Indulgences. THE Catholic Church uses words of her own to express her own doctrines; and therefore the first thing that any one has to do, who wishes to know what the Church really teaches, is to learn to attach the Church's meaning to the Church's words. It is just so much lying and slandering, to take the words the Church uses, and, putting our own interpretation upon them, accuse her of teaching the very contrary, perhaps, of what she does teach. Yet this is what Protestants have done, and are constantly doing, in the matter of Catholic doctrines; and in nothing, perhaps, more pertinaciously than in the subject of which I am about to speak. They have caught hold of the word Indulgence; and instead of inquiring what it meant as used by Catholics, they have given it the first meaning that came to hand, and then have attributed to the teaching of the Catholic Church what, in fact, was an invention of their own. They know that, in common language, an indulgent parent is one who overlooks his child's faults, humours all his fancies, yields to all his wishes, and does not punish him even for his disobediences to himself. Well, then, they conclude this must be what Papists mean by an indulgence, and what the Pope does when he grants an indulgence; he winks at the sins of the people, and pretends that God winks at them too, however heinous they may be. "Oh, yes," they say, with a confident air, "an indulgence is an easy way of pardoning sin." Or they go further, and assert, that it is a pardon for sins to come; a man may sin, for the next ten, twenty, forty years-nay, he may go on sinning all the rest of his life and all his sins are forgiven him beforehand; and so they say that, in granting an indulgence, the Pope pretends, in fact, to give what Almighty God Himself, with all His omnipotence, has not the power to give,-leave to commit sin for the future. I hope to make quite clear before I have done what an indulgence really is, and how the word is really used by Catholics themselves, who must surely know best what it is they believe; my object being not only to state what the doctrine is, but to enter a little into the meaning of it. First, then, let me say that an indulgence is not a pardon for sin at all; much less is it any thing so impious as a permission to commit sin. It has nothing to do with the future; it is concerned only with the past; and it never has any effect whatever except in the case of sins which have been previously forgiven. In short, an indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment remaining due to sin after the guilt of sin has been forgiven. ment. The distinction between guilt and punishment is so plain, that it seems hardly worth while to say a word in explanation. A father may have entirely forgiven his child for some offence; the child may, by his sorrow, have shown himself worthy of this forgiveness, and nevertheless the father may not withhold the threatened chastiseSin is an offence by thought, word, or deed against God. The guilt of sin continues as long as the will remains turned away from God; so long as the will is turned away from God, it is impossible for the sin to be forgiven or the guilt remitted; and the turning back of the will to God-that is, the sorrow of the sinner for his sin and his purpose of amendment-is the invariable and indispensable condition of forgiveness at all times, without any possible exception. Punishment, on the other hand, is the penalty which sin draws after it as its consequence. As long as the guilt of any sin remains, so long the punishment remains due, and cannot be remitted; God Himself cannot relax or remit the punishment as long as the soul remains in such a state, because of the perfection of His own justice. It is from this that the eternity of punishment arises. They whose will is eternally alienated from God, owe a debt of eternal punishment to His justice. They who die in a state of mortal sin fall into the reprobate condition in which the devils are; their will being eternally turned from God, their punishment must last for ever, without remission. Actual sins are of two kinds. Some sins are mortal, that is to say, they destroy grace in the soul, they kill the soul; this is the meaning of the word "mortal:" a mortal sin is a sin that causes the death of the soul. Other sins are venial; by which is meant, not that they are simply excusable, or not displeasing to God, or not dangerous to the soul, but that they do not drive grace out of it, they do not cut the soul off from God, they do not kill it; they may inflict great wounds, and do much injury to the soul, but they do not cause its death. Well, the punishment due for sin is of two kinds also. There is a punishment which is eternal, and there is a punishment which is temporal. Eternal punishment, which is the penalty due for mortal sin, can be remitted in this life only; but whenever the guilt of sin is remitted, the eternal punishment is, by God's mercy, remitted also. Not so, however, the temporal punishment which is the invariable consequence of every sin, of whatever kind it be. While eternal punishment is due only for mortal or deadly sins, temporal punishment is due for every sin which man commits. Wherever eternal punishment is due, temporal punishment is due also; but temporal punishment alone is due for venial sins. In general terms, therefore, temporal punishment is due for every mortal sin forgiven, and for every venial sin, whether forgiven or unforgiven. Now the guilt of sin may be forgiven, and the eternal punishment may be remitted, yet the temporal punishment may remain due. On this great truth, viz. that temporal punishment for sin remains after the guilt of sin is goneon this great truth rests the doctrine of indulgences. We have incidental proofs of it in holy Scripture. If we turn to the very first sin that man committed, we find that, besides the eternal punishment of death in its fullest sense, which was due for it, there was also a temporal punishment inflicted by God. First of all there was the death of the |