for by this it appears, there's no other meaning of Indulgences imposed upon any, besides that which was primitive, and we still retain.

These Indulgences having been formerly called pardons, I presume, has been the occasion of their having been reputed pardons for sins and whereas giving of alms has been generally one condition required for gaining such Indulgences; hence has it been thought, that the pardon of sin was offered for money. But, upon enquiry, I find these to be mistakes. For all books of doctrine in the Church of Rome unanimously teach, that there's no pardon of sin, without true repentance, and an humble confession of sin; and if these do not precede, no Indulgence can avail them, in order to the pardon of their sin. In this I am certain we join, and they require no more for our joining with them; and therefore as to this point, I see great hopes of an amicable accord."

It is then asked "Whether the granting Indulgences for many thousand years, and such as are found in many books, of many years' pardon, with the release of a soul out of purgatory, granted for saying one short prayer, or wearing some medal, be not scandal enough to discourage all men of sense from joining with the Church of Rome?

The canonical penances of the Primitive Church, I observe, were for many years; whence

it cannot be wondered, if the tenor of Indulgences, which are the release of such penalties, be for many years. But as to the thousand years' pardons, with the rest now mentioned, there are none of these offered by any General Council, nor have place in any profession of faith; and, therefore, being not imposed on any, though never so corrupt, yet, according to our second rule, they are not to obstruct Communion, since joining in communion with that Church, does not oblige to consent to or approve any such practices. It being as common in that Church to disapprove the concession of Indulgences for frivolous causes, and some slight work, as by others that are out of it."

*

Another question asked is, "Whether the doctrine of Indulgences was not that which obliged Luther to depart from the Church, and undertake a Reformation?, How then can the Reformation join with it?

* This rule is expressed as follows: "That errors in a Church, as to matters of doctrines, or corruptions, as to matters of practice, so long as these errors and corruptions are only suffered, but not imposed, cannot be sufficient cause of separation: The reason is, because these things are not sins in us, so long as we do not join with the Church in them." I fear there is a little fallacy in this conclusion. It savours too much of the spirit of Naaman, who prayed that when he should in future bow down in the house of Rimmon, the Lord would pardon him, though he had previously resolved to "offer neither burn offering nor sacrifice unto other gods but the Lord." See 2 Kings, v. 18.

By the best account of history, I find there had been great abuses in this point of Indulgences; such as were not less injurious than provoking; so that I do not wonder at Luther in making a party against them, but think he had deserved the applause of the Christian world, had he done it in a canonical way. But I find, too, he was not the only person that expressed a zeal against such corrupt practices. Pope Innocent III. had long before complained of them in the great Lateran Council, an. 1215, laying the intolerable abuses on the Questors, or collectors in those days. Clement V., in the Council at Vienna, an. 1311, censures the evil practices of those times much more, and makes a severe order against the wicked ministers and underofficers of the inferior clergy, to whom the publishing of Indulgences, and collection of the people's alms, for some publick and pious uses, was committed. He exposes their crime in undertaking, with much rashness and the delusion of souls, to grant Indulgences, to release penances, and deceitfully to promise to those that gave them alms, the release of three or four of their parents' or friends' souls out of purgatory; representing them as great liars and cheats: and then taking care to put an effectual stop to all such abuses. But this is best seen in the words of the Constitution.

Having given this character of these Questores: "Illos in suis prædicationibus simplices decipere,

" & aurum extorquere, in animarum periculum, " & plurimorum scandalum." He then goes on thus: "Cum aliqui ex hujusmodi quæstoribus, "sicut ad nostram audientiam est perlatum,

non sine multa temeritatis audacia, deceptione "multiplici animarum, indulgentias populo, "motu suo proprio, de facto concedant; super " votis dispensent; in perjuriis, homicidiis, & "peccatis aliis sibi confitentes absolvant; male "ablata incerta (data sibi aliqua pecuniæ quan"titate) remittant; tertiam aut quartam partem "de pœnitentiis injunctis relaxent; animas tres "vel plures parentum vel amicorum illorum qui

eleemosynas eis conferunt, de Purgatorio (ut "asserunt mendaciter) extrahant, et ad gaudia "Paradisi perducant; benefactoribus locorum, quorum questores existunt, remissionem ple"nariam peccatorum indulgeant; & aliqui ex ipsis, eos a pœna & a culpa (ut eorum verbis utamur) absolvant. Nos abusus hujusmodi " omnimode aboleri volentes, inhibemus."*

66

Here is confessed the origin of those extravagant Indulgences above mentioned, and care taken for removing the grand abuses, by which those trading Questors had imposed upon the people, and most scandalously enriched themselves. This care might probably have some effect; but where covetousness had so great a

* Constit. Clem. t. 5. tit. 9. c. 2.

prey, the cure was not lasting: the like abuses returned again, and were those with which the Church was deformed in Luther's days. Now, had the Church of Rome undertaken to justify and defend such abuses, his arming the State against the Church might have had some colour. But although there did not appear that zeal for so timely a reforming them, as the scandals seemed to require, yet as Clement had done before, so did the pastors of the Church afterwards, lament those corruptions, and take more effectual care for their being removed, and their return prevented..

For the Council of Trent, complaining of the fruitless endeavours of preceding Councils, quite abrogated this office of Questors, and, in abhorrence of their scandals, wholly abolished their name, with all the privileges belonging to them; and committed the publishing of such indulgences, and collecting charities, to the ordinary, with two of the chapter joyned with him, to be done, nulla prorsus mercede accepta.*

And then for reforming all abuses, see what decree it has made:†

The holy synod desires that moderation be

* Sess. 21. c. 9.

+ Sess. 25. c. 21. Decr. de Indul.