Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/418

 41S mDULOENCB8. [Boor H. sins, even if one should violate (which was impossible) the mother d God, would be remitted and expiated by them, and the person be freed both from lmnishment and guilt. That this was the unspeakable  of Oed, in order to reconcile men to himself. That the cross erected by the preachers of indulgences was as efficacious as the cross of Christ itself. Lo ! the heavens are open; if you enter not now, when will you enter ? For twelve pence you may redeem the soul of your father out of purgatory'; and are you so ungrateful that you will not rescue your parent from torment ? If you had but one coat, you ought to 8trip yoursel� and sell it, in ordeF to purchase such benefits." The foregoing cannot be denominated an eagff' of the practice at the time of Luther; for, after hi8 opposition to the doctrines of Tet- sel, Leo X. issued a bull, in which he magnifies the virtue and efficacy of indulgences in terms as extravagant as any of his predecessors, and in perfect accordance with the preaching of Tetzel and his associates, as well as with the form given above. He also required all ChristiaM tO assent to what he delivered as the doctrine of the Catholic Church, under pain of an atathelna. Nor can this tra� o� indulgences, as practised by Leo X. and Tet- ze] be considered as an  of the doctrine of indulgences. So far is this from being the case, that it is the true ue or practical effect of the doctrine itself. V1/'hen pardons are provided on such terms, and for such purposes as the indulgence provides for, the practices men- tioned above are the legitimate resnit of the doctrines laid down. Al- though since the Reformation they have in many places, both in respect to indulgences and other things, greatly modified their pract/ce, they have never yet effectually disclaimed their Frinciples. The explana- tions given by divines, the declarations of faith made by the English Roman Catboric bishops, and adopted or recognized in America, go for nothing when the bulls of popes stand unrepealed. Their exph- nations are nothing more than mere evasions, while the decisions of infallibility, as they pretend, say nothing on the subject. Let us have the highest authority of their church on this and other points, on which that authority has already decided, and we will then acknowledge that the decisions of former popes have been erroneous. ' How far popery has properi moderated in the matter of indul nces �. Y ,roll appear, if we take a survey of indulgences according to ee fol- lowing divisions: 1. Such as have been annulled or repealed. 2. Those granted to certain orders. 3. Such as are designed for Christians. 4. And some of recent date. 3. $ucA a have/m au//ed or repea/ed. They teach, that any indulgence can be revoked or repealed by the grantor, his successor, or a superior. But an indulgence which has complished its effect cannot be revoked as to that effect. Plus V., in 1567, revoked all the indulgences which were granted for lucrative purposes. Paul V., in 1606, revoked all the indulgance8 granted by his predecessors to the Re, Fats of every order, and granted others hi their place.** Innocent XI., in 1678, revoked may inJadgce, (pluri- mss indulgentins,) as fal, forgl, and apocrypkai.' cree of Paul V. is quoted d l/to'am. t Idom, No. 14 and 15. !
 * See Perrafts Bliotheca, under Inda/gott/, art. iv, No. $ and 6, where the de-

�