par

ishment, obtains also the remission of all temporal punishment."* The essential guilt and eternal punishment of sin, she declares, can only be expiated by the precious merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ; but a certain temporal punishment God reserves for the penitent himself to endure, "lest the easiness of his don should make him careless about falling back into sin."+ Hence satisfaction for this temporal punishment has been instituted by Christ, as a part of the sacrament of penance; and hence " a Christian life," as the council has said above, "ought to be a penitential life." This council, at the same time, declares, that this very satisfaction for temporal punishment is only efficacious through Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, as the promise of Christ to the apostles, to St. Peter in particular, and to the successors of the apostles, is unlimited: "WHATSOEVER you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven," Matt. xviii. 18-xvi. 19; hence the church believes and teaches, that her jurisdiction extends to this very satisfaction, so as to be able to remit it wholly or partially, in certain circumstances, by what is called an INDULGENCE.§ St. Paul exercised this power in behalf of the incestuous Corinthian, on his conversion, and at the prayers of the faithful, 2 Cor. ii. 10: and the church has claimed and exercised the same power ever since the time of the apostles down to the present. IV. Still this power, like that of absolution, is not arbitrary; there must be a just cause for the exercise of it; namely, the greater good of the penitent, or of the faithful, or of christendom in general: and there must be a certain proportion between the punishment remitted and the good work performed. T Hence, no one can ever be sure that he has gained the entire benefit of an indulgence, though he has performed all the conditions appointed for this end ** and hence, of course, the pastors of the church will have to answer for it, if they take upon themselves to grant indulgences for unworthy or insufficient purposes. V. Lastly, it is the received doctrine of the church, that an indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the church, but also an actual remission by God himself, of the whole or part of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight. The contrary opinion, though held by some theologians, has been condemned by Leo X.tt and Pius VI. and, indeed, without the effect here mentioned, indulgences would not be heavenly treasures, and the use of them

would not be beneficial, but rather pernicious to Christians-contrary to two declarations of the last general council, as Bellarmin well argues.*

The above explanation of an indulgence, conformably to the doctrine of theologians, the decrees of popes, and the definitions of councils, ought to silence the objections, and suppress the sarcasms of Protestants on this head: but if it be not sufficient for such purpose, I would gladly argue a few points with them concerning their own indulgences. Methinks, reverend sir, I see you start at the mention of this, and hear you ask, what Protestants hold the doctrine of indulgences? I answer you, all the leading sects of them, with which I am acquainted. To begin with the Church of England. One of the first articles I meet with in its canons, regards indulgences, and the use that is to be made of the money paid for them. In the synod of 1640, a canon was made which authorized the employment of commuta tion-money, namely, of such sums as were paid for indulgences from ecclesiastical penances, not only in charitable, but also in public uses. At this period the established clergy were devoting all the money they could any way procure to the war which Charles I. was preparing, in defence of the church and state, against the Presbyterians of Scotland and England; so that, in fact, the money then raised by indulgences was employed in a real crusade. It has been before stated, that the second offspring of Protestantism, the Anabaptists, claimed an indulgence from God himself, in quality of his chosen ones, to despoil the impious, that is, all the rest of mankind, of their property; while the genuine Calvinists, of all times, have ever maintained, that Christ has set them free from the observance of every law, of God as well as of man. Agreeably to this tenet, Sir Richard *L. i. c. 7, Prop. 4.

"Ne qua fiat posthac solemnis penitentiæ commutatio nisi rationibus, gravioribusque de causis, &c. Deinde quod mulcta illa pecuniaria vel in relevam pauperum, vel in alios pios usus erogetur." Articuli pro Clero, A. D. 1584, Sparrow, p. 194. The next article is, "De moderandis quibusdam indulgentiis pro celebratione matrimonii," &c., p. 195. These indulgences were renewed under the same titles, in the synod held in London in 1597. Sparrow, pp. 248, 252.

"That no chancellor, commissary, or official, shall have power to commute any penance, in whole or in part; but either together with the bishop, &c., that he shall give a full and just account of such commutations to the bishop, who shall see that all such moneys shall be disposed of for charitable and public uses, according to law-saving always to ecclesiastical officers their due and accustomable fees." Canon 14. Sparrow, p. 368. In the remonstrance of grievances, presented by a committee of the Irish Parliament to Charles I., one of them was, that "several bishops received great sums of money for commutation of penance, (that is, for indulgences,) which they converted to their own use." Commons' Jour. quoted by Curry, vol. i. p. 169.

Hill says: "It is a most pernicious error of the schoolmen to distinguish sins according to the fact, and not according to the person. With respect to Patriarch Luther, it is notorious that he was in the habit of granting indulgences, of various kinds, to himself and his disciples. Thus, for example, he dispensed with himself and Catharine Boren, from their vows of a religious life, and particularly that of celibacy, and even preached up adultery in his public sermons.† In like manner he published bulls, authorizing the robbery of bishops and bishopricks, and the murder of popes and cardinals. But the most celebrated of his indulgences is that which, in conjunction with Bucer and Melancthon, he granted to Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, to marry a second wife, his former being living, in consideration, for so it is stated, of his protection of Protestantism. But if any credit is due to this same Bucer, who, for his learning, was invited by Cranmer and the Duke of Somerset into England, and made the Divinity Professor of Cambridge, the whole business of the tended Reformation was an indulgence for libertinism. His words are these: "The greater part of the people seem only to have embraced the gospel, in order to shake off the yoke of discipline and the obligation of fasting, penance, &c., which lay upon them in Popery, and to live at their pleasure, enjoying their lusts and lawless appetites without control. Hence they lent a willing ear to the doctrine, that we are saved by faith alone, and not by good works, having no relish for them."§ I am yours, &c.

pre

JOHN MILNER.

LETTER XLIII.—TO THE REV. ROBERT CLAYTON, M. A. ON PURGATORY, AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. REVEREND SIR

In the natural order of our controversies, this is the proper place to treat of purgatory and prayers for the dead. On this subject, Bishop Porteus begins with saying, "There is no Scripture proof of the existence of purgatory; heaven and hell we read of perpetually in the Bible; but purgatory we never meet with; though surely, if there be such a place, Christ and his apostles would not have concealed it from us."|| I might ex

*Fletcher's Checks, vol. iii.

"Si nolit Domina, veniat ancilla," &c. Serm. de Matrim. t. v.

This infamous indulgence, with the deeds belonging to it, was published from the original by permission of a descendant of the landgrave, and republished by Bossuet. Variat. book vi.

§ Bucer, De Regn. Christ. 1. i. c. 4.

Il Confut. p. 48.

pose the inconclusiveness of this argument by the following parallel one: The Scripture nowhere commands us to keep the first day of the week holy; we perpetually read of sanctifying the Sabbath or Saturday, but never meet with the Sunday as a day of obligation; though, if there be such an obligation, Christ and his apostles would not have concealed it from us! I might likewise answer, with the bishop of Lincoln, that the inspired epistles, (and I may add the gospels also,)" are not to be considered as regular treatises upon the Christian religion."* But I meet the objection in front, by saying, first, that the apostles did teach their converts the doctrine of purgatory, among their other doctrines, as St. Chrysostom testifies, and the tradition of the church proves; secondly, that the same is demonstratively evinced from both the Old and New Testament.

To begin with the Old Testament: I claim a right of considering the two first books of Machabees, as an integral part of them, because the Catholic Church so considers them,† from whose tradition, and not from that of the Jews, as St. Augustin signifies, our sacred canon is to be formed. Now in the second of these books, it is related that the pious general, Judas Machabeus, sent 12,000 drachmas to Jerusalem, for sacrifices, to be offered for his soldiers, slain in battle; after which narration, the inspired writer concludes thus; "It is therefore a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins."-2 Mach. xii. 46. I need not point out the inseparable connection there is between the practice of praying for the dead, and the belief of an intermediate state of souls; since it is evidently needless to pray for the saints in heaven, and useless to pray for the reprobate in hell. But even Protestants, who do not receive the Books of Machabees as canonical Scripture, venerate them as authentic and holy records; as such, then, they bear conclusive testimony of the belief of God's people, on this head, 150 years before Christ. That the Jews were in the habit of practising some religious rites for the relief of the departed, at the beginning of Christianity, is clear from St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he mentions them, without any censure of them ;§ and that this people continue to pray for their deceased brethren, at the present time, may be learned from any living Jew.

To come now to the New Testament: What place, I ask, must that be, which our Saviour calls "Abraham's bosom," where the soul of Lazarus reposed, Luke, xvi. 22, among the

*Elem. of Theol. vol. i. p. 277. t Concil. Cart. iii. St. Cyp. St. Aug. Innoc. I. Gelas, &c.

Lib. 18. De. Civ. Dei. "Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not all? Why are they then baptized for them?" 1 Cor. xv. 29.

other just souls, till he by his sacred passion paid their ransom? Not heaven, otherwise Dives would have addressed himself to God, instead of Abraham; but evidently a middle state, as St. Augustin teaches.* Again, of what place is it that St. Peter speaks, where he says, "Christ died for our sins, being put to death in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit; in which also coming, he preached to those spirits that were in prison ?" 1 Pet. iii. 19. It is evidently the same which is mentioned in the Apostles' Creed: He descended into hell-not the hell of the damned, to suffer their torments, as the blasphemer, Calvin, asserts, but the prison above-mentioned, or Abraham's bosom; in short, a middle state. It is of this prison, according to the holy fathers, our blessed Master speaks, where he says: I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence till thou hast paid the very last mite." Luke, xii. 59.-Lastly, what other sense can that passage of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians bear, than that which the holy fathers affix to it,§ where the apostle says, "The day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's works abide, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." 1 Cor. iii. 13, 15. The prelate's diversified attempts to explain away these scriptural proofs of purgatory, are really too feeble and inconsistent to merit being even mentioned. I might here add, as a further proof, the denunciation of Christ concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, namely, that this sin "shall not be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come," Mat. xii. 32; which words clearly imply that some sins are forgiven in the world to come, as the ancient fathers show;|| but I hasten to the proofs of this doctrine from tradition, on which head the prelate is so ill advised as to challenge Catholics.

II. Bishop Porteus then advances, that "purgatory, in the present popish sense, was not heard of for 400 years after Christ, nor universally received for 100 years, nor almost in any other church than that of Rome to this day." Here are no less than three egregious falsities, which I proceed to show; after stating what his lordship seems not to know, namely, that all which is necessary to be believed on this subject by Catholics, is contain

* De Civit. Dei, l. xv. c. 20.

+ Inst. l. ii. c. 16.

Tertul. St. Cypr. Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, &c.

§ Origen, Hom. 14 in Levit. &c. St. Ambrose, in Ps. 118. St. Jerom, 1, 2, contra Jovin. St. Aug. in Ps. 37, where he prays thus: "Purify me, O Lord, in this life, that I may not need the chastening fire of those who will be saved, yet so as by fire."

St. Aug. De Civit. Dei, 1. 21, c. 24. St. Greg. 1. 4. Dialog. Bed. in cap. 3. Marc. T P.50.