a thousand years after Christ. To which he answers 3. ways 1 that the receiving in one or both kinds was ever held a matter of liberty in the Church 2 that it was as much in the Churches power to alter it after a 1000. years as in the first or second century 3 that the believing whole Christ to be present in one kind tends more to excite devotion than receiving both elements without that belief This is the substance of his answer But I have else where at large proved and need not repeat it here that the Institution of Christ as to both kinds was of an universally obligatory nature not only from the will of the first Institutor but from the universal sense of the Church concerning the nature of that Institution And there I have largely answer'd those very