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. XIV.

A word more of Indulgences. Of the Doctors Mistakes in quoting Authors. Whether the Prayer of a sinner avails him. Of the Doctors harsh Doctrine.

THe Doctor after his High heap of dangers and great number of little doubts, pag. 97. tells us that there is one thing necessary, viz. To work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. Answ. First, a poor penitent that apprehends most deeply the pain of Purgatory, and doth so much Penance as we see daily done among good Christians for the releasment of that pain, cannot be supposed in any Christians Charity to be without fear and trembling. 2. We might (if it were worth the while) move as many doubts concerning this fear and trembling, as he doth against Indulgences. We might ask him to work out our Salvation: how often must we fear? How often must we tremble? From what motive-must this fear proceed? How strong and intens must this trembling be? when all is done: How know we that we have trembled enough? and whether we are not to tremble, till we all turn Quakers? Let the Doctor resolve these doubts upon good certainty; and I'll warrant you, his scruples about Indulgences will cease. What he adds of Venial sins hindring the fruit of Indulgences, is not worth taking notice of. But,

Saith he, pag. 99. Pope Adrian taught a worse matter, viz. He that will obtain an Indulgence for another, &c. And where find we this worse matter? Mark, I beseech you, his Marginal Quotation, Apud Petrum de Soto. lect. de institut. Sacerd. de necessariis ad effectum Indulg. Truly our Doctor all along hath been unfortunate in his citations, and here he shews himself so very unskilful, that I believe he never saw Soto. Know then that Pe∣trus de Soto; besides other works, hath a book in a large Decimo sexto, which he Intitles: Tractatus de insti∣tutione sacerdotum, (with me it is printed at Brixia, anno 1586.) under that Title in general he handles many Questions, De scientia sacerdotum, de Baptismo, and o∣ther Sacraments; &c. Every Treatise he devides into Lectiones: And after the middle of the Book hath a Title, de Indulgentiis, pag. 263. This Treatise he divides into three Lectiones. Now the Doctor gives you not the Right Lectio of that Treatise (which is the third in number) but unskilfully directs you to his Lectio de Insti∣tutione sacerdotum: There is no general Lectio, but Tracta∣tus de institutione sacerdotum, the Lections are subdivisions to several Treatises.

Well, though without much help from the Doctor we have found the place in Soto: Lectio 3. now cited page (with me) 275. his words are: Notat Hadria∣nus circahoc, & movet quaestionem, &c. Adrian (who by the way speaks not as Pope, but as a Divine or private Do∣ctor) proposeth this Question, whether one in mortal sin can avail to obtain an Indulgence for another, as if an Indul∣gence (for Example) be granted to him who gives an Alms, or to him for whom it is given by another. Adrian holds the Affirmative, So that he who doth the work, and wisheth the Indulgence to another, doth an action Morally good: Nam pro▪ peccato non conceditur Indulgentia: For an Indulgence

is never granted for a sinful work. This I say, was A∣drians private Opinion not so harshly related by Soto, as it is by our Doctor, who talks as if it were a definition of a Pope. Pope Adrian taught a worse mat∣ter.

I censure not Adrians Opinion (he was a great Divine) nor approve it; yet this I'll say, that the Do∣ctor doth not so much as probably impugn it. Mark how weakly he argues: As if, saith he, a man could do more for another, then he can do for himself. Answ. Most certainly he may: Cannot one uncapable of a dig∣nity, or a favour in a Common-wealth, beg of his Prince a Grace for another who is capable? A meer secular man, unlearned and Married, may petition his Majesty (and perhaps prevail) that Doctor Taylor be the next Bishop of Canterbury (who they say lives ever unmarried.) Here is our very Case: This secular man is uncapable of such a Grace: So a sinner is of an In∣dulgence. This secular man prevails to get the Grace for another who is capable: so a sinner may prevail to ob∣tain an Indulgence for another just man capable of the favour. (The parity holds exactly) Therefore it is evi∣dent, that one may do more for another then he can for himself in some cases. The Doctor goes on, and speaks not like a Christian: As if (saith he) God would regard the Prayers of a wicked person when he intercedes for another, and at the same time, if he Prays for himself, his Prayer is an abomination. Answ. This last is certainly impious Do∣ctrine, for the consequence of it must needs be this; That no sinner ought in conscience ever to Pray for himself. I'll prove what I say thus: No sinner can in conscience com∣mit an abomination in the sight of God, or sin mortally: But to pray for himself is an abomination, and a mortal sin: therefore no sinner can in conscience pray for himself.

Consequently that poor Publican, (9 Ioan) that prayed for himself Deus propitius mihi esto peccatori. God be merciful to me a sinner: Was an abominable man upon the account of his Prayer: which place of Scripture, no less a Doctor then St. Austin made use of, to prove that a sinner may pray for himself.

Were the Doctor a Divine, I could tell him that prayer in a wicked man may be a supernatural Act, and proceed from Gods Grace (not sanctifying Grace) as Faith is supernatural, which preceeds justification in a sinner. What he adds of a work done ungratiously, is a wrong to Adrian; who requires Opus Moraliter bonum: A work morally good, though not meritori∣ous.

Finally, the Doctor saith, that because Divines re∣quire the state of Grace necessary in a man at that time he gains an Indulgence, (though before a sinner) they turn Divinity into Mathematicks and Clock-work. A con∣ceit not worthy a Doctor; say, I beseech you, if this good man ascends a Pulpit, and a larems his hearers thus. Good people, you have hitherto profited little by my Sermons: Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis: To day, this ve∣ry moment, this minute, if you'll hear God speak by me, you are happy, &c. Doth he turn his Sermon into a Clock-work? Or, did the Apostle Clock it when he told the Corinthians Ecce nunc tempus acceptabile. Now is the time acceptable. Ecce nunc dies salutis. Now is the day of Salvation. 2 Cor. 6. Again. Hora est jam nos de somno surgere, nunc enim proprior est nostra salus. 'Tis the hour now, &c. Here is more of the Clock, of Minutes, and hours, then any Divine mentioneth in our present matter.

Yet more. Pray see how artificially he windes about to bring in his Clock-work. Though saith he, it be not necessary, that when the Indulgence•• is granted, the man

be in the state of Grace; yet it is necessary that at some time or other, within the term prescribed of the Indulgence, if he will gain it. And to make his conceit of his Clock to run on: he adds: At any time (it seems) it wil serve, which sounds falsly, and is so; but here is enough of this Clock.

Next he blames some Divines who say, That if a man sin in hope of Iubilee, or Indulgence to be granted after∣ward, he may yet gain the pardon. Answ. He may so, unless the Indulgence positively excludes such a man from the favour: Why? the guilt of that sin is re∣missible by Contrition and Penance; and so likewise is the temporal pain due to it pardonable, by vertue of an Indulgence.

Page 100. He is upon his old mistakes again con∣cerning Contrition, and thinks it may be sufficient with∣out either act or desire of Confession. This is answered above.

Page 101. After the praise he gives to that excellent use of Confession among the Pious Children of the Church of England: He finds fault with our satisfaction and Penance, much taken away by the new Doctrine of In∣dulgences. Answ. Most evident it is, notwithstand∣ing so many Indulgences granted, that the Ancient use of Penance is in a manner only found among Catho∣licks: These are they who fast, these Pray, these curb their passions, these often practise great Austerity; yes, and live sometimes in a mean condition, to relieve the Poor. A Volume would not suffice to express the fruit of their hearty Repentance and eminent Charity, ma∣nifest to our eyes in every Town and City. Now for Gods-sake, what have we like this among Protestants? The hearing of a Sermon on Sunday is the most they do; and yet there is no Declension of primitive Discipline a∣mong

them. Would to God our Doctor were shut up in a Carthusians Cell, and lived as they live but for one year only: he would both practice and see more Penance done, then he hath either practised, or seen in England for his whole life; and yet forsooth, we must hear his Lord-ship talk of a Declension in Primitive Discipline, and think all fine, when he words it, with living Godly in Christ Iesus.

I never saw that book of Taxa Camerae, which the Doctor mentions, pag. 102. and therefore cannot say what is in it, likely it is a Libel; sure I am that Claudius Espencaeus wishes it suppressed, and if as he saith, Plu∣rimis quidem licentia, omnibus autem absolutio empturientibus proposita. That licence is given to many, and absolution proposed to all that buy it. I cannot but judge ill of the book; and as ill of the Doctor who Englishes Espencaeus, thus—And yet to them who will pay for it, there is to many given a Licence, and to all an absolution for the greatest and most horrid sins. Pray you what may these words, yet to them who will pay for it signifie? do they relate to the Book, or to the License and absolution for sin? if the second, the whole sence is: They who will lay down money, have License, (many at least) to sin, and all have abso∣lution from the most horrid sius. If the Doctor works this sence out of Espencaeus his words, he is more then uncharitable, to think that ever Pope or Prelate favoured that book; it is an infamous Libel that pre∣tends License given to sin. The best solution therefore is, that Espencaeus is blamable as appears by the Index Expurgatorius of Cardinal Zapata printed, Hispali. 1631. where this very second digression of Espencaeus is prohi∣bited. Vide verbum Claudius Espencaeus, page Indicis 219.

The Doctor soon after cites you Augustinus Triumphus

de Ancona teaching, That the Pope ought not to grant Indul∣gences to them who have a desire of giving money, but cannot; as to them who actually give: and he adds immediately: That in such a case, it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor. In my whole life did I never meet with such a Doctor, who neither cites right nor saies right. Mark I beseech you, how he cites Au∣gustinus de Ancona in his Margent: De potestate Papae quaest▪ 3. ad 3. The Quotation is ridiculous, and no more di∣rects you to find any thing concerning Indulgences then if he sent you to the first Chapter of Genesis. Know therefore briefly, that August. de Ancona writ a sum of Divinity De potestate Ecclesiastica printed anno 1320. under which general Title he handles many Difficulties, and proceeds Methodically; first by Questions, next by Articles; then gives his resolution; and finally solves the objections. At the beginning of his Book, his first question is, De potestate Papae, and hath nine Arti∣cles under it: in the third Article not a word of our present matter, nor in any solution ad 3. In his third Question he treats De eligentium jurisdictione, and hath ten Articles under it, and so many Resolutions and An∣swers, not a word of Indulgences. In the mean while you see that our Doctors direction; De potestate Papae quaest. 3. ad 3. Helps you nothing. He should (had he lighted on the right question) have pointed out the Article, and then his ad 3. might have guided the Reader.

Well, I find in the 31. question of Augustinus (far off from any 3. question De potestate Papae) Articulo 4. where he treats of Indulgences) these words, ad 3. Si dives ita parum dat ut pauper, puto, quod non tantum habeat de Indulgentia dives sicut pauper, quia tunc oportet re∣currere ad justam aestimationem facientis Indulgentiam, quae

pensanda est valere secundum facultatem dantis. Sed si sic dicatur: quicunque dabit unum denarium & dives illud daret, sicut pauper; puto, quod tantum haberet dives sicut pauper: quamvis tamen in hoc essent pares, in multis aliis melioris conditionis esset pauper, quam dives. The sence is: If the Rich man gives as little as the Poor man, I think the Rich man will not gain so much of the Pardon as the other. Recourse here must be had to his will that grants the Pardon. But if it be said: whoever gives a penny (or such a small pittance) and the Rich man gives so much and the Poor man also. These two will be equal, and the one have as much as the other; yet upon other accounts the Poor mans condition will be better. Here is all I can find in this Author, and it is most blam∣less Doctrine, nothing to the Doctors sence, viz That Indulgences are not to be given to them who have a desire of giving money, but cannot. And that in such a case, it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condi∣tion then the Poor. If the Doctor will give me better direction to find what he quotes out of this or any other Author, he shall have his answer. But I perceive his way is not to examine the Originals, and therefore a∣buseth a simple Reader; who when he sees such a clu∣ster of Marginal Quotations glitter like the Sun, thinks our Doctor more Learned then Rabbi Kimki.

Notes

• Mark how the Doctor equivo∣cates in those words. To them that will pay for it.