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, etc.  
Printed in the Year, MDCLXXII.   

The Roman Doctrine of Repentance Vindicated.  
§. 1 HItherto I have explicated, and endeadeavored 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 Tailor in his Dissuasive,) 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 one's life; i. e. in articulo mortis; 
Rom. Idolat. c. 3 §. 1. p. 181. Ibid. pag. 180.  (as he expresseth it out of Dr. Tailors Dissuasive, 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 itself) into a Temporal one; or to change 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 him 
‖ G. 6. §. 4, 9, 10.  with many gross Absurdities, and as excusing Roman Catholics 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 Catholic Religion, and of that Church, which before Luther's time, when there was none, besides, any better than it, was called in our Creed, the Holy Catholic 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 do 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 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,— Only (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 baptised, resolves with himself not to be baptised; [i. e. not to have the benefit of Baptism], 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, strait to Heaven. So that he saith of Catholics— 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 lie 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 showed 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 by him, I shall, without much engagement, in the particular controversies, briefly show to the pious Reader, that this Author, in none of these points , 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 Nonnecessity of Repentance save at the Hour of Death. For the contrary hereof, 
1. Of Repentance not to be deferred.  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 Baptism, much less of the rest, the Sacrament of Penance, of the Eucharist, etc. 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, etc. & 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 quam novitatem vitae (saith it 
‖ Sess. 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 Confession, ad Sacram Eucharistiam accedere debeat. For the time also, the same Church requires of all her Children, at Lest 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 Lest 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 say 
‖ p. 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 old sinner repenting on his deathbed, 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 virtue or efficacy from a Laicks; 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 Church's Act of Sacerdotal Absolution is not only beneficial for the consolation of true Penitents, but necessary for the forgiveness of all their mortal 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 Baptism, 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.— Quorum remiseritis peccata, etc. 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 time— Nemo sibi dicat, occulte ago paenitentiam, 
Hom. 29. de 50.  apud deum ago. Novit deus qui mihi ignoscit, quia in cord 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 Herald 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  etc.— 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 Catholics.] 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, etc. 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 Keys 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 Christ's Ministers, so that ordinarily for Mortal sins, which sins only, after Baptism, 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 Judgement, 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 Majesty's 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 Baptism (called by Catholics Mortal Sins) that so by the Church's 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 requisite for the obtaining and assuring of the pardon of their sins; when it is as manifest that they want the Keys 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 manage. 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 Church's 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 (rendering 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 Herald Though it is true, that he maintains the Church hath no power to forgive sins immediately, 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 Catholics. 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 virtue of Religion, and Charity; and considering it barely, as it is an Affirmative Precept; Here, 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 immediately 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 Catholic 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 peccati 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 Catholic 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 Catechism 
‖ De SaSacrampaenitent  is yet more pre●●●,— Neque enim (saith it) ad ullum 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 Penitent. Disp. 15. §. 6. n. 20.  Hanc obligationem [paenitendi, i. e. sub mortali peccato] magis explicamus per modum praecepti negativi, non differendi conversionem ad Deum usque ad mortem; vel diuturno tempore— Ex hac autem obligatione negatiuâ necessario infertur affirmativa, al'quando excreendi hanc contritionem ante mortem. Illud vero tempus, si non sit positiuâ 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, neque 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, etc.) it is necessary, when ever they are.] And the very same he saith elsewhere 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 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. Moral. 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 threescore 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 Catholic should do this, when such a person, dying in that Church, adds to his Repentance the Sacraments; Confession of his sins to the Priest, the receiving his Absolution, the Holy Communion, and Extreme unction.  
§. 8 Lastly, if, after all this said here, this Author or Bishop Taylor, can produce some Testimonies out of other Catholic Writers to this purpose; that Repentance, considered merely as an affirmative precept, 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 deferred 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 Schoolmen, or Casuists, or applying themselves to their Subtleties. 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 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 Catholics 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 showing 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, sometimes 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 he 
‖ c. 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 he conceived 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 Tailor's defence made in his dissuasive 
‖ 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 Schoolmen 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: [Hear 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 liberty to reprove: but not, reprove or defame the Roman Church, or dissuade 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 descent. Again, this their Opinio omnium must admit many limitations. First, Of such Schoolmen, 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 showed before. I say therefore, this Injustice of some late Protestant Writers in loading all the supposed Common Opinions of Schoolmen, or Casuists upon the back of the Church, if well considered, might save them, for the future much labour in raking into particular Authors, and picking out some odious sentences, when their design is not the dissuading 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, etc. 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 some Protestants are there supposed to say, and Catholics 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, etc. Anathema sit. Here also as it saith nova vita with the Protestants; so, in the rest, it presents to God something 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 Protestant's 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 afterward 
* Ibid.  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 & 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 expressly— 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 leveled] 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 Catholics 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 Catholics 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, 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 Penitent. c. 4.  (in their magnifying of justifying Faith) that the rigidness of the Roman Contrition drove men to despair, 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 Penitent, 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 dolour & 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 Baptism of the Adulti, doth it include an actual good life to precede such Baptism? See Dr. Hammonds description of this Repentance, in his Practical Catechism, c. 6. §. 2. p. 311.— The resolving to forsake sin and live Godly, is supposed before Baptism, 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 Herald 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 administered 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 Regeneration 
‖ Ib. 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 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 God's 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 acknowledge 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 God's 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 God's mercies 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 God's Grace; and that, after so many affronts of God's mercy, may justly be feared his absolute denial thereof. And, when such a relapsing sinner at last lies on his deathbed, 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 judge [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, etc. 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.  
§. 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 God's Grace, and are the necessary matter requiring such a remedy) the repairing to the Power of the Keys, 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, 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 saith 
‖ De 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. [Butler saith he 
* Ib. c. 8. — Hanc propositionem [Mihi evidens est mea vera Conversio & Paenitentia] dico non modo falsam esse, etc.— 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] Quoting 
‖ Ibid c. 7.  St. Austin 
* Homil. 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 Catholics, formerly guilty of great and Mortal sin, in a perpetual exercise of Mortification.]  
§. 16 He is instructed also, That, where the Sin itself, 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 enjoined, and that in the first place, that, if our 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 rendering 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 speaks 
‖ De 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 Ecclesiastical discipline & scandal given to the Church.— Cum ipse cum Lutheranis caeteris contendat paenitentias veterum disciplinae causâ, non autem satisfactionis coram Deo, & redemptionis, & expiationis peccatorum institutas, tamen fatetar se hoc etiam post remum apud Patres non raro legisse [of which see much in Morinus the Penitent 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 Penitent. l. 4. c. 12.— Concurrunt & prosunt (saith he) nostra opera paenalia ad culpae remissionem & mortis aeternae liberationem ut dispositiones, sicut actus sidei, etc. And see him elsewhere 
* De 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, etc. [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 saith 
‖ Ib. §. 13.  the same as Bellarmin— Probant manifestius ca loca, quibus satisfactiones paenitentium iidem Patres extend●m, & 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 citys those words of the Apostle 
‖ 2 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 easy 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 vicious 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 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 Penitent 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 agate, nunquam graviter errabit. Indeed according to the present complexion of Christianity, when the whole world is crowded 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 joined with Confession, the infirmity, shall I call it? or hardness of most penitents relucts now to undergo 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 overcharged with too heavy Penances, 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 Vicious 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 always 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 himselffor former Sin; 
2 Cor. 7 11 1 Cor. 11.31, 32  and, by this (I mean, from the application of Christ's all sufficient satisfactions procured thereby) preventing Gods temporal Judgements, and punishment thereof; such, as are removable; for, some punishments of sin (as death) are not so: Of which see more below §. 65.  
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 easy 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 Trent 
‖ Sess. 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 faults, stands still engaged, if he would avoid 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.—  plurimum longe plus est, quod explandum restat per non 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 enjoined by the Spiritual Judge is (by virtue 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 damage; and did they well consider their own interest, they would seriously request greater.  
§. 19 Having thus showed, 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 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 avoided 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, and rendered more probable: Especially upon their discovery in any person such ill symptoms as these; 1. That he hath sinned as frequently after his former Confession, as before it: 2. Hath neglected to use the means for avoiding 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.—  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 occur frequently in the Roman Casuists and Schoolmen. 
See Suarez De Penitent. 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 frequent 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 enjoin the non-admittance of a slight profession 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 itself, 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 yokes 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 lie merely 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 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 writ 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 Practise 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 Church's 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 Dissuading men from such a Church's 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 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 Governors of this Church (the Divine Providence ever watching over it) may take notice of, and rectify 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, repent 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 baptised, resolves with himself that he will not be baptised, or while he is baptising, 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 Baptism; the Sacrament of Penance,— Falso quidam calumniantur Catholicos Scriptores, quasi tradiderint Sacramentum Paenitentiae, absque bono motu suscipientium, gratiam confer: 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 Novae legis continere gratiam quam significant & gratiam ipsam confer, [But] none 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 Baptism, 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  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 last 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 Baptism, 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 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 ourselves, 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; imperfectusque 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 Catechism 
‖ p. 56.  confesseth,— That, though a bare sorrow and compunction only respecting present terrors, hath no promise of mercy, yet if that which gins thus by God's 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 absolutely 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 God's 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 saith 
‖ Sess. 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 Predispositions in the suscipient necessary to receiving the effect of these two Sacraments, which indeed is no such easy preparation, if, as to the 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 somewhat more than this is required as a worthy disposition to the other, called Sacramenta vivorum, Confirmation, Eucharist, and extreme Unction. 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 predispositions 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 always necessary, so that, without their discerning this in themselves, they are to desist from 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 sometimes 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 Cajetan— Doctrina contraria nimis rigida est, ac praeter humanam frugilitatem. Cum autem haec pendent ex Christi voluntate & institutione, pie potius credendum est, seize 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 joined with a desire and endeavour to have it, and consists, 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 sometimes 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 Unction (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, anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord; it hath not escaped this Author's 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 administered before it. Which State of Grace, and Contrition of such Person, since it cannot be by the Priest certainly known, therefore upon the signs 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 Unction, 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 fit, for this, to be withheld, 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 somewhat 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 reconsidered, 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 expressly 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 cord & rectâ fide, cum metu & reverentiâ contriti & paenitentes ad Deum accedamus, misericordiam consequamur, etc. [i. e. Quo Sacrificio cruentum illud, semel in Cruse 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 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 God's Grace for them [Hujus quippe oblatione (saith the Council 
‖ Ibid. 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, & penitent 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, nor sensible of their loss); and return to the Sacrament. Of these it hath been showed, 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 Sacrament— Si quis dixerit, Ministrum in peccato mortali existentem, etc. 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 immediately 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 virtue 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 Schoolmen 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 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 itself 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 Catholics 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. Again 
‖ p. 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 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 dryness of the matter, yet is dryness 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 concurs 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 Catholics, when saying the internal disposition of mind is necessary to reremove impediments, do not mean by this internal disposition the exercise of Faith, Prayer, Repentance, etc. by no means saith he [when as Bellarmin, in that Chapter, this Author citys, and therefore read, saith the expressly contrary, and that six or seven 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 baptised, he resolves with himself that he will not be baptised, or while he is baptising, 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 Laics, 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) 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 shows the contrary.— Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae Legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam, so far 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 Catholics 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 Judge, 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 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, etc. 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 Catholic Authors) to be Divine Revelation (which they will not allow to the Alcoran, or to his Cap); nor shows 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 men's minds concerning the preparation of a right devotion.) See this matter thus stated by Arnauld's Adversary 
‖ Arnauld 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 he) that a man that hath not the devotion, and fervour 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 one's 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 persuade 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 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 Unction, 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 Unction. And then descants 
‖ p. 213. — A hard case for those who die 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 Unction 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 immediately 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.  
§. 36 IU. 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 itself, 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 Baptism, and consequently of the eternal punishment thereof (these two being always remitted together) is no such easy thing, hath been amply showed in the Vindication of the Second and Third Point. The Subjects of the Roman Catholic 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 is 
‖ See 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 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 complete such Contrition (ad praeteritorum peccatorum vindictam & castigationem, saith the Council 
* Sess. 14. c. 8. ) is the exercise of much Penance, and Mortification; and the surest sign of such Contrition completed, is, a change of life, and perseverance therein; and the surest means, again, for such perseverance (ad novae vitae custodiam, & infirmitatis medicamentum, saith the Council 
‖ Ibid. ) 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 chief on the sincerity of their Repentance and Conversion to God, and change of life; as hath been showed 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  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 men's 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 ways. But then the Poor are no way inferior 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 easy soever the releasement of such punishment is amongst Catholics, it is made much more easy, 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, Catholics (as hath been showed §. 10, etc.) require also these, and much more; namely, a necessary repair to the Sacrament of Penance, Confession, Absolution; and for the greater securing of their 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. Catholics 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. Catholics 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) strait to Heaven, and the most supreme happiness. 3ly. Catholics 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.  
§. 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 Author 
‖ p. 518.  with many gross Absurdities, and as excusing roman-catholics from performing the best parts of their Religion: i. e. (saith he) enjoining Penances, accounted among them fruits of true Repentance; severe mortification; Fasting, frequent Prayers, and Alms 
* p. 526.   
To the Contrary of this, I shall show 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 elsewhere, 
‖ 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, 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 Dissuasive 
* 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, terms— That 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 Church's Treasure. [And so all this our Author's Questions about this Treasure, which amount to Ten of the Fifteen Queries he proposeth, p. 518, etc. and saith— That when be once seethe those Questions satisfactorily answered, he may then think better of our Doctrine, are beside the purpose, and to be cancelled, 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 Forefathers 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.  
§. 40 All then, that the Council hath stated and asserted in this matter is this 
‖ See Con. Trid. Sess 25. Dear. de Indulg. , (as Doctor Holden, F. Veron, and others have observed, who have endeavoured 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 not more ought to be proposed to separatists to be believed, than what the profession of the Catholic 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 times given to it in public sins, but chief for the Satisfaction of God's 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 Penitent, 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: God's Mercy and Justice still accompanying one another, as in respect of Christ's 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 ourselves, 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, sometimes 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 God's Glory and Service thereby; either in respect of such Persons private, or some other public, and greater, good. Which cause was thought a sufficient motive for such a relaxation 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 losing 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 God's 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 remain 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 chief 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 Christ's Merits for this Sinners pardon, than the remainder of his Penance, had it been fulfilled; 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 lest perhaps through a despondency of mind he should throw off the Christian Faith, and abandon himself to vice; in all which the Apostle saw Satan's 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 public 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, etc. and so this seeming sufficient for quitting the remainder of their debt; in the Indulgment of whom was also a public good intended, that so the negligent might, hereby, be excited to like fervour, 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 Heresy, or Gentilism. 3. In times of great persecution, the better fitting and arming of the Penitent for Martyrdom, 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 to any other eminent danger of death, by sickness or otherwise; in which necessity, Absolution, and the Eucharist were administered, 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. Sometimes also some Heroical Act of the Penitent was accepted instead of further Penance: As persons returned from Heresy were usually received into the Church upon easy 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 public 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 sometimes 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 public 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, 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 show 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 Schisms, and the enlarging of the Catholic Faith in the receiving of Heretics usually into the Church with much indulgence, and not clogging them with such great Penances as such a Crime deserved 
‖ Ibid. 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 judge 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 ruin the Church's Discipline, and abuse the power she is entrusted 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 occur. That there be a cause, I say not, exactly the same always 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 men's 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 joined immediately 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 enjoined, 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 public and eminent good, may be more acceptable to God, and proportionable to the relaxation of such Penances. Such as are the enjoining of Alms, Prayers, Fasts, etc. for averting some imminent Judgement, or danger from the Church; for the conquering of Infidels, and the Church's Enemies (such was the recovery of the Holy Land); for converting of Heretics, 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 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 enjoined; the present of the selfsame Penances in the same measure due to God's justice (and to be paid now, as much as then, for obtaining from him a relaxation from such punishment;) but, for the Penitents indisposition, after a long desuetude of such a practice, not enjoined 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 testify, 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 God's 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 enquiring, 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 Catholics, 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 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 pastors? And paena, quae ex naturâ rei & coram Deo solvenda sit pro peccato, sive publico, sive secreto, possit, abalio quocunque adimpleri per modum solutionis & satisfactionis debitae, quam ab ipsomet peccatore? And F. Veron in his Rule of Faith 
* c. 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 complete 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 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 damage 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 show his hatred of sin, even when he hath received 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 God's Justice, even toward those already readmitted 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, threatened 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 etc.— Prov. 11.31.— 1 Pet. 4.18.— Ecclus. 5.4.— Psal. 98.8.— 1 Cor. 11.31, 32.— 1 Cor. 3.15. (which text shows a temporary suffering to remain also in the next world for faults not fully expiated and accounted-for here by our judging ourselves, that we may escape the judgement of God. Of which faults, either in their nature, or by our Repentance, and the Sacrament of Penance rendered, not mortal to us, thus Caesarius Arelatensis 
‖ Hom. 8. — Quicquid de istis peccatis redemptum non fuerit illo igne purgandam est, de quo Apostolus, etc. Redemptum non fuerit, i.e. as he saith before by our Penances— Continuis Orationibus & frequentibus jejuniis & largioribus cleemosynis, etc. 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, designed 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 always 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 ourselves, See in Jona 3.10. compared with 7, and 8. etc.— 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 show that God's Mercy ordinarily includes also some personal satisfaction, in some part at least, to his Justice, Justitia & pax osculatae sunt— Miseri 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. etc.) 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 in the state of Grace: Contritis & Confessis being the Condition on the part of the indulged, expressed, or employed in all Indulgences.  
§. 49 As for the ordinary expression in these Indulgences, promising a remission of their sins, the first of this Author's 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 Catholics old Answers; and to the Catholic 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 Suarez 
* De 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 saying 
‖ p. 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 were afraid 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, etc. besides all his own invective stuff from pag. 415. to p. 499. or §. 3. to §. 8. (where he would persuade 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 Catholics 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 Catholics call Contrition, or Repentance; and what Catholics mean by it, may be seen before, §. 10. and 23, which this Author (according to his wont candour) hath left out, and without which his due Confession and Absolution signify 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 virtue, 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 men's sins, and as sold dear, and greedily bought [i. e. with alms, and other pious works,] on this account; and at last deceiving the purchaser; whereas, suppose them all utterly to fail, and to be mere 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 God's 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, after remission of the sin, consequently must affirm, that Catholics 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 Catholics 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 Catholic Authors; and upon this ground, the saying of one Pater Noster, or giving the Alms of a penny, or the like, is not thought by them a sufficient cause (where is no other motive thereof) for the Church-governors 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 judgement herein— Quia per indiscretas atque super fluas [and, cur indisc●etae, & superstuae, (saith Bellarmin 
* De 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, etc. Thus Innocentius 3. long ago in the great Lateran Council 
‖ Can. 62.  And Sixtus 4. having been somewhat Prodigal 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 sometimes in this sufficiency of the cause, thus speaks a Jesuit 
‖ Sua 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 Pope's 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 show wit? Though mean while, the Christian Humility 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 divers from the cause, or motive of the promulgation of such a pardon 
‖ See 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 show 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 aught, 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 Alms, to the Sacrament, to the love of God, to our For giving our Neighbour's sins against us, etc. I hope, we 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 learned 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 releasement 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, enjoined 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 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 God's 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 enjoined (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 enjoined, (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 enjoins, for that, wherein our penances performed may fall short of the satisfaction due.  
If any than 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 showed here) not much necessary.  
§. 55 And lastly, since Indulgences are a privilege 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 enjoined 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 Alms, Watching, Fasting, and Prayers are numbered 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 observes 
‖ De Sac. Paevit. Disp. 27. §. 2. ) than the Redemption of our Temporal pain by the benefit of Indulgences. 2. And again, as they are any way profitable and requisite to those two ends of Penances often forementioned 
* See §. 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 ruins again what Indulgences have formerly procured; and much better were it for the Penitent to forgo 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  favour done him by Indulgences [of which matter thus P. Laeymann 
‖ Lib. 5. tract. 7. c. 3.  out of Albertus Magnus— Consultissimum esse, ut semper tota paenitentia [namely, that is enjoined us] impleatur, quia plerumque minor, quam peccatis debeatur, injuncta est per modum medicinae reservantis a recidiuâ; & 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 Indulgencae— De paenis sponte 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 long 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 expressly 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 Suarez ‖ Cum 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. Again 
‖ De 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, 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 desiderant— Relaxare 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 Priest's injunction, yet from the moral necessity of the thing as to avoiding sin, See Card. Lugo, De Sacram. Penitent. 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, (long majores, as Bellarmin, than those enjoined), 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, satisfy the Objection of our Author 
‖ p. 526. — that by Indulgences Catholics are excused from doing the best parts of their Religion, viz. Severe Mortification, Fast, Prayers, Alms, etc. 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 dissuaded from them by Indulgences; but on the contrary, for the ampler partaking of the benefit of the Indulgence▪ are advised to, and also enjoined 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. didst. 20. §. 10. and Layman Moral Theol. l. 5.7. tract. 5. c. and the Author's 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, enjoined, are not varied 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 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 saying 
* In 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, & dumb 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, etc. 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, etc.]  
Reasonable also it seems, that where the pious work is indefinitely proposed, as, for instance, the giving of Alms, without any certain quantity expressed, this work should be performed to such a degree, as seems more to suit with the greater favour any one receives; knowing this, that the dispensations of God's Mercies by the Church-governors (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 enough, (without denying Indulgences valere quantum sonant, as it is expounded before, and this Language is ordinarily understood), for Beauties' prudent man both to receive and make use of all the Indulgences he can procure, nor lightly to distrust either the judgement or fidelity of those to whom our Lord hath committed the dispensing of them; and that also, 1 for the non-certainty 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 far [which clause this Author omits] ac pro suis peccatis Domino satisfacere. Of which the Cardinal gives these very reasons 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 custom is) omits. For, indeed, they would quite spoil 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 Catholics 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 show the 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 people's Alms for some public 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, etc. Lastly, the Council 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 privileges belonging thereto; and hath committed the publishing of such Indulgences, and collection of Charities to the Ordinary of the place, and two of the Chapter joined with him, to be done nullâ prorsus mercede acceptâ; i. e. when these Alms are directed to some certain public work; and not left to the people's own distribution of them, to what poor and necessitous persons themselves think good, in such a quantity, as every one's 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 Author's discourse, comes only to this; the relieving of some poor, and the occasioning of some deeds of Charity to the rich, where themselves judge 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 somewhat more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not be called to an account? 
Mat. 12.36.  But suppose it be a Collection of the people's Charity for some public 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 Church's Prelates with fraud, covetousness, putting all, or a great part thereof in their own Coffers, and pretending only not intending a public benefit, at pleasure, and without proof? Or, this being a truth, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Authors. And doth he not hold the Pope's judgement 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 Church's Communion, and hold with others of them those tenants that please him better. I have here frequently quoted several of them, to show that nothing here said by me is singular. Doth such a frequency of judulgences as ruins Church-Discipline, and 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 misinformations of the people, for filthy lucre's sake, promising them much more than Indulgences extend to, or the Church's Doctrine warrants? So have Councils, and Popes, as I have shown, 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 said 
* Serma de Lapsis. — Irrita pax: perniciosa dantibus, nihil profutura accipientibus. And— 
‖ Epist. 11. Ad Martyrs & Confessor.  Ea concedere quae in perniciem vertuntur, decipere est: nec erigitur sic lapsus [from the Indulgence] said 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 men's Consciences, and a sense 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 Author's 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 Church's Communion (yet this is said to be the first, that occasioned that of Luther, and the Reformation) since it is a Privilege, 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 Author 
‖ c. 6 §. 9 p. 5●8.  concludes his Discourse of Indulgences, and saith, the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences with a touch of these flies 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 Catholics 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 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 Catholics, 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, ask such Questions as these: What satisfaction God's 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 Church's Treasure [i. e. of our Lords sufferings for us] is paid down upon the nail, according to the proportion of every one's sins, [or temporal punishment]; or God is told where such a treasure lies, and bid go and satisfy himself for so much as is to be discharged of the Debt? But indeed such extravagant Interrogatories made in these Spiritual matters, as if the Church's 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 always supposeth remission of the sin (quoad culpam or offensam), and of its eternal punishment by the use of the Sacrament of Penance, that is joined with the Indulgence; and than It completes all quoad paenam too, in remission also of the temporal punishment.  
§. 64 To the Second. How any punishment of the fault can be still 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, Catholics mean, of the Enmity it puts between God and the Sinner, whereby he is again received into his favour, with which is also always necessarily joined the remission of the Eternal Punishment; the retention of which cannot consist with our restitution 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, strait, upon a Child's 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, etc. And so saith the Psalmist of the Children of Israel in the Desert 
‖ Ps. 98.8. — Domine Deus noster, tu propitius fuisti eye [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 entering into the Land of promise, etc.] 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.  Adam, David, Populus Israel, Miriam. Testantur idem calamitates Baptizatorum post Baptismum. Ostendunt etiam Scripturae exempla, Deum aliquando & post reconciliationem, seu 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, etc.— 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 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, Fast Watch, Prayers, Alms, etc. (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 Judgements? 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 satisfy 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 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 enjoin 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 enjoin 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 alleged before §. 48.  
This to his six first Questions, wherein he seems a little more serious. §. 69 The other Nine that remain, are all spent about the Church's 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 little short answer of Doctor Holden mentioned before 
‖ §. 47. De resol. fidei l. 2. c. 6. — Caetera omnia dubia sunt, etc.— Nimirum an sit thesaurus aliquis meritorum & satisfactionum in Ecclesiâ; cujus dispensatores sint Romanus Pontifex, & reliqui Ecclesiae pastors. 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 myself 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 Church's Treasure, because our Lord dispenseth it by the Church's 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 Baptism. Upon the administration whereof, to the baptised, by the Ministry of the Clergy, are applied the Merits and Satisfactions of Christ tendered to, and accepted by, God's Justice for the remission of their Sins, and all punishment thereof, Eternal, or Temporal. No Protestant, I suppose, gainsaying 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 ask them not concerning Indulgences but Baptism; wherein this Author must grant this Treasure of our Lords satisfactions, to the rightly prepared, to be applied 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 Church's Treasure, according to his promise 
‖ p 524. .  
§. 71 To begin, 
Qu. 7.  then, with the Seventh question. Here, presupposing that our Lords satisfactions are infinite, and not so exhausted by the discharging to God's Justice the debt of the sins and punishments of all those baptised 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 Christ's satisfaction come to be divided into that which was necessary, for those already baptised, and that which is redundant still for others; and part of these be necessary to satisfy for the fault, another part redundant, or remaining, to satisfy 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 applied already, and the other to remain still for others in the Church's 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 applied entire for remission of sin in baptism, so as it remains entire also for remission of the punishments belonging to sin, temporal, or eternal; and after all, that ever hereafter shall receive baptism, that it remains entire still, (because infinite), for infinite more persons, if they were in being; and that it be so bestowed entire already, that still it remains entire 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 parts, etc. 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? etc. To proceed now in his questions] And if so little be necessary for all already baptised, what needs so much redundant for remitting any sin or punishment of others that shall be baptised 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, baptised? 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 baptised, be cast into the Church's 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 baptised 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 account can the Church-governors give, if suffering so vast a part of the Church's 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 applied? [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 ratify their act].  
§. 73 The Ninth Succeeds. In which we further inquire; If our Lords Successors have committed to them the custody and disposing of such a treasure of Christ's 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 God's 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?]  
§. 74 The following questions to the 14th. are concerning the satisfactions of Saints; 
Qu. 14.  of which by and by. Review we next than the Fourteenth. Where, if satisfaction, by the sufferings of our Lord, be tendered to God's Justice for what ever punishment of penitent Sinners that are baptised, 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 Church's 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 Church's treasure, and pay it down upon the nail according to the proportion of every one's sin that is baptised? Or do they only tell God where such a treasure lies, and bid him go and satisfy himself for so much as they then discharge of the baptised 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 Author's questions, from the 9th. to the 14th. Here suppose (which not seldom happens) an Holy Man, upon some great offending of God by some of near relation to himself, Prays, Fasts, wears Sackcloth, and useth other Penances, and Mortifications merely on the others behalf for preventing some temporal judgement 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 judgement, 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 Christ's 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 Christ's satisfactions are; but yet God to honour his Saints, and for other ends of his Wisdom, 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 the same again. How comes this Holy Man to do such large Penances with regard to God's Justice and Wrath, if the sanctification of Christ were of so infinite a nature? And if he practise 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 ourselves likewise are rewarded by him; a thing not doubted of? The same pious work or suffering may obtain a manifold recompense, and that as to several persons, by way of Impetration from God's 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 strike compensation or satisfaction made to God's Justice, thus no work or suffering of ours, that is equivalently satisfactory only for another's debt (suppose, of temporal punishments), can be also of our own: for none can so pay to God's 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 Man's penances free another from the temporal punishment of his sin, without his doing any penance? Or have his penances being joined with Christ's satisfactions greater power with God for this other person, than the satisfactions of Christ have for himself? [Whatever the Author's meaning is in this Question, which perhaps I do not rightly comprehend, Christ's satisfactions alone are affirmed, both for Common Penitents and Saints, all sufficient, and not only do obtain grace for Saints, to satisfy themselves, for a temporal punishment; but also, when applied 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 Man's 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 Baptism? Or was the force of it spent then, that it needs a fresh supply afterwards from this Holy Man's penances? But if then it could be applied 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 Church's 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.  
§. 79 Viz: How came this treasure of the Church, i. e. the superfluities, 
Qu. 15.  as he calls them, of Christ's satisfactions for the temporal punishment of sin which are applied in Indulgences, into the Pope's keeping; and who gave him the Keys of them? when every Priest is trusted in the Sacrament of Penance, with the treasure of Christ's 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 styles Christ's 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 conceding Indulgences, it is sufficient that Protestants then be satisfied, when they are first agreed to admit 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 Christ's Merits and Satisfactions, for the eternal, nor for the temporal punishment of Sin, doth belong to the Inferior Clergy, but dependently from the Bishops and Governors of the Church; which Commission they receive also with a reservation of several Cases, wherein they may not absolve. Next; for Church-governors: Not only the Pope, but other Bishop's de facto have conceded Indulgences in ancient times, and do still. But whether the conceding of them doth belong to all Bishop's Jure Divino, or only to the suprem Governor 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 Church's 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 loath to divulge to his 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 live 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 public, 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 Heretics, building of Churches, Hospitals, etc. 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 suitable 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, 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 Catholics also, exhort such a person to repentance of his sin, and amendment of his life; and tell him, as Catholics 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, etc. they press not to him; and of the necessity also of the Church's Keys for remission of such Mortal sin committed after Baptism they do not inform him.  
They tell him, that he needs fear no further reckon for his sin, as to any punishment or sufferings for it, if once repent 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 Catholic Church, only sometimes used for remitting such penances, (yet this not without commutation) are cried out of 
‖ Rom. 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 lightning sometimes of men's burdens in the Church of Rome by Indulgences; 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 Church's Practicals: Which thus endeavours to pull down all that stands before it, but itself builds nothing; and, under pretence of reforming Religion, and Devotions, only defaceth them; and so leaves the ruins 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 Unions, talked of. No Evangelical Councils; but those so called, help precepts to some particular persons, of which none finds himself to be one; not recommending of solitude; of single life; of quitting the possession and cares of Riches,—  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 satisfy scruples; & so no liability of such to be misconstrued in stating such points; as the Roman Casuists are most shamefully by Protestants citing their words, and defalking Circumstances, which continually alter the state of the Question; No Penances, or Satisfactions to appease God's 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 Lord's 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 departed hence without their Viaticum; 
Jam. 5.15.  and without Extreme Unction 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 immediately to Hell, that do not go immediately to Heaven, and to the Beatifical Vision of God; and so no Prayers, no Oblations, no All-Souls-days, no Anniverssaries, 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 die penitent, are well prepared (by reason of their repentance and imperfect reformation of manners) to enter immediately to the fruition of God's presence, and possession of eternal joys, and how much many Protestants disparage a deathbed 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 Vows; 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 heinous soever, and so to magnify the more God's Mercy, and Christ's Merits, to read the Scriptures without ask the Eunuck's Question Quomodo possum intelligere, nisi quis ostenderit mihi, etc. 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 opinion in those things, where the former Church they say hath used Tyranny. No sure Tradition, 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 itself: For on Affirms lies the Proof.  
All these Church-Practices before Luther's 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 grey 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 thereof, 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 sat 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, Will-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 they have now the leisure to make sport with them too, and call them to an account. And for fitting the Church's Tenants and Practices the better for their drollery, they mis-relate, and  them so far, as that they can manifest them unreasonable and ridiculous; and the extravagancy of any Casuist or Schoolman is applied, 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 Catholics, are astonished to see the Church's Doctrine so disguised and falsified. Tuautem exaltare, Domine, in virtute tuâ; and, as there want not many to invade thy Truth, so raise up always 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.