for his fault, that such person, by gaining an indulgence, is thereby assisted and relieved from such temporal punishment as God, in his justice might inflict upon him, either in this life, or hereafter in purgatory, previous to his admission into heaven.

What authority has the Catholic writer, Gother, among Roman Catholics?-Gother is esteemed by us a very venerable writer, and perfectly orthodox in all that he has written.

The Committee find, in a treatise called A Vindication of the Roman Catholics, the following curse, in a statement of curses; first, "Cursed is he that commits idolatry, that prays to images or relics, or worships them for God;" is that a doctrine which is acknowledged by Roman Catholics? That is our proper doctrine, and I, and every Roman Catholic in the world would say with Gother, accursed be such person.

Further, it states, "Cursed is every goddess worshipper, that believes the Virgin Mary to be any more than a creature, that honours her, worships her, or puts his trust in her more than in God; that honours her above her Son, or believes that she can in any way command him ;" is that acknowledged ?That is acknowledged; and I would say the same of that as I did of the former.

It then states, "Cursed is he that believes the Saints in heaven to be his Redeemers, that prays to them as such, or that gives God's honour to them, or to any creature whatsoever;" is that acknowledged ?-So, I say, accursed be any person that does so.

It then further states, "Cursed is he that believes priests can forgive sins, whether a sinner repents or not; or that there is any power in earth or heaven that can forgive sins, without a hearty repentance, and a serious purpose of amendment?"I most cordially coincide in the expressions used there by Gother, and so will every Catholic clergyman in the world.

It is then stated, " Cursed is he that believes there is authority in the Pope, or any other, that can give leave to commit sins, or that can forgive him his sins, for a sum of money ?". A frightful and impious doctrine, and most accursed is he that holds it.

What is your opinion of the indulgences granted by the Pope to certain churches, upon occasion of the holy year, which appear to the Committee to come within the description of that which you conceive to be not consistent with the sound doctrine of the Roman church ?-I am certain, that the Pope, upon this matter, thinks as we do, for he is a divine of the Catholic church, and so is Gother, and so am I; our rank is different, but our doctrine, upon that subject, surely is the

same; I never found any diversity of doctrine amongst Roman Catholic divines upon that subject; there is a phraseology in their writings which might mislead persons not acquainted with their science; for instance, Saint Paul, himself, has sometimes given the name of sin to that which is not sin, but which was connected with it; as when he says, that our Redeemer was made sin for us; it is in like manner said, in the holy Scripture," Peccata populi mei comedent;"" they shall eat the sins of my people," meaning the offerings for sin. Now, in the indulgences, it is sometimes said by the Pope, that he forgives the sin; that expression might lead into an error: but the meaning of it is, that he forgives, as far as in his power lies, the temporary punishment due to the sin, after the guilt of it has been remitted upon true repentance by the sinner; or in other words, after the guilt of the sin has been remitted by God, upon the repentance of the sinner.

Are there any words in the indulgences, as they are published, which would give the world a notion that they are to be understood with those qualifications ?—I think that there is no Catholic at all who misunderstands the language in which indulgences are granted, because in all our books of prayer, which are in the hands of every Christian, the sense that I have now given is clearly expounded; and the priests in their exhortations, when they do publish indulgences of any kind, take care to impress strongly upon the people, that such indulgence cannot be obtained, unless they heartily repent of their sin, obtain pardon of the guilt from God, and do all in their power to make atonement for it by good works.

Are there any words to that purport, in the indulgences themselves?—I mentioned upon that subject all that I can say; there may be in some indulgences, obscure expressions which might mislead those who do not understand the matter as Catholics do; but I said, that upon the subject of indulgences those proclamations or bulls, or whatever they may be called, are not misunderstood by any Catholic of any rank or condition or country; that I distinctly stated, and I also, as I supposed, stated the reasons, namely, because the true explanation of the matter is found not only in every prayer book, but is constantly explained and inculcated by the clergy in their exhortations from the altar or pulpit, so that an error upon the subject is morally impossible; nor did I ever know in my life any one of any class or description, who laboured under the error, that an indulgence implied the remission of sin.

Will you describe to the Committee, the nature of an in

dulgence? We conceive that when a sinner heartily repents, he obtains from God, through the sacrament of penance, a remission of the guilt of the sin which he may have committed; but after such guilt is remitted, we believe that a temporal punishment may still remain to be inflicted on him; for instance, when David committed the crimes of adultery and murder, he was rebuked by the Prophet Nathan, and upon being rebuked, he repented sincerely, and exclaimed," I have sinned against the Lord;" upon which the Prophet replied, "Notwithstanding, because thou hast done this thing, and caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child which has been born to thee shall die the death." Here then we see that God Almighty may remit the eternal guilt of a sin, as he did to David, after he had declared I have sinned against the Lord, but yet that there may remain a temporal punishment to be inflicted afterwards by God, in order that he may show to the faithful at large, who often are scandalized by the sin, his justice as well as his mercy. We conceive that this providence of God has not been confined to the ancient, but that it is extended also to the new dispensation, for we find St. Paul telling the Corinthians, that the unworthy communions of some were the cause why many were sick and some died amongst them. From this then we infer, that though the Almighty may remit to the contrite heart the guilt of sin, he may yet punish even under the new law, by temporal afflictions; and we do believe, that an indulgence granted by the church and obtained by the sinner, relieves him entirely or in part from such temporal punishment as may remain hanging over him, after the guilt of his sin may have been wiped away.

Does the indulgence insure that forgiveness to the penitent?-It does not insure such forgiveness to the penitent, it only gives him a hope, that through the merits of Christ, and the united prayers of the faithful in the church, God may be propitious to him by the means of the indulgence.

Does it not also relieve the sinner from any penance imposed upon him by the church, in consequence of the commission of sin ?-So far from relieving him from the penance enjoined on him by his confessor, unless he perform, or be resolved to perform such penance, he cannot obtain the indulgence; it is a help to his infirmity, but by no means a dispensation from performing all that is in his power to move the mercy of God.

Were there not very long periods of penance imposed for the commission of certain offences, at an early period of the church? There were.

Was not the system of indulgences one of the means of avoiding the extraordinary length of those penances?—No; the extraordinary length of those penances was done away in the church, when the corruption of the morals of Christians became very great; the discipline which enjoined such prolonged penances became too severe for our infirmity, and they went therefore into disuse; but in some indulgences, it is said, that an indulgence of seven years, or of so many quarantines, is granted; and this seems to have reference to the ancient canons, and is to be understood thus, "We grant you by this indulgence an exemption from performing that public penance of seven years, or forty days, which, had you lived in the time when the ancient canons were enforced, you would have been obliged to perform."

Is it in any part of the doctrine of your church, or has it been any part of the practice of it, that those indulgences should extend to the remission of the temporal consequences, with respect to crimes to be committed?-Never at any period.

The reason you were asked that question is, because the Committee are aware that a vulgar error has prevailed upon that subject?—Yes; it is a horrible imputation.

In the case you have mentioned from Saint Paul, you described Saint Paul as saying, that in consequence of unworthy communion, many became sick and died?-He says there are many infirm and many weak, and I believe some have slept, but he distinguishes the different classes.

Those infirmities the Committee understand you to describe as the temporary penalties of sin; do you think that an indulgence can relieve from such infirmities as those which you describe as the temporary penalties of sin?-I conceive, for instance, that the Almighty, upon the repentance of a sinner, might forgive the eternal guilt of such unworthy communion as the apostle alludes to; but notwithstanding that the guilt had been remitted by God, yet such individual might be afflicted with sickness; and I do conceive that, if upon their remission of the eternal guilt by God, this person availed himself of the indulgence which the church might grant, the Almighty would relieve him from that sickness, which otherwise might fall upon him.

Do you think that an indulgence could avert sickness resulting from the wrath of God?—I think that an indulgence, such as I have mentioned, might avert such sickness.

Is there any distinction between Plenary and other indulgences? There is; an indulgence may be for some years, as I mentioned, or it may be for a quarantine or more quaran

tines than one (a quarantine signifies forty days), or it may be a plenary indulgence; the meaning of a plenary indulgence is, that the church thereby grants as full a remission of the temporal punishment or penance due to a sin, as it is in the power of the person granting the indulgence to bestow. These are not my words, but the words of a Pope, I think one of the Bonifaces, in an explanation which he gave of the word Plenary Indulgence.

What is the utmost extent, in point of duration, of an indulgence? I believe seven years: there were many fictitious or forged indulgences (crowds of which were carried about the world, and which were not at all authentic) for I believe a greater number of years; but we do not recognise, and have not, that I know of, ever recognised any indulgence for a period beyond that of seven years, when time is at all specified.

The Sale of Indulgences used formerly to be a topic of imputation against the Catholic church; does any such practice exist at this time?-I believe it ceased in the sixteenth century. The consequences of it then were so frightful as to put a total end to it; nor has it been since revived, and I hope never will.

The Committee wish to know, whether every priest has the power of absolving in every case ?-A priest, by his ordination, receives what we call a radical power, whereby he can absolve from sin; but besides this power, which belongs to him in virtue of the order which he receives, he must get jurisdiction from the bishop to absolve individuals, otherwise he cannot absolve any one. Now the bishop, in granting such jurisdiction to him, which he may grant either as to extent of territory or as to individuals, may restrict the power of absolution to a certain class of sins, or he may give power to the priest to absolve the contrite sinner from any sins he may be guilty of, with the exception of certain sins which he specifies, and those are called in our language Reserved Cases; for instance, in a case of deliberate murder. If a man who had committed deliberate murder in the diocese where I live, were to repent as deeply and sincerely as David did, no priest in it could absolve him, unless by special leave communicated by me. We reserve the absolution from those grievous crimes to ourselves, for the purpose that sinners who are so unfortutunate as to commit them might come before us, and receive such reproofs and such penances to be performed, as would in some degree secure their amendment; and we would fear, that if we left it in the power of ordinary priests to absolve from such grievous offences, that they might not be so provident in