The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, Part 8 – Part 9
VIII. Of Indulgences.
1. THey must be extreamly ignorant, who take the Power of Indulgences, to be a Leave from the Pope to commit what Sins they please; and that by vertue thereof, they shall escape Punishment for their Sins, without repentance in another World. Yet this is the sense of the Misrepresentation which, he saith, is made of it. And if he saith true in his Preface, That Pag. 15, 16.he hath described the Belief of a Papist, exactly according to the apprehension he had when he was a Protestant: He shews how well he understood the Matters in Difference, when I think no other Person besides himself ever had such an apprehension of it, who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar.
2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope, or any other Power in Heaven or Earth, can give him leave to commit any Sins whatsoever; or that for any Sum of Mony, he can obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him, or his Heirs hereafter. Very well! But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence, or Pardon, after they are committed? Is no such thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony? He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber for certain Sins, and what Sums are there set upon them. Why did he not as freely speak against this? This is published in the vast Collection of Tracts of Canon Law, set forth by the Pope's Authority, where there are certain Rates for Perjury, Murder, Apostacy, &c. Now Tractat. Tractatuum. To: 15. Part. 1. f. 368.what do these Sums of Mony mean? If they be small, it is so much the better Bargain, for the Sins are very great. And Espencaeus complains, that this Book was so far from being called in, that he saith, the Pope's Espencae. in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. degress. 2.Legats renewed those Faculties, and confirmed them. It seems then a Sum of Mony may be of some consequence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin past, though not for a Licence to commit it. But what mighty difference is there, whether a Man procures with Mony a Dispensation, or a Pardon? For the Sin can hurt him no more, than if he had Licence to commit it.
3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant Indulgences; which, he saith, concern not at all the Remission of Sins, either Mortal or Venial, but only of some Temporal Punishments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted. Here now arises a Material Question, viz. Whether the Popes, or the Representer, be rather to be believed. If the Popes, who grant the Indulgences to be believed; then not only the bare Remission of Sins is concerned in them, but the Plenary, and most Plenary Remission of Sins is to be had by them. So Boniface the 8th, in his Bull of Jubilee granted, Non solum plenam & largiorem, imo plenissimam Bullar. Cherubin. in To. 1. p. 204.veniam peccatorum. If these words had no relation to Remission of Sins, the People were horribly cheated by the sound of them. In the Bull of Clement the 6th, not extant in the Bullarium, but published out of the Utrecht Manuscript, not only a Plenary Absolution from all Sins is declared to all Persons who died in the way to Rome; but he commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Prorsus mandamus Angelis Paradisi, quantum animam illius à Purgatorio penitus absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant. Bulla Clem. 6. ultrajecti A. D. 1653. Gobel. Person. Cosmodr. aet. 6. c. 86. p. 278. Bellar. To. 3. p. 74. To. 4. p. 85.Soul immediatly to Heaven. And I suppose, whatever implies such an Absolution as carries a Soul to Heaven, doth concern Remission of Sins. Boniface the 9th granted Indulgences, à Poenâ & à Culpâ; and those certainly concerned Remission of Sins; being not barely from the Temporal Punishment, but from the Guilt it self. Clement the 8th, whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care in reforming Indulgences, in his Bull of Jubilee, grants a most Plenary Remission of Sins; and Urban the 8th, since him, not only a Relaxation of Penances, but Remission of Sins; and so lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10th published an Indulgence upon the Canonization of five new Saints, wherein he not only grants a Plenary Indulgence of Sins, but upon invocation of one of these Saints in the point of Death, a Plenary Indulgence of all his Sins. And what doth this signify in the point of Death, if it do not concern the Remission of Sins?
4. Indulgences, he saith, are nothing else but a Mitigation or Relaxation, upon just Causes, of Canonical Penances, which are or may be enjoyned by the Pastors of the Church on penitent Sinners, according to their several degrees of Demerits. If by Canonical Penances, they mean those enjoyned by the Penitential Canons, Greg. de Valentia saith, This Opinion differs not from that of Greg. de Valent. de Indulg. c. 2.the Hereticks, and makes Indulgences to be useless and dangerous things. Bellarmine brings several Arguments Bell. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 7.against this Doctrine. (1.) There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church; which he had proved to be the Foundation of Indulgences. (2.) They would be rather hurtful than profitable, and the Church C. 2.would deceive her Children by them. (3.) They could not be granted for the Dead. (4.) They who receive Indulgences, do undergo Canonical Penances. (5.) The form of them doth express, that they do relate to God, and not only to the Church. And this, I think, is sufficient to shew how far he is from true Representing the Nature of Indulgences; for we do not dispute the Churche's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to Penitent Sinners upon just Causes.
IX. Of Satisfaction.
1. HE believes it damnable to think any thing injuriously of Christ's Passion: But then he distinguishes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin. As to the Guilt and Eternal Pain, the Satisfaction, he saith, … proper to Christ; but as to the Temporal Pain, which m… remain due by God's Justice, after the other are remitted, he saith, that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy for that by Prayer, Fasting, Alms, &c. p. 17.
2. These Penitential Works, he saith, are no otherwise satisfactory, than as joined and applied to Christ's Satisfaction, in virtue of which alone our good Works find a grateful acceptance in God's sight. p. 19.
But for right apprehending the State of the Controversy, we must consider;
1. That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin, to be remitted in Baptism; so that all the Satisfaction to be made, is for Sins committed after Baptism.
2. We distinguish between Satisfaction to the Church before Absolution, and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the punishment to Sin which is unremitted.
3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are pleasing to God, so as to avert his Displeasure; but Catech. Roman. Part. 2. c. 5. n. 52, 56.we deny that there can be any Compensation in way of equivalency, between what we suffer, and what we deserve.
The Matter in Controversy therefore on this Head, consists in these things.
1. That after the total Remission of Sins in Baptism, they suppose a Temporal Punishment to remain, when the Eternal is forgiven; which the Penitent is to satisfy God's Justice for; and without this being done in this Life, he must go into Purgatory for that End. Of which more under that Head.
2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Justice of God, after Absolution is given by the Priest. So that although the Penitent be admitted into God's Favour, by the power of the Keys, according to their own Doctrine; yet the Application of the Merits of Christ, together with the Saints in the Sentence of Absolution (according to their Form) do not set him so free, but he either wants a new Supply from the Treasure of the Church, i. e. from the same Merits of Christ and the Saints; or else he is to satisfie for the Temporal Punishment by his own Penances.
3. That these penitential Works are to be joyned with the Merits of Christ, in the way of proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice. And however softly this may be expressed; the meaning is, that Christ hath merited, that we may merit, and by his Satisfaction, we are enabled to satisfie for our selves. And if the Satisfaction by way of Justice be taken away, the other will be a Controversy about Words.
4. That these penitential Works may not only be Catech. Rom. de Paenit. Sacr. n. 61.sufficient for themselves, but they may be so over-doing, that a great share may be taken from them to make up the Treasure of the Church, for the benefit of others who fall short, when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences. And about these Points, we must desire greater Proof than we have yet ever seen.