The language of prayer proved to be no indifferent thing from St. Pauls arguments No universal consent for prayers in an unknown tongue by the confession of their own Writers Of their doctrine of the efficacy of Sacraments that it takes away all necessity of devotion in the minds of the receivers This complained of by Cassander and Arnaud but proved against them to be the doctrine of the Roman Church by the Canons of the Council of Trent The great easiness of getting Grace by their Sacraments Of their discouraging the reading the Scriptures A standing Rule of devotion necessary None so fit to give it as God himself This done by him in the Scriptures All persons therefore concerned to read them The arguments against reading the Scriptures would have held against the publishing them in a language known to the peâ—ple The dangers as great then as ever have been since The greatest prudence of the Roman Church is wholly to forbid the Scriptures being acknowledged by their wisest men to be so contrary to their Interest The confession of the Cardinals at Bononia to that purpose The avowed practice of the Roman Church herein directly contrary to that of the Primitive although the reasons were as great then from the danger of Heresies This confessed by their own Writers p. 178 CHAP. IV. Of the Fanaticism of the Roman Church The unreasonableness of objecting Sects and Fanaticisms to us as the effects of reading the Scriptures Fanaticism countenanced in the Roman Church but condemned by ours Private revelations made among them the grounds of believing some points of doctrine proved from their own Authors Of the Revelations pleaded for the immaculate Conception The Revelations of S. Brigitt and S. Catharin directly contrary in this point yet both owned in the Church of Rome The large approbations of S. Brigitts by Popes and Councils and both their revelations acknowledged to be divine in the lessons read upon their dayes S. Catharines wonderful faculty of smelling souls a gift peculiar to her and Philip Nerius The vain attempts of reconciling those Revelations The great number of female Revelations approved in the Roman Church Purgatory Transubstantiation Auricular Confession proved by Visions and Revelations Festivals appointed upon the credit of Revelations the Feast of Corpus Christi on the Revelation made to Juliana the Story of it related from their own Writers No such things can be objected to our Church Revelations still owned by them proved from the Fanatick Revelations of Mother Juliana very lately published by Mr. Cressy Some instances of the blasphemous Nonsense contained in them The Monastick Orders founded in Enthusiasm An account of the great Fanaticism of S. Benedict and S. Romoaldus their hatred of Humane Learning and strange Visions and Revelations The Carthusian Order founded upon a Vision The Carmalites Vision of their habit The Franciscan and Dominican Orders founded on Fanaticism and seen in a Vision of Innocent the third to be the great supporters of the Roman Church The Quakerism of S. Francis described from their best Authors His Ignorance Extasies and Fanatick Preaching The Vision of Dominicus The blasphemous Enthusiasm of the Mendicant Fryers The History of it related at large Of the Evangelium aeternum and the blasphemies contained in it The Author of it supposed to be the General of the Franciscan Order however owned by the Fryers and read and preached at Paris The opposition to it by the Vniversity but favoured by the Popes Gul. S. Amour writing against it his Book publickly burnt by order of the Court of Rome The Popes horrible partiality to the Fryers The Fanaticism of the Franciscans afterwards of the followers of Petrus Johannis de Oliva The Spiritual State began say they from S. Francis The story of his wounds and Maria Visitationis paralleld The canting language used by the spiritual Brethren called Beguini Fraticelli and Bigardi Of their doctrines about Poverty Swearing Perfection the Carnal Church and Inspiration by all which they appear to be a Sect of Quakers after the Order of S. Francis Of the Schism made by them The large spreading and long continuance of them Of the Apostolici and Dulcinistae Of their numerous Conventicles Their high opinion of themselves Their Zeal against the Clergy and Tythes their doctrine of Christian Liberty Of the Alumbrado's in Spain their disobedience to Bishops obstinate adhering to their own fancies calling them Inspirations their being above Ordinances Ignatius Loyola suspected to be one of the Illuminati proved from Melchior Canus The Iesuites Order founded in Fanaticism a particular account of the Romantick Enthusiasm of Ignatius from the Writers of his own Order Whereby it is proved that he was the greatest pretender to Enthusiasm since the dayes of Mahomet and S. Francis Ignatius gave no respect to men by words or putting off his Hat his great Ignorance and Preaching in the Streets his glorying in his sufferings for it his pretence to mortification the wayes he used to get disciples Their way of resolution of difficulties by seeking God their itinerant preaching in the Cities of Italy The Sect of Quakers a new Order of Disciples of Ignatius only wanting confirmation from the Pope which Ignatius obtained Of the Fanatick way of devotion in the Roman Church Of Superstitious and Enthusiastical Fanaticism among them Of their mystical Divinity Mr. Cressy's canting in his Preface to Sancta Sophia Of the Deiform fund of the soul a superessential life and the way to it Of contemplating with the will Of passive Vnions The method of self-Annihilation Of the Vnion of nothing with nothing Of the feeling of not-being The mischief of an unintelligible way of devotion The utmost effect of this way is gross Enthusiasm Mr. Cressy's Vindication of it examined The last sort of Fanaticism among them resisting authority under pretence of Religion Their principles and practices compared with the Fanaticks How far they are disowned at present by them Of the Vindication of the Irish Remonstrance The Court of Rome hath alwayes favoured that party which is most destructive to Civil Government proved by particular and late Instances p. 235 CHAP. V. Of the Divisions of the Roman Church The great pretence of Vnity in the Church of Rome considered The Popes Authority the fountain of that Vnity what that Authority is which is challenged by the Popes over the Christian World the disturbances which have happened therein on the account of it The first Revolt of Rome from the Empire caused by the Popes Baronius his Arguments answered Rebellion the foundation of the greatness of that Church The cause of the strict League between the Popes and the posterity of Charles Martel The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Empeperour and other Christian Princes upon the pretence of the Popes Authority More disturbances on that account in Christendome than any other matter of Religion Of the Schisms which have happened in the Roman Church particularly those
Proph. Sect. 20. Speaking of Catholicks The beauty and Splendour of their Church their pompous he should have said solemn Service the stateliness and solemnity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose he should have said their very Adversaries give them as their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines he should have said all the continual succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed St. Peter the flattering he should have said due expression of Minor Bishops he means acknowledging the Pope head of the Church which by being old records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of People which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes he should have said alwayes apparent consent with some elder Ages in matters Doctrinal The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide of Faith The great differences which are commenced among their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophecying into a very great licentiousness Their happiness of being Instruments in converting divers he should rather have said of all Nations The piety and austerity of their Religious Orders of Men and Women The single life of their Priests and Bishops the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate the oblique Arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacity he should have said upon the same grounds the Fathers did fasten upon all that disagree from them These things saith he and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore-fathers which had actually possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite professions to wit of Protestant Presbyterian Anabaptist c. had a name Thus Dr. Taylor an eminent and leading man amongst the Protestants and if he confess that these Motives were sufficient for a Catholick to retain his Religion they must be of like force to perswade a dis-interessed Protestant to embrace it unless the Protestants can produce Motives for their Religion of greater or at least equal force with these which so great a man among them confesseth that Catholicks have for theirs Here therefore you must call upon the Author of the Paper you sent me to produce a Catalogue of grounds or at least some one ground for the Protestant Religion of greater or equal force with all these And as Dr. Taylor saith divers others which he omitted viz. The Scripture interpreted by the consent of Fathers the determination of General Councils the known Maxime of Catholicks that nothing is to be believed of Faith but what was received from their Fore-fathers as handed down from the Apostles The testimonie of the present Church of no less Authority now than in St. Austins time both for the Letter and the sence of the Scripture c. Do this and the Controversie will quickly be at an end Particular disputes are endless and above the understanding of such as are not learned but in grounds and principles 't is not so hard for Reason and common sence to Iudge That you may the better do it in your case I shall desire you to take these two Cautions along with you First That the Subject of the present Controversie are not those Articles in which the Protestants agree with us and for which they may pretend to produce the same Motives we do But in those in which they dissent from us such as are no Transubstantiation no Purgatory no honour due to Images no Invocation to Saints and the like in which the very Essence of Protestant as distinct from Catholick consists What Motives they can or will produce for these I do not foresee The pretence of Scriptures being sufficiently plain hath no place here because then the foresaid Negatives would be necessary to be believed as divine Truths And for their own Reason and Learning it will be found too light when put into the scale against that of the Catholick Church for so many Ages The second Caution is That you be careful to distinguish between Protestants producing grounds for their own Religion and finding fault with ours An Atheist can cavil and find fault with the grounds which learned men bring to prove a Deity such as are the Order of this visible World the general consent of Nations c. In this an Atheist thinks he doth somewhat But can he produce as good or better grounds for his own opinion No you see then 't is one thing to produce grounds for what we hold and another to find fault with those which are produced by the contrary part The latter hath made Controversie so long and the former will make it as short let the Answerer therefore instead of finding fault with our Motives produce his own for the Articles in Controversie and I am confident you will quickly discern which carry the most weight and consequently which are to be preferred A Defence of the foregoing Answer to the Questions CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images The introduction concerning the occasion of the debate The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry First Of the Worship of God by Images Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship which being determined Gods Law and not our intention is to be the rule of Worship The main question is Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image under the notion of Idolatry Of the meaning of the second Commandment from the terms therein used the large sense and importance of them which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols Of the reason of that Law from Gods infinite and invisible nature How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews the reason against it made more clear by the Gospel The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods yet their worship condemned as Idolatry The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice the opposition to it in Greece Germany France and England Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment in the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry The vanity and folly of them The instances supposed to be parallel answered Madam § 1. THat
preserve the honour of Regicides it was but seven months and twenty four dayes before Ravaillac perfected that work which the other had begun This observation I owe to an ingenuous and learned Doctor of the Sorbon yet living who detests these practices and doctrines and himself lyes under the same censure there And the more to abuse the world on the same day a Book of Mariana's was suspended which those who look no farther than the name might imagine was the dangerous Book so much complained of but upon search it appears to be a Book quite of another nature concerning Coynes The latter instance concerns the Irish Remonstrance the account of which I take from Caron the publisher of it The Popish Clergy of Ireland a very few excepted were accused of Rebellion for opposing themselves to the Kings Authority by the instigation of the Popes Nuncio after which followed a meeting of the Popish Bishops where they banished the Kings Lieutenant and took the Royal Authority upon themselves almost all the Clergy and a great part of the people joyned with them and therefore it was necessary since the Kings return to give him better satisfaction concerning their Allegiance and to decline the Oath of Allegiance which they must otherwise have taken some of them agree upon this Remonstrance to present to the King the news of which was no sooner come to Rome but Cardinal Barberin sends a Letter to the Irish Nobility 8 July A. D. 1662. to bid them take heed of being drawn into the ditch by those blind guides who had subscribed to some propositions testifying their Loyalty to the King which had been before condemned by the Apostolick See After this the Popes Nuncio at Brussels Iuly 21. 1662. sends them word how displeasing their Remonstrance was at Rome and that after diligent examination by the Cardinals and Divines they found it contained Propositions already condemned by Paul 5. and Innocent 10. and therefore the Pope gave him order to publish this among them that he was so far from approving their Remonstrance that he did not so much as permit it or connive at it and was extremely grieved that the Irish Nobility were drawn into it and therefore condemned it in this form That it could not be kept without breach of faith according to the Decree of Paul 5. and that it denyed the Popes Authority in matters of faith according to that of Innocent 10. By this very late instance we see what little countenance they receive from Rome who offer to give any reasonable security to the King of their Loyalty and by the Popes own Declaration the giving of it is an injury to the faith and a denying his Supremacy For which we are to understand that A. D. 1648. when the Papists were willing to make as good terms for themselves as they could and it was objected to them that they held Principles inconsistent with Civil Government viz. that the Pope can absolve them from their obedience that he can depose and destroy Heretical Magistrates that he can dispense with all Oaths and contracts they make with those whom they call Hereticks upon which they met together and to save themselves from banishment resolved them in the Negative but no sooner was this heard at Rome but the sacred Congregation condemned this resolution as heretical and the subscribers as lyable to the penalties against those who deny the Popes Authority in matters of faith upon which they are cited to appear at Rome and Censures and Prisons are there prepared for them The summ of it then is that they can give no security of their Loyalty to the King against the Popes power to depose him and absolve his Subjects from whatever Oaths they make to him or they must be accounted Hereticks at Rome for so doing For this good old Cause is as much still in request at Rome as ever and it is in their power to be accounted Hereticks at Rome or bad Subjects in their own Countrey but one of them they cannot avoid So much may suffice to shew that the most dangerous Principles of Fanaticism either as to Enthusiasm or Civil Government are owned and allowed in the Church of Rome and therefore the number of Fanaticks among us is very unjustly charged upon the Reading the Scriptures in our own Language CHAP. V. Of the Divisions of the Roman Church The great pretence of Vnity in the Church of Rome considered The Popes Authority the fountain of that Vnity what that Authority is which is challenged by the Popes over the Christian World the disturbances which have happened therein on the account of it The first revolt of Rome from the Empire caused by the Popes Baronius his Arguments answered Rebellion the foundation of the greatness of that Church The cause of the strict League between the Popes and the posterity of Charles Martel The disturbances made by Popes in the new Empire Of the quarrels of Greg. 7. with the Emperour and other Christian Princes upon the pretence of the Popes Authority More disturbances on that account in Christendome than any other matter of Religion Of the Schisms which have happened in the Roman Church particularly those after the time of Formosus wherein his Ordinations were nulled by his successours the Popes opposition to each other in that Age the miserable state of that Church then described Of the Schisms of latter times by the Italick and Gallick factions the long continuance of them The mischief of those Schisms on their own principles Of the divisions in that Church about matters of Order and Government The differences between the Bishops and the Monastick Orders about exemptions and priviledges the history of that Controversie and the bad success the Popes had in attempting to compose it Of the quarrel between the Regulars and Seculars in England The continuance of that Controversie here and in France The Jesuits enmity to the Episcopal Order and jurisdiction the hard case of the Bishop of Angelopolis in America The Popes still favour the Regulars as much as they dare The Jesuits way of converting the Chinese discovered by that Bishop Of the differences in matters of Doctrine in that Church They have no better way to compose them than we The Popes Authority never truly ended one Controversie among them Their wayes to evade the decisions of Popes and Councils Their dissensions are about matters of faith The wayes taken to excuse their own differences will make none between them and us manifested by Sancta Clara's exposition of the 39 Articles Their disputes not confined to their Schools proved by a particular instance about the immaculate conception the infinite scandals confessed by their own Authors to have been in their Church about it From all which it appears that the Church of Rome can have no advantage in point of Vnity above ours 2. § 1. THE other thing objected as flowing from the promiscuous reading the Scriptures is the number of our Sects and the
disturbances which have been among us upon their account whereas among them the Government of the Church is so ordered as to keep all in peace and Vnity This makes it necessary to examine that admirable Vnity they boast so much of and either they mean by it that there hath been less disturbance in the world before the Reformation or no Schisms among themselves or no differences in the matters of Religion But I shall now prove 1. That there have never been greater disturbances in the World than upon the account of that Authority of the Pope which they look on as the Foundation of their Vnity 2. That there have happened great and scandalous Schisms among themselves on the same account 3. That their differences in Religion both as to matter of Order and Doctrine have been as great and managed with as much animosity as any among us 1. The disturbances in the World upon the account of the Popes Authority I meddle not barely with his usurpations which work is lately and largely done but the effects of them in these Western Churches For which we are to consider what authority that is which the Pope challenges and what disturbances hath been given to the peace of Christendome by it The Authority claimed by the Pope is that of being Vniversal Pastor over the Catholick Church by vertue of which not only spiritual direction in matters of faith but an actual jurisdiction over all the members of it doth belong unto him For otherwise they say the Government of the Church is imperfect and insufficient for its end because Princes may easily overthrow the Unity of the Church by favouring Hereticks if they be not in subjection to the Pope as to their temporal concernments because it may happen that they have a regard to no other but these if it were not therefore in the Popes power to depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleagiance when they oppose the Vnity of the Church his power say they is an insignificant title and cannot reach the end it was designed for Besides they urge that all Princes coming into the Church are to be supposed to submit their Scepters to Christ so as to lose them in case they act contrary to the Catholick Church of which they are made members for whosoever doth not hate Father and Mother c. cannot be my Disciple And what officer is there so fit to take all Escheats and Forfeitures of Power as Christs own Vicar upon Earth But to adde more strength Bellarmin very prettily proves it out of Pasce oves for every Pastor must have a threefold power to defend his flock a power over wolves to keep them from destroying the Sheep a power over the Rams that they do not hurt them and a power over the Sheep to give them convenient food now saith he very subtilly if a Prince of a sheep should turn a Ram or a Wolf must not he have power to drive him away and to keep the people from following him This is then the only current doctrine concerning the Popes Authority in the Court of Rome although some mince the matter more than others do and talk only of an indirect power yet they all mean the same thing and ascribe such power to the Pope whereby he may depose Princes and absolve subjects from the duty they owe to them And how much in request this Doctrine continues at Rome appears by the Counsel given by Michael Lonigo Master of the Palace to Pope Greg. 15. Printed A. D. 1623. about perswading the Duke of Bavaria then newly made Elector to receive a confirmation of his title from the Pope to which end he saith some skilful person ought to be imployed to acquaint him that the power of the Empire was the meer issue of the Church and did spring from it as a Child from the Mother and that it was a great sin for any Christian to call this into Question and consequently the Popes power and authority to determine concerning the State and affairs of the Empire and this he attempts to prove by no fewer than nineteen arguments all of them drawn from the former Usurpations of the Popes and encroachments upon the Empire from whence he concludes that the Electorship could not be lawfully taken away from one and given to another without the Popes consent and authority and that such a disposal of it was in it self null and of no force The same year came forth a Book of Aphorisms concerning the restoring the state of the Church by the decree and approbation of the Colledge of Cardinals collected by the same person and by him presented to the Pope wherein the same power of the Pope is asserted and that it belongs to him to transferr the Electoral dignity from one to another and that it ought to be taken away from the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg for opposing his Authority and that to allow the Emperour authority in these things was to rob the Apostolick See of its due rights By which we may understand what that Authority over the Church is which is challenged by the Pope as supream Pastour in order to the preserving the Unity of it § 2. We now consider what the blessed effects of this pretended power hath been in the Christian World and I doubt not to make it appear that this very thing hath caused more warrs and bloodshed more confusions and disorders more revolts and rebellions in Christendome than all other causes put together have done since the time it was first challenged and this I shall prove from their own Authors and such whose credit is the greatest among them The revolt of Rome and the adjacent parts from the subjection due to the Roman Emperour then resident at Constantinople was wholly caused by the Pope The first Pope saith Onuphrius that ever durst openly resist the Emperour was Constantine 1. who opposed Philippicus in the matter of Images which the Emperour commanded to be pulled down because they were abused to Idolatry and the Pope utterly refused to obey and not only so but set up more in opposition to him in the Pertico of St. Peter and forbad the use of the Emperours name and title in any publick Writings or Coines The same command was not long after renewed by Leo 3. upon which saith Onuphrius Gregory 2. then Pope took away the small remainder of the Roman Empire from him in Italy and Sigonius more expresly that he not only excommunicated the Emperour but absolved all the people of Italy from their Alleagiance and forbad the payment of any Tribute to him whereupon the inhabitants of Rome Campania Ravenna and Pentapolis i.e. the Region about Ancona immediately rebelled and rose up in opposition to their Magistrates whom they destroyed At Ravenna Paulus the Emperours Lieutenant or Exarch was killed at Rome Peter the Governour had his eyes put out in Campania Exhilaratus and his Son Hadrian were both
and to have any authority over them because they look on themselves as a free State There can be but one lawful Head of the Church by their own principles and only they are truly united to the Church who are in conjunction with the lawful Head and therefore it follows upon their own principles that they must be in a State of Schisme who are united with any other than the true Head What then signifie the boasts of Vnity in the Roman Church if they cannot prevent the falling of their members into such dangerous Schisms To what purpose is it to tell us of one Head of the Church to whom all must submit if there have been several pretenders to that Headship and the Church hath been a long time divided which of them was the true Unless all their Vnity comes to this at last that they have an excellent Vnity among them if they could all agree And such an Vnity may be had any where But if all were agreed what need any means of agreement by one universal Head or what can that universal Head signifie to making Vnity when his title to his Headship becomes a cause of greater divisions May not we say upon better grounds that taking away the Popes authority would tend much more to the peace of the Church since that hath been the cause of so great disturbances in the world and is to this day of one of the greatest differences between the several parts of the Catholick Church For as things now stand in the Christian World the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Fountain of Vnity that he is much rather the Head of Contention and the great cause of the divisions of the Christian Church § 7. 3. The differences have been as great in the Roman Church as out of it both as to matters of order and doctrine 1. For matters of Order and Government Have not the controversies between the Regulars and Seculars among them even here in England been managed with as much heat and warmth as to matter of Episcopal jurisdiction as between those of the Church of England and the dissenters from it Neither is this any lately started controversie among them but hath continued ever since the prevalency of the Mendicant Fryers and their pretences of exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction and encroaching upon the office of the Parochial Clergy For no sooner did the Fryers begin publickly under pretence of priviledges to take upon them to Preach without licence from the Bishops where they pleased and to take other offices of the Parochial Clergy out of their hands but great opposition was made against them by all the learned men who were friends to the Episcopal power and the peace of the Church Which being a matter of concernment for us to understand I shall give a faithful account of it from the best Writers of their own Church Assoon as the Monastick orders were found to be very serviceable to the Interests of the Court of Rome it was thought convenient to keep them in an immediate dependence upon the Pope in whatever Countrey they were From hence came the great favour of Popes to them and their willingness to grant them almost what priviledges they desired because receiving them only from the plenitude of the Popes power they were obliged to maintain and defend that from whence they derived them At first when they led a more properly Monastick life the priviledges granted them seem to be nothing else but exempting them from some troubles which were inconsistent with it either relating to their persons or the estates they enjoyed After this they began to complain of the numbers of people flocking to their Churches as inconsistent with their private and retired life from hence we first read that publick Masses by the Bishop were forbid in Monasteries to prevent a concourse of people and especially of Women to them But a long time after this they lived in subjection to the Bishops and meddled no more in Ecclesiastical than in Secular matters So Charles M. in his Capitular commands them to keep within their Monasteries to be subject to their Bishops and to meddle in no Ecclesiastical matters without the express command of the Bishop But as the Popes increased their authority the Monks inlarged their priviledges and procured exemptions from Episcopal jurisdiction which yet was not pleasing to those who valued the Churches peace above the priviledges of the Monastick orders These exemptions are therefore highly condemned by St. Bernard though a Monk himself as tending to the dissolution of the Ecclesiastical Government and by Ivo Carnotensis who saith he grew weary of his Episcopal Government by reason of them Petrus Blesensis hath an Epistle written to Pope Alexander 3. in the name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury against the Abbot of Malmsbury who refused subjection to the Bishop of Salisbury and being cited by the Archbishop to appear before him for his contempt he declared he would be subject to none but the Pope and said they were pittiful Abbots who did not wholly exempt themselves from the Bishops power when they might for an annual pension to the Pope obtain an absolute exemption Therefore the Archbishop saith it was time for them to complain because this contagion did spread it self far and the Abbots set themselves against their Bishops and Metropolitans and the Popes by indulging these things did command disobedience and Rebellion and arm the Children against their Fathers but these and many other complaints signified nothing in the Court of Rome as long as their profit and interest were advanced by it And although we read of many affronts which the Monks put upon the Bishops before the time of the Mendicant Fryers yet their insolency grew the highest when they took upon them to Preach in Parochial Churches and hear Confessions without the Bishops leave Thence the Vniversity of Paris published the Book De periculis novissimorum temporum which although written by S. Amour went abroad in the name of all the Divines there as appears by the beginning of it wherein a Character is given of those persons who should make the last times so troublesome they should be lovers of themselves not enduring reproof covetous both of riches and applause high-minded because they would not be in subjection to the Bishops but be set before them and therefore disobedient to their spiritual Fathers And such as these are said to creep into houses which the ordinary Gloss expounds of those who enter into the houses of those who are under anothers charge these enter not by the door as the Rectors of Churches do but steal into them like Thieves and Robbers and leading captive silly women is their setting them against the Bishops and perswading them to a Monastick life These are likewise false teachers who though never so learned and holy teach without being sent and none are duly sent but such as are chosen and
Fornication Indeed he saith that this falling from that holy chastity which was vowed to God may in some sense be said to be worse than Adultery but he never imagined such a construction could be made of his words as though the act of Fornication were not a greater falling from it than meer marriage could be So much shall suffice for the Instances produced in the Roman Church of such things which tend to obstruct a good life and devotion § 14. The 3. argument I used to prove the danger a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church was because it exposeth the faith of Christians to so great uncertainties which he looks on as a strange charge from the Pen of a Protestant As strange as it is I have at large proved it true in a full examination of the whole Controversie of the Resolution of faith between us and them to which I expect a particular Answer before this charge be renewed again To which I must refer him for the main proof of it and shall here subjoyn only short replyes to his Answers or references to what is fully answered already 1. His distinction of the authority of the Scripture in it self and to us signifies nothing for when we enquire into the proofs of the Authority of Scripture it can be understood no otherwise than in respect to us and if the Scriptures Authority as to us is to be proved by the Church and the Churches Authority as to us to be provved by the Scripture the difficulty is not in the least avoided by that distinction And as little to the purpose is the other that it is only an argument ad hominem to prove the Infallibility of the Church from Scriptures for I would fain know upon what other grounds they build their own belief of the Churches Infallibility than on the Promises of Christ in the Scripture These are miserable evasions and nothing else For the trite saying of S. Austin that he would not believe the Gospel c. I have at large proved that the meaning of it is no more than that the Testimony of the Vniversal Church from the Apostles times is the best way to prove the particular books of Scripture to be authentical and cannot be understood of the Infallibility of the present Church and that the testimony of some few persons as the Manichees were was not to be taken in opposition to the whole Christian Church Which is a thing we as much contend for as they but is far enough from making the Infallibility of our faith to depend on the Authority of the present Church which we say is the way to overthrow all certainty of faith to any considering man 2. To that of overthrowing the certainty of sense in the doctrine of transubstantiation he saith that divine revelation ought to be believed against the evidence of sense To which I answer 1. that divine revelation in matters not capable of being judged by our senses is to be believed notwithstanding any argument can be drawn from sensible experiments against it as in the belief of God the doctrine of the Trinity the future state of the soul c. 2. that in the proper objects of sense to suppose a Revelation contrary to the evidence of sense is to overthrow all certainty of faith where the matters to be believed depend upon matters of fact As for Instance the truth of the whole Christian doctrine depends upon the truth of Christs resurrection from the dead if sense be not here to be believed in a proper object of it what assurance can we have that the Apostles were not deceived when they said they saw Christ after he was risen If it be said there was no revelation against sense in that case that doth not take off the difficulty for the reason why I am to believe revelation at any time against sense must be because sense may be deceived but revelation cannot but if I yield to that principle that sense may be deceived in its most proper object we can have no infallible certainty by sense at all and consequently not in that point that Christ is risen from the dead If it be said that sense cannot be deceived where there is no revelation against it I desire to know how it comes to be deceived supposing a revelation contrary to it Doth God impose upon our senses at that time then he plainly deceives us is it by telling us we ought to believe more than we see that we deny not but we desire only to believe according to our senses in what we doe see as what we see to be bread that is bread that what the Apostles saw to be the body of Christ was the body of Christ really and substantially and not meerly the accidents of a body Besides if revelation is to be believed against sense then either that revelation is conveyed immediately to our minds which is to make every one a Prophet that believes transubstantiation or mediately by our senses as in those words this is my body if so than I am to believe this revelation by my senses and believing this revelation I am not to believe my senses which is an excellent way of making faith certain All this on supposition there were a revelation in this case which is not only false but if it were true would overthrow the certainty of faith 3. To that I objected as to their denying to men the use of their judgement and reason as to the matters of faith proposed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church he answers that this cannot expose faith to any uncertainty because it is only preferring the Churches judgement before our own but he doth not seem to understand the force of my objection which lay in this Every one must use his own judgement and reason in the choice of the Church he is to rely upon is he certain in this or not if he be uncertain all that he receives on the Authority of that Church must be uncertain too if the use of reason be certain then how comes the Authority of a Church to be a necessary means of certainty in matters of faith And they who condemn the use of a mans reason and judgement in Religion must overthrow all certainty on their own grounds since the choice of his Infallible Guide must depend upon it Now he understands my argument better he may know better how to answer it but I assure him I meant no such thing by the use of reason as he supposes I would have which is to believe nothing but what my reason can comprehend for I believe an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in Holy Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those conceptions we call reason But therefore to argue against the use of mens judgements in matters of faith and the grounds of believing is to dispute against that which
and him only shalt thou serve and that we are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods on which account saith he we worship God alone and give cheerful service in all other things to you Theophilus Bishop of Antioch who lived in the second Century after Christ as well as Iustin giving an account why the Christians refused giving adoration to the Emperours which was then used not that adoration which was proper to the Supream God for none can be so senseless to imagine they required that but such kind of religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods saith That as the King or Emperour suffers none under him to be called by his name and that it is not lawful to give it to any but himself so neither is it to worship any but God alone and elsewhere saith that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the worship of Idols but of the Elements the Sun and Moon and Stars or any thing else in Heaven in Earth in Sea or Fountains or Rivers but we ought only to worship the true God and Maker of all things in the holiness of our hearts and integrity of our minds To the same purpose speak Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athenagoras Lactantius Arnobius who all agree that religious worship is proper to the true God and that no created thing is capable of it on that very account because it is created it were easie to produce their testimonies if it were requisite in so evident a matter as this is If it be said That all these testimonies are only against that Idolatry which was then practised by the Heathens I answer 1. Their reasons equally extend to the giving divine worship to any created being whatsoever so that either they argued weakly and unskilfully or else it is as unlawful to give divine worship now to Saints as it was then to any creature 2. I would willingly understand why it should be more unlawful to worship God for his admirable Wisdom and Power and Goodness in the works of Creation than in supposed Saints i. e. why I may not as well honour God by giving worship to the Sun as to Ignatius Loyola or St. Francis or any other late Canonized Saint I am sure the Sun is a certain monument of Gods Goodness Wisdom and Power and I cannot be mistaken therein but I can never be certain of the Holiness of those persons I am to give divine worship to For all that I can know Ignatius Loyola was a great hypocrite but I am sure that the Sun is none but that he shines and communicates perpetual influences to the huge advantage of the world However I know the best of men have their corruptions and to what degree it is impossible for others to understand but I am certain the spots in the Sun are no Moral impurities nor displeasing to God And Philip Nerius could not be mistaken in the shining of the Sun although he might be in the shining of Ignatius his face which yet is thought so considerable a thing that it is read in the Lessons appointed for Ignatius in the Roman Breviary 3. On what account should the Christians refuse giving all external signs of Religious worship to the Heathen Emperours if they thought it lawful to be given to any sort of men Why might not they worship the Statues of Kings and Princes as well as others do those of Rebels and Traytors I mean why might not the Image of King Henry the second have the same reverence shewn to it that the Shrine of Thomas Becket had unless it be more meritorious to disobey a Prince than to give him reverence Might not the Primitive Christians have much easier defended themselves in giving those outward signs of worship to the Images of Emperours than others can do in the worship they give to Saints For they might have pleaded that external signs are to be interpreted by the intention of the person who uses them that they intended no more by it but the highest degree of Civil honour on the account of the authority they possessed or if this would not serve might not they have said that Kings and Princes were Gods Vicegerents and represented him to the world and that in giving divine worship to them they gave it to God and that their absolute ultimate and terminative worship was upon God and only a relative inferior and transient worship was given to them and all this might be better justified by St. Basils rule That the honour of the Image passes to the Prototype for he there pleads for the worship of Christ because he is one with the Father being his Image as the Image of a King is called the King and hath the same honour given to it for the honour of the Image passeth to the thing represented And as Christ hath the advantage above all by being Gods natural Image so Princes above Saints in that they represent God to the world which the other do not But notwithstanding all these Pleas the Primitive Christians were so punctual in observing that Command of worshipping God alone that they rather chose to lose their lives and suffer Martyrdom than be in the least guilty of giving any divine worship to a creature 4. They absolutely deny any religious worship to be given to the most excellent created Beings and therefore did not only condemn the Idolatry then in use but that which hath obtained in the Roman Church supposing all the persons worshipped therein to have been real Saints For that we are to consider that all the Heathens were not such great Fools as some men make them to excuse themselves if the wiser men were contented to let the people worship the Poetical Gods having their minds possessed with those Idea's of them which they had taken up by their education yet they understood them only as Allegories as some make the Image of St. Christopher and St. George in the Church of Rome to be no other and they had Temples erected to the greatest Vertues to Piety Faith Concord Iustice Chastity Clemency c. and others to the greatest Benefactors to mankind which was the only ground they pleaded for giving worship to them but still they acknowledged one Supream God not Iupiter of Creet but the Father of Gods and men only they said this Supream God being of so high a nature and there being other intermediate beings between him and men whose Office they conceived it was to carry the prayers of men to God and to bring down help from him to them they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications to them Here now was the very same case in debate altering only the names of things which is between us and the Church of Rome and if ever they speak home to our case they must do upon this point And so they do but very little to their comfort § 10.
about A. D. 1254. who was General of the Franciscan Order but the Book was received and defended by both Orders as will presently appear But it will be first necessary to consider what the doctrines are which are contained in this Book and if ever there were higher Fanaticism than is therein or rather greater blasphemies let them have leave to triumph The most perfect account we have of it is from Nicol Eymericus who was himself an Inquisitor and tells us these Heresies or Errors are contained in it 1. That the doctrine of Abbot Ioachim a great Fanatick excelled the doctrine of Christ and consequently the New and Old Testament 2. That the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the Kingdom and therefore is not edifying 3. That the New Testament is to be evacuated or lose its force as the Old hath already 4. That the New Testament shall not remain in force above six years longer viz. to A. D. 1260. 5. That they which shall live beyond that time shall be in the state of perfection 6. That the Gospel of Christ shall give way to another Gospel and so instead of the Priesthood of Christ another Gospel shall succeed 7. That no simple man is fit to instruct men in spiritual and eternal things but they that walk barefoot 8. That although God afflict the Iews in this world yet he will save them though they remain in Iudaism and will in the end deliver them from all the opposition of men remaining such as they are 9. That the Church hath not yet brought forth Children nor will do before the end of the temporal reign which shall be after six years and by this we are to understand that the Christian Religion which hath brought forth many called to the faith of Christ is not the Church 10. That the Gospel of Christ brings no man to perfection 11. That the Gospel of the Holy Ghost coming or Ioachims work obtaining called the Everlasting Gospel or of the Holy Ghost the Gospel of Christ shall be done away 12. That no man in Religious Orders is bound to expose his life for defence of the faith or preserving the worship of Christ but other men are 13. That as when Iohn Baptist came the things that were before must needs be confuted because of new things coming in their place so when the time of the Holy Ghost shall come or the third state of the world the things that were before must be confuted for the sake of the New which are to come from whence it must be understood that the New Testament must be refuted and the old cast away 14. That Christ and his Apostles were not perfect in the contemplative life 15. That the Order of the Clergy shall perish but one of a Religious Order shall be perferred above all in dignity and honour and that as the authority under the Father was committed to one of the married order so under the Holy Ghost to one or some of the order of Monks 16. That those who are over the Colledges of Monks ought in those dayes to think of departing from the Seculars and prepare themselves to return to the ancient people of the Iews 17. That the Preachers which shall be in the last state of the world shall be of greater dignity and authority than the Preachers of the Primitive Church 18. That the Preachers and Doctors of Religious Orders when they shall be infested by the Clergy shall go over to the Infidels and it is to be feared lest they go thither for that end to bring them in battel against the Roman Church according to the doctrine of S. Iohn Apocalyps 15. These may suffice out of twenty seven to let the world know where the height of Blasphemy and Fanaticism was first hatched and no one could imagine that any who had the face or name of Christians should own these things yet they came from those excellent and inspired persons of the newly founded Religious Orders And if it had not been for the mortal hatred that then was between the University of Paris and the Mendicant Fryers who usurped the Professors places in the Vniversity against their will God knows how far this doctrine might have prevailed without the least censure For the Popes were extreamly partial to the Fryers and would hear no ill of them they now finding them their most useful instruments in all their quarrels with Princes the Secular Clergy and the People So Matth. Paris relating the Story of the quarrels between the University and the Fryers tells That though the King and the City were for preserving the priviledges of the Vniversity yet the Fryers being at the Popes devotion and doing them a great deal of service were more acceptable in the Court of Rome and therefore got the better of the Vniversity Nay so zealous was Alexander the fourth in the cause of the Fryers against the Vniversity that in the six years of his Popedom he sent out near forty Bulls against the Vniversity of which not one now appears in the Bullarium but most of them are preserved in that accurate Preface before the Works of Gul. de Sancto Amore the zealous Defender of the Vniversity against the encroachments of the Fryers and in the late History of the Vniversity of Paris In the midst of these heats some intimation was given the Divines of the Vniversity of such a Book which was in great esteem among the Fryers called Evangelium aeternum wherein were very dangerous doctrines which were saith Matthew Paris preached read and taught by the Fryers and were put together by them in a Book called Evangelium aeternum and taken saith he chiefly out of the Books of Abbot Joachim and Richerius acknowledgeth that the Book was composed by the Fryers and that the Divines of Paris by some art got a Copy of it and extracted some Heads out of it which were contrary to faith and upon that as Du Bouley saith they caused it to be burnt publickly at Paris But not being satisfied herewith they preached against it as appears by a Sermon of Gul. de Sancto Amore at the end of his Works wherein he saith That he had seen no small part of that Book and he had heard that it doth in all contain more than the Bible and therein he saith it is taught that the Sacraments of the Church are nothing that the Gospel of Christ is not the true Gospel and that the Book it self is the Gospel of the Holy Ghost and the everlasting Gospel and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but for five years to come that then men shall have another Rule of life and the Church shall be otherwise managed Which saith he is execrable and abominable to be spoken But not content with bare preaching against them he writ a very smart Book in the name of the Vniversity of Paris de periculo novissimorum temporum of the dangers of the
purpose when he set up Conradus the Emperours Son in Rebellion against his Father This Baronius would fain shift off as not arising from the Popes instigation but some private discontents for which he quotes Dodechindus but Sigonius who follows the same Author saith expresly that he took upon him the Kingdom of Lombardy against his Father by the Authority of Urban himself and Bertholdus whose testimony is afterwards produced by Baronius mentions not only their meeting at Cremona but that Conradus there took an oath of fidelity to the Pope and the Pope in requital solemnly promised him to give him all the advice and assistance he could for the obtaining the Kingdom and Empire of his Father What is somenting and encouraging Rebellion in the highest degree if this be not And the sentence of deposition of Conrade in the Diet at Aken A. D. 1096. expresly mentions as the cause of it his adhering to Pope Vrban against the Emperour his Father and there his Son Henry declared his successour and solemnly swears never to Rebell against his Father But notwithstanding this Oath Conrad being dead this Son is likewise prevailed upon by the Popes instruments to Rebell against his Father for Pascal 2. succeeding Vrban had again excommunicated Henry 4. and at a Council called by him in Rome he made all the Bishops present by particular subscription to Anathematize the Emperours heresie as they were pleased to call it and to promise obedience to Paschal and his Successours and to affirm what the Church affirmed and condemn what she condemns Having by this means secured the Bishops from adhering to the Emperours party there wanted not Agents to solicit his Son to take away his Crown from him And the first thing he did upon his rebellion was to Anathematize his Fathers heresie which was keeping the Empire in spight of the Popes and to promise obedience to the Pope as the Bishops had done at Rome and in the Diet at Northausen A. D. 1105. he calls God to witness that it was no desire of the Empire which made him take his Fathers Government from him but if he would obey the Pope he would presently yield himself to him and become his Slave And when the Son had in a perfidious manner seized on the Person of his Father and he addressed himself to the Popes Legat for his safety he plainly told him he must look for none unless he would publickly declare the justice of Hildebrand and his own unjust persecutions of the Roman See But which is the most evident testimony of all others in this case Henry 4. a little before his death A. D. 1106. at Liege whither he was forced to retire by his Sons rebellion sends an account of the whole quarrel to Philip of France wherein he declares that he had offered all reasonable satisfaction to the Pope only preserving the authority of the Empire but this not being accepted in a most unnatural manner they had armed his most beloved Son his Absolom against him who by their instigation and council had most perfidiously dealt with him but we need not so much proof of this since Baronius confesseth that the Son had no greater cause of rebelling against his Father than that he was excommunicated by the Pope and afterwards very freely delivers his mind that in case the Son did it sincerely as he pretended i. e. out of obedience to the See of Rome it was saith he an act of great piety in him to be thus cruel to his Father and that his only offence was that he did not bind him faster till he was brought to himself i. e. to the Popes beck O the admirable doctrine of obedience at Rome What an excellent commentary is this upon the fifth Commandment and the thirteent to the Romans What mighty care hath the Church of Rome alwayes taken to preserve peace and unity in the Christian Church The Historians who report the passages of this time tell us there was never known so dismal an age as that was for Warres and Bloodshed for Murthers and Parricides for Rapines and Sacriledge for Seditions and Conspiracies for horrible Schisms and Scandals to Religion the Priests opposing the Bishops the People the Priests and in some places not only robbing the Churches burning the Tithes but trampling under foot the holy Eucharist that was consecrated by such whom Pope Hildebrand had excommunicated And must we after all this believe that the Roman See is the fountain of Vnity in the Catholick Church that all Warrs and Rebellions arise from casting off such subjection to the Popes who have been the great fomenters of Rebellion ever since Hildebrands time and the disturbers of the peace of Christendome For we are not to imagine that this quarrel ended with Henry 4. for it was revived again in Henry the fifth's time between Pope Paschal and him and the Pope grants him the priviledges which his Father contended for but afterwards revoked his own grant perjury being no sin at Rome in so holy a cause and raised a Rebellion in the Empire against him and notwithstanding several agreements made between him and the successive Popes could enjoy no lasting peace in his time upon their account and dyed at last without issue going to suppress a new Rebellion After his death Conradus being to succeed as Sisters Son to Henry 5. Lotharius by the arts of the Court of Rome was set up in opposition to him he was fain to part with the rights of the Empire to satisfie the Pope who made him receive the Imperial Crown at his feet In the time of Conradus who succeeded Lotharius the Pope encouraged Guelfo the Duke of Bavaria in a Rebellion against him from whom the two loving factions of Guelphs and Gibellines had their beginning It would be endless to relate the disturbances of the Christian world which arose from the contentions of several Popes about their Authority with Frederick Barbarossa Philippus Suevus Otho 4. Frederick 2. Ludovicus Bavarus and other Emperours till such time as the Majesty of the Empire was lost in Carolus 4. or if we should give an account of all the Warrs and Rebellions and Seditions and Quarrels which happened meerly upon pretence of the Papal Authority in our own Nation or in France or elsewhere But these may at present suffice to give testimony what an excellent instrument of Peace to the Christian world the Authority challenged by the Bishop of Rome hath been and that Authority still vindicated and asserted in the Court of Rome § 6. 2. But although such civil disturbances have happened by the contentions about the Papal authority yet they may say the Church hath had its unity still as long as they were united in the same Head For this they look on as the great foundation of Vnity for say they the unity of the body consists in the conjunction of the members with the head and then
they are expressed and that they are not equal to all but it was not fit to express it so because this would hinder peoples esteem of the Indulgence Which in plainer terms is that it is necessary to cheat the people or else there is no good to be done by Indulgences Thence Petrarch called them nets wherein the credulous multitude were caught and in the time of Boniface 9. the people observing what vast summs of money were gathered by them cryed out they were meer cheats and tricks to get money with upon which Paulus Langius a Monk exclaims O God to what are these things come Thou holdest thy peace but thou wilt not alwayes for the day of the Lord will bring the hidden things of darkness to light Conrad Vrspergensis saith that Rome might well rejoyce in the sins of the people because she grew rich by the compensation which was made for them Thou hast saith he to her that which thou hast alwayes thirsted after sing and rejoyce for thou hast conquered the world not by religion but by the wickedness of men Which is that which draws them to thee not their devotion and piety Platina saith the selling Indulgences brought the Ecclesiastical Authority into contempt and gave encouragement to many sins Vrspergensis complains that plenary Indulgences brought more wickedness into the world for he saith men did then say Let me do what wickedness I will by them I shall be free from punishment and deliver the souls of others from Purgatory Gerson saith none can give a pardon for so many years as are contained in the Popes Indulgences but Christ alone therefore what are they but cheats and impostures In Spain Indulgences were condemned by Petrus de Osma a Divine of Salamanca and his followers as appears by the Popes Bull against them A. D. 1478. In Germany by Iâ—hannes de Vesaliâ a famous Preacher of Mentz for Serrarius reckons this among the chief of his opinions that Indulgences were only pious frauds and wayes to deceive the people and that they were fools who went to Rome for them About the same time flourished Wesselus Groningensis incomparably the best Scholar of his Age and therefore called Lux mundi he was not only skilled in School Divinity almost the only learning of that time but in the Greek Hebrew Chaldee and Arabick having travelled into Greece Aegypt and been in most Vniversities of Europe and read the most ancient Authors in all kinds of learning on the account of his learning he was much in favour with Sixtus 4. and was present and admired at the Council of Basil but he was so far from being a friend to Indulgences that in his Epistles he saith that no Popes could grant an Indulgence for an hour and that it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that for the same thing done sometimes an Indulgence should be granted for 7 years sometimes for 700 sometimes for 7000 and sometimes for ever by a plenary remission and that there is not the least foundation in Scripture for the distinction of remitting the fault and the punishment upon which the doctrine of Indulgences is founded That the giving them was a design of covetousness and although the Pope once sware to the King of France's Embassadour that he did not know the corruptions of the sellers of Indulgences yet when he did know them he let them alone and they spread farther That God himself doth not give plenary remission to contrition and confession and therefore the Pope can much less do it But if God doth forgive how comes the Pope to have power to retain and if there be no punishment retained when God forgives what hath the Popeâ— to do to release Against him writes one Iacobus Angularis he confesseth there is nothing in Scripture or Antiquity expresly for Indulgences but that ought to be no argument for there are many other things owned in their Church as necessary points which have as little foundation as this viz. S. Peters being at Rome and Sacramental confession and therefore at last he takes Sanctuary in the Popes and Churches authority To this Wesselus answers that Indulgences were accounted pious frauds before the time of Albertus and Thomas that there was a great number of Divines did still oppose the errours and practices of the Court of Rome in this matter that supposing the Church were for them yet the authority of Scripture is to be preferred before it and no multitude of men whatsoever is to be believed against Scripture that he had not taken up this opinion rashly but had maintained it in Paris thirty three years before and in the Popes poenitentiary Court at Rome and was now ready to change it if he could see better reason for the contrary That the doctrine of Indulgences was delivered very confusedly and uncertainly by which it appeared to be no Catholick doctrine that it is almost impossible to find two men agree in the explication of them that the doctrine of Indulgences was so far from being firmly believed among them that there was not the strictest person of the Carthusian or other orders that should receive a plenary Indulgence at the hour of death that yet would not desire his Brethren to pray for his soul which is a plain argument he did not believe the validity of the Indulgence that many in the Court of Rome did speak more freely against them than he did That the Popes authority is very far from being infallible or being owned as such in the Church as appeared by the Divines at Paris condemning the Bull of Clement 6. about Indulgences wherein he took upon him to command the Angels and gave plenary remissions both from the fault and punishment Which authentick Bulls he saith were then to be seen at Vienne Limoges and Poictou It is notorious to the world what complaints were made in Germany after his time of the fraud of Indulgences before any other point of Religion came into dispute and how necessarily from this the Popes authority came to be questioned that being the only pretence they had to justifie them by and with what success these things were then managed it is no more purpose to write now than to prove that it is day at Noon The Council of Trent could not but confess horrible abuses in the sale of Indulgences yet what amendment hath there been since that time Bellarmin confesseth that it were better if the Church were very sparing in giving Indulgences I wonder why so if my Adversaries experience and observation be true that they prove great helps to devotion and charity Can the Church be too liberal in those things which tend to so good an end § 8. But Bellarmin would not have the people too confident of the effect of Indulgences for though the Church may have power to give them yet they may want their effect in particular persons and therefore saith he all prudent Christians do