DIALOGUE VI.

OF INDULGENCES.

ORTHODOX.

INDULGENCES were the immediate cause of the Reformation. The Council of Trent, therefore, spake very cautiously concerning them, and modern Roman writers have adopted the same course: many, indeed, appear to know neither their use nor benefit. Here again comes in the question of satisfaction; and some other points before considered.

PHILODOX.

You have allowed that remission of sins cannot be obtained, except by strict and entire satisfaction. Now, as before remarked, they maintain, that although the essential guilt and eternal punishment of sin are expiated to a justified man by the blood of Christ, yet there is a certain temporary punishment reserved for him to undergo, or make satisfaction for in this world, or in purgatory, or both. The Church hath power to mitigate this, wholly or in part, by what is called an indulgence, which

prescribes certain satisfactions to be done by works of penance.

ORTHODOX.

Temporal punishment may be and is inflicted in this life, even upon the justified sinner, either as just retribution, or natural effect, or fatherly correction, or examples of divine justice. But that the penitent can, in anywise satisfy God, by patient submission to or voluntary infliction of punishment, or do any thing expiatory, we deny.

PHILODOX.

But it is asked, "Because we cannot acquit ourselves of the entire debt, are we not to make some efforts to pay as far as our means afford?”

ORTHODOX.

The argument is not good. Men have nothing but what they receive from God; Peter cannot pay Paul, if he hath no means to do so without borrowing from Paul. The comfort of the Gospel is, that it declares sinners, upon faith and repentance, "reconciled to God, through the death of his Son"; and that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself? And how? by "not imputing their trespasses unto them." The Christian consolation is, that "being justified by faith, we have peace

this

with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." But peace of mind is not for him who still knows a vast portion of his debt to be undischarged; a heavy account lying against him to be paid by his own imperfect obedience, and the bitter pains of purgatory. St. Paul places the blessedness of the sincere believer in this, that "his unrighteousness is forgiven, and his sin covered, and that the Lord will not impute his trespasses to him." How is this true, when a vast portion of the sin remains still imputed to, and exacted from him? When we talk of having done satisfaction to a person, it implies that we are accepted by, reconciled to, and at friendship with, him. Which of these is left undone by Christ? The faith, attested by obedience, which reconciled and made Abraham the "friend of God", reconciles all who are the spiritual seed of Abraham. Personal satisfaction reconciles man to man; vicarious satisfaction reconciles man to God.

But before we speak of Indulgences, it is necessary to understand, if possible, what they mean.

PHILODOX.

We have their benefit stated in the recent Jubilee Bull of Pope Leo XII., from which it appears that they are efficacious; I. "For remission of canonical

penance"; II. For "remission of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for past sins"; III. To" afford succour to such as have departed real penitents in the love of God, yet, before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of purgatory; that an entrance may be opened for them into that country, where nothing defiled is admitted." These indulgences are granted, by applying portions of a stock, consisting of the merits of Christ, and of the superfluous merits of the saints, laid up at the pope's disposal. Thus he tells us, that he grants Indulgences, "by virtue of the authority given to us from heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, of his Virgin Mother, and of all the saints, which the Author of salvation has entrusted to our dispensation."

ORTHODOX.

It seems then, that the Church has the power of making herself umpire between the Creator and his creatures; of compromising the debt due from man to God; and of letting off the sinner from paying what he owes to the divine justice.

PHILODOX.

The deficiency, you see, is made up out of the stock of merits of Christ and the saints.

ORTHODOX.

If this be so, what does St. Paul mean by ask

ing, "Was Paul crucified for you"? or why is it not true that "the saints, as well as Christ, suffered for us"? Are we again to yield the faith to Unitarians, and admit that the doctrine of the atonement is not to be established by the strict application of such phraseology to our Lord alone; adopting their unholy language, that good men are saviours as well as Christ.

PHILODOX.

Does not St. Paul say, "I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church"?

ORTHODOX.

There is a wide difference between suffering for the good of others and satisfying for the sins of others. By the "afflictions of Christ", are meant not His personal afflictions, but those which he suffered in his mystical body, the Church, and of

S