An examination of the doctrine, history, and moral tendency of Roman Catholic indulgences.

Front matter

be WW" ee 3 CTTRAP.% \ N “158 North

mer of BM

OF THE

Chapter I

On the nature of R. C. Indulgences, as presented both from direct definition and the ordinary manner of dispensing them in the exercise of a plenary power to forgive sin—proving that they encourage crime.

As to the nature of a R. C. indulgence, we are fur-

nished with very explicit instructions from their own

writings. We commence by quoting from a volume published in Philadelphia, by Eugene Cummisky, and entitled ‘‘ Real Principles of Roman Catholics,”’? by the Right Rev. Doct. Hornihold. On page 236, the author asks ‘* What is an indulgence ?

Ans. It is a remission of the temporal punishment

due to sins, after the sins themselves, as to the guilt.

and eternal punishment, are forgiven by the sacrament of penance, or perfect contrition.”” In perfect accordance with this definition is the one given in

a little work entitled ‘‘ The Manual of Catholic pi-

ety, by the late Rev. Wm. Gahan, O. S. A. cor-

rected and approved by the Right Rev. Bishop Kendrick ;? and published, like the former, at Philadelphia. The author, after stating both the days and the established conditions of granting indulgences, says, in a note on page 10: ‘* By an indulgence is meant a relaxation, or remission of the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven, both as to the guilt and eternal punishment—some indulgences are called plenary, because when the full effect of them is gained, they remit all the debt of temporal punishment ; others are called partial—for example, an indulgence of forty or an hundred days, or of three or seven, ten, fifteen, or more years; because the penitent is only thereby released in part, or from such a proportion of the debt of temporal punishment as was formerly enjoined by the penitential canons, according to the enormity of crimes _ committed, and as would have been remitted by God, had the penitent undergone for such a space of time, the severe canonical penances which were in use in the Church until the 12thcentury. The direct and immediate effect, therefore, of an indulgence is to remit the debt of temporal punishment and not to pardon or remit sin, as it supposes sin already forgiven. It is to discharge and cancel the debt of temporal punishment that works of penance are enjoined”? [not in the Scriptures but] ‘in the sacred tribunal of confession ; and that the Catholic Church, like a compassionate mother opens her spiritual treasures from time to time to supply the wants and make up the deficiencies of her children.”

According to this definition of an indulgence giv- - en by these R. C. authorities it is assumed that pardon and punishment are consistent with each other, in reference to the same offences, or that they may be forgiven, “as to the guilt and eternal punishment,’’? while a sore temporal punishment of indefinite duration, may be reserved, and become the subject of a religious barter !

And this, too, is represented as the ordinary procedure of the divine being in pardoning the sins of men ; hence the last quoted author says, on page 11, ‘‘ The sinner’s repentance being seldom so perfect as to release him entirely from the whole punishment he deserves on account of the injury he has-committed against the divine majesty, there usually remains some debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in ¢his world or the neat. For though the mercy of God is moved by a true repentance, to pardon the guilt and eternal punishment due in hell for mortal sin, yet his justice often substitutes in its place some debt of temporal punishment to which the repentant sinner is liable on account of his past sins.”

By italicising some of the more important words .

Q* in-this last extract our points of exception are indicated. According to this showing of the ground on which indulgencies are granted, the indispensable necessity of the reformation under Luruer is clearly proved ; for here is a frank avowal of the popish doctrine of salvation, by human merit. It is true the author speaks of the ‘ mercy of God,” but then this ‘is moved” not by the atoning merit of our divine Redeemer, but ‘ by a true repentance,”’ and even when thus ‘“‘moved”’ to pardon the guilt and eternal punishment due in hell for mortal sin, yet his justice substitutes in its place some debt of temporal punishment, to which the sinner is justly liable on account of his past sins.”? Now if it is the sinner’s repentance that moves the mercy of God, then the pardon that follows from it is an arbitrary act, by mere. prerogative, and without any reference to the ‘honor of the divine government, or the sanction of law ; and on the principle of a blind sympathy, or else upon the recognition of merit in the pangs of penitence. And that this author really means to avow the Jast of these alternatives, appears from his saying that the ‘‘ sinner’s repentance is seldom so perfect as to release him entirely from the whole punishment he deserves ;” and also by the assertion that divine ‘‘ justice substitutes’? for sins pardoned, only in reference to their eternal punishment, ‘‘ some debt of temporal punishment, to be discharged either in this world or the next.”?, Now if the principle of human merit, as the ground of salvation, be not intended, why this strict adherence to terms that can be understood in no other sense, without wresting them from their ordinary signification ? What anti-bible doctrine, yea, what nonsense is it to talk of the ‘* sinner’s repentance moving the mercy of God to pardon the guilt and eternal punishment due to his sins,”? and at the same time his justice substituting a debt to be discharged in this or the next world! And how can that be called temporal punishment which takes place in the invisible world, when an Apostle has said that ‘‘ The things that are seen [are visible] are temporal, but the things that are not seen [and such are those of the ‘next world,”’] are eternal?” |

Once more: can there be properly a pardon granted in reference to sins, for which ‘justice sudbstitutes”? a debt of punishment, to be discharged by the performances or the sufferings of the pardoned ? Certainly a debt paid is nota debt forgiven, however it may have been, by prerogative, diminished in the way of a substitution, which “ justice” exacts. ‘That sin is not forgiven by mere prerogative in the divine being, but ina way consistent with the claims of justice, is a fundamental truth of the christian system. This system, however, teaches us, not that the ‘‘mercy of God is moved by the sinner’s repentance,” but that ‘‘God can be just and the justifier of him that beheveth in Jesus,” because “he is the propitiation [or satisfaction] for our sins,” and that with ‘his stripes we are healed.’? Nor do the Christian Scriptures any where teach that when the ‘‘ guilt and eternal punishment of sin is pardoned,”’ that it is substituted by ‘‘a debt of temporal punishment,” since if it were so, those pardoned would still be under a condemnatory sentence and ‘< liable to punishment;”’ whereas, the Scripture saith ‘* There is no condemnation to them who are in Curist Jesus.” As for any supposed proof in favor of a reserved punishment in the case of Adam, the Israelites, David, &c. there is no bible evidence ofa R. C. ‘ substitution.”? According to the bible, the only ‘liability to punishment”? for those whose ‘‘iniquities are forgiven,”’ is that represented in the parable of the two debtors ;—one forfeiting a pardon, or the forgiveness of his debt, because he would not show mercy to his fellow servant; and which our Lord applied to his disciples by saying, ‘so likewise shall my heavenly father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespass.”?

By saying this is the only ‘liability to punishment,’”? it is not intended that there are no other ways of forfeiting a pardon, or falling into condemnation, than by an-wnforgiving spirit ; but that there is ‘* no condemnation”? when God forgives sin, by his retaining a small debt instead of a large one ; and that as is in the parable just alluded to, he forgives the whole debt. If this be not so, what mockery is it that our Lord has taught us to pray ‘‘ forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that tres- _ pass against us,’’ when if we pray understandingly, and forgive like the God of Catholics, we must reserve a debt against our debtors, ‘* to be discharged either in this world or the next”!! And if this dogma of popery were true, what a lame piece of advice the Apostle has given to his Ephesian brethren in saying, ‘* be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.’? But if God’s justice substitutes a debt of temporal punishment, when his mercy is moved by the sinner’s repentance to pardon the ‘ guilt and eternal punishment,” then Christians ‘ forgiving one another” or ‘* forgiving their enemies”” must still exact a temporal punishment! And who would feel grateful for such a pardon ?

But without dwelling longer upon the nature of a R. C. indulgence, according to their own definition, or stopping to show its absurdity and anti-scriptural character ; let us hasten to present the mode in which ‘‘holy mother church?’ dispenses or grants

them to her ‘ faithful’? children, who nevertheless

are so very unfaithful as to deserve in many instances, not only severe penances in this life, but many thousands of years in purgatorial fires !

After presenting the following rules and regulations of the R. C. Church in these United States relative to the granting of indulgences, we shall give the argument arising from the nature of indulgences, by recapitulating the proofs adduced.

On the eighth page of Rev. Wm. Gahan’s Manual of Catholic Piety, there isa section opened with the following caption: ‘¢ Plenary indulgences granted to the faithful throughout the United States, at the following times:”” We give the table in full. “J. On Christmas day and the twelve days following, to the day of Epiphany, inclusively.

II. In the first week in Lent, beginning with the first Sunday and ending with the second send day, inclusively.

Il]. At Easter, i. e. from Palm Sunday, inclusively, to Low Sunday, inclusively.

IV. From Whitsunday to the end of the octave of corpus Christi.

V. On the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul and during the octave.

VI. On the feast of the assumption of the blessed

virgin Mary and during the octave.

VII. On the Sunday preceding the feast of St. Michael, unless St. Michael fall on a Sunday, in which case it begins on that day.

VIII. On All Saints’ day, and during the octave.

IX. Once every month, on any day which each of the faithful shall choose, as best suits himself.’

The above exhibit of acceptable days for granting indulgences to “ the faithful’? delinquents, is also found verbatim, on the twenty-first page of the *« Christian’s Guide to Heaven,” published by F. Lucas, of Baltimore, Md. and immediately following it in each of these books, there is a particular detail of ‘‘ the conditions”? on which these plenary, or full indulgencies are granted on the days specified asabove. These ‘conditions,’ with some slight variations, according to the days on which the grant is made, are as follows:

1. *‘ To confess their sins with a sincere repentance, to a priest, approved by the bishop.

2. Devoutly and worthily to receive the holy communion.

3. To visit some chapel or oratory where mass is celebrated, and there offer up their. prayers for the peace and welfare of God’s Church.

4. That they be in a disposition, if their circumstances allow it, to assist the poor with alms, in proportion to their abilities : or to visit and comfort the sick, and such as are near their end, if

"they have the opportunity.”

But as if the ‘‘ compassionate mother” edule not possibly afford too many facilities ‘to supply the wants and make up the deficiencies of her children,” a special note is appended to the above ‘‘conditions,”’ saying, ‘‘ It is noé required for gaining these indulgences that these works of mercy, corporal or spiritual, or this assistance at catechisms or sermons be done on the same day with the communion ; but that persons be then in a disposition or Bey of mind to do these things, or some of them at least, when opportunity shall offer.” Now if an indulgence be, according to the R. C. authorities already quoted, ‘‘a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin,”’ and granted, not upon hard, but upon easy conditions, yea, without requiring their actual performance, but only the being in a disposition or ‘“‘ readiness of mind, to do at least some of these things” such as ‘‘frequenting catechisms or sermons;”” if, we say, an indulgence be a remission of temporal punishment substituted by divine justice for the absolution of an eternal punishment, and upon conditions of human device,—conditions dispensing with the claims of divine justice, for violations of moral law; then such violation is encouraged just in proportion to the facilities provided before hund, for remitting the only punishment that remains to be exacted, according to the showing of R. C. themselves, upon these offenders, these ‘‘ faithful’? ones!

But to save themselves from all reproach as the authors of such a system of religious traffic and barter, R. Catholics ever-and-anon remind their Protestant opponents that all these things are done by virtue of a divine right, and in the exercise of an unerring infallibility secured to them by an indisputable title, forever and ever! Asa specimen of this take the following from Dr. Nicholas Wiseman, professor in the University of Rome, &c. contained in the second volume of his ‘‘ Lectures on the principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church, delivered at St. Mary’s Moorfields, during the lent of 1836.” In his thirteenth lecture, page 57, of the American edition, the Dr. enquires, ‘‘ What, then, is an indulgence?”? To this question he replies as follows: ‘* It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due tosin.”” And then after stating the ground of such an indulgence to be, not only the ‘‘ fund” of Christ’s merits, but also ‘those of ‘ the saints’”—by “ penitential works” performed by the just, beyond what their ownsins might exact—as those sufferings of the spotless mother of God—the persecutions of the Baptist—the prolonged ‘rigors of holy anchorites, &c. as forming a store of meritorious blessings applicable to the satisfaction of other sinners. The Dr. remarks, that ‘‘ it is evident that if the temporal punishment reserved to sin, was anciently believed to be remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority imposing or recommending them, received as an equivalent, must have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church—and it must be the same now that it formerly was—she necessarily possesses, at present, the same power of substitution, with the same efficacy and consequently with the same effects. And such substitution constitutes all that Catholics understand by the name of an indulgence.””

And is not such an ‘ all’? quite enough to sicken and disgust every unprejudiced and unbiassed mind ? Is it not enough to prove upon Roman Catholics the immoral tendency of their boasted indulgences ?— But this is not ‘all’? that this sage writer, Doctor Wiseman, has said in vindication of the power of the keys mentioned in the beginning of this extract ; for on the next page (58) of the same lecture, he says, ‘‘ Now, therefore, let us at once enter upon the proofs of this doctrine, which forms but the completion of that already expounded, (in his prece-

=.

ding lecture, from which we shall soon give a quotation,) regarding the power of the church in the remission of sin. or a tribunal which has the power of forgiving guilt, and substituting a smaller satisfaction to the majesty of the offended, must surely have the comparatively insignificant authority, still farther to modify, or even to commute the satisfaction which it has imposed.” The reader will readily perceive from the terms employed in the extract just given that after all the indignation that Catholics of the present day have manifested, on being charged with claiming the power to forgive sins, it is here distinctly avowed, and that the power to grant indulgences is but a subordinate exercise of the same power, or ‘* but the completion of that already expounded,” i.e. ‘* the power of forgiving guilt, and substituting a smaller satisfaction to the majesty of the offended.”? And that all doubt as to the real doctrine of the ‘* Holy Mother Church” on this point, may be removed, let us turn back to Dr. W.’s preceding lecture (Lect. 11,) ‘ On satisfaction and purgatory,” where on page 30, we find, notwithstanding a dexterous shuffle of words, to prevent a clear apprehension of the subject, the assertion is boldly made, that the minister or pastor of the Church, in forgiving sins, does not act in his own name ‘ but simply as God’s representative in taking cognisance of the case, and pronouncing thereon with the assurance that ratification of his sentence will necessarily and infallibly follow.” Now what does it avail, after claiming the ‘* necessary and infallible ratification” of the priest’s sentence of absolution, to say, as Dr. W. does, that Catholics ‘* believe that sin is forgiven and can be forgiven by God alone,”? when God has bound himself ** necessarily and infallibly” to ratify every such sentence of absolution? Surely there can be no practical difference, whether sin be forgiven by an absolute and independent right, or by a judicial appointment, which has an “‘ infallible ratification” of the supreme power. 7 :

That Catholics do ‘ believe that sin is forgiven and can be forgiven” by the absolving power of the priesthood of their Church is put beyond all reasonable doubt, when besides the evidence before given, we examine the form of prayer to be used after confession and absolution, as contained in Rev. Wm. Gahan’s ** Manual of Catholic Piety,’’ corrected and approved by the Right Rev. Bishop Kendrick.’’— On page 85 of this ‘* Manual,” the absolved Catholic is taught to address the searcher of hearts thus : *« Ts it possible, O my God, that, having been a criminal but a few moments ago, I should now be cleansed from my sins by virtue of thissacrament? Yes, ~ I firmly believe it; because thou hast left to thy church the power of forgiving sins, and hast inclined my heart to comply with the necessary conditions for obtaining pardon. Thou hast declared to thy Apostles, ‘ That whatever they should loose on earth, should be loosed in Heaven, and that whosoever’s sins they should forgive, should be forgiven.’ This is the sacred warrant of their tribunal, whose authority thy faithful have everacknowledged. Here are the keys of thy heavenly kingdom solemnly made over to thy Church in our favor; we are therefore obliged to have recourse to them. » This power was not confined to the Apostles, no more than the power of baptizing nations ; but being granted in as general] terms, doth, in like manner extend to their successors. I aive thee thanks, O my God, for this tender proof of thy love, and invite all creatures to glorify thee for it.

Thou hast invested a power in the: sons of men which thou wouldst not confer on Angels or archangels. Whatever ye shall bind on earth, &c. was not addressed to them. . The princes of this world have dominion only over the body, but the power of the Priests affects the very soul The-eternal Father hath given all power to the son; but then J behold tHis vERY POWER DE- LIVERED BY THE SON TO MORTALS. ‘The Jewish Priests could only pronounce those clean whose bodies had been already cleansed from the leprosy ; but to our Priests it was given, not merely to pronounce clean, but really to cleanse, not the infections of 3* the body, but the very stains of the soul.” And that the pious and unlettered Catholic may know why Rev. Mr. Gahan and Bishop Kendrick, as_compilers of ‘* Manuals”’ of devotion, do not thus speak on their own authority, they expressly quote one of the ‘‘ fathers” as the proper author of both the sentiment and language used. And who, we ask, can read such language, even if an Angel from Heaven had uttered it, and not shudder at the blaspheming impiety it contains ? Here is no rhetorical flourish of words to affect the ears of men, but a formula of devotion before God, who is devoutly told that ‘ all power”? as inherited by the Son, has been delivered by the Son to mortals! And that by virtue of this priestly inheritance of ‘‘ all power,” they can not only pronounce clean, but really cleanse, not only the infections of the body, but the very stains of ‘the soul. Here, indeed, ‘‘ The man of sin is revealed, (self-revealed) who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, (the Church,) as God, declaring himself that he is God.” But should the Catholic complain of misrepresentation or the want of a more perfect representation of the doctrine of his Church on this point, we will for the sake of satisfying him, make two or three more extracts from his own authorities.

Dr. W. illustrates the authority of the priesthood, by saying, ‘‘if a judge were sent forth witha commission, that whomever he should absolve, that person should go free ; but that to whomever he should refuse pardon, he should not be forgiven ; would not this imply that no forgiveness was to be obtained except through him? And would not the commission otherwise be a nullity, an insult and a mockery ?” And as a conclusion from these premises, he adds, «« Not merely, therefore, a power to forgive sins: is given in our commission, but such a power as excludes every other instrument or means of forgiveness in the new law.”? See page 15, of Dr. W.’s Lecture. The sentiment of this most Catholic extract is in perfect keeping with the showing which the Rev. Mr. Gilbride made of this subject, through the Jeffersonian, in Feb. 1840. After quoting John xx, 21, 23, and Math. xvim, 18, Mr. G. says :— “‘ Christ therefore sent his Apostles as physicians and judges ;”’ and again: ‘* The Redeemer established no useless commission.”? But he would have established a useless commission, if he gave power to the Apostles to heal the diseases and to adjudicate on the causes of the soul and not bind his followers to submit their maladies and their cases to the physicians and judges. It will be seen that what Mr. G. has said is but the echo of Dr. W.’s remarks, a copy of whose lectures we had for a time, second hand from Mr. G. And from all these quotations, we see that the most moderate view taken of priestly absolution, by R. C. writers, is that their ministry is the only medium of pardon and salvation to a guilty world! Yea, that God himself can employ no other instruments or means of forgiveness, else ‘* that commission (which they claim) would be a nullity and void ;”? and then who could be saved ? No wonder, then, that they should say there is ‘* no salvation out of the (their) Church.’? And how consistent it is for them to claim ‘¢ infallibility”” in order to save the reputation of Jehovah, since, according to their showing, he has bound himself ‘* infallibly to ratify’? all their pardoning acts! But it is time to sum up the argument of our first chapter ; and we will-do it in the form of what Mr. Duncan calls a ‘‘ conditional syllogism,”’ or stating the major term hypothetically, so as to admit ef either an affirmative or negative conclusion, just as the facts may require. .

If, then, an indulgence consists in the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, which remission is a commutation or substitution that releases the delinquent from the obligation and liability to suffer a certain or limited amount of punishment; and if this commutation or substitution can be granted to the delinquent, on easy terms and at convenient times, by those claiming, and whom the delinquent acknowledges to have, an infallible divine ratification of all their pardoning acts ; and if this remission of the temporal punishment due to sin be offered and urged upon the acceptance of moral and ecclesiastical defaulters, who are nevertheless, called ‘* the faithful,”? because of their adherence toa Church granting them such indulgences ; and if instead of being required to fulfil the easy terms of _ the indulgence, delinquents are only required to ‘ be: in a readiness of mind to dosome of the things”? required ; and if such a proffered remission of temporal punishment due to sin, is represented as arising from an ‘ inexhaustible spiritual treasure, which the Catholic Church like a compassionate mother opens from time to time, to supply the wants and make up the deficiencies of her children ;” and if it is also a well known principle of corrupt human nature, to gratify its evil propensities whenever it may with even a possibility and much more a probability or a certainty of escaping the punishment due to sin 5 then it must follow, as a moral certainty, from the known, the demonstrated co-existence of all these supposed facts, that the granting of such indulgences can have no other effect than that of encouraging the commission of sin in proportion to the facilities thus afforded for obtaining, not only a ‘‘ commutation,” but a ‘* remission of the punishment due to it.’

34 MORAL FENDENCY oF

Or in a more perfect and condensed form, the argument would stand thus ;

If all the aforementioned suppositions are true, or founded on facts, then R. C. indulgences encourage the commission of sin: but all the aforementioned -suppositions are true or founded on fact; therefore R. C. indulgences encourage the commission of sin.

_ The strength or weakness of this argument, depends, of course, on the truth or falsity of the second or minor proposition, viz: That all the aforementioned suppositions are true or founded on fact. And on this point we fearlessly challenge the detection of either mistake or misrepresentation in reference to the authorities we have quoted. It is true that the dast of the six above named suppositions has no other connection with R. C. dogmas, than that such being the ‘‘ corruption of our nature” this system of indulgences is the more censurable, because it is adapted in the most perfect manner to augment — the evil of this ‘* well known principle of corrupt human nature,” under the sanction of Christianity and ‘infallible guides to Heaven.”’ It is of no avail to say, as the Right Rev. Dr. Hornihold does in his ‘ Real Principles of Catholics,” page 236, that Catholics ‘‘ believe there is no power in heaven or earth that can give leave to commit sin ; and consequently there is no giving pardon before-hand for sins to come.”? On the abstract principle of this statement we shall remark in another place ; but what would be the difference of granting a plenary pardon ‘‘ beforehand’‘ (supposing it could be done) and publishing beforehand the fixed and’ easy conditions on which a ‘“ plenary indulgence”? or the remissiou of all the punishment due to the. specified sins, could certainly be had ; and a pressing invitation subjoined to all delinquents to avail themselves of this proffered ‘* opening of a spiritual treasure to supply their wants, and make up.their deficiencies?” Would not transgressors feel nearly as secure with the latter as with the former? It istrue they could not be sure of living long enough to comply with the conditions of the indulgence; but we shall see in our next chapter, that this ‘‘ compassionate holy mother Church,’ has made express provision for all such emergencies. We shall therefore conclude the present chapter, leaving the candid reader to judge whether we have proved the position, that Roman Catholic indulgences do encourage crime.

Chapter II

An Examination of several Roman Catholic doca trines having a very important connection with the granting of indulgences, and also showing the sin-licensing genius of Popery in tts distinguishing dogmas.

AS the Protestant standard of faith, the Bikes | is in some sort appealed to by papists, in vindication of their high claims to exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to teach the true and only way of salvation for men, it is necessary to examine this pretended source of their authority. It has been already shown that Dr. Wiseman claims for his church ‘* the power of forgiving cuilt,” and that granting indulgences, or remitting the temporal punishment due to sin, is ‘* but the completion” of such a power. Such a position the Dr. knew to be warranted: by a formal decree of the council of Trent. In chapter first of their decrees, they say, respecting the sacrament of penance : ‘‘ And Peter, the prince of the Apostles, recommending penance to those sinners who were about to be initiated by baptism, said, * Do penance and be baptized every one of you.’ ”