Truth will out, or, A discovery of some untruths smoothly, told by Dr. Ieremy Taylor in his Disswasive from popery with an answer to such arguments as deserve answer / by his friendly adversary E. Worsley.

CHAP. XIII. (Book 13)

The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning In∣dulgences. His two mistakes are discove∣red. His Objections answered.

THe Doctor pag. 91. Sect. 4. pretends much cha∣charity to our Souls, and to unbeguile us, will needs add one consideration more: And what is this think you? Marry, There is no Founda∣tion of truth in these new Divices; and this to boot, that when our Doctors are pinched with an objection, they let their hold go, &c. Good man! Are these his considerations? A young Student in Divinity, would make good sport with such considerations. But, ad rem.

I constantly affirm, that all he has said in this Section, hath not so much as a shadow of an objection in it against the received Doctrine of Indulgences, much less any that pinches. To prove my assertion, be pleased to have in mind what this received Doctrine is, which the Council of Trent sess. 25. decret. de Indulg. declares thus: Sacro∣sancta Synodus Indulgentiarum usum, Christiano populo maxi∣me salutarem, & sacrorum conciliorum authoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet, & praecipit. The holy Synod teaches, that the use of Indulgences is most wholesome and profitable to Christians; and commands this use approved by the Authority of holy Councils, to be held still in the Church. Next, it requires a moderation in granting Indulgences,

according to the Ancient Custome of the Church, and that all abuses crept in, be amended, &c.

This Catholick truth supposed: you'll find the Doctor strangely beguiled, and his whole discourse (chiefly founded on two mistakes) weaker then a Bul-rush. His first mistake is, that because Catholicks cannot arrive to a certain knowledge of gaining an Indulgence, or the full fruit of it, he thinks no trust is to be had in it, no endeavour used to purchase this Grace. An error: For Divines say, and truly, no one can know with certain∣ty, that he hath an act of true supernatural Faith, or of true Charity in that Degree, Purity and Measure which God exacts; is therefore Faith and Charity (without trust) to be laid aside? is our endeavour to have them carelesly to be left off? is it wholly useless and unprofi∣table? God forbid.

His second error is, that he builds too much upon those many difficulties which our Divines raise in this matter of Indulgences, while they speculatively discuss several cases relating to them; and because this is done with variety of Opinions, the Doctor thinks all undone, and that both the sustance and fruit of Indulgences fail's in the Catholick Church.

A great mistake: For are there not innumerable dif∣ficulties speculatively examined almost in every Article of Christian belief, concerning Baptism and other Sa∣craments? yes, concerning the profession of our Faith in certain exigences: yet these speculative considerati∣ons terrifie none from professing the necessity and benefit both of faith and Sacraments. The like with a due pro∣portion we say of Indulgences (not so necessary to Salvati∣on, as Faith or Baptism;) though difficulties in such and such particular cases are moved concerning them, yet all

agree in the general with the Council of Trent, that they are useful, profitable and beneficial to Chri∣stian penitents.

Having thus discovered the two transcendent mistakes of our Doctor, you shall see how unskilfully he com∣bates against Indulgences.

Page 92. he saith, Suppose the Indulgence be for forty years, a hundred, a thousand; yet peradventure according to the old penitential rate, you have deserved the Penance of forty thousand years, &c. Answ. A long time indeed! but peradventure this peradventure of the Doctors is a mistake; at least something is gained besides the merit of the work, though we know not how much; and bet∣ter it is to have forty years of Penance taken off, then to suffer torment for forty years, though not yet quitted of all pain. (If the damned in Hell could but have forty years of their pain released, thsy would deem it a favour) Therefore the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is true: Usus indulgentiarum est salutaris.

Again he saith, No man can tell the difference, when what remains shall be so great as to surmount all the evils of this life. Answ. Neither is it necessary: The duty of a good Christian is to take off what pain he can, though he knows not in what measure; and if he diminishes but some little, the use of Indulgences is both good and profitable. I leave that jeer of the Daemoniack with the Doctor; and tell him that if one poor soul were possessed with a legion of Deviles, and had moral assu∣rance that he is freed of some (though he knows not of how many) that little releasement would be of com∣fort.

Page 93. He goes on doubting. It may be your Qua∣dragenes, are not carenes, &c. It may be you have pur∣ehased but some lighter thing; and then, if your demerit a∣rise

to so many Carenes, and you have purchased but meer Quadragenes, you may stay longer in Purgatory then you ex∣pected. Answ. It may be the Doctor is deceived in all he saith here: It may be a penitent gets all he expected. But admit he doth not, something is got, (he hath at least the merit of his work) though he knows not how much. The not knowing of his gain doth not lessen it. Though the Doctor knows not precisely how pure his Act of Charity is, the value of it is so much in the sight of God, neither more nor less, upon the account of his own not knowing it.

He saith again: It is not agreed among Doctors, whether a plenary Indulgence is to be extended beyond the taking off those Penances, which were enjoyned by the Confessor. Answ. Though it be most true that a plenary Indulgence pro∣ceeding from lawful Authority, granted upon a Just and Pious Cause, extends it self to the taking away of all pain, if the penitent complys with his duty; yet here we will not enter on this Question, nor say, how sincere∣ly Turrecremata with the others are cited. Content we are with that which the Doctor does not deny, viz. That Indulgences take off those Penances enjoyned by the Confes∣sor: And with this small Pittance of Pardon we con∣clude that the Council of Trent saith true: Usus Indulgen∣tiarum est salutaris. The use of Indulgences is whole∣some.

He further tells us, page 94. That if a person be not capable of an Indulgence, because he is not in the state of Grace, he gains nothing. Answ. No one doubts of this. The only wonder is that our Doctor spends his Ink and Paper to no better purpose. Soon after he saith, that Pope Adrian troubles the whole affair again, and for it he cites Petrus Suavis Polanus in his History of the Council of Trent to prove just nothing: Polanus his words are (though

his Authority is little with me) Pontifex, qui ut Theolo∣gus, &c. The Pope, who as a Divine had writ of Indul∣gences (before Luther ever handled the matter) thought to establish by an Apostolical Decree, what he had formerly taught as a private Doctor. And what is this Doctrine of Adrian a private Doctor? Quando Indulgentia concedi∣tur alicui, &c. When an Indulgence is granted to any body, it may be he doth not the work required to be done so perfectly, as to gain the whole Indulgence: Now if any thing be want∣ing to the perfection of the work, he gains not the whole Indul∣gence, but a part of it, corresponding to the Work, less well performed. What is here for the Doctors advantage? What is here against the Council of Trent? Usus Indul∣gentiarum est salutaris. Something is got by Indulgences according to Adrian, who only spake as a private Doctor Were any thing amiss, as in reason there is not. But here I must tyre you with a piece of the Doctors subtil∣ty, who saith, That if the Indulgence be only given accord∣ing to the worthiness of the work done, then that (viz. the work) will avail of it felf, without any grant from the Church. A strong Objection! I answer, The work will avail of it self to merit, and if penal, to some satisfaction, but not to the releasing of so much temporal pain as the In∣dulgence takes off, in case it be worthily comply'd with.

The Doctors greater heap of dangers, which he sets down from his 6. number of pag. 94. to 98. hath so little danger of an Objection, that to read them is to answer them. For what sence is there to tell us, That we must be sure of the Authority of him that gives the Indulgence? We have all Moral assurance for it, and incomparably greater then any one hath in England, that his Minister Preaches with Authority to Preach, or delivers true Do∣ctrine. What sence is there to ask. If one has an In∣dulgence

for the Article of death, and dies not then; whe∣ther a new one is to be got for the next sickness? As doughty an objection it is, that he hath concerning the Gregorian Calendar: as likewise, his doubt whether a Pope can recal an Indulgence granted by his Predecessor. This and a great deal more which the Doctor has con∣cerning this matter is (he himself knows it) most emp∣ty stuff.

But you'll ask what I say to the great objection he toucheth on here: pag. 96. and proposeth more large∣ly in the beginning of this Section, concerning the emptying of Purgatory? Certainly the Millions of Indul∣gences, and innumerable other helps in the Church should ere this have a hundred times over evacuated that place of its sad Inhabitants. I answer, this Objection is like the rest, feeble and forceless; and would the Doctor ponder well these words of the Royal Prophet Psal. 100. Miseri∣cordiam & judicium cantabo tibi, Domine, He would see the weakness of it: God is Merciful, but withal just. His Mercy impowers the Church to free many: But that prodigal use of the Keys in freeing all, would be against Justice, and would make sinners little to value or fear those torments, which St. Austin says, Surpass all the pains in this World.