Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Toronto http://www.archive.org/details/historyofauricu03leah A HISTORY AURICULAR CONFESSION INDULGENCES IN THE LATIN CHURCH. BY HENRY CHARLES LEA, LL.D IN THREE VOLUMES. VOLUME III. INDULGENCES. PHILADELPHIA: LEA BROTHERS & CO 1896. APR 1 5 1945 1314-8 Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by HENRY CHARLES LEA, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress. All rights reserved. PHILADELPHIA : DOR NAN, PRINTER. CONTENTS. PART II. IXDULGENCES. CHAPTER I.— General Theories. Pre-Trideiitine Admission of Late Origin of Indulgences Modern Assertion of Apostolic Origin ..... Various Hypotheses to Substantiate the Claim Indulgences Arose from Commutation and Redemption of Penance Special Indulgences Granted by Priests .... General Indulgences Granted by Bishops The Doctrine of the Treasure of the Church The Communion of Saints ...... Letters of Fraternity ....... The Treasure First Suggested by Alexander Hales Accepted by Clement VL in 1343 ..... Debates as to the Nature of the Treasure Indulgences Become a Payment to God out of the Treasure . They are a Matter of Jurisdiction and not of Orders They Supply all Deficiencies of Penance, injunda and injungenda They Become the Exclusive Function of the Pope They are a Remission of Punishment, not of Guilt Promises of Comparative and Superlative Indulgences . Discussion as to their Efficacy ...... Intricate Disputed Questions ....... Claim that Indulgences Relieve from Guilt as well as from Punish ment ........... Pre-Reformation Tendency to Admit Indulgences a culpa Modern Explanation of Indulgences a culpa et a poena . PAGE 3 4 5 9 11 18 14 15 17 21 24 25 27 28 31 36 39 40 43 52 54 67 79 IV CONTENTS. Sins Committed in Expectation of Indulgence Partial Indulgences, their Computation . Their Cumulation Toties Quoties Indulgences .... PAGE 83 85 91 92 CHAPTER II. — Requisites for Indulgences. Sufficiency of Cause Sufficiency of Works P^njoined Consent of the Confessor State of Grace of the Penitent Disposition of the Penitent . Performance of Enjoined Works Intention of the Penitent Uncertainty of Acquisition of Indulgences Release from Performance of Penance . 96 101 105 106 113 116 119 121 122 CHAPTER III .—Development. Modern Claims of Early Indulgences .... Fraudulent Early Indulgences ..... Commencement in Eleventh Century .... Slow Development ....... Extreme Moderation until the Fourteenth Century Indulgences at the Canonization of Saints Influence of the Crusades ...... Commutations for Money — The Cruzada Episcopal Indulgences — Restrictions Placed on Bishops Restrictions Released at the Death-Bed Cardinals and Legates ....... Power of General Councils to Grant Indulgences . Evasions of Episcopal Limitations — Cumulation of Indulge Objects of Indulgences . Money the Principal Object Sale of Concessions Spiritual Objects . Charitable Objects Personal Indulgences Release from Obligation of Fasting — Butterbriefe 131 133 141 143 145 150 152 154 162 167 168 169 170 177 179 182 184 188 191 192 CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV.— The Jubilee. Rome as an Object of Pilgrimage . Boniface VIII. Offers Plenary Indulgences in 1300 The Jubilee of 1350 . The Jubilee of 1390— Sales Thronghout the Lands Obedience . The Jubilee of 1423 The Jubilee of 1450 The Jubilee of 1475 The Jubilee of 1500 Subsequent Jubilees Suspension of Indulgences During Jubilees of Indulgences for the Dead . Advantages of the Jubilee Indulgence . Extraordinary Jubilees — Almsgiving of Roman PAGE 195 199 202 206 208 209 210 212 214 219 225 228 231 CHAPTER v.— The Later Middle Ages Indulgences Lavished on the Religious Orders The Portiuncula .... The Carmelites .... Their Scapular The Sabbatine Bull Increase of Indulgences Enormous Partial Indulgences Miscellaneous Objects of Indulgences Methods of Sale — The Pardoners . Opposition Aroused 234 236 253 263 270 277 279 282 284 293 CHAPTER VI. — Application to the Dead. Primitive Christian Eschatology . Growth of Belief in Purgatory It is Accepted in the Twelfth Century Time of Judgment of the Soul Succor for the Dead Mortuary Classes . Relief from Hell . Relief from Purgatory . Discussion as to Application of Indulgences to Souls in Purgatory 296 303 310 315 318 326 329 334 337 5QT 1364- I A. VI CONTENTS. The First Indulgence for the Dead in 1476 Gradual Extension of the Practice Efficacy of Indulgences for the Dead The State of Grace Privileged Altai's ..... CHAPTER Y 1 1. —The Reformation. The jNIedieval Heresies ..... Orthodox Ojiposition ..... The St. Peter's Indulgence — Papal Necessities Albert of Mainz— Tetzel .... Luther's Gradual Development Popular Enthusiasm in Luther's Favor — Hatred of Rome German Demand for Reform Papal Projects of Reform .... The Indulgential System — The Spanish Cruzada CHAPTER VIII.— The Counter-Reformation. Reforms Attempted by Charles V. Action of the Council of Trent Slowness of Reform The Modern Cruzada Eleemosynary Indulgences Multiplication of Indulgences Episcopal Supervision . CHAPTER IX.— The Stations of Rome Attributed to Gregory I. Growth of Roman Indulgences in the Fourteenth Century Uncertainty of the Stations of Rome .... Multiplicity of Indulgences of the Roman Churches The Scald Santa ........ CHAPTER X.— The Religious Orders. Indulgences for Members of the Orders — The Tertiaries . . 460 Indulgences for the Churches 463 The Via Crucis 465 CONTENTS. Vll CHAPTER XI.— The Confraternities. The Confraternities of the Middle Ages Reforms of Clement VIII. Objects of Confraternities — Charity Temporal Interests of the Church . Devotional Exercises — The Rosary Confraternities Attached to Religious Orders Confraternities for Special Cults The Scapulars ..... Reduplication of Indulgences The Veronica ..... 470 477 481 483 484 490 492 496 500 501 CHAPTER X 1 1 .— Indulgenced Objects Origin in the Sixteenth Century .... Rules as to Materials Employed .... Prohibition of Transmission by Gift or Sale . Acquisition of Indulgences by Touching Holy Objects by Blessing ...... Medals and Crosses ...... Rosaries and Chaplets ...... 507 510 512 514 517 519 523 CHAPTER XIII.— Modern Expansion. Profiision of Modern Indulgences Indulgences for Acts of Devotion for Works of Mercy for Political Objects The Papal Benediction . Opposition of the Mystics Futile Attempts of Reform . 528 529 534 538 541 543 545 CHAPTER XI V. — Apocryphal Indulgences. Prevalence of Forgeries — The Secular Churches .... 550 The Franciscans and Dominicans ...... 553 The Other Regular Orders— The Jesuits .... 557 Failure of the Plan of Reform devised at Trent .... 558 Efforts of the Holy See. — The Congregation of Indulgences Or- ganized ........... 559 viii CONTENTS. PAGE Its Success only Partial — Duty of the Bishops .... 562 Pei-sisteut Longevity of Fraudulent Indulgences .... 564 Efficacy of Apocryphal Indulgences ...... 567 CHAPTER XV. — Influence of Indulgences. Diversity of Virtues Ascribed to Indulgences .... 569 Testimony as to their Demoralizing Influence .... 570 Effects on Assemblages Gathered to Obtain Them .... 575 Distinction Between Protestantism and Catholicism . . . 578 Relation Between God and Man in Catholicism .... 579 Influences of Indulgences in History ...... 581 Retrospect of the Career of the Church ..... 582 Appendix 585 Index of Part II 597 PART II. INDULGENCES III.— 1 INDULGENCES. CHAPTER I. GENERAL THEORIES. Our survey of the resources of the Church in securing pardon for the sins of its children would be incomplete without some account of the indulgences which it distributes so freely. A system which aided largely in building up the autocracy of the Holy See and fur- nished it the means wherewith to establish its power as an Italian sovereign, which was the main-spring of the crusades, the proximate cause of the rebellion of John Huss and of the successful revolu- tion of Luther, and which forms so prominent a part of Catholic observance to-day, is worthv of a more minute investioation than can be given to it here. Prior to the council of Trent theologians had no hesitation in admitting that the Christian Fathers knew nothing of indulgences ; there was, it is true, a baseless tradition ascribing to Gregory the Great an indulgence for visiting St. Peter's, but the strongest argu- ment advanced in their support was that the Church issued them and would be deceiving the faithful if they were not valid. ^ The Blessed Fisher of Pochester even goes so far as to admit that the value of indulgences is wholly dependent on purgatory, and, as ^ Durand de S. Porciano in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. \\ 3, 4. — S. Antonini Suminte P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3. — Summa Angelica s. v. Inchdgentia ^ 18. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulyeatia. — Jo. Eckii Enchirid. Locor. Commun. Cajo. xxiv. De Imlulgentlis. Aquinas only urges (SummjE Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. 1) that it is impious to assert that the Church does anything in vain, and Bonaventura argues (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. P. ii. Art. 1, Q. 2) that the Church accepts indulgences, the Church does not err, and therefore they can be granted. Dr. Weigel uses the same argument (Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. xvi.), and points out that it is disputed only by WicklifFe and Huss, whose teachings were con- firmed by no miracles. 4 GENERAL THEORIES. pnrgatorv was unkuowu, so were iudulgences, until the refrigescence of Christian zeal rendered the severity of the canons unendurable, and men would rather abandon Christianity than submit to it.^ In fact, the protagonists in the conflict with Lutheranism conceded that there was no point of Catholic doctrine so difficult to defend and so impossible to justify with proof.^ Domingo Soto, about the middle of the sixteenth century, seems to be the first to meet the Lutheran assaults with the bold assertion that indulgences date from the time of the Apostles.^ This was evidently the only position which could be taken by an infallible Church involved in internecine strife with heretics, and in its final session the council of Trent felt compelled to assert that the power to grant indulgences was divinely conferred by Christ himself and that it had been exercised from the most ancient times.* This ^ Jo. RofFeusis Assertionis Lutheranse Confutatio, Art. xviir. Stephanas ex Nottis not long before (Opus Remissionis fol. 147a, Mediolan. 1500) had attributed the absence of early evidence of indulgences to the fact that prior to Gregory the Great the Christians were so perfect that there was little need of such aids to salvation. Cardinal Caietano, in controverting Luther, in 1517, admits that there is no mention of indulgences earlier than about three hundred years before. — Caietani Tract. XV. De Indulgentiis Cap. 1. ^ Alfonso de Castro (Adv. Hsereses Lib. viii. s. v. Indulgentia) says that ot all the questions in dispute with the Lutherans there is none on which so little evidence can be adduced, but he adds that there are many things known to the moderns of which the Fathers were ignorant, such as transubstantiation, purgatory, and the procession of the Holy Ghost. Pedro de Soto, who was chief papal theologian in the first convocation of the council of Trent, admits that there is no positive evidence in Scripture and the early Church, and warns disputants not to put forward uncertain proofs, for thus the evil-disposed are frequently enabled to deride the faith, and the simple are scandalized. — P. de Soto Instruct. Sacerd. Lect. I. De In- dulgentiis (Amort de Indulg. I. 145). ^ Dora. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Artt. 1, 3. * C. Trident. Sess. xxv. Contin. Deer, de Indulgent. " Quum potestas con- ferendi indulgentias a Christo Ecclesiise concessa sit, atque hujusmodi potestate divinitus sibi tradita antiquissimisetiam temporibus ilia usa fuerit." Not content with this Val. Laur. Vidaviensis (Gen. Controvers. de Indul- gent. Concl. 4) contends that indulgences have been in use since the creation (Amort de Indulg. II. 162). Equally conclusive is the assertion of the learned Professor Gianbattista Pauliano, in a work prepared for the jubilee of 1550 (De Jobilseo et Indul- MODERN HYPOTHESES. 5 assertion was accepted as dc fide, and was embodied by Panl IV., in 1564, in a declaration of faith, the subscription to which is obligatory on all teachers and professors and students, under pain of forfeiture of position and grade, and on all beneficed clerks under penalty ot loss of benefice, as provided by the council of Trent.^ The neces- sary consequence of this has been to render it incumbent on all sub- sequent theologians to put forward some hypothesis that shall give a semblance of justification to the claim. It was discovered that in the case of the Corinthian sinner (ii. Cor. ii. 8, 10) the confirmation by Paul of his pardon by the congregation was an indubitable in- dulgence.^ Great reliance is placed, as proving the existence of indulgences, on the libelli given, during periods of persecution, by martyrs and confessors to the lapsed, interceding for their restoration to the peace of the Church.^ Cyprian admitted that the intercession gentiis, p. 52) who tells us that Moses striking the rock signifies contrition, and the water that flowed was indulgences. ^ Pauli PP. IV. Bullae In sacrosancta, Injundum, 13 Nov. 1564 (Bullar. II. 137, 138). " Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam fiiisse, illarumque usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem esse alBrmo." — C. Trident. Sess. xxiv. De Reform. Cap. xii. The same clause is included in a confession of faith drawn up in 1575 b\' Gregory XIII. for subscription by the Greeks.— Gregor. PP. XIII. Concl. xxxiii. (Ibid. p. 430). At the second session of the Vatican council, Jan. 6, 1870, all prelates were required to declare their adhesion to this confession of faith and pledge them- selves to enforce it on their subjects. — Chambard, Annales Ecclesiastiques, I. 263. This I presume is customary. I find it in Concil. Limens. Prov. I. ann. 1583, and in Concil. Baltimorens. Plenar. I[. (1866) and III. (1884). - Alexander Hales (Summse P. IV. Q. xxiii. Membr. 2) proves dialect- ically that the pardon of the Corinthian sinner was not an indulgence. It is universally advanced as such by the apologists (Amort de Indulg. I. 28 ; Grone der Ablass seine Geschichte u. Bedeutung, pp. 1, 2; Binterim, Denkwiirdig- keiten, V. III. 448). Prierias (Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indidgentid) admits that it is cited by modern doctors and not by the older ones. In the authorized Catholic version of the Testament there is a note appended to this text explaining that " The apostle here granted an indulgence or pai'don in the person and by the authority of Christ to the incestuous Corinthian whom before he had put under penance, which pardon consisted in a releasing of part of the temporal punishment due to his sin" — atypical instance of the facility with which men read into Scripture whatever they desire to find there. ' Euseb. H. E. Lib. v. Cap. 2.— Tertull. ad Martyras Cap. 1.— Tertullian even 6 GENERAL THEORIES. of the martyrs might have influence with God, but he refused to accept it as conferring reconciliation with the Church and serving as a substitute for penance (except in the case of the sick in danger of death), and in this he was sustained by the Roman clergy.^ As the indulgence has no power over culpa, but is merely a substitute for the jMrtia, it will be seen how completely Cyprian rejected any claim of the libelli to rank with the modern conception of the indulgence, and this distinction is clearly shown in the application of Celerinus from Rome to the confessor Lucianus in Carthage, asking him to procure the intercession of the martyrs, not with any bishop for remission of penance, but with Christ for pardon, in behalf of his sisters, Numeria and Candida, who had lapsed — an application which moreover shows that at Rome the martyrs were not issuing libelli} In Egypt this interposition of the martyrs in favor of the lapsed was not customary, for when, during the same persecution, they admitted to association with themselves some of the penitent lapsed, St. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Fabius of Antioch asking his advice whether or not to confirm this act of mercy, showing that the question was new to him.^ What conclusiou was reached we do not know, but it is significant that, some half a century later, under the persecution of Diocletian, in 305, Peter of Alexandria makes no reference to the intercession of martyrs in his elaborate instructions says (De Pudicit, Cap. 22) that men bad themselves imprisoned in order to sell libelli to adulterers and sinners. For the arguments drawn from this see Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences Ch. II. Art. 3. — Green, Indulgences, Absolutions etc. p. 27 (London, 1872). — Amort de Indulgentiis I. 29-31. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 150 (Paris, Migne, 1862).— Binterim (Denkwiirdigkeiten, V. ii. 321-7, 449-50) contradicts himself completely. Henriquez (Summse Theol. Moral. Lib. vil. Cap. iii. § 2), after asserting that indulgences are coeval with the apostles, passes over Cyprian and discovers that St. Isidor of Seville granted an indulgence of forty days? but unfortunately gives us no authority for the fact. ^ Cypriani de Lapsis ; Epistt. xvili. xix. xx. xxii. xxiii. xxv. xxvi. xxvii. XXX. XXXI. (Ed. Oxon.). — An illustration of the manner in which these facts are distorted by modern apologists is seen in the assertion of Grone (Der Ablass, p. 165) that Cyprian's position shows that the indulgences of the martyrs reconciled the lapsed to God as completely as works of satisfaction. ^ Cypriani Epist. xxi. Lucianus issued Hbelll by wholesale in the name of Paulus, a martyr, who, he said, had authorized him to do so (Epist. xxil. XXVII.). ' Euseb. H. E. Lib. vi. Cap. 42. MODERN HYPOTHESES. 7 for the reconciliation of the lapsed.^ AVhatever weight such inter- cession might have had was a local and temporary fashion, the abuse of which led to its discontinuance. Another school, represented by Muzzarelli, who recognize that the ancient penance and reconciliation were not sacramental, but only efficient in the fo/vo?i externum, are obliged to argue that, in addition to them, there was administered a sacramental absolution, reconciling the sinner to God, of whicli no trace has reached us ; thus, as in- dulgences are recorded in the eleventh century, they consider it safe to assume that they must have existed before, and in this way they seek to justify the assertion of the council of Trent. Yet Muzzarelli subsequently admits the Tridentine assertion to be indefensible when he argues that God provided three methods for the remission of sin — the prolonged penance of the early Church, the sacrament, and the indulgence, which it was his will to employ successively — the first during the ages of ardent charity, the second when that charity became cooler, and the third when it has been almost completely chilled.2 A variant of ]\Iuzzarelli's first theory is advanced by the learned Dr. Amort, who, in 1732, suggested that, in the ancient form of penance, imposed on Ash Wednesday, followed by reconciliation on some subsequent Holy Thursday, the priest in the former ceremony absolved the penitent, and that the reconciliation by the bishop was an indulgence.^ Of course, this is a fiight of pure imagination. No 1 S. Petri Alexandr. Canones (Mag. Biblioth. Patrum III. 370). Peter, however, goes even further than Cyprian, and admits (Can. 11) that sometimes remission of sin and bodily health and the resurrection of the dead can be obtained through the faith of another. ^ Jouhanneaud, Dictionnaire des Indulgences, pp. 127-30. Muzzarelli was a papal Penitentiary, and his work was in some sort an official defence of indulgences against the assaults of the Pistoia school. ^ Amort de Indulgentiis I. 3. Dr. Amort seems to imagine (Ibid. p. 32) that any canon prescribing penance infers an indulgence. In the approbations given by the papal authorities to this work it is eulogized in the warmest manner as an inexhaustible armory for repelling the assaults of heretics. It is a monument of immense labor. The author states that in its preparation he ransacked fifty libraries and examined several thousand MSS., besides reading at least a thousand authors who had written on the sub- ject. It will be seen that I am occasionally indebted to it for reference to works which I have not been able to consult directlv. 8 GENERAL THEORIES. contemporary writer, while yet the formula of this public penance was in force, from the early centuries to the later middle ages, ever suggested that the sack-cloth and ashes of Ash Wednesday were accompanied with absolution — in fact, as the rite itself shows, it was ejection from the Church, the very reverse of absolution, and, during the long periods of penance which followed, the penitent was debarred from communion, wdiich could not have been refused to him had he been absolved.^ Even when, under the Penitentials, sinners were admitted to communion after half their penance had expired, this did not release them from the other half. It is the same as regards the Holy Thursday reconoiliation ; the schoolmen were quite keen enough to recognize its connection with indulgences had such connection existed, yet none of them allude to the slightest relationship between them in their labored attempts to fit in the novel practice to the sacramental system which they were elaborating. In fact, it was their belief that to be sacramental the sacrament of penance must be administered in secret,^ and the Holy Thursday reconciliation by no means inferred that penance was not to be con- tinued.^ The only importance of Dr. Amort's hypothesis, in fact, is the evidence which it aifords of the straits to which theologians are reduced in the endeavor to reconcile the Tridentine assertion with the facts, and yet Palmieri, in his efforts to prove the antiquity of indulgences, is obliged to adopt it.* Other writers see in the intercessory powers claimed for the Church by the Fathers a link in the chain by which indulgences can be car- ried back to primitive times.^ To refute this it suffices to point out that this intercession was directed to procure pardon from God, not to remit penance, and that to claim it as a source of indulgences is to admit the vulgar belief, which the Church denies, that indulgences remit the culpa as well as the poena. 1 Siricii PP. Epist. I. Cap. 5, 6. * Astesani Surnmae Lib. v. Tit. xviii. ' Gloss, super Cap. 64, Dist. 50.— Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xxxv. Q. 2. See also the penance for fornicating priests (Vol. II. p. 176). * Palmieri Tract, de Pcenitent. pp. 459, 465. Palmieri probably overlooked the fact that Benedict XIV. incidentally condemned this theory when he de- scribed the ancient works of penance as performed prior to absolution — Bened. PP. XIV. Const. Inter prceteritas ? 75, 3 Dec. 1749. * Instruzione per un' Anima fedele sopre le Indulgenze, pp. 23-5 (Finale, 1787). ORIGINATE IN COMMUTATION OF PENANCE. 9 Mnratori tacitly concedes the late introduction of indidgences when he ascribes their origin to the system of redemption for penance which became current under the Penitentials.' This undoubtedly had an influence in determining their development, but it was not the source from which they sprang. Redemptions were the pre- cursors of indulgences, and the origin of botli is to be ascribed to the power attributed at first to bishops, and subsequentlv to priests, to commute, to mitigate, or to prolong the infliction of penance, according to the circumstances of the case and the deserts of the penitent.- To understand this properly it is necessary to trace the changes which have so completely modified the theory of indulgences, and have rendered those of modern times so essentially different from their predecessors. In its original conception an indulgence was merely the substitution of some presumably pious work for a part or the whole of the penance prescribed by the priest after confession had been made. As we have repeatedly seen above, sinners who appealed to Rome for mitigation of penance were assured that the devotion manifested and the fatigues endured in the pilgrimage entitled them to a diminution of the inflictions provided in the canons. It was a natural development from this that shrines de- sirous of attracting pilgrims and their oblations should seek to obtain privileges establishing a fixed term of diminution of penance as an equivalent for a visit to them accompanied by a donation. It was a simple commutation of pious works, and the earliest indulgences are all of this kind,^ We shall see hereafter how these were slowly introduced during the eleventh century, and were cautiously limited to exceedingly brief releases of penance that had been imposed ; but when Urban II. at the council of Clermont, in 1095, desired to 1 Muratori Antiq. Ital. Diss. Lxviii. (T. XIV. p. 22). 2 See Vol. I. p. 26; Vol. II. pp. 146, 170. ' This is a self-evident fact, and has been generally admitted. It does not suit the theories of modern apologists, however, and Palmieri's argument to disprove it (De Poenitentia, p. 458) is a typical illustration of the art of begging the question. Yet as late as the sixteenth century Caietano argues that an indulgence is nothing more than the remission of enjoined penance (Opusc. Tract. XV. Cap. 2). Similarly Latomus, in confuting Luther (Adversus Articulos Martini Lutheri, Art. vii.), treats them as arising originally from commutations of canonical penance. IQ GENERAL THEORIES. inflame to the utmost the zeal developed for the first crusade, he decreed that service in Palestine should stand in lieu of all penance incurred by those who had duly confessed their sins — an example of what came to be known as a plenary indulgence, in contradistinction to the partial indulgences then slowly coming into vogue.^ How novel was this device is proved by the explanation offered by a contemporary, who says that in France there were many penitents unable to perform penance for their innumerable sins, as they could not live unarmed among their neighbors ; they therefore consulted with Urban II., and promised to undertake the pilgrimage if he would declare it to be in full for all penance enjoined. He agreed ; the idea was favorably received throughout Europe, and innumerable multitudes were speedily on their way, bearing a cross on the shoulder in sign of penitence, and shouting Deus lo volt!^ Thus 1 C. Claromont. ann. 1095, Cap. 2 (Harduin. VI. ii. 1718).— "Quicunque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adeptione, ad liberandam ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenitentia ei reputetur." Urban, in his address to the multitude, explained this as an assurance that those who die in penitence during the expedition can be sure of heaven — " Nos auteni, de misericordia Dei et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum confisi, fidelibus Christianis qui contra eos arma susceperint, et onus sibi hujus pere- grinationis assumpserint, immensas pro suis delictis pcpnitentias relaxamus. Qui autem ibi in vera poenitentia decesserint et peccatorum indulgentiam et fructum seternae mercedis se non dubitent habituri" (Ibid. p. 1724). In his instructions to the bishops to preach the crusade he goes somewhat further and tells them to promise that those who confess their sins shall secure speedy- pardon from Christ — "Confessi peccatorum suorum ignorantiam, securi de Christo celerem impetrent veniam" (Ibid. p. 1727). In his letter to the Bolognese he says that, in view of the crusaders exposing life and property for love of God and their neighbors, all penance is remitted for sins truly and fully confessed (Urbani PP. II. Epist. cox. ap. Migne, CLI. 483). In the same sense his successor. Paschal II., forbids the Spaniards to go to the Holy Land, but to work out their penance by fighting the Saracens at home, whereby they will obtain remission and grace. — Hist. Compostellana, Lib. I. Cap. 9, 39. ^ Chron. Cassinens. Lib. iv. Cap. xi. As the crusaders under Eobert of Flanders and Robert of Normandy passed through Monte Cassino on their way to Bari, the worthy chronicler, Petrus Diaconus, doub^tless obtained this story at first hands. For those present the process was facilitated by Cardinal Gregory prostrating himself and uttering a general confession in the name of the assembled mul- titude, while the individuals beat their breasts and prayed for pardon of their INDULGENCES BY PRIESTS. 11 already were established the two specific kinds of indulgences, the plenarv and the partial ; the former being equivalent to the whole amount of penance imposed on the penitent, while the latter released him only for the time designated in the grant. An example of such partial relaxations by episcopal authority illustrates, like the action at Clermont, how indulgences arose out of the discretionary control of penance. When, about 1124, Diego Gelmirez of Compostella was paying Calixtus II. for the elevation of his see to an archi- episcopate, it was difficult to make remittances safely, and, as he had to send 260 silver marks, he transmitted it by pilgrims bound for Jerusalem, on whom he imposed the duty as a penance, and granted them relaxation of a year of the penance due for their sins for every ounce of gold which thev would carry in safetv.^ Xow this com- mutation of penance was practically an indulgence, though indul- gences as such were not as yet known at Compostella. Similarly the discretion which became vested in the priest to diminish or commute the canonical penance virtually amounted to an indulgence granted in the individual case. He could impose a penance and then commute it, or, in imposing a penance less than the canons prescribed, he could declare that he dispensed with the remainder — a power the abuse of which called forth the animadver- sion of the council of Yienne, in 1312, without checking it.^ In the earlier period there was some doubt as to this, for Albertus Magnus denies that the parish priest has jurisdiction or superabundance of merits enabling him to grant indulgences f but subsequently the priestly control over penance was recognized as enabling the con- fessor to bestow indulcjences on those who came before him in the sins, after which they received absolution and benediction and departed. — Roberti Monachi Hist. Hiero^ol. Lib. i. Cap. 2. ' Historise Compostellante Lib. il. Cap. xvi. ^ S. Raymundi Summse Lib. ill. Tit. xxxiv. § 5, cum Postilla.— Hostiens. Aurese Summfe Lib. v. De Remiss. §§ 5, 8. — Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xxxi. Q. 2. — Summa Angelica s. vv. Pcenitentia § 13 ; Interrogationes. — Summa Rosalia s. v. Indulgentia I 28. — B. de Chaimis Interrogatorium, fol. 105.— Cap. 1, Clement. Lib. v. Tit. vii. The Glossators on the Decretum (Jo. Teutonicus and Bart. Brixiens. about 1250) describe this priestly power " Habita ergo cordis contritione potest sacerdos partem vel totum poenitentiae remittere secundum qualitatem per- sonae, loci et temporis." — Gloss, super Cap. SI is Caus. xxiir. Q. 4. 3 Alberti Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 22. 12 GENERAL THEORIES. tribunal of cousoieuce/ aud venial priests were iu the habit of selling these remissions at so much per diem of the penance remitted.^ However demoralizing these special priestly indulgences may have been, their only interest to us lies in the evidence which they afford of the origin of the system, and they may be dismissed M'ithout entering; into further details ^ ' " Item sacerdotes omnes in foro poenitentise possunt dare indulgentias illis quos possunt absolvere . . . Sed de quanto non determinatur nisi quod Alvarus dicit quod potest dare indulgentiam annorum vel dierum sicut ei vide- bitur." But a priest could not grant a general indulgence or remit a penance imposed by a superior. Priests were advised after imposing penance to grant whatever indulgence they could.— Summa Angelica s. vv. ladulgeniia § 5; Interrogatlones. Cf. Auream Armillam s. v. Indulgentia | 2. Formulas for absolutions and indulgences of this kind, of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, will be found in Migne's Patrol, Latina, T. CXXXII. 483. It was a mortal sin for a priest to grant indulgences when he had no power, and when he was himself making confession this was always to be inquired into.— B. de Chaimis Interrogat. fol. 93a. Weigel explains (Clavic. Indulgent. Cap. 1) that by this indulgence the priest protects the penitent from remissness in performing penance. Even in the seventeenth century it was a disputed point whether priests could grant indulgences (Juenin de Sacramentis Diss. xill. Q. iii. cap. 1). If it had remained simply an exercise of the power of the keys there could be no question as to their ability, but it had become, as we shall see presently, a distribution of the treasure of the Church, which altered the whole theory. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo p. 199 (Roma, 1699). Cf S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. ad 1. When this was thoroughly worked out it was shown that priests could not grant real indulgences, for these were absolute releases from purgatory, while if the priest diminished the penance it had to be made up in purgatory. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia I 12; Pauli- anus de Jobilseo et Indulgentiis, p. 133 (Romae, 1550); Mich. Medinse Dispu- tationes de Indulgentiis Cap. xxviii. (Venet. 1574). ^ Steph. ex. Nottis Opus Remissionis a poena et culpa, fol. 1466, 1506, 154, 157a (Mediolan. 1500). From another passage it would appear that seven pence was the customary charge for remitting a seven years' penance. This work was officially prepared for the jubilee of 1500. Its author was a learned doctor of decretals, and the book was revised by and dedicated to Giovanni di S. Giorgio, Cardinal of SS. Nereo e Achille, whom Ciacconius (III. 168) characterizes as sui cevi jurisconsultonim pri?ieeps. It may there- fore be regarded as authoritative. It was reprinted in 1573 in preparation for the jubilee of 1575. ' It is probably by some rudimentary form of this traffic that we may explain Peter Cantor's including confessors among the officials employed by bishops to extort money from their flocks, — Verb, abbreviat. Cap. xxiv. GRANTED BY ABBOTS. 13 General indulgences, which might be obtained by any one fulfill- ing their conditions, such as visiting a certain church, or contributing to some pious work, were beyond the competence of the priest, even within his parish, and were reserved for the episcopal order, culmi- nating in the pope/ It is true that in the earlier period abbots claimed and exercised the prerogative. Equality in such matters was recognized, in 1065, by Alexander II., when, in sending back to Bishop Amalgerius a priest guilty of presbytericide and designat- ing for him a penance of fourteen years with degradation and reclu- sion in a monastery, he added that after three years of due observance the rest of the penance might be remitted by the bishop or the abbot.2 Subsequently the abbatial privilege seems to have been geuerallv accepted and exercised, for when the blessed Stephen, abbot of Aubesaigne, in 1156, undertook to enlarge his monastery, his bishop, Gerald of Limoges, urged him to follow the custom of issu- ing letters of indulgence for contributions, to which the holy man replied that no one could do this but God.^ Just before the Lateran council of 1215 the Bishop of Perugia complained to Innocent III. that the abbots of his diocese were exceeding their powers in manv ways, including the issuing of indulgences, to which the pope replied prohibiting it, notwithstanding any custom to the contrary, unless they could show papal commissions empowering them.* This was followed, in 1216, by the action of the Lateran council, which, under the impulse of Innocent, adopted measures to concentrate in papal hands as far as possible the business of issuing indulgences. He had been lavishing plenaries for forty days' service in the crusades against the Albigenses ; their utility to the Holy See had been demonstrated, and it was the part of wisdom to prevent competition, which might destroy their value, if every bishop and every abbot in Christendom was authorized to issue them for the benefit of his cathedral or his monastery. The council therefore complained of abuses springing up through their unrestricted issue, whereby indiscreet and super- fluous indulgences were enervating the satisfaction of penance and bringing the keys into contempt ; while the pope, who had pleni- 1 Hostiens. loc. cit. » Alex. PP. II. Epist. cxv. (Migne, CXLVI. 1404). 5 Vit. B. Steph. Obazinens. Lib. ii. cap. 18 (Baluz. et Maosi I. 163). * Compilat. IV. Lib. ii. Tit. x. cap. 2 (Friedberg, Quinque Compilationes Antiquse, p. 141). 14 GENERAL THEORIES. tilde of power, was accustomed to observe moderation. For these reasons it was decreed that abbots should no longer be allowed to grant indulgences, while bishops in future should be restricted to the maximum of forty days, except at the dedication of churches, when a year might be granted to those present, and no matter how many bishops might be in attendance, they should not be allowed to cumulate tlieir powers/ This subject of episcopal indulgences is one which will require farther consideration hereafter. As regards abbots, the Lateran canon does not seem to have been strictly enforced at first, for when, about 1220, the abbot of S. Pierre de Pr^aux, in the diocese of Lisieux, applied to Honorius III. to know whether he could issue letters of remission, the papal answer was that he could issue them through his province, provided he observed the limita- tions of the council.^ Yet in time the prohibition prevailed, and it was universally recognized that abbots had no power to concede general indulgences.^ Thus far the theory of the indulgence was the simple one of com- muting, in the exercise of sacerdotal discretion, canonical penance for the performance of some pious work — usually "almsgiving" or cru- sadino- — and while the Lateran council restricted the exercise of this discretion in promulgating general offers, of which all sinners might avail themselves, it did not interfere with the power of bishop or priest to treat individual penitents as they might see fit. An entirely new conception of indulgences, however, which eventually modified greatly both theory and practice, was developed when, towards the middle of the thirteenth century, the discovery was made that, in the Passion of Christ and in the superabundant merits of the mem- bers of Christ, the Church possessed an inexhaustible treasure which it could apply at will to satisfy for sinners by offering to God a quid pro quo. The importance of this conception, which has been fruitful in many ways, as we have occasionally seen above, deserves some investigation into its origin and evolution. Reference has already been made to the early belief that the merits of the martyrs gave them a special intercessory power with God. On 1 C. Lateraneas. IV. cap. 60, 62.— Cap. 12 Extra Lib. v. Tit. xxxi. ^ Ciroaii Quinta Compilatio Decret. Honor. PP. III. Tit. XX. ^ Alex, de Ales SuramiB P. IV. Q. xxiii. Membr. 3. — S. Th. Aquin. Summse Suppl. Q. XXVI. Art. 1. — Astesani Summse Lib, v. Til. xl. Art. 2, Q. 2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TREASURE. 15 this same belief was based the value attached to the suffrages of the saints, the supplication for which forms so prominent a feature of the ancient liturgies/ though the most archaic formula (Vol. I. p. 106) of praying God to induce the saint to intercede shows how crude as vet was the conception and how tentatively it was reached. St. Eloi of Xoyon includes the merits and the intercession of saints as one of the means whereby sins are pardoned, and St. Prudentius represents them as incessantly weeping and calling on God for the remission of the sins of men.^ A prayer in a deprecatory formula of reconciliation of the eleventh century is based wholly on the inter- cession of the saints.^ Yet while all this is commonly adduced in evidence of the antiquity of the doctrine of the treasure it has, in reality, nothing in common with the latter, as it is based on the individual action attributed to the martyrs and saints. They might intercede, but whether they had merits or not to contribute to a com- mon fund was by no means universally admitted, for St. Salvianus and St, Leo I. both tell us that they are debtors to Christ and not creditors.* The conception of the treasure common to all and dis- pensed on earth through the Church is in fact founded on the inter- polated article in the creed on the communion of saints, which, as we have already seen (Vol. II. p. 224) aided in establishing the custom of vicarious satisfaction. This was unknown to the early Church, There is no trace of it in the creed contained in the canons of Hippolytus and in the Egyptian Ordo, which succeeded them, nor in the Xicene creed.^ It is lacking in the Apostles' Symbol, as set 1 Sacrament. Leonian. (Muratori 0pp. T. XIII. P. I. pp. 483, 485, 491, 507, 510, 565, 644, etc.).— Sacrament. Gelasian. (Ibid. T. XIII. P. ii. pp. 232, 234, 235, 239, 241, 246, 257, 284, etc.).— Sacrament. Gregorian. (Ibid, pp. 520, 524, 528, 556, 648, 653, 665, 688, etc.).— Missale Francor. (Ibid. T. XIII. P. in. p. 474).— Missale Gallican. (Ibid. pp. 599, 600). Cyprian seems to relegate the possible influence of the merits of the saints and martyrs to the day of judgment — " Credimus quidem posse apud judicem plurimum martyrorum merita et opera justorum, sed cum judicii dies venerit, cum post occasum saeculi hujus et mundi, ante tribunal Christi populus ejus adstiterit." — De Lapsis n. xvii. ^ S. Eligii Noviomens. Homil. iv., vill. — S. Prudentii Annal. ann. 835. ' Morini de Poenit. Append, p. 25 — " Intercedentibus omnibus Sanctis tuis." * S. Salviani adversus Avaritiam Lib, ii. ?? 1, 2.— S. Leon. PP. I. Serm. LXiv. cap. iii. * Canon. Hippol. xix. 122 (Achelis, pp. 96-7). — Eufini H. E. Lib. i. cap. 6. IQ GENERAL THEORIES. forth and explained by St. Eusebius of Vercelli, St. Epiphaniiis, Rnfinus, St. Augustin, St. Maximus of Turin and St. Peter Chryso- lot>-us/ showing that nothing was know^n of it up to the end of the sixth centurv. It is not in the creed as recited in the Gregorian Sac- ramentarv and in a Gallican Liturgy of the seventh century, but it makes its appearance in a Gallican Missal of about the same period.^ This, however, apparently was not accepted outside of Gaul, for the council of Friuli, in 791, gives the Symbol wathout this clause, and so does an Ordo Romanus of about the same period,^ nor does it seem to have maintained its place at home, for an Ordo of Noyon of about the year 900 omits it. On the other hand, an Ordo of Besan(;on, of about 1100, adopted for use at Tours, contains it, but its place w^as still uncertain, for as late as 1300 a Roman Ordo omits it.^ Even to the present day it is absent from the creed of the Greek Church, although this does not prevent the saints from being called upon for their prayers and suifrages and intercession, very much as in the Latin Church.^ Apparently Chrysostom was the first to sug- gest a community of interests through Avhich all might profit, though he confined its benefits to the dead,^ yet how little he could expect this to develop into the doctrine of the treasure may be guessed from the views just quoted of St. Salvianus and Leo L, which undoubtedly reflect the prevailing opinion of the age. In fact, the whole theory of the communion of saints and the transfer of merits is incompatible ' S. Eusebii Vercell. de Trinitate Confessio n. xvii. — S. Epiplianii Lib. Ancoratus ad calcem. — Eufini Commeut. in Symb. Apostol. n. 36. — S. Augus- tini Serm. ccxiii., ccxiv., ccxv. — S. Maximi Taurinens. Homil. Lxxxiii. — S. Petri Chrysologi Serm. LVii. " Sacram. Gregor. (Muratori T. XIII. P. iii. pp. 78-9). — Sacram. Gallican. (Ibid. pp. 709, 924).— Missale Gallican. (Ibid. pp. 522, 539). One of the earliest allusions to the communion of saints occurs in a sermon attributed to St. Augustin, which may possibly be of the fifth century, as it attacks the Novatians. It does not regard this communion as a means of obtaining pardon for sins, but as a stimulus to us to imitate the saints by mortifying the flesh. — Ps. Augustin. Sermo de Symbolo, cap. xiii. (Migne, XL. 1192). ^ C. Forojuliens. ann. 791 (Harduin. IV. 855).— Ordo Romanus Primus (Muratori, loc. cit. p. 975). * Marteue de antiq. Eccles. Ritibus Lib. I. Cap. viii. Art. 11, Ord. 6, 10, 17. * Liber Symbolicus Russorum (Frankfort u. Leipzig, 1727). ® S. Jo. Chrj'sost. in Epist. I. ad Corinth. Homil, XLI. n. 5. LETTERS OF FRATERNITY. 17 with the predestinarian doctrines and denial of free-will formulated by the second council of Orange.^ Yet it was impossible that the custom of redeeming sins bv pro- curing the vicarious performance of penance should become habitual without an explanation being sought in a theory that merits could be transferred, and a corollary to this was that a sinner could be bene- fited by participating in the good works of holy men. It was a profitable doctrine, which religious houses speedily exploited by granting " fraternity " to benefactors, through which the latter ob- tained a share in the merits of the prayers and services of the brethren. Thus, in 1050, Argyrus, Duke of Italy for the Byzantine Empire, paid to the monastery of Farfa three thousand byzants for a confraternity with it, and at his death he sent it six thousand more, together with a gold-embroidered mantle valued at a hundred pounds of silver.^ In 1154 a certain Count Hildebrand abandoned to the Abbey of St, Savior his claims over some disputed lands in consider- ation of the monks granting him participation in their good works.^ Kings and magnates eagerly sought the Ijenefits of such arrange- ments, which might extend, as in the Cluniac Order, to all the establishments subject to the mother-house, and the more venerable and popular abbeys numbered these fraternities by the thousand.* John of Salisbury denounces the evil thus wrought, since wicked men sin without scruple under the promise of redemption to be thus obtained,^ but St. Antouino of Florence gives the thrifty advice ^ The schoolmen reconciled predestination and indulgences by asserting that the reprobate, though he might obtain full remission by a plenary indul- gence, would be sure to die in mortal sin. — Weigel Clavic. Indulgent, cap. xli. ' Chron. Farfense (Muratori S. R. I. II. ii. 621-22). ^ Muratori Antiq. Ital. Diss. Lxvili. (T. XIV. p. 101). * Udalrici Consuetud. Cluniacens. Cap. xsxiii. For the fraternities granted by the Abbey of St. Gall from the ninth to the twelfth century see Goldast. et Senckenberg. Rer. Alaman. Scripfores II. 151-7. See also the Liber Vifre of Hyde Abbey, edited by Walter De Gray Birch, Hampshire Record Soc, 1892, and for a more modern example the " Liber Confraternitatis B. Marise de Anima Teutonicorum de Urbe," Romse, 1875. ^ Jo. Saresberiens. Polycrat. VII. 21. Wickliffe found in these letters of fraternity a subject for his most scathing rhetoric. — Fifty Heresies and Errors of Friars, Cap. 15 (Arnold's English Works of Wyclif, III. 377). Cf. Trialogi Lib. IV. Cap. 30, 31. Thomas of Walden, in his confutation of Wickliffe (De Sacramentalibus Cap. 94, n. 1), gives us the current formula of these letters—" Devotiouem III.— 2 13 GENERAL THEORIES. to confessors to iuduce the rich aud noble to seek participation in the good works of religious houses, which are peculiarly acceptable to God/ while monks were encouraged to grant such fraternities by the assurance that communicating good works to others does not diminish their utility to the performer.^ It was an easy deduction from this that the good works of all the faithful formed a common fund for the benefit of each member. An Ordo of the ninth century contains a clause in which the priest bestows on the penitent a share in this fund, which is to serve him in case he should not coufess again.^ In the same spirit, Ratherius of Verona says that if anyone is unable through infirmity to per- form the fasts of prescription, the general fast of the whole Church will serve for him.* The merits of the Virgin and the prayers of the angels and saints are invoked as the means by which, in the early twelfth century, Paschal II. sends a deprecatory absolution to Lambert of Arras (Vol. I. p. 362). In 1127, Honorius II., syncerain quam ad nostram habetis ordinem, ob Christi reverentiam et sanctse Virgiuis matris ejus, diligentius attendentes etc. de omnium missarum jejuni- orum ab. etc. participationem perpetuam vobis concedimus." Weigel argues (Claviculae Indulgentialis Cap. Ixiii., Ixv., Ixxi.) tbat these letters serve as satisfaction and as preserving from bodily evils and perils, but do not release from contrition and confession. The service is one which can properly be paid for without simony, and it is disgraceful to accept participa- tion without paying for it. At the same time those who grant it do not lose any of their own merits. Joan Andrea considers it necessary to point out that these letters, while they grant participation in the suffrages of holy men, are in no sense indulgences and do not diminish penance. — Steph. ex Nottis Opus Eemissionis fol. 149a. In the seventeenth century Pere Theophile Raynaud, S. J., tells us that the Carmelites allowed all who wore their scapular to share in the merits of the whole body, but the other Orders were more thrifty and only granted partici- pation to benefactors or to those from whom they hoped for benefits. The merits, he says, are a fixed quantity, and the more the participants the less the share of each, so that prudence suggested discretion in not admitting too many. He boasts, however, that he had letters of jiarticipation from the Car- thusians, the Minims, the Italian Congregation of the Feuillants, the Bene- dictine Congregation of Monte Cassino and the Order of Fontevraud. — Th. Raynaudi Scapulare Partheno-Carmeliticum, pp. 196-7 (Ed. Colon. 1658). ^ S. Antonini Summse P. ill. Tit. xvii. Cap. 20, ^.l. "^ Astesani Summi3e Lib. iii. Art. iii. Q. 2. ' Poenitent. Vallicell. ii. Ordo PcBnitentiae (Wasserschleben, p. 557). * Ratherii Veroncns. Synodica ad Presbyteros Cap. xv. THE TREASURE. 19 to raise au army to defend Benevento from Roger of Sicily, promises plenary remission of sins to those who shonld die and one-half to survivors, basing the grant on the divine authority and the merits of the Virgin and the saints,^ and a frequent formula of papal in- dulgences in the twelfth century concedes them in confidence of the merits of Saints Peter and Paul.^ The pseudo-Augustin formulated this conception in the general assertion that piety requires us to believe that all the alms and prayers and works of mercy of the whole Church will come to the assistance of the repentant sinner.^ There is grandeur and consolation in this noble theory of the solidarity of mankind for good and not for evil so long as it had not assumed the shape of a fund out of which the Church could arbitrarily for money compound for the sins of an individual, and thus far it had not done so. Richard of S. Victor declares positively that while the priest can remit sins by imposing penitential satisfaction he cannot do so otherwise.* Indulgences as yet were evidently only a commutation of penance for sins repented and confessed. Soon afterwards Alain de Lille foreshadows the doctrine of the treasure when he describes the sacrifice of Christ as sufficing for the wiping out of the sins of all men, past, present and future, but he has no conception of its application to individuals at the pleasure of pope or bishop.^ The idea as to the community of merits which thus was in the air must necessarily have formed the subject of debate in the schools, gradually taking shape as the theologians elaborated their conception of the unity of the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, the one with the papacy at its head as the vicar of the Trinity which had its seat in the other. If the merits of holy men on earth formed a fund for the benefit of the sinner, if the merits of the saints in ^ Chron. Beneventan. (Baronii Annal. ann. 1127, n. 5). ^ " De meritis beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli confisi." Alex. PP. III. Epist. 1427 (Migne, CC. 1242).— Pflugk-Harttung Acta Pontiff. Roman, inedd. I. n. 201, 298; III. Append, n. 3. In 1145, Eugenius III., in an indulgence for the chapel of St. James in the church of Pistoja, adds him to Peter and Paul. — Eugenii PP. III. Epist. 48 (Migne, CLXXX. 1063). * Ps. Augustin. de vera et falsa Poenitentia Cap. xii. * R. a S. Victore de Potestate Ligandi etc. Cap, xxiv. ^ Alani de Insulis de Arte Catholicse Fidei Lib. in. Cap. xii. (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. I. ii. 496). 20 GENERAL THEORIES. heaven could be relied upon to relieve the sinner from the burden of satisfying for his sins, and if the transcendent merits of the humanity of Christ crucified were an inexhaustible treasure for the redemption of the race for which he suffered, how could all this be applied to those in need of it save through the Church and by the hands of the representative of Peter, to whom Christ had given the solemn charge "Feed my sheep"? Such, we may imagine, was the prevailing tendency of the arguments which gradually formulated themselves in the debates of the University of Paris under pressure of the necessity of finding some theory which Avould explain the efficacy of indulgences. They were a novelty which had 'sprung up unregarded bv those who had invented the sacramental theorv and who thus had not provided for them in it. Hugh of S. Victor, Gratian, Cardinal Pullus, Peter Lombard, Richard of S. Victor had taken no count of them in framing their systems and had left no word concerning them to guide their successors. Now they were growing far beyond the original scope of the discretion lodged with priest and bishop to mitigate canonical penance. Innocent III. and Honorius III. had lavished plenaries to exterminate the Albigenses, and Gregory XI. was doing the same to carry on his internecine strife with Frederic II. and to overwhelm the Stedingers. Here was a new factor which threatened to disturb the recently established definition of the sacrament of penance as consisting of contrition, confession and satisfaction, and over-curious men were asking whether the papal power extended so far, and whether God would respect in purgatory the remissions accorded by his vicar. The schoolmen were vainly endeavoring to find some working hypothesis which should satisfactorily account for all this and should silence the doubters. At the close of the twelfth century Peter Cantor pro- nounces all the arguments adduced in support of indulgences to be weak, though he grudgingly admits that they may pass.^ Early in the thirteenth century Paul of Passau enumerates seven different opinions as to the source and operation of indulgences.^ William of Auxerre can only explain them by the supposition that Avhen a man gives a farthing to a church he receives an equivalent in the ^ P. Cantor. Suinma cle Sacramentis (Morini de Poenit, Lib. x. Cap. 20). ' Amort de Indulgentiis II. 59, 249. Cf. Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 1. THE TREASURE. 21 prayers which the Church binds itself to bestow iu return.^ S. Ramon de Penafort inclines to this theory ; he gives various current opinions as to the mode of operation of indulgences, but both he and his Postillator, AVilliam of Rennes, seem very uncertain as to their effect.^ William of Paris, in defending indulgences against those who ridiculed the idea that, for an egg or a farthing given to a church, a man might obtain remission of a third of his penance, and thus for three eggs or three farthings gain plenary remission, explains that such gifts are commutations of penance which it is competent for prelates to oifer under their powers to augment or diminish the satisfaction prescribed by the canons. He also alludes to the share which the penitent secures in the prayers and services performed, and he indicates the gradual tendency to the conception of a treasure common to all the faithful when he adds that besides all this there are tlie general merits of the Church at large and those of the saints who are venerated at the shrine receiving his gift.^ Still the old idea of pardon being obtained through intercession was not yet wholly lost, as is seen in an indulgence granted, in 1247, by Michael, Bishop of Angers, who bases it on the mercy of God and the inter- cession of the Virgin and St. Maurice and all the faithful.^ In this blind groping after some working hypothesis which should silence doubt and explain the new development, it was natural that recourse should be had to the indefinite but infinite sum of the superabundant merits of Christ and the members of his Church as furnishing a fund out of which the individual debts of sinners could be paid, and Alexander Hales has the credit of being the first to formulate this in accordance with the dialectic methods of the schools.^ He does not present it as a new discovery of his own, but > Guill. Autissiodor. Summse Lib. iv. Tract, vi. Cap. 9 (Amort, II. 61-2 ; Juenin de Sacramentis Diss. xiii. Q. 5, Cap. 3). ^ S. Rayinundi Suinmae Lib. ill. Tit. xxxiv. § 5. ^ Guillel. Parisiens. de Sacramento Ordinis Cap. xiii. * Baluz. et Mansi Miscall. III. 99. — " Nos vero de omuipotentis Dei miseri- cordia et beatse Marine et beatorum Mauricii sociorumque ejus et omnium fidelium Dei intercessionibus confisi." * Grone (Der Ablass, p. 161) says that the idea of indulgences being drawn from a treasure is to be found in Paul of Passau, but it is there only used as a similitude. Ambrogio Catariuo, in defending the doctrine of the treasure against Luther, cites no authority for it earlier than Albertus Magnus — as a good Dominican 22 GENERAL THEORIES. assumes its existence as an accepted fact, though in one passage he speaks in a somewhat hesitating way. Like his contemporaries, he was not embarrassed, as are the moderns, by the necessity of proving that existing customs had always existed ; he had only to explain them and find some colorable reason for them. He therefore sets out with the postulate that there are three kinds of merits — those of the penitent, those of Christ, who makes over his passion to us, and those of the Church as a whole. From these there is a triple re- mission of punishment — the eternal penalty is changed to temporal in the remission of the culpa ; the temporal, which is beyond our strength, to a temporal which we can endure, by the absolution of the priest ; thirdly, this is reduced to a still smaller infliction by the indulgence, in which the merits of the Church satisfy for us. The command to perform works meet for repentance is obeyed equally through works of satisfaction by the sinner or by the suffrages of others which have value sufficient to pay the debt. This vicarious he could not be expected to recognize the Franciscan Hales. He admits that the belief is not of ancient origin, and falls back upon the customary argu- ment that there are many things developed by modern doctors which were unknown to the Fathers, that when such things are approved by papal decrees they must be accepted as grounded in Scripture, and that to call them in ques- tion is heresy. — Ambr. Catharini adv. M. Luther! Dogmata Libb. ill., v., fol. 746, 88-9. Giovanni da Fano, in confuting Luther, contents himself with the argument that the existence of the treasure is proved by the authority of the Church, which cannot err. — Opera utilissima vulgare contra le peruiciosissime heresie Lutherane per li simplici, fol. 636 (Bologna, 1532). Miguel Medina, one of the Tridentine theologians, freely admits (Disputat. de Indulgentiis Cap. xlii.) that modern indulgences based on the treasure are wholly different from the older indulgences, which were remissions of penance. The treasure, he says, was not known to the Fathers, for its use was reserved to modern times. Since the council of Trent this frankness is no longer admissible. Ferraris (Prompta Bibl. s. v. Indulgentia Art. 1, n. 4) tells us that the treasure is proved by the perpetual tradition of the Church. Palmieri's argument (De Poenitentia p. 469) is an admirable example of petitio principii — it is only through the treasure that the Church could grant indulgences ; the Church grants indul- gences ; therefore the treasure exists. This, however, is not original with him ; it is virtually the same as the reasoning of Dr. Gilles Charlier, who was put forward, in 1433, by the council of Bale to convert the Hussite envoys (Orat. Egid. Carlerii in Con. Basiliens. ap Harduin, VIII. 1793), and of Caietano against the Lutheran heresy (Opusc. Tract, viii. de Indulgentiis Q. 1). THE TREASURE. 23 satisfaction is the pivot on which the whole theory turns, and it is elaborately justified by dialectics. The Church is a mystical body, and in the human body one member exposes itself to protect another, as the arm to save the head ; a human creditor who is paid does not trouble himself as to who furnishes the money; Christ's passion satisfies for us as well as for him, and we are all members of Christ. Indulgences are granted from the supererogatory merits of the mem- bers of Christ and chiefly from those of Christ himself, which are the spiritual treasure of the Church. Yet subsequently, when he comes to consider the question whether the pope can grant remission of all poena, he hesitates somewhat and urges that otherwise the multitudes to whom the pope has conceded remission of all sins would be deluded, while finally he only ventures to assert that the control of the pope over the treasure is probably or most truly pre- sumable.^ This is the earliest assertion of the treasure and its uses, which were destined to work changes so momentous in the theory and practice of the Church and to supplement the power of the keys by placing purgatory under the control of the Holy See. These changes will be considered presently, and meanwhile we must trace the pro- gress and development of the doctrine itself. Albertus Magnus was disposed to regard it favorably. He says there are three opinions as to the nature of indulgences : first, they are said to be commutations; second, that they are mitigations of penance, and both of these can be sustained, but he regards as preferable the third, that they are payments from the treasure by the power of the keys.^ Evidently the new theory was making its way and commending itself as a sol- vent of the perplexing questions raised by the use of indulgences. It is true that William of Rennes, the commentator on S. Ramon de Penafort, seems to know nothing of the treasure ; that Bishop William Darand makes no allusion to it, and explains the virtue of indulgences by the prayers which the Church obligates itself to offer for those who purchase them, and that even in the fourteenth century Frangois de Mairone argues that they spring from the power of the 1 Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xxiir. Membr. 1, Art. 1, 2; Membr. 5,6. ^ Alb. Mag. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 16.— "Et idcirco banc diffinitionem meliorem aliis judico." 24 GENERAL THEORIES. keys aud uot from the treasure.^ With a few exceptions, such as these, however, the new theory was eagerly accepted in the schools and was assumed as a fact by the leading schoolmen, such as Cardi- nal Henry of Susa, Aquinas, Bonaventura, Peter of Tarantaise, Duns Scotus, Astesanus, Durand de S. Porcian, Pierre de la Palu etc., with a unanimity that renders special reference to them superfluous. Yet the Holy See for awhile hesitated to stamp it with the seal of authority, in spite of the added power which, as we shall see, it conferred on the papacy. When, in 1300, Boniface VIII. tried the bold experiment of instituting the Jubilee, in which he lavished plenary indulgences for a pilgrimage to Rome, he abstained in the bull Antiquorum from making any reference to the treasure as the source whence they were to be drawn.^ It was not until a century had passed since the theory was broached by Alexander Hales that it received papal confirmation. When, in 1343, at the request of the Romans, Clement VI. proclaimed for 1350 a new Jubilee, he based his power on the treasure of the merits of Christ, the Virgin and the saints, confided for distribution to the successors of St. Peter; he presents it in an argumentative way, which shows that he was enunciating a doctrine not wholly as yet incorporated in the faith, and he asserts his belief that Boniface VIII. had acted under the same conviction.* After the papal sanction had thus been given, of course there could no longer be any question as to the existence of the treasure aud its function in servnno; as a basis for indul2:ences. ^ G. Redonens. Postil. super Sumtn. Raymundi Lib. iii. Tit. xxxv. § 5.— G. Durandi Speculi Lib. IV. Partic. iv. De Poenit. et Remiss, n. 9-12.— Fr. de Mayronis in IV. Sentt. Dist. xix. Q. ii. ^ Boniface's nephew, however, Cardinal Jacopo Caietano, in his defence of the novel institution of the jubilee, does not fail to base it on the inestimable treasure-house of jewels furnished by the blood of Christ and the merits of the saints. — Card. Jac. Caietani de Jubilseo cap. 14. ^ Clement. PP. VI. Bull. Unigenitus 27 Jan. 1343 (Cap. 2 Extrav. Commun. Lib. v. Tit. is .). — It is somewhat remarkable that, towards the close of the seven- teenth century, the existence of the treasure should be treated as an open ques- tion. A Catholic polemic formally asserts that "The Church herein hath determined nothing," and he quotes Dr. Holden's Resolution of Faith— '' Csetera etiam dubia sunt et a theologis in utramque partem agitata, Nimirum, An sit thesaurus aliquis meritoruui et satisfactionum in Ecclesia cujus dispen- satores sint Romanus Pontifex et reliqui Ecclesise Pastores." — The Roman Doctrine of Repentance and Indulgences vindicated against Dr. Stillingfleet's Misrepresentations, pp. 75-6 (London, 1672). NATURE OF THE TREASURE. 25 Wheu, in 1786, Scipione de' Ricci, at the synod of Pistoia, declared the treasnre to be the creation of the schoolmen, which liad replaced the clear conception of a remission of penance with a false and con- fnsed application of merits, Pins VI., in 1794, condemned this opinion as false, rash, insulting to the merits of Christ and the saints and already condemned in the seventeenth article of Luther.^ Yet it illustrates the difficulty of defining the indefinable that theologians have never been able to agree as to what constitutes the treasure which is so confidently asserted and so generously dis- tributed. As we have seen. Hales speaks of it as consisting of the merits of the members of Christ. Albertus Magnus is more defi- nite and describes it as formed of the merits of Christ, the Virgin, and of all the apostles, martyrs and saints, dead and living. Henry of Susa confines it to Christ and the martyrs. Aquinas attributes it to the passion of Christ and the merits of the saints. Pierre de Tarantaise (Innocent V.) alludes only to the merits of Christ. Duns Scotus includes the Virgin and the saints.^ The subject was one which was already exciting the debates of the schools. Durand de S. Porcian tells us that there were those who asserted that both Christ and the saints were sufficiently remunerated and that there was no surplus of merits ; for himself, he admits the merits of Christ, but excludes those of the saints — not that they had no sur- plus, but there is no record of their communicating it for our benefit, and the intention of the possessor is requisite to such communica- tion.^ Pierre de la Pain includes both Christ and the saints, but admits that the latter were a subject of debate ; as for the Virgin, she committed no actual sin and paid the debt of original sin by dying, so that all her merits accrue to us.* Clement VI., as we have seen, in the bull Unigenitus, formally defined the treasure as 1 C. Pistoriens. ann. 1786, Sess. V. Deer, de Poenit. | xvi.— Pii PP. VI. Const. Auctorem fidei, Prop. 39. When Ricci had the same views put forward in detail in T. XI. of the Raccolta di Opuscoli interessanii la Religione, the work was promptly put on the Index by decree of June 4, 1787 (Index Leonis XIII. p. 269). ^ Alberti Mag. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 16. — Hostiens. Aurese Summae Lib. V. De Remiss. § 7.— S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist xx. Q. 3 ; Summas Suppl. Q. XXV. Art, 1. — P. de Tarantas. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. Art. 1 (Amort, II. 67). — J. Scoti in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. unic. 3 Durand. de S. Porciano in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. U 6-8. * P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. ad 1. 26 GENERAL THEORIES. consisting of the merits of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints, but this did not silence the schoohnen. There were some who accepted the definition,^ while others denied it. Thus Henry of Hesse not only argues that the saints have no superabundant satisfactions, but that sinners who are able to satisfy for their sins are not to be relieved by the merits of others,^ and Angiolo da Chivasso stoutly attri- butes the whole to Christ, though he admits the common opinion to be that the saints contribute.'^ Caietano treats the subject at consid- erable length and proves that the treasure consists of the superfluous merits of Christ and the saints, but he introduces a new element of discord when he says that sometimes they are called merits, some- times passions and sometimes satisfactions, the proper term being superfluous satisfactions.^ The council of Trent left these knotty questions untouched, and when Michael Bay taught that the passions of the saints, communicated in indulgences, do not redeem our sins, but render us worthy to be liberated by the price of Christ's blood, his position was condemned by three successive popes.'^ Yet the distinction is almost impalpable which distinguishes this from the dictum of Noel Alexandre, which passed unreproved, that the trea- sure consists solely in the blood and merits of Christ ; to mingle with this those of the martyrs is a mere invention, though the latter may have efficacy in suffrage to obtain for us the application of the former.^ This again is scarce more than a variant of the theory of Bellarmine, which is maintained by Palmieri at the present day, that the merits of the saints form part of the treasure, but only in virtue of the merits of Christ ; it is the latter that give the Church power to grant indulgences, through which she distributes the former.^ Modern theologians, however, for the most part content themselves with describing the treasure as consisting of the merits of Christ and the saints, sometimes including those of the Virgin 1 Ps. Pilichdorff. contra Waldenses cap. 80 (Mag. Bibl. Pat. XIII. 328). -S. Antonini Summae P. I. Tit. x. cap. 3, 1 1.— Weigel Claviculae Indulg. cap. xxxv. '■^ Weigel op. elf. cap. xxxvii. ^ Summa Angelica s. v. Indulgentia § 9. * Caietani Opusc. Tract, viii. De Indulg. Q. 2, 3. * Urbani PP. VIII. Bull. In emlnenti Prop. 60. ® N. Alexandri Hist. Eccles. Ssec. xv. et xvi. Dissert, xii. Art. 15, Scliolion. ' Bellarmin. de Indulg. Lib. ii. cap. 5. — Palmieri Tract, de Poenit. pp. 469-70. THE TREASURE IN THE REMISSION OF SIN. 27 and sometimes not, and sometimes characterizing them as satisfac- tions and sometimes as merits.' Evidently the labors of six hun- dred years have not succeeded in casting light into the impenetrable darkness. Whatever doubt there may be as to the composition of the treasure there can be none as to the revolution which its discovery effected in the whole conception of the remission of sin. This is well described by Willem van Est when pointing out the error of Peter Lombard, who held that contrition, even without confession (and consequently without absolution) wiped out sin. This error van Est said was based on the conception that true contrition and remission of sin are inseparable, but this conception is false because there can be no pos- sible remission of sin save by virtue of the passion of Christ as satis- faction for the pcena of the sin. Therefore repentance does not suffice for the remission of sin, but in addition there must be the application of the passion of Christ to the sinner.- Thus the old beliefs became obsolete, and indulgences were no longer a mere discretional substi- tution of some enjoined work for the canonical penance due to the sin which had been absolved in the sacrament, but were an absolute payment to God of an equivalent, the equivalent being furnished to the sinner by the Church out of its inexhaustible treasure. This was recognized already by the time of Aquinas and Bonaventura,^ and a modern author expresses it truly by saying that the formal indul- gence consists in two acts, first in gaining a portion of the treasure ^ Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. ? 5.— Layman Theol. Moral. Lib. v. Tract, vii. cap. 1, n. 1.— Viva de Jubilseo et Indulgentiis, pp. 69-70 (Ed. 1750)— Trullench Exposit. Bullge S. Cruciatie Lib. i. | 1, Dub. 14, n. 2.— ReifFenstuel Theol. Moral. Tract, xii. Dist. iii. n. 3-6.— S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 531.— Gury Comp. Theol. Moral. II. 1041.— Bonal Institt. Theol. IV. 277. The nearest approach to an official definition is that contained in the " Rac- colta di Orazioni e Pie Opere " (Roma, 1886, p. x), which speaks of the "Tesoro dei meriti satisfattorii di Gesu Cristo, di Maria Santissima e dei Santi." ^ Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. | 1. ' "llle qui indulgentias accepit non absolvitur, simpliciter loquendo, a debito pcense, sed datur ei unde debitum solvat." — S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Dist. XX. Q. iii. ad 2; Summse Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. 1 ad 2. "Non absolvit omnino condonando sed pro eo solvendo de ecclesiastico thesauro." — Bona vent, in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. P. ii. Art. 1, Q. 2. 28 GENERAL THEORIES. which has beeu opened and, second, in presenting it in discharge of the debt.^ This led naturally to the mercantile treatment of sin and pardon, so frequently observed above, in which the sinner is taught that God keeps an account with him, which is to be paid, it matters little how. This was by no means the only change wrought by the introduc- tion of the treasure. As the doctrine spread that absolution was merely the application by the power of the keys of a portion of the treasure, it would follow that the priest could apply it for the removal of the poena as well as of the culpa, for satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament. In the original form of indulgences, as merely commutations of penance, they were at the command of the confessor, and we have seen (p. 12) how long the priestly class strove to exploit them. To suppress this, which was viewed with growing disfavor, it was necessary to dissociate indulgences from the sacrament. Further, as the custom grew up of granting indul- gences by papal legates and cardinal deacons and bishops-elect who might not be in priests' orders, it was also necessary to explain that this was not a function of orders. Yet it did not do to eliminate wholly the power of the keys from a matter connected so intimately with the remission of sin, and recourse was had to the convenient device of the key of jurisdiction. The granting of indulgences thus was declared to be a function of jurisdiction and not of orders, and to be extra-sacramental. This position was only reached step by step. Hales explains that granting indulgences requires the power of the keys, together with jurisdiction and authority to dispense the treasure, which belongs solely to bishops.^ Albertus Magnus at- tributes it to the power of the keys and the treasure, but jurisdiction is indispensable.^ Henry of Susa is still more emphatic in con- fining the function to those in orders : legates who are not priests cannot grant indulgences ; for bishops to do so before consecration is a custom to be reproved, especially if they are not priests, for they have not the power of the keys in enjoining and relaxing penance ; ^ " II formale dell' Indulgenze consiste in due atti ; cioe in guadagnar un tanto del tesoro operto, ed in presentarlo a difalco del tuo reato." — Bianchi, II Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 6 (Trevigi, 1699). ^ Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xxiii. Membr. ill. » Alb. Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Artt. 16, 22. INDULGENCES ABE NOT SACRAMENTAL. 29 priests alone have this.' Evidently it was difficult to reconcile theory with practice till Aquinas modified the theory by boldly pronouncing indulgences not to be sacramental ; they were purely matters of jurisdiction, and, though an exercise of the power of the keys, it was of the key of jurisdiction, not of orders.^ This does not seem to have met with immediate and unquestioning acceptance, for John of Freiburg says somewhat doubtfully that granting indulgences is a matter rather of jurisdiction than of orders.^ Astesanus copies Aquinas, but Durand de S, Porcian asserts absolutely that no one not in priest's orders can grant indulgences ; if cardinal deacons and bishops-elect do so, they only promulgate what have been granted by the pope.^ The opinion of Aquinas, however, solved too many difficulties not to prevail, and St. Antonino says positively that to grant indulgences it is not necessary to be a priest, for it is merely a matter of jurisdiction ; even a layman can apply the indulgence at death if a priest is not at hand.^ Caietano finds some difficulty in evading the principle that the benefits of the Church can only be dispensed through the sacraments ; to confer the effect of a sacra- ment without a sacrament belongs to the daves excellentice, which Christ reserved to himself and did not bestow on St. Peter ; but he pleads custom and proceeds to prove that this special treasure can be distributed without a sacrament, though the power of the keys are the source of the grant, and the power to bind and to loose must be exercised through the sacraments '^ Prierias has less trouble in following his master, Aquinas, and asserts decidedly that indulgences are a matter of jurisdiction and not of orders.'' Willem van Est goes still further and argues that, like excommunication, they per- tain to the jurisdiction of the external forum.* On the other hand, Palmieri, while asserting that they belong to jurisdiction and not to * Hostiens. Aureee Summae Lib. v. De Remiss. § 6. — Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia \ 3. ^ S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. ad 1 ; Q. iv. ad 2 ; Summse Suppl. Q. xxvi. Artt. ii., iv. ^ J. Friburg. Summse Confess. Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 184. * Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 4, 6. — Durand de S. Portiano in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. 5. * S. Antonini Summse P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, \\ 1, 5. * Caietani Opusc. Tract, viii. Q. iv. ; Tract, xvr. De Indulg. Q. vi. ^ Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia |§ 7, 13. « Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. ^ 6. 30 GENERAL THEORIES. orders, admits that they are derived from the power to bind and to loose, and that this power is exercised in the internal forum. ^ It is conceded that the pope can commission simple clerks or even lay- men to grant indulgences/ but one of the accusations of the council of Constance against John XXIII. was that he had sent as nuncio to Brabant a married layman, who had collected much money by the sale of indulgences.^ Evidently the theologians have found no little difficulty in fitting the distribution of the treasure through indulgences into the pre-existing sacramental system which had been somewhat clumsily grafted upon the ancient simplicity. This is not the only question which has perplexed the doctors. We have just seen that the use of the treasure is a solutio or pay- ment which enabled the sinner to cancel his debt to God, and that the whole process is extra-sacramental. Yet in spite of Aquinas and Bonaventura it was not easy to eliminate the idea that a matter so closely connected with the sacrament was not an absolution. Domingo Soto thus asserts that indulgences are a true absolution and not a payment, although a payment intervenes.* A lively debate on the subject was carried on for a considerable time. Willem van Est sought to settle it by proving that they are a true absolution, but only in the external forum, which confines them to the episcopal jurisdiction.^ Bellarmine oifered a more satisfactory compromise when he suggested that they are botli a payment and an absolution, a suggestion which has been very generally adopted.^ Busenbaum, however, followed by Liguori, defines that indulgences are given as absolutions {per modum absoluiionis)^ while the most recent authority 1 Palmieri Tract, de Indulg. pp. 447, 472-3. ■^ Jueuin de Sacrameutis Diss. xiii. Q. iii. Cap. 2. — Viva de Jubilseo ac Indulgent, p. 84 (Ed. 1750). ^ C. Constant. Bess. xi. Art. xxi. xxii. (Von der Hardt, YIV 348-9). Yet Aquinas had already in the thirteenth century proved that a non-priest could grant indulgences if he was duly commissioned (Quodl. ii. Art. xvi. ad 2) — " Potest enim et non sacerdos indulgentiam concedere si sit ei commissum." * Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. 1, Art. 2. ^ Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. § 6. ^ Bellarmin. de Indulgent. Lib. ii. Cap. 5.— Lavorii de Jubilseo et Indul- gentiis P. ll. Cap. viii. n. 4. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. p. 334. — Juenin de Sacram. Diss. xiii. Q. ii. Cap. 1. — Viva de Jubilseo, p. 78. — Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulgent, p. 45. — Palmieri Tract, de Pcenit. p. 448. ^ S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral, VI. 531. BEMISSION OF PENANCE DUE. 31 on the subject, Father Beringer, S. J., gives the definition of a juri- dical absohition, based on the power of the keys and supreme juris- diction/ How far indulgences have superseded the sacrament is seen in a decision of the Congregation of Indulgences, in 1841, that when confession is prescribed as a sine qua non, absolution is un- necessary,- There was one point on which the theory of the treasury oflPered a welcome solution of a difficult question. So long as indulgences were merely commutations or mitigations of imposed penance sin- ners mig-ht be tormented with doubts as to the sufficiency of the rapidly diminishing satisfaction required of them in the confessional. The idea that the indulgence is a payment, and a plenary indulgence a payment in full, was easily developed into the conclusion that it supplied all defects of the confessor in enjoining penance ; as regards partial indulgences there were many doubtful questions, as we shall see hereafter, but a penitent who obtained a plenary discharged all his debts and there was no longer ground for anxiety in the fact, admitted by all theologians, that God alone knows the measure of satisfaction required to remit the penalty of a given sin or series of sins. This was an immense comfort to all parties, especially when plenaries became multiplied and were attainable by all with the slenderest exertion. An elfort to accomplish this, prior to the gen- eral acceptance of the doctrine of the treasure, is found in a curious formula of indulgence, granted, in 1247, by Michael Bishop of Angers for the benefit of the church of S. Julien of Tours, granting forty days, not in the usual form of remission of penance enjoined (de injundis pceintentiis) but of what ought to be enjoined (de pceniientia injuiif/enda) for the sins of the recipient.^ Soon after this Albertus Magnus, in accepting the doctrine of the treasure, points out the 1 Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 39 (Ed. 1893, Paderborn). As Father Beringer is a consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Indul- gences, and as his work has the approbation of that body, it may be regarded as authoritative. ^ Deer. Authent. n. 544. This would appear to assume that indulgences have power over the culpa — a question which will be considered hereafter. Bishop Bouvier endeavors to explain it as applying to those who lead so saintly a life that there is no material for the sacrament (Traite des Indul- gences, p. 69), but there is nothing in the decree to justifj' this. 3 Baku, et Mansi Miscell. III. 99. 32 GENERAL THEORIES. advantage of indulgences as diminishing penance, both that which is enjoined and that which ought to be enjoined if the confessor has erred in prescribing too little, thus curing all defects/ Aquinas for- mulated this in the most positive manner ; indulgences do not, as asserted by some, release only from the penance imposed by the priest, but from all, whether enjoined or not, for otherwise the Church would harm rather than help, releasing from penance and leaving the soul exposed to the heavier pains of purgatory.- Under this authority the principle was accepted by succeeding theologians, that the indulgence, whether plenary or partial, so far as it went, released from the pa, and he justifies this by assuming that it is the papal power which remits both in the sacrament.* When theories of this kind were in the air it need not surprise us to see that when, in 1309, the coun- cil of Pisa, vainly attempting to heal the Schism, elected Alex- ander v., the new pope granted to all the members of the body and to all who would accept its action, an absolutio plenaria a poena et culpa, subject to no conditions, except that it could be had within three months in forma ecclesice.^ This latter was a shrewdly devised phrase which, hidden among the clauses of an indulgence, fessor delegated by the bishop, the price is one-half of the cost of the pilgrimage to Rome, divided equally between the bishop and pope, in return for which is granted "omnium peccatorum suorum plenissimam remissionem," which the good bishop explains "quae vulgo a poena et culpa appellari consuevit." ^ Reg. Cancell. Bonifacii PP. IX. n. 72 (Ottenthal, Regulse Concellarise Apostolicse, p. 76). — Gobelini Personse Cosmod. ^t. vi. Cap. 87. 2 Vita Bonifacii PP. IX. (Muratori S. R. I. III. ii. 832).-B. Plating Vit. Bonifacii IX. (Ed. Colon. 1574, p. 249). » Amort, II. 178. * Von der Hardt, Concil. Constant. III. 688. * C. Pisan. ann. 1409, Sess. xxiii. (Harduin. IX. 24). 68 GENERAL THEORIES. might escape atteutiou, or, if observed, might be subject to such interpretation as the vendor might please to put on it. It has con- tinued occasionally in use to the present day. Pius II. employed it, in 1459, when for his projected crusade he levied a thirtieth of all incomes in Italy, and to those who should pay honestly and promptly he granted a plenary remission of all sins in forma consueta eeelesice? In 1485 it is even introduced in granting a partial indulgence dur- ing the canonization of St. Leopold of Austria by Innocent YIII.,^ and it is occasionally to be found in modern canonizations.^ The exact meaning of the phrase has never been authoritatively defined. Caietano tells us that in all viva voce indulgences it is understood, even if not expressed, and that it means not only the condition of true repentance and confession, but also that only enjoined penance is covered, while Beringer says that it signifies that the indulgence is for the truly repentant who have been relieved of culpa.* Although the council of Constance accused John XXIII. of scandalizing the Church by selling indulgences a culpa et poena, and he pleaded guilty to the charge,^ it would appear that he was more careful of appearances than his predecessors. The indulgence published, in 1412, for the crusade against Ladislas of Naples, the vending of which in Prague aroused the opposition of John Huss, and was the proximate cause of the Bohemian troubles, bears the condition that it was only for the truly repentant and confessed. The commissioners however, as usual, made unlimited promises; they guaranteed heaven to those who bought it, and threatened those who did not with hell. The burden of Huss's assault was the par- don a culpa et a poena, which was not in the bull, and with which the people were deceived. Yet the absolutions which were granted professed to be only for sins confessed, though, with the contradiction of terms so well calculated to hoodwink the multitude, it concluded with a remission a j)oena et a culpa for all sins.^ It is quite possible 1 Couveutus Mantuanus ann. 1459 (Harduin. IX. 1448). ^ Inuoc. PP. VIII. Bull. Sacrosanctam I 16 (Bullar. I. 452). » In that of S. Hiacinta de" Mariscotti by Pius VII., in 1803 (Pii PP. VII Bull. In evangelica I 26).— In that of St. Josaphat Kuncewicz by Pius IX., in 1867 (D. Bartolini Comment. Actorum omnium Canonizationis, Romse, 1868, II. 328). * Caietani Tract. XV. De Indulgent. Cap. vii.— Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 89. 5 C. Constant. Sess. xi. (Harduin. VIII. 348-9). « Jo. Huss Monumenta, Ed. 1558, fol. 171, 180, 186-7. The formula of ab- A CULPA ET A PCENA. 69 that these incongruous formulas were adopted to avert hostile crit- icism, while satisfying the desire of the people for indulgences a poena et culpa, nor was it difficult to reconcile the apparently incompatible phrases. In cases such as the Roman jubilee or the Portiuncula, the crowd of applicants must have rendered the concession a mere for- mality, destitute of all sacramental value. When the indulgence was supplied by the peripatetic papal commissioners, the matter was quite as readily managed, for they were accompanied with a retinue of priests who served as confessors and who would not be likely to damage the sale of their wares by interrogatories or by asking for more than the purchaser cared to say. The Avhole matter v.as in the hands of the pardoners, who, provided they obtained the sum affixed to the indulgence, would allow the customer to do what he liked in the matter of confession.^ solution is " Et etiam autoritate apostolica mihi concessa absolvo te ab omnibus peccatis Deo et mihi vere confessis et contritis. Ex quo personaliter praesens negotium non vales perficere velisque facere juxta commissariorum et meam ordinationem, prsesidium et auxilium ad prsedictum negotium consequendum tuo pro posse fecisti, do et concedo tibi plenissimam remissionem omnium peccatorum tuorum, quae est a poena et a culpa. In nomine etc." Amort {II. 38) prints a more elaborate formula, used in 1433, of which the first portion is like an ordinary absolution for sins repented and confessed, and the conclusion is "do et concedo tibi j^lenissimam indulgentiam cum remis- sione poense et culpae, ut in conspectu Divinse Majestatis et aeternae glorise valeas feliciter pervenire. In nomine " etc. ' This is well illustrated by two indulgences, of which, through the kindness of the custodians of the White Historical Library at Cornell University, I am able to give fac-similes in the Appendix. The first is one issued by the council of Bale, in 1438, to raise funds to carry out its invitation to the envoys sent from Constantinople to negotiate for the reunion of the churches — indulgences which continued to be sold after Eugenius IV. had captured John Palteologus and his patriarch for the rival council of Ferrara and Florence. It is granted under the authority of Henry Meng, doctor of decretals and canon of Zurich, commissioner of the council for the dioceses of Bamberg, Wiirzburg, Eich- stadt, Augsburg and Regensburg, and is given to Friar John, Prior of the Carthusian house of St. Mary of Niirnberg. It recites his contribution to the good work, for which it bestows on him a faculty to absolve fully once in life, and again at death, all the members of his convent from all penalties and censures, under a formula which carefully prescribes the conditions of contri- tion and confession, being good only for sins confessed or forgotten. — "Domi- nus noster Jhesus Christus per meritum suae passionis dignetur te absolvere et ego auctoritate sanctse matris ecclesise ac sacrosancti Basiliensis synodi de hac parte mihi commissa te absolvo ab omni sententia excommunicationis suspen- 70 GENERAL THEORIES. lu the projects of reform of the council of Constance the abusive sale of indulgences Avas naturally included ; this was attributed to the laxity caused by the Schism and was denounced as heartily as by WickliiFe or Huss. It was proposed that all indulgences issued since the council of Vienne (1312) should be annulled, but all that it was able to obtain from INIartin V. was that more caution should be observed in future, that all, except perpetual ones, granted since the death of Gregory XI. (1878) should be revoked as well as all de poena ct culpa or de plena remissione, conceded to churches, and sionis et interdict! a jure vel ab homine prolata, etiam sedi apostolicae speciali- ter reservata. Et plene te restituo sacramentis ecclesise et conditioni fidelium. Et eadem auctoritate absolve te ab omnibus quibuscuraque peccatis culpis et negligentiis mortabilus et venialibus de quibus corde contritus es et ore con- fessus et de quibus libenter confitereris si tibi ad memoriam venirent, et remitto omuem pcenam pro eis tibi debitam, ac illam plenariam remissionem bac vice tibi impertior quam ecclesia concedere solet omnibus Romam tempore jubilsei vel crucesignatis ad recuperationem Terrse Sanctse tempore passagii generalis euntibus. In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti amen." In marked contrast with this is the other — a confessional letter, issued in 1482, under a bull of crusading indulgence, by Sixtus IV., in 1480. It grants to the recipient the right to choose a confessor who can absolve him from all sins, however enormous, as often as he wishes, though those which are reserved to the pope can be absolved only once, and to grant him full remission and indulgence once during life and again at death. Then follows the formula of absolution, showing that it was customary to perform this at once, by the par- doner or one of his assistants. It reads — " Misereatur tui omuijjotens deus etc. Dominus noster ihesus cristus per suam piissimam misericordiam te absolvat. Et auctoritate ejus et beatorum Petri et pauli afjostolorum ac Sanctissimi domini nostri papa michi commissa et tibi concessa, ego te absolve a vinculo excommunicationis si incidisti et restituo te sacramentis ecclesie ac unioni et participationi fidelium. Et eadem auctoritate te absolve ab omnibus et sin- gulis criminibus delictis et peccatis tuis quantumcumque gravibus et enormi- bus. Etiam si talia forent propter que sedes apostolica consulenda esset, ac de apsis eadem auctoritate tibi plenariam indulgentiam et remissionem confero. In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti Amen. " Nota quod in mortis articulo adjungenda est hec formula. Si ab ista egri- tudine non decesseris plenariam remissionem et indulgentiam tibi eadem auctoritati in mortis articulo conferendam reserve." This is xylographic. I have another, printed from type, of the year 1483, in precisely the same form. It is observable that not a word is said as to contrition or as to the indulgence being for sins confessed. The contrast between the two is noteworthy and explains why the people were eager for indulgences a culpa et poena, and how these could be reconciled with the for- mality of a sacrament. A CULPA ET A PCENA. 71 also all ad instar} Martin V. carried out the agreement in the rules for his chancery published the day after his election. Various limitations on the issue of indulgences were prescribed, among which was that any letters granting them a pcena el culpa to persons, under the seals of the cardinals or anyone else, should be null and void.^ There was a convenient vagueness about this, and the profitable business of furnishing the people with what they demanded went on. In 1427 Gerson felt it necessary to demonstrate that the power of the keys could not supersede the sacrament,^ and in 1433, at the council of Bale, Gilles Charlier, in answering the Taborite Nicholas, could only say that indulgences a culpa et a poena were not in the ordinary style of the curia, wherefore, if there were such, they pre- sumably were obtained surreptitiously.* There were such unques- tionably, though the old contradiction was kept up, for in 1440, at the Carmelite General Chapter held at Asti, Eugenius IV. granted to all truly contrite and confessed, who should visit the church and make a suitable donation, a plenary indulgence and remission of all sins " tam a poena quam a culpa" — an offer which attracted four thousand applicants.^ This desire to carry water on both shoulders — to meet the popular demand for indulgences a culpa, while keeping up a show of respect for the requisites of contrition and confession — gave the theologians no little trouble. These perplexities are well illus- ^ Von tier Hardt I. 753. — C. Constant. Sess. XLiii. Cap. xiv. (Harduin. VIII. 883). In the reformatory canons pi'inted by Von der Hardt (V, 1533) this one is omitted, but the action of Martin V. shows that it was adopted as agreed upon. Indulgences ad instar were those which simply specified the grant as the same as that enjoyed by some noted church — St. Peter's, the Portiuncula etc. It had the advantage of indefiniteness, and enabled those in charge to claim whatever they chose, leading to abuses which the council sought to check. ^ Von der kardt I. 980-1. ^ Jo. Gersonis Opusc. de Indulg. Consid. i. * Orat. Carlerii in Con. Basil. (Harduin. VIII. 1793). There is a somewhat different version of this passage in Canisius et Basnage (IV. 620) which may be the correct one. It admits the existence of such indulgences and endeavors to explain them away. ' Chron. Astens. ann. 1440 (Muratori S. R. I. XI. 276). A similar contra- dictory indulgence was granted, in 1476, to the monastery of San Salvador de Breda, of which the price varied according to the station of the applicant, from twenty-five silver reales for a king to one real for a common person. — Villanueva, Viage Literario, T. XIV. p. 304. 72 GENERAL THEORIES. tratecl by Dr. AVeigel. He asserts tliat God alone can pardon the guilt, but he admits that there were indulgences afloat a culpa et a poena ; he tells us that plenary remission is the same as absolution a culpa et a poena, that Henry of Bitterwald and some others argued that the pope could grant such indulgences, and that Landulph of England held that indulgences are authoritative and not merely compensatory, while in one passage he admits that the pope can remove both the guilt and the penalty, and in another he mentions the theory of some doctors that there are two kinds of culpa — one against God, which God alone can remit, the other against the Church, which is subject to the power of the pope.^ Evidently the action of the curia and the superstition of the people had got beyond the capacity of the theologians to explain. St. Antonino attempts it by asserting that the popular expression a culpa et a poena applied to plenary indulgences is incorrect, and yet it may be justified by the condition of contrition and confession required for them : he warns tlie people that, as indulgences are worth exactly what they promise, the terms must be carefully scrutinized and follo\yed in order to gain them." Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa was some\yhat more explicit when, in 1451, he came to Germany as papal legate and proclaimed a jubilee indulgence wherever he went. At Magdeburg he held a synod, in which he explained that these indulgences were plenary remissions of sin, but were not a culpa et a poena, for the Holy See never granted such^ — a somewhat overbold assertion, for, with the complete secularization of the papacy, the popes were growing more reckless and had little hesitation in making any promises deemed necessary to accomplish the object in view. When, in 1459, Pius 11. endeavored to organize a crusade, he offered to all who would go or send a fighting-man a plenlssima indulgence in which there was no condition of contrition or confession;* the sacrament was wholly superseded, and it was to all intents and purposes a culpa et a poena. It was the same when, in 1470, Paul II. proclaimed the jubilee to be held in 1475, and when, in 1473, his successor, Sixtus IV. con- firmed it ; the fullest pardon of all sins is promised to all Christians ^ Weigel Claviculae Indulgent. Cap. i. xiii. xxiii. xxxv. xlii. Uonclusio. * S. Antonini Summse P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, | 4. ^ Mag. Chron. Belgic. ann. 1451. * Convent. Mantuan. ann. 1459 (Harduin. IX. 1446). A CULPA ET A PCENA. 73 visiting the basilicas without a word implying that it is conditioned on repentance and confession.^ It is true that soon after this Angiolo da Chivasso combats the opinion that indulgences can remit the pains of hell, and Gabriel Biel repeats the assertion of St. Antonino that the popular use of the term a culpa et a poena is false ; but Baptista Tornamala, though in one passage he says the people are mistaken in believing that they remove the culpa, in another he accepts the dictum of Giovanni da Imola that when the pope grants a full re- mission of all sins it is a culpa et a poena? Thus the power of the indulgence to remit both the guilt and the penalty was gradually winning its way, and in view of the financial advantages of such a doctrine it would in all probability have estab- lished itself, and the sacrament of penitence would have grown obsolete had the Church been left to its own devices and not been forced to a reform by the revolt which its degradation rendered in- evitable. It is true that Alexander VI., in specifying the details of his jubilee of 1500, alludes to true repentance and confession,^ but Stefano Notti, in his serai-official exposition of the indulgence, easily disposes of this by quoting the Gloss on the Clementines to the effect that, if strictly construed, there would be few who would gain indulgences, and therefore it is not fittiug to interpret it rigidly ; to be sure, the sinner must repent, but as for confession it suffices if he had confessed the year previous and intends to confess next year. Besides, he tells us that the jubilee is commonly called an absolution a poena et a culpa, and the very title of his book — Opus remissionis a poena et culpa — shows the dominating spirit of the business and the impression which the authorities desired to produce.* The jubilee was a failure, and probably Alexander considered that he had been too exacting, for when, in 1502, he extended it to Ger- many, he was careful to impose no conditions except the payment of money ; the services of a priest were only called in to administer the absolution thus purchased, and the purchaser acquired the right, » Pauli PP. XL, Bull. IneffabiUs 1 7 (Bullar. I. 386).— Cap. 4 Extrav. Commun. Lib. v. Tit. ix. ^ Summa Angelica s. v. Liduhjentia | 1. — Gabr. Biel in IV. Sentt. Dist. XL v. Q. iii. Art. 1. — Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia, in corp. §§ 19-20. ^ Alex. PP. VI. Bullse Inter curm multiplices ; Pastoris ceterni (Amort, I. 95-6, 96-101). * Steph, ex Nottis Opus Remissionis, fol. %b, \\a. 74 GENERAL THEORIES. during life, to select the oue who should perform this function.^ Nor was this confined to the jubilee. In 1508 the Franciscan Anselm, in his description of the Holy Land, tells us that at Bethlehem, in the church of the Virgin, there was the altar where Christ was cir- cumcised, which enjoyed a plenary indulgence a poena et culpa.^ In fact, another writer of about the same period says that the compre- hensive rule at the Holy Places was that wherever there was no cross there was an indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines, and wherever there was a cross there was a plenary indulgence a poena et a culpa, all granted by St. Sylvester at the request of Con- stantine and St. Helena.^ How complete had become the belief in the papal power to remit both culpa and poena is manifested in the conditions agreed upon, in 1503, in the conclave which elected Pius III., which the pope to be chosen should swear to observe. Among them is one requiring the future pontiff to absolve all the cardinals from all crimes, however enormous, that they may have perpetrated, including specially reserved cases. This absolution is to be good in both the secular and ecclesiastical courts, and each cardinal is to be rendered as innocent as when he came from the baptismal font. That this was an indulgence a culpa et poena is proved by a subsequent clause providing that, if any cardinal shall prefer to make confession, he shall have free choice of a confessor who shall have full faculty for reserved cases.* When, in 1510, Julius II. issued the fateful St. Peter's bull Liquet omnibus, which seven years afterward was destined to excite Luther's revolt, he put up for sale with cynical boldness almost everything that the Church could offer attractive to sinners, and licensed almost everything that the Church was organized to repress. In the pre- ^ Amort, I. 101. Geiler von Kaysersberg, preaching before the papal legate in 1502, is puzzled to explain the indulgences offered a culpa et a pcena. He suggests that an indulgence a poena is one for ordinary sins, and that when it includes papal reserved cases it is a culpa, but he submits this without preju- dice to a better opinion and urges his hearers to acquire it without inquiring too curiously into its exact meaning. — Navicula Poenitentiae, fol. Ixxx. (Aug. Vindel. 1511). - Anselmi Descript. Terras Sanctse (Canisii et Basnage IV. 779). As the site of the stable only had a plenary indulgence (lb. p. 780), Anselm evidently drew a distinction between them. 3 Amort de Indulg. II. 518. * Bergenroth, Calendar of Spanish State Papers, I. Ivii , 311. A CULPA ET A PCENA. 75 liminarv recital of a fomier commission granted to Geronimo Tor- niello there is an allusion to repentance and confession, but in the commission now granted to Francisco Zeno this is not repeated, and the only condition prescribed to all Christians for gaining the in- dulgence is to deposit in the chest the price determined by the com- missioner or his delegates. If the sinner desires to choose a confessor to administer the absolution he can do so for an additional payment, and if the confessor imposes a "salutary penance," this again is money to be devoted to the fabric of St. Peter's.^ The whole docu- ment is evidently drawn with the purpose of enabling the pardoners to represent it as an indulgence a culpa et a poena, and is redolent from beginning to end with the odor of filthy gain. Leo X. was even more reckless. In September, 1513, he proclaimed a crusade against the Turks which he promised to lead himself; in this indul- gence there is no condition of contrition and confession, unless it be covertly inferred from a reference to the Holy Land and jubilee in- dulgences granted by his predecessors ; he promises not only full remission of all sins but reconciliation with the Most High, and decrees that all who go or send substitutes or contribute according to their means shall be associated with the angels in eternal bliss.^ Xo more complete power over culpa could well be asserted. More- over, in many of the local plenary indulgences which he granted there is no allusion to confession and repentance, while in others these are specified, and the natural explanation of the distinction is that he charged more for one form of grant than for the other, and that the church applying for the concession took its choice.^ The I Julii PP. II. Bull. Liquet omnibus, 11 Jan. 1510, ^§ 2, 7, 8, 14 (Bullar. I. 502). In contrast with this is an indulgence issued, in 1511, by Julius to rebuild the church of Constance, which had been partially destroyed by fire. All who pay the sum fixed by the delegates and devoutly visit a church are granted the jubilee inilulgence, but this only enables them to select a confessor who can absolve them of all sins " de quibus corde contriti et ore confessi sunt." — (Amort, I. 209.) Evidently the distinction was well understood, and the more marketable indulgences were reserved for the benefit of Rome, or the con- cessions were held at a higher price. - Raynald. Annal. ann. 1513, n. 111. ' Hergenrother Leonis PP. X. Regest. n. 2312-13, 3444, 7745, 9053, 9134, 9191, 9201, 9311-13, 9889, 10730-1, 11^414-19, 11791, 11836, 11853, 13852, 14447, 16840, 17421. There is a sort of compromise in a plenary indulgence in favor of the Hos- 76 GENERAL THEORIES. commissioners who sold tlicse indulgences were therefore not without justification when they assumed to have power over hell as well as over purgatory, and in their absolution formula assured the purchaser that they closed for him the portals of hell and opened the gates of paradise.^ Father Dudik points out that in two vernacular sum- maries of the indulgences of the Teutonic Order (including some plenaries), drawn up in 1466 and 1513, the clause found in an earlier one, requiring contrition and confession, is omitted." Thus Erasmus evidently was guilty of no exaggeration when he described the wicked as tossing from their evil gains a coin for an indulgence, and then, thinking their sins all wiped out, engaging in fresh ones.^ Luther's protest, in 1517, showed that the abuses of the system were arousing an opposition among independent thinkers Avhich called in question the whole theory on which it was based. Caietano made haste to prove that subjection to the temporal penalty implies remission of guilt, and this can only be granted to those truly repen- tant and confessed.^ Prierias admits that some authorities hold that indulgences enable mortal sinners to obtain grace, but he argues that pleuaries are wrongfully styled by the people a posna et a culpa, for God alone can remit the culpa to the contrite ; but the plain people might well be misled by theological subtilties, involved in the asser- tion of his reply to Luther, that the pope by the key of orders can remit all the culpa and by the key of jurisdiction all the poena.^ pital of the Holy Ghost at Niirnberg, granted, in 1517, to all who have con- fessed or intend to confess, and who will devoutly visit the church of St. Sebald or of the Holy Ghost between Lcetare Sunday and Easter, and give as much as they commonly spend in a day for food or drink. A fac-simile of the con- trolling portion of this will be found in the Appendix. ^ In a formula of absolution given to those who contributed to the hospital of Santo Spirito in Saxia there occurs the clause " remittoque tibi omnes poenas in purgatorio debitas, claudo tibi portas inferni et januas aperio para- disi." — Widemanni Chron. Curife ann. 1516 (Menkenii S. Eer. Germ. III. 757). ^ Dudik, Ueber Ablasstafeln, pp. 174-5 (Wien, 1868). •^ Erasmi Encom. Morise (Ed. Tauchnitz, II. 342). * Caietani Opusc. Tract, xv. Cap. 2. * Sum ma Sylvestrina, s. v. Indulgentia f§ 21, 24. — Prieriatis Dialogus, Art. 61 — " Igitur potestas pontificis per clavem ordinis omnem culpam, et per clavem jurisdictionis, cujus est indulgere, omnem poenam potest abolere." But he adds (Art. 75) that he disbelieves that the pardoners teach that indulgences release from culpa, for it is understood that confession is a pre-requisite. A CULPA ET A PCEXA. 77 Giovanni da Taggia assert? that the popular use of the term is cor- rupt and abusive, but he proceeds to explain that it may be justified by the contrition and confession requisite to obtain an indulgence.^ Finally, in 1519, Leo X. was forced to define for the first time the doctrine of the Holy See on the subject, when he could not deny, in the face of the sacramental theory, that the culpa is remitted in the sacrament, while the poena, in virtue of the power of the keys, is pardoned by indulgences, through which the treasure is dispensed by the pope, but he took care to claim the papal power over both.- It was easy to make an admission of this nature in carefully guarded language which avoided all disclaimer, but it did not alter practice. In the very next year we find Caterino arguing that the remission of caljxi is through the merits of Christ, and that it is an impious doctrine that the pope in indulgences only remits canonical penance.^ Berthold of Chiemsee says that culpa and poena are remitted by the treasure ; acumenic councils have decided that the jubilee indulgence remits the culjja contracted by sin, and he only asserts that the popes confine their indulgences to the contrite and confessed, not that they have not the power to do more.* The distinctions on which the theo- logians relied were too shadowy for the uninstructed mind to grasp, and the popular belief remained unaltered, while the pardoners con- tinued to stimulate the sale of their wares with the same Iving ^ Summa Tabiena s. v. Indulgentia | 3. ^ Leonis PP. X. Bull. Cum postquam (Le Plat, Monument. Cone. Trident. II. 23). " Romanum pontificem, Petri clavigeri successorem et Jesu Christi in terris vicarium, potentate clavium quarum est aperire tollendo illius in Christi- fidelibus impedimenta, culpam scilicet et pcenam pro actualibus peccatis debi- tam, culpam quidem mediante sacramento poenitentise, poenam vero tempor- alem pro actualibus peccatis secundum divinam justitiam debitam mediante ecclesiastica indulgentia, posse pro rationabilibus causis concedere eisdem Christifidelibus, qui caritate jungente membra sunt Christi, sive in hoc vita sint, sive in purgatorio, indulgentias ex superabundantia meritorum Christi et sanctorum, ac tam pro vivis quam pro defuuctis apostolica auctoritate indul- gentiam concedendo, thesaurum meritorum Jesu Christi et sanctorum dispen- sare, per modum absolutionis indulgentiam ipsam conferre, vel per modum suffragii illam transferre consuevisse." ' Ambr. Catharini adversus impia ac valde pestifera Martini Lutheri Dog- mata Lib. III. fol. 756, Lib. v. fol. 896. ♦ Bertholdi Chiemens. Theologia Gerraanica Cap. i.xxxix. § 1 (August. Vindel. 1531). 78 GENERAL THEORIES. promises as before.^ The popes persevered in treating indulgences as purely a matter of money unconditioned by repentance or confes- sion. Clement VII., in 152-1, when removing the suspension of the cruzada in Spain, recites the bulls of Julius II. and Leo X. as grant- ing pleni.ssimam indulgentiam to all who would pay the sum required for the prosecution of the war against the infidel or for the fabric of St. Peter's.^ Clement, moreover, when prescribing the conditions for his jubilee of 1525, makes no mention of contrition or confession — the only conditions are the customary visits to the churches.^ It is the same with the plenaries granted by him, in 1530, to members of confraternities formed to aid the Inquisition in extirpating heresy,* and a still more cynical disregard even of appearances is manifest in an extension of privileges, in 1565, after the council of Trent, by Pius IV., to the Hospital of St. Lazarus, for he offers a plenary remission and indulgence a culpa et a pcena, of all sins to those wha at deatli shall bequeath a legacy to it, without any conditions of con- trition or confession. Yet how little he realized the import of the phrase is seen in his conceding a similar indulgence a culpa et a poena to any soul in purgatory for whom the sum fixed by the Hos- pital shall be paid.^ Paulianus, in 1549, has no hesitation in saying ^ Caietano argues (Opusc. Tract, xv. Cap. vii.) that it is not the fault of the Church if the people seek indulgences under a mistaken belief. Juan de Valdes (Dialogo de Mercurio i Caron) introduces a soul complaining that it is sent to hell in spite of having obtained a papal bula " en que me absolvia a culpa i a pena in articulo mortis," and Mercury is obliged to explain that the bull was good against purgatory but not against hell. In 1532 Maria Cazalla, in defending herself before the Inquisition, denied that she had ever said anything against indulgences except that it was an error of the people to suppose that they could enjoy them by paying two reales without contrition or confession (Melgares Marin, Procedimientos de la Inquisicion, II. 126). Berthold of Chiemsee {ubi sup.) still complains of the frauds and abuses of the qusestuarii in exaggei'ating the value of indulgences for gain. ^ Balan Monumenta Ssec. XVI. Historiam illustrantia I. 30, ^ Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1525, n. 2. In extending the jubilee throughout Europe, Raynaldus tells us (Ibid. n. 1) that he only prescribed five Pater- nosters, omitting the customary demand of a part of the exjjenses of a journey to Rome, in order to avert the attacks of Luther. * Amort, I. 79. 5 Pii PP. IV. Bull. Inter assiduas ^ 146, 1565 (Bullar. II. 158). In 1567 St. Pius V. cut down the reckless grants of his predecessor, including this pro- vision.—Pii PP. V. Const. Slcuti bonus, 1567 (Bullar. II. 219). A CULPA ET A PCENA. 79 that the pope grants salvation by these remissions/ and in the reform attempted by the council of Trent, when transferred to Bologna, in 1547, is an admonition to bishops to instruct all preachers to warn the people that the culpa is not remitted by indulgences as commonly but falsely asserted by the qusestuarii." It is no wonder that, as Azpilcueta tells us, the fullest indulgences were still popularly known as a culpa et a poena, or that the uneducated failed to grasp his rea- soning against those who held that as attrition was converted into contrition by the sacrament, so it could be by indulgences.^ To the post-Tridentine theologians indulgences a poena et a culpa have proved a crux which they have endeavored to explain variously. Bellarmine repeats the transparent excuse that they were so called because indulgences are ordinarily conjoined with sacramental con- fession, so that he who is absolved in the sacrament from the culpa is absolved from the pcena by the indulgence.* It is scarce worth while to follow these evasions through the voluminous writings of the moralists, and it will suffice to mention the seven explanations collected by Lavorio. Some, he says, deny that there are such bulls ; others assert that it is a mere exaggeration and means only plenis- sima ; others attribute it to the pardoners ; others argue that the phrase was used to excite the sinner to repentance and lead him to confess ; others that it is the style of the curia ; others that it refers to the remission of venials, while others more correctly say that a culpa is placed in jubilee indulgences in which faculty is granted to choose a confessor who can absolve for reserved cases, and it means the same as a faculty for absolving a culpa, and there is added a con- dition of contrition and confession.^ This latter explanation might ^ Pauliani de Jobilaeo et Indulgentiis Lib. I. Cap. vi. ^ Raynald. Annal. ann. 1547, n. 68. ^ Azpilcueta Comment, de Jobilaeo Notab. x. I 18. * Bellarmin. de Indulg. Lib. i. Cap. vii. See Lepicier (Indulgences, their Origin, Nature and Development, London, 1895, p. 56) for a typical illustra- tion of the ease with which the troublesome question can be shuffled off. * Lavorii de Jubilseo et Indulg. P. II. Cap. x. n. 70-75. — Cosimo Montigiani, Trattato de I'Anno del SS. Giubileo, Cap. xviii. (Firenza, 1575). Whether the culpa of venials can be remitted by an indulgence is a disputed question. Bianchi (Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 223) says this is the meaning of indulgences a culpa et a pcena, but Benedict XIV. (De Synodo Dioeces. Lib. XIII. Cap. xviii. | 7) says it is very doubtful whether the culpa of venials can be remitted and that the weight of authority is against it. Cf. Serrada, Escudo 80 GENERAL THEORIES. serve to becloud the question iu the schools, but the plain people were not so taught. In a popular exposition of the jubilee, in 1599, the absolute assertion is made that those Avho on such occasions devoutly visit the holy places of Rome are completely relieved of both the guilt and punishment of their sins, and this without a word as to contrition and confession.^ Apart from these discussions the custom of occasionally issuing indulgences without conditions as to contrition and confession has by no means become obsolete. Thus Clement VIII. and Benedict XIV. granted a plenary together with the liberation of a soul from purgatory for the recitation, before an image of Christ, of a short prayer to Christ crucified, and this without any conditions until, in 1821, Pius VII. renewed it with the condition of confession and communion.^ Even more significant are the privileges accorded to the Blue Scapular of the Immaculate Conception. Those who wear it and recite six Paters, Aves and Glorias in honor of the Trinity and of the immaculate Virgin, and pray for the needs of the Church, gain every time, without confession and communion, all the plenary and partial indulgences of the seven basilicas of Rome, of Compostella, of the Holy Land and of the Portiiincula.^ At the solemnities of the canonization of saints it is also customary to bestow a plenary on all those present without conditions.* del Carmelo, p. 311 ; Ferraris Prompta Biblotb. s. v. Indulgentia Art. ill. n. 20 ; Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 25-6, 62-3. Sincere sorrow for venials is requisite to render the indulgence effective for them. — Raccolta, Ed. 1886, p. xxiv. 1 Forner, Vom Ablass und Jubeljar, lugolstatt, 1599, p. 233—" Vonn aller jhrer Siinden Last unnd Straft' volligklich entlediget warden." ^ Decret. Authent, S. Congr. Indulgent, u. 436. ^ Deer. Autbent. n. 701. The popular manuals of indulgences do not fail to make the most of this special privilege. See P. Blot, Indulgences qu'on pent gagner chez soi, p. 21. — Abbe Cloquet, Les plus faciles Indulgences, p. 30. * " Omnibusque Cbristifidelibus prsesentibus plenariam omnium peccatorum suorum indulgentiam elargitus est."— Bullar. II. 693; III. 43, 134,266,291, 468 ; IV. 16 ; V. 6 ; VI. 80, 224, 291, 359 etc. When, in 1746, Benedict XIV. canonized S. Pedro Regalati the phrase is "concessa omnibus astantibus pleuaria peccatorum indulgentia." — Bullar. Contin. Ed. Prati 1846, II. 94. When, in 1867, Pius IX. canonized S. Josaphat Kuncewicz, Pedro Arbues and a number of others, the form of indulgence published by the senior Cardinal Bishop at command of the pope, was "Sanctissimus in Christo Pater et Dominus A CULPA ET A PCENA. 81 It is no wonder that the theologians continue to ascribe to indul- gences, if not the power to wash away the guilt, at least some influ- ence over and above the mere remission of the penalty. When, in the Tuscan movement of the Grand Duke Leopold, Vinceuzo Pal- mieri wrote a book attacking indulgences, he was answered by a zealous ecclesiastic, who admits, indeed, that they cannot remit the culpa, but approaches it as nearly as he dares. They remove all obstacles to the true friendship of God, they liberate men from sin, they are the work of the most abundant and majestic Divine mercy, and it is this that leads the devil from time to time to raise up wicked men to oppose them/ Bishop Bouvier explains that by exciting to pious works leading to repentance they efface the sin as well as the penalty.- Gr5ne, as we have seen, argues that no one can be safe without them, for what may be lacking in the sacrament is thus made up in grace.^ The dithyrambic burst of exultation with which the jubilee of the anno sanfo is announced in the papal procla- mations can only be justified on the assumption that its indulgence possesses some extraordinary power not shared even by the plenaries, which in modern times are so profusely offered and so easily ac- quired.* That they must have some efficiency irrespective of the mental condition of the recipient would appear when, in 1851, Pius IX. allowed children too young to be admitted to communion to gain those attached to the (Euvre de la sainte Enfance, and, in 1851 aud 1875, he made the same provision for the plenary iudul- Noster, Dominus Pius Divina Providentia Papa Xonus dat et concedit omni- bus tarn hie praesentibus quam omnibus qui vel Supplicationi vel sacrse actions Canonizationis interfuerant vel hodierna die banc vaticanam basilicam devote visitabunt Indulgentiam Plenariam. — D. Bartolini Comment. Actorum omnium Canonizationis, Romae, 1868, II. 328. This is doubtless considered to be covered by a general rule, as will be seen in the next chapter, conditioning plenaries on confession and communion. ^ Instruzione per un' Anima fedele sopre le Indulgenze, pp. 3, 6, 72 (Finale, 1787). ^ Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 26. ^ Griine, Der Ablass, p. 143. * Urbanii PP. VIII. Const. Omnes Genfes, 1624 (Bullar. IV. 48).— Leonis PP. XII. Const. Quod hoc, 1824 (Bullar. Contin. VIIF. 64). The Franciscans claimed, even in the later seventeenth century, that the Portiuncula indulgence is a culpa et a prena. — Michel' Angelo di Bogliasco, Indulgenza Plenaria detta Portiuncula, p. 45 (Livorno, 1670). III.— 6 82 GENERAL THEORIES. gence of the jubilee, as Pius VI. had already done in that of 1775.^ Whether or not the insane, who cannot understand what they are or perform the prescribed works, can gain indulgences has never, I believe, been authoritatively settled, but Viva tells us that the Aveight of opinion is in the affirmative.^ This would seem to be a natural deduction from the principle that the disposition of the recipient has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the indulgence, his devotion does not enhance it, absence of devotion does not im- pede it.^ When thus, in spite of the official disclaimer that indul- gences can remit the culpa, so much influence is ascribed to them ex opere operato, we can scarce be surprised that the old belief still exists among the people tliat they remove the guilt as well as the penalty. In 1786, Giuseppe Pannilini, the reforming bishop of Chiusi and Pienza instructs his priests to disabuse their flocks of this mistaken confidence,* and in a memorial from a number of French bishops to the Vatican council, in 1869, attention is drawn to the equivocal terms sometimes employed in grants of indulgences, whereby the unlearned may be misled as to this point^ — a warning which could not have been given had not experience demonstrated to the prelates the prevalence of such popular error. Yet the true doctrine is enunciated in Pignatelli's argument that the angels are incapable of benefiting by indulgences, because the good ones do not need them, and the evil ones, being condemned to eternal punishment, cannot avail themselves of that which relieves only from tem- poral.® ^ Joulianneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 1243. — Pii PP. IX. Encyc. Ex alils (Acta, Vol. I. p. 349).— Encyc. Gravibus (Vol. VI. p. 352).— Pii PP. VI. Const. Ubiprimum (Bullar. Contin. VI. 8-12). Van Ranst tells us that children too young for communion cannot obtain the jubilee indulgence (Opusc. de Indulg. p. 118). * Viva de Jubilteo et Indulg. p. 98. A kind of compromise on this point is the assumption that indulgences can be gained and applied to idiots and the insane. — Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 85. ^ S. Th. Aquin. Summte Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. ii. — Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubilaei Q. xxxv. |§ 5, 6. — Viva de Jubilseo ac Indulg. pp. 114-5. — Pignatelli op. cit. p. 83. Of course, as in everything else^ there are dissenters from this opinion. See S. Bonavent. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. P. ii. Art. 1, Q. 6 ; Layman Theol. Moral. Lib. V. Tract, vii. Cap. 5, | 2; Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 65. * Istruzione di Mgr. Vescovo di Chiusi e Pienza, I xxxvii. (Firenze, 1786). 5 Concil. Collect. Lacensis T. VII. p. 844. « Pignatelli, op. cif. p. 22. SINS COMMITTED IN EXPECTATION. 83 There is another question of considerable moral significance on which the opinion of the Church has changed for the worse. This is whether the power of the indulgence extends to sins committed in expectation of the remission. The point does not appear to have been raised during the earlier period, but in the fourteenth century there seems to have grown a fashion of including such sins, for occasional grants of indulgence are found in which they are specific- ally excluded, showing that it was considered an abuse to be re- pressed. In the formulary of the Avignonese papal chancery there is a formula for special confessional letters containing this clause, and others in which it is omitted ; under Eugenius IV. it occurs occasionally in general indulgences ; the council of Bale Avas careful to insert it in those which it issued, and Julius II. adopted it in one granted, in 1509, for the benefit of Livonia in its struggles with the heretic Russians and infidels.' St. Antonino assumes that this is the ordinary form when he says that though a confessor can absolve sacramentally for the culpa of such sins, he has no power to do so for the poena under an indulgence, as appears by the indulgence itself, and, in the form which he gives of absolution under indul- gences, such sins are specially excepted. Prierias has the same absolution formula, and Stefano Xotti says as a general rule that it is commonly accepted that there is no remission through an indul- gence for sins committed in expectation of it.^ Post-Tridentine theology is much more liberal in this respect. Azpilcueta's argument on the subject is worth summarizing as a candid admission of the demoralizing influence of the whole system, both of penance and indulgences. He urges that the man who sins in the expectation of remission is not more guilty but less, for he who sins without hope of pardon comes near to being a despairing sinner, and is therefore more wicked, while he who sins in the hope of pardon mitigates the gravity of his sin. Besides, the expecta- tion of immunity does not exclude the offender from the benefit of the provisions of the law. This is seen in clerics and others, exempt 1 Tangl, Die papstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 305-7 (Innsbruck, 1894). —Amort de Indulgent. I. 136, 145, 201.— Con. Basiliens. (Harduin. VIII. 1221, 1304).— Diplomata Cullendorfensia n. CLXXXV. (Menken. Scriptt. Rer. Ger- man. I. 758). ^ S. Antonini Sumnise P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3, § 5.— .Summa Sylve.strina s. v. Indulgentia n. 28. — Steph. ex Xottis Opus Reraissionis, fol. 116. 84 GENERAL THEORIES. from secular jurisdiction, committiug great crimes in the assured confidence of the immunity, complete or partial, conceded to them by the canon Si guis suadente, and availing themselves of their privileges for crimes perpetrated after they obtain this immunity, no difference being recognized between those committed with the expectation and those without. This is also seen in religious, who incur censures and irregularities with the hope of absolution and dispensation by virtue of their privileges, and are everywhere ab- solved. Moreover, all we Christian Catholics commit many sins in hopes of pardon through penance which we would not commit if we believed there was no such remedy, and yet we are not excluded from the benefits of penance, so that to assert otherwise is heretical.^ Even more significant than this is the line of reasoning adopted by Rodriguez to argue away the clause, still sometimes inserted in in- dulwnces, that thev shall not inure to the remission of sins com- mitted in expectation of them. This does not apply, he says, to cases in which the confidence is only a causa concomitans and not a caxLsa positiva — that is, when it simply strengthens the negligence and indifference leading to sin. He admits that the facility of abso- lution through the indulgence is kept in mind, and thus the evil thoughts stimulating to sin are not repressed with the care that would be used were it not for the indulgence, but the sinner is not required in his confession to include this confidence, for it is not an aggravating circumstance but rather mitigating, as it proves his trust in tlie mercy of God. Even when the expectation is a cau^a positiva^ Rodriguez proves, by a chain of subtle and tenuous reasoning, that it does not prevent absolution under the indulgence, but he has the grace to add that although this opinion is true it ought not to be publicly taught lest it should stimulate sinners to sin. The only cases in which the precautionary limitation is to be obeyed are coarsely concrete ones, as when a man shall deliberately say, " We will take the indulgence and then kill such a one, for we shall be absolved," or " We have the indulgence through which we shall be absolved, let us commit such and such sins."^ When these were the predominant theories among the moralists it can readily be understood that the old-time rigor disappeared and ^ Azpilcuetae Comment, de Jobilseo, Xotab. xxxtv. | 6. "^ Rodriguez, Bella della Crociata, pp. 203-4. COMPUTATIOX OF PARTIAL INDULGENCES. 85 that it came to be generally taught that the expectation of remission was no hindrance to enjoying the benefits of an indulgence. Bellar- mine tacitly admits it, and all subsequent authorities which I have consulted unite in the opinion. Pasqualigo even says that this is true when the expectation has led to the commission of the sin — the causa positiva of Rodriguez — and that this is not abusing the indul- gence any more than sinning in expectation of sacramental absolution is an abuse of the sacrament. The formidable lists of doctors hold- ing these views, adduced by the systematic w^riters, show that the opinion may be said to be virtually universal.^ One exception to this, it is true, is to be found in the crociata indulgence granted to Naples, in 1778, when the commissioner, in publishing it, warned the people that its benefits were not for those who sinned in expec- tation of taking it, and Onofri cautioned them not to believe that obtaining it gave them licence to sin and freedom for all the iniquities of their scandalous lives.' Recent writers, as a rule, seem to pass the matter over in silence, but ^liguel Sanchez assures us that the principle is still observed in practice, that the penalty of sins com- mitted in expectation of an indulgence is remitted by it.^ Partial indulg-ences have sometimes been o-ranted for a fraction ol the sins of the penitent — a quarter, or a third, or a half — but the usual designation has always been that of a specified number of days or years, or years and quarantines. AVhen the remission is for a fraction we are told that that portion is remitted in the forum of the Church and of God as fully as if it had been wiped out by penance^ — and in this shape the matter is plain and easily understood. When, how- ever, it is an enumeration of determinate periods of time there arise ^ Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. I. cap. x. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. p. 320.— Summa Dianse s. v. Bulla Cruciafce n. 34.— Lavorii de Jubilseo et Indulg. P. I. Cap. xxi. n. 63. — Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubilsei Q. 234 n. 3, 5.— Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 391.— Bianchi, Foriero deir Anno Santo, p. 349.— Viva de Jubilseo ac Indulgentiis, pp. 18, 238.— Benzi Praxis Tribunalis Conscientise Disp. I. Q. iii. Art. 2, Par. 3, n. 13. The chief practical interest in this matter lies in its application to reserved cases, for which absolution can be obtained under jubilee and crusading indul- gences. « Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, pp. 128-30 ; Notizie, p. 90. ^ Mig. Sanchez Exposit. BuUse S. Cruciatse, p. 176. * Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indalgentia \ 22. 86 GENERAL THEORIES. various intricate questions on Avhich, as no one could know anything positive about them, the theologians of course Avere at variance. These questions did not arise so long as indulgences were recog- nized as merely commutations or redemptions of penance and were especially granted as of so much enjoined penance— c/e pcenitentiis injunctis — but when the theory was radically changed by the intro- duction of the treasure and the remission of the penance that ought to have been enjoined, the formula de injunctis naturally disappeared and people began to ask the meaning of the simple forty days or seven years and seven quarantines that they w^re asked to pay for, "while the Holy See, as was its custom, persistently abstained from an authoritative definition. One question not easily solved was whether the days remitted were calendar days or days of penance — dies coiitinui or dies utiles. If the penance itself was continuous there was no difference, but if a priest imposed a forty days' fast, three days every week, a forty days' indulgence would exhaust itself in less than seven weeks under one computation, or under the other would extend itself over the whole thirteen weeks. So a year's indulgence might be construed as a year of Friday fastings or as 365 fast days, covering seven years. The doctors mostly held that when the indulgence was only for days it meant dies utiles, but when the term was for years it "was not so clear — a year de injunctis poenitentiis probably meant a calendar year, but a simple year, without qualification, meant 365 days of penance. The whole subject however was so intricate that Stefano Notti dismisses it with an injunction not to care about it, but to rely on the mercy of God.^ With the multiplication of plenaries in modern times and the diminution of penance the matter has lost much of its interest, but the citations made by Diana show that in the seventeenth century it was still an object of debate and dissentient opinions ^ Indulgences for forty days, to which bishops were for the most part limited were called quadragence or quarantines, which meant an ordinary Lenten fast ; sometimes however they were granted for a ^ Weigel Claviculffi Indulgentialis Cap. xi. — Sumrna Angelica s. v. Indul- gentia I 3. — Suinma Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentvi § 22. — Stepli. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis, fol. 1466. ^ Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentia n. 6. COMP UTA TION OF PAR TIAL IND UL GENCES. 8 7 carina, which, as we have seen (II. p. 121), was an infliction of vastly greater severity. As the memory of the old penitential observances faded out there was uncertainty felt as to these distinctions. Bremond prints, from the archives of the Dominican order, a bull of Boni- face YIII., in 1295, to aid the rebuilding of the church of St. Mary of Sendomir, w4iich had been burnt by the Tartars in 1260, in which he grants the same indulgence as that of S, Maria ad ]\[artvres of Rome, namely, on its annual feast and during the octave three hun- dred and sixty years and as many quarantines, which it proceeds to explain by saying that a carina means xxx. [evidently XL.] days of purgatory.^ The bull is a palpable forgery of later date, but this de- finition of carina is interesting as shoM'ing either the ignorance of the forgers or their presumption on the ignorance of the people. Modern authors generally understand the difference between quadragena and canna, but Ferraris says that they are the same.^ As the customary seven years' penance commenced with a quadragena or carina, Dr. Weiffel tells us that an indulg-ence of fortv davs or a carina included the seven years, and this has been repeated by modern commentators.^ Yet this is a self-evident error, for indulgences are very often drawn for seven years and seven quarantines, or any given number of years and as many quarantines, which excludes the idea that a quarantine or carina includes seven years of penance. What is the precise sig- nificance of this coupling of vears and quarantines it is impossible to determine with certainty. Bouvier explains it by saying that in addition to remitting the penalty corresponding to the ordinary can- onical penance it adds that of the special penance of the Lents, and Palmieri seems to agree with him.* This may be the modern official explanation, but it is evidently incorrect, for the remission of simple years, which is also common, covers the Lents of those years, and ^ Ripoll Bullar. Ord. Prpedic. II. 45. Bremond himself expresses doubt as to the genuineness of this document. "We shall see hereafter what persistent and audacious forgers were the religious Orders in this matter. ■■^ Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia Art. 1. 1 13. * Weigel Claviculfe Indulgent. Cap. xix. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Ur- bani VIII. pp. 335-6. Bellarmine seems to indicate this without precisely asserting it (De Indulg. Lib. I. Cap. ix.). Gabriel Biel asserts positively that an indulgence of a carina includes forty days and seven years (In IV. Sentt. Dist. XLV. Q. iii. Art. 1). * Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 27.— Palmieri Tract, de Pcenit. p. 484. 88 GENERAL THEORIES. besides, indulgences frequently occur in which the numbers of years and quarantines are not the same. These are not the only doubtful points connected with indulgences for specified periods. As the conception of commutation of penance became forgotten in the theory of equivalents granted from the merits of Christ and the saints, there evidently arose a popular belief that the remissions were not of days and years of earthly penance but of purgatorial suffering. This is manifested by the in- sistance with which the theologians continued to point out that no one knows what term in purgatory God may assign to each sin, and that there can be no remission granted save for the earthly penance due to them — that the purgatorial remission is that which corre- sponds to the penance remitted, but what that may be is known alone to God; besides it is influenced by the degree of ardor and zeal which each penitent would bring to the discharge of his pen- ance if he performed it, and that therefore it is not the same for one man as for another.^ Weigel, however, tells us that although this is the opinion of the leading doctors, still there are many who do not accept it ; moreover, that there is a standing debate as to what will become of indulgences of six thousand years and upwards, because it is universally understood that the world will not last so long, and after the Day of Judgment there will be no use for them — all of which infers that the years are purgatorial and not earthly.^ Bap- tista Tornamala illustrates the exceedingly vague and uncertain ideas current by explaining that the remissions of the indulgences are in terms of earth and not of purgatory, and then adding that if a sinner condemned to ten years of purgatory gains a seven years' indulgence he will have only three years to endure.^ Angiolo di Chivasso rejects as derogatory to indulgences the theory that the release is only of days and years of penance and not of purgatory, while Prierias and Adrian VI. as stoutly affirm the contrary, and intimate that a few days of penance may be equivalent to a longer 1 P. de Tarentasia in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. Art. 3 ; R. de Mediavilla in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. iii Q. 1 (Amort de Indulg. II. 68, 75).— Guill. Durandi Sj^eculi Lib. iv. Partic. iv. De Pcenit. et Remiss, n. 9. — Jo. Friburgens. Summse Confessor. Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 181.— P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Q. iv. ad 2, Concl. 1.— S. Antonini Summse P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3, I 3. ^ Weigel Clavic. Indulgent. Cap. xi., xxv. ^ Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia | 16. I COMPUTATION OF PARTIAL INDULGENCES. 89 period of purgatoiy.^ Bartolomnieo Famo describes the different opinions and does not decide between them, wisely preferring to leave the matter to God.^ The council of Trent discreetly avoided settling the question, thus leaving it to be debated by the theologians. Azpilcueta seems to have no doubt that days and years of penance, not purgatorv, are meant, and does not even allude to any other theory ; he adds that all agree that penance voluntarily endured in life counts for much more than the enforced pains of purgatory, although these are so much more severe/^ On the other hand, Domingo Soto, while argu- ing in favor of terms of penance not purgatory, asserts that the latter are so intense that an indulgence of a thousand years will not remit ten of purgatory nor one of seven years a single month.* In ^ Summa Angelica s. v. Indulgentia | 2. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgeniia I 8.— Adriani PP. VI. Disput. in IV. Sentt. foL clxii. ^ Aurea Armilla s. v. Indulgentia I 17. ^ Azpilcuetse Comment, de Jobilseo, Notab. xi. §8, 12,22; Notab. xxii. §19. * Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 1. Cf. Pet. Lombardi Sentt. Lib. IV. Dist. XX. | 1. Accurate knowledge of purgatory has been had through visions and revela- tions, by Avhich we are told that its agony is beyond human conception ; earthly flames would be refreshing in comparison with the fire which consumes with- out destroying. Soto {loc. cif.) asserts positively that no soul is kept there for twenty or even for ten years, but other authorities differ with him, and he characterizes as utterly false a wholesome popular belief that souls are detained there until all the debts which they may have left behind them are paid (Dist. XLV. Q. ii. Art. 3). San Vincente Ferrer learned that souls have been kept there a year for a single venial sin. Sor Francesca de Pamplona ascertained the fate of several hundred of whom the majority suffered for thirty, forty, or sixty years. A holy bishop for some negligence was detained there fifty-nine years, and a layman the same period for consulting his ease too much, while another for gaming suffered sixty-four years. It was revealed to St. Birgitta that certain souls have to stay there till the Day of Judgment, and Cardinal Bellarmine is of this opinion. It is for this reason that the Church authorizes anniversaries of a hundred years and even perpetual masses for a single soul. — Pieux Commerce des Vivants avec les Morts, pp. 17, 25-6. (The series of which this forms a part — the " Bibliothlque Catholique de VHopital MUitaire de Toulouse" — was blessed by Pius IX. May 31, 18(52, and enjoyed the enthusi- astic approbation of Florian, Archbishop of Toulouse.) So recently as 1859, at the Benedictine Abbey of St. Vincent, near Latrobe, the spirit of a monk appeared and stated that for omitting to celebrate seven obligatory masses it had suffered seventy-seven years in purgatory; every 90 GENERAL THEORIES. spite of this Manuel Sa says that both theories as to the meaning of the terms of indulgences are current, and he does not decide between them, while Bellarmiue assumes that the question is still open, and without settling it enters into a long disquisition as to whether pen- ance or purgatory is the longer.^ Diana holds that penance not purgatory is meant, though he admits that there are high authorities of the opposite opinion.^ Bianchi contradicts himself, for after say- ing that, if a sinner owes eighty days of purgatory and obtains a hun- dred-day indulgence, it is a plenary for him, he subsequently asserts that the terms of indulgences are of penance not of purgatory.^ Ferraris argues that it must be so because there are indulgences of two or three hundred thousand years, and it is not to be supposed that pur- gatory will last so long/ In recent times this opinion seems to have triumphed. The official RacGolia explains that by the days and years of an indulgence are remitted so much of the pains of pur- gatory as would be cancelled by that amount of penance according to the ancient canons, and it has been authoritatively so defined by the English bishops.^ eleven years it was allowed to visit its brethren and solicit succor, but thus far without success. It prescribed the observances requisite to procure its libera- tion, and on their performance it disappeared (L'Echo du Purgatoire, Avril, 1879). That among the people there is belief in purgatorial terms of indefinite length is indicated by the revival of interest in Rome as to the fate of Beatrice Cenci, excited by the recent financial disasters which have so nearly ruined the Borghese family. The sympathy felt for her led to the opinion that she was not consigned to hell but to purgatory ; when her estates, confiscated by Clement VIII. were, by the shameless nepotism of Camillo Borghese (Paul V.), made over to his nephews, it was currently said that their enjoyment would last only while she was in purgatory, and the misfortunes of the Borghesi are held to prove that at last her purgation is completed, and that she has been admitted to heaven. At an earlier period the length ascribed to purgatorial torment is illustrated by the story that, in 1199, when the death-bed confession of Richard Cceur de Leon appalled his confessors, he freely offered to remain in purgatory till the Day of Judgment if he could thus appease the justice of God.— Nic. Trivetti Chron. ann. 1199 (D'Achery III. 177). ^ Em. Sa Aphorismi Confessar. s. v. Indulgenfia ^ 8. — Bellarmini de Indul- gent. Lib. I. Cap. ix. ^ Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentia n. 5. 3 Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 221, 223. * Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia Art. I. H 13, 14. * Raccolta, p. x. — Green, Indulgences, Sacramental Absolutions, etc., p. 31 (London, 1872). CUMULATION OF PARTIAL INDULGENCES. 91 Somewhat akin to this is the question arising from tlie existence of indulgences complicated by having remission for davs or years superadded to plenary. This is such self-evident surplusage that it has proved troublesome to explain. One suggestion is that when such an indulgence is gained the sinner can enjoy the plenary and apply the partial remission to some one else ; others endeavor to find a rea- son for it by saying that it is a precaution, in case the plenary is invalid for lack of cause, to enable the sinner at least to benefit by the partial.^ There was a question which greatly exercised the medieval theo- logians— the cumulation of partial indulgences. If a man has a seven years' penance enjoined and he visits a church where a one- year indulgence is to be had for a piece of money, can he by succes- sively giving seven coins be liberated wholly from the penance ? S. Ramon de Peiiafort replies that he does not know nor does he be- lieve that any mortal knows unless it has been divinely revealed to him.- This wholesome agnosticism did not suit the temper of the schools, and subsequent doctors had no hesitation in taking sides. Cardinal Henry of Susa, while quoting S. Ramon, confidently affirms that the sinner thus discharges his liability to the Church Militant and is not required to perform any penance.^ On the other hand, Albertus Magnus treats it as absurd, while Bishop William Du- rand admits it as uncjuestionable. The Gloss on the Decretum sug- gests the compromise that each payment only releases its percentage of what had been left by the preceding, and that if all the money in the world were paid there would still be a fraction unsatisfied/* ^ Polacchi Comment, in Bull.Urbani VIII. p. 336. — Ferraris loc. cit. § 16. — Grone, der Ablass, p. 144. An example of this is the cruzada indulgence, which, in addition to the plenary, grants fifteen years and fifteen quarantines to those who will pay something more than the fixed price, and also fast on days not of precept and pray for concord and victory over the infidel.— Rodriguez, Bolla della Cro- ciata, p. 74. In the modern Spanish cruzada this partial indulgence is granted as often as a penitent will fast for a day and pray in church.— Pii PP. IX. Bull. Dum infideUum § 4. ^ S. Raymundi Summse Lib. ill. Tit. xxxiv. I 5. ^ Hostiens. Aurese Summse Lib. v. De Remiss. § 8. * Alb. Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 17.— Guill. Durandi Speculi Lib. 92 GENERAL THEORIES. Astesauiis agrees with Albert, while Bartolommeo di S. Corcordio holds Avith Cardinal Henry, but advises that the sinner should not use it during life, but reserve it for pnrgatory, where the punish- ment will be most severe^ — a suggestion casting an unpleasant doubt on the efficacy of satisfaction in general. A different phase of the same question was presented by the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Speyer, which exhibited seven indulgences from seven popes, each remitting one-seventh of sins. The doctors were hopelessly divided in estimating their value, some holding that together they amounted to a plenary, others, like the Glossator, that each taken in succession only remitted one seventh of the balance left by the preceding one. In fact, the whole treatment of the matter, in 1441, by Dr. Weigel, shows how impossible it was to come to any rational common under- standing concerning it.^ This question however seems to have merged into the larger and more general one — whether an indulgence can be obtained toties quoties — as often as the penitent chooses to perform the work en- joined for it. At first there would appear to have been no objection to this, as in a grant by Eugeuius III. to the oratory of St. James at Pistoia, in 1145, of seven days' indulgence as often as it should be visited.^ When an indulgence was so drawn it was generally admitted that it could be gained indefinitely by repetition, and it seems to have been a favorite method by which bishops practically eluded the Lateran canon restricting them to forty days.* Yet there was an objection to this, for it was pointed out that all the penitent had to do was to step outside and return as often as he might see fit, which exposed the whole system to derision, and the opinion of Aquinas was largely, though not universally, adopted, that although "perennial" indulgences, such as that of forty days enjoyed by St. Peter's of Rome could be had toties quoties^ when one was granted for a special feast or for an anniversary and its octave, it could be gained IV. Partic. iv. De Pcenit. et Eemiss. n. 12. — Gloss, in Cap. 23 Deer. Caus. XIII. Q. ii. ^ Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 1.— Summa Pisanella s. v. In- dulgentia I 4. ^ Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. x. ^ Eugenii PP. IV. Epist. XLvn. (Migne, CLXXX. 1063). * Gousset, Actes etc. de Keims, II. 395, 607. — Statut. Synod. Camerac. (Hartzheim IV. 83).— Pez Thesaur. Anecd. VI. in. 15, 259-61, 319. TOTIES QUOTIES INDULGENCES. 93 but once, though Pierre de la Palu would allow it ouce daily. ^ There were not wanting eminent authorities who held the more liberal view as applying to all indulgences, such as Pierre de Tarantaise, Bishop William Durand, 'Mrchidiaconus " (Giovanni d'Anagui), and it was recognized that the Roman jubilee could be gained as often as the round of visits to the churches was repeated.^ Yet even as regards the jubilee, practice varied at subsequent periods and the doctors w^ere about equally divided on the question, but, in 1749, Benedict XIV., after an exhaustive examination, decided in favor of toties quoties, and this decision was accepted, in 1869, as applicable to the jubilee pro- claimed by Pius IX., lasting from June 1st to the opening of the Vatican council, December 3d. As this indulgence could be gained anywhere in the Christian Avorld by two visits to two churches with prayer, fasting for three days, alms to the poor, confession and taking the sacrament, there was ample opportunity for the faithful to gain repeated plenaries.^ The same privilege of toties quofics was claimed for the cruzada, and indeed for all other plenary indulgences predicated on visiting churches — that they could be gained as often as the visit might be repeated on the same day and the five Paters and Aves be recited — the first plenary being for the benefit of the penitent, while with the rest he might liberate souls from purgatory.* This somewhat lax opinion was condemned by the Congregation of Indulgences in 1668, ^ S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iii. ad 4 ; Summse Suppl. Q, xxv. Art. ii. ad 4. — Jo. Friburgens. Summje Confessor. Lib. ill. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 183. — Astesani Summas Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 1, Q. 4. — P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. Art. 1, ad 3, Concl. 3. — Summa Pisanella s. v. Indulgentia I 5. — S. Antonini Summse P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, ^§ 1, 3. — Sunima Rosella s. v. Indul- gentia § 12. — Summa Angelica s. v. IndulgenUa ^ 4. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia | 22. ^ Guill. Durandi Speculi Lib. iv. Partic. iv. De Poen. et Remiss, n. 12. — Stepb. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis fol. lli^, 153rt, 154a, lo6a. ^ Viva de Jubilajo ac Indulg. p. 119. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 355,— Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 395.— Bened. PP. XIV. Const. Inter prieteritas | 84, 3 Dec. 1749. — Zaccaria dell' Anno Santo, II. 17-20.— Pii PP. IX. Const. Xemo certe 11 Apr. 1868 (Collect. Lacens. VII. 10-12, 1072). The three days' fast in this latter indulgence gave rise to twelve doubtful questions which the Congregation of Indulgences had to settle. * Rodriguez, BoUa della S. Crociata, pp. 104, 106.— Summa Diana s. v. Bulla C'ruciatce n. 11. 94 GENERAL THEORIES. but when, in 1718, it was asked whether, when the brief of con- cession read "as often as they may visit the church" or " toties quoties," repeated plenaries could be gained the same day, it de- clined to answer, and left the question to be solved by the faithful at their peril.^ Yet it admitted the principle as regards the Portiun- cula indulgence which is obtainable in all Franciscan churches from first vespers of August 1st to midnight of August 2. The Con- gregation of the council of Trent rendered decisions to this effect in 1720 and 1723, and when, in 1847, the Congregation of Indulgences was asked whether this indulgence can be gained as often as one enters the church and prays a little, and whether communion is also necessary, it replied affirmatively to the first question and negatively to the second.^ As regards other indulgences, the refusal of a de- cision, in 1718, left the matter open, and Ferraris recurs to the opinion of Aquinas, that when the indulgence is perpetual and in- determinate it can be gained as often as the prescribed work ot visiting a church is performed ; when it is limited to a certain day, it can be had but once.^ When this came to be applied to plenaries, there arose the difficulty that Innocent XL (1676-1689) had decided that more than one plenary cannot be gained in a single day, but this was reversed, in 1841, by the Congregation of Indulgences, which decreed in favor of as many repetitions as the penitent may desire, even when communion is prescribed as a condition.* In the popular desire to acquire them with the least possible trouble there arose a belief that it is not even necessary to leave the church and re-enter it, but that it suffices to separate the several pardons by some act, such as the sign of the cross or moving to another spot. In ^ Decreta Autlieiitica n. 4, 39. 2 Raccolta di ludulgenze, Camerino, 1803, pp. 165-7.— Decreta Authentica n. 620. * Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia Art. III. n. 26-7. * Viva de Jubila^o ac Indulg. p. 120.— Deer. Authent. n. 534. Before this relaxation Bianchi, in 1700, explained (Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 356) how a man could gain two plenaries on the same day, for if he is a member of a confraternity which has the indulgence of the Seven Churches for visiting a certain altar, and if on the same day he visits that altar and also the Seven Churches, he gains two plenaries. This is quite moderate, however, for Miguel Medina (Disputat. de Indulg. Cap. XLVlii.) praises the magnificent liberality of the Church through which, by holy avarice, a man can gain thirty or more indulgences a day. lOTIES QUOTIES INDULGENCES. 95 the case, however, of the "Pardon of St. Francis de Paula" — a toties quoties plenary granted to the churches of the Minims, in 1579, by Gregory XII I. — the Congregation, in 1882, decided that leaving and re-entering the church is requisite.^ Such toties quoties plenaries are not common, but we will meet with occasional in- stances of them, and, as recentl}' as 1892, Leo XIII. granted one to all Carmelite churches for July 16th, the feast of Our Lady of Carmel.^ ^ Sacr. Congr. Indulg. de Indulgentia fofies quoties Ecclesiar. Ord. Minim, Eomje, 1882. - Leonis PP. XIII. Litt. Apost. Quo magls, 16 Maii, 1892 (Acta, XII. 129). CHAPTER II. REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. As a matter of course, for au indulgence to be valid and to be validly acquired, certain conditions are recognized as essential. To the validity of the indulgence the first requisite is the jurisdiction of the grantor — that of the bishop in his diocese, of the archbishop in his province, and of the pope over all tlie faithful, the two former being still subject to the limitations imposed upon them by the Lateran council in 1216. Besides this the theologians tell us that the object or cause for which the indulgence is granted must be suf- ficient to justify such an application of the treasure, and, moreover, that the works enjoined to gain it are adequate. As regards sufficiency of cause there has been an endless amount of discussion. Alexander Hales asserts that for plenaries great cause is required, to which his disciple, Bonaventura, assents by saying that to avoid simony the treasure is to be distributed only for the honor of God and benefit of the Church, and that there must be a reasonable cause, for it is inconceivable that indulgences would be efficient if offered to those going to witness a tournament.^ Albertus Magnus is emphatic in the assertion that sufficient cause is requisite, such as danger to the faith, the recovery of the Holy Land, the poverty of the church to be benefited, etc., but his disciple Aquinas argues that their real cause is the superabundant merits of the Church, and there is no necessary proportion between the grant and the object, though there must be a cause pertinent to the honor of God or the advantage of the Church.^ Pierre de la Palu insists that due cause is requisite, and that an indulgence granted by the pope propria motu and without motive is invalid.^ Clement VI. in 1 Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xxiii, Membr. 6.— S. Bonavent. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. P. ii. Art. 1, Q. 4, 6. 2 Albert! Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 17.— S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist XX. Q. iii. ; Quodl. ii. Art. xvi. 3 P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE. 97 his jubilee bull says that the treasure is intrusted to the pojie to be dispensed for proper and reasonable cause.^ St. Antonino holds that he who grants an indulgence without due cause sins as a dilapidator of the treasure, but yet it is valid to him who earns it and piously trusts in its efficacy.^ Dr. Weigel quotes a number of authorities to prove that indulgences are valueless when granted recklessly and arbitrarily, and cites Henry of Hesse to the effect that many persons who gain plenaries will find themselves in hell when they expect to enter heaven without passing through purgatory.^ He also devotes a long argument to prove that issuing indulgences for monev is not simony. This was a point which naturally troubled the pre-Refor- mation doctors not a little. The conceptions of the period were so grossly material, and indulgences were used almost so exclusively as a financial expedient, that it was scarce thought that they could be employed for any other purpose. It is true that it was specified that the object, although temporal, must be intended for spiritual ends — the celebrated temporalia ordinata ad spiritualia which served to cover so much of the ecclesiastical extension of power and func- tion— but that indulgences could be used for purely spiritual purposes was rather grudgingly admitted, and the only instance cited to sup- port it was one of ten days granted by Innocent IV. to those who would pray for Louis IX. of France while he was a prisoner of the infidel in Egypt.* The rigid Caietano insists that indulgences granted without reason- able cause are invalid, and in such matters the pope may easily err — but then it is to be presumed that there is reasonable cause unless there is manifest error. The pope is not the master of the treasure but merely the dispenser, and through human fallibility he may err in this, as in canonizing a saint who in reality is damned, but the Church presumes the saint to be rightly canonized and the indul- gence to be rightly issued. The manner in which Caietano recurs to the subject, and his labored attempts to solve what he calls a most difficult question, show the perplexity which conscientious men felt ^ Extrav. Commun. Cap. 2, Lib. v. Tit. ix. 2 S. Antonini Summse P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, § 1- ^ Weigel Claviculae Indulgent. Cap. xvii. * Weigel op. cit. Cap. xxx. — Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xxiii. Membr. 4, 8. — S. Th. Aquin. Summge Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. iii. — Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 4, Q. 1, 2. — Summa Angelica s. v. Indulgentia § 14. Ilir— 7 98 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. in reconciling theory with fact, and the only conclnsion he can reach is that if an indulgence is too great for its cause it is invalid as far as regards the excess — a very unsatisfactory result, for it leaves in doubt the validity of all such remissions; yet in this Adrian VI. agrees with him.^ Prierias is troubled by no such scruples ; he follows Aquinas and declares that anything conducive to the honor of God or the utility of the Church or of the neighbor is sufficient, for tantum valent quantum sonant'^ — a definition by the courtly Master of the Palace sufficiently elastic to cover the acts of his master, Leo X., who, when he granted a church to one of his favorites, would follow it with an indulgence to all w^ho would oiFer oblations there, manifestly to the advantage of the revenues of the beneficiary.^ "When such prostitution of the power of the keys led to revolt, and Luther complained that indulgences were granted for trivial and insufficient objects, Caterino could only reply that this was not a subject for wise men to discuss ; they might discuss what ought to be, but not what is. That is the business of the pope, who is bound to answer to God but not to man.* Similarly soon afterwards Pauliano argues that whatever the pope confirms or pardons it is to be believed that he does it by the will and command of God.^ The council of Trent was wise in not attempting a definition of so delicate a matter ; its warning to be moderate in the granting of indulgences was unheeded" and the discussion between the theo- logians continued. Domingo Soto insists on reasonable cause. Dis- sipation of the treasure of the Church is not dispensation but dilapi- dation ; whether indiscreet indulgences are valid is disputed among the doctors, and he inclines to the negative.^ Rodriguez is more cautious : he admits the general opinion to be that an indulgence without cause is worthless, but he shows that this is merely an academical question when he says that it is not a subject to be dis- cussed in the vernacular, and warns the reader that if the cause 1 Caietani Opusc. Tract, ix. Q. 1, 2; Tract. XV. De Indulg. Cap. iv. viii.— Adrian! PP. VI. Disput. in IV. Sentt. fol. clx-clxi. ^ Summa Sylvestrina s. v. IndulgenUa ? 7. 3 Hergenrother Regest. Leon. PP. X. n. 11268-9, 11510-11. * Ambr. Catharini adv. M. Lutlieri Dogmata Lib. v. fol. 88a. * Pauliani de Jobilseo et Indulgentiis p. 88 (Romte, 1550). ^ C. Trident. Sess. xxv. Contin. Deer, de Indulg. ' D. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 2. SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE. 99 appears iusufficient it is great temerity aud worthy of severe chas- tisement to call in question the judgment of the pope, who knows liis own motives and communicates often with God about them.^ Henriquez puts forward the comforting suggestion that when there is insufficiency of cause, God makes it up, but Bellarmine denies this.- Manuel Sa tells us that great names are ranged on either side of the question, but he does not consider that there can be any doubt in so far as papal indulgences are concerned.^ Willem van Est says that any excess of an indulgence over its cause is invalid and inop- erative, but this it is impossible to determine, and it must be left to the judgment of the prelates/ Tomas Sanchez assumes that any lack of proportionate cause makes indulgences wholly or partially invalid, and as this has to be measured by human judgment they are very uncertain.'^ Polacchi admits that insufficient cause invalidates an indulgence to the extent of its insufficiency, but nevertheless it releases the conscience of the sinner, for he necessarily must presume it to be valid. The pope ought always to be supported, and no matter how gross may be the error in conceding an indulgence for private inter- est it ought not to be publicly condemned, for this is to give aid and comfort to the heretics.^ Lavorio states that the pope is not the master but the servant and dispenser, but the cause must always be presumed to be sufficient, as otherwise there would be no certainty in indulgences.' Diana insists that the indulgence must be propor- tioned to the cause.^ Viva argues that the popes usually have the ad\4ce of learned theologians not readily deceived, but he cannot gainsay, the triviality of the objects of many indulgences, and he advises the sinner to seek those which seem to have an adequate cause.^ Biauchi urges that it is not for individuals to inquire whether the motive of an indulgence is sufficient ; the success of a Christian prince well affected to the Church over another not so well ^ Rodriguez, Bolla della Crociata, pp. 17-18. ' Henriquez Summa? Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. Cap. xiv. g 2.— Bellarmini de Indulgent. Lib. I. Cap. xii. ^ Era. Sa Aphor. Confessor, s. v. Jndulgentia I 1. * Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. § 10. ^ Th. Sanchez in Prscepta Decalogi Lib. v. Cap. 5, n. 6. « Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. pp. 337-42. ' Lavorii de Indulg. P. 11. Cap. xii. n. 30-32. ® Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentia n. 3. ^ Viva de Jubilfeo ac Indulg. pp. 91-5. 100 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. affected suffices ; so is the granting of an indulgence in order not to disgust the applicant by refusal, and if an indulgence is asked for on purely selfish motives of temporal benefit it is good, provided a suf- ficient cause is alleged in the grant ; even deceit in alleging false motives for obtaining them does not invalidate them.^ The rigorist school naturally was more exacting. Van Ranst asserts that the popes cannot squander the treasure arbitrarily, for God will not ratify such acts, and he assumes the test to be that the object must be more pleasing to God than the satisfaction remitted.^ Even Ferraris admits that a papal indulgence may be invalid for lack of sufficient motive, wherefore it is prudent, in the case of the dead, to supplement it with masses on a privileged altar.^ Padre Feyjoo argues that no one can be certain of the sufficiency of the papal motives, for this is not a question of faith or morals, but only of fallible human sagacity.* Giunchi meets the objection that all in- dulgences are thus rendered doubtful by pointing out that this should only render the sinner who gains them more anxious to placate God bv meet fruits of repentance^ — apparently not recognizing that this is admission that indulgences had better be dispensed with altogether. On the other hand, the laxists sought to do away with all doubt. Andreucci asserts that the pope is sole master of the treasure ; he can do with it as he pleases, and requires no cause to justify his acts.^ Liguori does not go quite so far as this, but merely says that it is no business of the individual to enquire into the sufficiency of the cause, and another upholder of the papacy assures us that it is a scandalous impertinence to seek to scrutinize the mind of the pope.^ Whether impertinent or not, it would be curious to trace the process of reasoning which, in 1846, led Pius IX. to grant the request of the General of the Theatines that the altars of St. Andrea Avellino, the protector against apoplexy, be privileged, even when there is 1 Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 287-90.— Potiti de Joriis Tract, de SufFragiis, Indulgentiis etc. p. 6-4 (Romis, 1691). 2 Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulgent, pp. 62-3. 3 Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgent, Art. ll. n. 33-4; Art. in. n. 19. * Feyjoo, Cartas Tom. I. n. 45. ^ Giunchi de Indulgentiis, pp. 62-66. « Andreucci de Requisitis ad lucrandas Indulgentias, pp. xxxiv.-xliii. ^ S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral, Lib. v. n. 532.--InstruzioDe per un' Anima fedele, SUFFICIENCY OF WORKS. 101 another privileged altar in the same church, the reason alleged being that a number of sudden deaths had recently occurred in Theatine churches.^ Bouvier agrees with Liguori that the sufficiency of the cause is not to be inquired into, but he admits that a plenary indul- gence may thus be reduced to a partial, though the applicant gets all that it is worth, and if it is absolutely invalid for lack of cause he can console himself with the fact that the accompanying advan- tages of absolution for reserved cases, dispensation for irregularities and commutation of vows are not lost.^ Palmieri, while admitting that the cause must be sufficient, adopts the view of Aquinas that the cause of remission is the authority of the grantor, and that of Liguori that, unless the lack of cause is manifest, the individual must leave the matter to the judgment of the prelates.^ Thus the eternal debate goes on, with no more prospect of a settlement than there was six hundred years ago. The question as to tlie proportion which the work enjoined should bear to the indulgence is one on which there has been as little unan- imity as on most other subjects. As a matter of course, from the beginning it was less than the penance for which it was a substitute, else there would have been nothing in indulgences to attract sin- ners— or, as Alexander Hales puts it, there would be no mercy or grace, and he argues that in this there is no injustice, for indulgences come from God, and whatever God does is just.* Yet it would seem natural that in dispensing the treasure a fair equivalent should be demanded in proportion to the grace bestowed. This, however, was by no means easy in practice, nor did it always accord with the policy of the Holy See, for in the Albigensian wars forty days' service in Languedoc acquired the same plenary as a year spent in tlie far more costly and perilous crusade to Palestine. Even more marked was this inequality in the indulgences bestowed for visiting churches. As the schoolmen remark, in such cases the priest of the church, or the parishioner living next door, gains as much as he who performs a pilgrimage of a thousand days' journey — though the latter acquires 1 Decret. Authent. S. Cong. Indulg. n. 602. ^ Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 31, 51. — Potiti de Joriis Tract, de Suffragiis etc. p. 65. » Palraieri Tract, de Pcenit. pp. 449-50, 475. * .-\lex. de .Ales Summse P. lY. Q. xxill Membr. vii. 102 REQUISITES FOB INDULGENCES. more merit — and from this it was a natural deduction that the work enjoined need not be proportioned to the reward promised, which was no more unjust than the fact that the life-long sinner with a thousand crimes obtained the same pardon as one whose conscience was burdened with scarcely one.^ Occasionally some effort was made to adjust this inequality by proportioning the reward to the work. In an indulgence of the twelfth century enjoyed by the church of St. Sebastian at Rome, it is said to be one year for Romans and those of the vicinage, two years for the rest of Italy and three years for pilgrims from beyond seas, and Aquinas tells us that the popes sometimes adopted a similar scale.^ So when Boniface VIII. in- augurated the jubilee he required Romans to visit the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul for thirty days, while fifteen sufficed for strangers f and when Benedict XIII. granted a plenary for a pil- grimage to the church of S. Maria de Cella in Syria, and the ques- tion arose whether it could be gained by the inhabitants of the place, the Congregation of Indulgences, in 1753, decided in the negative, though it neglected to specify the exact distance required.* A more burning question speedily arose from the innumerable indulgences granted manus porrigentibus adjutrioes to churches — for the benefit of those who would stretch forth a helping hand. As no definite payment was specified it was left to the conscience of the sinner, and the custodians of the churches doubtless were frequently aggravated by men of rank and wealth who would claim the pardon for the same trifling oblation which secured it for the peasant. At an early period therefore there was an effort to establish a rule that the offering must be proportionate to the wealth of the applicant. Peter of Poitiers enunciates this, arguing that the widow's mite shows that God looks to the good-will of the giver, and a rich man's parsimony does not evince good will.^ The rule did not estal)lish itself immediately, for the most that William of Rennes can say is ^ S. Th. Aquin. Summte Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. ii. ad 4 ; In IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Q. iii. — Astesani Suinrnte Lib. VI. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 2. — Weigel Claviculae Indulgent. Cap. xi., xxx. ^ Pajiebrochii Catal. Pontif. Diss. xiir. § 8. — S. Th. Aquin. Summse Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. ii. ad. 4. * Extrav. Commun. Cap. 1, Lib. v. Tit. ix. * Decret. Authent. n. 217. * Pet. Pictaviens. Sentt. Lib. iir. Cap. xvi. SUFFICIENCY OF WORKS. 103 that it is au opinion lield by some and that it is probable.^ Aquinas however asserts it positively; a poor man giving a penny may gain it wholly, while a rich man who does not give according to his means only obtains it proportionally — a proposition too favorable to the churches not to find followers, though many high authorities denied it.^ Boniface YIII. put the matter in a practical business shape when, in an indulgence granted, in 1299, to the Domus Dei Hospital of Yiterbo, he promised remissions in proportion to the amount of the payment and the zeal of devotion.^ The conclusion seems to have been reached that the matter depends on the terms of the bull conceding the indulgence, which leads Gerson to complain that the rich man has an advantage over the beggar and the monk, but Adrian VI, declares positively that he who does not give what comports with his station and means only gains the indulgence pro- portionately.^ Domingo Soto states that formerly payments propor- tioned to wealth were required, but now all pay the same f in this he alludes to the cruzada, not foreseeing that soon afterwards there wonld be a classification introduced placing the indulgence at differ- ent prices according to station. With the reforms of St. Pius V. forbidding " eleemosynary " indulgences the question lost much of its importance, but still Sixtus V. in proclaiming his jubilee of 1588 required the rich to pay more for it than the poor.^ In the next century, however, Rodriguez and Willem van Est a-sert that the "alms" must be proportionate to the means of the sinner, while Diana argues that when "alms" are prescribed without defining the amount, he who gives one piece of money earns the indulgence as effectually as he who gives a hundred, and even when ability is specified as the measure some authorities hold that it makes no dif- ference, for otherwise no one could feel safe that he gained it.*^ ^ Guill. Redonens. Postill. super Raymundi Summam Lib. ill. Tit. xxxiv. § 5. ■^ S. Th. Aquin. Summa? Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. 2 ad 3. — Durand. de S. Por- ciano in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. |§ 13, 14.— Astesani Summa? Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 1 . ^ Digard, Registres de Boniface VIII. n. 2975. * Weigel ClavicuUe Indulgent. Cap. xxx. — Summa Angelica ?. v. Indidgenfia ?2.— Jo. Gersonis Regulje Morales, xxv. G. (Ed. 1488).-Adriani PP. VI. Disput. in IV. Sentt. fol. clxv. col. 1. ' Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 2. " Rodriguez, BoUa della Santa Crociata, p. 18. " Rodriguez, op. at. p. 79.— Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. 1 10.— Summa Diana s. V. IndidgenticB reqiiisita n. 5, 7. 104 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. As regards the pious works in general required for the acquisition of indulgences, opinions have been by no means unanimous. Durand de S. Pour(;ain says tiiat as the pope frequently grants them without prescribing anything to be given or done, it appears that no such condition is indispensable.^ Adrian VI. insisted that they should bear some proportion to the extent of the pardon oifered — to grant a plenary for a styver or half a styver would be squandering the treasure, and the contributor would get only what was proportioned to his gift.^ Domingo Soto argues in the same sense ; to grant a plenary for the recitation of an Ave or a Pater is evidently out of all due proportion.^ On the other hand, Miguel Medina presents the unans^yerable reasoning that if proportionate cause were required, not only the bulls containing three hundred plenaries sold for two pieces of silver, and the confessional letters and bulls which fetched two pence would be mere papal deceits, but all indulgences would be subject to the same condemnation.* In the same spirit Polacchi declares that the pope can grant what indulgences he pleases without requiring the performance of any pious works, and he gives as examples the plenaries which accompany the papal benediction at Easter, Ascension, and other solemnities ; bishops, in fact, grant their allotted forty days when blessing all who are present.^ This argument would seem to be conclusive, and Viva accepts it, draw- ing the inference that the result is the same whether the labor is much or little, whether the pilgrim to gain a jubilee has a longer or shorter journey or visits the churches oftener— which shows how far the Ciiurch had travelled since the days of Boniface VIII. Moreover, if the cause for granting an indulgence is insufficient, it cannot be made good by increase in the pious works.^ On the other hand, van Ranst holds that the work enjoined must bear some pro- portion to the indulgence,^ while again Andreucci considers that 1 Dur. de S. Porciano in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Q. iv. | 10. 2 Adriani PP. VI. in IV. Sentt. fol. clxi. ^ Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 3. * Mich. Medina Disput. de Indulgent. Cap. XLViir. ^ Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. pp. 125, 343. ® Viva de Jubilseo et Indulgent, pp. 81-2, 116-7. Viva endeavors to recon- cile this with the promises of Boniface by suggesting that extra zeal may obtain the remission of punishment due to venial sins not remitted. ' Van Eanst Oijusc. de Indulg. p. 63. CONSENT OF THE CONFESSOR. 105 works are superfluous, and it is only an accident if the grantor requires them.^ Dr. Amort indignantly asks whether the lavish bestowal of plenary indulgences for carrying blessed medals or reciting a Paternoster can be deemed a satisfactory equivalent for innumerable sins, and he adds that in this case the heretics are jus- tified in their ridicule.^ In the lavish bestowal of indulgences in modern times for the simplest observances one would think that the question had lost all practical interest, yet Grone still tells us that indulgences can only be granted for works pious, reasonable and corresponding to the magnitude of the remission.^ Palmieri is much more candidly in line with modern practice when he says that it is a common prejudice to believe that the remission only corresponds with the works enjoined to gain it, though he elsewhere argues that a greater indulgence requires a greater cause, that is, a more perfect work.^ To some extent this is recognized in the numerous indul- gences of one hundred or three hundred days for the recitation of a prayer, with a plenary if it is repeated daily for a month. Another condition for the enjoyment of an indulgence appears to have existed in the early period, when it was admitted that the jurisdiction of the priest over his flock was so exclusive that it could not be interfered with except with his consent. Astesanus alludes to this when he quotes from Cardinal Henry of Susa a recommenda- tion that the confessor should add to his absolution a clause enabling the penitent wherever he should go to avail himself of the remissions of prelates that otherwise he could not enjoy^ — a desirable concession to one about to make a pilgrimage to some shrine where indulgences were to be had. While, on the one hand, this control of the confessor over his penitent might seem antagonistic to the papal supremacy in the matter of indulgences, on the other hand it served a purpose in furnishing an additional incentive to purchasers to confess to the priests who formed the retinue of the peripatetic qucestuaril, but the centralizing tendencies of the period were adverse to such claims. In the middle of the fifteenth century Cardinal Xicolo Tedeschi denies them ; soon afterwards Baptista Tornamala says that is a ^ Andreucci de Requisitis ad lucrandas Indulgentias, pp. xiii.-xviii. ^ Amort de Indulgent. II. 224. ^ 'Grone, Der Ablass, p. 134. * Palmieri Tract, de Pcenit. pp. 450, 475-6. * Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xx.si. Q. 2. 106 REQUISITES FOE INDULGENCES. matter of counsel, not of necessity, and at the commencement of the sixteenth Stefano Xotti, while in one passage he admits that the confessor when imposing penance can determine whether or not it may be redeemed with an indulgence, in another argues against it as irreconcilable with ]iapal control over the treasure which is the common property of the Church. At the same time he concedes that it is wise to obtain the licence of the confessor to gain indul- gences.^ Soon after this Prierias, while mentioning the opinion of some authorities that the consent of the confessor is requisite, dis- misses it as belittling unduly the power of indulgences,^ and from the absence of allusion to the matter in later writers, I presuaie that the claim was rapidly becoming obsolete. A Spanish Confesdonario of the early sixteenth century, however, presents a variant of the same principle in assuming that the intention of the confessor is requisite to the due application of the indulgence after it has been gained.^ Of the conditions requisite on the part of the grantee to obtain the benefit of an indulo-ence the first is that he should be in a state of grace. We have seen above, when discussing indulgences a poena et a culpa, that there has always been a strong tendency to regard them as efficient to remit the sin as well as the penalty, but in theory at least the Church has consistently held that they are good only as against the temporal punishment after the culpa has been removed by the sacrament, and that consequently their full benefit can only be enjoyed by him who is free from mortal sin and in a state of charity or grace. This serves to explain the somewhat indiscrim- inate distribution of unconditioned indulgences at papal benedictions, the canonization of saints and the like. Whatever the recipients might believe, the grantor can comfort himself with the conviction that the pardon is inoperative with those who are not fitted to enjoy it. Yet in this there have been the customary diiFerences of opinion and construction among theologians. Even before the theory of indulgences was worked out, Alain de ^ Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis fol. 146a, 1476, 148a, 149-50.— Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia § 15. '^ Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia ?? 23. ^ Confessionario breve y muy proveclioso {sine nota). THE STATE OF GRACE. 107 Lille declared that those who were not in eharitv a-ainetl nothiuir from them.^ Albertus Magnns approximates somewhat to the con- ception of remission of culpa when he explains that they are of double service to one in mortal sin, for the good works performed make him approach the state of grace, and the Church with its treasure renders him worthy of conversion.- Aquinas denies this; indulgences always specify that they are granted to those truly con- trite and confessed, and they alone derive benefit from them, and this became the ruling doctrine of the schools, though Adrian VI. recurs to the theory of Albertus Magnus.^ This is simple enough, but in practice a good many subsidiary questions arose, not always easy of solution. Francois de Mairone, for instance, tells us that if, after confession and absolution, a man falls into mortal sin before he can procure the indulgence it is good for i\\Q pcena of the sins absolved, but not for the last unabsolved one.^ Caietano points out that there are two kinds of indulgences — one in which it is simultaneous with the work prescribed, as for visiting a church ; the other for future work, as in assuming the cross ; in the former there can be no doubt that the state of grace is requisite at the time, in the latter opinions are divided. Also, when the pope, as is customary, grants five years' indulgence to those present in his chapel when he celebrates mass during Advent and Lent, is the sinner required to be contrite at the time, or can he reserve his contrition and subsec^uently, on experi- encing it, enjoy the remission?^ Domingo Soto says that if a man pays for the cruzada indulgence while in mortal sin, and subse- quently confesses and is absolved, he is released indeed from the culpa, but does not enjoy remission of the poena; nor, if the prescribed work is prayer, does it avail him — though Soto admits that the oppo- site opinion does not lack probability.^ Rodriguez insists that the rigid application of the rule throws a doubt over all indulgences, for no man can know whether he is in a state of o^race or not, where- ^ Alani de Insulis contra Hsereticos Lib. ii. Cap. xi. 2 Albert! Mag. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 18. ^ S. Th. Aquin. Sumuife Suppl. Q. xxvil. Art. 1 ad 1 — Jo. Friburgens, Suramse Confessor. Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 180, 186.— Adriani PP. VL Disput. in JX. Sentt. fol. clxii. * F. de Mayronis in IV. Sentt. Dist. xix. Q. ii. Art. 2. ^ Cuietani Opusc. Tract, x. Q. 2 ; Tract, xv. De Indulg. Cap. 4. « Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 3. 108 REQ UISITES FOR IND UL GENGES. fore it suffices for him to intend to be iu a state of grace. ^ Lavorio contests the opinion of those who hold that the state of grace is unnecessary ; good works, he says, in mortal sin will win many temporal benefits — health, wealth, honor and power, but not this.^ Jacopo Graffi asserts that the works prescribed can be performed in mortal sin, and subsequently the penitent can confess and take com- munion, when the indulgence will become operative,'^ but this is denied by some and doubted by others ; Viva explains that the pope could grant an indulgence which would thus be operative, but that in fact he never does.* Bellarmine solves the questions raised by Caietano by drawing distinctions. When the indulgence is granted to take effect at the moment, as in papal benedictions, it is only good to those in a state of grace at the time ; when it is for the purpose of placating God, all the works enjoined must be performed in a state of grace, for God is not placated by dead works ; when it is for the purpose of a crusade or for building a church, relieving the poor etc. it suffices if the last of the works is performed in a state of grace,^ This question as to the condition of the penitent while engaged in the pious works pre- scribed to earn the pardon is one which has long been debated. St. Antonino admits that it is desirable that all the works should be performed in grace, but this is only essential at the conclusion of the last one when the indulgence is earned.^ This was reducing the requirement of absence o^ culpa to the lowest denomination, and was very generally rejected by the theologians of the period. AVeigel says that a man must confess and accept penance and then remain in a state of grace until he has completed the works and gained the in- dulgence.^ Caietano asserts that the works must be performed in ^ Rodriguez, Bolla della Crociata, p. 28. ^ Lavorii de Indulgent. P. ll. Cap. xiv. n. 57-66. ^ Jac. a Graffiis Aurear. Decis. Append. Lib. ll. Cap. 5, n. 40. — Prierias had already asserted this and urged it as a reason why no one, however involved in sin, should hesitate to take indulgences. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indul- gentia § 20. * Em. Sa Aphor. Confessar. s. v. Indulgentla ^ 2. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. pp. 287-9. —Lavorii de Jubiloeo et Indulg. P. ii. Cap. xiv. n. 26-7. — Viva de Jubilteo ac Indulg. pp. 107-9. ^ Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. I. Cap. xiii. « S. Antonini Sumrn^ P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3, | 5. ^ Weigel Chiviculfe Indulgent. Cap. xiv. THE STATE OF GRACE. 109 charity or the indulgence is not acquired.^ Even as late as the mid- dle of the seventeenth century the high authority of Pasqualigo requires the performance of the works in charity.^ The laxer theory however inevitably prevailed. Prierias teaches that if the works are performed in sin they will revive if the penitent is in grace at the moment of obtaining remission or of death.^ Bellarmine, as we have just seen, admitted this with respect to some objects only, but this distinction was too refined, and the rule was generally adopted for all indulgences, thus reducing to a minimum the requirement of tem- porary abstinence from sin.* Polacchi, while admitting it, cannot abstain from a protest; in applying it to the thirty visits to the churches required for the jubilee, he says it seems incongruous and vile that a sinner can make twenty-nine rounds in mortal sin and without contrition, and then at the end of the thirtieth obtain the indulgence by confession.^ Such protests were unheeded, and all modern authorities, rigorist as well as laxist, seem to unite in the opinion that the state of grace is only necessary at the last moment of completing the prescribed works.® Onofri explains the process in his instructions to those desirous of obtaining the crociata indul- gence in Naples : you pay for the bull, you select a confessor, you perform the works required, and the last of these is the application of the bull by the confessor, at which moment you must be in a state of grace.^ The authoritative RaecoUa, while recommending as de- sirable that the performance of the works should be preceded by confession, admits that the state of grace is only necessary at the end : in the case of partial indulgences, confession is not ordinarily ^ Caietani Opusc. Tract. XV. Cap. ix. ^ Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubilaei Q. 49. ^ Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Ir.dulgentia, § 31. * Em. Sa Aphorism! Confessar. s. v. Jndu'gentia I 2. — Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentke requuHa n. 3. * Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII p. 289. * Juenin de Sacramentis Diss. xill. Q. vi. Cap. 3. — Antoine Theol. Moral. De Poenit. Append. Q,. iii. n. 1.— Habert Comp. Theologise, De Poenitentia Cap. V, Q. 8. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgcntia Art. ll. n. 41. — Bened. PP. XIV. Encyc. Inter pni'teritos § 76, 3 Dec. 1749 (Bullar. III. 106).— Liguori Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 531 ^ 9. — Mig. Sanchez Exposit. Bullse Cruciatse, pp. 122-3. — Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 63. ' Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, pp. 183-4 (Napoli, 1778). Cf. Vella, Dissertatio in Bullam S. Cruciata% T. 11. pp. 319 sqq. (Neapoli, 1789). 110 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. prescribed, but there is usually a clause "with at least a coutrite heart," meaning that there must be at least a true act of contrition with a firm intention to confess.^ Palmieri tells us that it is a dis- puted question among theologians whether the state of grace is requi- site for partial indulgences ; the common opinion is in the affirmative, but he inclines to the negative, while advising the other in practice as safer.^ These questions, moreover, are seriously complicated by the coexistence of venial sins with the state of grace ; while they do not involve the penalty of hell they must, if not remitted, incur that of purgatory. They are not required to be confessed ; indeed com- plete confession of them is a virtually impossible task, and therefore they may be held to be always present, while unless their culpa has been removed the indulgence has no power over their 'poena. Their existence during the performance of the enjoined works gives rise to many subtile distinctions ; they may corrupt the good works or they may be of a nature to incur their own future punishment, while that of all other mortals and venials has been remitted.^ Even a pro- pensity, we are told, to a venial sin, while performing the works, will prevent that sin from enjoying the benefit of the indulgence, though the other sins obtain it.^ In view of the extreme haziness of the distinction between mortals and venials it is evident that no one can feel certain that he is in a state of grace, and therefore Grone's advice is good that even when not conscious of mortal sin it is pru- dent when seeking an indulgence always to confess and take com- munion.^ It may be gathered from all this that the condition frequently ex- pressed in grants of indulgences, that they are for the truly repentant and confessed, has been subject to many different constructions. In the olden time, when indulgences were wholly a financial expedient, and the effort was to attract purchasers, there naturally was a laxer view entertained than at present when there is rarely such incentive. Even Gerson, after saying that only those actually confessed are capable of gaining indulgences, assumes that a vow or intention to confess may suffice, and St. Autonino accepts intention as sufficient 1 Eaccolta, p. xii. (Ed. 1886). ' Pahnieri Tract, de Poenit. p. 451. 3 Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 25-8. * Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulgent, p. 100. — Berlnger, Die Abliisse, p. 62. 5 Grone, Der Ablass, pp. 138-9. THE SI ATE OF GRACE. HI unless the iudulgeuee specifies that it mast have been performed within a month.^ It was argued that if the " vere poeniteutibus et confessis" was to be strictly construed, there would be few, indeed, who would gain indulgences, and there grew to be a general con- sensus of opinion that it was fulfilled if the applicant had confessed at the previous Easter and proposed to do so at the next.^ This lax construction continued until long after indulgences had ceased to be principally a method of raising money. In the seventeenth century the rule was that if a man confesses on Friday and sins mortallv on Saturday before o!)taiuing an indulgence, no further confession is necessary, and in the eighteenth Ferraris holds that no special con- fession is required.^ All this naturally met with dissent from the rigorists. Antoine argues that if indulgences could be gained by the mere performance of the trifling works prescribed, they would cause destruction and not edification ; they are not designed to favor torpor and negligence, but merely to supplement human infirmity and inability to merit pardon/ In the same sense as this was a celebrated pastoral instruction issued by Cardinal Denhoff, which had a wide circulation, with the approval of the papacy, and Avhich assumed that the penitent must exhaust his efforts, for the Church only supplies what he cannot accomplish. Giunchi, who quotes this, adds that the Church is not superior to divine law, and is powerless to release the sinner from the obligations imposed by Christ to earn forgiveness by fruits meet for repentance.' Habert takes practically the same position.^ By this time there were no interests at stake to stimulate opposition to these views, while the constant multiplication of iudulo-ences for trivial observances threatened to bring the whole system into contempt, so the rigorist view gradually prevailed. Benedict XIV. was the first to specify, fi)r his jubilee of 1750, that ^ Jo. Gersoais Regulae Morales, xxv. G. (Ed. 1488).— S. Antonini Summje P. I. Tit. X. Cap. 3, I 2. ^ Summa Angelica s. v. Tadulgentia n. 17. — Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia § 22.— Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis, fol. 11a. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia § 20. ^ Summa Diana s. v. Jubikeum u. 10, 12. — Potiti de Joriis Tract, de Suffragiis etc. p. 79. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia Art. ill. n. 33-4. * Antoine Theol. Moral. De Poenit. Append. Q. iii. n. 3. ^ Giunchi de Indulgentiis, pp. 71-4, 101-4. « Habert Comp. Theol. De Poenit. Cap. 5, n. 9. 112 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. not only confession but communion is I'equisite, and that this must be perfect in spirit as well as in form, for a sacrilegious sacrament would not suffice/ In 1759 the Congregation of Indulgences decided, against the opinion of the theologians, that confession, whether ex- pressed or not, is an esseatial condition of indulgences, and the approval of this by Clement XIII. gave it the force of law. This was so radical a reform that it brought remonstrances from every quarter, and, in 1763, it was modified by exempting from it, except for jubilee indulgences, those who followed the laudable custom of weekly confession.^ At the present time it may be assumed as a general rule that for plenaries both confession and communion are requisite, although those of prescription suffice, and several indul- gences can be gained after one communion. By a decree of 1862, Pius IX., however, conceded that chronic invalids, unable to take the Eucharist could have the sacrament commuted by their confessors into some other pious work.^ In view of the necessity of confession and communion as condi- tions for gaining an indulgence, it would appear to be implied that absolution must also be a requisite, yet this has only been insisted upon in recent times. The question was repeatedly put to the Con- gregation of Indulgences, and was consistently answered in the nega- tive in 1822, 1841, and 1847, but, in 1852, the decision was reversed and absolution was dciclared to be necessary. This leaves the matter in a somewhat dubious position, which the latest authority seeks to explain by a distinction, wholly unauthorized by the decrees, between mortal and venial sins.* Very similar to the above have been the changes of theory as to the disposition requisite to enable the penitent to enjoy the advantages of an indulgence. AVe have seen, when discussing those a culpa et 1 Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 37-8. ^ Decret. Authent. n. 246, 264, 440, 583. — Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 67-8. ' Eaccolta, pp. xvi.-xx. — Deer. Authent. n. 532. — Bouvier, Traite des In- dulgences p. 70. — Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 67. The Abbe Cloquet informs us (Archives de la S. Congr. des Indulgences, 1862, pp. 6, 30-1) that confession and communion are requisite for seven years' indulgences as well as for plenaries. * Cloquet, op. cit. pp. 42-44, 62. — Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 68. DISPOSITION OF THE PENITENT. 113 poena, how deplorably lax was the distribution of the treasure prior to the Reformation, and how the payment of the required sum was virtually all that was regarded as essential. Dr. ^Veigel, as the rep- resentative of the reforming council of Bale, however, taught that a proper disposition is necessary to merit indulgences.^ His words fell upon deaf ears, for Caietano tells ns that the universal opinion was that nothing was requisite save the state of grace, and as he is "sinojular" in deuvino- this he asks a candid hearins: for his arscu- ment, that those who seek indulgences merely as a substitute for penance do not gain them ; it is only those eager to perform satis- faction who are worthy of the aid obtainable from them.^ This reduced the value and the function of indulgences to the lowest expression, and, of course, found uo favor. Pauliano, it is true, argues at much length against the lax custom which prevailed that the annual confession of precept sufficed to fulfil the condition of vere poenitenfihus et confessis, but he regards, as the most important element in the disposition of the sinner, full and unwavering faith in the efficacy of the pardon which he is to gain.^ The council of Trent prudently abstained from any utterance on the subject, and the theologians were at liberty to frame definitions at their pleasure. Bellarmine says that he has found no writer who follows Caietano except Bartolommeo Fumo.^ Diana taught that indulgences act ex opere operato, irrespective of the devotion or zeal of the recipient.'' The Salamanca theologians hold that greater or less devotion has no influence on gaining the indulgence." Pignatelli argues that the application of the treasure does not have to operate interiorly on him to whom it is conceded, but only exteriorly, and therefore uo special disposition on his part is required. Want of devotion has no effect on the efficacy of the indulgence ; the treasure is super- abundant, and its application depends on the will of the grantor not on the disposition of the grantee ; God has made a bargain, and is obliged to accept what is offered without respect to any lack of dis- position on the part of the beneficiary. If an indulgence is offered ^ Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. 1. ^ Caietani Opusc. Tract, x. De Indulg. Cap. 1. ^ Pauliani de Jobilseo et Indulgentiis Lib. ii. Cap. ii. * Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. I. Cap. xiii. ° Summa Diana s. v. Lidulgentke reguisita n. 5. « Salmanticens. Cursus Theol. Moral. Append. Tract, vi. Cap. ii. n. 85. III.— 8 114 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. for visiting a church, he who visits it out of curiosity, or occupied with carnal thoughts or phiying and laughing, nevertheless gains it.^ Bianchi recognized the dilemma which existed ; if charity and de- votion are not requisite, indulgences send the sinner to paradise in a carriage ; if the penalty is remitted only in proportion to the zeal of the penitent, indulgences are superfluous and futile ; he therefore seeks a compromise, and, after prescribing as an absolute essential supernatural charity, including the love of God above all things, detestation of sin and firm resolve to avoid it, and readiness to mor- tify the flesh, he applies the universal solvent of the treasure, through which he asserts that the indulgence supplies all deficiencies.^ Viva reaches the result more directly, and asserts that the common opinion is that devotion has nothing to do with the efficacy of the indulgence.^ Andreucci follows Suarez in requiring only dispositio irroxima, which is either habitual, manifested by community of faith, or actual, which is shown by performance of the works enjoined ; the modern doctrine of the rigorists that perfect charity is requisite he holds to be pious but unnecessary.^ On the other hand, Dr. Amort argues that the immense multiplication of plenaries can only be justified by requiring zeal in the recipients, otherwise the popes would sin in granting them so freely ; they are everywhere attain- able with trifling exertion, and if nothing more is needed the effect on morals must be deplorable ^ Giuuchi admits that Andreucci represents the prevailing opinion, but he urges that the efficacy of the indulgence must be in proportion to the love and piety and de- votion with which the works enjoined are performed.^ Father de Charmes repeats this and adds that the disposition requisite to obtain complete remission of the poena is so rare that it cannot be employed as an example/ 1 Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, pp. 80, 86-7, 121, 123. Giacomo Piguatelli was one of the most distinguished theologians and canon lawyers of the seventeenth century. See Hurter, Xomenclator Literarius Theol. Catholicfe, II. 222. ■^ Bianchi, Foriero dcU' Anno Santo, i)p. 112, 128-9. ^ Viva de Jubilaeo ac Indulg. pp. 114-5. * Andreucci de Requisitis ad lucrandas Indulgentias, pp. viii.-xii. ^ Amort de Indulg. II. 211. ® Giunchi de Indulg. pp. 67-70. Cf. "Valsecchi, Delle Indulgenze e delle Disposizioni per conseguirle, pp. 190-1 (Firenze, 1734). Th. ex Oharmes Theol. Univ. Diss. v. Append. Cap. iii. Q. 4, Art. 1. DISPOSITION OF THE PENITENT. 115 A significant illustration of the antagonism iu this matter between theory and practice is afforded by the book which Padre Onofri wrote at the instance of the authorities to explain the crociata indul- gence granted to Naples in 1778. He insists that the perfunctory performance of the works prescribed will avail nothing ; there must be deep contrition, hatred of past sins and striving after God, for this is the divine law and the indulgence is conditioned by it. This apparently did not conduce to the success of the speculation, for in subsequent instructions he assures the people that all that is required is to take the bull and pay the price — "bolla presa, limosna pagata, tutto e fatto," for the visits to the churches and the prayers are sim- ple enough ; you must be in a state of grace at the end, and if you are in mortal sin confession is well for greater safety, but it is not required by the bull, nor is it needed for the Stations of Rome, and learned theologians hold that an act of contrition suffices with an intention of subsequent confession.^ In this case there was money at stake. In more modern times, where this incentive to laxity is absent, the tendency is to greater rigor. A collection of indulgences, in 1803, prescribes communion, a sincere detestation of all past sins, the firmest resolve to sin no more and an ardent desire to satisfy God by appropriate penance ; even after the indulgence is gained this ardor should not be relaxed and the performance of penitential works should be continued." Grone asserts that M'ithout the proper disposition indulgences cannot be gained ; there must be a complete change iu the old sinfid man, so that their worthy acquisition is a most important and most healing means of virtue, and urging the faithful to their zealous use is the chief duty of spiritual manuals and directors of souls.^ So the official Raccolta assures us that the most essential condition is the perfect detestation and complete abandon- ment of sin.^ All this is highly creditable, yet one cannot help ^ Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, pp. 197-202 (Napoli, 1778); Sermoni, pp. 121-3 (Xapoli, 1783). ^ Raccolta di Jndulgenze, pjj. 34—5 (Camerino, 1803). ' Grone, Der Ablass, pp. 3-4, 170-3. * Raccolta, p. xxv.— So Beringer (Die Ablasse, p. 47) asserts that contrition and amendment are indispensable conditions. The same doctrine is taught in Butler's Catechism — "Q. To whom does the Church grant indulgences? A. To such only as are in a state of grace and are sincerely desirous to amend their lives and to satisfy God's justice by penitential works." 116 REQ UISITES FOR IND UL GENCES. asking how those who hold such views can answer the argument of the older moralists, who pointed out that, if this be necessary, indul- gences are superfluous and useless, for the penitent, by such contri- tion, absolution and satisfaction, can escape the penalty as well as the guilt, while the sinner may not unreasonably look back with long- ing to the medieval times when he was practically taught that the payment of a prescribed sum assured his direct passage to heaven without detention in purgatory. While there has been this revolution of theory as to the necessity of the dispositio congrua there has not been much change with regard to the necessity of the performance of whatever works are prescribed. In the older time, when these works, for the most part, consisted in the payment of money or service in the holy wars of the Church, of course they were rigidly enforced. It is true that during the cru- sades there was a troublesome question Avhether a man who died, after taking the cross and before reaching Palestine, gained the indulgence, but this, it was settled, depended on the terms of the concession — if it was for taking the cross he gained it, if for service in the Holy Land, he did not.^ The rule was also laid down that the performance must be personal ; it is not easy to see in what the distinction consisted between this and the penitential works of satis- faction which could be performed vicariously, but Aquinas decided that no one can earn an indulgence and apply it to another, and his opinion was accepted, unless, indeed, it was otherwise provided in the grant.^ The popes were in the habit of granting Holy Land ^ S. Th. Aquin. Quodlibet ii. Art. xvi. — Jo. Friburgens. Summse Confessor. Lib. III. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 192. — Astesani .SumniEe Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 1. Q. 4. ^ S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. 5 ad 2 ; yummae Suppl. Q. xxvii. Art. 3. — Jo. Friburg. Summse Lib. in. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 188. — Astesani Summse Lib. V. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 3 ; Art. 5, Q. 4.— Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. Iviii. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 137-40, 278. There seems to have been some difference of opinion about this. Rodriguez (BoUa della Crociata, p. 100) admits the vicarious performance of the works, when conceded by the pope, but denies that a man can gain an indulgence and then transfer it. Pignatelli (II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 94) and Ferraris (Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indalgentia, Art. ll. n. 41) insist on personal performance except as to the act of giving the " alms." Grone (Der Ablass, pp. 139-40) seem to think there is no difficulty in having the work performed vicariouslv. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORKS. 117 indulgences to those who sent substitutes as well as to those who served personally, and in the grants to churches it became understood as a valuable feature in the concession, that the pardon could be earned by those who visited them by proxy and sent their oblations, for the qucestuarii who peddled the indulgence through the land served as messengers, and nothing was required but to pay the money to them.* With this understanding the personal and rigorous performance of the prescribed works was insisted on. Astesanus tells us that the indulgence is granted for the purpose expressed in it ; good will to perform does not suffice, nor intention, even if some unavoidable impediment arises.^ Pauliano holds that a pilgrim to Rome for the jubilee, who dies before he has completed the prescribed fifteen rounds of the churches, does not o-aiu the indulo-ence.^ Since the money feature of the system has become subordinate post-Triden- tine theologians are equally rigid. Tomas Sanchez and Lavorio assert that any defect in the performance arising from negligence vitiates the whole.* The utmost precision is declared to be indispen- sable, and every condition of time and place must be observed; if communion is prescribed on Sunday it does not suffice if taken on a week-day.'' It is true that Liguori is not so precise and makes allowance for human infirmities, but the Raceolta says the most minute attention to every detail is essential — whether prayers are to be recited standing or kneeling, at the sound of the bell, at a cer- tain hour, on a certain day, and any omission through ignorance, negligence, or impotence prevents the acquisition of the indulgence.® Yet there u^ould seem to be one way in which the performance of the works can be evaded. Viva tells us that if a man is confessed ^ The indulgence granted, in 1517, by Leo X. to the hospital at Xiirnberg, which will be found in the Appendix, is of this kind ; other similar grants by him are in the Regesta, Hergenrother, n. 11857, 16840. Azpilcueta (Comment, de Jobilseo, Notab. xxxi. n. 33) admits that such indulgences are possible, but says that he has never seen or heard of one, although the Portiuncula as we shall see, was a notorious example. 2 Astesani Summte Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 1, Q. 4; Art. 5, Q. 3. ^ Pauliani de Jobilaeo et Indulgentiis p. 179. * Th. Sanchez in Prsecepta Decalogi Lib. v. Cap. 5, n. 6. — Lavorii de In- dulg. P. I. Cap. xiii. n. 8-11. * Summa Diana s. v. Jubikeiim n. 13.— Antoine Theol. Moral. De' Poenit. Append. Q. iii, n. 2. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 264, 273. * S. Alph. de Ligorio Lib. vi. n. 534 § 14.— Raceolta, p. xiii. 118 REQ UISITES FOR IND UL GENCES. and absolved by virtue of the jubilee, aud then iutentioually omits the works, it is universally admitted that he remains absolved; some doctors even say that he commits no sin, others that it is venial and others that it is mortal.^ Yet this extreme rigor does not exclude some concessions to facili- tate the acquisition of indulgences. When prayers in churches are prescribed, if the penitent goes so early that the church is not open, or if the crowd is so great that he cannot enter, he can oifer his orisons outside." When visits and prayers at five altars are re- quired, if there are five altars in a church, Diana says that they can be made from the same spot, by merely changing the intention, while Trulleuch holds that there should be some motion of the body to distinguish one from another, and that when one altar is to be visited five times it can be done without change of position by inclining the head five times.^ There has been some discussion which of these views is correct, but the difference is immaterial, and the general principle is admitted, with perhaps the addition of crossing oneself at each change of altar.* Many indulgences, especially extraordinary jubilees, prescribe vis- iting a church and offering up prayers for the exaltation of the faith, the concord of Christian princes, the extermination of heresy, victory over the infidel, and the conservation and intention of the pope. This is a somewhat formidable task for an uncultured penitent, and it is charitably simplified. Van Ranst, indeed, asserts that it should not be a mere Pater and Ave, but a distinct prayer for the intentions of the pope, not mental but vocal.^ Diana however had long before said Ihat any prayers in any language suffice, uttered while sitting or standing, with head covered or uncovered, briefly or at length, and ^ Viva de Jubikeo ac Indulg. pp. 148-50. ^ Eodriguez, Bolla della Crociata, p. 99. — Sumnia Diana s. v. Bulla Cniciatce n. 13. — Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, pp. 215. Thus in the Roman jubilee we are told that the churches can be visited at night, and if the doors are closed it makes no difference. — Potiti de Joriis Tract, de Suffragiis etc. p. 185. ^ Summa Diana s. v. Bulla Cruciatfe n. 12, 14. — Trullench Exposit. Bullae Cruciatse Lib. I. | vi. Dub. 2, n. 4. * Leti MS. Tract, de Indulgentiis, fol. 35. — Busenbaum Medullte Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. Tract, ii. Art. 2, I 1, n. 17.— Onofri, ojx cit. pp. 209-10.— Mig. Sanchez Exposit. Bulla S. Cruciatse, pp. 141-2. * Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 111. INTENTION OF THE PENITENT. 119 that it is a disputed question whether mental prayer does not answer.' This has been generally accepted, the usual advice being five or seven Paters and Aves, or any prayer occupying equal time,^ and the practice was sanctioned, in 1841, by the Congregation of Indulgences, which decided that the penitent might use anv praver he pleased, and, in 1847, it added that no explicit intention expressed in words is recjuisite.^ Another condition for gaining indulgences, about which opinion has not been uniform, is the intention of the penitent. This is a point which escaped the attention of the older theologians, for when the pardons offered involved the gift of money or actual service or pilgrimage, intention to gain them was inseparable from the act, and there could arise no question for debate, ^yith the modern immense multiplication of indulgences to confraternities and for many ordi- nary religious observances, it becomes however a matter of some importance to determine whether they can be gained unknowingly and involuntarily. AVith regard to this opinions seem almost equally divided. Rodriguez asserts that there must be at least virtual inten- tion ; a visit to a church for recreation or to meet a woman does not suffice, though the object may be mixed without forfeiting the indul- gence.* Some moralists of distinction went even further than this ^ Summa Diana s. v. Indidgentice Requisita n. 6. - Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo p. 371. — Onofri, op. cif. pp. 210-11. — Raccolta di Indulgenze, Camerino, 1803, pp. 35-6. — Guglielmi, Recueil des Indulgences, pp. 143-4. — Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 73. — Cloquet, Les Plus faciles Indulgences, p. 6. — Mig. Sanchez Expos. Bullte S. Cruciatte p. 145. — Le Jubile Universel de 1875, p. 23 (Toulouse). — ^laurel und Schneider, Die Abliisse, p. 89. ^ Decreta Authentica n. 534, 620. * Rodriguez, Bolla della Crociata, p. 98. It is perhaps necessary to explain that moralists classify intention as actual, virtual, habitual and interpretative. Actual is when the intention is present and active during the performance of an act. Virtual is when an act is per- formed in virtue of an intention previously formed and not revoked, though not remembered at the moment. Habitual is when the previous intention has not been revoked, but has been so interrupted as to be no longer effective. Interpretative is that which a man has not but would have if he happened to think of the matter (Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca s. v. Intentio). Yet these definitions are by no means universally agreed upon. There are two or three different formulas respecting virtual intention. Viva (Theol. Trutina in Prop. XXVIII. Alexand. VIII.) and Bouvier (Traite des Indulgences, p 63) cla.ss habitual and interpretative together. In the infinite variety and gradation of 1 20 REQ UISITES FOB INB ULGENCES. and argued tliat if the work were performed out of vain-glory or other evil motive still the indulgence was obtained.^ The laxer school in general simply held that no intention is necessary ; the indulgence works ex opere operato and can be acquired unconsciously ; a visit to a church made through curiosity will gain an indulgence that happens to be attached to it on that day,^ The rigorists in- sist on actual or at least virtual intention.^ As a rule however it seems to be generally accepted that interpretative suffices and is re- quired, but virtual would appear to be regarded as desirable, for there has been for the last two hundred years the frequent repetition of the advice to form every morning the intention of gaining all the indulgences that may be attached to any pious works that one may perform that day, for in this May a virtual intention, which lasts for twenty-four hours, exists and secures beyond doubt any pardons that might otherwise be lost, and thus during a life-time a large amount of spiritual treasure is accumulated for the hour of death. Serrada adds that it is well to supplement this with an application to the souls in purgatory of all that can be so applied, for then if one is not in a state of grace to enjoy the indulgences they will at least be utilized and not return to the body of the treasure. In this way, moreover, as Bouvier says, it becomes unnecessary to know what are the indulgences attached to a certain act, or even that there are any ; they are acquired all the same.* There has been some dispute as to the necessity of another condition on the part of the recipient — that he should at the time be in need human thought and motive it is of course impossible to frame in the closet a classification which will not break down in the application. ' Salmanticens. Cursus Theol. Moral. Append. Tract, vi. Cap. ii. n. 81. — Gab. Beati Qusestiones Morales Q. 10 de Legibus n. 20; Fr Bellegambe En- chirid. de Jubilseo Sect. iii. Q. 4 (Amort de Indulg. II. 191, 194). ^ Summa Dianas, v. Indulgentice requisita n. 5. — Tofi da Bettona, Trattato dell' Indulgenza d'Assisi, p. 89. — Leti MS. Tract, de Indulg. Sect. 5. — Viva de Jubilseo ac Indulg. pp. 110-13. * Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 101. — Raccolta di Indulgenze, ji. 34 (Camerino, 1803). * Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 121-5, 251-2, 268. — Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 314-15. — S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 534, ^ 14. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 218. — Les Scapulaires, Paris, 1870, p. 5. — Raccolta, p. xii. (Ed. 1886). — Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 63-4,— Palmieri Tract, de Pcenit. pp. 451, 481. UNCERTAINTY. 121 of the indulgence. This seems to be decided in the affirmative for the sensible reason that if a man not in want of indnlo^ence can sain them and lay them up, as it Avere, in stock for future consumption, it would afford temptation to sin, arising from the knowledge that the punishment was already paid for in advance.^ Yet it is not easy to distinguish morally between this and the practice (see p. 83) which includes in the benefits of indulgences sins committed in ex- pectation of obtaining them. From all of the above it is evident that the a-aining; of an indul- gence is a very uncertain thing, and that in modern times there can be no such confidence felt as was so freely expressed during the middle ages, when sinners were taught that death-bed plenaries carry the soul direct to heaven, and when the absolution formula under them declared " I restore thee to the innocence in which thou wert when baptized."^ The Church has now no such object in fos- tering certainty as it had then, while, on the other hand, in the existing lavish liberality with which indulgences are granted and the extreme facility of the w^orks prescribed, if there were no doubt as to their acquisition there w'ould be little demand for masses for the dead. Even before the Reformation, however, the individual rigor of Caietano, as w^e have seen, called in question the validity of the numerous indulgences issued without sufficient cause, and the winning of them by those who had not the dispositio congrua of satis- fying for themselves, the inference from which was that any sinner who sought one for the purpose of escaping penance failed to secure it.^ Caietano's disciple, Bartolommeo Fumo, deplores the abund- ance of indulgences wdiich render men prone to sin and tepid in satisfying for it, whence it arises that nearly all are miserably de- ceived and fail to obtain the remission which they think they gain.* After Pius V. had forbidden eleemosynary indulgences there was less hesitation in admitting their uncertainty. Pallavicino finds in this the extraordinary reason in their favor that as no one feels con- ^ Potiti de Joriis Tract, de Siiffragiis etc. p. 69. ^ S. Antonini Sumnise P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, | 5. If St. Antonino objects to this clause it is because he regards it as superfluous. 3 Caietani Opusc. Tract, ix. Q. 1, 2 ; Tract, x. Q. 1. * Aurea ArmiHa s. v. Induhjentia n. 12, 13. 1 22 REQ UISITES FOR IND ULGENCES. fident of gaining them they lead him to supplement them with pious works, not recognizing that this, carried out to its legitimate con- clusion, is an unanswerable argument against the whole system/ Dr. Amort assures us that, in spite of the theologians who seek to prove the facility of obtaining indulgences, the people have not lost the true doctrine, and nearly all believe that a plenary is so difficult to earn that hardly two men out of a hundred thousand succeed.^ Pere Antoine virtually agrees with this when he says that there are few indeed who do so.' Recent authorities for the most part agree as to this uncertainty, and it is commonly urged as a reason for seeking to get as many of them as possible, apparently with the conviction that imperfect ones may supplement each other.* There is another question Avhicli has been touched upon above (p. 44) and which requires further consideration, as it has given rise to an immense amount of controversy — to what extent the gaining of an indulgence releases the penitent from the obligation of per- forming penance. This has become of less importance in modern times with the multiplication of plenaries and the minimizing of sacramental satisfaction, but there is a principle involved over which the laxist and rigorist schools have conducted an active discussion. Among the latter, however disguised, there is to be discerned a curious secret sense of doubt as to the real efficacy of the pardons and a strong desire to conceal this by inventing reasons more or less I)lausible to answer the inevitable question why, if indulgences are worth w^iat they promise, it should be necessary or advisable to perform the penance which their function is to replace. In the earlier period plenaries were given only for crusades and ^ Pallavicini Hist. Cone. Trident. Lib. xxiv. Cap. xii. n. 6. ^ Amort de Indulgent. II. 255. ' Antoine Theol. Moral. De Poenit. Append. Q. iii. n. 3. * Grone, Der Ablass, p. 141. — The Golden Book of the Confraternities, p. 283. — Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 26-7, 31. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgenees, p. 151. — Beringer, Die Abliisse, p. 62. The latest authorit)^, however, argues that indulgences are easily acquired. The works are plain and simple and can be performed with facility ; "the dif- ficulty of placing oneself in a state of grace is not so very great ; " the only real difficulty lies "in being detached fi-om every affection to venial sin," but this does not infer abstention from venial sin. — L6picier, Indulgences, their Origin, Nature and Development, pp. 342-3 (London, 1895). I PERFORMANCE OF PENANCE. 123 scarcely come iuto consideration, while partials were mostly for definite portions of enjoined penance, and would certainly seem to remit them, yet Alain de Lille, William of Anxerre, and William of Paris emphatically insist on the performance of the penance, the latter even saying that it would be the height of folly not to perform it.^ William of Rennes timidly observes that, if tlie penitent gives the requisite "alms" piously and devoutly and with full faith in the indulgence, he thinks, without prejudice to others, that he will not transgress if he omits the penance." Cardinal Henry of Susa admits that there is no question as to plenaries, for he who obtains one flies at once to heaven if he dies without further sin, but as to partial remissions of enjoined penance he presents an elaborate argu- ment which is worth condensing. The indulgence undoubtedly releases from penance, quoad the Church Militant, but he who gains one had better not use it in this world, but reserve it for purgatory. He is not compelled to perform the penance, for it is replaced by the indulgence, but it enervates the satisfaction, and he cannot know whether the priest has imposed what is requisite, which is rarely the case now-a-days. Besides, many mortal sins are embraced in the commission of a single one, and as what is not purged here must be purged in purgatory, he is a fool and a simpleton who does not reserve it, for thus he will suffer that much less in purgatory, and the punishment there of a single day is worse than a hundred here.* Of course, when indulgences came to be considered as covering all the penance that ought to be enjoined and not merely what was enjoined, part of this reasoning did not apply, but nearly all the leading authorities throughout the middle ages followed this line of thought, though various excuses were presented for it — indulgences remit the penance, but still its performance is advisable, and this applied to plenaries as Avell as partials.* There were some exceptions ^ Alani de Insulis contra Hsereticos Lib. ll. Cap. xi. — Guill. Altissiodor. Lib. IV. De Relaxionibus (Amort de Indixlg. II. 61). — Guill. Paris, de Sacram. Ordinis Cap. xiii. '^ Guill. Eedonens. Po^till. super S. Raymundi Summae Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. § 5- ^ Hostiens. Aureae Summae Lib. v. De Remiss. § 8. * Alex, de Ales Summae P. IV. Q. xxiii. Art. ii. Membr. (5.— Alb. Mag. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 17.— S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Seutt. Dlst. XX. Q. iii. ad 4; Summae Suppl. Q. xxv. Art. 1 ad 4. — Jo. Friburgens. Summae Confessor. 124 REQUISITES FOB INDULGENCES. to this. Bishop William Durand and Pierre de la Palu assert that iudulgences do not release from penance, in spite of the argument freely used that if this is the case the pope is deceiving the faithful.' Dr. Weigel boldly says that forty days of penance are much better than forty days of indulgence, and therefore it is childish to replace performance of satisfaction with an indulgence, although the latter may help the sick and those inclined to sin.^ On the other hand, Durand de S. Pourgain holds that if the penance is performed the in- dulgence does no good, except that the sjuperfluous merit is carried to the credit of the performer and set against his future sins, while Baptista Toruamala says that the equivalent has been given from the treasure, and that to require satisfaction is to belittle the power of indulgences.' The rigid virtue of Cardinal Caietano swept away all subterfuges. An indulgence, he says, has no power to make men better; it confers no merits, but only remits a penalty which could be remitted by penance ; no one who neglects to satisfy acquires the fruits of an indulgence ; if men would ask for and perform sufficing penance, they would render themselves worthy of indulgences, and the golden age of the Fathers would return. Unfortunately even Caietano could not elevate himself above the sordid venality of the period, and the one form of penance which he recommends is the payment of money — if enough is paid for the indulgence it restrains avarice and produces the most medicinal effect.^ Caietano's disciple, Bar- Lib. III. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 190.— Astesani Summte Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 1. Q. 3.— Summa Pisanella s. v. Indulgentia ^ iv. — S. Antonini SummEe P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, § 3. — Steph. ex Nottis Oidus Remissionis fol. 9«, 1466, 150a. — Summa Sylves- trina s. v. Indulgentia § 23. Stefano Notti, however, draws a distinction between plenaries and jiartials (o;x cit. fol. 1656). ' Durandi Speculi Lib. iv. Partic. iv. De Pcen. et Remiss, n. 9. — P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. ad 2 Concl. 2. ^ Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. viii. xxx. xxxix. xlii. ^ Durand. de S. Porciano in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. § 9. — Summa Rosella s. V. Indulgentia § 15. In 1373 Gregory XI. ordered that all confessional letters empowering the confessor to grant plenary indulgence at death should contain a clause con- ditioning it on the penitent's fasting on Fridays for a year after receiving the letter (Tangl, Die ptipstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 307-9), but this does not appear to have been long enforced. * Caietani Opusc. Tract, vili. De Indulg. Q. 2 ; Tract, x. De Indulg. Q. 1 ; Tract. XV. Cap. x. ; Tract, xvi. De Indulg. Q. iv. As we have seen above, in the St. Peter's bull Liquet omnibus, which led to PERFORMANCE OF PEXANCE. 125 tolommeo Fnmo, reflects the confusion of tliouglit on the subject in the sixteenth century ; indulgences, he says, are effective only for the worthy, but he who neglects to satisfy for himself is unworthy — yet it is not necessary to perform the enjoined penance, although it is advisable to do so.^ The council of Trent, as usual, threw no light on the question, although it affected the validity of all the countless indulgences that the faithful were everywhere seeking as a precaution against purga- tory, and the theologians were left to wrangle over the insoluble problem. They were beginning to divide themselves into the rigorist and laxist schools, although there was no well-defined line of de- marcation, and on this subject the sim[)le considerations of morality were somewhat obscured by the question involved of the papal power as the distributor of the treasure. Thus in spite of the rigidity of S, Carlo Borromeo, when, in 1576, the jubilee of 1575 was ex- tended to Milan, he urged his people to gain it, because they would thereby be liberated wholly from the obligation of satisfying in this life or in purgatory for every sin which they had committed since baptism, as if they were again regenerated in the sacred font.^ Domingo Soto, as a rule, was not given to laxity, but he asserts that William of Paris and Pierre de la Palu and Cardinal Caietano were in error in requiring the performance of penance ; the bulls pre- scribe what works are to be done ; if penance is also necessary, the pope is deceiving the faithful;^ These views merely reflected the current practice. In 1581 the council of ivouen, in deploring the multiplication and facility of indulgences, complains that the gravest crimes are pardoned without requiring satisfaction or restitution of ill-acc|uired gains, weakening ecclesiastical discipline and encouraging the wicked to the commission of even p-reater offences.* It was to the Lutheran revolt, the "salutary penance" to be imposed on sinners was the payment of money for the building. ^ Aurea Armilla s. v. Indulgentia |§ 13, 17. ^ S. Carlo Borromeo, Letere Pastoral! per il Santo Giubileo (Acta Eccles. Mediolanens. Mediolaui 1846, p. 1291). — "Per la plenaria Indulgenza del Giubileo potete esser liberati affatto da ogni obligo di sodisfattione o pena temporale c' habbiate da fare in questa vita o dopo nel fuoco del Purgatorio per qualsivoglia peccato vostro, dal giorno che riceveste il sacro Battesimo sino all' hora presente, com foste hora regenerati nel sacro Battesimo." ^ Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii, Art. 3. * C. Rotomagens. ann. 1581, De Episc Offic. n. 36 (Harduin. X. 1234). 126 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. be expected, therefore, that "benignant" theologians like Escobar should assert that a plenary extinguishes all penance, and that Pas- qualigo should argue that indulgences are multiplied in order to enable sinners too tepid to satisfy for themselves to satisfy out of the treasure.^ In this, however, an exception came to be made in favor of so-called "medicinal" penance. We have seen (II. p. 299) the growth of this description of penance in spite of the effort of the council of Trent, and it afforded a convenient middle ground, as it is not essential to satisfaction. Various authors, therefore, took the position that, while plenaries relieved the sinner from all vindictive satisfaction, they did not exempt from the performance of observances imposed for his future amendment,'-^ but the high authority of Ferraris denies even this, and asserts that it is a mistake to regard the per- formance of medicinal penance as necessary. He thinks it well, however, for the confessor to impose and the penitent to accept some light penance, for, though it is not essential, it adds greatly to his merit.^ This is measurably a return to the teaching of the school- men, which is also accepted by Luvorio, while Polacchi suggests a more ingenious compromise, that when the penance is light it should be performed ; when onerous an indulgence can be taken to escape it.^ Biauchi argues that when a penitent obtains a plenary the confessor is not to impose any penance, except what is absolutely necessary to perfect the sacrament.^ Benedict XIV. was desirous of placing a limit on all this laxity, which he characterized as too great, and, in the elaborate instructions for his jubilee of 1750, he required that penance should be imposed, and that the penitent should endeavor to perform it with all his strength,^ but Liguori argues this away, and concludes that any penance will answer that perfects the sacrament.^ Benedict's action led to penance being ^ Escobar Theol. Moral. Tract, vil. Examiu. iv. n. 34.— Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubilei Q. xxxiii. n. 5-8. 2 Quarti, Trattato del Giubileo, pp. 36, 38, 250.— Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, pp. 3, 8, 12, 42-i. ^ Ferraris Prompta Bibloth. s. v. Lidulgentia Art. ill. u. 4-8. * Lavorii de Indulgent. P. il. Cap. x. n. 93-4. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. pp. 336-7. ^ Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 129. « Bened. PP. XIV. Encyc. Inter prceteritos I 65, 3 Dec. 1749 (BuUar. III. 100). ' S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 519. PERFORMANCE OF PENANCE. 127 prescribed in the succeeding jubilees of 1775 and 1825/ and in 1778 Onofri accepts it, although in opposition to the weight of theological opinion, because, he says, indulgences are now so numerous and common, that without such a rule there would be no opportunity left of imposing sacramental penance^ — a somewhat damaging argument which he borrowed from the learned Zaccaria.^ Among those less inclined to extreme laxity there is every shade of opinion to be found, from Rodriguez who tells us that those seek- ing indulgences should be exhorted to perform penance, because, although it is unnecessary, the people ought not to be allowed to know it, and Henriquez who says that the penitent ought not to think that he is released from penance because it is part of the sacrament and trains him in good works,^ to Valere Renaud, van Est, and Juenin, who hold that full satisfaction must be performed, and that otherwise an indulgence is valueless.^ Chiericato follows Caietano, though he admits that this is in opposition to the common opinion of theologians and the current practice of the Church, while Pontas characterizes it as a great mistake to suppose that, by a few short prayers and trifling alms, a man can escape the penalty of all his sins, for the surest way of obtaining indulgences is to merit them by laborious penance.® Dr. Amort recpiires satisfaction de congruo ^ Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 138. Leo XII., in proclaiming the jubilee of 1825, explains that some satisfaction is requisite to perfect the sacrament, and therefore orders a light penance to be imposed — Const. Charitate Chrlsti §§ 6,7, 25 Dec. 1825 (Bullar. Contin. VIII. 554). I have not been able to consult the encyclical of Pius IX. proclaiming the jubilee of 1850, but in one which he issued in 1851 there is no reference to the injunction of penance. — Pii PP. IX. Encyc. Ex allis (Acta P. I. pp. 348-52). * Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, pp. 238-41. In 1783, however, Onofri asserts that the penitent has nothing to do save to perform the visits to churches prescribed in the bull — if with devotion, so much the better, if without he still gains the indulgence.— Sermoni, pp. 124-5. ^ Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 12-15. * Rodriguez, Esplicazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, pp. 8, 29, 83. — Hen- riquez Summse Theol. Moral. Lib. v. Cap. xxii. n. 6. ^ Reginaldi Praxis Fori Pcenit. Lib. vil. n. 197.— Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. ^§ 3, 8.— Juenin de Sacramentis Diss. xill. Q. 5, Cap. 4 : Q. 6, Cap. 2. ^ Clericati de Pcenit. Decis. iii. n. 11-15.— Pontas, Diet, de Cas de Con- science s. v. Indulgences. See also Antoine, Theol. Moral. De Pcenit. Append. ]28 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. — that is, as much as the penitent can endure — if dc condigno was exacted, all indulgences would be in vain. This principle, he says, was then (1732) almost universal in France, and he proceeds to justify it by some forcible arguments based on his theory (supra, p. 7) of the use of indulgences in the primitive Church. From the time of the apostles for a thousand years the Church granted no indul- gence which relieved the sinner from performing congruous satis- faction : therefore it either had not the power, or it was a cruel mother depriving her children of the relief which was within reach ; but the latter supposition is impossible, wherefore the former must be correct. Again, from the time of the apostles to the year 1391, there was granted no plenary indulgence attainable by men, women, and children of every race and nation, and thus again the Church w^as tyrannous, depriving her children of the treasure and the blood of Christ, and forcing them to choose between the severest penance and purgatory, or else she was ignorant that there was any remedy. There is, moreover, no trouble in gathering abundant evidence from conciliar canons and papal decrees, since the introduction of indul- gences, that satisfaction is requisite as well as indulgences ; the diffi- culty seems to be that the practice of the Church is not in accordance with its teaching, and it ought to recognize that to remove the obligation of satisfaction by indulgences is inconsistent with divine justice, prudent legislation, and the good of the Church and of the faithful.^ Father de Charmes is equally uncompromising, and re- duces the value of indulgences till it is scarce more than nominal ; they are efficacious only with those intending to satisfy God fully, and to the argument that if this be the case they are useless, he replies that they diminish the satisfaction required in proportion to the greater or less fervor and piety of the penitent.^ In this debate between the rival schools of laxists and rigorists the only possible arbiter refused to render a decision. When, in 1737, the question was formally put to the Congregation of Indulgences, stating that it was a subject of great discussion between theologians whether the enjoined works suffice or whether works of satisfaction § iii., Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 44, Giunchi de Indulgent, p. 131, Feyjoo, Cartas, T. I. n. 45, Valseechi, Dalle ludulgenze, Cap. xiv. 1 Amort de Indulgent. II. 208-9, 247. ^ Th. ex Charmes Theol. Univ. Diss. V. Append. Cap. iii. Q. iv. Art. 1. PERFORMANCE OF PENANCE. 129 are requisite iu addition, the only answer was that the matter was postponed, that no further enquiries must be made about it.^ Thus in the absence of any authoritative definition by the Holy See there would appear to be considerable latitude of practice, and it would not be easy to determine what is the prevailing custom, though the question has lost much of its practical importance in the minimized penance of tlie present day, which is scarce more than enough to maintain the integrity of the sacrament. Vindictive satisfaction having been virtually superseded by indulgences easily gained, it makes little difference, except in theory, whether it is performed or not. Still, as of old, there are diiferences of opinion. Bishop Bou- vier holds that the penitent should never be authorized to neglect his penance on the plea that he has obtained or will obtain an in- dulgence, although a diminished penance may be imposed on that account. Jouhanneaud, in stating that it is safer to perform it, is apparently careful to avoid assuming that this is requisite, for he bases his advice on the ground either of its being a remedy, or a precaution for the future, or a token of gratitude, or a means of edification, or simply an exhibition of obedience and faith.^ "The Golden Book of the Confraternities" is equally careful when it cau- tions the penitent that it would be a fatal error so to rely on the cer- tainty of having gained an indulgence as to neglect the performance of penance.^ Palmieri says that a plenary indulgence supersedes the performance of penance, as it removes the foundation on which the injunction of penance rests, but this is not the case with partials,* Miguel Sanchez summarizes the situation by saying that it is a question constantly arising in the confessional, and that there are three opinions concerning it. I. That the penitent is in no way released from the obligation by a plenary indulgence : this is proba- ble and safe and is maintained by many weighty doctors. II. That he is so released : this opinion, though unsafe, does not lack proba- ^ " Dilata, et ad mentem Eminentissimi Preefecti quje est ut prsesens causa amplius non proponatur." — Cloquet, Archives de la S. C. ues Indulgences, 1862, p. 32. ^ Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 30-2. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indul- gences, p. 190. ^ Golden Book of the Confraternities, p. 283. * Palmieri Tract de Pcenit. p. 477. III.— 9 130 REQUISITES FOR INDULGENCES. bility, aud is defended by man}- theologians. III. That a distinction is to be drawn between vindictive aud medicinal penance, of which the first is discharged by a plenary and the second is not : this is the most probable opinion, and can be safely followed, while all agree that penance must be imposed in the sacrament.' It would not appear that seven hundred years of continuous debate has brought the question to a settlement. ^ Mig. Sanchez Exposit. BuUte S. Cruciatfe, pjj. 117-8. I CHAPTER III. DEVELOPMENT. Two causes have been at work to induce the assignment of an unduly early date to the introduction and development of indul- gences. On the one hand, there has been the natural desire to justify the Tridentine assertion of their origin in the remotest times, and, on the other, there is the material furnished for this by the incurable tendency of unscrupulous ecclesiastics to manufacture evi- dences in support of any claims which interest may lead them to advance. We shall have ample opportunity to consider this latter feature hereafter, and need here only review its earlier and less skilful manifestations. The desire to find evidence of the use of indulgences in the primi- tive Church has led to the exhaustive scrutinv of all writings and documents from the apostolic period to the early middle ages, with the object of discovering facts or expressions which may be inter- preted in favor of the foregone conclusion. Partly these have been alluded to (p. 5) in describing the various theories evolved by recent authors, and their value may be estimated by the curious list of early indulgences printed by Dr. Amort, who seems to imagine that any imposition of penance infers an indulgence.^ The appeals of peni- tents to Rome for a mitigation of canonical penance — of which cases have been incidentally alluded to above, and which at times became an evil energetically protested against by the local prelates^ — have also been cited to show the supreme papal power of indulgence, although they were only the current exercise of the episcopal and sacerdotal discretion to modify the canonical penalties, which was not indulgence, although the original indulgences developed from it.^ ' Amort de Indulgent. I. 28 sqq. ^ C. Salegunstad. ann. 1022 Cap. 18.— Ivon. Decreti P. XV. Cap. 184.— C. Lemoviceus. ann. 1032 Sess. i. (Harduin. VI. li. 890). ^ See, for instance, the case of Eriath, which has been quoted as an instance of Papal indulgence. In 867 he is sent back by Nicholas I. to Archbishop 132 DEVELOPMENT. Considerable stress moreover has beeu laid ou a letter of John VIII., in 879, replying to the question of the Frankish bishops as to whether those who fell in battle against the pagan Northmen could obtain pardon for their sins.^ The papal assurance, that so far as was right he absolved and commended them prayerfully to the Lord, cannot by any stretch of interpretation be regarded as an indulgence, for the question involved is salvation and not the temporal pains of purgatory. Somewhat more germane to the subject is a passage in a Roman Sacramentary, conjectured by JNIabillon to belong to the ninth century, which has been triumphantly cited since its discovery as the earliest example of a genuine indulgence. It says that the vigil of the feast of the 1480 martyrs (June 22) is to be celebrated in silence and fasting, and for this one day a year of penance will be remitted.^ This is simply an instance of the commutations and redemptions habitual under the Penitentials (Vol. II. p. 150), and is instructive as illustrating the mode in which that element of indul- gences developed itself. Another case upon which much stress has been laid is that of Solomon Bishop of Constance, about 916, who, finding himself the unwilling cause of three malefactors being put to death, granted them '' indulgentiam" before their execution and gave them Christian burial ; then, going to Rome, he prayed the pope to grant him penance and " indulgentiam," which was accord- ingly done.^ This is a simple case of reconciliation and the removal of irregularity, and its citation as an indulgence is only explicable by the confusion arising from the technical significance attached after the eleventh century to the ^vord indulgeniia, which originally was Hincmar with directions to subject him to twelve years' penance for presby- tericide, during which, at the end of five years, he is to be readmitted to com- munion (Nich. PP. I. Epist. 119). It is evident at a glance how little this has in common with a modern indulgence, which can only be granted to a man in a state of grace. ^ Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 186. — "Quantum fas est absolvimus precibusque illos Domino commendamus." ^ " Mense Junio die xxii. sanctorum martyrum mille cccclxxx. quorum vigilia cum silentio et jejunio est celebranda : et concessum est eis pro illo uno die annum dimittere in pcenitentia." — Mabillon Musseum Italicum, T. I. P. I. p. 67. Cf. Palmieri Tract, de Pcenit. p. 456 ; Papebrochii Catal. Pontiff. Diss. XXIX. ^ 8. •^ Ekkehardi Junior, de Casibus S. Galli Cap. 1 (Goldast. Rer. Alamann. Scriptt. I. 19). Cf. Mabillon Pr^ef in Ssec. v. Ord. S. Bened. Cap. 109. I EAEL Y FRA UD ULENT IND UL G ENCES. 133 used in the general sense of pardon. Somewhat similar is another case frequently cited — that of St. Ulric of Augsburg, who, about 970, towards the close of his life, made a pilgrimage to Rome to save his soul, whence, after performing his vows, his biographer tells us that he returned with many gifts of emoluments and indul- gences— the word here evidently having the meaning of privileges.* Equally fntile is the effort to discover an indulgence in the benedic- tion pronounced, in 1032, by the Archbishop of Bourges, at the close of the first session of the council of Limoges, when he invoked for those present the blessing of God and prayed that he would concede to them pardon for their sins.^ These are all the historic cases that I have found adduced as evidence of the existence of indulgences prior to the eleventh century, and their character is such as to prove the contrary of that which they are alleged to support. With regard to the fabulous and more or less fraudulent early indulgences, we may postpone for more convenient discussion here- after the tablets in the Roman churches claiming concessions from the time of Sylvester I. downwards. Setting these aside, the earliest would appear to be one of ten and twelve years, said to have been granted in the middle of the sixth century to St. Patrick and the Irish, the spurious character of which is generally acknowledged.' Xext in order is an indulgence of seven years and sev^en quarantines, granted by Gregory the Great to those visiting the Roman churches. This is confidently asserted by the schoolmen of the thirteenth cen- tury, who were echoed by Boniface VIII. when making grants to the churches, and it has been persistently repeated since, in spite of the protests of orthodox scholars, such as Fathers Papenbroek and Pagi, the former of whom expresses his wonder that such men as Baronius and Bellarmine should give it credence. It probably arose from a passage in John the Deacon, who relates that Gregory was the first to regulate the " stations " of the Roman basilicas by preach- ing in them twenty homilies at various times. He says nothing of indulgences or pardons or any other graces, which of course were unknown at the period. The Liber Diunius, or formulary for the 1 Gerardi Vit. S. Udalrici August. Cap. 21 (Migne, CXXXV. 1042). Cf. Mabillon loc. cif. 2 C. Lemovicens. ann. 1032 Sess. i. (Harduiii. VI. i. 875). Cf. Chr. Lupi Dissert, de Indulg. Cap. 5. ' Amort de Indulg:. I. 41. 134 DEVELOPMENT. use of the papal scribes up to at least the eighth century, in its col- lection of formulas for the restoration, building, rebuilding and dedi- cation of churches, the collocation of relics and the privileges of monasteries and other pious foundations, has naturally nothing in the nature of a concession of indulgences.^ Next to St, Gregory comes a letter ascribed to St. Ludgcr of Miinster, describing a visit paid by Leo III. to Charlemagne, in 803, ^vhen he consecrated many churches, chapels and altars, endowing them with indulgences and granting special ones to the church of Werden, where he canonized St. Swibert. The fraudulent character of this document has been sufficiently demonstrated by Father INIorin, who shows that it must have been composed at least three centuries later than the time of St. Ludger.^ Baronius, also, on the strength of a tablet exhibited in the church of SS. Sylvester and Martin, accepts an indulgence of three years and three quarantines, asserted to have been granted by Sergius II., in 847, but the comparatively recent origin of the tablet is shown by both Papenbroek and Pagi. The church, in fact, was in the hands of Greek monks till, in 1294, it was handed over to the Carmelites, perhaps the least scrupulous in such matters of all the orders.^ The chapel of S. Mary of Einsiedlen at Constance boasts of an indulgence granted, in 964, by Leo VIII., which, as it is a culpa et poena for all contrite and confessed visiting the chapel, must be of fifteenth century manufacture.* ^ Papebrochii Catalog. PontifF. Diss. xxix. §§ 10, 15.— Pagi Critica ann. 847 n. 4. — Jo. Diaconi Vit. S. Greg. Mag. Lib. ii. Cap. xviii. — Lib. Diurn. Roman. Pontiff. Cap. v. vii. (Hoffmann, Nova Collectio Scriptor. T. II.). Yet Palmieri (Tract, de Indulg. pp. 453-55) endeavors to prove the truth of the legend and declares it to be most probable. ^ Baron. Annal. ann. 804 n. 2. — Morin. de Pcenit. Lib. x. Cap. xx. — Pape- brochii loc. cit. n. 7. ^ Baron. Annal. ann. 847 n. 4. — Papebrochii loc. cit. n. 1-6. — Pagi Critica ann. 847 n. 4. Yet Palmieri (Tract, de Pcenit. p. 456) argues that even if the tablet is of late date, it only records the early tradition of what Sergius did, and this in face of the fact that Papenbroek had shown that the inscription consists of a passage from Anastasius Bibliothecarius, a contemporary of Sergius (De Vitis Eom. Pontif. sub Sergio II.), with the addition of five lines containing the indulgence. * " Et nos confisi Omnipotentis Dei gratia et authoritate cunctos prsedictum locum confessos et contritos devote visitantes a culpa et a poena reddimus abso- lutos "— Gobelini Personse Cosmodrom. ^t. vi. Cap. 50 (Meibom. Per. Ger- A EARL Y FRA UD ULE2fT IND UL GENCES. 1 35 It is easy to understand the motive which led the priests and monks thus to speculate on the ignorance of a barbarous period. It was an age of universal greed. Everything- was for sale. Altars as sources of revenue are constantly specified as gifts to abbeys and pious foundations ; they were bought and sold, granted as investi- tures, transmitted by inheritance or by acquiring reversions to them, nor, may we presume, were many bishops emulous of the example set by Ratherius of Verona, who, in 964, made over to his priests the offerings at the altar of his church of St. Peter's.^ About 1070 Alexander II. addressed a terrible letter to the clergy of his former see of Lucca, deploring the venality which turned everything into money and the rapacity w'hich left nothing for the poor and the fabric of the churches, even exacting a vile tribute from the dead.^ When this was the reigning spirit of the time it is easy to understand the eagerness with which were sought attractions that would bring worshippers to a church. We have seen (Vol. II. p. 130), the money man. Scrip tt. I. 254). The phrase was probably borrowed from an indulgence distributed by a Qucestuarius of Boniface IX. The bull of Leo VIII, is printed in full as genuine in an official account of the monastery in 1712 (La Cella di S. Meinrado, Einsiedlen, 1712, pp. 25-31), and this preposterous document is claimed to have been confirmed by Nicholas IV. in 1291, Urban VI. in 1387, John XXIII. in 1410, Martin V. in 1426, Eugenius IV. in 1432, Nicholas V. in 1452, Pius II. in 1463 and 1464, Julius II. in 1512, Leo X. in 1518, Pius IV. in 1562, Gregory XIII. in 1573, Clement VIII. in 1597 and Urban VIII. in 1626 (lb. pp. 106-7). Very likely the confirmations of Pius II. and his suc- cessors are genuine, and the indulgence is therefore valid, in spite of the fact that Leo VIII. is reckoned as an antipopc (Baron. Annal. ann. 863 n. 31 sqq.). ^ C. Remens. ann. 1049 Cap. 2; C. Belvacens. ann. 1114 Cap. 17 (Gousset, Actes etc. II. 68, 182).— Spicilegium Vaticanum I. 9 (Romse, 1890). Quite suggestive as to this matter is a charter of Alexander II., in 1065, to the monastery of St. Peter at Perugia, in which he provides that no future bishop shall seize the oblations nor have the right to celebrate mass there except twice a year on the invitation of the abbot, and then neither he nor his clerks shall take any of the oblations against the will of the abbot and the brethren. —Alex. PP. II. Epist. 26 (Migne, CXLVI. 1305). " "Toto enim mentis adnisu undecunque possunt corradere pecuniam student, ut qufe prius evacuerant possint redimplere marsupia ; cujus aviditate impulsi sacris non parcunt altaribus, sed veluti fures et sacrilegi profanas eis manus injiciunt, pauperibus et ecclesiarum fabricis decimas et oblationes juste et canonice competentes more prsedonum diripiunt, a mortuis etiam, quasi fiscl exactores, importunis clamoribus tributa exigunt." — Alexand. PP. II. Epist. 105 (Migne, CXLVI. 1388-90). i 136 DEVELOPMENT. value in this sense of relics and the strife which frequently broke out over the proceeds. Another phase of the same struggle is illustrated by the complaint, about 1170, of the monks of St. Martial of Limoges to Alexander III., representing that, by a rule established by St. Martial himself, all the inhabitants of the bishopric were required annually to visit both the cathedral and the abbey, but that recently the bishop had changed this to an annual visit to his parish church by every parishioner. The good monks object to this, not on account of any presumable damage to the souls of the faithful, but solely be- cause they are thus deprived of the oblations. Alexander considered the grievance reasonable and promptly ordered the bishop to restore the old rules. In a similar spirit, Raoul, Abbot of Fecamp, in 1193, represented that in Normandy an old custom existed that on Pente- cost one representative of every household should join in procession to the parish church or pay one denier ; some of his parishioners, he said, refused to observe it, and Calixtus III. ordered it to be enforced.^ An indulgence, therefore, attainable by a visit to a church on stated feast-days was a valuable possession, increasing in value according to the number of feasts and amount of remission of pen- ance. If it contained a clause requiring the payment of money — or, in diplomatic phrase, stretching forth a helping hand — so much the better, and, best of all, if the payment sufficed without the visit, for then it could be peddled around by pardoners, who could work throughout the year, and carry their holy wares to the homes of their customers. These favors to churches were granted with extreme caution at first, and the temptation was irresistible for those unable to obtain them to manufacture them, taking care to place the date of the pretended grant at a period sufficiently distant to render detection difficult. Quite a number of these fraudulent indulgences have come down to us, purporting to have been issued in the eleventh century, some of which have been eagerly cited by modern writers as evi- dences of the antiquity of indulgences, but, as a rule, their spurious- ness can be recognized by comparison with genuine ones of a some- what later date, for they bear the ear-marks of the subsequent periods when the treasure of the Church began to be lavishly distributed. We have seen, in fact (p. oQ), in the second half of the eleventh century, how vague and uncertain were as yet the notions as to these Lowenfeld Epistt. Pontiff. Roman, ined. pp. 142, 251. EABL Y FRA UD ULENT IND VL GENCES. 1 3 7 remissions of sin, auci we are justified iu rejecting all diplomas bear- ing earlier dates, while reflecting tlie views and practice of the twelfth and thirteenth and even later centuries.^ One of the earliest, probably, of these forgeries seems to be framed in imitation of the curiously indefinite promises by Gregory VII. of absolution a culpa et poena. It purports to be a grant, in 1008, from Bruno, Bishop of Langres, to the monastery of St. Benigne of Dijon, reciting that Abbot William had requested of him some privi- lege that \vould assist in defraying the expense of lamps and candles, wherefore he orders that all residiuo; within six leag-ues of St. Benione shall, instead of coming to Langres on Rogation days, go to St. Benigne, where, asking pardon of their sins, they shall receive abso- lution and benediction from the monks, whose tongues are the keys of heaven. Informal as this is, it is yet an evident forgery, for bishops had not yet recognized that priests and monks had the power of the keys, and Bishop Bruno was the last person thus to sell salvation for the lighting of a church. The only work of his which has come down to us is a long and earnest exhortation to his young clerks, setting forth that the kingdom of God is to be won by good works — visiting the sick, aiding the needy, consoling the wretched, etc., conjoined with sincere and humble confession and amendment." The next in order is one which has been frequently cited in evi- dence by modern writers. It is an evident interpolation in a charter of privileges presented for confirmation, and is of early date, illus- trating; how the commutations of the Penitentials were utilized in its construction. It purports to be a grant by Pons de Marignan, Archbishop of Aries, confirmed by Raimbaud de Reillane, his successor, to the abbey of Moutmajour on the occasion of his dedi- * A single incident will illustrate the unscrupulous audacity with which ecclesiastics manufactured evidence to support whatever privileges they desired to claim. When, in 1051, Leo IX. in making a visitation came to Subiaco — a monastery which he characterized as " caput omnium monasteriorum in Italia constitutorum " — the abbot Attone fled from before his face and died in exile. He caused all the charters to be brought to him and pronounced the greater part of them to be forgeries, ordering them to be burnt before his eyes — Chron. Sublacens. (Muratori, S. R. I. T. XXIV. p. 932). 2 Chron. Besuense (D'Achery II. 414).— Brunonis Epist. ad Ulericos Lingo- nens. (Migne, CXXXIX. 1537-8). 138 DEVELOPMENT. cation, in 1019, of an underground chapel of a church then build- ing in honor of the Virgin. It provides that all who will give or send an "adjutorium," or gift, ranging from two deniers to twelve, on the anniversary of the dedication, shall have a remission for a year of a third part of their penance, with the suspension during that period of excommunication and disabilities. When the penance is for one day's fast per week it is commuted into feeding three paupers. If the penitent dies during the year he is assured of pardon for his sins. There are further details of no special signifi- cance, except that the privilege is declared good for all other churches that may at any future time be erected at Montmajour.^ I am in- clined to think that this may be an amplification of a grant made, in 1065, by Archbishop Raimbaud to the church of the Trinity, St. Mary, St. John, and St. Peter at Correns, which is apparently genuine, as it does not provide for an annual indulgence, but is limited to the simple dedication and consecration of the church, and therefore there would be no motive in its subsequent manufacture. It is much simpler in form, while manifesting the same crude and imperfect idea of what subsequently was considered to be an indul- gence ; it promises, moreover, that whoever shall enter the church to make a gift shall obtain all he asks, and it enters into a labored explanation of the power of St. Peter to authorize such grants, showing how unfamiliar as yet to the popular mind were such con- cessions of "absolution."^ A much more recent and audacious forgery is one purporting to be granted, in 1029, by Benedict VIII. to the Benedictine nunnery of Neuburg (Augsburg), as it refl.ects a period when indulgences had grown larger, though at no time would one like this have been granted. It confers a remission of fifty carinas and three years of penance for mortals and six years for venials on all who shall visit 1 D'Achery Spicileg. III. 383. Of. Mabillon Praf. in Ssbc. V. Ord. S. Bened. n. Ill; Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 115; Grone, Der Ablass, p. 70. Not content with this, the good monks of Montmajour framed another of somewliat similar import, which they dated in 844 and ascribed to Sergius II. — Pflugk-Harttung Acta Pontiff. Roman, ined. I. 5. A similar one dated early in the eleventh century is described as granted by GeoflTroi, Archbishop of Narbonne, to the church of Maguelonne. — Chr. Lupi Dissert, de Indulgentiis Cap. 4. 2 D'Achery Spicileg. III. 402. EABL Y FRA UD ULENT IND ULOENCES. 1 39 the church on any of thirty-eight enumerated feasts and their octaves, and on all Saturdays and Sundays and festivals, or Mho shall at any time attend divine service, or any funerals or anniver- saries of the dead, or shall follow the sacrament or chrism to the sick, or shall give or bequeath any vestments, books, chalices, gold, silver, or other article — and all this is toties quotics — as often as the act may be repeated.^ An evident forgery is one which the church of St. Victor of Marseilles claimed to have obtained from Bene- dict IX. in 1040. This provides that any one who shall confess his sins to the priests of that church and mend his ways shall be absolved of all his sins ; nothing is said as to penance, and even Benedict IX. can scarce be suspected of thus abrogating the canon- ical penances which, as we have seen, were at this time strictly enforced or were redeemed at a heavy price.^ In 1060 Xicholas II. visited w^ith his cardinals the abbey of Farfa and dedicated there some altars, when he is said to have given to those present an indul- gence of three years, and granted that it should be obtained by all who, on the anniversary, should visit the church with gifts, but the Chronicle of Farfa makes no such statement, and in the charter of protection issued on this occasion to the abbey there is no mention of any such privilege, nor, as we shall see hereafter, were such pro- longed indulgences issued to churches for some centuries later.^ The Chronicle of Monte Cassino states that when Alexander II., in 1065, ^ Pflugk-Harttung Acta Pontiff. Roman, ined. III. n. 7. Pflugk-Harttung regards this as doubtful, in consequence of a blunder in the date and iadiction. Its contents sufficiently prove it to be spurious. ^ Mabillon Prtef. inV. Stec. Ord. S. Bened. n. 109. Grone (Der Ablass, p. 71) cites a letter of indulgence granted, in 1044, by Bruno, Bishop of Minden, to the church of St. Maurice of forty days and a quarantine (I) for visiting it on any one of eleven feasts. As far as can be judged from his version it is a formula of the thirteenth century. He refers for it to "Die Mindener Chronik." Now Lerbeke's Chronlcon Episcc. Mindsnsiuni (Leibnitii Scriptt. Brunsvicens. II. 171) gives a detailed account of Bruno's founding the monastery of St. Maurice, but says nothing of any indulgence. There are only two other chronicles of Minden — the Chronlcon M'mdense, which is merely a condensation of Lerbeke (Meibomii Rer. German I. 560), and Lerbeke's Chronlcon Comltum Schawenburgens. (Meibom. 1. 457), neither of which allude to it. ' Papebrochii Catal. Pontiff. Diss. xxix. n. 8.— Amort, de Indulg. II. 50.— Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 118.— Chron. Farfense (Muratori S. R, I. II. II ).— Nicholai PP. II. Epist. 23 (Migne, CXLIII. 1345). 140 DEVELOPMENT. dedicated the church there he granted absolution of their sins to all present and to those who for eight days should visit the church. If this was an indulgence, it was one a culpa et poena, even looser than that which, in 1063 (p. 55), he granted for fighting the Saracens. In such case it was only for that occasion, for there is no mention of it in a charter from him to the venerable monastery, in 1067, when he confirmed its old privileges and granted new ones.^ There is a vague statement that, in 1070, at the dedication of the church of Lucca, he granted that for eight days ou its anniversary there should be " indulgeutia poeuitentiae," but no term is stated, and it was prob- ably a small fraction, as we shall presently see at Angers.^ It is possible that this may be genuine, for about this period a custom was springing up of granting remissions of penance on the occasion of the dedication of churches and their anniversaries, but for a long while to come it was very sparingly exercised. Evidently fraudulent is a grant to William, Count of Toulouse, attributed to Urban II., in 1088, in which he grants for a cemetery, which the count constructed adjoining the church of Notre Dame of Toulouse, that all who should be buried in it should be absolved from the bonds of all their sins.^ A more notorious example is the indulgence said to have been granted by Urban II., in 1092, when he dedicated the church of the mon- astery of Cava, near Salernum, which, in spite of its self-evident spuriousness, is still cited as genuine by modern writers. Of this there are two recensions : one grants to all visiting the church on the anniversary of the dedication and the following day and on ^ Chron. Cassinens. Lib. iii. Cap. xxxi. — I)e Gestis Desiderii Abbat. Cassin- ens. (Migne, CXLIX. 91).— Alex. PP. II. Epist. 49 (Migne, CXLVI. 1326).-A bull of Alexander's, issued on the occasion of the dedication, anathematizing those who encroached on the abbatial possessions, has a clause granting forty days' indulgence for the anniversary (Chron. Cassinens. Ed. Dubrueil, p. 761), which has every appearance of being an unskilful interpolation. "^ Papebrochii Catal. Pontiff. Diss. xxix. n. 8. Among the diplomas of Alexander II. there are several charters to the church of Lucca, but none alluding to this. ^ Pflugk-Harttuug Acta Pontiff, ined. III. n. 7. We may couple with this the assertion of Arnaud de Verdala, Bishop of Maguelonne (died in 1352), that when, in 1096, Urban II. visited Maguelonne, he consecrated the whole island and granted absolution from all sins to all who were buried or should thereafter be buried there. — A. de Verdala Series Episcopp. Magalonens. (D. Bouquet, XII. 371). EABL Y FRA UD ULENT IND UL GENCES. ] 41 Holy Thursday and Friday, the same indulgences as for a pilgrim- age to Compostella ; the other, not content with this, adds a plenary to the Compostella indulgences and extends the time of visitation throughout the octave of Easter and the feasts of the A^irgin ; both grant for all other days four years and four quarantines, and to two chapels, dedicated at the same time by the Bishops of Segni and Reggio, seven years and seven quarantines. There is, moreover, a discrepancy in dates, one being xviii. Kal. Oct., the other the nones of September, and still a third one of ix. Kal. Sept. The absurd largeness of the grant at once destroys its claim to genuineness, and the fraud becomes evident in the reference to the indulgences of Compostella, which, as Papenbroek long since pointed out, had no indulgences until the time of Calixtus TL, more than thirty years later.^ But perhaps the most picturesque fraud of all is one perpe- trated for the glory of the Belmosto family of Genoa. It is a bull of Urban II., dated in his sixth year (1094), reciting that to reward Jacopo and Ottobono Belmosto for coming with three hundred re- tainers to the succor of the Holy See, he grants them the Holy Land indulgence and also plenary indulgence and absolution for all con- fessed sins committed by them from the hour of birth till that of death. - The manufacture of these documents continued without intermis- sion, but their assumed dates concern us no longer here. At last, in this boo- of falsification, we reach firm ground with the dedication bv Urban II., February 10, 1096, of the church of St. Nicholas at Angers, when he granted a perpetual indulgence for the anniversary. Hildebert of Le Mans, in a sermou delivei'ed there, mentions the fact, and explains to the people that it was only good for sins repented and confessed, and that it was a custom of the fathers thus to grant pardon of sins on these occasions and on the subsequent annual feasts, but we learn from another source tliat the pardon thus heralded was in this instance only for one-seventh of enjoined penance.'^ This indicates what is probably the origin of indulgences 1 Harduin. VI. il. 1638-9.— Chron. Cavense (Ughelli Italia Sacra YIII. 514).— Urbani PP. II. Epist. 84 Oligne, CLI. 365).— Jaffe Regest. n. 4100 (Ed. 1851). — Papebrochii Catal. Pontiff. Dissert. XXix. n. 9.— Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 118. — Grone, Der Ablass, p. 70. 2 Pflugk-Harttung Acta, II. 188. ' Hildeberti Cenomanensis Serm. 87 (Migne, CLXXI. 749-51). — Hist. Andegavens. Frag. (D'Achery, III. 234). 142 DEVELOPMENT. granted to churches — the desire to signalize the occasion of their dedication and to attract a multitude whose oblations should aid in defraying the cost of the fabric, but the favor was very sparingly bestowed, and the custom was by no means so old as Hildebert would lead us to believe. There is ample evidence to prove this, and it explains the sceptical attitude assumed above with regard to the so-called indulgences of the eleventh century. It would not be easy to imagine a case more provocative of an indulgence, had such been customary, than that of the visit of Leo IX., in 1049, when he came from Germany to France, against the earnest remonstrances of Henry I., at the request of Herimar, Abbot of S. Remi, to dedicate the latter's abbatial church, where the body of the Apostle of France lay entombed. Leo translated the remains with his own hands to a splendid sepulchre, but in the bull which he issued on the occasion, granting special privileges to the church, there is no hint of an in- dulgence, although the altar which he had consecrated is especially alluded to and careful restrictions are imposed as to those allowed to minister at it. Nor when, soon afterwards, he ordered a special feast of the translation to be held in the church of Reims did he grant an indulgence to increase its attractiveness.^ In 1060 Nicholas II. dedi- cated the basilica of San Lorenzo, and granted it a charter confirm- ing its possessions and taking it under special papal protection, but he said nothing about an indulgence.^ When, in 1088, Urban II. consecrated the church of St. Mary of Monte Cassino and enriched it with privileges, there is no mention of an indulgence, and it was the same when, in the following year, on the occasion of the translation of the relics of St. Nicholas, he bestowed various privileges on the see of Bari.^ There is, in fact, a significant illustration of the doubt which as yet the popes felt as to their own powers, and the chaotic condition in which was still the whole subject of the pardon of sin, in a curious deprecatory absolution offered by Gregory VI. in 1044. He recites that the Holy See has been despoiled, the city devastated, and the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul are threatening to fall in ruins. Two centuries later, in these straits, he would have pro- claimed an indulgence for sale, but in place of this he appealed ^ Gousset, Actes etc. II. 69.— Harduin. VI. i, 1010. 2 Nicholai PP. II. Epist. 17 (Migne, CXLIII. 1334). " Harduin. VI. ii. 1627, 1631. A EARL Y MODERA TION. 1 43 to the faithful for funds, and on meeting a generous response he promises for himself and his successors that thrice a year the names of the donors shall be recited in the mass in all Roman churches, so that, through the merits of the Virgin, the authority of Peter and of Paul and the prayers of the saints reposing in Rome, God may absolve them from all sins and lead them to eternal life.^ The bishops were even less forward than the popes in the exercise of whatever faculty they may have deemed themselves to possess. In the extensive province of Reims, with its archbishop and eleven suffragans, the offer of indulgences seems to have been unknown until the last quarter of the twelfth century. The pious care of Cardinal Gousset has collected a large mass of diplomas and char- ters, ranging in date from 1062 to 1175, representing all the occa- sions ordinarily furnishing excuse for the concession of indulgences — the dedication of churches, the consecration of altars, the assembling of the people for the induction of bishops, the founding of abbeys, the erection of hospitals, the establishment of confraternities — and in none of them does it appear that a single prelate had recourse to this device for kindling the zeal of the faithful and coining it into money to relieve the necessities of the poor or to aid in the fabric of the buildings which were rising on every hand. It is not until 1176 that William of Reims, finding that the fair established for the benefit of lepers by his predecessor Henry, in 1160, was not suffici- ently productive, offered to all who should attend it a relaxation of enjoined penance, consisting of one year in seven, of one quarantine in three, and a fourth part of Friday fastings.^ The cartulary of Xotre Dame of Paris tells the same story. There are no allusions in it to indulgences, though it contains repeated papal privileges and confirmations from 984 to 1165.^ Compostella, though not quite so backward, had no indulgences until the twelfth century was well advanced. We have a minute and detailed account of the long episcopate and archiepiscopate of Diego Gelmirez, who went to Rome, in 1100, for ordination and in 1102 for his pallium, written by his admiring contemporaries Bishop Munio and Canon Gerard, with numerous papal letters specifying and confirming the privileges of the see, but there is no word in ' D'Achery Spicileg. III. 398. ^ Gousset, Actes etc. II. 74-313. 3 Cartularium Ecclesite Parisiensis I. 23-7, 220, 227. 144 DEVELOPMENT. them about indulgences, though already, as we have seen (Vol. II. p. 127), the pilgrims thither were numerous enough to obstruct the roads. AVe hear of the churches and chapels which Gelmirez built, the altars he consecrated, and his reconstruction of his cathedral, burnt in 1117, but there is no indication that such a thing as an indulgence Avas thought of.^ The first allusion to any local indul- gence occurs in 1124, and then it is granted by a council to enforce the Truce of God ; anyone who infringes it is to be attacked by his bishop, and this is regarded as a holy war, in which those who die are assured of the pardon of all confessed sins, as though on a cru- sade to Jerusalem, while any one who, in observing the truce, is slain by his enemies is granted the same absolution. The next year a coun- cil resolves on a foray against the Moors and orders all who join it to confess their sins, after which they are promised, on the authority of God, of the apostles Peter, Paul, and James and all other saints, absolution for all sins committed since baptism, provided they do not leave the army without permission The same is granted to those who send armed foot or horse according to their means.^ While thus the idea of indulgences had penetrated to Compostella, there is no trace of any such remissions accorded for pilgrimages to the shrine of Santiago. Apparently it was not needed to attract them thither, nor are there any documents to show when they orig- inated, but probably, as rival shrines began to offer such attractions, and pilgrims expected them, the archbishops granted what were requisite. Be this as it may, we find that, in 1198, Innocent III., when urging the authorities of Languedoc to extirpate the heretics, offered for the good work the same indulgences as those earned by pilgrimage to Rome or Compostella, showing that by that time the two apostolic cities were on an equality in this respect.^ 1 Historise Compostellanse Lib. i. Cap. 6-22 ; Lib. ii. Cap. 25, 55 ; Lib. ill. Cap. 36. 2 Ibid. Lib. ii. Cap. 71, 78. ^ Innocent. PP. III. Regest. I. 94. Yet Bianchi (Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 47) assumes that Urban II. regulated the indulgences of Compostella, and the learned Christian Wolff (De Indulgentiis Cap. 5) is obliged to recur to the Chansons de Oeste for their origin, suggesting that they were conferred by- Bishop Turpin of Reims, who accompanied Charlemagne in his so-called conquest of Spain. The good clerics of Compostella were not unskilled in the art of forgery, as appears by the celebrated Votos de Santiago, an impost which they claimed on EARLY MODERATION. I45 AVitli the twelfth century indulgences may be considered to have fairly commenced and to be recognized as part of the resources of the Church to further its purposes and to stimulate eleemosynary devotion. Still, with the exception of the plenaries for the Holy Land, they were used with extreme moderation for a prolonged period, as may be seen from a few examples of grants to some of the more venerable institutions. The revered abbey of Cluny, the mother- house of the great Cluniac Order, which exercised so powerful an influence during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, was specially connected with the Holy See. Urban II. consecrated the high altar ; Innocent II., in 1132, dedicated the monastery, and in terms which show how great was the favor bestowed, he granted an indulgence of forty days for the anniversary of the ceremony.^ In 1145 Eugenius III., at the special request of Bishop Atto, granted an indulgence of seven days to his cathedral of Pistoja, which had recently received from Diego Gelmirez of Compostella the priceless gift of a joint from the neck of Santiago, attracting crowds of the blind and halt and infirm, seeking and finding a cure.^ Alexander III. was equally sparing. April 21, 1163, he dedicated the church of S. Germain des Pres, and though he bestowed an indulgence of a year on the occa- sion and until the octave of Pentecost, he limited to twenty days that for the future anniversaries.^ When, in 1177, he made his tri- all the corn and wine produced in Spain, granted by the victorious army of Ramiro II. after the supposititious victory said to have been won at Clavijo in 844, over Abderahman of Cordoba, by the aid of St. James. Copies of the original grant, papal bulls confirming it and other documents were produced whenever wanted, and, though often contested, it was not fully exposed till near the end of the eighteenth century. — Mariana, Historia de Espaila, Lib. VII. Cap. xiii. — Godoy Alcantara, Historia Critica de los falsos Cronicones, pp. 322 sqq. (Madrid, 1868). — Razon del Juicio contra varios Falsificadores de escrituras publicas etc. pp. 14-107 (Madrid, 1781). — Espana Sagrada XIX. 329. — Historia Compostellana Lib. iii. Cap. 22. — Roderici Toletani de Reb. Hispan. Lib. iv. Cap. xiii. The tribute was merged into the crown revenues and continued to be paid until 1835, at which time it produced about 81,000,000 a year.— Burke, History of Spain, I. 146 (London, 1895). 1 Innocent. PP. II. Epist. 89 (Migne, CLXXIX. 127). ■' Eugen. PP. III. Epist. 47 (Migne, CLXXX. 1063).— Ughelli Italia Sacra, III. 365 (Ed. 1647). •^ Lowenfeld Epistt. Pontiff. Roman, p. 133. — In 1196 this was confirmed by Coelestin III. (Ibid. p. 262). Alexander's grant is prefaced with an argumen- III.— 10 146 DEVELOPMENT. iimphant visit to Venice to receive the submission of Frederic Bar- barossa, he dedicated the church of S. Maria de Careta, granting twenty days for the anniversary, and two years later he conceded the same for the dedication feast of the church of San Salvatore of the same city.^ The development of the sacramental theory and the distinction established between culpa and poena seem to have brought with them a sense of responsibility which precluded the vague and comprehensive grants of the earlier time. When, about 1125, Hon- orius II. held the assembly of Capua to stimulate a war with Roger of Sicily he confidently remitted all their sins to those who should fall in it, provided they had undertaken penance. In strong contrast with this is a letter from Alexander III. to the Lombard prelates, reciting how the noble P., in the war with Frederic Bar- barossa, had been concerned in the destruction of four castles, over two thousand houses and many men, and now seeks reconciliation ; there is no word about an indulgence, but it is pointed out that he should not be chilled in the service of the church, through devotion to which he had committed these sins, and therefore he should be mercifully dealt with while being relieved of all fear as to his sal- vation— the significance of all which is enhanced by its being carried into the canon law as a precedent to be followed.^ This sparing use of indulgences continued long. Lucius III,, in 1182, desired to give special recognition to the devotion manifested to him before his elevation by the church of S. Salvatore of Venice ; he had dedicated the altar of St. Thomas there, and he uoav grants an indulgence of eight days to those who on the feast of the saint will come there to worship.^ It was probably as a political con- cession to royalty that, in 1208, Innocent III. gave the very unusual indulgence of one year and forty days to Westminster Abbey for I tative introduction proving his autliority, as tliough indulgences were still a novelty. 1 Muratori Antiq. Diss. LXVlll. (T. XIV. p. 109).— Alex. P. III. Epist. 1427 (Migne, T. CC. p. 1242). In significant contrast to this is a forged grant by him, in 1177, to the church of St. Mark, of a plenary indulgence to all visiting it on the feast of St. Mark and contributing to the fabric — Jafle, Eegesta, p. 951 (Literse spurise). * Baronii Annal. ann. 1127 n. 5. — Cap. 3 Extra Lib. v. Tit. xxxviii. 3 Pflugk-Harttung Acta Pontiff. T. III. p. 409. EARL Y MODERATION. 1 47 those visiting it ou the feast of St. Edward the Confessor.^ This was in no way a precedent for such hxvishness, for, in 1215, when he sent to the royal abbey of St. Denis the relics of St. Denis, brought from Greece, and told the monks that this set at rest the question whether they had the body of S. Denis the Areopagite, for now they had both Denises, he only granted forty days of indulgence to those who should come to venerate the saint." Honorius III. was even more sparing, for, in 1221 and 1222, we find him granting ten days for contributing to the restoration of the church of St. Augustin of Canterbury and twenty days for aiding the construction of Chateau Pelerin by the Templars.^ He was slightly more liberal when, in 1226, Bernhard, Bishop of Paderborn, solicited an indulgence for his church, and he granted it forty days,^ and when, in 1217, with a splendid company of cardinals, he dedicated the church of the abbey of Casaraaria, which he had built at his own expense before reaching the papacy, he granted a year for the anniversary.^ In 1243, In- nocent IV. granted only twenty days for St. Augustin of Canterbury on the feast of Peter and Paul, and, in 1245, the church of Beth- lehem, which we have seen (p. 74) claiming and enjoying a plenary a culpa et poena, was glad to obtain from him one of forty days, which it proceeded to sell throughout Europe by means of qucestuarii^ ^ Rymer Foedera, T. I. p. 150. It is not likely that this is a forgery, though Mr. Bliss does not seem to have found it in the Registers of Innocent III. (Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers relating to Great Britain, Vol. I. p. 31), He gives, however (p. 262), one of a year granted, in 1250, to those who should contribute to the building of the church of wonderful beauty which the king was then erecting at Westminster in honor of some drops of Christ's blood which the Templars had brought from Palestine for him. On the occasion, in 1247, of depositing this precious relic in the church, Henry III. had carried it with his own hands on foot over the mile of rough and muddy road between St. Paul's and Westminster. The bishops assembled for the solemnity granted an indulgence, to all who should come to venerate it, of six years and a hundred and forty days, which, as we shall see, was a wholly illegal and in- valid concession. — Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1247. 2 Innoc. PP. III. Regist. Suppl. n. 201. ' Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, I. 80, 88. * Gobelini Personae Cosmodrom. ^Et. VI Cap. 67 (Meibom. Rer. German. I. 282). This sufficiently shows the fraudulent character of the plenary which Grone (Der Ablass, p. 71) says was granted to the cathedral of Paderborn by Alexander III. » Baron. Annal. ann. 1030, n. 23-5. « Berger, Registres d'Innocent IV., n. 132, 980. 148 DEVELOPMENT. About the same period there are niiinerous bulls obtained by the powerful Franciscan and Dominican orders for assisting to build or visiting their churches, and they seem to be (i[uite content with twenty or forty days.^ Forty days likewise, in 1244, is considered sufficient for the church of the recently canonized St. Elizabeth at Marburg.^ The same indulgence was granted to those who would stretch forth helping hands to the uutinished cathedral of Lyons, but the work proceeded slowly, and, as Lyons at the time was a city of refuge for Innocent, he was induced with all his cardinals to dedicate the high altar and to increase the remission to a year/ In 1257 a list of the indulgences enjoyed by the great abbey of St. Alban's shows eight in all, granted by various popes, legates, and bishops, ranging from forty days to a year and forty days.* Even more impressive, as showing how long this moderation was observed for such institutions, while the popes were lavishing the treasure in other directions, is the list of the celebrated abbey of Mont S. Michael-au-peril-de-la- mer, a noted resort for pilgrims. In 1255 Alexander IV. grants a hundred days for the Resurrection and a hundred for Ascension ; John XXII. grants forty for the intervening days and adds a hun- dred for Ascension. For Pentecost and its octave Alexander offers a hundred, which John doubles for the feast and adds forty for the octave. Late in the fourteenth century Urban V. grants a year and forty days for various feasts, and in the middle of the fifteenth a legate of Nicholas V. offers the same for visiting the church and ^ SbaraleiB Bullar. Franciscan. I. 451, 466.— Ripoll. Bullar. Ord. Praedic. I. 181, 183, 185, 233. But when Innocent IV., in 1251, dedicated the church of St. Dominic at Bologna he ofiered two years and two quarantines for the occasion and the following fifteen days. — Eipoll. I. 200. ^ Raynald. Annal. ann. 1244 n. 48. * Raynald. Annal. ann. 1247 n. 85. — Berger, Registres d'Innocent IV., T. I. n. 2568-9. In 1251 the officials of the cathedral endeavored to stimulate pojjular zeal by an exposition of the relics of SS. Nicetus, Anemund, Denis, and Photinus, and Innocent kindly aided their efforts by granting forty days for visiting the church on the feasts of those saints and during their octaves. — Berger, T. III. n. 5606. Soon afterwards he granted the same to the monastery of St Mary in Scutere (Strassburg) for Assumption and the feast of dedication. — Ibid. n. 5451. * Matt. Paris. Hist. Angl. Ed. 1644, Auctarium Additameut. p. 151. EARLY MODERATION. 149 contributing to its repair, and so fortli.^ Nicholas IV. was in some degree an exception, and set an early example of liberality. His grants to English cliurches alone, ranging from a hundred days to a year and forty days, amounted to tliree in March, 1290, three in June, six in August, one in September, seven in October, four in Xovember, and oue in December. During 1291 we find eleven in January, one in February, twelve in March, six in April, nine in May, twelve in June, eleven in July, eight in August, fourteen in September, two in Xovember, and two in December. In 1292, January commences with five and February follows with six." Pre- sumably other lands were equally favored, and had not his death, April 4, 1292, put an end to this flourishing industry, which was doubtless profitable to the papal camera, probably scarce a church or chapel in Christendom would have lacked this attraction for devotees. We have seen (p. 63) the thoughtless liberality of the unworldly Ccelestin V. and the prompt action of Boniface VIII. to revoke his acts, for Bouiiace was much more sparing in his administration of the treasure, save in his supreme invention of the jubilee, of which more hereafter. His registers show no such masses of indulgences as those of Nicholas IV., though we find him occasionally granting a year and forty days to some favored church, such as that of St. Vincent of Valentiua, of the Clares of Clermont, or St. Mary of Rocca Priore. He indicates, however, the tendency to vulgarize the pardons in granting that, whenever the Count and Countess of St. Pol shall be present at a sermon, the preacher shall be empowered to bestow an indulgence of forty days, presumably on all present.^ His usual grants, however, are of forty or a hundred days. Clem- ent V. gave a very marked instance of moderation when, in 1305, his creator, Philippe le Bel, was building a church in honor of his grandfather, St. Louis, and obtained from Clement only an indul- gence of forty days for those who should visit it on the feast of St. Louis and during the octave,* and when the Augustinian canons of Pavia, who claimed to have the body of St. Augustiu in their church, desired an indulgence, he gave only forty days for the feast of the ' Amort de Indulgent. I. 192. - Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, I. 512, 513-4, 516, 518, 520-4, 526, 529 -45, 547-50, 556. " Digard, Registres de Boniface VIII., T. II., n. 2567, 2690, 2695, 3203. * Ravnald. Annal. ann. 1305 n. 14. 150 DEVELOPMENT. saiut.^ In 1306 the great church of St. Paul's in London received only a year and forty days for the feast of St. Paul and a hundred days for the octave ; in 1313 only a hundred days are offered for aid in building the cathedral of Tuam, and when, in 1320, that of Hereford was rebuilt, only sixty days were promised to those who stretched forth a helping hand — a reward which was increased, in 1329, to a hundred days in the case of the repairs to the cathedral of Cashel.^ John XXII. evidently was not disposed to laxity, and when he desired to encourage the Tartar converts who were ill- treated by their infidel neighbors, he gave but twenty days each time that they suffered for the faith, though he promised the same for genuflexions in honor of Christ and the Virgin.^ But perhaps the most striking evidence of the moderation with which at first the power to concede indulgences was exercised is exhibited in the matter of the canonization of saints. The first exercise of this papal function was in 993, in the case of St. Ulric of Augsburg, by John XV. The pope evidently expected some dissat- isfaction with his assumption of the power, for he threatens with the anathema those who should oppose it and invoked on those who accepted it the divine blessing leading to eternal life.^ In time the formula became an injunction to celebrate the feast of the saint, so that through his merits and intercession due rewards or the pardon of sin might be obtained. This sufficed for great saints, such as St. Bernard, in 1164, and St. Thomas of Canterbury, in 1173.^ It was not until 1225 that the device was adopted of honoring the saint and benefitting the church which held his remains by offering an indulgence to those who should visit his tomb on his feast-day, and the first to whom it was applied was St. Lawrence O'Toole, Arch- bishop of Dublin, who had died and was buried in the church of St. Mary at Eu. At the instance of the Archbishop of Rouen he was canonized by Honorius III., and a remission of twenty days' penance was offered to devotees visiting his tomb on his feast, No- ^ Amort de Indulgent. I. 132. 2 Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, II. 17, 109, 196, 290. ^ Raynald. Annal. ann. 1321 n. 4. * Johann. PP. XV. Bull. Gum convenfus ^§ 3, 4 (Bullar. I. 23). 5 Alex. PP. III. Bull. Co7itiglt I 3, 1164; Bull. Bedolet i 2, 1173 (Bullar. I. 41). CANONIZATION OF SAINTS. 151 vember 14, and during the octave.^ This innovation was not imme- diately followed. AVheu, in 1228, Gregory IX. canonized St. Francis of Assisi he recurred to the old formula, urging the faithful to cele- brate his feast on October 4, so that through his merits they might be admitted to his company in heaven.- For this parsimony how- ever Gregory made amends in 1230, when the remains of the humble Francis were translated to the magnificent church built for him by Brother Elias, for to those who should be present at the ceremony or visit the church up to the Nativity of the Virgin, he offered three years' indulgence if they came from beyond seas, two years if from beyond the Alps, and one year for Italians, while for the anniversary and during its octave he granted one year.^ Having thus broken the ice he grew more liberal. At the canonization of St. Anthony of Padua, in 1233, he granted a year for visiting the tomb on the anniversary or during the octave, and the same for St. Dominic, in 1234. He increased this, in 1235, to a year and forty days for St. Elizabeth, while for St. Peter Martyr, who was regarded with vener- ation so intense. Innocent IV., in 1253, gave the same, but reduced to forty days the indulgence for the fortnight after the anniversary.* The year and forty days remained the standard during the rest of the century, as is seen in the cases of St. Stanislas of Cracow in 1254, St. Clara in 1255, St. Richard of Chichester in 1262, and St. Louis of France in 1297.^ The increasing liberality of the four- teenth century is exhibited by John XXII. granting two years and two quarantines in the cases of St. Louis of Toulouse, in 1317, and of St. Thomas of Hereford, in 1320, and it is not easy to divine his reason for reducing St. Thomas Aquinas, in 1323, to the old standard of a year and forty days, nor why Clement VI., in canonizing St. Ivo of Tresuier, should have omitted all allusion to induWuces and even the old formula respecting his intercession.® This was not a 1 Honor. PP. III. Bull. Ineffabilis § 12 (Bullar. I. 70).— Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, I. 103. 2 Gregor. PP. IX. Bull. Mira § 9 (Bullar. I. 73). ^ Ejusd. Bull. Mirificans (Sbaralea, I. 65). * Ejusd. Bull. Quofies a nobis §6; Bull. Fons sapienfice §6; Bull. Gloriosus § 6.— Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. Magnis i 11 (Bullar. I. 74, 78, 79, 95). ^ Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. OUm | 8.— Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Clara claris | 11.— Urbani PP. IV. Bull. Exulfd § 18.— Bonif. PP. VIII. Bull. Gloria § 35 (Bullar. I. 100, 109, 126, 178). 6 Johann. PP. XXII. Bull. Sol oriens I 31; Bull. Unigenitus § 25; Bull. Re- 152 DEVELOPMENT. precedent, and we shall see hereafter the subsequent growth of canonization indulgences, though they have not developed as ex- travagantly as those for other purposes. The principal source of the evolution of indulgences is to be looked for in the crusades. We have seen the vague and informal promises made, in the eleventh century, to stimulate expeditions against the Saracens and war with those whom the Holy See chose to regard as its enemies. Those vague promises seem to have had little influence, but when Urban II. at Clermont placed the matter in the more tangible shape of commutation of all penance, the result was so tremendous that the device became liabitually employed on all similar occasions and unquestionably did much to stimulate the crusading spirit of the next two centuries. Its success against the infidel naturally led to its adoption against the enemies of the Church, although at first it seems to have been felt that so great a reward as a plenary should only be offered against the Saracens. When the third Lateran council, in 1179, ordered a crusade against the Cathari of Languedoc, although those who fell were promised salvation, those who served and survived were rewarded with only two years' remission of penance, unless prolonged service should induce the bishops to increase it.^ This reticence soon wore off, and when, in 1208, Innocent III. commenced the Albigensian cru- sades he had no scruple in promising full Holy Land indulgences for the service, which in practice reduced itself to the feudal term of forty days.^ The success which attended this showed how formi- dable a weapon was thus placed in the hands of the Holy See, whether for the cause of the faith or the furtherance of its political and territorial aggrandizement, and there was no scruple in employ- dempfionem | 23.— Clement. PP. VI. Bull. Ad spiritualis (Bullar. I. 193, 200, 204, 257). 1 C. Lateran. III. ann. 1179, Cap. 27 (Harduin. VI. ii. 1684). Cf. Odonis Paris. Episc. Constit. 43 (Ibid. p. 1945). ^ Innoc. PP. III. Kegest. Lib. vil. n. 76, 79, 212 ; x. n. 149 ; xi. n. 26, 158, 215. After the cajiture of Carcassonne, " Major autem pars fidelium facta quadra- gesima ad sua rediit, minor autem cum comite de Monteforti remansit. — Reinerii Leod. Chron. ann. 1210 (Bouquet, XVII I. 622). Guillen de Tudela alludes to the forty days' service (Croisade, v. 1266-7) — Lai fan la cai-antena tuit aicel que i son, Que cant 11 uni venon e li autre sen vaont. i INFL UENCE OF CR USA DBS. 153 ing it everywhere, not only against avowed heretics, such as those of Bosnia, and pretended heretics like the Stedingers and those per- secuted in Germany by Conrad of Marburg, but against those whose heresy was merely implied by reason of their disobedience to the papal commands. It made no difference whether the questions in- volved were of European magnitude, such as those underlying the struggle with Frederic II., Conrad IV., Ezzelin da Romano and Manfred of Sicily, or whether they were petty efforts to extend the patrimony of St. Peter, such as the war of Clement V. with Ferrara and the squabbles of John XXII. with Osimo and Recanati, or per- sonal .quarrels, such as that of Boniface VIII. with the Colonnas — they were all holy wars, for which men and means Avere to be pro- vided out of the spiritual treasure of the Church. In 1241, indeed, Gregory IX, declared that the interests of the Holy See were much more important than those of the Holy Land.^ When, in 1255, the crusade against Manfred was preached in England, the people mar- velled greatly to learn that indulgences could be had for shedding Christian blood as great as for that of the infidel,^ but this ignorance was soon enlightened. The indulgence which aroused the antag- onism of Wickliffe was issued by Urban VI. for a year's service against the rival pope Clement VII. and his French supporters.^ The one which excited Huss was promised by John XXIII. for a month's participation in his war with Ladislas of Xaples.^ It was not, moreover, only when the direct interests of the Holy See were involved that it had recourse to this means of recruiting its armies and replenishing its treasury. If its policy at any time favored one of the parties to a quarrel it had no scruple in proclaiming a holy war, and Christians were excited to mutual butchery as the means of obtaining pardon of sins. As Henry III. of England was a vassal of the papacy, the rebels under Simon de Montfort were heretics against whom, in 1264, the legate Guy Bishop of Sabiua was directed 1 Pertz, Monumenta, Epistt. Ssec. XIIF. T. I. p. 707. 2 Matt. Paris. Hist. Angl. ann. 1255 (Ed. 1644, p. 614) " Quod cum audirent fideles mirabantur quod tantum eis promitteret pro sanguine Christianorum efFudendo quantum pro cruore infidelium eliquando." ^ Raynaldi Annal. ann. 1378, n. 29. — Lechler's John Wiclif and his Pre- cursors, II. 212. * Job. Huss Monumenta I. 171. 154 DEVELOPMENT. by Urban IV. to preach a crusade.^ To revenge the conquest of Sicily by Pedro III. of Aragon, Martin lY. gave Aragon to a son of Philippe le Hardi and stimulated him to undertake the conquest of that kingdom as a crusade — an enterprise which cost the unlucky monarch his life - When John of Gaunt sought to vindicate the claim of his wife Constance, daughter of Pedro the Cruel, to the crown of Castile, the papal policy of the Great Schism clothed the raid with the character of a crusade, and Urban VI. granted Holy Land indulgences to his soldiery.^ There can be no question of the enormous influence on the popular mind of these promises of pardon which for centuries filled the ranks of those who fought for the Church and brought an unending stream of gold to the papal treasure. As the poet of the Albigensian crusades sings — Done se crozan en Fransa et per tot lo regnat Can sabo que seran dels pecat pardonat.* It is impossible, within our limits, to enter into an enumeration of the multitudinous calls to arms, from Portugal to Palestine, and from Sicily to Livonia, which followed each other at short intervals from the year 1100 to 1500. It would scarce be too much to say that, during nearly the whole of those four centuries, there was prob- ably not a year, save those of jubilees, when the cross was not preached in some part of Europe, or qucestuarii were not busy in collecting from the faithful sums ostensibly to be devoted to the war against the infidel or the so-called heretics. In fact, during the latter three centuries the function of the crusading indulgence was rather to raise money than men. If penance could be commuted into a vow to fight the infidel, there was no reason why a further commutation should not release from the vow on the payment of an adequate sum to be devoted to the object of the vow. This thrifty conception would seem not to have been reached until the close of the twelfth century. The first ^ Bliss, Calendar of Papal Eegisters, I. 398. On the other hand, Bishop Grosseteste imposed on de Montfort the taking up of arms in remission of his sins.— Matt. Paris. Hist. Angl. ann. 1265 (Ed. 1644, p. 672). ' Gesta Philippi III. ann. 1283 (Bouquet, XX. 524). — Raynaldi Anual. ann. 1284 n. 35). 3 Raynald. ann. 1383 n. 7, 8. * Guillen de Tudela, Croisade contre les Albigeois, v. 166-7 COMMUTATIONS FOB MONEY. 155 approach to it appears to be in 1184, Mhen a papal legate, after consultation with the bishops of Normandy, offers to all who will pay a prescribed "alms" for the benefit of the Holy Land, an in- dulgence of three years for those subjected to over seven years' penance, and of two years for those whose penance is less, including all forgotten and venial sins ; to disguise this sale of pardon with the semblance of spiritual work, three Paternosters were imposed in addition, and it was proclaimed that those too poor to give the alms could obtain it with the prayers. Then Henry II. and Philip Augustus conferred as to the alms, and assessed it at a payment for three years of about one per cent, of the real and personal property of the penitent.^ This action is important, for, in so far as I have observed, it was the first step in a process which has continued to the present day. The precedent was followed, in 1195, by Cceles- tin III., who, in offering, through his legate, Hubert of Canterbury, a plenary to crusaders, added that those who should contribute would obtain a pardon according to the discretion of their bishops." As yet, however, the fruitful idea of releasing for money unwilling crusaders seems not to have been formed. In 1195 Eudes of Paris orders his priests to excommunicate those who have taken the cross and laid it aside, and, in 1196, Hubert of Canterbury reports to Ccelestin that many who have assumed the cross withdraw from it, while others, through sickness, poverty, or other cause, are unable to fulfil their vow. He asks for instructions in these cases, to which Ccelestin replies that those able to go must be compelled by excom- munication ; those who are sick must send substitutes to serve for a year or more; if an impediment is temporary, as soon as it is re- moved the crusader must depart.^ Evidently there was no thought of permitting local prelates to release unwilling champions of the cross for money. Yet already the sale of exemptions from the vow was commencing in Rome. In 1200 Hubert applies to Innocent III. to know what he is to do with those who return from there with letters of release bearing the unknown seals of cardinals, to which Innocent replies ^ Harduin. VI. ir. 1882. 2 Ccelest. PP. III. Epist. 224 (Migne, CCVI. 1107).— Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1195 (Ed. 1644, p. 126). 2 Odon. Episc. Paris. Constit. 43 (Harduin. VI. ii. 1945).-Ccelest. PP. III. Epist. 238 (Migne, CCVI. 1135). 156 DEVELOPMENT. that when he issues such letters he first makes inquiry of those who know the parties, so that he may determine what is best for their souls and the welfare of the Holy Land ; if such letters bear the impress of fraud they are to be disregarded. In response to further inquiries as to the sick and poor who have taken the cross, Innocent replies with a very practical view of the situation. Such persons will be a hindrance rather than a help in Palestine ; when there is a temporary impediment delay may be granted for its removal ; when it is permanent, the parties must be required to redeem the vow, taking into consideration their wealth and the expenses to which they would be exposed. A distinction is drawn between those vol- untarily assuming the cross and those on whom it has been imposed as penance. With the former, if able to go but unfit for fighting, redemption is better than permitting useless expenditure. As for women, those bent on going can accompany their husbands ; others, unless rich enough to take fighting men with them, should redeem their vows. The whole matter, however, must be managed by pious and honest men, lest through favor, hatred, or money there be peril to souls and to the Holy Land.^ As these careful provisions were carried into the canon law they mark the commencement of the policy subsequently adhered to. Innocent, moreover, took a further step when, at the Lateran council of 1216, he ofiPered plenary in- dulgences to those who should contribute " congruously " of their substance to the assistance of the Holy Land.^ The practice had gradually been growing of giving partial indulgences for money contributed to what were regarded as pious uses. The plenaries of the crusades had been excepted from this heretofore, but now they too were put into the market to be sold at a constantly diminishing figure, and the whole system of indulgences was rapidly becoming a mere matter of finance. The schoolmen, however, had no difficulty in proving that there was no taint of simony in this. Albertus Magnus argued that the object is not temporal but spiritual, and the Church does not sell but give, while Aquinas fashioned the formula which became traditional — that, although indulgences were given for temporal things, those temporal things were destined for spiritual purposes, such as the destruction of the enemies of the Church, the ' Cap. 7, 8, Extra Lib. ii. Tit. xxii. "^ C. Lateran. IV. anr). 1,216, ad calccm (Harduin, VIL 78). COMMUTATIONS FOR MONEY. 157 building of churches, bridges, and the like, and it was merely giving spiritual things for spiritual/ To follow the development of this throughout the thirteenth cen- tury would occupy too much space, but its working can be under- stood by a few incidents. When, in 1226, Louis VIII. undertook to subjugate Languedoc finally, under pretext of a crusade preached by the legate. Cardinal Romano, and he assembled his army at Bourges, a contemporary chronicler gives us a glimpse of the legate surrounded by old men and boys, women and paupers and the infirm, eager to escape from the campaign ; he made them swear as to their possessions, of which he took the larger half for the purposes of the crusade and dismissed them to their homes. ^ Some ten years later an English council was inexorable in declaring that all who had taken the cross, of whatever condition or sex, must go, unless so diseased as to render it manifestly impossible ; these alone were to be allowed to redeem their vows in proportion to their wealth.^ This was not the papal policy, for several epistles of Gregory IX. about this time show that money had become a greater object than service ; the permission to redeem the vow was no longer limited to the incapable, but was open to all ; the proportion of the crusader's property taken was so large that some to escape it hurried off before the sailing of the fleet, which is pronounced an abuse to be checked by excommunication, and apparently there was a brisk trade done in irregular and unlawful absolutions from the vow. When prop- erly settled, the payment was accepted in lieu of the vow and the payer obtained the Holy Land indulgence, the money being divided ec[ually between the Holy See and the Empire of Constantinople, for the succor of which the crusade was preached.* In 1241 Gregory reduced this to a system and absorbed the whole, when he directed his legate in Hungary to commute the vows of crusaders for what the expedition and return would cost them, and to remit the proceeds 1 Albert! Magui in IV. Seutt. Dist. XX. Art. 17.-S. Th. Aquin. Sumnice Suppl. Q. XXV. Art. iii. 2 Chron. Turonens. ann. 1226 (Bouquet, XVIII. 314). ^ Harduin. VII. 313. * Ripoll Bullar. Ord. Pr«dic. I. 98, 99, 109, 110, 122-4. When Thomas of Cantimpre complains (De Bono Universal! Lib. ii. Cap. 2) that many were able to redeem their vow with about one per cent, of their revenues, it would seem that much illicit bargaining was practised. 158 DEVELOPMENT. to him to enable him to carry on the war with Frederic 11.^ In a simihir spirit the council of Lyons, in 1245, seems more concerned with raising fnnds than armed forces, and, like its predecessor of Lateran, it promises plenary absolntion in retnrn for contributions, without the intermediation of the crusader's vow.^ All this was thoroughly systematized in England when Innocent IV., in 1247, made over the redemption moneys to Richard of Cornwall for his projected crusade. In every parish throughout the land deputies w^ere appointed to investigate those who had died after assuming the cross and what sums they had left for the crusade, the executors being summoned to pay it promptly. When no such pious bequests had been made the heirs were required to come to an agreement w'ith the friars preaching the crusade, and on payment they received plenary indulgences. The sick and dying were to be warned to as- sume the cross by their priests and by those engaged in drawing their wills, and both they and all others who had taken it were to declare what they were willing to give for redemption, '^o one was to be forced, but was to be told that if they gave in accordance with their wealth they should have a plenary, if less, the indnlgence was to be proportioned to the degree of devotion thus manifested.^ This latter was the established rule at the period, as shown in the instructions to the Dominicans preaching the cross in Bohemia against the Prutheni and elsewhere.^ The liability of heirs was a recognized principle, for when, in 1332, John XXII. published an indulgence in aid of the abortive crusade promised by Philippe de Valois, he provided that, while the heirs of those who had already taken the cross should still be subject to the obligation in case of the death of the testator^ those who should take it in future might, within six months, make a declaration before their bishop exonerating their heirs, when if they should die before fulfilling the vow, through no fault of their own, the heirs should be exempt. Otherwise, the heirs were held liable for what their expenses for a year would have been, while a bequest of the same amount made by the dying man gained him the plenary. Those who should die within six months without having' made the 1 Pertz Monumenta, Epistt. Ssec. XIII. p. 707. ^ C. Lugdunens. ann. 1245, Cap. xvii. (Harduin. VII. 395). ^ Matt. Paris. Ed. 1644, Auctarium Additament. p. 146. * Ripoll I. 84, 220, 426. COMMUTATIONS FOR MONEY. I59 declaration were not entitled to the indulgence, l)ut if thev had expended anything- they gained a proportionate partial ; while those who might die after setting out would obtain the plenary only if the heirs would assume the expense they would have undergone, or send a substitute.^ It would be difficult to adjust more accurately the " happy commerce " in the treasure of the blood of Christ. When the simpler plan was adopted of soliciting contributions without the intervention of a vow of personal service, Innocent IV., in 1253, prescribed that the full plenary should be given to those who paid at least one-fourth of their annual revenue, while for less amounts the pardon was to be proportionate." To facilitate this, and also presumably to prevent pilfering, when a crusade was preached, whether against the infidel or the turbulent citizens of some pettv Italian city, the prelates were ordered to place chests in all parish and collegial churches to receive the offerings of the faithful.^ That, in all this, money was the main object is manifest in a regulation introduced by Nicholas IV., in 1291, when the fall of Acre enabled him to revive for a moment the fading crusading spirit. Under this the crusader no longer exercised the choice of service or payment, but the delegates of the Holy See decided whether he should fulfil or commute his vow.* The sums derived from this source were large and were freely distributed, if not always wisely. There is extant a letter of the papal Penitentiary which shows that some knights who had taken the cross went to Rome and procured from it an order on the Bishop of Laon to make over to them the expenses of their crusade out of the fund of the redemptions.^ On a larger scale was the gratuity with which Gregory IX., in 1237, softened his sentence on Amaury de Montfort, whom he required to join the crusade in punishment for his attempt to seize the county of Melgueil, which had fallen to the Holy See as part of the spoils of the Albigensiau wars. Gregory ordered the Archbishop of Sens to set apart three thousand silver marcs from the redemptions in Amaury's lands and in the province of Sens, ex- ^ Pez Thesaur. Anecd. VI. ill. 23-5. See the Formulary of the Papal Peni- tentiary, pp. 167-8 (Philadelphia, 1892), for several individual cases involving the redemption of crusading vows. 2 Eipoll I. 231-2. Cf. pp". 461, 497. ^ Johann. PP. XXII. Regist. P. iv. n. 75, 97, 99 (Harduin. VII. 1431-33). * RipoU II. 33. '" Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary, p. 167. 160 DEVELOPMENT. cepting the domains of other counts and barons unless the sum could not otlierwise be made up. Of this he was to pay Amaurv a thou- sand marcs before his departure and two thousand, by the hands of the Templars, after his arrival in Palestine. Amaury, with his usual ill-luck, was taken prisoner by the Saracens, and, in 1241, we find Gregory ordering five thousand marcs to be paid for his ransom, provided less will not be accepted, the amount to be drawn from the same fund and the legacies for the Holy Laud, not otherwise assigned to the Templars, the Hospitallers etc. So, in 1237, Gregory orders the Archbishop of Reims to pay one-tenth of the redemption fund to the Count of Bar, who proposes to lead a hundred knights to the holy war. In 1238 he orders the Bishop of Le Mans to give the whole of the redemption fund to Pierre de Braine, one-third now and two-thirds after his arrival beyond the seas ; also his penitentiary is ordered to assign to the Sire de Beaulieu the redemptions collected in his lauds and to give to the Bishop of Nevers, who has taken the cross, those of two bishoprics not otherwise appropriated. The nobles to whom these assignments were made endeavored to augment the proceeds by compelling crusaders, who Avere willing to go, to redeem their vows, an abuse which Gregory peremptorily ordered to be checked.^ In a similar spirit Innocent IV., in 1250, ordered his representatives in France to make over to St. Louis, then en- gaged in his unfortunate crusade, all the redemption moneys in the kingdom which were not assigned to barons, and, in 1251, he gave to the Teutonic knights, who were in want of arms and horses, the redemptions arising from the commutation of vows for a crusade in Livonia.^ Thus gradually the whole business became a mere scheme for raising money under pretext of the holy war against the Infidel, the proceeds in the north of Europe passing into the hands of the 1 Eaynald. Annal. auu. 1237. n. 31.— Sbaralete Bullar. Francisc. I. 228, 232, 235, 237, 254, 256, 291.— Bliss, Calendar of Papal Eegisters, I. 193. "^ Berger, Registres d'Innocent IV. n. 4929. — Ripoll I. 189. — It was not merely crusading vows that were thus utilized. In 1308 Clement V. author- ized all the prelates of Europe to commute all vows of maceration and pil- grimage (excepting that to the Holy Land) for money to aid the Knights of iSt. John in their projected crusade. The commutation for a pilgrimage was to be the amount that it would cost the pilgrim. — Schmidt, Piipstliche Urkun- den u, Eegisten, p. 67 (Halle, 1886). THE CRUZADA. Igl popes, while in the lands exposed to daily conflict with the Moors they went to the sovereigns who regarded the indulgence simply as a financial expedient. The price of the redemption or contribution gradually fell, so as to bring it within the reach of the whole popu- lation, and the sums collected became correspondingly large, render- ing it a prolific source of revenue known as the cruzada in Spain and crociata in Italy. The indulgences continued to be of the fullest character, and there were added to them facilities for the composi- tion of unlawful gains and dispensation for marriage within pro- hibited degrees and for other irregularities. One of the earliest examples of this form of the cruzada was a concession granted, in 1457, by the Spaniard Calixtus III. to Henry IV. of Castile and Affonso IV. of Portugal. As far, at least, as the former was con- cerned it was a mere device for raising money, for Henry made no special eifort against the Moors. The grant ran for four years and gave indulgence a culpa et a poena for 200 maravedises. After pay- ing all expenses, we are told that he gained by it 100,000,000 marave- dises, which Avould indicate a sale of over half a million of indulgences within the comparatively narrow limit of his dominions. Although major excommunication, removable only by the pope, was threatened for the diversion of the proceeds from the holy war, Henry soon commenced to make lavish grants from the fund to Beltran de la Cueva and other favorites ; the sacred cause gained nothing, and although the prelates and the nobles of the other faction held an assembly at Uceda to devise a remedy for this deplorable result, the terrible condition of the royal finances rendered their interposition fruitless.^ The cruzada became a permanent institution, and long after it was simply a portion of the royal revenues the fiction of its original purpose was still kept up. Even at the end of the sixteenth century, the bull of concession thus provides not only for the trifling payment determined by the Commissioner-General, but for the send- ing of substitutes to the supposititious crusade ; men of high rank are directed to furnish at least ten, or, if this is beyond their power, at least four ; others, whether secular or clerical, one, unless they are ^ Nogueira, Expositio Bullae Cruciatse Lusitanite concessse, i>. 7. — Francisco de Medina, Vida del Cardenal Pedro Gonzalez de Mendoza (Memorial His- torico Espanol, T. VI. p. 159). — Barrantes, Illustraciones de la Casa de Niebla, Lib. vir. Cap 18 (Ibid. T. X. p. 169). III.— 11 162 DEVELOPMENT. so poor that three or four have to club together to send oue, while chapters and convents should provide one for every ten members.^ We shall have occasion hereafter to consider in some detail the working of the system. Thus far we have been concerned almost exclusively with papal indulgences. Since the Laterau council of 1216 those issued by bishops form in some sort a class by themselves, and, although of much less importance than the former, yet they require some con- sideration. Originally, as we have seen (p. 36) there was no distinction between the papal and episcopal functions as regards the concession of indul- gences. For a long time, as we have also seen, plenaries were con- fined to crusades, and the partials granted for other objects were exceedingly moderate in amount. When the interests of the faith were concerned, bishops had no hesitation in promising remission as fully as the pope, though the latter, as the representative of Chris- tendom at large, for the most part monopolized this function. In 1121 Veremund, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in appealing for help, offers plenary pardons for all sins for which penance has been accepted, and this by his own authority, and his example was followed by the bishops assembled in Compostella, in 1024 and 1025, to enforce the Truce of God and stimulate an expedition against the Moors.^ For the ordinary objects of indulgences bishops imitated the papal mod- eration, though on occasion they had no scruple in exceeding it. Thus, in 1153, Hugues, Archbishop of Rouen, one of the most learned prelates of the period, at the elevation of the body of S. Gautier de Pontoise, granted out of seven years' penance one year and a third of the remainder ; out of fourteen years, two years and a third of the remainder ; while to those who had accepted forty years he gave one-half and a third of the remainder. He was more sparing, in 1156, on the occasion of the discovery of the Holy Coat of Argenteuil, although the ceremony was most impressive, being attended by Louis VII. and all his court, with a great gathering of prelates and an innumerable multitude of the people, for he promised to those who should visit the coat during the year only one year's ^ Rodriguez, Expositione della Bolla della Crociata, p. 37. ■■^ Historise Compostell. Lib. ii. Cap. 28, 71, 78. EPISCOPAL INDULGENCES. 163 remission for mortal sius and half the penance of forgotten and venial ones, while in snbsequent years only forty days were granted, and this only on the feast of S. Denis and during its octave.^ It shows how novel as yet was this exercise of the power of the keys that Abelard fiercely assails the impudence of this episcopal greed, which seeks, whenever there is hope of copious oblations on the occasion of dedicating a church, consecrating an altar or blessing a cemetery, to attract a crowd under pretence of relaxing a third or a fourth part of penance, covering cupidity with a mantle of charity. If, he adds, they have power thus to open and close heaven they would be most fortunate if they could open it for themselves.^ The first limitation on this episcopal power was its restriction to the immediate subjects of the grantor. This was defined by Alex- ander III., in response to an enquiry by the Archbishop of Canter- bury, whether the remissions given for the dedications of churches and the building of bridges were valid for those not subjected to the prelate issuing them, to which Alexander replied that no one can be bound or loosed except by his own judge,^ This was followed, in 1216, by the action of the Lateran council in strictly circumscribing episcopal action. It alluded to the indiscreet and superfluous indul- gences granted by some bishops, whereby the keys were exposed to contempt and the satisfaction of penance was enervated, wherefore it was decreed that, at the dedication of churches, no matter how many bishops might be present, the indulgence should not exceed a year, while forty days must be the limit for anniversaries and other objects, and it called attention that this moderation was customarily observed by the popes, although they enjoyed plenitude of power.* It was ^ Mabillon Praef. in Saec. V. Ord> Benedict, n. 112. — Hugon. Rotomagens. Epist. 25 (Migne, CXCI[. 1137). ^ P. Abselardi Ethicar. Cap. 25. ' Post Concil. Lateran. P. xxxv. Cap. 4. * C. Lateran. IV. Cap. 62 (Harduin. VII. 66). I am inclined to think that the slur thus cast upon the bishops was unde- served, though doubtless it was the part of prudence to check the unbridled rivalry which would infallibly have grown up amid a class of men so worldly as the mediaeval episcopate, as well as to render the fabrication of excessive indulgences more difficult. I have not been able to find any authentic cases of undue profuseness prior to the Lateran council. Thus, in 1178, the dedica- tion of the monastery of Bee was a very solemn ceremony, performed by Rotrou, Archbishop of Rouen, assisted by the Bishops of Avranches, Evreux and S. 164 DEVELOPMENT. well, perhaps, that there was some authority to control the bishops ; unfortunately there was none to control the popes This restriction, at the time, might readily be agreed to, because, as we have seen, the limits assigned were fully up to the concessions ordinarily made — concessions quite sufficient to attract penitents and secure the harvest of oblations so long as the competition of more attractive terms was confined to the crusades. Yet the limitation Brieuc, in the presence of Henry II. of England and his son the younger King Henry, yet only forty days' indulgence was granted for the anniversary. — Chron. Beccens. ann. 1178 (Migne, CL. 657). In 1195 we find Ccelestin III. confirming an indulgence granted by Bertrand Bishop of Metz to the church of St. Mary and St. Theobald of forty days of enjoined penance on Easter Monday and the anniversary of the dedication, though in addition forgotten sins and penance were included, and there is a curious allusion to the sins of fathers and mothers not involving restitution, as though sin was heritable. — Ccelestin. PP. III. Epist. 222 (Migne, CCVI. 1106). I have not met with any instances of greater liberality than that of Hugues of Rouen, mentioned above, and in all the Compilations, embracing the papal decretals from Alexander III. to Honorius III., there is no complaint or warning or exhortation to moderation. Maurice de Sully, who was Bishop of Paris from 1163 to 1196, has been commonly assumed as guilty of much excess in this direction, and I was dis- Ijosed to believe that he might have given some ground for the animadversions of the Lateran fathers, but I have not been able to discover any positive evi- dence to that effect. It is true that he was of obscure birth and so poor that, when a student in the University of Paris, he had to resort to beggary, and that during his episcopate he not only built Notre Dame, but founded and endowed four abbeys, constructed episcopal palaces and bridges and left his see greatly enriched (Rigord de Gestis Philippi Augusti ann. 1196 ; Guill. Brito de Gestis Philippi ann. 1196; Guill. de Nangiaco Chron. ann. 1176, 1196; Necrolog. Parisiens. ap. Migne, CCV. 895). None of the contemporary chroniclers how- ever accuse him of undue acquisitiveness through indulgences. Caesarius of Heisterbach (Dialog. Dist. ii. Cap. 33) says that he was too zealous in build- ing his cathedral, but the only instance given is his endeavor to obtain for the fabric the conscientious restitutions of a usurer. Peter Cantor, who, in his Verbum abbrevlatam so unsjiaringly lashed the vices of the prelates of his day, has no word of reproof for Maurice, or for the reckless use of indul- gences. Father Morin, however, does not hesitate to say (De Poenit. Lib. x. Cap. 20) that Maurice's expenditures were defrayed by the partial and plenary indulgences which he sold, bringing in sums of money which the royal treasury could scarce have supplied, and there evidently was some tradition of the kind, for Victor Martet (Maurice de Sully, p. 109, Piiris, 1890), in his defence of Maurice, quotes from Eudes de Chateauroux, in the thirteenth century, the phrase " Ecclesia Parisiensis de obolis mulierum pro magna parte facta est." EPISCOPAL INDULGENCES. 165 was not strictly observed, and there was a perceptible disposition to assert the old privileges of the episcopal order. In 1221 Archbishop Simon of Ravenna, when dedicating the church of the convent of St. Marv, granted in perpetuity for its anniversary and the succeed- ing fifteen days, an indulgence of three years to those who contributed money.^ About the same time William of Auxerre complains that bishops promise too much, for a frequent formula is that whoever will give of his substance to the fabric of a certain church will obtain remission of a third of his penance, his forgotten sins, his broken vows, if he resumes them, and the like, when in fact no one can make a just estimate as to forgotten sins and broken vows.^ This assumes that there is no objection to the remission of a third of the penance, and AVilliam of Paris goes further by sturdily maintaining the right of the bishop to grant either partial or plenary indulgences at his discretion, and this either with or without cause.^ S. Ramon de Pefiafort doubtless represents the papal party when he casts doubts on the efficacy of episcopal indulgences and insists that penance should be performed to satisfy the Church, which has been scandal- ized by the sinner.* The same influence is to be traced in the warn- ing given by the council of Lyons to the Archbishop of Reims, who was selling indulgences to build his cathedral, not to exceed the Lateran limits, and the embodiment of this in the canon law shows the determination of the Holy See to insist on its observance. At the same time, in its zeal for the impending crusade, the council conferred on all prelates a special power to grant indulgences at their discretion to those whom they could persuade to make legacies for the Holy Land and the Empire of Constantinople, all moneys thus received to be kept under seal by the bishops.^ Cardinal Henry of Susa and Albertus Magnus naturally repeat the injunction that the Lateran rule must be enforced,*' but it was difficult to prevent 1 Rubei Hist. Eavennat. p. 385 (Venet. 1689). ^ Guillel. Altisiodor Siimmse Lib. IV. Tract, vi. Cap. 9 piorin de Poenit. Lib. X. Cap. 21). * Guillel. Parisiens. de Sacram. Ordinis Cap. 13. The good bishop prac- tised what he taught, if Morin is correct {ubi sup.) in asserting that he was very profuse in his grants of indulgences. * S. Raymundi Summse Lib. ill. Tit. xxxiv. § 5. * Cap. 1 in Sexto Lib. v. Tit. x.— C. Lugdunens. I. ann. 1245 Cap. 15 (Harduin. VII. 391). ® Hostiens. Aurete Summse Lib. v. De Remiss. | 5. — Albert! Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 21. 166 DE VEL OPMENT. infractions. Among the few mediaeval indulgences granted for chari- table work was one, in 1286, by Archbishop Boniface of Ravenna, who, after taxing his prelates with living splendidly while allowing the poor to starve, granted a year's remission of penance to bishops who would feed four paupers daily, to abbots who would feed two, to archdeacons and archpriests who would feed one, and to other clerics who would feed a pauper once a week. There was no money to be made out of this, and, in 1317, the council of Ravenna awoke to this violation of the rules and cut it down to forty days, while at the same time eludiug the rule by granting to its own members and all who had assisted in its labors forty days for every day so em- ployed.^ Bishops were frequently transgressing, and, about 1300, Boniface VIII. deemed it necessary to decree that episcopal grants exceeding the Lateran limits had no force (vires non obtinent)? This gave rise to a new question — whether the whole indulgence is invalid or only the excess above the Lateran standard. As to this authori- ties differed. Astesanus, to reconcile the dispute, reaches the curiously logical conclusion that it ought to be wholly invalid, but is not so.^ Some even held that the limitation only took effect after the decretal of Boniface and his embodiment of it in the canon law, while there was a lively dispute whether it or the Lateran precept was retro- active in its effect and was applicable to earlier grants.* Baptista Tornamala gives the conflictiug authorities as to whether the whole indulgence or only the excess is invalid, and evades an answer, while Prierias tells us that the weight of authority inclines to the latter view. Rodriguez asserts positively that it is the excess that is null, and this I presume is the accepted teaching.^ There are bishops who are legati nati — papal legates ex officio — and these claimed that their power of granting indulgences was the same ^ C. Eavennat. ann. 1286, Ruhr. ii. ; ann. 1317, Rubr. xx. xxii. (Harduin. VIII. 944, 1447, 1449). '^ Cap. 3 in Sexto Lib. v. Tit. x. Of course the pojjes assumed the power of enlarging the episcopal privilege: Tlius, in 1296, Boniface VIII. granted to Burchard, Archbishop of Magdeburg, a faculty to concede a year and forty days to all present at his first mass, duly repentant and confessed. — Schmidt, Piibstliche Urkunden u. Regesten, p. 21 (Halle, 1886). ^ Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 1. * Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. liv. * Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia || 4, 5. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indul- gentia ^ 15. — Rodriguez, Bolla della Santa Crociata, p. 12. EPISCOPAL INDULGENCES. 167 as that of legates, which, as mt shall see, exceeded somewhat that of bishops. Some of the German prelates came within this category, as also the Archbishops of York, Canterbury, and Reims, and their claims were allowed.^ The Archbishops of Beuevento asserted a right to grant a hundred days under a concession of Clement VI., October 6, 1347, and this was confirmed, in 1747, by Clement XIII.^ The forty-day limit for episcopal indulgences is enforced with strictness, in spite of the profusion with which papal plenaries are distributed. In 1847 the Archbishop of Camerino suggested that archbishops could gi'ant eighty days after certain functions, but the Congregation of Indulgences returned a decided negative.^ This is perhaps explicable by the fact that special indults are, for the most part, readily obtainable, whereby the bishops can exercise extended powers for erecting confraternities with indulgences, of granting faculties for blessing medals, chaplets, images, and the like, of ren- dering altars privileged — in short, of regulating within their dioceses the patronage connected with pardons.^ When these are not ex- pressly limited to a term of years, they are, of course, subject to withdrawal at any time, and they form part of the faculties held on a virtual tenor of implicit obedience which enables the Holy See to exercise control over insubordination in the episcopal ranks. The Church has always benevolently endeavored to ease the terrors of the death-bed, at which time there are no reserved cases, and, as we have seen, any priest can bestow absolution. A similar policy arose as regards indulgences when the Counter-Reformation gradually deprived them of their pecuniary fruitfulness. The popes grew in the habit of granting three years' faculties to bishops to bestow plenary indulgence in articulo, but they were limited to this as a personal function, and could not delegate it, except on special occa- sions when summoned at night and unable to respond to the call. Of course but a very small portion of the faithful could be benefited by this, for there were comparatively few within reach of the bishop and fewer who would venture to summon him, or whose summons ' Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 205. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. V. Legatus, n. 11. ^ Viva de Jubilseo et Indulg. p. 88. — Decreta Autlientica n. 306. ^ Decreta Autlientica, n. 611. * Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences p. 52. — Decreta Authentica, n. 575, 576, 773. 1G8 DEVELOPMENT. lie would heed. It probably was the terrible pestilence ravaging Lombardy, in 1576 and 1577, which induced Gregory XIII., in 1580, to bestow on the bishops of the province of Milan general authority to delegate this power. In 1656 Alexander VII. conferred on the Congregation of Regular Clerics ministering to the Sick a faculty to grant such indulgences. Apparently the custom spread, and doubts arose whether plenaries ought to be given to all who sought them in articulo, but, in 1675, the Congregation of Indul- gences decided in the affirmative. In 1710 the Congregation was besought to give the power to Apostolic Vicars and other inferior prelates having independent jurisdiction, but nothing was done. Finally Benedict XIV., in 1747, after reciting the impossibility which he had found as Bishop of Ancona and Archbishop of Bologna to discharge this duty, placed the matter on a more liberal basis. All prelates in charge of independent territory are authorized to apply for and receive letters enabling them to grant plenary indul- gence in articulo, and to delegate this power to one or more priests in each place within their dioceses. The form of indulgence pre- scribed is careful to specify that it is in virtue of delegated apostolic authority, and the indulgence is absolute, but Benedict recognized and expressed the danger that this facility ot death-bed pardon would become virtually a license to sin, and to guard against this he directed the priests to w'arn their flocks frequently to bear in mind the uncertainty of the external rite unless the soul is properly prepared for it.^ Cardinals have a somewhat larger liberty than bishops, as they can grant indulgences of a hundred days within their own churches, although these grants are not perpetual.^ Legates have still more extended power. Originally, like bishops, it was limited to forty days,^ but their capacity has been increased, and it is recognized that for any pious work they can concede what they please within a year, while for churches and chapels the limit is seven years and seven 1 C. Mediolan. VI. Const, xi. (Harduin. X. 1115).— Deer. Authent. n. 8.— Bened. PP. XIV. Bull. Fia Mafer, 4 Mali, 1747. ■^ Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentia n. 2. — Viva de Jubilaeo et Indulg. p. 90. — Ferraris Prompta Bibliotheca s. v. Indulgentia Art. ll. n. 23. — Varceuo Comp. Theol. Moral. Tract, xxiv. Cap. 1. ^ Durandi Speculi Lib. i. Partic. 1, ? 4, n, 39. PAPAL LEGATES- GENERAL COUNCILS. 169 quarantines, with the added advantage that these grants may be per- petual.^ As a matter of course, however, the pope when commis- sioning them can grant whatever additional powers he sees fit, although, in the earlier period, this was very sparingly exercised. In 1263 Urban IV., in sending Guido, Bishop of Sabina, as legate to England, gave him five special faculties for granting indulgences for various objects, ranging from forty days to a year and forty days, and the latter term is the maximum in several faculties granted to nuncios and legates to England by various popes between 1306 and 1337.^ On the other hand, in 1307, Clement V., in sending Car- dinal Gentile as legate to Poland, Dalmatia, Croatia, etc., furnished him only with power to concede ten, twenty, thirty, or forty days to those contributino; to churches.^ In 1513 Leo X., when conferring: unusual powers on the Cardinal of Gran as legate to Poland, author- ized him to bestow indulgences of from one to six years; in 1514 the Cardinal of Mantua, as legate in the March of Ancona, was empowered to grant to every one a year's indulgence and a plenary at death, and, in 1518, the legates to England, Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio, were commissioned to give plenaries whenever they celebrated mass before the king and queen.* A question which has excited a certain amount of debate is whether a general council has power to grant indulgences. The Laterau council of 1216 and that of Lyons in 1245 had no hesitation, as we have seen, in making the customary remissions to crusaders. In 1423 that of Siena assumed, as a matter of course, its authority to offer Holy Land indulgences to all who would capture heretics and deliver them to bishops or inquisitors.^ All this was no invasion of papal power, for the two former assemblies were presided over by popes and the latter by a legate, but when the council of Bale, on the eve of its rupture with Eugenius III., in 1435, resolved to issue Holy Land indulgences to raise money to attract the Greek envoys to Bale, and the papal legates refused to append their signatures, the ^ Ferraris Prorapta Biblioth. s. v. Leyatus, n. 46. - Bliss, Calendar of Papal Eegisters, I. 398-99; II. 31, 105, 131, 538. ^ Ptegest. Clement. PP. V. Ann. II. n. 2282. * Hergenrbther Regesta Leonis X. n. 3688-3703, 8699.— Rymer Fcedera, T. XIII. p. 609. * Harduin. VIII. 1017. 170 DEVELOPMENT. coimcil assumed that it represented the Church uuiversal and pro- ceeded to act independently. It ordered chests to be placed in all churches, and any opposition, even papal, to be repressed with censures, calling in the assistance of the secular arm if necessary. Eugenius protested, but the council persisted, and again, in 1439, it asserted its powers by granting to all its members who had served for six months a plenary once iu life and at death, and thus a new point was raised in the acrimonious debate as to the supremacy of pope or council.^ Weigel, who was himself a commissioner for the sale of the former indulgence, shows how far-reaching were the questions involved. He admits that all prelates derive their jurisdiction from the pope, but a general council as well as a pope can issue indul- gences ; as an individual the pope, like any other prelate, can err, but a general council, assembled in the Holy Ghost, cannot err, and therefore is it superior to the pope.^ The miserable failure at Bsile practically settled the question of papal preponderance, and subse- quent theologians for the most part, if they admit the power of a general council to issue indulgences, which some do not, qualify it with the definition that a general council is one presided over by the pope or his legates. Domingo Soto and Azpilcueta, however, assert it without this reserve, and Polacchi admits that an " aceph- alous " council — one held during a papal vacancy — " probably has the power." ^ We have seen that the bishops did not wholly acquiesce in the restriction placed upon them by the Lateran canon, and that there frequently was little scruple in disregarding it. Several ways of eluding it were moreover discovered. One of these was to grant an indulgence toties quotles, when the penitent by frequent repetition 1 Martene Thesaur. T. IV. p. 375.— Harduin. T. VIII. pp. 1217, 1357, ] 302-4. ^ Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. 42-52. ^ Pauliani de Jobilseo et Indulgent, pp. 126-7 (Romae, 1550). — Azpilcuetae Comment, de Jobiliso, Notab. xxxi. n. 2. — Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. 1. Art. 4. — Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. i. cap. 11. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. pp. 262, 333. — Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentia n. 2. — Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 59. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia, Art ii. n. 4. — Grone, Der Ablass, p. 45. — Beringer, Die Ablasse, p. 37. — Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 44. CUMULA TED IND ULOENCES. 1 7 1 could enlarge the remission indefinitely. Thus when the church of St. Vulmer was destroyed in 1256, Raoul, Bishop of T^rouane, offered sixty days to all who would come, personally or by messenger, with contributions for its restoration, as often as the pious act was repeated, and as no minimum limit was specified for the offerings, the penitent could subdivide his oblation at pleasure. Such indul- gences were not uncommon, and their use greatly enlarged the limits of episcopal power.^ Another method, largely practised, was that of several prelates combining and cumulating their indulgences. Originally this would seem to have been recognized as strictly permissible. About 1186, on the occasion of the foundation of the abbey of St. Nicholas of Angers, we are told that Urban III. granted a remission of one seventh of penance, to which the Archbishop of Tours, the Bishop of Angers, and all the bishops of Britaany added forty days each.- The Lateran canon, as we have seen (p. 163), forbade this cumula- tion, which, in fact, was unlawful under the ruling of Alexander III. that a bishop's jurisdiction in this field was limited strictly to his own subjects. The question of jurisdiction which was thus imported into the matter, and the connected one of the assent of bishops to each other's indulgences, gave rise to a perplexing and intricate branch of canon law, for every one was desirous of gathering con- tributions from all sources, and the industry of the gucestuarii had little respect for boundary lines. Bishop AVilliam Durand thus summarizes the subject towards the end of the thirteenth century. The archiepiscopal jurisdiction in indulgences extends over the whole province, the episcopal is limited to the diocese. If subjects of other sees assist in building a bridge or a hospital in the diocese of Paris, the indulgence granted by the bishop of Paris is worthless to them without the assent of their own bishops. A bishop, in subscribing to the indulgence of another bishop, can say that he concedes to all who may assist the said hospital that they can participate in all the good works performed in his bishopric, and this, according to Vincent, even without the consent of their bishops. The proper form of subscription is " I absolve forty days if it pleases their 1 Gousset, Actes etc. II., 395, 607.— Statuta Synod. Camerac. (Hartzheim IV. 83).— Fez Thesaur. Anecd. VI. iii. 259-61. * Morin. de Pcenit. Lib. x. Cap. 23. 172 BEVEL OPMENT. bishops," aad then they obtain the remission from him and not from their own bishops, but with the consent of the hitter, but it would be safer to obtain in advance the consent of their bishops. Some bishops, misled by Vincent, erroneously concede indulgences for the repair of bridges and churches in other dioceses, adding the clause '' if the diocese grants assent." But even such consent is invalid, for no bishop can concede that indulgences issued by other bishops in his diocese are good there, although a bishop can concede that his indulgence may be good for those coming from elsewhere into his diocese, for in this case those coming seem to obtain his jurisdiction, while in the former case he is extending his jurisdiction over those not subject to it. If this were allowed he could indirectly grant indulgences of a hundred years, which is pr,)hibited.^ It is evident that the subject was confused, and that prelates had little hesitation in presuming upon popular ignorance and in overstepping their legal prerogatives. It was claimed that an archbishop and a bishop could each grant forty days, and thus an eighty-day indulgence could be had by the subjects of the diocese, while those of the rest of the province only gained the archiepiscopal forty. Even Cardinal Henry of Susa ad- mits this, and he is followed by many authorities, but Stefano Notti assures us that the weight of opinion is in the negative.^ This how- ever was a much more pardonable infraction of the rule than many others that were habitual. Titular bishops in partibus, having no jurisdiction, were incapable of granting valid indulgences, but there always were many of them hanging around the papal court or wan- dering elsewhere, and ready to turn a penny, honest or otherwise, by any use of their sacred office, nor were the rectors of churches generally much more scrupulous as to the means by which they could attract oblations. Thus, in 1283, we find the monastery of Polling obtaining from a Benedictine who styles himself Leo " Epis- ^ Duraadi Speculi Lib. iv. Panic, iv. De Poenit. et Eeuiiss. n. 5-8. An example of this irregularity is an iadulgence of forty days granted, in 1249, by the Bishop of Valencia to those visiting the church of S. Maria of Cala- tayud (Espaiia Sagrada, XLIX. 428). It specifies the assent of the diocesan of Taragona, but nevertheless, according to Durand's view, it was invalid. ^ Hostiens. Aureae Summae Lib. v. De Remiss. § 5. — Astesani Summse Lib. V. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 1. — Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgentia § 9. — Summa An- gelica s. v. Lulidgeiitli I 12. — Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remisslonis, fol. 1546. 1 CUMULATED INDULGENCES. 173 copus Chalamouensis," and dates from the office of the vicechancellor at Rome, two indulgences of one hundred and forty days and one of forty, subject to the approval of the bishop of Augsburg, which is duly appended.* Even more frequent was the practice of numerous bishops uniting to cumulate their powers. Cardinal Henry of Susa tells us that this was customary, but that in reality the subjects of each bishop only gained the forty days of his own prelate.^ Yet in spite of the Lateran prohibition there were doctors who, like Pierre de la Palu, argued in favor of the custom, provided the bishop of the locality assented,^ but Boniface VIII. repeated the restriction, and the theolosrians as a rule maintained it.^ Xothino; however could prevent the abuse. About the year 1300 the Archbishop of Reims aud all his suffragans united in granting an indulgence of 480 days to the benefactors of all poor parish churches, and this was ordered to be diligently explained by all parish priests to their subjects.' In 1321 twenty-eight bishops gathered at the council of Valladolid from Aragon, Navarre, Portugal and Castile, united in granting forty days each to those who would contribute to the nun- nery of St. Mark in Calatayud, provided the bishop approved, which the diocesan of Taragona promptly did, and added forty days more.® ^ Amort de Indulgentiis I. 231. Calamona was a see in Crete, at that time under Venitian domination. Even the industry of Father Gams has apjjar- ently not been able to throw any light on an " Episcopus Syringensis," who, in 1324, being in Vienna, granted an indulgence of forty days to the chapel of St. Dorothy (Pez Thesaur. Anecd. VI. ill. 10). In 1359 a wandering bishop of St. Marco (Xaples) in Vienna grants forty days to the parochial church of St. Stephen (Ibid. p. 44). ^ Hostiens. Aurete Summae Lib. v. de Remiss. § 5. Albertus Magnus also speaks of it as a common abuse (In IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Art. 21). ' P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. Art. 2, Concl. 4. John of Freiburg (Summse Confessor. Lib. in. Tit. xxxiv. Q 189) and Baptista Torna- mala (Summa Rosella s. v. Indulgintia | 13) suggest that a confessor can authorize his penitent to gain indulgences from any one, and thus episcopal remissions may be cumulated. * Cap. 3 in Sexto Lib. v. Tit. 10.— Astesani Summae Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 2, Q. 5.— Epist. Synodal. Guill. Episc. Cadurcens. Cap. 8 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 689). — Summa Angelica s. v. Induhjentia § 5. * Statuta Synodal. Camerac. (Hartzheim IV. 83). * The original of this formed part of the " Exposicion Historico Europea " held in Madrid, in 1892, and was No. 434 of the Catalogue of Sala X. It is from the archives of Alcala de Henares. 174 DEVELOPMENT. In 1363 thirteen bishops of three provinces gathered at the council of Lavaur granted forty days each to all who, on any one of more than thirty feast-days and their octaves, would visit the cathedral of Lavaur and contribute to its repair, or, without visiting, would give or leave it anything, and, as though conscious of acting illegally, a claim is made of being a general council.^ It was however from the bishops collected at Rome that these irregular indulgences were usually pro- cured. In 1290 three archbishops and nine bishops, from various lands, including some in partibus, grant forty days each to the chapel of St. Werner — presumably the boy said to have been sacrificed by Jews at Bacharach, who was not canonized till 1421 by Cardinal Branda. In 1287 fifteen bishops contribute forty days each to the cathedral at Narni. In 1329 the Archbishop of Pisa and nine bishops concede forty days each to the Cistercian monastery of the Holy Cross at Vienna.'^ Still greater offenders in this way were the car- dinals. As Pierre Dubois says, in 1306, they had little or no revenue from their titular churches, and were obliged, like mercenaries, to live, as it were, by rapine,^ and the price at which they could sell their signatures to such a document ^vas not to be despised at a time when the concession of indulgences to a church was, as we shall see, as much a matter of traffic as the sale of those indulgences to indi- vidual penitents by the qucestuarii. It was in vain that, in 1417, Martin V. forbade the issuing of such grants under the seals of the cardinals and decreed that all such should be invalid.* The princes of the Church apparently regarded this as a concession to the weak- ness of the fathers of Constance, intended to be inoperative, for, in 1419, we find twenty-one members of the Sacred College uniting to grant a hundred days each to the church of St. Rasso, and they had numerous imitators.^ How completely this was a matter of ordinary 1 C. Vaurense ann. 1863 (Harduin. VII. 1860). ^ Amort de Indulgentiis I. 226. — Pez Thesaur. Anecd. VI. ill. 15. For other instances see Amort, pp. 226, 227, 228, and Pez, VI. ii. 171, 194, 201. The frequency with which this resource was exploited is indicated by the church of the Holy SejDulchre in Calatayud procuring, in 1297, forty days each from fifteen bishops at Orvieto, where the papal court was staying (Archive de Alcalil) and another, in 1299, of forty days each from ten bishops in Eome (Espaiia Sagrada, Tom. 50, p. 453). ^ De Recuperatione Terrse Sanctse (Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos II. 325)^ * Eegula; Martini PP. V. n. 41 (Ottenthal, 196). * Amort oj). clt. I. 229-34. I have before me one of these documents, elab- CUMULATED INDULGENCES. 175 business reduced to a system is seen by a fifteenth century book of formulas, which states that the issuing of papal indulgences is in the hands of the abbreviators, but for those granted by cardinals it pro- ceeds to give instructions. These commence with the titles of the cardinals, showing their order of precedence, so that the names mar orately engrossed on parchment, with the cardinals' seals appended, enclosed in large oval boxes of sheet iron. It reads : " Guillermus episcopus Ostiensis, Alanus Sancte Praxedis, Johannes Sancti Laurentii in Damaso, Angelus Sancte Crucis in Hierusalem, Berardus Sancte Sabine et Bartholomeus Sancti dementis titulorum presbiteri, miseratione divina sacrosancte ecclesie Cardi- nales Eothomagensis, Avenionensis, Zamorensis, Reatinus, Spoletanus et Ravennas vulgariter nuncupati, omnibus et singulis christifidelibus presentes nostras litteras inspecturis, salutem in Domino sempiternam. Dum precelsa meritorum insignia quibus regina celorum Virgo dei genetrix gloriosa sedibus prelata sidereis quasi stella matutina prerutilat, devote considerationis inda- gine perscrutamur, dum eciam intra nostre mentis archana revolvimus quod ipsa utpote mater misericordie et gratie pietatis arnica humani generis conso- latrix et provigil, ad regem quern genuit intercedit, dignura quinimmo debi- tum arbitramur ut ecclesias ad honorem sui nominis decoratas gratiosis remis- sionum prosequamur impendiis et indulgentiarum muneribus. Cupientes igitur ut ecclesia Beatarum Marie et Catherine virginum in Fronperg Ratis- ponensis diocesis congruis frequentetur honoribus et ut christifideles eo libentius devocionis causa confluant ad eandem, quo ibidem dono celestis gracie uberius conspexerint se refectos, de Omnipotentis dei misericordia ac Beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum ejus auctoritate confisi, Omnibus vere penitentibus et confessis qui diotam ecclesiam in singulis Annunciacionis beate Marie virginis, Resurrectionis domini nostri ihesu christi, Assump- cionis gloriosissime virginis matris Marie prefate et Catherine virginis, necnon dedicacionis ipsius ecclesie a primis vesperis usque ad secundas vesperas in- clusive festivitatibus devote visitaverint annuatim et ad reparacionem ac con- servacionem edificiorum, calicum, librorum et aliorum ornamentorum pro divino cultu inibi necessariorum raanus porrexerint adjutrices, Nos Cardinales prefati et quilibet nostrum seorsim pro qualibet die festivitatum et celebritate hujusmodi, Centum dies indulgenciarum de injunctis eis penitentiis miseri- corditer in domino relaxamus, presentibus perpetuis futuris temporibus dura- turis. In quorum omnium et singulorum fidem et testimonium premissorum presentes nostras litteras exinde fieri mandavimus nostrorumque Cardinala- tuum maiorim (sic) Sigillum jussimus et fecimus appensione communiri. Dat. Rome, anno a Xativitate domini Millesimo quadringentesimo sexagesimo quinto, Indictione terciadecima, die vero Lune Secunda Mensis Decembris, Pontificatus Sanctissimi in christo patris et domini nostri domini Pauli divina providencia Pape Secundi Anno Secundo." It will be seen by the titles of these prelates that they had not the excuse of poverty for condescending to this traflSc. 176 DE VEL OPMENT. be arrauged in due sequence. Then it gives twenty-three formulas of preambles, for the Trinity, Corpus Christi, Virgin Mary, Holy Cross, St. John the Baptist, St. Michael etc., indicating how purely formal was the effusiveness of these documents. The examples which it proceeds to give are intended for cumulative indulgences, proving that this was the customary form.^ In 1500 Stefano Notti shows us that the question was still keenly debated w4iether prelat(s could unite and cumulate their indulgences, although it was admi. ed to be prohibited by the Lateran canon.^ Prierias and Azpilcueta however allude to no doubt on the subject and assume the limitation to be in force as a matter of course.^ The principle may be considered settled, but it has been difficult to eradi- cate the practice. ^V^^n St. Pius V. refused to renew the cruzada in Spain, Philip II., ) keenly felt the loss of revenue, after vainly endeavoring to iuflueuce the pope, assembled, in 1570, all his bishops, who cumulated their powers so effectively that they proclaimed an indulgence of a hundred years for the simple prayer Bendita y loada y ensa/fcida sea nuestra Santa Fe Catolica.* So lately as 1838 the question came before the Congregation of Indulgences in the shape of a picture of the Virgin, belonging to a citizen of Marseilles, who had obtained from the bishop an indulgence of forty days for all who would recite certain prayers before it. Not satisfied with this, he procured other similar pardons from bishops passing through the city, and the Congregation w^as appealed to as to their validity, when it neces-arily decided that the first was good and the subsequent ones apocryphal.^ In spite of this, a book published by the Libreria ReUgiosa of Barcelona, in 1855, bears the anu )uncemeut that various prelates of Spain have conceded tweuty-thre ; hundred and twenty days of indulgence to any one who will read < r listen to a chapter or a page of any its publications.* ^ Formularium Instrumentorup ad usum Curia ^ Romanse, fol. 63-5 (Sine nota, sed Memmingae, v. Hain, Tii ). ^ Stepli. ex Nottis Opus Remissioais, fol. 153i. ^ Surama Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia I 11.— A?pilcuetfe Comment, de Jobi- Iseo, Notab. xxxi. n. 4. * Perez de Lara, Compendio de las tres Gracias, pp. 30-33. * Decreta Authentica n. 499. ® As this appears in front of the title-page of so serious a work as Vicente de la Fuente's Hisforia ecdesidstica de Eipana, I presume that it must be accepted as genuine. OBJECTS OF IND ULGENCES. 177 For the most part the indulgences which have thus far come before us have been those issued for crusading purposes and for aiding in the building, repair, and maintenance of churches and religious houses. Their usefulness, however, was by no means confined to these objects. AVe have seen how, in the early days (p. 55, 144), they were employed to enforce the Truce of God. Another purpose for which they were largely used was the construction of bridges — an object of the greatest public utility and pf.^uliarly important to the churches as facilitating the access of pilgrrAis. The building of bridges is classed with the assistance of churches as the motive for indulgences in the inquiry made by the Archbishop of Canterbury of Alexander III., and Robert of Flammesburg couples them to- gether similarly when he has occasion to char *» nnze the indulgences which he proceeds to discuss. S. Ramon de . .afort, indeed, seems to recognize bridges as the ])rimary object of these partial remissions, and only speaks of them and of the crusades.^ Popes did not dis- dain to use their supreme authority for this' purpose. In 1188 Clement III. calls upon all the faithful in Sicily, Tuscany, and Genoa to aid the brethren of the Hospital of Staguo, near Pisa, who had undertaken to build a bridge, and he stimulates zeal with a thirty days' indulgence."^ In 1209 Innocent III. offers an indulgence to all who will lend a helping hand to the completion of the bridge over the Rhone at Lyons.^ Bridges were, however, not the only ^ Post Concil. Lateran. P. xxxv. Cap. 4. — R. de Flammesburg. Pcenitent. (Amort, II. 33). — S. Raymundi Summse Lib. lir. Tit. xxxiv. § 5. Possibly one reason for + le selection of bridges us objects for indulgences was that ecclesiastics, at 1 ist in some places, were not exempted from con- tributing to their erection ; nd maintenance. Charlemagne alludes to this as an ancient custom, which L >. confirms (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 10), and this was carried into the Ll nbard Law (L. Longob. Lothar. I. Cap. 41). ^ Pflugk-Harttung Acta ] ontiff. III. n. 408. ^ Potthast Regest. n. 379i.i The interest f 'It by ecclesiastics in these enter- prises is illustrated by Nivelon, Bishop o ooissons, who accompanied the fourth crusade and was pr.seut at the capiai-e of Constantinople. The Em- peror Baldwin gave him the relics of St. Stephen the protomartyr, which he carried to the West when, in 1205, he was sent home to solicit succor. At Chalons he gave to the church of St. Stephen an arm-bone, under condition that the oblations of pilgrims visiting it should be equally divided between the fabric of the church and the building of the bridge of the city (Gousset, Actes, II. 337-8). He could not grant an indulgence in a strange diocese, but doubtless the Bishop of Chalons conferred one on so priceless a relic. III.— 12 178 DE VEL OPMENT. public works thus assisted, for William of Paris also alludes to the construction and improvement of roads and pavements as objects for which indulgences were customarily employed.* In fact, these pardons became the current coin with which the Church rewarded the faithful and stimulated zeal in its service, Avhatever was the object on which it had set its heart. If mission- aries were to be sent to distant lands they were given a plenary, and were empowered to grant twenty or forty days to all who would listen to them, and it was the same with those employed to preach the cross and with inquisitors. If those who listened to the latter or assembled to gaze on the victims of an auto-de-fe obtained forty days, the more earnest Catholics who assisted them in the difficult and sometimes dangerous work of tracking and capturing heretics were rewarded with plenaries.^ When the assassination of St. Peter Martyr was utilized to the utmost, associations of crocescgnati were formed throughout Italy to aid the Inquisition, and a plenary Avas offered to all who would join them.^ It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if a special indulgence was granted to those who mani- fested their zeal by bringing wood to add to the pile at the stake* — a fact which sufficiently neutralizes the effi^rts of modern apologists to relieve the Church of the responsibility of these holocausts. When, in 1247, the excommunication of Frederic II. by the council of Lyons w^as to be published, as it was in some places a service not without danger, those to whom the duty was confided were promised full remission of sins if they should be exposed to insult, violence, or persecution.' ^ Guill. Paris, de Sacramento Ordinis Cap. xiii. 2 Ripoll Bullar. Ord. Pr«dic. I. 44, 57, 100, 101, 102, 175, 179, 188, 222, 230, 242,247,248,286,424,526; II. 143, 178, 186.-Sbaralea Bullar. Francisc. I. 451.— Raynald. ann. 1252, n. 26.— Iiinoc. PP. IV. Bull. Quia tunc (Bullar. I. 102). The custom of granting indulgences to those present at the autos-de-fe of the Inquisition was continued to modern times. To this Azpilcueta (De Oratione Cap. V. n. 43) attributes the crowds assembled on such occasions. 3 Innoc. PP. IV. Bull. Malitia, 1254 (Bullar. I. 103). * Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary, p. 60. Yet, with curious inconsis- tency, clerics who seek to gain this indulgence become " irregular " if the wood they bring actually aids in the burning. — Jac. a Gratfiis Decis. Aureae Casuum -Conscient. P. ii. Lib. ii. Cap. 19, n. 53. » Ripoll, I. 172. MONEY THE CHIEF OBJECT. 179 For the most part, however, the object of indulgences was the purely material one of raising money. This is admitted in the crude advice of William of Auxerre that the penitent seeking an indulgence should have discretion to know for how much he wants to be relieved, or what he wishes to give for absolution from so much penance, while Albertus Magnus, on the other hand, requires the Church to make a just estimate of the payment to be required — that is, according to the necessity of the Church and the wealth of the penitent.^ The simplicity of this bargain and sale is emphasized by the provision occasionally found in indulgences that the remission gained will be in proportion to the amount of payment and devo- tion.- In all this there was no hypocritical coucealment of the object ; the moral standard had become so debased that the traffic in the blood of Christ was carried on openly and without shame. Gilles Charlier, in answering the Hussite arguments at the council of Bale, does not deem it necessary to defend the sale of indulgences, but only to explain that the money is expended for worthy purposes, and makes no allusion to any spiritual objects.'"* When the council struggled with Eugenius IV. to gain the advantage of dealing with the Greeks, both issued indulgences avowedly for the purpose of raising money ^ Guill. Autissiodoi". Lib. iv. De Relaxationibus (Amort, II. 61). — Alb. Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Art. 17. ^ For instance, in an indulgence granted by Boniface VIII. to tlie Hospital of Viterbo (Ripoll, II. 58), and in a crusading indulgence of Clement V. in 1308.— Liber Guillel. Majoris (Melanges Historiques I. 403-6).— Regest. Clem- ent. PP. V. Ann. III. n. 2989. In this latter the terms are definite — twenty- four years for twenty-four deniers, twelve years for twelve, six years for six, one year for one. Those unable or unwilling to give these sums can have a proportionate remission for a forthing. This is to be continued for five years, but any one can give for all five at once. The spirit in which the local churches administered this indulgence was worthy of it. At Narbonne the canons of the cathedral cunningly moved the chest for contributions to the repair of the fabric alongside of that for the crusade, so that careless penitents dropped their money into the wrong box and got the inferior indulgence. The falling off" in the crusade receipts betrayed the trick, which Clement characterized as a fraud and ordered the chests sepa- rated. At Bordeaux the canons behaved even worse, for they contemptuously ejected the papal chest from the cathedral, whereupon Clement commanded its replacement under threat of excommunication. — Regest. Clem. V. Ann. iv. n. 4771, 4923. » yEgid. Carlerii Orat. (Harduin. VIII. 1798). 180 DEVELOPMENT. to defray the expeuses of the envoys from Constantinople ; the council placed the price of its pardons at one week's outlay of the penitent's family, while the pope more vaguely and more wisely specified only that it should be proportioned to his ability.^ The spirit in which ecclesiastics themselves regarded this method of rais- ing money is manifested in the protest of the German nation in the council when the issue of the indulgence was proposed. They in- sisted that if this were done all other indulgences must be suspended ; it must be general throughout Europe and be apportioned among the several nations according to their rank in the council ; to avoid sus- picion of fraud, Germany must have the appointment of all col- lectors within her borders, and the custody of the money ; if the Greeks were not won over, the money must be spent in pious uses in the places where it was raised, as otherwise the people would consider themselves deceived by the clergy. If these conditions were accepted, Germany, although exhausted with the Hussite cru- sades, would do her duty, but she would not admit that she was in any way under greater obligation than other nations to permit this kind of collection.^ Evidently, in the fifteenth century, there was no thought of the spiritual benefits which modern moralists so fondly ascribe to the system. Even more significant is the tone adopted by Matthias Doringk, Franciscan provincial and a man of the highest repute, when, in 1451, the jubilee of 1450 was, as usual, extended over Germany. Chests, he says, were placed in all the churches to receive the money for it, in order to devour what had been left in Germany by those who had gone to Rome. Some, in the vain hope of plenary absolution, while retaining ill-acquired gains, went to the chests. Others, seeing indulgences peddled around for sale, despised them — and also per- haps because they were the evil cause of the pomp and avarice of the Roman curia. Then, in 1455, he describes how, when the Turks besieged Cyprus, the King of Cyprus obtained from Nicholas V. ex- travagant indulgences to be sold for a year. The Germans con- cluded that they were of no use, for there were no results from the money collected, and it was said by some that the name of the King of Cyprus was only a cloak for the curia. Then, after an incom- putable amount of money had been thus carried oflP, in 1455, came Harduin. VIII. 1217 ; IX. 747. ^ Martene Ampl. Collect. VIII. 798. MONEY TEE CHIEF OBJECl. 181 the emissaries of the Trinitarians for the redemption of captives, who took Avhat the others had left.^ These are the complaints of an unfriendly critic, but when ^ICneas Sylvius undertakes to defend indulgences he does so wholly on the ground of their financial pro- ductiveness to carry on the war with the Turks. They are volun- tary, he argues, and not imposed — no one need take them unless he chooses. As for the complaints about the suspension of the Cyprus indulgence, they come from German bishops who had made bargains with the commissioners to share their gains and are disappointed at the substitution of the indidgence for the Turkish war, out of which they make nothing,^ Evidently the souls of the sinners were the last things considered by the rival prelates, who wrangled over the proceeds of the speculation on men's fears of the hereafter. Stefano Xotti argues that indulgences which do not require money payments are liberal, while those which are based on money are just, and he gains most who pays most ; moreover, he defends the toties quoties remissions on the ground that a payment is made each time, for which the Church obligates itself to pray for the sinner.^ Prie- rias, the ^Master of the Sacred Palace, coolly observes that the pope does not grant indulgences to induce men to go to confession, but to get their alms* — the practical comment on which is the absorption by Leo X. of the proceeds of indulgences granted to local churches. Thus, June 3, 1514, the vicar of the Bishop of Xaintes is ordered to surrender all the money collected from an indulgence given to those helping the church of Xaintes, and on June 15 a similar order is given to the vicar of the Archbishop of Reggio with regard to the indulgence of the church of St. Agatha.^ Even as late as 1550 Pauliano describes the objects of indulgences as purely material — to raise money to fight the infidel or to build bridges, or to help the Church or the poor ; when an indulgence depends on a money pay- ment, a Franciscan, forbidden to handle money, can gain it if he can find some one to pay for him, otherwise not,^ But it was not only by the sale, through commissioners, of papal Doringii Cliron. aun. 1451, 1455 (Menkenii S. Rer. Germ. II T. 17, 21) ^Eu. Sylvius de Moribus Gerinanite (0pp. Basil. 1571, p. 1049). Steph. ex Nottis Opus Reniissionis, fol. 146i, 153a. Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Indulgentia I 20. Hergenrother, Regest. Leou. PP. X. n. 9350, 9694. Paulianus de Jobilseo et Indulg. pp. 73-4, 182-3 (Romte, 1550). 182 DEVELOPMENT. indulgences to sinners that tiie curia reaped its profits from the con- trol of the treasure of Christ's merits. The concessions which were granted so profusely had all to be paid for. When, as we have seen (Vol. I. p. 246), benefices were openly sold at fixed prices, and public opinion was too callous to be shocked at this undisguised simony, it would have seemed an absurd nicety to hesitate at traffic in conces- sions of pardons. It was merely dealing at wholesale in what the purchaser expected to make his profit by retailing. In 1393 a tax- list of the papal chancery taxes at 100 florins a letter of Boniface IX. granting a jubilee indulgence to the kingdom of Bohemia. This only represents the scrivener's and official fees ; what was paid for the grant does not appear, but it unquestionably was a much larger sum, for, in 1394, the city of Cologne sent Dr. Johann von Neues- tein to Boniface to negotiate for a jubilee with which to replenish its treasury. The price at first asked was 8000 florins, but he suc- ceeded in beating the curia down to 1000, besides which he paid 100 for the expenses connected with the transaction and 30 for a dupli- cate copy, while in addition the Holy See retained for itself one-half the proceeds from the sale of the indulgence.^ In 1412 the Teutonic Grand Master, Heinrich von Plauen, paid 1000 gulden for a plenary indulgence for the chapels of the Order — a price which he deemed extortionate. When, in 1450, Nicholas V. proclaimed his jubilee, the Teutonic Order refused to publish it in its territories, desiring to keep pilgrims and money at home, and asked for a decree whereby the priests of the Order could give the same indulgences. Nicholas was incensed at this, and the Order was obliged to make its peace by a present to him of 1000 ducats. When thus appeased he was again requested to issue the decree, but he merely replied that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa would be sent to Germany to publish the jubilee, whereupon the Grand Master instructed his agent in Rome not to ask the cardinal to come to Prussia with his indulgence. Subse- quently the agent wrote that the terms would be to the penitents one-half the cost of the pilgrimage to Rome and back ; each bishop would have to pay for the bull, and, moreover, to hand over to the curia one-half of the proceeds ; for the four bishoprics of Prussia the price would be 1000 ducats ; this he thought too dear and that it ^ Tangl, Das Taxwesen der papstlichen Kanzlei, pp. 66, 105 (Mittheilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, T. XII.). SALES OF CONCESSIONS. 183 would be better to have nothing to do with the indulgence, but to keep the money at home. The Grand Master agreed with him, and the result was that the Cardinal persecuted the German possessions of the Order and that the pope was incensed for years.' When, in 1487, Innocent VIII. desired to redeem his tiara and jewels, which were hypothecated for 100,000 ducats, he created a college of secretaries consisting of twenty-four members, each of whom was obliged to pay 2600 florins for tlie appointment ; in return for this they were granted the fees for the rough drafts of certain classes of writs, among which were included indulgences." What these fees for the rough drafts were we have no means of knowing, but in a tax-table of the Apostolic Chancery, printed about 1500, we find the fees charged for various forms of indulgences — fees which were only a portion of the total cost to the purchaser. A faculty for a preacher to grant remissions of a certain number of days to his auditors is priced at two florins, but if restricted to occasions when the king and queen are present it is only a florin and a half. A plenary in mortis articulo for all contributing to the rebuilding of a destroyed monastery or church, running for two years, is five florins, and for each additional year half a florin, or, if perpetual, seven florins and a half. A year's indulgence for a hospital or church or chapel is 16 grossi, a two years' 20, a tliree years' 24, a four years' 30, a five years' 40, a seven years' 50, while one remitting a third part of sins is 100. One of a year and fifteen days for saying the Ave Maria Avhen the bell tolls is 12 grossi, and the same is charged for one for the repair of a bridge.^ ^ Joh. Voight, Stimmen aus Rom (v. Raumer's Historisches Taschenbuch, 1833, pp. 132, 140-3). 2 Innoc. PP. Vlir. Bull. Non debet (Bullar. I. 441). ^ Libellus Taxaruin super quibusdam in Caneellaria Apostolica impetrandis (sine nota, sed circa 1500) in White Historical Library, Cornell University, A. 6124. The grossiis at this time was reckoned in the chancery as one-eighth of a florin. In the earliest tax-list, that of John XXI f., in 1331, when the grosms was a tenth of a florin, the fee of the abbreviator for an indulgence to those visiting or helping a church was twelve grossi, and the same if simply for visiting or simply for aiding, while the scrivener's charge was sixteen for visiting or aiding and ten for simply aiding. In addition to these were the fees for bullation, registering etc. — Tangl, Die piipstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 99, 105 (Inns- bruck, 1894). 184 DEVELOPMENT. Partly this traffic is denied by modern apologists and partly it is defended, as by Grone, who tells ns that in an age of violence the Church could in no other way raise up defenders for itself. The common reproach that it gave its indulgences for money is a mistake, for it could not in any other manner more effectually emphasize the necessity of self-sacrifice on the sinner. So far from reproaching it with its free distribution of indulgences, we should rather admire the exhaustless strength given to it by God, through which it used the sins of the people and of the age to create a new source of salvation for them. Besides, in no other way could the community be aroused to build a church or undertake any affair of general utility ; even the support of the churches and religious houses often depended on this, which explains why during the Middle Ages almost every church without exception had an indulgence.^ Yet, while thus the main object of indulgences was the raising of money or procuring some other temporal advantage, they were occa- sionally employed for more or less spiritual or charitable purposes. As regards sjjirituai works, it is observable that for the most part those rewarded in this manner were for some ulterior purpose and not for the spiritual benefit of the performer. The earliest on record would seem to be one instituted by Innocent III., in 1215, to avert an evil omen, in a manner worthy of an Etruscan haruspex. It is related that he carried the Veronica — the handkerchief impressed with the face of Christ — in procession as customary, and that, on being returned to its place of deposit, it turned itself upside down, which was regarded as a very threatening portent to him, whereupon, by the advice of his brethren, to reconcile himself to God, he composed a prayer in its honor, with a psalm attached, and gave ten days' indulgence for each repetition of this.'^ The next apparently is an indulgence of ten days accorded by Innocent IV., in 1250, for all who should pray for King Louis IX., at that time captive of the Saracens in Egypt^ — a some- what noteworthy concession, for it long remained for the theologians the staple authority for the assertion that indulgences could be granted for spiritual as well as for material objects. Yet it was soon followed by a similar grant at the prayer of Berengaria, daugh- 1 Groue, Der Ablass, pp. 72, 118-22. = Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1216. ^ Martene Thesaur. IV. 1702. FOR SPIRITUAL OBJECTS. 185 ter of St. Ferdinand of Castile, who had built a magnificent tomb for her grandmother Berengaria, and who obtained from Innocent, for ten years, forty days' remission for all visiting it to pray for her soul and ten days for repeating a Paternoster for her benefit/ There are other examples of the same kind, as one by Nicholas I., in 1289, of ten days for praying for Charles the Lame of Xapl^s, then a prisoner in Aragon, and another by Clement V., in 1809, of twenty days for praying for his soul during five years. ^ Clement had already, in 1307, granted to Marguerite Countess of Evreux an in- dulgence of ten days for all praying for the soul of her father Philippe Count of Artois, or for herself, her husband and their children ; also to Blanche, widow of Philippe, that a preacher preaching in her presence could grant ten days to those praying for her and for Philippe ; also to Marguerite, that all listening to the word of God in her presence should gain forty days.^ Similar are grants by John XXII., in 1317, to Isabella Duchess of Britanny of ten days for every day that any one may pray for her and of forty days for prayers for Philippe le Long, his wife and children, and for their souls after death ; the same for Edward II. of Eugland when he took the cross, and, in 1322, for Charles le Bel.* Of course in 1 Raynald. ann. 1251, n. 27. - Ibid. ann. 1289. n 15; ann. 1309, n. 17. 3 Regest. Clement. PP. V. ann. ii. n. 1972, 1974, 1983, 2095. The privilege to magnates that all preaching in their presence should be empowered to grant indulgences was sufficiently common to have an established formula. In the formulary of the Avignonese Chancery this provides that if the preacher is a bishop he can grant a hundred days, if an abbot sixty, and if a priest forty. — Tangl, Die piipstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 341, 356. For the most part, apparently, the object was to secure a larger gathering, and consequently increased oblations, but this cannot always be assumed. In 1306 Clement V. grants to Margaret, Queen of Edward I., that her preacher can give an indulgence of forty days ; in 1313 a similar grant is made to Eichard, Abbot of St. Edmunds ; in 1314 Walter, Archbishop-elect of Canter- bury, is authorized to concede a hundred days to those present at his celebra- tion of mass or hearing him preach ; in 1318 John, Earl of Richmond, is honored by empowering his confessor to grant twenty days to those listening to a sermon in his chapel ; in 1329 an indult to Queen Philippa concedes that her confessor may grant a hundred da.ys to those present when a bishop preaches to her and sixty days when the preacher is of lower rank. — Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, II. 9, 115, 121, 170, 292. * Rymer Fcedera, T. III. pp. 653-4.— Raynald. Annal. ann. 1317, n. 8, 49; 1322, n. 26. — Similarly, in 1308, Clement V. granted twenty days for prayers 186 DEVELOPMENT. this somewhat arbitrary dispensation of the treasure there must have been some personal or political motive, nor is the latter far to seek in he action of John XXII., when, involved in the quarrel with Louis of Bavaria, he ordered the introduction in the canon of the mass of two collects invoking the wrath of God on the enemies of the Church, and offered twenty days' remission to all priests thus celebrating and to all present devoutly praying — a decree which has been embodied in the collections of canon law.^ It is rather to the pride of author- ship that we may ascribe the "many indulgences" which he is said to have granted to those who would daily read a metrical account which he composed of the Passion, ending with a prayer.^ A more noteworthy example of this species of indulgence is the one conceded by the council of Constance, in 1415, when the Emperor Sigismund departed on his mission to Aragon, and the council ordered weekly processions for his safety and success, to all participants in which a hundred days were offered and forty to all who would daily recite a Pater and Ave for the same object.^ The purely spiritual works, with no object save the benefit of the performer, for the stimulation of which in modern times indulgences are so profusely offered, were rarely thus encouraged during the middle ages. I am disposed to regard as wholly apocryphal one promising a year and forty days for kneeling at the name of Jesus, which Weigel declares that Pierre de la Palu says that Cardinal Henry of Susa asserts that he had seen.^ I have been unable to verify it in these authors, and it is so grossly disproportioned to those customary in the middle of the thirteenth century that it would for Queen Isabella of England, and, in 1327, John XXII. granted the same for the benefit of Edward III. (Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, II. 44, 261). ^ Cap. 1 Extrav. Commun. Lib. iii. Tit. xi. ^ John of Winterthur enumerates this among the good works of John (Vito- durani Chron. ann. 1333). Possibly it may be to some exaggeration of this that Wickliffe refers when he says "As men seien that a pope hath graunted two thousand yeer to ech man that is contrite and confessid of his synne that seith this orisoun ' Domine Jesu Christe ' between the sacringe of the masse and the thridd Agnus Dei. And than it were ydil to traveile for ony pardoun sith a man mygte at home gete him fourty thousand yeer bi noone." — Arnold's Select English Works, Ser- mon XLVii. (I. 137). See also Serm. cii. (I. 354). 3 C. Constantiens. Sess. xvil. (Harduin. VI 1 1. 442). * Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. 28. FOR SPIRITUAL OBJECTS, 187 seem unworthy of credence. When, in 1262, Urban IV. instituted the feast of Corpus Christi he sought to insure its popular observance by offering a hundred days each for presence at matins, mass, and first and second vespers, and forty days for attendance at each of prime, tierce, sext, none, and complins, followed during the octave by a hundred days for presence at all the offices. This was an enormous bribe, but, as indulgences grew, something more was re- quired, and, in 1429, Martin V. doubled these and added some more; apparently this proved insufficient, and, in 1433, Eugenius IV. doubled the offers of Martin.* Urban VI. imitated his predecessor Urban IV., when, in 1388, he was divinely inspired to institute the feast of the Visitation of Mary, but died before he could issue the bull, and Boniface IX. proclaimed it with the same indulgences. It, too, had a hard struggle for existence, as the Great Schism was raging and the lands of Avignonese obedience refused to recognize it, even after the Church had been united.^ Besides these we some- times meet with indulgences for pious observances. Plenaries were occasionally offered for peaceful visits to the Holy Land.^ It argues a deplorable lack of zeal among the faithful when, in 1310, Henry, Bishop of Nantes, felt obliged to offer a remission of ten days to those who would remain in church until the end of the mass — a bribe which his successor Daniel limited to those truly repentant and confessed who would continue on their knees until the elevation of the cup.* In 1326 the council of Avignon granted from ten to thirty days for accompanying the sacrament to the sick and ten days for bending the head when the name of Jesus -was uttered, offers Avhich were repeated by the council of Beziers in 1351, while that ' Urbani PP. IV. Bull. Transihirus,!'!^; Martini PP. V. Bull. Ineffabile, 1429; Eugen. PP. lY. Bull. Excellentissimum, 1433 (Bullar. I. 122, 308. 3-23). In 1502 J. B. Surgant in a Manuale Curatorum gives an elaborate computa- tion of the total obtainable, and makes it out 3800 days for the feast and 6000 for the octave. — Amort, I. 204. The feast of Corpus Christi was long in winning its way with the public. Sixty years after its institution Trithemius says (Annal. Hirsaug. ann. 1325) that in spite of the indulgences it was generally neglected and held in contempt by most men. '' Bonifacii PP. X. Bull. Superni, 1390 (Bullar. I. 273).— Declaratio Joh. Hagen (Martene Ampl. Collect. I. 1579). ' Ripoll I. 294.— Campi, dell' Hist. Eccles. di Piacenza, 11. 438. * Mabillon Prref. in Ssec. V. Ord. S. Bened. n. 114. 188 DEVELOPMENT. of Xarbonne, in 1374, increased by ten days the reward for accom- panying the sacrament.^ In 1368 the council of Lavaur ordered the church bells to be rung at sunrise, when all who would repeat five Paters and Aves with five genuflections were promised thirty days' remission.^ A century later, in 1481, the council of Tournay repeats most of these, in some cases with slightly increased indul- gences and adds a few more, such as thirty days for carrying the bodies of paupers to the grave and remaining during the obsequies, and twenty for rising when a priest passes, in honor of Christ and the Church.^ These are trivial details, but they are worth record- ing if only for the contrast which they offer to modern lavishness in similar matters. With regard to acts of individual charity and benevolence there is a notable absence of any endeavor to encourage them by the dis- pensation of the treasure. In fact, with the exception of the reward for burying the poor, just mentioned, that for feeding them by the Archbishop of Ravenna (p. 166), and perhaps one by Innocent III. for marrying prostitutes,* I have failed to find any among the in- numerable indulgences of the mediaeval period. The spirit of the age is condensed in Caietano's remark that it is no sin to refuse alms to a beggar and to spend the money on an indulgence, unless the beggar's necessity is extreme and there is no other help for him — and even then it is only a venial sin.'' Beggars able to afford it, however, could procure letters authorizing them to grant indulgences to those who gave them alms, and such letters were used especially by pil- grims and captives ransomed from the infidel, who were thus enabled to repay the sums advanced for them or to indemnify those who had given security for the payment. "^ If, with this exception, the Church ^ C. Avenionens. ann. 1326, cap. 2, 4; C. Bituricens. ann. 1351, cap. 1, 2; C. Narbonens. ann. 1374, cap. 19 (Harduin. VIII. 1494, 1495, 1690, 1691, 1884). 2 C. Vaurens. ann. 1368, cap. 127 (Harduin. VIII. 1856). ^ C. Tornacens. ann. 1481, cap. 4 (Gousset, Actes etc. II. 753-4). * Innocent (Regest. I. 112) urges men to marry prostitutes out of Christian charity, and decrees that it shall avail them in remission of their sins. This is not a formal indulgence, but Raynaldus (ann. 1198, n, 38) speaks of it as such. '" Caietani Opusc. Tract, xvi. Q. 3. " Hergenrother, Regest. Leonis PP. X. n. 3471, 4559, 5261, 5409, 5500, 6505, FOR CHARITABLE OBJECTS. 189 thus withheld this potent means of stimulating the mutual kindliness and helpfulness which Christ so earnestly enjoined, it was, however, by no means lacking in eifort to gather in money wherewith to hnild and maintain hospitals whereby it could teach the people to look to it alone as the benevolent and protecting mother. Of this the most noteworthy example was the great establishment known as the Santo Spirito in Saxia of Rome, to the support of which all Christendom was thus made to contribute. In 1204 Innocent III. founded it under the name of S. Maria in Saxia, in connection with the similar hospital, S. Spiritus in Montpellier, bo:h being under the care of the Order of the Holy Spirit and devoted to the relief of the sick and poor and foundlings. No mention is made of indulgences, but both institutions were to be supported by the alms of the charitable and were licensed to beg throughout Europe, collectors being everywhere appointed — Italy, Sicily, England, and Hungary being allotted to the Roman establishment, and the rest of the Continent to the other.^ Naturally, under the fostering care of succeeding popes, the Roman branch absorbed the gifts of the faithful, and when Nicholas IV., in 1291, took it under his protection he enumerated its numerous pos- sessions throughout all the provinces of Italy and Sicily, Germany, 6936-7, 7535, 7847, 9132, 11193, 13933, 14015, 14802, 15575, 16512, 16520, 16619, 16724, 17520, etc. In the Formularium Instnunentorum ad usum Curie Romane, fol. &4:-b, there are two formulas for letters of this kind for beggars, one for a ransomed cap- tive, good for two years, authorizing him to give a hundred days' indulgence, and one for pilgrims. As late as 1596 Padre Jeronimo Gracian, the spiritual director of Santa Teresa, after three years' captivity in Tunis, was ransomed by a Jew named Samuel Escanasi. The cost of his liberation was 2000 ducats, to repay which he obtained fi'om Clement VIII. one of these letters. — Marmol, Trabajos y vida del padre Maestro Gracian, Cap. 13, 14. 1 Innocent PP. III. Bull. Inter opera (Bullar. I. 58). In 1208 Innocent instituted a solemnity on the Sunday following the octave of Epiphany, when the canons of St. Peter's carried the Veronica to the hos- pital, and the pope and cardinals celebrated mass and preached. An indul- gence of a year was granted to all present, but this was not conditioned on contributions, for, on the contrary, the spectators were fed and a small sum of money given to each. This was confirmed by Honorius III. in 1223, who specified the donation as three deniers for 1000 strangers and 300 citizens. Alexander IV. confirmed it in 1255. — Innoc. PP. III. Regest. X. 179. — Innoc. PP. III. Gesta, n. 144.— Raynald. ann. 1223, n. 21.— Bullar. Vatican. I. 90, 110, 133. 190 DEVELOPMENT. France, England, and Spain,' Amid the cloud of fabrications through which it sought to win the alms of the faithful it is not easy to determine when it was first enriched with an indulgence. Possibly there may be some foundation for one claimed to have been issued by Boniface VIII. granting to all contributors a remission of one-seventh of enjoined penance and a plenary at death,^ Subse- quent pontiffs enlarged this concession, and, in 1478, Sixtus TV. recites that through wars and troubles its revenues had declined, its buildings had become ruinous and he had torn them down and re- constructed them. To defray the expenses he formed a Confraternity of the Holy Ghost, membership in which was obtained by a volun- tary contribution and secured plenary remission, with the customary privilege of choosing a confessor and also of participation in masses for the souls of dead members. This was confirmed by Leo X., and, in 1516, we happen to have the formula of the indulgence and absolution sold in Germany by the qucestuarli of the hospital. The purcliaser had his name inscribed in the book of the confraternity and received a certificate entitling him to plenary remission once in life and at death, and to the benefit of his share in 32,000 masses and as many psalters annually. The absolution granted under this was of the widest and most comprehensive kind, relieving him from hell and purgatory, and opening to him the gates of heaven. 1 Nich. PP. IV. Bull. Infer opera (Bullar. I. p. 165). ^ This is doubtless much exaggerated, for there is an indulgence of only forty days, granted for three years by Boniface VIII., in 1295, to the hospital of Santa Croce at Nursia, which had represented to him that it had not means to care for the numerous sick flocking to it. It was a dependency of the church of St. Peter at Eome. — Bullar. Vatican. I. 224. ^ Sixti PP. IV. Bull, mius qui (Bullar. I. 408).— Widemanni Chron. Curiae ann. 1516 (Menkenii Her. Germ. Scriptt. III. 735-7). In reality it was Chris- tiern I. of Denmark, who, when in Rome in 1474, rebuilt the hospital. — Boissen Chron. Slesvicens. (Menken. III. 622). After St. Pius V. prohibited eleemosynary indulgences, the hospital sup- ported itself by opening a bank of deposit (Bruzen la Mai'tiniere, Le Gi'and Dictionnaire geographique, R. p. 153). As it could only do this by lending the moneys at interest it was profiting by a sin for which it had formerly sold indulgences. Amort (I. 202) prints one of the letters of the gucestuarii, issued in 1470, before the bull of Sixtus IV. It recites that Innocent III., Honorius III., Gregory IX., Alexander IV., Clement IV., Nicholas IV., Boniface VIII., and Martin V. had each remitted for it one-seventh of sins — making eight sevenths PERSONAL INDULGENCES. 191 Another form of indulgence is the personal one, issued to an indi- vidual for his sole behoof If, as we have seen (p. 1 1 ), the confessor could grant any remission he pleased to his penitent, there would seem to be no reason why the pope, with his supreme authority, should be confined to general formulas and should not be able to concede the benefit to any one whom he might wish to favor. Yet appar- ently the custom was long in establishing itself, for the earliest case I have met is the very liberal one of a hundred years, bestowed, in 1307, by Clement V., on Blanche, daughter of St. Louis and widow of the Infante Ferdinand de la Cerda of Castile, which is in marked contrast to oue of only a hundred days by the same pope, in 1309, to Queen Isabella of England.^ They speedily became one of the recognized articles of traffic by the curia with a fixed tariff* of fees. They were in fact only the old confessional letters authorizing the choice of a confessor (Vol. I. p. 325) with the addition of powers for him to confer a plenary indulgence, either in life or on the death-bed, and their issue by the papal chancery was merely selling by retail what was done by w^holesale through commissioners and quceshtarii. Under Eugenius IV. a large business was transacted in them, and, about 1 165, Paul II. regulated the traffic, as he says, in order that through them men may not be rendered more prone to sin, nor the letters themselves fall into contempt through their multiplication. Accordingly he fixed the fees for the scrivener, the secretary, the registry, the bullation and the collation, amounting in all to two florins ; if reserved cases were included there was a charge of two grossi more.^ Varieties of these are enumerated in a tax-list of the in all, which is a palpable falsehood, at least as regards all but the^latter jjon- tifF. Besides this, patriarchs and cardinals, archbishops and bishops, had cumulated upon it indulgences amounting to eighty carince, 1400 days of mor- tals and thirty-two years of venials. The most significant passage is one prom- ising to all priests who labor for it one-third of the sums which they may collect. ^ Clement. PP. V. Regest. ann. ii. n. 1951. — Bliss, Calendar of Papal Regis- ters, II. 55. ^ S. Antonini Summae P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, §| 4, 5. — Tangl, Das Taxwesen u. s. w. (Mitthleilungen des Instituts fiir osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, XII. fi9-70). In the 1331 tax-list of John XXII. the abbreviator's fee for a confessional letter is six grossi and the same for a plenary indulgence, while that of the scrivener is ten grossi for the former and fourteen for the latter, while husband and wife could get one together for sixteen. — Tangl, Die Piipst- 192 DEVELOPMENT. chauceiy about 1500, and twenty-five florins are asked for one grant- ing to a king and queen the same indulgence as though they went to Rome, while the same for a simple knight is rated at a fourth of that amount.^ In the St. Peter's bull Liquet omnibus, issued in 1510, these individual letters are included in Ihe suspension of all indul- gences, in order to afford as wide a market as possible for the general indulgence.^ When, after the reforms of St. Pius V., these letters were no longer an object of merchandise, they were distributed, as we shall see hereafter, with the most reckless prodigality. Viva tells us that they require no works to be performed ; they are applicable to the dead, but a decision of the Congregation of Indulgences, in 1839, defines that while the recipient can either use the indulgence himself or apply it to a soul in purgatory, he must make the election and cannot employ it i ' both.^ Closely connected with indulgences, yet not precisely identical with them, is the license to mitigate the severity of fasts by the use of eggs and milk-food, which forms a prominent feature of the cruzada. The origin of this is probably attributable to the early part of the fourteenth century. There is no formula for it in the thirteenth century Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary, but in the tax-list of Benedict XII., in 1338, we find letters " de esu carnium et lacticiniorum," issued by the Penitentiary, for which the scrivener's fee is fixed at the handsome sum of three 'ivres tournois.* They lichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen, pp. 98-99, 104 (Inus'i ick, 1894). In 1477 the church of Xaintes, in defending itself from the c' ge of fixing too high a price on the confessional letters which it was em ^vered to issue under an indulgence, asserts that in Rome such letters, wi J ess privileges, cost three florins (from a copy in my possession). -V' In 1419 the Grand Master of the Teutonic Ore' rites to his agent in Rome to procure for him a confessional letter, good ' ig life ; his chaplain, Syl- vester, also wants one, and when the price is asc tained it will be remitted. — Joh. Voight, Stimmen aus Rom (v. Raumer's Hio oriches Taschenbuch, 1833, p. 135). This shows that the fees in the tax-lists were only for the expenses, and that there was an indeterminate charge by the curia, dependent on the station or wealth of the applicant. ' Libellus Taxarum (White Hist. Library, Cornell Univ. A. 6124). ^ Bull. Liquet omnibus § 20 (Bullar. I. 505). ^ Viva de Jubilseo p. 81. — Decreta Authentica n. 504. * P. Denifle, Die iilteste Taxrolle der apost. Ponitentiarie (Archiv f. Litt. und Kirchengeschichte, IV. 229). B UTTERBRIEFE. \ 93 were still a novelty, for it is spoken of as an innovation when, in the crnsading indulgence preached in 1344, by order of Clement VI., all who put money into the chests provided in the churches, were promised, in addition to the plenary, the perpetual privilege of eating eggs and milk-food in all fasts except the Fridays of Lent, and ten years later indulgences granting this privilege were for the first time sold in Augsburg, where they proved very popular and produced much money/ Yet they seem to have fallen into disuse, for when, in 1490, Bntterhriefe, as they were called, were procured and sold in aid of a bridge over the Saale and to restore the church of Freiburg, which had been destroyed by the Hussites, they aroused a lively controversy. The Dominicans and Franciscans accused the canons of obtaining them surreptitiously, so ^hat they were obliged to procure another papal brief, dated July . 4, 1492. Johann von Saalhausen, Bishop of Meissen, supported the mendicants, and the chief combatant was the Dominican preacher Georg Orter, who had lived long in Rome and was indignant at seeing the Germans obliged to pay for a privilege which was freely enjoyed there. Georg, Duke of Saxony, interposed and ordered both sides to set forth their argu- ments in writing, but before this was done Alexander VI. silenced the opposition by a bull of August 25, 1496. When the twenty years for which the privilege was granted expired, Frederic the Wise procured its renewal and ordered it published, instructing all priests to announce that absolution would be refused to those who ate the forbidden artich without a Butterbrief, while the Bishops of Meissen and Merseburj hreateued their subjects with temporal and eternal punishment if 1 y withheld their contributions.- It was in vain that Bartolommeo 3 'umo complained that the release from the obligation of fasting, w""^h by that time had become the usual ad- junct of indulgences am as purchasable for a carlino, was one of the abuses that was worki ; the ruin of the Church.-^ The feature was found too profitable ^3 be abandoned, as it formed one of the chief attractions of the indulgences to which it was attached, for the penitent could gratify his appetite and at the same time acquire all ' Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1344. — Gassari Annales Augstburgenses ann. 1354 (Menken. R. Germ. Scriptt. I. 1481). * Grone, Der Ablass, pp. 111-12. ' Aurea Armilla s. v. Jnclulgentia n. 12. III.— 13 I 194 DEVELOPMENl. the merits of fasting. lu 1573 the Venetian envoy at Madrid tells ns that it was the principal inducement for the purchase of the bull of the cruzada, especially in places remote from the coast where fish was procured with difficulty, and about 1600 Rodriguez confirms this statement/ Ouofri defends this feature of the crociata granted to Xaples, in 1778, by arguing that the rich can always escape fasting by getting certificates from their physicians on which their confessors grant them dispensations, and that the bolla thus merely restores the equality of the poor.^ At the present day in Spain the Bula de Ladicinios or InduUo Caadragesimal, which permits the use of eggs and milk-food, except during Holy AVeek, is paid for separately from the bull of indulgence, though the purchase of the latter is a condition precedent. Its cost is rated according to classes and wealth, and ranges from ten cents to about $1.80, and it is good for a year. It is purely territorial ; strangers in Spain can enjoy it, but Spaniards leaving their country cannot avail themselves of it, even though they may have boug-ht it.^ ^ Perez de Lara. Compendio de las tres Gracias, pp. 12, 78. — Relazioni Venete, Serie I. Tom. VI. p. 379.— Rodriguez, Bolla della S. Crociata, p. 23. See also Comtesse D'Aulnoj^ La Cotir et la Ville de Madrid, Lettre ix. - Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata. Sermoni, pp. 47-9. Onofri prints some songs written to popularize the crociata. In one of these there is a stanza on this feature of the indulgence — Que' libi, che a ciascuno, S'oggi pieta avrete Proscritti ha nel digiuno Di chi fra ceppi sta. L'esimia Autorita, A questo santo Zelo Cangiarli anche potete V'invita il R& del cielo Con liberal pieta. — lb. p. 131. ^ Salces, Explicacion de la Bula de la Santa Cruzada, pp. 40, 117. \ CHAPTER lY. THE JUBILEE. We have seen how slow was the growth of indulgences, except for crnsades, throughout the thirteenth century. With the four- teenth their development becomes accelerated gradually, and with the fifteenth their expansion continues rapidly. A leading factor in this was the invention of the jubilee, a remarkable outgrowth of the system, which merits special attention. As a matter of course the indiscreet zeal of post-Tridentine theo- logians claims for the jubilee, as for all other indulgences, an origin in Apostolic times. Even the secular games celebrated by the Em- peror Philip, 1000 A. U. C. (246 A. D.), have been pressed into service, on the presumption that Philip was a Christian and held them in honor of Christ and the Church.^ TJiat Rome, however, should be the most popular resort of pilgrims, when pilgrimage came in fashion, was perfectly natural. Though it had not Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre to offer for the veneration of the faithful, it was far more accessible than Jerusalem, and it had the relics of St. Peter ' Azpilcuetge Comment, de Jobilseo, Notab. I. n. 11; Notab. vii. — Zerola Sancti Jubilsei ac Indulgent. Tract. Lib. ii. Cap. 9. — Viva de Jubilfeo et Indulg. p. 4. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 323. — Ricci de' Giubilei Universali, p. 23. — Pauli Orosii Historiarum Lib. vil. Cap. 20. Even so learned a writer as Zaccaria (Dell' Anno Santo, I. 5) falls foul of Van Espen (Jur. Eccles. P. il. Tit. vii. n. 1) for saying that there is no monu- ment respecting the jubilee earlier than the bull Aiifiqiiorum of Boniface VIII. in 1300, and he seeks to prove that it was not invented by Boniface. He even quotes a Dominican story that a relative of St. Dominic, at the age of fifteen, went to Rome, in 1200, for a jubilee and survived to attend that of 1300. Theodorus a Spiritu Sancto (Tract, de Jubilseo Cap. ii. § 1, n. 9) endeavors to reconcile fact and fiction by arguing that previous to Boniface IX. there were partial indulgences in Rome every hundredth year, but that he was the first to offer plenaries. More zealous was Cosimo Montigiani, who, in 1575. published in Florence his Trattato del' Anno del SS. Jubileo, in which (p. 9) he proves the jubilee to be of divine law, of natural law, and of written law, and besides has its prototype in the ludi sceculares of the Romans. J 96 THE JUBILEE. and St. Paul, and of a countless number of confessors and martyrs whose intercession was most potent, and whose shrines attracted an endless stream of devotees from western and central Europe. As early as the end of the fourth century Chrysostom alludes with pride io the emperors, consuls, and leaders of armies who gathered at the tombs of the humble fisherman and tent-maker. The Barbarian invasions imposed only a temporary check on this manifestation of piety. Saxon England had scarce been fairly Christianized when we find "Wilfred of York in his vouth seeking the shrine of St. Peter to pray to him for the pardon of his sins, and after his eleva- tion to the see of York he twice again went thither to appeal from the persecution of his enemies.^ So rapidly did the custom grow that by the middle of the eighth century St. Boniface calls for some restrictions to be laid on the pilgrimage to Rome of women and nuns, for he says that scarce a city in France, the Phiuelands and Lombardy, but had Saxon prostitutes supplied from female pilgrims who had been led astray.^ The tombs of Saxon kings in the Roman churches — of Kenred, Buhred, Ceadwalla and his successor Ina with his queen — show the fatality as well as the attraction of the eternal city,* while, more illustrious than the rest, Cnut went thither, in 1027, to pray for the intercession of the apostles and saints, and utilized the occasion to obtain from Conrad the Salic and Rodolph, King of Burgundy, assurances that English pilgrims should no longer be maltreated on the road.^ In France a formula of Mar- culfus shows how customary were these pious acts in the seventh century.'^ Charlemagne's four visits to Rome are stated by Einhardt to have been for the purpose of prayer and in discharge of vows, though we may readily believe that political objects were not lacking.^ Claudius of Turin expressed his doubts as to the spiritual benefit * S. Jo. Cliiysost. Quod Christus sit Deus n. 9. * Eadmeri Vit. S. Wilfridi n. 9.— Uausa Wilfridiana (Migne, LXXXIX. 42). ^ S. Bonifacii Epist. 105. * An2;lo-Saxon Chronicle ami. 709, 874. — Bede (Hist. Eecles. Lib. v. Cap. vii.), after chronicling the pilgrimage of Ceadwalla and Ina, adds, " Quod his temporibus plures de gente Anglorum, nobiles, ignobiles, laici, clerici, viri ac feminte certatim facere consuerunt." ^ Guill. Malmesburiens. de Gestis Regum ann. 1030. ® Marculfi Formular. Lib. ll. Cap. 49. ^ Eginhardi Vit. Caroli Magni Cap. 27. — Annal. Laurissens. ann. 800. PILGRIMAGE TO ROME. 197 derived from the pilgrimage, for which Jonas of Orleans took him to task,^ and Bishop Ahyto of Bale endeavored to check it by for- bidding clerics to go to Rome for prayer, or laymen until after they should have confessed their sins at home," but this was of little use. In 850 the Emperor Louis II. complains that pilgrims on their way to Rome and merchants are robbed, and he orders this to be vigor- ously repressed by his officials.^ The insecurity of the roads in the anarchy attending the dissolution of the Carloviugian empire and the toils and hardships of the journey show how imperious was the desire which impelled the faithful to Rome, and enabled, in 865, Nicholas I., in his quarrel with the Emperor Michael over Photius, to boast, with pardonable exaggeration, of the thousands who daily came from all quarters to seek the protection and intercession of the Prince of the Apostles.* An incident related by Odo of Cluuy, about the middle of the tenth century, illustrates the motive which drew these crowds to Rome. A coucuV)iuary priest of Avranches, unable to abandon his evil courses, yet fearful of the punishment in store for him, made no less than nine pilgrimages to St. Peter in hopes of winning from him pardon by this show of devotion, but the fruitlessness of the device when unaccompanied by amendment was seen when, on his return from the ninth journey, he expired in the arms of the partner of his sin,^ Xo indulgences thus far were necessary to stimulate this influx of devotees, and we have seen that during the eleventh century the popes did not deem it requisite to increase in this manner the at- tractions of the Roman churches. The absence of indulgences is indicated bv the fact that when, in 1116, Paschal II. held a general council in the Lateran, at its conclusion he bestowed a remission of forty days on all who had come to Rome to attend the council and for the benefit of their souls.® With the development of the system in the twelfth century Rome naturally was forced to offer advantages like those of rival shrines, but although the popes took care to main- tain the superiority of the apostolic city, the pardons offered were ^ Jonge Aureliauens. de Ciiltu Imaginum Lib. ill. ■^ Ahythonis Capitulare, n. xviii. (D'Achery, I. 585). ^ Capit. Ludov. It. Tit. 1, Cap. 1 (Baluze, 11. 233). * Nicolai PP. I. Epist. Lxxxvi. * Odon. Cluniacens. CoUationum Lib. ii. Cap. 27. ® Conrad. L'rspergens. Chron. aim. Illt3. 198 THE JUBILEE. very moderate in comparison with modern profusion. Towards the close of the century Peter Cantor enumerates them and informs us that on Holy Thursday pilgrims from beyond seas obtained three years, while those from nearer points gained two. On the feast- days of the martyrs, moreover, there were remissions of one-third or one-fourth of penance, but nothing for anniversaries of dedica- tions.^ During the thirteenth century there was, of course, some increase, but it was very gradual. In 1222 Honorius III. conferred on S. Maria Maggiore one year and forty days for its consecration feast, and when, in 12.38, Gregory IX. dedicated the high altar of St. Sabina he granted only the same for visits on the anniversary and during the octaves.^ The highest standard of pontifical liber- ality, however, is to be looked for in St. Peter's, and there we find the first recorded indulgence, in 1240, granted to it by Gregory IX. The preamble sets forth that it is the mother of all churches, de- serving the most ardent veneration of all Christians, wherefore, to attract to it the faithful by indulgences, he grants to those who visit it with congruous devotion from Pentecost to the octave of Peter and Paul (July 6) a remission of three years and three quarantines of enjoined penance — to which, in 1263, Urban IV. added an ex- tension of time up to the feast St. Peter ad vincula (Aug. 1). In 1260 Alexander IV. granted two years and two quarantines for visiting it on the feast of St. Mark (April 25). When, in 1279, Nicholas III. built and consecrated in it an altar to St. Nicholas, he conceded a year and a quarantine for the anniversary of the conse- cration and the feast of the saint. In addition to these, as we have seen, Aquinas alludes incidentally to a perennial indulgence of forty days enjoyed by the church, the source of which is unknown.^ The moderation of these renders it probable that when, in 1289, Nich- olas IV. framed an inventory of its indulgences, based on examina- tion of the muniments and of the memories of the canons, the latter took advantage of the opportunity to interpolate a few, for the enumeration sets forth remissions of seven years and seven quaran- tines obtainable on fifty-three days of the year, others of three years ^ P. Cantoris MS. Summa cle Sacramentis (Morin. de Poenit. Lib. x. Cap. 20). 2 Raynald. Annal. ann. 1222, n. 38.— Morin. de Poenit. Lib. x. Cap. 23. 3 Builar. Vatican, I. 123, 141, 143, 203.— S. Tli. Aquin. Summse Suppl. Q. XXV. Art. ii. ad 4. I COMMENCEMENT IN 1300. 199 and three qiiarantines on about the same number of days, others of one year and forty days on eighty-eight days, and forty days on every day. All these he confirmed and added to them an indulgence of a year and forty days for every day in the year, one of three years and thi'ee quarantines obtainable on seventy-eight days, and another of two years and two quarantines to be gained on thirty- three feasts and on every day when there is a station arranged in the church.^ Small as these favors may seem to us now, they were excessively liberal for the period, for when, in 1297, Boniface VIII. desired to render the Stations of Rome (of which more hereafter) more attractive, he only gave an annual indulgence of a year and forty days for visiting the churches at any time from Ash Wednesday to Resurrection, and an additional hundred days for the papal bene- diction.^ It can therefore readily be imagined what a sensation was pro- duced throughout Europe when, February 22, 1300, Boniface VIII. suddenly proclaimed that during the year, from the previous Christ- mas to the next, and in every following hundredth year, he conceded, from the plenitude of apostolic power, to those visiting the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, whether penitent and confessed or about to be penitent and to confess, not only full and larger, but the fullest pardon of their sins ; those desiring to obtain these indulgences, if Romans, must visit these basilicas for thirty days, if foreigners for fifteen, bat any one could gain more merit and more efficaciously win the indulgence insomuch as he made the visits more frequently and devoutly. There is a preamble to the bull reciting that it is stated of old that great remissions have been conceded to those visit- ing St. Peter's, all of which are confirmed, but there is no assumption that this has anything to do with the present grant, nor is any refer- ence made to the Jewish jubilee.^ There evidently was no premeditation in this movement, or it would have been announced in advance and not have been delayed until near the end of February, when a large portion of the year must be passed before the glad tidings could reach the distant faith- ' Bullar. Vatican, I. 213, 214. " Bullar. Vatican, T. III. Append, p. 6.— Raynald. ann. 1297, n. 70. ^ Bonifacii PP. VIIL Bull. Antiquorum, 22 Feb. 1300 (Bullar. I. 179.— Cap. 1 Extrav. Comraun. Lib. V. Tit. ix.). 200 THE JUBILEE. ful. It was probably a chance suggestion, eagerly caught and hastily put into execution. It doubtless excited criticism, for the nephew of Boniface, Cardinal Jacopo Caietano, was put forward to prepare an official account and justification of the matter, in which he argues that Boniface acted not impulsively but maturely and with the advice of the Sacred College, and he deprecates the suggestion that so many thousand souls could have been led into error by the chair of Peter. His explanation is that a man claiming to be 107 years of age appeared before the pope and cardinals, declaring that his father, in 1200, had come to Rome for an indulgence and had ordered him to do the same if he should live until 1300. Such a belief was said to exist in France, and Boniface, after prolonged consultation with the cardinals, framed the bull, which, after many emendations, was published on an appropriate feast-day.^ Boniface, it wall be observed, made no pretence that there was any precedent for his action, and for a long while his successors referred to him as the first who had proclaimed a jubilee.^ The post-Triden- tine tlieologians however, as we have seen, claimed for the custom an antiquity coeval with the primitive Church, and, in 1599, Clement VIII. saw fit, in announcing the jubilee of 1600, to assert that it was a most ancient institute of the Church to grant the most ample indul- gences every hundredth year to pilgrims coming to Rome.^ Ex- haustive efforts have consequently been made to find some evidence in support of the assumption, but without success.* 1 Jacobi Cardinalis de Jubilteo Cap, 2, 3, 15 (Max. Bibl. Pat. XIII. 481.) — Vit. Pontif. Eoinan (Muratori S. R. I. III. G17); ^ Clement. PP. VI. Bull. Unigenitus (Extrav. Commuii. Lib. V. Tit. ix. Cap. 2).— Urbani PP. VI. Bull. Sahator noster, 1389 (Amort, I. 85).— Pauli PP. II. Bull. IneffabiUs, 1470 (Bullar. I. 385).— Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Pastorls ceterni, 1475 (Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. 195). — Cf. S. Antonini Summse P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3 § 6.— Alex. PP. VI. Bull. Inter curas, 1499 (Stepb. ex Nottis, fol. 160). — Felicis Hemmerlin Dyalogus de anno jubileo ; Recapitulatio de anno jubileo (Basil. 1497). 3 Clement. PP. VIII. Const. Acinus Domini (Bullar. IV. 83). * Tbe only scrap of proof that can be cited is a cursory remark in Alberic of Troisfontaines — "dicitur quod annus iste quinquagesimus seu Jubilseus et remissionis in curia Eomana sit celebratus " (Alb. Triumfont. Chron. ann. 1208). The insertion of this under the year 1208 and its allusion to the fiftieth year evidently deprives it of all significance as respects the celebration ordered by Boniface in 1300, and every hundredth year thereafter. Moreover, had there been either in 1200 or 1208 anything like the observance of 1300 it would have COMMENCEMENT IN 1300. 201 The device was too strictly iu line with the feelings and aspirations of the age to be a failure. Xo sooner was it announced that plenary- remission could be had by the simple duty of visiting two churches for thirty days, than the whole population of Rome, M'e are told, poured into them. As the news was bruited abroad pilgrims from beyond the Alps came like the march of armies. Some even had time to reach Rome from Spain ; there were few from England, on account of the wars, but multitudes from France. Aged men were brought on litters, and from Savoy there came one more than a hun- dred years old, carried by his son. In Rome the crowds were so great that many were crushed, and a famine was feared, but fortu- nately there were abundant harvests and God provided for all.^ This semi-official statement is fully borne out by eye-witnesses. Guillelmo Ventura says that during his stay of fifteen days he many times saw men and women trampled under foot, and more than once he nar- rowly escaped the same fate; on Christmas eve the crowd was esti- mated by the Romans at two millions.^ Giovanni Villani declares that a great part of Christendom was there, and that during the whole year there were 200,000 pilgrims in the city, besides those on the road.^ Dante can find no better comparison for the multitude of the damned in Malebolge than the crowds in Rome during the jubilee.^ That there should be legends of miraculous cures and been minutely described by all the annalists of the period, as was the latter, and the theologians of the thirteenth century, who discussed so fully all the phases of indulgences, could not have avoided some allusion to it. ^ Card. Jac. Caietano de Jubilseo Cap. 4-7. 2 Chron. Astens. Cap. 26 (Muratori, S. R. I. XI. 191). ' Villani Cronica Lib. viii. Cap. 36. All the chronicles of the period give more or less full accounts of the jubilee, showing the universal attention which it attracted. See Annal. Domin. Colmariens. ann. 1300 (Urstisii S. Rer. Germ. II. 33) — Guillel. Nangiac. Chron. ann. 1300. — Grandes Chroniques, Phelippe le Bel, xxxiir.— Bern. Guidon. Vit. Bonif. VIII. (Muratori, S. R. I. I. 671).— Amalr. Augerii Vit. Bonif. Vfll. (Ibid. III. ii. 437).— Ptol. Lucens. Hist. Eccles. Lib. xxiv. Cap. 36 (Ibid. XI. 1203).— Annales Csesenatens. ann. 1300 (Ibid. XIV. 1119).-Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1300. * Come i Roman per I'esercito molto, L'anuo del giubbileo, su per lo ponte Hanno a passar la gente molto tolto, Che da un lato tutti hanno la fronte Verso r castello e vanno a Santo Pietro Del altro sponde vanno verso '1 monte. — Inferno, xviii. In this he alludes to a regulation made by Boniface, that in crossing the 202 THE JUBILEE. releases from diabolic possession is a matter of course, and the demons ejected declared with howls that multitudes of souls were saved and that Peter and Paul had emptied purgatory/ The expectations of profit from the oblations of the faithful were fully realized, although the indulgence was not conditioned on pay- ment. Ventura states that the amount received by Boniface was incomputable, and that at the altar of St. Paul there stood, day and night, two clerks raking in infinite money. Villani adds that besides the gains accruing to the Church the Romans were all enriched. Cardinal Caietano admits that the altar of St. Peter took in about 30,000 gold florins and that of St. Paul about 20,000, which, he says, Boniface laid out in the purchase of lands for the basilicas.^ That the object was regarded at the time as purely financial is infer- able from Astesanus, who, in 1317, in arguing that indulgences may be, and sometimes are, granted for spiritual objects, only adduces in support the ten days for praying for Louis IX. and the remissions offered to those who preach the cross.* If so impressive an event as the jubilee had been considered as springing from spiritual mo- tives he could scarce have omitted to adduce an example so notable. Appetite grows by what it feeds on. The hundred years which Boniface had prescribed as an interval was a long while to wait for a repetition of a celebration so profitable, and when Clement VI. ascended the papal throne at Avignon, in 1342, a deputation of Roman nobles and citizens (among whom, it is said, were Rienzo and Petrarch), sent to him to tender the allegiance of the city, be- sought him to reduce the term to fifty years. St. Birgitta of Sweden also sent him a revelation ordering him to make peace between England and France, and come to Rome and proclaim the year of salvation and divine love. He readily agreed to the latter, and on January 27, 1343, issued his bull proclaiming that, in view of the Hebrew jubilee and of the shortness of human life, he diminished the interval prescribed by his predecessor to fifty years, so that all those performing the pious exercises as laid down by Boniface should bridge of the castle of S. Angelo all going in one direction should keej) on one side. ^ Raynald. ann. 1300 n. 7. — Ricci, dei Giubilei universali, p. 29. ^ Chron. Astens. loc. cif. — Villani Chron. loc. cif. — Caietani de Jubilseo Cap. 9.— Raynald. ann. 1300. 3 Astesani Summte Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 4 3 2. JUBILEE OF 1350. 203 gain the same indulgences. To the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, however, he added the Lateran, and he further provided that those who should be legitimately impeded on the road or before they fulfilled the allotted rounds should enjoy the same reward.^ Although the Black Death had seriously diminished the popula- tion of Europe and still lingered in some places ; although Philippe de Valois, involved in disastrous war with England, forbade all pilgrimages, M'hether to Rome or Corapostella, and no one could leave France without a royal letter, and though the season was cold and wet and the roads encumbered with robbers, the crowds pressing into Rome were unprecedented. Matteo Villani relates that the wayside houses were unable to accommodate the pilgrims, who lay in the open fields, building fires to keep themselves from freezing, yet were they all peaceful and helpful, enduring their hardships and assisting their weaker comrades. It was impossible to enumerate the multitudes, but it was estimated in Rome that from Christmas 1 Clement PP. VI. Bull. Unigenitus (Cap. 2 Extrav. Commun. Lib. v. Tit. X.).— S. Biigittie Kevelat. Lib. vi. Cap. Ixiii. — Eaynald. ami. 1342, n. 20; ann. 1379, n. 8.- Clement PP. VI. Vita Tertia (Muratori S. R. I. III. il. 573). Another bull, dated June 27, 1346, was circulated, clearly supposititious, in which he is made to assume complete control over the future life and order the angels to liberate from purgatory the souls of those who might die on the road (P. de Herenthals Vit. Clement. VI. ap. Muratori S. E. I. III. ii. 584-7). This obtained wide currency, but St. Antonino expresses doubts of its genuine- ness on account of its not being in the style of the curia, and says that Nich- olas V. did not approve its extravagance (Summae P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3, | 0). Still, as we shall see, it was subsequently relied upon to prove the papal power to issue indulgences for souls in purgatory. At the time, however, the motive of the forgery is probably to be found in a clause providing that if any Bene- dictine shall desire to make the pilgrimage and his abbot -refuses permission, he shall take three witnesses and demand it, together with the cost of food and clothing for a year, when the abbot shall grant it under pain of the curse of Peter and Paul and perpetual deprivation of office. This doubtless pro- duced abundant trouble among the monasteries. When the jubilee became an established custom, however, all ordinary re- strictions were suspended in its favor. The bishop could attend it without licence from the pope, the cleric without that of his bishop, the monk without that of his abbot. The wife could go against her husband's will, and though she sinned in so doing she nevertheless gained the indulgence. Persons of quality could travel on horseback, and not like common folk on foot. He who was lawfully impeded could send some one to represent him, and thus obtain the pardon vicariously. — Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis, fol. 11. 204 THE JUBILEE. to Easter there were always from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 strangers iu the city, at Ascension and Pentecost 800,000. During the summer heats the average fell off to 200,000, and as the year drew to a close the multitude increased nearlv to what it had been at the beeiuning;. The streets were so filled that it was impossible to move except with the crowd. The visit to the three churches and the return to a lodging-house made a round of about eleven miles to be traversed each day. On every Sunday and principal feast-day the Veronica was exhibited at St. Peter's, and the press there was so great that sometimes two, four or six, or even as mauy as a dozen persons were trampled to death. At each church the pilgrims offered what they pleased, and in addition to this the Romans universally turned inn- keepers, created an artificial scarcity and extorted all they could from their guests.^ The pope had placed Rome under the government of his legate. Cardinal Annibaldo, who, in view of the unmanageable crowds and the difficulty of feeding them, obtained authority to diminish the fifteen days of visiting, and in the exercise of his discretion reduced it at times to eight days and even to a single day. This angered the Romans, who saw in it only an effort to cut down their gains, and there was much trouble. An altercation between one of his servants and the mob caused his palace to be besieged, and it was with diffi- culty that it was saved from pillage or worse. AVhen he endeavored to perform the rounds of the churches for the benefit of his own soul, while on the way from St. Peter's to St. Paul's, two cross-bow shafts were discharged at him, one of which pierced his cap, so that thereafter he always wore a morion under his cap and a cuirass under his robe. The arrows had come from an unoccupied house, which was broken open on the spot, but no one was found in it, though two tell-tale cross-bows were discovered. The assassins were never traced, though a priest was tortured in the hope of unravelling the plot, and the cardinal's suspicions finally centred on Cola di Rienzo, whom he removed from the tribuueship, annulled all his acts, and 1 dementis PP. VI. Vita prima (Muratori S. E. I. III. ll. 552).— Guill. de Nangiac. Coutin. aim. 1350. — Chron, ^Egidii de Muisis (De Smet, Corp. Chron. Flandrijp, II. 385) —Matt. Villani Istorie Lib. i. Cap. 56 (Muratori, S. R. I. XVI. 56).— Matt. Neoburg. (Alb. Argentinensis) ann. 1350 (Urstisii S. Germ. Hist. II. 155).— Mag. Chron. Belgic. ann. 1350 (Pistorii Rer. Germ. Script. III. 328). JUBILEE OF 1360. 205 exconimunicated him with awful curses. The French Cardinal of San Grisogono, who chanced to be in Rome, consoled him by say- ing, " If you want to reform Rome, you must level it with the ground and build it auew." His troubles came to an end, however, not without suspicions of poison, although these would seem to be unfounded. Summoned to Apulia, he died, July 15, at Castel di S. Giorgio; he was renowned as a hard drinker, and arriving there exhausted with heat lie swallowed an enormous quantity of wine, then a copious supply of milk, and finished with cucumbers and vinegar. In forty-eight hours he was dead.' In this jubilee we already find tlie beginning of a custom which in its development greatly increased the profitable results of these celebrations — granting the indulgence without requiring the pilgrim- age to Rome. Hugh, King of Cyprus, petitioned for this favor, but it was refused him on the ground ihat other crowned heads had made similar applications and had been denied, yet the next year it was granted to him, to Edward III., to Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and to the queens Isabella of France, Philippa of England, and Elizabeth of Hungary. These were doubtless gratuitous, thougii unquestionably they must have been royally rewarded, and also gratuitous was the communication of the indulgence, in 1351, to those attending the general chapter of the Augustinians in Bale, nor is it likely that they were the only friars thus favored. More suggestive of the desire for lucre was tlie authorization given to the Archbishop of Brindisi, nuncio to Sicily, to extend the same favor to thirty persons, provided they should pay what the pilgrimage to Rome would cost them, nor again is it probable that this was the only case.^ Xo statistics have reached us as to the money realized to the curia by this jubilee, but it must have been large, and was certainly looked after vigilantly. We have seen (Vol. II. p. 1 64) that the position of penitentiary for this occasion was not obtained without payment, that some of these officials were dismissed for peculation, and that there were doubtless large gains from the redemption of sins. The ' Vit. Nic. Laurentii Lib. iir. Cap. 1. 2, 3 (Muratori Antiq. T. VI f. pp. 876 -8, 880-88).— Henrici Rebdorff Annal. ann. 1350 (Freher. et Striivii I. 631).— Raynald. ann. 1350, n. 3, 4. " Eaynald. ann. 1350, n. 2. — Matt. Neoburjjjens. (Alb. Argeutiuens.) ann. 1351 (Urstisii Germ. Hist. II. 156). 20G THE JUBILEE. oblations at St. Peter's gave rise to a fierce quarrel between the canons, who seized them, and the altararlus, or papal representative,^ who claimed them for his master. This was not settled until 1356, by Innocent VI., who allowed the canons to retain what thev had seized, and to prevent unseemly disputes in future ordered a divi- sion ; all vessels, vestments and ornaments suited to divine service should be allotted to the basilica ; other articles and gold and silver bullion to the camera ; all money was to be kept in the custody of the altararlus and the four chamberlains of the chapter, to be divided five times a year, three-fourths of the net receipts to the camera and one-fourth to the canons to stimulate them to greater diligence in singing the offices.^ There were too many interests involved to permit the postpone- ment for fifty years of so fruitful a source of profit, and when Gregory XI. returned from Avignon to Rome, in 1377, the citizens besought him to reduce the interval to thirty-three years. He is said to have listened favorably to their request, but his death, March 27, 1378, put an end to the project for a time.' The schism, which promptly broke out after the election of his successor. Urban VI., and the wandering state of the pope for some years precluded its resumption, but after Urban's return to Rome, towards the end of 1388, and the definition of party lines, he naturally recurred to it. Both he and his Roman subjects were in desperate need of money, and the proclamation of a jubilee was a strong appeal to Europe to recognize him as the true pope, rendering his possession of Rome a more imposing factor in 1 Bullar. Vatican. I. 357. In the course of this atFair luuoceut VI., in a letter to his vicar at Rome, August 1, 1353, relates how the canons of St. Peter's forcibly took possession of the oblations and divided them among themselves, so that none reached the papal camera. Moreover they seized the property of pilgrims dying in Rome and asking for burial in the basilica. When Giovanni Castellani, the altararius, endeavored to exercise his functions they set upon him with cries "kill him who takes our oblations!", they pur- sued him to his house and attacked it with stones and missiles, so that he was obliged to take refuge elsewhere, after which they proceeded to divide the oblations as before, and contemi^tuously derided all attempts of the papal representatives to make them disgorge. The sacristan of the basilica en- deavored to reason with them, when they gave him a beating in the choir. — Werunsky Excerpta ex Registt. Clement. VI. et Innoc. VI. p. 81 (Innsbruck, 1885). ^ Valerius de Anno Sancto 1600, pp. Ixviii.-ix. JUBILEE OF 1390. 207 the struggle. His bull was issued April 8, 1389, in which he ad- vanced the thirty-three years of the life of Christ and the short duration of human life as the reasons for reducing the term to thirty- three years, though he did not condescend to explain how this com- ported with his indicating the solemnity for 1890. To the three churches — St. Peter's, St. Paul's and the Lateran — he added S. Maria Maggiore, with an apology which showed that this increase in the labor of the pilgrims was not expected to prove acceptable, and he took care to renew the regulations of Innocent VI. as to the division of the oblations.^ Urban died October 15, 1389, and his successor, Boniface IX., inherited the enterprise. The schism kept away pil- grims from the lands of Avignonese obedience, but multitudes came from all parts of Italy and from Germany, Poland and Hungary, the most conspicuous arrival being Alberto of Ferrara at the head of a company of four thousand devotees, all uniformly and modestly clad.^ If the event at Rome was not as productive as on previous occasions, Boniface utilized to the utmost the device of subsequent localized jubilees wherever he was acknowledged as the legitimate pope, and for years, as we have already seen (pp. 65, 182), his com- missioners were busy in selliug the pardons in one place after another, while the curia was bargaining over special concessions with cities and kingdoms which desired to share the profits. It was vastly more productive to collect from penitents at home sums equivalent to what the pilgrimage would cost them than to have them come to Rome and trust to their penances and oblations. It is therefore not surprising that when the year 1400 arrived, and the people of the lands of Avignonese obedience, regarding the decree of Clement VI. as still in force, came flocking to Rome for the jubilee, Boniface resolutely discouraged them, even to the point of notifving them that no special indulgences were to be gained. In fact the mere coming to seek them was an implication that his de- ' Urbaui PP. VI. Bull. Salvator noster (Amort, I. 84). — Theod. a Niem de Schismate Lib. i. Cap. 68.— Raynald. ann. 1389 n. 2.— Mag. Chrou. Belgic. ann. 1389 (Pistorii et Struvii. I. 350).— Gobelini Personse Cosmodrom. ^t. vi. Cap. 81. The addition of S. Maria Maggiore to the churches had beea decreed by- Gregory Xr.— Nich. PP. V. Bull. Nonnulli (Raynaldi ann. 1449 n. 15) ; Pauli PP. II." Bull. IneffabiUs (BuUar. I. 386). - Vittorelli, Historia de' Giubilei, p. 217. 208 THE JUBILEE. crees and those of Urban VI. were invalid, and as he chanced at the time to be in funds and not to be particularly well affected to the Roman populace, it is easy to understand his position. Still the impulse 'of the centennial year was too strong to be resisted and mul- titudes came from beyond the Alps, but robbers were busy along the roads and pestilence was busier still ; only a portion of them reached Rome, and of these but few regained their homes. ' In 1420 Chicheley, Archbishop of Canterbury, whether moved, as Eaynaldus says, by love of gain, or, as we may charitably hope, by inordinate zeal, proclaimed for his episcopal seat a jubilee Avith the same pardons as that of Rome. On hearing of it Martin V. inter- posed effectively, characterizing it as an unheard of presumption, an audacious sacrilege and an attempt to erect a false tabernacle of sal- vation in opposition to the Roman pontiff, to whom alone God had confided the power. Ilis internuncio, the Bishop of Trieste, was ordered to suppress it, and Chicheley yielded.^ Martin V. observed the precept of Urban VI., and, in 1423, thirty- three years after that of Boniface IX., in 1390, he proclaimed one, though not without hesitation. The times, however, were not pro- pitious for such demonstrations ; England was preoccupied with the French war and France was almost in a state of anarchy, while Germanv had its hands full with Hussite crusades and Hussite > Bonifacii PP. IX. Bull. Cam nonulU (Vittorelli, p. 234).— Mag. Chron. Belgic. ann. 1400. — Th. a Niem de Schismate Lib. ii. Cap. 28. — Raynald. ann. 1400, n. 1. — Meyeri Annal. Flaudrire Lib. xiv. — Naucleri Chronographia ann. 1400. — Philippi Bergomatis Suppl. Chronic, ann. 1400. ^ Raynald. ann. 1423 n. 21. There were two other jubilees besides those of Rome. One was, and perhaps still is, celebrated at Compostella whenever the feast of Santiago (July 25) falls on a Sunday, a coincidence occurring during the present century in 1802. 1819, 1824, 1830, 1841, 1847, 1852, 1858 1869, 1875, 1880, 1886 and 1897. The other was at Lyons, under a papal concession of 1451, celebrated when the feast of St. John the Baptist falls on Trinity Sunday, which only occurs when Easter is on the latest possible day, April 25. This happened in 1451, 1546, and N. S. 1666, 1734 and 1886, and the next will be in 1943. — Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. ix. The jubilee of Compostella is based on a most impudent forgery of a bull Regis ceterni, attributed to Alexander III., in 1179, in which he is made to recite that Calixtus II. granted it on the same conditions as the Roman jubilee, to which Alexander added plenaries every year on the feasts of St. James, of the translation of his remains and of the dedication of the church. — Potiti de Joriis Tract, de Suffragiis etc. P. iv. Q. xvii. JUBILEES OF 1423 AND 1450. 209 reprisals. Men's minds, also, were not attuned to it. In 1422 the agent of the Teutonic Order in Rome reports that people begin to talk of a jubilee, but most of the prelates deny that it will be pro- claimed, though the Romans welcome the idea in the hope of gain. He suggests that precautions be taken to prevent people from com- ing to Rome and carrying money out of the land, for those who want a holy year had much better seek it by attacking the heretics or help- ing those who do so, as they will find in this much more grace.^ In the same spirit John Gerson computed that in making ten miles a dav on foot fiftv davs would be consumed in reachino; Rome ; a week spent there and fifty days in the return make fifteen weeks. Then he proposes that the penitent shall say ten Paters a day — one for each mile — then for seven days visit seven churches a day and for- give his enemies, and resume the ten Paters daily for the return. If he is able, let him give to the poor the equivalent of the travelling expenses, and whoso will do this will gain more pardon than most of those visiting the jubilee." Under these influences the jubilee was naturally a failure — so much so, indeed, that the contemporary writers take no notice of it, and its existence has been doubted or denied, but it did take place.^ When the year 1450 came around it Mas convenient to return to the computation of Clement VI. and celebrate the half-century. Rome had triumphed over the councils, the wars which had con- vulsed central and western Europe were virtually over, and Chris- tendom precipitated itself upon the holy city. All accounts agree that the crowd of pilgrims M'as unprecedented ; to relieve it Xicholas V. reduced the stay required of strangers sometimes to five days, sometimes to three, and even to two. On December 19, on the occasion of the exhibition of the Veronica, the crowd on the Bridge of Adrian was so dense that a mule ridden by Cardinal Piero Barbo (afterwards Paul II.) was wedged fast and commenced kicking, kill- ing many, while others were precipitated into the river ; the dead were estimated at two hundred, and the mule and three horses were ^ Joh. Voight, Stimmen aus Eom (v. Eaumer's Taschenbuch, 1833, p. 138). * Jo. Gersonis Modus quidarn de Jubilfeo (Ed. 1502, T. IV. Ixx. Y). 3 Pauli PP. II. Bull. InefabiUs § 5 (Bullar. I. 386).— Weigel Claviculfe In- dulgent. Cap. 19. — Amundesham Annal. Monast. S. Albani, I. 143, 152 (M. R. Series). — Felicis Hemmerlin Recapitulatio de anno jnbileo, q 2. — Pastor, Ge- schichte der Papste seit dem Augsgang des Mittelalters, I. 693. III.— 14 210 THE JUBILEE. crushed. Nicholas in consequence tore down houses to widen the passage and built two small churches in memory of the slain. As a financial success the jubilee was unexampled. Not only did the pil- grims bring infinite gold and silver for their oblations, but Nicholas astutely raised the octroi on provisions, which, added to the enormous consumption, brought him in large sums. The stock of gold thus obtained was so great that he struck a coin known as the jubilee, of unusual size, equal to three ordinary gold pieces ; he ornamented Rome with buildings, purchased rare Greek and Latin codices, and called around him and pensioned learned scholars, for he was a patron of the New Learning. At his death, in 1455, these MSS. amounted to five thousand, and, as we are told, they would have increased had he lived longer, for not only were they daily brought to him, but he sent all over Europe, as far as Britain, in search of them.^ He could afford thus to gratify his tastes, for he imitated Boniface IX. in prolonging the harvest by instituting local jubilees everywhere, either through his legates, or, as we have seen (p. 182), by selling concessions to bishops and reserving half the proceeds.* So lucrative a result naturally excited impatience for its repetition, resulting in another abbreviation of the interval. Accordingly, in 1470, Paul II. reduced the term to twenty-five years and proclaimed in advance a jubilee for 1475. Dying in 1471, he left it to his successor, Sixtus IV., who confirmed his action and carried it into execution. Great preparations were made for the expected con- course ; the old Janicular bridge which was popularly known as the ponte rotto, on account of its ruinous condition, was rebuilt and renamed the Sistine, and the streets were cleaned, straightened and repaired. The result however did not correspond to the expectation, for the number of pilgrims was small, in spite of a novel device, which serves as an additional evidence that the sole object of the jubilee was financial and not spiritual profit. Sixtus, in his con- 1 Jannotii Manetti Vit. Nich. V. Lib. ii. (Muratori III. ii. 924).— Platinse Vit. Nicli. V. — Eaynald. ann. 1449, n. 15; ann. 1450, n. 4. — Prosper! Lamber- tini Discorso, Foligno 1721, p. 60. — Illescas, Historia Pontifical y Catolica, Lib. VI. Cap. xiv. — Hemmerlin tells us (Recapitulatio de anno jubileo) that, as soon as twilight fell, the Romans and pilgrims plundered the corpses of those who perished on the Bridge of Adrian. ^ Mag. Chron. Belgic. ann. 1451. — Chron. S. ^li^gidii in Brunswig, anu. 1451. —Amort de Indula;. I. 87-91. JUBILEE OF 1475. 211 firmatorv bull, suspended all other indulgences, with the candid admission that this was for the purpose of increasing the afflux of pilgrims to Eome^ — a provision retained by his successors, and leading, as we shall see, to many doubtful questions and much discussion. As though to emphasize his worldly motive, he mani- fested no such desire as respects pilgri ms unable to contribute obla- tions, for when the Franciscans represented to him that the concourse of their brethren to Rome would diminish divine service at home and impoverish the Ara Cceli, which would have to entertain them, and, moreover, that many would wander off and never return, he promptly granted the jubilee indulgence to all Franciscans, condi- tioned merely on the performance of certain religious exercises.^ The ill-success of this jubilee has led some authorities to assert that Sixtus transferred it. May 1, to Bologna for a year, the visits being paid to the churches of St. Peter, St. Petronius, St. Stephen, and St. Francis, but Olimpio Ricci says that this has arisen from the misreading of a bull of Sixtus, granting the indulgence to all visiting those churches for three days between the Saturday before the first Sunday in Lent and the octave of Easter, and making cer- tain specified payments, viz. : four gold florins by archbishops, bishops and nobles down to counts, three florins by abbots and barons, two florins by lesser nobles and doctors, and one florin by all others.^ This was probably a favor generally extended, for Zaccaria prints a similar bull granted to Benevento for the kingdom of Naples, conditioned on similar payments, except when the peni- tents are too poor ; the proceeds to be divided, one-third to the fabric of the four designated churches and two-thirds to the papal camera.^ There were great expectations for the centennial year 1 500, but 1 Pauli PP. II. Bull. IneffablHs, 1470 (Amort, I. 91).— Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Quemadmodum (Cap. 4 Extrav. Commuu. Lib. v. Tit. ix.). — Onuph. Panvin. in Vit. Sixti IV.— Raynald. ann, 1475, n. 1.— Vita Sixti IV. (Muratori, S. R. I. III. II. 1064, 1066).— Cbr. Lupi de Indulg. Cap. ix. ^ Chron. Glassburger ann. 1473 (Quaraccbi , 1887, p. 437). ^ Raynald. loc. cit. — Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 75. — Ricci, Dei Giubilei Universali, pp. 61-3. * Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Fasforis ceterni, 28 Dec. 1475 (Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. 194-205). Vittorelli (Historia de' Giubilei, p. 317) alludes to another brief, Pastoris (etemi, granting the indulgence to the members of the royal house of Castile, on the recital of a certain number of Paters and Aves. 212 THE JUBILEE. the attendance was small owing to the wars and pestilence/ and the occasion is chiefly memorable through the initiation of the ceremony of commencing the celebration by the o])ening of the porte sante — breaches made in the side-walls of the churches throug-h which the pope enters St. Peter's and designated cardinals the other churches, on Christmas eve, to inaugurate the solemnity. This, which sub- sequently became one of the most impressive portions of the pro- ceedings, appears to have been invented on this occasion by Alex- ander VI., who announced that he would with his own hands open the door in St. Peter's, provided for every hundredth year, and would depute cardinals for the others. It apparently was expected to be an attractive feature of the ceremony, and there seems to have been a tradition that a walled-up door existed in St. Peter's, but when Alexander sent his master of the ceremonies Burchard to find it, no trace of it could be discovered, and one had to be prepared in haste.^ ^ Philippi Bergomat. Suppl. Chronic, ann. 1500. — He is probably better authority than Paul Lang (Chron. Citizens, ann. 1500), who describes the con- course as immense. ^ Alex. PP. VI. Bull Inter curas viultlplices (Amort, I. 95). — Zaccaria, I. 153 -4. — There is a phrase in Hemmerlin's Dyalogm de anno jubileo, written in advance of the jubilee of 1450, which may refer to the, porte sante, but which seems rather to be a metaphorical allusion to the admission of the penitent to grace — " ad Eomse portam auream qute operietur in nostrse jubilationis solemni- tatem apud Sanctum Johannem Lateranensem et beati Petri principis aj^os- tolorum basilicam pro nunc prout per quinquaginta annos steterat muris firmissimis obstructa." Manni (Istoria degli Anni Santi, p. 101) gives a cojjy of a medal with the head of Alexander VI. on the obverse, and on the reverse the poj^e opening the porta santa with the legend " Reseravit et clausit Ann. Jub. M. D." — though he says it may not be contemporary. This was subsequently a favorite device for the medals struck on these occasions. This ceremony of opening the porte sante grew in time to be an impressive observance to which great symbolical significance was attached (Olimpio Ricci, Dei Giubilei Universali, pp. 5-17 ; Phoebei de Anno Jubitei P. i. Cap. x.). Their opening and closing indicated the commencement and end of the jubilee, though Bianchi tells us (Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 307-8) that it is only a solemnity and not essential to the gaining of the pardon, for, in 1625, Urban VIII. closed the porta santa on Christmas eve, though the jubilee continued until January 1. Clement VII. was the first to use the silver-gilt hammer, known as the golden hammer, three taps from which was the signal to the masons to remove the stones which had been loosened in advance. In 1650, at St. Paul's, the masons, mistaking the signal, threw down the door before the JUBILEE OF loOO. 213 Alexander evidently recognized promptly that the jubilee would prove a financial failure, and, with his customary readiness of re- source, he hastened to make what he could by putting up for sale almost everything within the power of the keys. On March 4 he issued a bull announcing that his penitentiaries in the churches were empowered to reduce the days to be spent by foreign pilgrims to five and by Romans to seven, on the foreigners paying one-fourth and the residents one-eighth of the expenses thus saved to them, but to those absolutely penniless the reduction might be made gratuitouslv. On the same terms of one-eighth of the savings, Romans afraid to make the rounds on account of enmities, or too infirm to do so, could visit their parish churches, or, if unable to leave their homes, could earn the indulgence by Paters and Aves to be prescribed by the penitentiaries. These officials were further authorized to compound for "irregularity" in priests, except in cases of murder or bigamy; to dispense for incestuous marriages beyond the second degree, for payment proportioned to the station of the parties ; to compound for unjust gains, the injured party being unknown, settling each case on its merits ; also for vows, except those of Jerusalem, religion, and chastity ; also for simony, on payment of one-third of the sums acquired by it ; also with papal officials for charging illegal fees, on their paying a due proportion of the same. Altogether St. Peter's was converted into a market-place where pardons and dispensations were sold over the money chests in a manner which apparently did not shock the dulled moral sense of an age long and thoroughly edu- cated to such chaffering. To wring the last penny from blunted consciences, on December 16, 1500, Alexander extended the time until Epiphany, and as the commissions of his penitentiaries had expired, he referred customers to the Observantine Vicar-General, Ludovico de la Torre, at the Ara Coeli.^ As a matter of course, in arrival of Cardinal Colonna, deputed to open it, and the crowd rushed in. The master of ceremonies promptly ordered it partially rebuilt, and it was taken down in due order (Ricci, op. elf. p. 259). Cf. Viva de Jubilaeo ac Indulg. pp. 6, 7. — Van Eanst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 76. — Amort de Indulg. I. 123-4. — Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. 153-4, 158. —In the jubilee of 1775 the porfe mate were not opened until February 26, by Pius VI., in consequence of the death of Clement XIV. (Pii PP. VI. Const. Samma Dei, 25 Dec. 1775). ^ Alex. PP. VI. Bull. Cum in principio, 4 Mart. 1500 ; Bull. Commissum nobis, 16 Dec. 1500 (Amort, I. 94, 102). 214 THE JUBILEE. 1501, he proceeded to gather in wliat he could throughout Europe, seudiug his legates everywhere and selling the indulgence for one- fifth of what the pilgrimage to Rome would cost. To England, for instance, was despatched a Spaniard named Gaspar Pons, who came to an understanding with the thrifty Henry VII. as to the royal share in the proceeds, and carried back a large sum to Rome. Alto- gether the industry was highly productive ; Alexander said that the money was destined to a war which he proposed against the Turks, but no war was declared and Guicciardini is probably correct in saying that the proceeds were handed over to his son, Csesar Borgia, then engaged in active war to .extend his dominions.^ The jubilee of 1525 was naturally a failure; there was pestilence in Rome, the war between France and Spain filled southern Europe with confusion, while in Germany the Lutheran revolt and the peasants' war were quite sufficient distractions. Already, however, the purifying effect of the Reformation was beginning to show itself, for Raynaldus tells us that, to prevent Luther's objurgations, the clauses respecting money payments were omitted, and that, in place of a portion of the expenses of the pilgrimage, five Paters M' ere substituted.^ The jubilee of 1550 was reasonably successful. Paul 11. had proclaimed it in 1549, but he died November 10. His successor, Julius III., was not elected until February 8, 1550 ; he was crowned on the 22d, and opened the j)orta santa on the 24th.^ When 1575 arrived the counter-Reformation was fully developed ; the Church had recovered from the shock of the Reformation ; it was no longer battling for its life, but was seeking to recover its lost ground ; the ' Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. 206-7. — Vittorelli, Historia de' Giubilei, p. 334.— Polydori Virgilii Hist. Angl. Lib. xxvi, (Ed. 1651, pp. 771-2).— Guic- ciardini, Lib. VI. Cap. 1. 2 Eaynald. ann. 1525 u. 1, 3.— On July 23, 1525, Clement VII. wrote to the Duke of Lorraine congratulating him on a recent victory over the " Lutheran" peasants, and rewarding him by granting the same jubilee indulgence as that acquired by visiting Eome to him and his brothers and their families and the inhabitants of Nancy and to four thousand others to be selected by him and by the Archbishop of Treves, on their visiting, contrite and confessed, four churches for fifteen days and giving money for pious works. — Balan, Monu- menta Reformationis Lutheranse, p. 495. ' Raynald. ann. 1550, n. 47-9. — Surii Comment. Rerum in Orbe gestarum ann. 1550. JUBILEE OF 1575. 215 council of Trent had defined its doctrine and perfected its organi- zation ; St. Pius V. had frowned upon "eleemosynary" indulgences, and voluntary oblations had again become the rule. The rejuvenated Church therefore made every effort to impress the world with the fervor of its faith and the abounding fulness of its capacity to meet the spiritual needs of man. In 1573 Gregory XIII. had commenced his preparations; on May 10, 1574, he executed the letters Dominus ac Redemptor, announcing the glad tidings, and these were published, according to custom, on Ascension day. May 20. On November 13 he suspended all plenary indulgences, except in articulo, and when, on Christmas eve, he opened the porta santa, it was in the presence of a crowd estimated at 300,000, in which six or eight men "were crushed to death, while similar multitudes attended the simultaneous ceremonies at the three other churches. He gave his benediction with a plenary indulgence to all present, and this he repeated on nine feasts during the year and at the closing solemnities. The number of pil- grims was large. Fifty penitentiaries, commissioned to absolve for reserved cases, were constantly on duty at St. Peter's, thirty each at the Lateran and S. Maria ^Nlaggiore and nearly as many at St. Paul's, and yet penitents frequently had to wait eight or ten days to be heard. There was a universal effusion of charity and love. The Sodality of the Trinita, formed to offer hospitality to strangers, numbered thirty thousand members, many of them men and women of the highest rank, who served the tables and washed the feet of the pilgrims ; no one was received who could not produce a certificate of confession from a penitentiary ; Italians were allowed to stay from three to five days and Ultramontanes from twelve to fifteen, while the sick were cared for as long as was necessary. The records of the Sodality showed 144,963 pilgrims lodged and 21,000 sick in the hospital. Besides the Trinita, there were other associations perform- ing the same work, and many houses and palaces were thrown open to all comers. The time for speculating on the pilgrims was past, and the accumulation, not of money, but of spiritual influence was henceforth to be the object of the Holy See. To the lodgers at the Trinita Gregory granted the special privilege that the indulgence should be gained by five visits to the churches, while confraternities which came to Rome in procession were released with a single round. The needs of the English Catholics were kindly provided for in the hxxW Salvator noster,o^ March 30, 1575. As they had no churches 216 THE JUBILEE. to visit they were directed to perform such pious works as might be prescribed by their confessors ; if they had no confessors they could gain the indulgence by fifteen recitals of the rosary or chaplet of the Virgin, after which any confessor could absolve them, even for the reserved cases of the Ccena Domini. So well pleased was Gregory with the result that he is said to have proposed to shorten to thirteen years the intervals between jubilees, but found himself unable to carry the project into effect.' In the following year the jubilee was, as usual, extended over Europe, under regulations which have been substantially followed ever since. These contrast strongly with the money-getting devices of the pre- Reformation period and reflect the reforms which had been forced upon the Church. A period of three months was allowed for obtain- ing the indulgence ; the bishops determined the amount of pious works to be performed, within the limits of visiting five churches for fifteen clays to visiting one church once ; the penitent was allowed a choice among approved confessors, and could be absolved even for the cases reserved in the Coena Domini. There was nothing said about " alms," or compounding for illicit gains or dispensing for vows.^ The jubilee of 1575 marks the turn of the tide which reached high-Avater mark in that of 1600. Estimates of the influx of pil- grims on this occasion range from 1,200,000 to 3,000,000, but in the semi-official account by Cardinal Valerio the number is given at the more credible figure of 536,000. In August many confraternities came in procession ; on account of the intense heat they visited the churches at night, but in spite of this most of them perished, carried to heaven, as the chronicler piously hopes, in the midst of their re- ligious exercises. jSIauy heretics who had been attracted by curiosity were converted at the sight of the popular enthusiasm, and the 1 Theiner Annal. Eccles. ann. 1574, n. 41; ann. 1575, n. 1-12, 25; T. II. Mantissa Documentt. n. 1. — Vittorelli, Historia de' Giubilei, i)p. 389, 395, 413, 415-16. — Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. 149. — Olinipio Ricci, De' Giubilei Universali, pp. 79-98. It is perhaps worthy of note that the contemporary Surius makes no refer- ence to this jubilee, as thoup^h it were too insigniticant an event to record. Zerola tells us (Tract, de Jubilseo, Lib. i. Cap. 9) that it was attended by very few from England, Scotland, France, Saxony, Germany and Bohemia. ^ Gregor. PP. XIII. Const. DUectissimus ; Marquardi Augustani Litt. Pas- toral. 28 Sept. 1576 (Amort, I. 104). — Vittorelli op. cif. p. 417. — Zaccaria, op. cit. I. 214-15. MODERN JUBILEES. 217 humble zeal of Clement A'^III. in washing the feet of pilgrims and his assiduity in celebrating mass and in personally hearing confes- sions— four hundred converts in all, according to some accounts, but Valerio gives the more probable number of fifty. It is evident from his recital that the population \vas wrought to a pitch of religious delirium not unlike that of a prolonged camp-meeting, but all the fiercer from the infectious enthusiasm of so vast a multitude crowded together.^ It is scarce worth while to follow in detail the subsequent jubilees of 1625, 1650, 1675, 1700, 1725, 1750, and 1775, which could teach us nothing except that in their greater or less success there was a gradual falling off in numbers and zeal. There was likewise a great reduction in the oblations of the pilgrims, and we may well believe Zaccaria's assertion that the proceeds were much less than the expenses. Every effort was made to lighten the burden of the pilgrims by offering them gratuitous shelter and food, no small share of which was necessarily contributed by the pope and the cardinals. In 1600 Clement YIII. thus gave 300,000 scudi ; in 1650 Inno- cent X. took off six giulj per measure of the tax on corn. Since the sixteenth century we may fairly assume that every jubilee has been a not inconsiderable burden on the Holy See.^ A not unnatural concomitant of this was an increased development of the spiritual features of the solemnity, which finds apt expression in the exhorta- tion to repentance by Clement XIA^. in 1774.^ The disturbances consequent on the French Revolution and the formation of the Roman Republic naturally prevented any formal proclamation of a jubilee in 1800; Pius VI. died August 29, 1799, and Pius VII. was not elected until March 14, 1800, by the car- dinals who had found refuge in Venice. Yet no announcement is necessary, for the bull IneffabUk of Paul II. is still in force, and until repealed the jubilee returns every twenty-five years, and the indulgences can be gained.* It may be questioned however whether, ^ Valerii de Anno Sancto 1600, pp. xxv.-vi., sxxiv.-v., xxxix., Ixxii.-lxxviii., xcii., xcv. — Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, I. 95 — Vittorelli, Historia de' Giubi- lei, pp. 109, 336. — Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 70. — Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urban! VIII. pp. 166-8. ^ Zaccaria, II. 192-4. — Ricci, de' Giubilei Universali, pp. 104, 266. 3 Clement. PP. XIV. Const. Sahdh nostrce (Bullar. Contin. T. II. p. 716). * Zaccaria, II. 2-4. 218 THE JUBILEE. amid the strife of arms and the savagely reactionary occupation of Rome, in 1800, by the troops of Ferdinand of Xaples, there were many pious souls to win the pardons. lu the reaction which fol- lowed the fall of Napoleon, Leo XII. had the opportunity, in 1825? to preside over the celebration with all the ancient formalities, and a sufficient number of pilgrims were attracted, according to Cardinal Wiseman, who was an eye-witness, to exhaust the funds of the charitable institutions of Rome and leave the papal exchequer con- siderably in debt.^ The revolutionary excitement of 1850 and the limitation, by 1875, of the papal possessions to the Vatican deprived Pius IX. of the unprecedented honor of presiding over two jubilees; all that he could do was to proclaim an indulgence in forma jubilcei on the 2d and 25th of July, 1850, and on the 24th of December, by his encyclical Gh^avibus, he oiFered the customary " plenissimam anni jubila?i omnium peccatorum suorum indulgentiam" to those who would for fifteen days visit the four churches in Rome, or elsewhere four churches to be designated by the bishops, and pray for the exaltation of the Holy See, the extirpation of heresy, the conversion of the erring, the peace and unity of Christian peoples and the intention of the pope.^ This made the jubilee universal and simul- taneous throughout the Catholic world; it was the same in 1875, and it is probable that this example will be followed by Leo XIII. in the year 1900. Pius IX., in the jubilee of 1875, did not imitate his predecessors in suspending all other indulgences during the jubilee.^ It is some- 1 Leonis PP. XII. Constitt. 36, 67, 106, 107, 114 (Bullar. Contin. VIII. 64, 252, 339, 340, 351).— Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 262. '' Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexicon, VI. 1909.— Pii PP. IX. Acta VI. 351. In 1852 the question was discussed in the Congregation of Indulgences as to what should be done to gain the jubilee in places where there is but one church, and it was resolved to supplicate the pope to grant a general faculty to Ordi- naries to order in such cases that the requisite number of visits should be paid to that church. — Deer. Authent. n. 654. The visits can be made in a carriage, but there is more merit in performing them on foot. — Le Jubile Universel de 1875, Toulouse, p. 22. ^ There is no allusion to suspension in the Encyclical Gravibus, and no subsequent letters of suspension are printed in the Acta. This departure from former practice seems to have occasioned inquiry, for in some decisions by the Penitentiary, Jan. 25, 1875, there is one declaring " manere tamen in SUSPENSION OF OTHER INDULGENCES. 219 what remarkable, indeed, that this arbitrary exercise of papal power had been persistently enforced since 1475, even up to the jubilee of Leo XII., in 1825, long; after the financial motive which orio-inallv prompted it had ceased to be operative. It was a sore deprivation to the faithful and a severe infliction on the churches which looked to their indulueuces for a notable portion of their revenues. To all these there nuist have been a flavor of bitter mockery in the exult- ing rhetoric of Urban VIII. announcing the jubilee of 1625 — "All nations clap your hands, rejoice in God with the voice of exultation ... we bring to you the tidings of the year approaching with the gifts of the King of Ages . . . the year of remission and pardon, the desirable time, the day of salvation." Then turning to the bishops he commands them : " Take the silver trumpets used in the jubilee, preach the word of God and announce to the peoples the great joy, that they may be sanctified, and with the help of God's grace be prepared to receive the celestial gifts which God, the giver of all good, has provided for the children of his love through our humble ministry." ' It argues a deficient sense of humor in a pope to utter these lofty promises, knowing that in a few weeks he will follow them with another proclamation cutting off all competition and depriving the faithful of the consolations which they had been taught to resjard as essential. Xor is the matter mended bv the explanation of Polacchi, in his commentary on this bull, that the suspension is necessary in order to suppress competition, especially now when every church in the smallest towns is furnished with a plenary indulgence, nor by his quaint exhortation to the souls in purgatory to be patient during this year, and perhaps they may get the benefit of some of the overflowing mercies which abound in Rome.^ It is not without reason that Dr. Amort remarks that if indulgences have the power to liberate sinners so easily from the necessity of satisfaction, their suspension during the jubilee is the greatest of evils, and the Holy Year ought not to be called the year of jubilee, but the year of grief and sorrow,^ and the force of this is suo vigore Indulgentias a Sancta Sede concessas et expresse non suspensas aut revocatas."— Acta, T, VII. p. 2. ' Urbani PP. VIII. Bull. Omnes gentes, 29 Apr. 1624. ^ Polacchi Comment, in Bullam Urbani PP. VIII. pp. 104, 345. ^ Amort de Indulgent. II. 211. This device of suspending indulgences for the benefit of some favored in- 220 THE JUBILEE. illustrated bv the statement of PignatelH, that in Rome the ordinary indulgences of the churches enable a man to gain a plenary every day, while during the Holy Year he can gain only the jubilee.^ In fact, when we consider the arbitrary wantonness with which suc- cessive popes varied these suspensions, and the persistent vagueness which left unsettled questions of the deepest import to believers, it would seem a reproach to assume that they had any real belief in the power over the quick and the dead with which they thus trifled. When Sixtus IV. commenced the practice he suspended only plenary indulgences granted by the Holy See to churches and other institutions and confraternities, with the exception of the churches of Rome, and decreed that the suspension should continue during the good pleasure of himself and the Holy See.^ This phraseology was followed by succeeding popes up to the jubilee of 1575, when Gregory XIII. included in the suspension all plenaries granted to individuals and to religious orders. Clement YIII., in 1600, went still further and by omitting the word " plenary " and includiug images, medals, beads etc., he annulled, for the time, all indulgences whatsoever; even those of the Roman cliurches were not excepted. Urban VIII. used virtually the same formula, and this became habitual with his terest was not confined to the jubilee. It was done by Julius II. to stimulate the sale of the St. Peter's indulgence, and was continued by Leo X., Clement VII., and Paul III. (Julii PP. II. Bull. Liquet omnibus | 20; Pauli PP. III. Const. Dum ad universasf ap. Bullar. I. 502. 751). Perhaps, however, the most vicious measure of the kind was an indulgence granted, in 1514, by Leo X. to the church of Xaintes to raise money for repairs, which contained a suspension of all other indulgences in France, and must have cost the grantees heavily. The Parlement, in assenting to the preaching of this pardon, required that the indulgences of the Hotel-Dieu of Paris be excepted from the suspension ; the Bishop of Xaintes was within three months to obtain from Leo a bull to this efiect, and meanwhile none of the money obtained by the sale was allowed to reach his hands (Preuves des Libertez de I'Eglise Gallicane, IL 145). ^ Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 302. ^ " Omnes et singulas plenarias, etiam ad instar Jubilsei ... a nobis et eadem Sede vel illius auctoritate quibuscumque ecclesiis, monasteriis etc. quomodolibet concessas . . . usque ad nostrum et ejusdem Sedis benepla- citum suspendimus, illasque durante beneplacito nostro et Sedis prsedictae suspensas esse volumus, nee interim alicui suffragari : indulgentiis tamen Basilicarura et Ecclesiarum dictje urbis in suo plenario robore durantibus." — Cap. 4 Extravagant. Commun. Lib. v. Tit. ix. SUSPENSION OF OTHER INDULGENCES. 221 successors.^ The suspension of the partial indulgences which ex- isted everywhere in such profusion, and mIucIi by this time were connected with nearly all devotional exercises not of prescription, was a very serious matter ; it was a violent upturning of habits and thoughts that were well-nigh universal, and if indulgences had the value attached to them it was a thing not to be lightly undertaken or to be in any way left in doubt. Yet it has always seemed almost impossible for a papal document to be so phrased that the ingenuity of theologians could not find in it a doubtful or a double sense, or argue away any specially obnoxious clause, and it was so in this case. Even before the time of Clement VIII. there were doctors who held that the suspension of pleuaries included partials, and after him the majority of moralists persuaded themselves that the sweeping clauses of the bulls of suspension did not suspend partial indulgences. There was a legal maxim much used by the laxer schools — odlosa sunt re- stringenda et favorabilia amplianda — which was l^rought to bear, and it was proved that the papal utterances did not mean what they said.'^ There would have been no difficulty in framing an absolute clause which should settle the question on one side or the other, yet 1 Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo II. 54.— Clement. PP. VIII. Litt. Cum Sancti, 21 Mali, 1599 (Bullar. III. 85).— Urbani PP. VIII. Bull. Cum nuper, 2 Mail, 1624 (Bullar. V. 45).— Innoc. PP. X. Bull. Cum nuper, 6 Mali, 1649 (Bullar. V. 465). — Plicebei de Orig. et Progressu anni Jubilsei, p. 235 (Romse, 1675). — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 358 (Roma, 1700).— Bened. PP. XIII. Bull. Cum nos nuper, 6 Julii, 1724 (Bullar. XIII. 107). * Azpilcuetfe Comment, de Jubilseo, Notab. xxv. n. 1, 2; xxxiii. n. 6.^ Gratiano, Del Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, P. I. Cap. 13 (Roma, 1599, p. 120).— Zerola Tract, de Jubilaeo ac Indulg. Lib. ii. Cap. 19. — Lavorii de Jubilseo et Indulg. P. I. Cap. x. n. 5, 6. — Polacci Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. pp. 345-6 (Romge, 1625). — Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubilsei, Q 144 (Romse, 1650).— Quarti, Trattato del Giubileo, p. 193 (Roma, 1650).— Phcebei de Orig. et Progressu Anni Jubilsei P. I. Cap. 15 (Romte, 1675). — Pignatelli, II Giubi- leo deir Anno Santo, pp. 292-3, 298 (Roma, 1700). — Viva de Jubilseo ac In- dulg. p. 47 (Ed. 1750). — Theod. a Spiritu Sancto Tract, de Jubilseo Cap. xii. I ii. n. 2. Biancbi (Foriero dell' Anno Santo, Roma, 1700, pp. 313, 360-1) argues in favor of the suspension of partials. He says that Clement X. (1675) declared that his intention was that partials as well as plenaries should be suppressed and that Innocent XII. wished that there should be none of any kind but the jubilee to be had. See also Van Ranst, Opusc. de Indulg. pp. 83-4. Benedict XIV. alludes to the doubt which had long hung over this question and the controversy which it had occasioned (Encyc. Inter prceteritos § 22). 222 THE JUBILEE. pope after pope coutiuued to use the disputed formula, knowiug the discussiou which it provoked aud the doubts M^hich hung over the question. It was not until the jubilee of 1750 that Benedict XIV. settled the matter bj the simple expression of " plenary and not plenary " and by enumerating the exceptions which he permitted.^ As a matter of course the more powerful bodies affected by these suspensions struggled hard to escape the loss. The cruzada, which was a perennial source of income to the Spanish government, was assumed to be a contract between the Holy See and those proposing to engage in the holy war with the Turks, which could not be broken ; sometimes the popes conceded the claim and sometimes they did not, but all the same the cruzada continued to be preached and paid for without interruption during jubilee years? The Jesuits claim that 1 Bened. PP. XIV. Bull. Cum nos nuper, 17 Mali, 1749 (Bullar. III. 63). The exceptions enumerated by Benedict XIV. are copied, with some changes, from the regulations of Benedict XIII. for the jubilee of 1725, and were sub- stantially followed by his successors. They consist of indulgences in articulo mortis, privileged altars, and indulgences applicable to the dead, those obtain- able toties quotles by visiting churches in which the forty hours' prayers are going on, those for accompanying or causing to be accompanied with lights the sacrament w^hen carried to the sick, those for the Angelus, and those granted by legates and bishops when officiating. See Clement. PP. XIV. Const. Cum Nos nuper, 1774 (Bullar. Contin. V. 724) and Bouvier, Trade des Indulgences, p. 406. ^ In 1824 Leo XII. waived the suspension of the cruzada as a special grace (Decret. Authent. n. 451). For earlier discussions on the subject see Eodri- guez, Bolla della Crociata, pp. 249-50 ; Summa Diana s. v. Bulla Cruciatce n. 93; Lavorii de Jubileo P. i. Cap. x. n. 10; Quarti, Trattato del Giubileo, p. 210 ; Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 296 ; Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 364 ; Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 62, 68, 70 ; Theod. a Spiritu Sancto loc. cit. n. 3. The cruzada suspended all other indulgences in the Spanish dominions, even those for St. Peter's (Rodriguez, Bolla della Crociata, p. 236). The Commis- sioner-General of the Cruzada, however, could license others to be sold to those who had already taken the cruzada (Summa Diana s. v. Bulla Cruciatce n. 92). In 1563 the Venetian envoy at Madrid reports that a certain hospital had given 4000 ducats for such a licence and had cleared 180,000 from it (Relazioni Venete, Serie I. T. V. p. 24). To enforce this required strict regulation of the beggary of the religious Orders, which was so generally connected with indulgences to stimulate the liberality of the people, but, in 1510, the Com- missioner of the Cruzada conceded that alms might be given to them, provided the giver did not believe that he thereby gained an indulgence (Pragmaticas y altres Drets de Cathalunya, Lib. I. Tit. ix. Cap. 1. Cf. Recopilacion de las i SUSPEySION OF OTHER INDULGENCES. 223 in 1550, Julius III. excepted their Society from the suspension of the jubilee, but I think this doubtful.^ The Franciscans made a persistent struggle for the exemption of their favorite indulgence of the Portiuucula of Assisi, claiming that the suspension was only of papal indulgences, Avhile this was granted directly by Christ. Some- times they succeeded in getting special letters or declarations in its favor and sometimes they failed ; Benedict XIV. did not include it among the exceptions, but Clement XIV., as a good Franciscan, did, while Leo XII. followed Benedict's example.^ There were other prominent beneficiaries of indulgences — Compostella, the Holy Sep- ulchre, Loreto, the Seven Churches of Rome, the Scala Santa etc. — which fought hard for exemption, and sometimes succeeded, accord- ing as one or another could bring influence and pressure to bear, creating endless confusion and rendering the subject one in which the most earnest believer might well feel in doubt as to the validity of the remission which he might gain. Indias Lib. I. Tit. xxi.). In modern times the faculty of suspending other indulgences is not conceded to the commissioner in the bulls granting the cruzada (Sanchez, Expositio Bullae S. Cruciatse, pp. 118, 409-10). Yet as lately as 1840 the Archbishop of Tarragona, having obtained a number of faculties for granting plenaries, became apprehensive of the claims of the Commissioner of the Cruzada to interfere with him and applied to the Con- gregation of Indulgences to know what he should do, when the answ^er was that he could use the faculties privately, in a manner not to cause scandal, and must not print them without the Commissioner's permission (Deer. Authentica n. 523). ^ Stewart Rose, St. Ignatius Loyola and the early Jesuits, p. 467. — I can find no trace of such a grant. On the contrary, when, in 1549, Paul III. con- ceded the enormous privileges of a plenary once a year to all visiting a Jesuit church on a day fixed by the General, and seven years and quarantines for visits on all Fridays, Sundays, days in Lent and four feasts of Christ, he ex- pressly excluded the jubilee year. — Pauli PP. III. Bull. Licet debitum (Literse Apostolicpe Soc. Jesu, Antverpise, 1635, pp. 49-50). ' Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 63, 68.— Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. 297. — Viva de Jubilseo ac Indulg. p. 50. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 314-15, 365. — Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. pp. 88-9. — Clement. PP. XIV. Bull. Cum nos nuper, 1774 (BuUar. Contin. V. 725).— Leonis PP. XII. Bull. Cum nos nuper, 1824 (Ibid. VIII. 84). The shrine of Our Lady of Einsiedlen made a similar claim of exception on the ground that its indulgence was of divine origin (Amort, II. 194), appar- ently forgetful of its forgery, ascribed to Leo VIII., in 964 (See p. 135), but I can find no trace of its ever having been considered. 224 THE JUBILEE. There was a more disquieting question, which illustrates the extreme carelessness pervading the whole of this business. When Sixtus IV. first suspended indulgences he did not specify that the suspension w'as for the jubilee year, but during his good pleasure and that of the Holy See. It was a recognized rule of legal construction that under this formula a decree remains in force until it is formally revoked by the proper authority, but neither Sixtus nor his suc- cessors took the trouble to issue a revocation.^ From this it followed that, after 1474, all plenary indulgences, excepting new ones up to the time of the succeeding jubilee, remained suspended, and that those Avho paid for them and relied upon them, for themselves and for the souls of their kindred in purgatory, were miserably deceived. Curiously enough, this escaped attention for a century, until Azpilcueta noticed it, wdien studying the subject prior to the jubilee of 1575. He held his opinion in suspense until he could consult the papal datary, who could only say that Sixtus IV. had never revoked his suspension nor had it been tacitly assumed that a revocation was implied by the expiration of the jubilee year; further, that Gregory XIII. would not issue any formal revocation, nor would it be assumed that a revocation effected itself when the jubilee year expired ; it was prob- able that Sixtus had renewed individual indulgences at the request of those concerned ; that Gregory would do the same, and it would be well for all who \yere interested in indulgences to make applica- tion for their renewal.^ The papacy shrank from confessing to the world the absurd blunder which it admitted having made, and pre- ferred that the faithful should go on deceiving themselves with in- valid pardons. S. Carlo Borromeo accepted the situation, and on February 4, 1576, instructed his parish priests not to publish plenary indulgences or expose the tablets on which they were inscribed, for ^ Alex. VI., in announcing his jubilee in 1498, susiJendecl all indulgences from Eesurrection 1498 (April 15) to the close of 1500— Bull. Consueverunt, 12 Apr. 1498 (Bullar. Vatican. III. 282). When, in December, 1500, he extended the jubilee throughout Italy, he suspended indulgences until Pentecost, 1501. — Bull. Padork rrterni, 9 Dec. 1500 (Amort, I. 100). Clement VII., in 1525, simply suspended indulgences without sjDecifying any term. — Bull. Infer solicl- tudines, 23 Dec. 1524 (Amort, I. 102). In 1575 Gregory XIII. returned to the Sixtine formula, suspending them during the pleasure of the Holy See (Theiner Annal. Eccles. ann. 1574, n. 41). ^ Azpilcuetpe Comment, de Jobilseo, Notab. xxviii. xxxiii. Cf. Theod. a Spiritu Sancto Tractatus Cap. xii. § 1, n. 5-8. SUSPE2iSI0N OF OTHER INDULGENCES. 225 the prohibition aucl suspension were still in force.^ Clement VIII. and his successors M^ere a trifle less stubborn than Gregory XIII., and altered the phraseology of their bulls of suspension so as to limit it to the jubilee year,- but they would not revoke the suspensions of the earlier popes, so the doubt remained unsolved with regard to all indulgences older than 1575. About 1675 an effort was made to cut the knot. Cardinal Eicci, then Abate Ricci and secretary of the Congregation of Indulgences, submitted to that body the question whether the suspension decreed in 1575 by Gregory XIII. was still in force. After debate the characteristically evasive decision was reached that it was not, but that for abundant caution the pope should be asked to revoke it.^ Benedict XIV. was the first pontiff who had the courage to allude to the subject. He treats the view of Azpilcueta with respect, but argues that successive popes looked on without interfering while pious men offered these indulgences and printed them in books, though at the same time they prohibited apocryphal indulgences and announced those which had been re- voked, and that this sufficed for his predecessors and himself to be satisfied with limiting their suspensions to the jubilee year.* The most arbitrary and M'antou exercise of this power of susjaen- sion was, however, in relation to indulgences fcr the dead. When Sixtus IV. introduced the device for his jubilee of 1475, the power of granting remissions to souls in purgatory was, as we shall see hereafter, merely a speculative question which had not been essayed in practice. He therefore made no exceptions in favor of such in- dulgences, and his successors followed his formulas, although this branch of the business of issuing pardons had developed with great rapidity, and had become, perhaps, its most important portion. Sixtus went as far as his power at the time extended, suspending all plenaries, whether in life or in articulo mortis, in whatever way or ^ Zaccaria, Dell' Anno Santo, II. 58. — Theod. a Sp. Sancto, tibi sup. n. 9. ^ Zaccaria, II. 62. — Polacci Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. Append. — Eug- gieri Diario dell' Anno Santo, 1650, p. 8. — Pboebei de Orig. et Prog. Anni Jubilsei, p. 235. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 359. ^ Zaccaria, II. 60. — For a discussion of tbe subject see Quarti, Trattato del Giubiko, pp. 212-13. * Bened. PP. XIV. Encyc. Inter pneterifos, §| 19-21, 3 Dec. 1749 (Bullar. III. 83-4). The ninety-one sections of this long document show how intricate and puzzling were the questions to which the jubilee gave rise. Ill— 15 226 THE JUBILEE. for whatever cause couceded or that might be conceded iu future/ thus rapaciously aud cruelly denying to the dying sinner whatever consolation he might find iu the indulgence promised him by the certificate which he had bought and paid for. Alexander VI, re- peated this in the jubilee of 1500, iu which for the first time release was promised to souls iu purgatory for whose benefit the due amount should be paid, and he made no exception of the suspension in favor of indulgences for the dead." It was the same in the bull of Julius II. for St. Peter's, Avhich was applicable to the dead, and suspended all other indulgences.^ Clement VII., in 1525, did not make his jubilee applicable to the dead, but he adopted the formula of Sixtus IV., and thus suspended all indulgences for their benefit.^ It was the same in the jubilees of 1550 aud 1575. In that of 1600 Clement VIII. made the suspension more extended aud precise than his predecessors and introduced no exception in favor of souls in purgatory, but Ricci says that he oifered a special concession by which pilgrims making four visits to the churches could gain an in- dulgence applicable to the dead, and that Urban VIII. prolonged his jubilee through the last week of December, 1625, during which a single round of the churches gained an indulgence similarly applicable.^ This was but a very slender substitute for the innu- merable privileged altars aud other provisions for the relief of the souls in purgatorial fires, for the doctors hold that the jubilee in- dulgence is not applicable to the dead unless specially provided for in the jubilee bull, aud Zaccaria tells us that no pope since Alex- ander VI. has made such provision.^ The question as to what was the condition of the ordinary indulgences for the dead, under the suspension, seems to have been very uncertain during the seventeenth century, aud to have much puzzled the theologians, who sought eagerly for some mode of excepting them from the suspensions which ^ " In vita seu in mortis articulo, quovis modo aut quavis causa quomodo- libet concessas et concessa, et in posterum forsitan concedendas." — Extrav. Commun. Lib. v. Tit. x. Cap. 4. 2 Alex. PP. VI. Bull. Pasioris leterni (Amort, I. 99-100). 3 Julii PP. II. Bull. Liquet omnibus (Bullar. I. 502). * Raynald. ann. 1525, n. 2. 6 Clement. PP. VIII. Litt. Cum Sancti (Bullar. III. 85).— Ricci, Dei Giubilei Universal!, pp. 135, 256. « Zaccaria, Dell' Anno^Santo, II. 21-22. SUSPENSION OF OTHER INDULGENCES. 227 followed each other at each succeeding Holy Year with pitiless ex- actitude of uniformity.^ Polacchi reports that Clement VIII. and Urban VIII. both verbally declared that they did not intend to include them in the suspension, and Bianchi even asserts that Urban issued a decree to this effect, which was acquiesced in by his suc- cessors.^ If this were so, it would have settled the question ; that it was not so is proved by the arguments of Lavorio and Pasqualigo to solve the current doubts. They make no allusion to any papal utterances, but prove that, as regards indulgences in articulo mortis, the dying sinner has a right in common law of which he is not to be deprived, while as respects those for the dead they are not to be held to be suspended because they do not affect the primal cause of the suspension, which is to attract pilgrims to Rome — all of which shows the straits to which the theologians were reduced to evade the plain purport of the papal decrees.^ All theologians, however, were not so easily satisfied, for Laymann asserts as an indubitable fact that indulgences in articulo are suspended.^ The pressure at length became too great. Privileged altars, a mass at which liberates a soul from purgatory, were multiplying everywhere, especially in the churches of the religious orders, and the fees formed a source of revenue, the deprivation of which, even for the term of the Holy Year, was unpleasant. Clement X., in 1674, Innocent XIL, in 1699, and Benedict XIII. , in 1724, issued their decrees of suspension after the fashion of their predecessors, and subsequently each made a compromise declaring that they did not intend to interfere with indulgences in articulo or those for the dead procurable by masses at privileged altars, or by the mass of St. Gregory, etc., but only 1 Urbani PP. VIII. Bull. Ciwi nos nuper ann. 1624 (Bullar. V. 45).— Innoc. PP. X. Bull. Cum nos nuper, ann. 1649 (lb. p. 465).— Clement. PP. X. Bull. Cum nos nuper, 1674 (Bullar. XI. 95). — Innoc. PP. XII. Bull. Cum nos nuper, 1699 (Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, p. Ixiii.). ^ Polacchi Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. p. 352. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pjj. 318-19. ^ Lavorii de Jubileo P. I. Cap. x. n. 14-18. — Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubil^i Q. 150, 152. Lavorio relates that in the jubilee of 1600 the Roman penitentiaries were of this opinion, but he was not relieved from doubts in consequence of hearing of a great personage who begged the pope to allow some indulgences for his dead kindred to be excepted, which Clement refused. * Layman Theol. Moral. Lib. v. Tract, vii. Cap. 8, n. 3. 228 ^^^ JUBILEE. suspended those wliieli were gained by individnals and applied to the dead.^ This satisfied the priests, whose functions during the Holy Year were the only channel through which sorrowing survivors could mitigate the sufferings of their dear ones in purgatory. At length Benedict XIV., in his regulations for the celebration of 1750, had the courage to put an end to this disgraceful feature of the jubilee and to except from the suspension all indulgences for the dead, whether gained by privileged altars directly or by individuals, and applied to a soul in purgatory.^ Subsequent pontiffs wisely followed his example. The suppression of competing indulgences does not explain the crowds which thronged the Roman streets while jubilees were yet in their prime, for the most successful celebrations were those which occurred before Sixtus IV. invented this form of coercion. It is difficult, in fact, to account for the eagerness of the faithful to gain the jubilee, or for the fervid rhetoric with which successive popes announced it as the year of salvation, unless by the supposition that there was a wide-spread popular belief, encouraged by the curia, that in some way the jubilee indulgence was more efficacious than others, although these others were in their turn represented as infallible. After Boniface IX., as we have seen, the jubilee was carried to every quarter of Europe, brought to the doors of sinners and sold for a half or a fourth or a fifth of what the toilsome and protracted pil- grimage to Rome would cost, and yet men and women by the hundred thousand precipitated themselves upon the holy city as though secure of earning not merely a release from purgatory, but salvation itself. There is no difference between the ordinary plenary remission and that offered in the jubilee, sufficient to explain this popular fervor. The superior advantages of the jubilee were only three — the choice of a confessor, absolution from reserved cases, and commutation of vows.^ We have seen (I. p. 292) how highly ^ Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 367. — Amort de Indulg. I. 122. — Bened. PP. XIII. Litt. Deeet Eomamim (Bullar. XIII. 143). ^ Bened. PP. XIV. Bull. Cton nos nuper, 17 Mali, 1749 (Bullar. Bened. XIV. III. 64). ^ Viva de Jubilteo ac Indulgentiis p. 1. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 229-30. — Grone, Der Ablass, p. 144.— Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 387. COMMUTATION OF VOWS. 229 prized, in the middle ages, was the privilege of choosing a confessor, but, with the multiplication of the Mendicants and the ease with which confessional letters were procured, this privilege became too common to render it specially attractive, and its importance has decreased with the relaxation of parochial jurisdiction in modern times. Reserved cases, also, are now so readily managed that they can scarce be regarded as conferring any great advantage on the jubilee, and even in earlier times they were scarce so frequent or so difficult of settlement as to explain the throngs of pilgrims to Rome. Indeed, these advantages do not absolutely require the pilgrimage, for Laymanu informs us that a man intending bona fide to gain the jubilee can be absolved for reserved cases or have vows commuted, and then, if he changes his mind, culpably or inculpably, the abso- lution and commutation remain good.^ Casuistic ingenuity, how- ever, rendered the subject of commutation of vows more attractive to the sinner. Xo reason, we are told, is necessary to justify com- mutation ; the jubilee itself is sufficient reason, and if they have been taken in view of commutation this is no impediment. It is true that a vow of perpetual chastity or of religion cannot be com- muted, but a vow of virginity is not a vow of chastity, nor is a vow to assume holy orders a vow of religion, and a vow to take a vow of ^ Layman Theol. Moral. Lib. v. Tract, vii. Cap. 8, n. 9. There has been some discussion whether episcopal reserved cases are in- cluded in the privileges of the jubilee, but it has been decided in favor of the papal power (Summa Diana s. v. Jubilceum n. 21. — Pasqualigo Theoria et Praxis Jubilsei Q. 232 n. 6. — Viva de Jubilseo ac Indulg. pp. 235-8), and, in 1875, Pius IX. specifically mentions them in his Encyclical Gravibus (Acta T. VL p. 853). The question whether heresy was included provoked considerable discussion, especially in lands where the Inquisition was established. It claimed ex- clusive jurisdiction on the subject, and finally obtained its acknowledgment in Spain by a brief of Pius V. in 1572. — Joan, de Eojas de Hsereticis, pp. 416, 467 (Valentise, 1572). In Italy, however, a distinction was drawn. A decision of the Penitentiary, in 1617, excepted denounced heretics from the benefits of the jubilee, whence it was inferred that those not denounced were entitled to it.— Polacci Comment, in Bull. Urbani VIII. p. 327. The jubilee bull of Benedict XIII., in 1725, did not contain faculties for absolving in reserved cases and commuting vows, which would seem to deprive his celebration of all advantages, but the omission was argued away because he had recited his intention of following in the footsteps of his predecessors. — Van Ranst, Opusc. de Indulgent, p. 57. 230 THE JUBILEE. chastity or religion is commntable. No moral considerations are allowed to interfere with the privileges of the jubilee : a vow not to commit fornication or adultery is as readily commntable as any other, and indeed the sinner, if he finds that his fragility endangers the keeping of the vow, is bound to ask for its commutation, for it is his duty to take steps for his own salvation, and the confessor, if he has undertaken to hear the confession, commits a mortal sin in refusing to grant commutation unless he has just cause. Nor is this power limited to the year of the jubilee ; the privilege is in its nature perpetual and can be made use of subsequently whenever the sinner desires. The commutation, moreover, though it may l^e spiritual in its nature, is customarily material aid to the war against the Turk or to the fabric of a church, or some similar object — or, in other words, money.^ This evidently was a very fruitful region, and the moralists explored all its recesses in a manner more ingenious and profitable than edifying.^ The influence of the jubilee on the development and character of indulgences was vastly greater than the recurrence of the solemnity every fifty or twenty-five years Avould indicate, for, as we have seen, Boniface IX. and his successors spread them out over Europe for a succession of years, and it became the fashion to grant indulgences in forma jubilmi ;^ they thus contributed largely to the vulgarizing of plenaries and accustomed the people to expect them. Moreover, W'hen any motive suggested itself, extraordinary jubilees would be published, sometimes limited to Italy and sometimes extended over 1 Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, pp. 437-8, 441, 450-74. Pignatelli's book is dedicated to Cardinal Panciatici, the prelate commis- sioned by Innocent XII. to open the porta santa, in the basilica of St. Paul, for the jubilee of 1700, and it may therefore be regarded as a semi-official guide for confessors and penitents on that occasion. ^ Rodriguez, Bolla della Crociata, pp. 210-17. — Viva de Jubilaeo ac ludulg. P2). 259-80. — Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 351-4. — Casus Conscientise Bened. PP. XIV. Jan. 1742 cas. ii. When a "just cause" was required for seeking commutation, the doctors decided that the slightest pretext — even the mere desire of the votary to get rid of his vow — sufficed. — Ludov. Leti Tract, de Indulg. Sect. vii. I 1. ^ A decree of the Congregation of Indulgences, Sept. 11, 1679, decides that simple indulgences in forma Jublfcel do not include reserved cases. — Deer, Authentica n. 22. EXTRAORDINARY JUBILEES. 231 Europe. These differ somewhat from the regular jubilees of the holy year. As a rule, they last for but fifteen days ; certain visits to the churches of the vicinage are prescribed, and fasting on a Wednesday, Friday and Saturday — what van Ranst characterizes as very easy works. ^ The chief distinction, however, consists in the payments required. In the regular jubilee there is nothing prescribed — the pilgrim can make an oblation or withhold it at his pleasure. In the extraordinary jubilee "almsgiving" is one of the enjoined works, and the importance attached to it is seen in the detailed attention o-iveu to this feature in the manuals. It is stated to be an imperative condition which cannot be commuted for other good works. Poverty is no excuse ; even a beggar must give something if he wishes to gain the indulgence ; a strumpet must give it from her filthy gains [turpe guadagno), and will do well if she reserves enough to support life and gives all the rest. Heads of families are bound to provide for the necessaries of those under them and to see that their wives, children, and servants are not deprived of this great benefit, but, if a father refuses and his son has absolutely nothing of his own to give, he can steal from his father what is requisite, provided it will not cause scandal in the household. It is the same in monastic houses, where the superiors are obligated to enable the inmates to gain the indulgence, and in case of refusal the latter are justified in taking something belonging to the house, even at the risk of violating their obedience. The " alms " can be given to a beggar, but the " poor" are understood to be churches, hospitals, religious orders and the like, and that this was the customary des- tination is indicated by the rules laid down that the alms belong to those who own the church and control the other oblations. If it is parochial, they accrue to the parish priest ; if it belongs to one of the religious Orders, they go to the house; if it is a cathedral, to the archpriest who has the cure of souls and ministration of the sacraments. The bishop has no right to divert them to the use of the poor or to other establishments, but, as it rests with him to designate the churches to be visited, he can make a bargain before- hand as to a division, but he can only employ the money for pious purposes. In some jubilee bulls the amount of "alms" is left to the discretion of the penitent, but even then it should be proportioned ^ " Facillima opera" — Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 57. 232 THE JUBILEE. to the means of the individual ; in others it is prescribed to be according to his ability, and then, if he does not give a proper amount, he fails to secure the indulgence/ There were some strict constructionists who held that the payment must not be for what is a duty otherwise, and therefore the "alms" cannot be given to a person in necessity, which effectually excluded all recipients but the Church,^ These grasping rules did not suit the piety of Fenelon, who, in publishing the jubilee of 1707, ordered that all who were not absolutely penniless should give at least three sous for the sick poor, and exhorted those who were able to give according to their means. The money was to be paid to the priests, who were to hand it to the treasurers of the local organizations of charity, or, if there were none such, to distribute it prudently among the poor of their par- ishes.^ In an extraordinary jubilee, published by Clement XII. in 1735 I find the good Bishop of Padua taking a similar position ; all the alms are to pass through the hands of the parish priests to representatives of the poor of their parishes for distribution, and a strict account is to be kept and returned to the episcopal court.* The introduction of the extraordinary jubilee is usually attributed to Sixtus v., who immediately after his accession, in 1585, pro- claimed one to obtain the prayers of the faithful that God should direct his actions and confound the enemies of the Church, but he was anticipated by St. Pius V., who, in 1566, published one in order to counteract the spread of heresy, the increasing wickedness of the Catholics and the threatening advance of the Turks.^ Since Sixtus V. it has been customary for all popes when assuming the functions of their office to do the same. These however are by no means the only occasions for extraordinary jubilees, for, the example having been set, they followed in rapid succession. There was one in 1586, followed by others in 1588, 1589, 1592, 1594, 1599, 1602, ^ Pignatelli, II Giubileo dell' Anno Santo, pp. 272-90. — Bianchi, Foriero deir Anno Santo, pp. 329-30. — Pottoni, Osservazioni sopra i Giubilei, jsp. 194 -200 (Piacenza, 1587). Theodoras a Spiritu Sancto (De Jubilseo, Cap. vi. ? 5, n. 4, 5), while insisting on the necessity of almsgiving denies that it can be provided by theft. ^ Viva de Jubilaeo ac Indulgentiis, pp. 137-43. 3 Mandement de 1707 (CEuvres de Fenelon, 1838, II. 454). * MS. penes me. * Sixti PP. V. Bull. Viriiim nosfmrum (Bullar. II. 526).— Amort, I. 103. EXTRAORDINARY JUBILEES. 233 1605, 1606, 1608, 1617, 1620 etc.,^ and the list has gone on increasing to the present day. In modern times they are still profusely used. In preparation for the A^atican council, Pius IX. proclaimed an extra- ordinary jubilee for 1869, in order to secure the prayers of the faith- ful for the success of the assembly and to render those prayers more efficacious by being uttered in a state of grace, free from all sin. As the Vatican council was never concluded, but only sus^jended, in consequence of the Italian occupation of Rome in September, 1870, the jubilee remained in force until it was superseded by that of the holy year 1875.- Leo XIII., elected February 20, 1878, al- lowed a year to elapse before proclaiming the extraordinary jubilee for his accession, which was not issued until February 15, 1879. In March, 1881, he published another, giving as a reason that the times grow worse, churches are despoiled, heretic sects multiply, the prop- erty of the Propaganda has been seized, while the nations, diverted from the Church, are plunged into growing miseries ; the only re- source is in God, to whom the prayers of the faithful are to be directed. In December, 1885, another was proclaimed for the whole year 1886, because the evils of the times are increasing and becoming more persistent through delay. ^ Evidently the faithful are not likely to suffer for lack of opportunity of winning these pardons, and the remark of van Ranst, in 1724, that, between the extraordinary jubi- lees and those of the holy year, cataracts of indulgences are poured over the people, is as true now as it was then.^ ^ Amort de Indulgentiis I. 105 sqq. It would be impossible to construct a complete list of all these jubilees. Amort's industry has gathered a large number, but in a collection of papal letters and bulls of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in my possession are many that have escaped him. Fra Paolo tells us that Paul V. issued his jubilee of 1606 as a political weapon in his bitter contest with Venice. The object alleged in the bull was to avert calamities from the Church, but its real intent was to excite disaffec- tion in the Venetian provinces which were under interdict, and therefore could not enjoy its benefits, for there was nothing spiritual so eagerly sought for — " In Italia nessuna cosa spirituale e piil desiderata o aspettata da' popoli, e quando e concessa ricevuta con piil divoto affetto." — P. Sarpi, Storia delle cose passate tra Paolo V. e la Repubblica, Lib. iii. ^ Pii PP. IX. Const. Nemo ceHe, 11 Apr. 1868 ; Litt. Apostol. Postquam Del, 20 Oct. 1870 (Collect. Lacens. VII. 10, 497).— Encycl. Gravibus (Acta VI. 350). ^ Leonis PP. XIII. Litt. Apost. Pontifices maximi, 1879; Militans, 1881; Encyc. Quod auctorUate, 1886 (Acta I. 188 ; II. 204 ; V. 169). * Van Ranst Opusc. de Indulg. p. 53. CHAPTER Y. THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. There were other influences at work in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, besides the jubilee, to relax the conservatism which had previously restricted the inordinate development of indulgences. Chief among these are to be reckoned the religious Orders, and more especially the Mendicants. For their activity in this direc- tion they had especial facilities, not only in the unwavering support and favor of the Holy See, to which they were especially devoted, but in their virtual monopoly of culture and learning, enabling them to advance and substantiate claims which the ignorance of the age was ready to accept. The indulgences granted to the religious Orders may be considered as of two kinds — those obtainable specially by the members them- selves and those which they could bestow on their benefactors and on the faithful who visited their churches. The former were merely a source of benefit to the individuals, the latter served to enrich the houses and the Order at large. In the earlier period the former were scarcely known. About the middle of the eleventh century it is true that in the ritual for the assumption of the habit there was a prayer that all his sins should be forgiven to the neophyte,^ but after indulgences were introduced it was argued that entrance into a religious Order was not a fit object for such remissions, which are only given to those needing them, and men entering upon a life of perfection should rather bestow than receive spiritual benefits. There were some doctors who held that monks and friars should not have indulgences, because it would lead to wandering and relaxation of discipline, to which the answer was that they do well to gain them with the permission of the super- ior, but this could be no excuse for infringement of discipline, for they win more in the reward of eternal life by strict observance than ^ Sacramentarium Vetus (Migne, CLI, 874). INDULGENCES FOR THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS. 235 by obtaining indulgences.^ How sparingly such favors were granted is seen when Charles le Bel, in 1325, made a special request of John XXII. for the nuns of Poissy, and the pope only conceded a plenary in mortis articulo, provided the power of the keys extend so far and it is acceptable to the Divine Majesty.^ Pontiff and friar bravely overcame this hesitancy. In the early years of the sixteenth century Julius II. and Leo X. showered upon the religious Orders indul- gences without stint. All Franciscans and Tertiaries of both sexes were enabled to gain a plenary on any day by reciting the chaplet of the Virgin, consisting of seventy-two Aves and seven Paters, with one more of each for the pope. To the Observantine Franciscans, the Clares and the Tertiaries were conceded the enormous aggregate of the indulgences of all the churches of Rome, Jerusalem and Com- postella and the Portiuucula, for the performance of the Statio Sacratissimi Sacramenti, consisting of the recitation of five Paters, Aves and Gloria Patris with arms outstretched before the sacrament of the altar. The inclusion of Tertiaries in these grants was a ma- terial as well as spiritual benefit, as it attracted the laity to affiliate themselves to an Order thus favored, and even greater pecuniary advantages followed a grant to all regulars of a plenary indulgence for themselves or the liberation of a soul from purgatory for reciting the chaplet of Jesus Christ, consisting of thirty Paters and thirty Aves, or the seven penitential psalms, or the Graduals or the office for the dead. The Franciscans, moreover, were empowered to liber- ate the souls of their kindred up to and including the third degree bv celebrating three masses on any altar. ^ ^ S. Th. Aquin. Summse Suppl. Q. xxvil. Art. ii. ad 2. — Astesani Summge Lib. V. Tit. xl. Art. 4, Q. 2; Art. 5, Q. 2. ^ Ripoll, Bullar. Ord. Prsedic. II. 169. The church aud abbey of Poissy were commenced by Philippe le Bel and finished by his successors. They occupied the site of a former royal residence, and the grand altar was placed on the spot where Blanche of Castile had given birth to St. Louis. The heart of Philippe le Bel was buried there. Evidently the indulgence was the greatest that royal favor could obtain firom an Avignonese pope. ' Ferrai'is Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia, Art. V. n. 1-11. These excessive indulgences were reached step by step. In 1456 Glass- berger relates (Chron. ann. 1456) that the Franciscan vicar of Austria showed him letters of Calixtus III. granting to the brethren and all the faithful who would recite with arms extended before a cross three short prayers, and then five Paters and Aves kneeling, an indulgence of 20,000 years and some hun- 236 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. Before this excessive liberality came in vogue the regulars opened the approaches to it by the eagerness with which they obtained in- dulgences for those visiting their churches, contributing to the fabric or listening to their preaching, all of which conduced directly to the wealth and influence of the Orders. In the Dominican Bullarium there are collected no less than three hundred and eighty-two con- cessions of these kinds to that Order prior to the end of the pontifi- cate of Leo X., including one granted by John XXIII. and confirmed by Innocent VIII. in 1486, of five years and five quarantines for simply kissing a Dominican habit.^ The Franciscans Avere in no way less active, and in one respect they distanced their rivals — in obtaining recognition for the indulgence to the little church known as the Portiuncula, situated about a mile from Assisi, the ruined edifice rebuilt by St. Francis and cherished by him with loving care." As this indulgence is one of the most noted in the Catholic world, and as its evolution offers an instructive insight into the development of our subject, it is worthy of a somewhat detailed examination. In 1334 Francisco Bartoli, a prominent Franciscan, in his history of the indulgence, gives the legend of its origin to the effect that one dreds. Then, in 1481, Angiolo da Chivasso, the Observantine Vicar-General, obtained from Sixtus IV. the indulgences of the Stations and churches of Eome for all members of the Order, male and female, who would recite with arms extended before the sacrament, five Paters and Aves (Wadding. Annal. Minor, ann. 1481, n. 38). In 1457 Calixtus III. granted plenary remission and abso- lution once in life and again at death to five of the kindred of every member of the order. — Chron. Glassberger ann. 1457. ' Ripoll Bullar. Ord. Prsedic. IV. 13. The total number of all kinds of indul- gences granted to the Dominicans, as collected by Father Bremond up to 1740, amounts to eight hundred and twenty-five. * Subsequently it was discovered that the Portiuncula was originally known as the church of S. Maria di Josaphat, founded about 355, by four pilgrims from Jerusalem, who brought with them a fragment of the tomb of the Virgin in the valley of Jehosophat and a jDiece of one of her garments. After its abandonment it was rebuilt by St. Benedict, in 516, when its name was changed to Portiuncula, and subsequently to S. Maria degli Angioli, from the habit angels had of coming there and singing. — Notizie sopra la Sacra Porziuncola, Foligno, 1777, pp. 11-15. — Boveglio, Compendio Storico del Perdona di Assisi, Assisi, 1834, p. 12. These dates however are not wholly agreed upon. Grou- wels (Hist. Critica sacrte Indulgentite B. Marise Angelorum, p. 54) places the founding of the church in 513 and its passing into the hands of Benedict in 540. THE PORTIUNCULA. 237 Digbt, in 1223, it was revealed to St. Francis that Christ and the Virgin, with a retinue of angels, were awaiting him in the church. On his hasteniug thither Christ offered to grant him a request for the salvation of men, when he asked that any one who should enter that church should obtain pardon and indulgence for all sins which he had confessed to a priest and for which he had accepted penance. Christ hesitated, but, at the intercession of the Virgin, finally granted the boon and ordered Francis to ask it of his vicar the pope. Appar- ently the remission was worthless without papal confirmation, and the saint hurried to Honorius III. at Perugia with a request for a free indulgence, without oblations, for all who should visit the church. Honorius at first refused, saying that no one ought to gain an indulgence without payment, and inquiring for how many years he wanted it. Francis replied that he wished all contrite, confessed and absolved, who should visit the church, to be liber- ated a culpa et a j^'-'^na, in heaven and on earth, from the time of baptism up to the moment of entrance. To this the pope objected on the ground that it was a form of indulgence unknown to the Roman curia, but, on Francis insisting that it Avas the command of Christ, he yielded. The cardinals subsequently remonstrated that this would destroy the value of Holy Land indulgences and those for the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, whereupon Francis was recalled and the indulgence was limited to a single day in the year, on which every one, contrite and confessed, who entered the church should be absolved a culpa et a pcena. Francis bent his head in token of assent, and was departing when Honorius asked what evidence he desired of the grant, when he replied none, for the Virgin was his charter, Christ was the notary and the angels were witnesses. On the road back to Assisi he spent a night in the lazar- house at Colle, where he heard a voice that told him that the grant of Honorius was confirmed in heaven. Subsequently Christ and the Virgin again appeared to him and selected the day of the feast of St. Peter ad vincula, from first vespers of August 1st to second vespers of August 2, and ordered him to report it to the pope. He did so, bearing with him through the bitter frost of Januarv six miraculous roses as a voucher for the message. Honorius, after some hesitation and consultation with his cardinals, ordered the bishops of Perugia, Assisi, Todi, Spoleto, Foligno, Xocera and Gubbio to assemble on that day at Assisi and publish such an in- 238 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. diligence as Francis might desire. Francis brought them together on the first of August, he preached to the assembled multitude, an- nounced the indulgence and asked the episcopal confirmation. The bishops were scandalized at its magnitude and refused, saying that the pope had no such intention, but when they rose in succession to grant ten years, each in turn was siipernaturally compelled to adopt the formula proposed by the saint. The story ends with the names of nineteen persons who were present on this occasion among the crowd collected from the vicinage.' To appreciate fully the audacity of the Franciscans in claiming this indulgence and framing the legend in its support we must bear in mind how wholly foreign to the ideal of Francis would have been the endeavor to bring crowds of pilgrims to the little church which he loved so well. Tommaso da Celano expressly tells lis that no layman was allowed to enter it, and this injunction is crystallized in the legend that when Piero da Catania, whom St. Francis had put at the head of the Order, died aud was buried in the Portiun- cula, and, coruscatiug in miracles, brought multitudes of worshippers to it, Francis, on returning to Assisi, went to his tomb and addressed him " Brother Peter, in life you were always obedient to me ; as, through your miracles, we are pestered by laymen, you must obey me in death. I therefore order you on your obedience to cease from the miracles through which we are troubled by laymen."^ More- over, at a time when indulgences were so sparingly granted that none were given ou the canonization of Francis, and, on the trans- lation of his remains, only one, two or three years, predicated on the distance travelled by the pilgrim (p. 151), a plenary for the ^ Grouwels Historia Critica sacrse Indulgentise B. Marise Angelorum, pp. 187-96 (Antverpife, 1726). There is a vernacular version, of probably somewhat later date, which repre- sents St. Francis as insisting on payment for the indulgence. — Amoni, Legenda S. Francisci, Append. Cap. xxxiii. The date of the grant is also uncertain. One of the earliest witnesses, Fran- cesco di Fabriano, places it in 1216, at the consecration of the little church by seven bishops. Other accounts specify 1221 and 1224. — Papini, Storia del Perdono d' Assisi, pp. 10, 36 (Firenze, 1824). The best collection of documents that I have met with on the subject is contained in this work. The author had been General of the Conventual Franciscans. ^ Th. de Celano Vitse Alterse P. i. Cap. 2. — Chron. Glassberger (Analecta Franciscana II. 32). THE PORTIUNCULA. 239 Portiimcala would have attracted universal attention and would have been noted by all disciples who chronicled the achievements of their master. Yet none of them — Tommaso da Celano, the Le- genda Trium Sociorum, the Chronica Anoni/ma, Thomas of Eccleston, the Chronicle of Jordan, the life by St. Bonaventura — though often alluding to the holiness of the little church and to Francis's love for it, make any mention of his procuring for it an indulgence, miraculously or otherwise. It is the same with the more general historians of the Order, Salimbeue and the Historia Tribulationum. Alexander Hales, himself a Franciscan, when speaking of plenary indulgences, only knows of crusades as their object, which shows that he had never heard of the Portiuncula.^ It is true that the later Franciscans claimed verbal contirmations of the grant by Alex- ander IV., Martin IV., Clement V. and John XXII., and a written one by Benedict XII., but these may unquestionably be assigned to the fiction which was so unscrupulously employed in matters of this kind.^ Sbaralea, an undoubted authority, states that the first allusion to the Portiuncula in a papal document is in one dated the ninth year of Boniface, which, if Boniface VIIL, would be 1303, and if Bonifiice IX., 1398, Mhile its place of execution shows that it cannot be the former.^ In fact, when, in 1330, John XXII. issued a bull to the Order, reciting and confirming all the indulgences granted to them, he enumerated many from Alexander IV., Innocent IV., Urban IV., Clement IV., Xicholas III., Gregory X., Nicholas IV. and Benedict XI., but made no allusion to the Portiuncula or to its confirmation by any of his predecessors, while those which he men- tions are of the moderate character customary at the period — forty days for extending a helping hand and from forty to sixty days for visiting churches, except on certain feasts, when they reach a max- ^ Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xxiii. Membr. 4, 8. Salimbene, whose chronicle runs from the foundation of the Order to 1287, does not even mention the Portiuncula church. ^ Wadding. Annal. ann. 1223 n. 3, -1. — Chron. Glassberger ann. 1282. Wad- ding even gives the title of the bull of Benedict XII. as Fundafa in montibus, but he does not print it either in his text or register of papal documents. ^ Sbaraleae Bullar. Francisc. IV. 568. — Ripoll BuUar. Ord. Praedic. II. 67. The bull merely grants to the Dominican church of S. Maria at Viterbo, for the feast of the Annunciation, the same indulgence as is given at the Portiun- cula on Aug. 1 and 2. We shall see that Boniface IX. made many such grants. 240 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. imiim of teu years aud six quarantines.^ Evidently the Portiuucula, although in existence, had no such prominence as to entitle it to specific mention. The truth doubtless is that some indulgence suited to the period was obtained for the Portiuncula church, very likely by Elias, the worldly successor of St. Francis, aud M^as quietly exaggerated and claimed to be of peculiar efficacy. Nothing is heard of it for fifty years, until, in 1267, the Blessed Francesco di Fabriano relates that he went to Assisi to gain it. Already, however, it was asserted to have been granted to St. Francis, for he states that Brother Leo, one of the earliest associates of the saint, told him so." It had to strug- gle with an incredulous M^orld for, ten years later, a strenuous effort was made to obtain testimony of its genuineness. Fra Benedetto d'Arezzo, who had been admitted to the Order by Francis himself, testified that he had heard Fra Masseo da Marignano, who had accompanied St. Francis in his interview with Honorius, state that the pope granted it willingly. A certain Pietro Zalfani deposed that he was present when St. Francis announced the indulgence to the people. Brother Leo was dead by this time, but Giovanni Capoli testified to asking him whether the indulgence was genuine, and had from him an account of the grant, showing that Honorius objected and offered one, three or seven years before yielding, and further that Leo attempted to explain the long dormant condition of the indulgence by asserting that Francis had forbidden him to speak of it until near his death, for it was not to be operative as yet ; it would be hidden for a time, but God would reveal it hereafter : he also told of the voice at Colle which assured Francis of its confirma- tion in heaven.^ The whole inquest is utterly worthless as evidence except as to what was wanted at the moment — to connect in some way the indulgence with St. Francis and to justify a plenary for which no grant could be exhibited. There was as yet no thought of at- ^ Chron. Glassberger ann. 1330. . - Papini, p. 36. ^ Prospero Lambertini, Discorso pp. 11-12 (Foligno, 1721).— Tofi da Bettoua, Trattato dell' Indulgenza detto il Perdono d'Agosto, p. 68 (Urbino, 1644). — Papini, pp. 34-38. — Baluz. et Mansi Miscell. II. 123. — Baluze priats two recensions of this inquest. The testimony of Capoli is only in the second and longer one. The injunction on Leo to keep silence is " Teneas secretum hoc usque circa mortem tuam, quia non habet locum adhuc ; quia haec indulgen- tia occultabitur ad tempus sed Domintis trahet eam extra et manifestabitur." THE POETiryCULA. 241 tributing it to Christ ; it was represented as simply an exercise of the papal power, and the superuatnral element is absent, except in the voice which annonuced the ratification in heaven of the conces- sion made by Honorins. It is the same with a subsequent effort to overcome the persistent doubts which continued to assert themselves. About 1310 Teobaldo, Bishop of Assisi, issued a manifesto asserting its authenticity, based upon the inquest of 1277, without embroider- ing the story with miraculous details, beyond adding the assertion that it was revealed to St. Francis at night that he should go to Perugia and obtain an indulgence from Honorius — a step in advance which illustrates the process of evolution of the legend/ There evidently as yet was no necessity felt for claiming other than a papal origin for the indulgence. It was growing fast in popular estimation with the extension of the cult of St. Francis and of the influence of his Order. At first there seems to have been no repugnance as to receiving oblations, and the pardon brought in revenues disturbing to the scruples of the stricter members, for, in 1280 or 1282, the General Bonagrazia, who belonged to the rigid party, and, in 1279, had taken part in framing the bull Exiit qui seminat, forbidding the handling of money by Franciscans, pro- hibited the acceptance of offerings at the Portiuncula to avoid all appearance of cupidity, and by the time of the manifesto of Teobaldo the story of the grant was interpolated with the passage describing St. Francis's insistance on this point and the surprise of Honorius at such a condition.^ The members of the Order, moreover, were apparently eager to win the pardon, for there is a statute of the General Chapter of 1295 ordering the ministers to be more sparing in granting licence to the brethren to go to Assisi for the indulgence and not to give it to those who had already enjoyed it, because their multitude was oppressive to the convent there and to the houses on the road.^ That the Portiuncula, in fact, was beginning to attract I Papini, p. 39. '^ Chron. Glassberger ann. 12S2. — Papini, pp. 15, 39. Yet this disinterested- ness was not of long duration. Soon afterwards we have a letter of Sancha, Queen of Xaples, sending to the Portiuncula indulgence sixty florins for her- self and sixty for her husband, Robert the Pious. — Papini, p. 51. * Wadding. Annal. ann. 1295, n. 12. — In 1446 a somewhat similar rule was adopted by the chapter restricting the number of pilgrims to six from each province, and no one was to have i^ermission oftener than once in six years. — Amort, II. 229-30. III.— 16 242 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. multitudes is indicated in the remark of Angelo da Clareuo, who speaks of the crowds assembling at Narboune to do honor to Jean Pierre Olivi on his feast-day as not less than those which are said to gather at the feast of S. Maria de Portiuncula/ Thus far it hud developed, without claiming a miraculous origin, in spite of opposition, which was at times vigorous. We hear of a Dominican bishop who threatened with excommunication all of his subjects who should visit the pardon of Assisi.^ More serious than this, however, was the misfortune which overtook it when, in 1323, Assisi was captured by the Perugians after a long siege and was laid under an interdict, because during the war the besieged had seized and expended the treasure of the Franciscans. This suspended all solemnities on the Portiuncula anniversary and reduced the indul- gence to a shadow, nor was it of short duration, for, in 1361, we find Cardinal Albornoz suspending the interdict from July 28th to August 3d for the benefit of the Portiuncula, and it was not finally removed until 1367.^ Doubtless it was to neutralize the evil effect of the interdict that the marvels of the legend w'cre invented and published, to attribute to it a divine origin, and thus render it superior to all human ordinances. In 1333 the legend seems to have been unknown to Gerard Odo, the Franciscan General, for in that year he wrote a long epistle to the brethren of Assisi on the celebration of the indulgence, in which there is no allusion to its having been granted by Christ, although he instructs them to have its history read at table on that day.* In 1334, as we have seen, Francesco Bartoli promulgated the legend, and, in 1335, Corrado, Bishop of Assisi, gave it his episcopal sanction, and republished the inquest of 1277 as evidence of its authenticity.^ Thus vouched for it was, of course, accepted by the Franciscans, but their rivals still continued to discredit the indulgence. The doubts which still hung over it and the jealousy which it excited are manifested by the miracles which were still required to prove its authenticity. Thus we are told that a company of pilgrims from Slavonia, bound for Assisi and landing at Ancona, were met by a priest, who told them that the Portiuncula was doubtful and had no 1 Franz Ehrle, Archiv fiir Litteratur and Kircheugeschichte, I. 544. 2 Papini, p. 14. ^ Ibid. pp. 24-5, 63. ■* Ibid. p. 59 — "Ad mensam vero legi facite Ystoriam impetratte licentite." " Bahiz, et Mansi, loc. cit. THE PORTIUNCULA. 243 papal bull to verify it, while he could promise them authentic iu- " dulgeuces as good, for which he exhibited the documents. All were persuaded save one pious woman, who started alone for Assisi. When about two miles on her journey she met a venerable man in a Dominican habit, who assured her that the Portiuncula was genuine and that her companions would follow ; she looked back and saw them just appearing over a hill to join her. She died at Assisi, and her companions on their return, while at sea, were visited with a terrible tempest, but when all hope was gone she appeared to them and the storm subsided.' Yet the doubters were not silenced. When St. Birgitta was at Assisi, Christ in a vision asked her why she was so much troubled ; she replied that it was because of those who said that the indulgence had been fabricated by St. Francis and was null, when Christ comforted her with the assurance that he had granted it and that no pope would ever recall it.^ This was evidently sug- gested by the fact that when Urban V. was in Rome, in 1367, he said that the indulgences of the Portiuncula, of St. Mary of Aquila, and St. Mary of Orvieto were invalid and that he proposed to annul them.^ He did not carry out his threat, at least with regard to the Portiuncula, but he did impose on it some restrictions or limitations, the precise nature of which is not known, but that they were serious is apparent from the earnest appeals of the friars for their removal.* In 1388 Cardinal Bonifazio de' Amanati, in his commentary on the Clementines, treats as a fraud the claim that the Portiuncula is applicable to the dead and speaks of it generally in a tone of con- tempt.' Yet the Franciscans held firm and eventually triumphed ; ^ Bart. Pisan. Lib. Conformitatum Lib. ir. P. ii. Fruct. 2. - S. Birgittse Revelation. Extrav. Cap. 90. When St. Birgitta founded her Order of S. Salvator, with a mother- house at Wadstena, Linkoping, Sweden, she emulated St. Francis and had a vision in which Christ addressed L^rban V., ordering him to confirm to it the indulgence which he had granted, viz., the same as that of St. Peter ad vincula in Rome- Then turning to St. Birgitta he told her that if she could not obtain the letters without payment she should do without them, as he would confirm his word, the saints would be his witnesses and the Virgin his seal. — Revelat. Lib. iv. Cap. 137. * Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenit. p. 457. This is stated by Piero, Bishop of Orvieto, papal vicar of Urban V., in his MS. Scholia on the Liber Pontificalis. * Papini, pp. 64-66. » J. B. Thiers, Traite dfes Superstitions, T. IV. p. 259. 244 THE LAIER MIDDLE AGES the period was oue when indulgences were rapidly expanding, the most extravagant claims were unblushingly made and accepted, and nothing was too gross for popular credulity. The Liber Conformi- tatum of Bartolommeo da Pisa, written in 1390, collected and em- balmed all the legends which had grown up around St. Francis and was universally received as authentic. He included, of course, the story of the Portiuncula with a few embellishments; it became accepted by the Church, and has since then been regarded as in- dubitable. Benedict XIV., who, as Prospero Lambertini, had occasion, in 1720, to investigate thoroughly the Portiuncula, only ventures to say that, as it has been repeatedly recognized by the popes, there would be great temerity in calling it in question merely because it is supported by no authentic evidence,^ and the importance attached to it is indicated by the fact that Paul IV. was in the habit of saying that it alone sufficed to prove, not only the power of the Church to grant indulgences, but also the authority of the Roman pontiflP.^ With the growing diffusion of indulgences the Portiuncula was not allowed the monopoly of this one. Boniface IX. was chronically in want of money and always ready to transmute into coin the power of the keys. Hardly had the authenticity of the Portiuncula been recognized when other churches sought to share its privileges. We have just seen that, in 1398, he granted it to the Dominicans of Viterbo, and in the same year he extended it to S. Maria Maggiore, in Rome, for the feast of St. Jerome, September 30th, soon after which it is recorded as bestowed on other churches in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and England, and these are presumably only a portion of those which obtained it.^ It was further turned to account b}- getting the popes to grant it on the occasions of the triennial general chapters of the Franciscans, when it was offered to all who would visit the church where they assembled and give them ^'alms." In 1457, when the chapter was held at Milan, w^e are told that at least a hundred thousand pilgrims came to the city to gain it, that fifteen men and women were crushed to death, and that the collections amounted to more than 10,000 gold pieces.* The Do- ^ Bened. PP. XIV. De Synodo Dioeces. Lib. xiii. Cap. xvii. | 5. ^ M. Medinas de Indulg. Cap. 13 (Veuetiis, 1564). ^ Amort de Indulg. I 200, 222. — Grouwels, pp. 112 sqq. ■* Wadding. Annal. ami. 1437, u. 32; ann. 1440, n. 16; ann. 1457, n. 54. THE POBTIUyCULA. 245 minicans were not much behind it in the race, for about this time St, Antonino tells us that their churches of S. Maria de Angelis at Ferrara and St. Mary Magdalen at Bagnols enjoyed similar pleuaries.^ Indulgences were now rapidly becoming vulgarized, and those who had contributed so powerfully to this tendency by obtaining or assuming grants which at the time seemed exorbitant, were finding themselves cast into the background by even larger and more liberal concessions to their rivals. The Portiuncula itself becomes trivial in comparison with a plenary bestowed by Leo X., in 1513, on the church of St. Ann, belonging to the Miuiras of Padua; by this all visiting and assisting the church gained it, without limitation of days or prescription of other works.' The Portiuncula, moreover, was gradually extended to the churches of the affiliated Orders. In 1622 Gregory XY. granted it to all those of the Observantines and Recollects, and in 1741 the Congregation of Indulgences decided that it was enjoyed by those of the Clares.^ In 1643 Urban VIII. conferred the same privilege on those of the Tertiary Order of St. Francis, but, in 1819, a decree of the Congre- gation limited this to the Tertiaries themselves and withdrew it from the faithful at large. ^ During the Napoleonic regime churches in Italy were taken from the Franciscans and bestowed on secular priests, who kept them after the Restoration and insisted that the indulgence still attached to them. To put a stop to this the Con- gregation, in 1818, decided that all churches passing out of Francis- can hands lost the indulgence, but the secular priests paid no attention to the decree and adduced an alleged declaration of Pius VII. At length, in 1841, the Franciscans appealed to the Congregation, which decided that Pius had made no such declaration, but, with the ever- sensitive dread of scandal, it added that, where the claim had been made the priest could apply to the pope for a concession.^ ^ S. Antonini Suiumse P. I. Tit. x. Cap. 3, § 4. 2 Hergenrother, Regest. Leon. PP. X. n. 2312. ^ Gregor. PP. XV. Const. Splendor cefernce — Deer. Anthent. n. 102-3 ; Ap- pend, n. 3. — See also Grouwels, pp. 140 sqq. * Urbani PP. VIII. Const. Cam sicat (Biillar. IV. 381). -Deer. Authent. n. 421. '" Deer. Authent. n. 409, 533. The Congregation had been more rigid, in 1749, when it decided tliat the parish churches in Goa, though served by Franciscans, were not entitled to the indulgence. — Ibid. n. 176. 246 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. Yet the Portiuuciila maintained its attractions in spite of this and of the constant multiplication of indulgences, such as the plenary granted, in 1707, bv Clement XI. to the Tertiary churches for the feasts of St. Louis (August 15) and of St. Elizabeth of Hungary (No- vember 19) — extended, in 1755, by Benedict XI Y. to all the Observan- tine churches — to say nothing of a similar one by Clement XI., in 1712, to all Dominican churches on the feast of St. Pius V. (May 5).^ The crowds Mhich flocked to gain it on August 2 suffered no dimi- nution, and what these crowds were may be estimated from the asser- tion of Father Chassaing, in 1655, that the brethren of St. Maria degF Angioli did not consider the celebration successful unless there were at least nearly a hundred thousand communicants.^ Not satisfied with this, the craving for constantly greater privileges led them to claim that the indulgence had been enlarged, so that it could be gained on every day of the year. They assumed that this had been instituted secretly by St. Francis, to be handed down by tradition among his disciples, and this secret tradition was spread abroad so successfully that multitudes visited the cliurch on all the solemnities of the year, in the confident expectation of gaining it. Emboldened by success they encouraged the belief by affirming it in an inscrip- tion over the entrance — "Augusti hie veniam dat tibi quseque dies." Finally they claimed that this daily extension had been confirmed by Pius III., in 1544, when on a visit to the convent of S. Francesco del Monte at Perugia, but the only evidence produced of so important a concession was a deposition made, in 1588, by Matteo Bardo, Bishop of Chiusi, that he had been present forty-four years before, when the popular belief was mentioned to the pope, and he said he sliared it, and that, even if it were not so, he granted it.^ At length the claim attracted the attention of the Holy See; in 1691 it was fully debated before the Congregation of the Inquisition, which disallowed it and made the friars remove the inscription, while the books which had 1 Clement. PP. XT. Const. Injunctce ; Eedemptork (Bullar. VIII. 51, 111).— Deer. Authent. Append, n. 16. ^ Grouwels, p. 178. ^ Stefimo Tofi da Bettona, Trattato dell' Indulgenza Plenaria detta il Per- dona d'Agosto, 1644, pp. 46, 61, 71-2, 74-80, 83-5 —Michel 'Angelo di Bogliasco, Indulgenza Plenaria detta Portiuncula, 1662, pp. 39, 41. — Wadding. Annal. ann. 1223, n. 4, 5. — Lorte y Escartin, Epitome Historial y Moral de la Indul- gencia Plenaria etc., Zaragoza, 1678, pp. 117-21. THE PORTIUNCULA. 247 been written iu its defence were placed on the Index. That of Bogliasco had already been so treated in 1680, and that of Tofi folbwed iu 1698.1 It was possibly to make amends iu some measure for this rebuif, and perhaps also to appease the inteuse jealousy between the rival Observantine and Couveutual branches of the Franciscans that, iu 1695, Innocent XII. granted a daily plenary to all, contrite, con- fessed and communed, visiting either the church of S. .Maria degl' Angioli or that of St. Francis in Assisi and praying for intention.^ In the division of the Order the Observautiues had obtained the Portinncula church and the Conventuals the splendid one of St. Francis iu Assisi. Around the original humble edifice the Obser- vautiues had constructed a magnificent building, capable of accom- modating several thousand worshippers and known as S. Maria degl' Angioli f the new indulgence was obtainable by visiting the latter, while the Portiuncula required the devotee to pass through the little church, or chapel, as it was called, which still stood inside, aud this only on the solemnity of August 2, Extensive as was the grant of Innocent XII. it was little prized by the Observautiues, possibly because it was shared by their hated rivals ; they continued to vaunt the superiority of the Portiuncula over all other indulgences, and the crowds flocking to the anniversary showed no sign of diminution. This popular eagerness was partly traditional and partly justified. Even the Dominican Bianchi explains that, according to the belief accepted by the Church, the Portiuncula was granted directly by Christ, while the others were conceded by his vicar, and people pre- fer to drink at the fountain head, and Mohr argues that it therefore is much more certain, for Christ cauuot err and the popes can.^ The Observautiues, indeed, assumed that the Portiuncula was Avholly independent of the pope, that he could not suspend it during the ^ Prospero Lambertini, Discorso, Foligno, 1721, pp. 19-20. — Index Innoc. XI. p. 140; Append, p. 28. - Innoc. PP. XII. Constt. Redemptoris ; Commissce (Bullar. VII. 244). ^ The great exterior church was rebuilt in 1569, by order of St. Pius V., on a still grander scale, and is said to be the largest in Europe, save St. Peter's in Rome and St. Paul's in London. Nearly ruined by earthquakes in 1832, it Avas speedily restored by the contributions of the f;iithful.— Boveglio, Compendio Storico, pp. 62, 78, 88. * Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 272. — Mohr, Portiuncula Theologica, pp. 60-1, 71 (Salisburgi, 1670). 248 THE LATER MIDDLE A6ES. jubilee, and never had done so, though we have seen this not to be the case, and, in 1526, Clement YII. distinctly asserted that it had been conceded by the Holy See on account of the merits and miracles of St. Francis.^ Still its uurivalled efficacy was a tradition handed down at least from the time of Bartolommeo da Pisa, who informs us that a demon was forced to declare that, if a man had slain with his own hand the whole human race, and came, contrite and con- fessed, to Asigisi on August 2, as soon as he entered the church his soul would be cleansed from sin, like that of an infant from the baptismal font.^ Unquestionably the Portiuncula possesses material advantages. That upon \vhich its advocates seem to lay the most stress is the ease of its acquirement. St. Francis, they tell us, especially pro- vided that no fasting, discipline, prayers or other penal exercises should be necessary ; to any one, repentant and confessed, the only obligation is to pass through the little church, and if, by reason of a crowd or other impediment, the devotee cannot enter, a visit made to the door or to the cemetery suffices. Even contrition and confes- sion are not requisite if there is no consciousness of mortal sin, nor is actual intention. Virtual suffices ; if the visit is prompted solely by other motives, the indulgence is not gained, but if the intention is equally divided between this and curiosity or business, or to meet a lover, or other secular object, the indulgence is won.^ Formerly the Portiuncula had a pre-eminence in its applicability to souls in Purgatory, for, long before this was thought of for other indulgences, as we shall see hereafter, Bartolommeo da Pisa claimed it for the Portiuncula, and proved it by abundant miracles. One of these illustrates so forcibly the merchantable character of these privileges that it is worth relating. About 1308, as we are told, a knight of Apulia named Francesco, in company with some pilgrims and a peasant in his pay, came to Assisi. On their return the peas- ant became footsore and unable to travel, whereupon he reproached the knio-ht for bringing him, as he would be left alone without money to take him home. The knight, whose brother had recently ^ Clement. PP. VII. Const. Accepimus. — Prosp. Lambertini, Discorso, p. 93. 2 Lib. Conformitat. fol. 138, col. 1 (Ed. 1513). ' Mohr, op. cit. pp. 78-9.— Tofi da Bettano, op. ci'. pp. 13, 35, IGti-T.— Bog- liasco, op. cit. pp. 105-6, 112. — Instruzloae per un' Aniina fedele, p. 170 (Finale, 1787). — Boveglio, Compendio Storico, p. 37. THE PORTIUNCULA. 249 died, offered to reimburse all expenses and carry him home on horse- back if he would make over the indulgence which he had gained to the brother's soul in purgatory, to which the other agreed, and in presence of all the company duly assigned the indulgence. Next day, on the road, the soul of the brother appeared in surpassiug splendor, declared that the indulgence had transferred him to heaven, and as a voucher for his truth related to the knight what had hap- pened at home during his absence/ Even after indulgences for the dead became common the Portiuncula was asserted to be better than the papal ones, for these can act only by way of suffrage, while it, being granted by Christ, acts directly as an absolution.- Curiously enough, there was no warrant for all this save the miracles which continued to be profusely related.^ It was not until 1687 that Innocent XI. granted application to the souls in purgatory for the Portiuncula in the Observantine cluirches, and, in 1689, extended this to those of the Capuchins.^ Even more distinctive than this, moreover, is the exclusive privilege that the Portiuncula can be transferred to the living as well as to the dead — the pilgrim who gains it can apply it at his pleasure to any one, on earth or in purgatory. In addition to all this it can be vicariously gained by any one who chooses to send a representative. Bogliasco informs us that this was largely practised by the nobles of Venetia, Slavonia and other regions, and that the sacristan every year was called upon for eight or ten thousand certificates for the benefit of those who thus Avon the in- dulgence by deputy.^ To crown all, the Portiuncula indulgence can be gained toties quoties — every time a man walks through the little church, on August 2, he wins it, so that after obtaining it for himself he can duplicate it indefinitely for the benefit of friends on earth or souls in purgatory, by merely applying it mentally to those whom he selects. It is true that the Congregation of the Council denied this privilege in 1700 and again iu 1703, but in 1847 the Congregation of Indulgences affirmed it, and this was approved by Pius IX.® 1 Lib. Conformitat. fol. 136, col. 2 ; fol. 139. ^ Tofi, op. cit. pj). 178-9. — Bogliasco, op. cit. pp. 114-17. 3 Mohr, p. 43.— Tofi, p. 23. * Inuoc. PP. XL Const. Alias (Bullar. XL 510, 602). * Bogliasco, pp. 55-6. — Tofi, p. 23. — Lambertini, Discorso, p. 25. ® Tofi, pj). 174-77. — Lambertini, pp. 27-8. — Ferraris, Prorapta Bibliotheca, s. V. Indu/'jentia, Art. v. n. 57. — Deer. Authent. n. 620. — Raccolta di Indul- 250 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. The Portiuncula is thus supremely attractive, and notwithstanding its extension to other Franciscan churches, the primitive custom of seeking it at the fountain head continued. The solemnities of the anniversary consisted in a procession of the Observantines from their convent hard-bv S. Maria degl' Augioli to the church of St. Francis in the town, where they were joined by the Conventuals, and the united bodies marched back to S. Maria, reaching there at first ves- pers, when the doors were opened and they entered, followed by the crowd of devotees eager to win the pardon by passing through the little interior church, which is only about seventeen feet by thirty- seven, with a door of entrance nine feet wide and one of exit of eight feet.^ The crowd was frequently unmanageable, leading to disorders ; the rivalry between the Observantines and Conventuals could some, times not be repressed, and, in 1720, the former applied to the Holy See to discontinue the procession or so to modify it as to prevent scandals. The matter was referred to the Congregation of the Coun- cil of Trent, where the supplication of the Observantines was answered by Prospero Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV. and then secre- tary of the Congregation, who espoused the cause of the Conventuals at the request of their protector, Cardinal Vallemani. The statement and plea of the Observantines afford an interesting inside view of these celebrations.^ It would seem that, in 1517, the mutual hatred of the two branches of the Order was especially bitter, probably in consequence of the reorganization by Leo X., M^bich gave to the Observantines the Gen- eral Minister and precedence in all processions. When, therefore, in that year, their procession reached the church of St. Francis, the Conventuals politely invited them into the refectory for a collation, closed the doors on them, and, with the assistance of laymen, set upon them, sword in hand. Fortunately a cooler-headed Conven- genze, Camerino, 1803, p. 39.— Raccolta, Ed. 1886, p. 477. — Grone, der Ablass, p. 144. ^ The disproportionate size of these doors is owing to the forethought of St. Benedict, when he rebuilt the church in 516 and providently made ready for the rush of pilgrims who were to be attracted by the pardon eight hundred years later. — Boveglio, Compendio Storico, p. 13. - Scripturae Facti et Juris in quibus exponuntur . . . scandala ac incon- veuientise quae annuatim die primi August! . . . exoriuntur, Eomte, 1720. — My copy of this rare tract formerly belonged to the Portiuncula library. THE PORTIUNCULA. 251 tual opened a back door, througli which they fled, pursued by their enemies. Several were slain and a number wounded, which led to the abandonment of the joint procession until, in 1526, it was resumed by order of Clement YII. Good feeling, however, was not restored, and there was a standing complaint that the Conventuals persisted in carrying at their head a strip of parchment oti which St. Francis had written the benediction, Xumbers, vi. 24-26, for the benefit of brother Leo, whom it relieved of a temptation. This relic they led the people to believe was the indulgence itself, Avhich they thus carried into the church. In 1719 a zealous Observantine snatched at it — as he declared, to kiss it reverently, Init, as the others asserted, to take it away — when he was set upon and beaten and trampled almost to death. The main trouble, however, was with the crowd gathered before the door of S. Maria, ranging from sixty to a hundred thousand in number, sweating under an August sun, impatiently screaming and howling while awaiting the procession, and, when the door was opened, making a mad rush, throwing the procession into confusion and endangering the lives of the cross-bearers. Inside of the church the surge was dreadful, especially in the endeavor to squeeze through the little chapel with its uarrow doors, and catastrophes were not infrequent. Xo record was kept of the injured, except that in 1701 there were fifty, but they must have been greatly more numerous than the deaths. Of these there were fifteen in 1660, one each in 1665, 1679, 1680, and 1681, eight in 1684, one each in 1694 and 1696, fourteen in 1699, twelve in 1701, three in 1718, and some in 1719. Various efforts were made to abate the disorder. A guard of soldiers armed with staves was stationed before the doors, but this only made the matter worse, for the devotees provided them- selves with staves and pretended to be soldiers, thus procuring entrance, when they threw their staves on the floor, tripping up those who followed, and no man, when once down, could rise again. In 1710 Bishop Vidman, then governor of Perugia, wrote to Car- dinal Paolucci congratulating himself on the exceeding good luck with which the occasion had passed. This he attributed to his pre- cautions in warning the friars to be peaceful with each other and in providing the soldiers with weapons in place of staves. Fire-arms having been prohibited, he had utilized 140 halberds and 100 half- pikes which he had found in the fortress, and he asked that a larger 252 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. supply be laid in and kept for this special purpose. He had also forbidden all games and stages of charlatans near the church, which had led to much thievery and many scandals. The loss of life in 1701 was occasioned by a profane abuse through which nobles and ladies were admitted into the church in advance and were served with refreshments to be2;uile the time of waitiue:. On this occasion a quarrel occurred between two gentlemen, leading to effusion of blood. This necessitated the benediction of the church, during the progress of which the procession arrived and was obliged to wait. The crowd grew more impatient than usual, and when the doors were thrown open the crush was frightful, leading to a number of deaths and to the prohibition, in 1705, of serving refreshments in the church. Yet, in spite of the facts presented by the Observantines and admitted by Lambertini, his learning and influence prevailed, and the decision of the Congregation was servefur soUtum — the wonted customs were to be preserved. In 1743 there was another scandal. Owing to pestilence it was thought advisable to prevent the assembling of the usual crowds, and, late in July, a command was issued suspending the indulgence. There was some discrepancy between the orders from Rome and those from the governor of Perugia ; the Observantines choose to assume that only the procession was forbidden and not the indul- gence, for this gave them an opportunity of disabusing the people of the belief inculcated by the Conventuals that the indidgence was carried into the church by the latter. The Observantines conse- quently disobeyed the mandate to close their doors on August 1st and 2d ; the police had to be invoked, who nailed them up and mounted guard over them till the time had passed, and pickets were thrown out on all the roads to turn pilgrims back. The affair led to an exchange of pamphlets between the rival sections of the Order in which their mutual hatred was vigorously expressed.^ Appar- ently it was impossible to prevent disorder arising from the pro- cession, and, in 1820, the magistrates of Assisi felt compelled to ask that it be discontinued, a request that was granted.^ It was soon ^ Difesa di quanto hanno operato i Keligiosi di S. Maria degl' Angioli nelF anno 1743 s. 1., 1743. ^ Papini, p. 28. — There were no bounds to the adoration inculcated for St. Francis by his zealous and indiscreet disciples. He is to be worshipped with the adoration of • lafria — the supreme worship which the theologians say THE CARMELITES. 253 afterwards renewed, and with it the pretension of the Conventuals that they carry the indulgence to the church — au error, the prevalence of which Boveglio, in 1834, feels obliged elaborately to disprove.' Great as was the audacity of the Franciscans, it was largely out- stripped by that of the Carmelites. The success of the latter has had so commanding an influence in multiplying indulgences and in enlarging their sphere of action, as we shall have occasion to see hereafter, that a cursory examination into their history and develop- ment becomes necessary for a clear understanding of the subject. In the third century persecution and the thirst for asceticism filled the solitudes of Egypt with anchorites, dwelling in hermitages or monasteries. Hilariou, the disciple of St. Antony, carried the custom into Palestine, where, as St. Jerome informs us, there had previously been nothing of the kind.^ The Holy Land speedily abounded in recluses of both sexes, who found in the mountains and deserts ample opportunity for gratifying their ardor of maceration and contemplation. As monachism grew to be an important element of the Christian organization there was a natural desire to find its pro- totype in the Old Covenant, and Jerome proudly asserted that its originators were Elijah and Elisha and the sons of the prophets, who retired from the wrath of the idolaters to the fastnesses of (Macri, Hierolexicon s. v. Bulla) is due to God alone. When he died his soul passed through purgatory like an arrow, drawing with it all the souls there, accompanied by whom it entered the court of heaven. Every year on his feast-day he descends to purgatory and carries back to heaven all of his three Orders there, or, as some say, all of his devotees. For four hundred and twenty years his body has been standing in his tomb without support, its eyes turned to heaven as if alive, the flesh white and soft, and the stigmata dropping blood (Bogliasco, pp. 141-4i). The accuracy of this last statement is con- jectural, for, in 1476, Sixtus IV. ordered the stair-case walled up which leads to the crypt in which St. Francis lies, and since then, as Lambertini informs us, the corpse has been seen by no one. ^ Boveglio, Compendio Storico, p. 39. ^ Hieron. Vit. S. Hilarionis Eremitge n. 14 — " Xecdum enim tunc monasteria erant in Palestina, nee quisquam monachum ante sanctum Hilarionem in Syria noverat. lUe fundator et eruditor hujus conversationis et studii in hac provincia fuit. Habebat Dominus Jesus in iEgypto senem Antonium ; habebat in Palsestina Hilarionem juniorem." St. Jerome evidently made no distinction between the eremitic and crenobitic life. All who lived in hermitages or monasteries were monks. 254 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. Mount Carmel, but he -was careful to avoid making auy claim to an uninterrupted descent.' What ^vas the condition of the monks of Palestine during the Saracenic domination we have scanty means of knowing, but we may reasonably doubt the Carmelite assertion that when, in 639, Omar conquered the land he destroyed no less than seven thousand of their convents.^ After the foundins: of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem by the first crusade it was natural that pil- grims ascetically disposed should seek salvation by adopting the eremitic life in the spots made holy by tradition. Jacques de Vitrv, about 1220, tells us that some settled themselves in the desert where Christ retired after baptism, and there served him in little cells ; others imitated Elijah and dwelt on Mount Carmel, near Cayphas, by the fountain known as the fountain of Elijah, not far from the monasterv of St. Margaret.^ He makes no allusion to their beins: organized as an Order, nor, of course, could they have any con- nection with such monks as might have survived the Saracenic domination, who necessarily belonged to the Greek Church, and as such were abhorrent to the Latins. Still there may be some founda- tion for the Rule which the Carmelites claimed to have been given to them by Albert, Patriarch of Jerusalem, January 13, 1171, for, besides the very rigid prescription of fasting and prayer, it requires the hermits, dwelling apart in cells, to maintain themselves by labor, quoting the example and words of St. Paul (II. Thess. in. 8-10), "if any man will not work, neither let him eat" — a command ' Hieron. Epist. Lviii. ad Pauliuum Cap. 5; Epist. cxxv. ad Rusticuui Cap. 7.— Cf. S. Isidori de Eccles. Officiis Lib. ii. Cap. 16.— IV. Kings iv. 38; vi. 1-3 ; Jeremiah xxxv. 6-9. Towards the close of the twelfth century Joachim of Flora (Concordise Lib. II. Cap. xiv.) says that monachism is derived partly from Elisha and partly from Benedict. See also his Expositio super Apocalypsim, P. i. T. 30. - Papebrochii Propylsi Antiquar. P. ll. n. 28. ^ Jac. de Vitriaco Hist. Hierosol. Lib. i. Cap. 52. — There is a claim that the Order was organized, in 1141, by Aimeric, Patriarch of Antioch, who appointed his kinsman Berthold as prior. — Werneri Roleviuck Fascic. Temporum ann. 1184. When it was struggling for recognition its opponents asserted that the hermits of Mount Carmel were not known by the title of the Virgin Mary, but by that of St. Mary of Egypt, who had retired there to bewail her sins. — Camillo d'Ausilio, Sommario dell' Origine della Religione Carmelitana, p. 33 (Brescia, 1603). THE CARMELITES. 255 which they subsequently claimed to have been modified by Inno- cent IV., in 1248, in a provision enabling them to substitute beggary for labor.' The time when the Carmelite Order first made its appearance in Europe has been the subject of prolonged and acrimonious contro- versy. The two new mendicant Orders of St. Francis and St. Dominic had just been superadded to the numerous fractions which had separated themselves from the old Benedictines. Both new and old felt a not unnatural jealousy of any further rivals in the monastic field, and this feeling had ali'eady been strong enough to elicit from the Lateran council of 1216 a canon forbidding the formation of any more ; all who desired to enter a religious life were commanded to 1 Ps. Honor. PP. III. Bull. Ut vivendl, 1226; Ps. Innocent. PP. IV. Bull. Qiice honorem, 1248 (Bullar. I. 70, 89). These are bulls confirming the rule. They are manifestly fictitious. That of Honorius must have been manufactured subsequently to 1476, as it is absent from the "Mare Magnum" granted to the Order in that year by Sixtus IV. To make up for this the Carmelites had a legend that Honorius was obliged to issue the bull by the Virgin in person, and by the death of two of his ofiicials who had opposed it (Privilegia Fratrum Discalciat. B. V. Maria de Monte Carmeli, Madriti, 1700, pp. 2-6), and this is authenticated by its insertion in the office of the feast of the Virgin of M. Carmel, July 16 (Guglielmi, Recueil des Indulgences Authentiques, Paris, 1873, pp. 129-30). The bull of Innocent was probably drawn up in the fifteenth century, for it does not appear in the JMare Magnum in the original, but as included and confirmed in one of Nich- olas V. in 1448, for which purpose and at which time it was probably pro- duced. Sixtus, moreover, in the final part of his bull, describes the Rule as having been confirmed by Innocent IV., Alexander IV., and Nicholas IV., showing that the confirmation by Honorius had not as yet been thought of (Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Dum attenta U 14-15, 113). The forgers of the bulls, both of Honorius and Innocent, made an ugly blunder in giving the date of 1171 to the Rule granted by Albert. Alberto Avvogadro became Bishop of Bobbio in 1184, in 1185 he was translated to Vercelli, and in 1205 to Jerusalem. The Carmelite historians, however, make nothing of shifting the date from 1171 to 1205, and introducing another prior general, Berthold, to fill the gap and transfer Brocard, to whom it jiurports to be granted, to the next century. The bull of Honorius III. served its purpose, in 1600, in procuring from the Rota a decision in favor of the Carmelites, granting them, on the score of greater antiquity, precedence over the Order of St. Mary of Mercy. The latter was recalcitrant at Cagliari, giving rise to great scandal, wherefore, in 1602, Clement VIII. i.ssued a brief to coerce them, which had to be repeated in 1604.— Pittoni Constt. Pontificales T. VIII. P. ir. n. 1328, 1412, 1602. 256 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. joiu one which had already been approved.^ In the face of this, for the Carmelites to establish themselves required them to demon- strate that they came within the charmed circle of those which had previously been confirmed. To this all their efforts were bent, and nothing was neglected which unscrupulous ingenuity could suggest. By the assiduous labor of generations, from that time to the present, a monstrous structure of fiction has been built up, the unreality of which has been repeatedly exposed without chilling the resolute ardor of its defenders or shaking the credulity of their disciples. The scattering hermits of the mountains and deserts of Palestine have been multiplied and organized into a regular monastic body, affiliated upon the incompatible Greek mouasticism of Palestine and tracing an uninterrupted descent from the Judaism of Elijah and Elisha. To take advantage of the constantly augmenting cult of the Virgin Mary, the Order represented itself as specially devoted to her and assumed the name of the Brethren of the Blessed Virgin of INIount Carmel. To substantiate these claims a work was fabri- cated and attributed to John, the forty-fourth Bishop of Jerusalem, who flourished early in the fifth century, in which he speaks of himself as a member of the Order, deduces its transmission from Elijah and proves that its members were Christians from the begin- ning and devoted to the Virgin nine hundred years before she was born, her future existence and her motherhood of Christ having been divinely revealed to Elijah and secretly handed down by tra- dition through the Order.- They asserted that the Order was con- ^ C. Laterauens. IV. Can. 13. ^ Johann. Hierosol. De Institutione primorum monachorum in lege veteri exortorum Cap. 11-15, 17-21, 28-9, 31-8. In the little cloud rising out of the sea to break the three-years' drought (III. Kings xviii. 4-1) God revealed to Elijah a premonition of the coming of Christ and his birth of a Virgin, an exegesis since adopted generally by Carmelite writers. Crazy as is this book, it is not badly conceived for the purpose designed. The date of its production is uncertain, but the earliest reference to it that I have met is in a sermon delivered, in 1342, by Richard of Armagh, and quoted by Thomas of Walden (De Sacramentalibus Cap. 189, n. 4). The authenticity of the work has been denied by the highest authorities. Baronius goes out of his way to stigmatize it as a fable easily refuted. No author, he says, contemporary with John of Jerusalem knows anything of Carmelites in Palestine ; the story is on the same plane as the claim that Cyril of Alexandria was a Carmelite (Annal. ann. 444, n. 17). Bellarmine is equally THE CARMELITES. 257 firmed in 1180 by Alexander III., and, in 1199, bv Innocent III., and that in 1219 Honorius III. ojranted them the convent of St. Julian ad Moutes in Rome.^ In 1476 they procured from Sixtns IV. confirmation of four bulls in their favor by Innocent IV., of eight by Alexander IV., of three by Urban IV., and of four by Clem- ent IV., all of which may confidently be pronounced spurious as antedating the council of Lyons in 1274.' Xot content with this, in 1477 they obtained from Sixtus confirmation of indulgences running from seven to thirty years for assisting them, which they claimed had been granted to them in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries by Stephen V., Leo IV., Adrian EL, Sergius III., John X., John XL, Gregory V., Sergius IV., and Gregory VI., besides numerous others of the twelfth centurv, all the orio;inals having; been lost.^ There were no bounds to the drafts which they made on the public credulity. In the seventeenth century a quarrel arose between the Carmelites of Siena and Florence as to the priority of their respective establishments. The Sienese displayed, in support of their claim, a charter granted to them by Charlemagne. The emphatic ; the book apparently is written by an author of much later date ; he calls himself a Carmelite and describes the Carmelite habit, though the name of Carmelite was clearly unknown in those times (De Scriptoribus Ec- clcsiasticis sub Joanne Episc. Hierosol.). Still the Carmelite writers serenely continued to refer to the work as an in- controvertible proof of their descent from Elijah and an authentic account of the early history of the Order. — Quilici, II Profeta d'Abelmuela, 72, 95, 122, etc. (Lucca, 1682). A modern work assures us that the popes, St. Telesphorus (A. D. 137) and St. Dionysius (A. D. 269), were Carmelite anchorites, and that Antony, Hilarion, Pacomius, Basil, Jerome and Chrysostom were connected with the Order. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences p. 695. ^ Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, p. 308 (Madrid, 1768). — Mariani Vintimiglia Hist. Chronol. Ord. B. V. de Monte Carraeli, pp. 5, 9, 10, 11 (Neapoli, 1773). 2 Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Dura attenfa, 1476. This is the bull which the Car- melites term their Mare Magnum, or great ocean of privileges. I quote it from the copy printed in the official collection issued by the Barefooted Carmelites, Madrid, 1700. At the same time I would remark that the bull Dura attenta, bearing the same date of Nov. 28, 1476, printed in the Bullarimn Romanum (T, I. p. 405), is less than one-tenth the size, being a simple confirmation of that of Innocent IV., Eugenius IV., and Pius II., with a few added privileges. It is possible that the Mare Marpium was a subsequent compilation, put together for the confirmation which it received, in 1595, from Clement VII 1., and that its ascription to Sixtus IV. is wholly supposititious. ' Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Duni atteata, 1477. III.— 17 258 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. Florentines promptly capped this bj hanging up a tablet on which was inscribed a copy of an attestation which they professed to have in their archives, manufactured for the purpose by a Polish brother of the house, setting forth that their church was founded, in 743, by seven Carmelites driven from the Holy Land by the Saracens.^ This rage for antiquity was not at first a matter of pride, but of self-preservation, and having been once indulged became habitual, as every fraud had to be supported by others. The facts in the case would seem to be that the pressure of the constantly diminishing boundaries of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem gradually forced the hermits to return to the West. In 1236 it was resolved to transfer themselves to Europe, and most of them returned In 1244 the prior, Alan of Britanny or England, with his next in rank, Simon Stock, abandoned Palestine with the rest and settled in England, where they fixed the seat of the Order. Their position in the Church was exceedingly precarious, in view of the Lateran prohibition of new Orders and the jealousy of rival organizations. The unex- ampled success of the Franciscans and Dominicans, the holiness which they had imparted to mendicancy, and the temptations at once of indolence and asceticism were filling Europe, especially in the temperate South, with hosts of wandering beggars and stationary ' Papebrochii Projiylpei Autiquarii P. ir. n. 9, 10. The learned Jesuit Papen- broek had no trouble in demonstrating the spuriousness of this document, which professed to be contemporary with the asserted foundation of the church. He also disproved the genuineness of an inscription in the Carmelite church at Boppard, on the tomb of a Prior Henry, with the date of 1118, on which they relied greatly. The stone was apparently genuine, but it had been placed in its existing position in 1603 (Ibid. n. 23-6). He likewise gives us a copy of a painting over the high altar in the cathedral of Salamanca, rejiresenting Elijah in the curious transversely striped habit of the early Carmelites, and another of a painting, placed, about 1620, in the Carmelite church of Louvain, representing Omar forcing the Carmelites to adopt this peculiar garment (Ibid, n. 28). It is said to have been changed to white by the chapter of Montpellier in 1287, by order of Honorius IV. The Premonstratensians, whose habit was also white, opposed this vigorously, but Boniface VIII., in 1295, confirmed it (Vintimiglia, pp. 53, 55, 57 ; Bonifacii PP. VIII. Bull. Jmfls, 1295, ap. Bullar. I. 174). Papenbroek's destructive criticism forced the Carmelites to abandon the Florence tablet and Boppard inscription, but they boasted that he had not attacked their story that, in 1186, Subislaus, Duke of Danzic, founded a great monastery for them in that city (Vintimiglia, p. 5). THE CARMELITES. 259 hermits, living ou tlie simple reverence of the people, connected with no organization or recognizing only some self-appointed leader. The situation was disagreeable and might become dangerous, and the Church felt it necessary to find a remedy. The second general council of Lyons was called, in 1274, primarily to chase the elusive phantoni of reunion with the Greeks, but one of its objects was to suppress all unauthorized religious Orders. The feeling on the subject is well illustrated by a zealous adherent of the Carmelites, who informs us that Thomas Aquinas was hastening to the council for the purpose of destroying them when God intei'posed, and he sickened and died on the road, while a Franciscan who accompanied him on the same errand was struck dumb when he attempted to speak before the pope.^ In the Lvons council neither side won a decisive victorv, though the result shows that as yet the Carmelite Order was unrecognized, and that all the bulls in its favor of earlier popes so industriously fabricated are subsequent forgeries. The canon adopted suppressed all unauthorized Orders, but it admitted that the Augustinians and Carmelites were founded prior to the prohibition of the Lateran council, and therefore it allowed them to exist on sufferance until otherwise determined.^ The immediate danger was thus evaded, but the situation remained perilous, and the jealousy of rival organiza- ^ Giachetto Malespini Historia Fiorentina Cap. 223 (Muratori S. E. I. VIII. 1042). This passage Muratori tells us had been suppressed in the printed edition of the chronicle. First, the Carmelites circulated such stories, and then, when it became undesirable to let it be known that the Angelic Doctor and saint was hostile to them, they endeavored to conceal it. Giachetto's uncle, Ricordano, in rejjorting the result at Lyons, asserts that the Carmelite Order was confirmed there (Ibid. Cap. 199), in this doubtless only repeating false rumors disseminated by the brethren. 2 C. Lugdunens. ann. 1274, Cap. 23 (Harduin. VII. 715). "Ceterum Car- melitarum et eremitarum Sancti Augustini ordines, quorum institutio prsedic- tum generale concilium prjecessit, in suo statu manere concedimus donee de ipsis fuit aliter ordinatum." It is worthy of note that in the canon law this clause is converted into a confirmation of the two orders, reading " in solido statu volumus permanere " (Cap. 1 § 2 in Sexto lii. xvii.). Whether this change was knowingly made by Boniface VIII., in 1298, when he compiled the Sixth Book, as asserted by the Carmelite annalists (Vintimiglia, p. 63), or is a subsequent modification made in their interest, it would probably now be impossible to decide, though the evidence inclines to the latter. 260 THE LATER CUDDLE AGES. tions might at any moment succeed in obtaining a papal decree of suppression. In 1282 this appeared to be on the point of accom- plishment, for in that year the general, Pierre de Milhaud, petitioned Edward I. of England to interpose in their favor. He recited the action of the council of Lyons and the uncertainty in which it left them, and now, he said, this had been so construed as to threaten them wdtli destruction. Against this they had no refuge or protec- tion save in him, and they supplicate him to obtain from Martin IV. a construction of the canon that will release them from the captivity in which they exist. The fact that the Order thus far was essentially English doubtless inclined the king to listen to their prayer; he refused, indeed, to address the pope, but he ordered letters in their favor to be written to four of the cardinals.^ This peril was escaped, but the Order remained unrecognized in spite of the assertion of Ptolemy of Lucca, in 1286, that Honorius IV. confirmed it,^ and the equally confident one of the historians of the Order that the act was done by Nicholas IV., in 1289,^ to say nothing of the favoring bulls by Nicholas IV., Boniface VIIL and Clement V., which they caused to be inserted in the 3Iare Magnum of Sixtus IV. We hap- pen to have a letter written, in 1311, by Edward II. of England to Clement V., highly commending the Order and asking that in the approaching council of Vienne it may be confirmed and perpetuated,^ which shows that no such action had as yet been taken, nor did the council of Vienne grant the royal request. It was probably not long after this that the Dominican Pierre de la Palu refers to the Carmelites and Augustinians as ordines reprobati, and asked where they obtained the privilege of hearing confessions, which they persist in doing, in spite of the prohibition of the council of Lyons.^ 1 Rymer Fcedera II. 221-2. One of the cardinals was Hugh of Evesham, then recently promoted, who is claimed by Pierre de Milhaud as especially favorable to them. 2 Ptol. Lucens. Hist. Eccles. Lib. xxiv. Cap. 14 (Muratori, S. E. I. XI. 1191).— Raynald. Annal. ann. 1286 n. 36. ' Vintimiglia, p. 53. — Thomas of Walden (De Sacramentalibus Cap. 89, n. 10) prints letters in favor of the Carmelites from prelates of the East and from the Grand Masters of the Hospital and Temple, but they are probably spurious, as they are dated respectively in 1272 and 1284, and are addressed to Pope Boniftice VIII., whose pontificate did not begin until 1294. * Eymer Fcedera III. 276. s P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. Q. iv. Art. 3. THE CARMELITES. 261 The persistent and multitudinous forgeries of the Carmelites render all their documents so suspect that it is impossible to pronounce with certainty when the long-sought for and long-delayed confirmation of the Order was actually obtained, but I am inclined to accept as genuine a bull of John XXII., dated March 13, 1317, decreeing the permanence of the Order and taking its possessions under his protection.^ This would seem to be confirmed by an application in the same year by Edward 11. to the pope, asking that the Carmelites be empowered to receive twelve grants of land in England and to found on them churches and convents." The natural result of confirmation, and of the increased obtrusiveuess which must have followed, was increased resistance on the part of rival organizations, rendering papal inter- vention recpiisite to insure to the newly admitted Order the enjoy- ment of its privileges, and, in 1319, John was obliged to create "conservators" for its protection. Those appointed in Italy were the Archbishop of Milan and the Bishops of Asti, Padua, Piacenza, Bologna and Ferrara ; in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and Bath ; in Germany, the Archbishop 1 Johann. PP. XXII. Bull. Ordo sacer tester in Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Bum attenta | 11 (Diplom. Frat. de M. Carmeli, p. 39). The Carmelite? rank last of the four mendicant Orders, which would show that the August! nians were confirmed before them. To reconcile this with their asserted recognition by Honorius III. they pretend that he confirmed all four — Dominicans, Francis- cans, Augustinians and Carmelites.— Camillo d'Ausilio Sommario dell' Origine della Eeligione Carmelitana, p. 37 (Brescia, 1603). - Rymer Fcedera III. 610-11. Vintimiglia tells us (pp. 65, 69) that in 1314 Edward, when in imminent danger at Bannockburn, vowed to found and endow a theological college for twenty-four Carmelites, which he fulfilled at Oxford in 1318, but there is no record of such a grant in Rymei*. During their struggle for existence in the thirteenth century the Carmelites appear to have been strangers to the intellectual movement of the age. It is recorded of Gerard Sereni, elected general in 1297, that he was the first Car- melite who had lectured in the University of Paris (Vintimiglia, p. 61). Sub- sequently nearly all the generals were men holding academical honors, and the Order numbered among its members theologians of repute, such as Gui de Terrena, Jean Alere, William of Coventry, John Baconthorpe, Thomas of Walden etc. To escape this reproach we are assured that S. Simon Stock devoted special attention to the training of the brethren, that he was a learned man and prolific writer, but that unfortunately all his works have perished save two little can- ticles attributed to him. — Mattel, Ristretto della Vita di S. Simone Stock, pp. 34-5 (Roma, 1873). 262 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. of Salzburg and the Bishops of Passau and Regensburg. In the same year Pope John authorized it to found convents everywhere in Ger- many, Bohemia, Hungary and Norway, which shows that the Order was establishing itself and spreading rapidly/ It could no longer be persecuted and threatened with extinction, but its pretensions to descend from Elijah and to be the oldest reli- gious Order created constant antagonism and led to bitter quarrels. These were especially rife in the seventeenth century, when Launoy and Papenbroek brought to the investigation their boundless stores of learning, leading to a controversy so sharp that, in 1698, Innocent XII. was impelled to impose silence on the disputants. No one was allowed to discuss the question of the origin of the Order, any books or tracts on the subject were to be placed on the Index, and this was to remain without prejudice to either side until the Holy See should decide otherwise.^ In 1725, however, Benedict XIII. practically decided the question in favor of the Carmelites when he permitted them to erect in St. Peter's, among the statues of founders of Orders and patriarchs, one of Elijah with an inscription framed by himself to the effect that the Carmelites have erected this to their founder St. Elijah the prophet.^ Something more was needed for the prosperity of the Order than the confirmation and recognition obtained, in 1317, from John XXII. It had ceased to be eremitic, and in becoming mendicant it found the ground fully occupied by the great organizations of St. Francis and St. Dominic. Possibly the success of the Portiuncula may have suggested the next step taken to bring it into notice and secure it adherents. It had no saint of pre-eminent sanctity like Francis to conjure with, but a substitute was found in Simon Stock, the Eng- lishman, who is said to have been elected general in 1145. His legend relates that he was born in Kent, in 1065 ; a consuming thirst for maceration drove him from his father's house at the age of twelve to dwell in a hollow tree for twenty years, subsisting on wild herbs and bread brought to him by dogs on stated days. At ' Vintimiglia, p. 71. We may reasonably doubt the enthusiastic assertion of modern writers that by the year 1300, while, as we have seen, it was yet existing on sufferance, it numbered 7500 convents and 125,000 membets. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 700. 2 Pittoni Constitt. Pontificales, T. VIII. P. il. n. 4078. ^ Vintimiglia, Prsefat. THE CARMELITE SCAPULAR. 263 length some Carmelites chanced to pass that way ; he joined them, studied theology at Oxford, and gradually rose to be the head of the Order at the ripe age of eighty years. In 1251, as the story goes, on the night of the 15-16th of July, while praying to the Virgin to aid the struggling brethren, she appeared to him with a great retinue, holding in her hand the habit of the Order, and said, "This shall be the privilege for thee and for all Carmelites : whosoever dies in this shall not suffer eternal fire."^ Xo reference occurs to this for nearly a hundred years after the occurrence, when, in 1348, William of Coventry made it public. Even as late as 1450 Felix Hemmerlin classes the Carmelites and their new scapulars with the Lollards and Begghards as guilty of mortal sin through their impudent pretensions.^ Apparently the device had not the success anticipated, for, in 1494, Jan van Oudewater, a Dutch Carmelite, better known by his Hellen- ized name of Pal?eonydorus, struck a most productive vein by the happy thought of adding to the Virgin's promise " Behold the sign of salvation, safety in danger, the covenant of peace and of the sempiternal pact."^ It was this afterthought that has rendered the Carmelite scapular so all-powerful an amulet occupying so large a share in the popular belief of modern Catholics.* ^ Vintimiglia, pp. 24, 29, 32. — " Hoc erit tibi et cunctis Carmelitis privi- legium ; in hoc quis moriens seternum non patietur incendium." According to Carmelite documents S. Simon at once rejiorted, in a letter dated from Cambridge, this miraculous grace of the Virgin to all the commu- nities of the Order. — Maffei, Vita, p. 43. ^ " Et quodam habitu novse religionis cum scapulari praesumptuose necnon impudenter utentes mortaliter peccare." — Fel. Hemmerlin Dyalogus de anno Jubileo, p Ab (Ed. 1497). ^ Vintimiglia, loc. cit. — " Ecce signum salutis, salus in periculis, fcedus pacis et pacti sempiterni." * Strictly speaking, the scapular or armilausa (Macri Hierolex. s. v. Armi- lausa. — S. Isidori Hispal. Etymolog. Lib. xix. Cap. xxii. n. 28) is a monastic garment worn over the cope, covering the shoulders and hanging down before and behind. It was formerly also used as a penitential vestment, woi'n by pilgrims (Astesani Summae Lib. v. Tit. xxxiv. Ai-t. 1, Q. 1), and the Carmelites sought to trace it back to the Hebrew Ephod (Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, p. 4). When its virtues caused it to be extensively used by laymen it shrank to the more convenient shape of two oblong pieces of cloth, united by tapes and worn under the garments, one piece on the breast and the other on the back. It requires benediction, which must be performed by a priest of the Carmelite Order — even a bishop is unable to do it (Deer. Authent. n. 96), and 264 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. The account of the Visiou purports to be drawn from a life of St. Simon Stock, written, in 1267, by his secretary, Peter of Swanington, is placed on the shoulders of the applicant with certain ceremonies (Gelasii de Cilia Locupletissimus Thesaurus, Ed. 1744, p. 119), which admit him to the Carmelite confraternity. The Golden Book of the Confraternities (p. 95) says that by a decree of Gregory XVI., in 1838, no record need be kept of the membership, but the Congregation of Indulgences decided, in 1842 (Deer. Authent. n. 562), that a record must be made and transmitted to the authori- ties of the Order, and then again, in 1868 (n. 774), it decided that this does not apply to the Carmelite scapular, but only to those of other Orders. It however affirmed, in 1857 (n. 709), that a man can throw off the scapular and subsequently resume it without further ceremony or reception. Yet to enjoy its full benefit, when once assumed, it is never to be laid aside. It is related of Leo Xr., elected in 1605, that, when his cardinal's garments were removed to invest him with the papal robes, one of the prelates took hold of his scapu- lar to take it off, when he forbade it, saying " Sine, desine Mariam ne me desinat Maria" (Guglielmi, Recueil des Indulgences, p. 147), but as he died after a pontificate of twenty-six days his caution does not seem to have been effective. In 1655 it served Alexander VII. better, for on his way to the con- clave in which he was elected he stopped at the Carmelite convent and received the scapular at the hands of the general. The common belief is that when one is worn out or broken it can be replaced by a new one that has not been blessed, but Serrada (Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 336-7) holds that this is an error ; the virtue resides in the benediction, and even the breaking of both tapes requires blessing when repaired. The virtue of the scapular, however, does not depend wholly on the bene- diction, but on minute details of form and material and mode of wearing, with- out strict observance of which it is inert. Some of these details were settled in a decree of the Congregation of Indulgences in 1862 (Deer. Authent. n. 747), but, in 1868, a full congregation of the cardinals was held to consider the profound questions whether the scapular must be made of wool or whether cotton is permissible ; whether, if made of wool, it must be woven or can be knitted or embroidered, and if embroideries can be of another color or material, such as gold or silver thread ; whether the old quadrangular shape is imperative, or whether the recent innovations of round and oval are allowable; whether, finally, the laudable custom of combining the several scapulars by sup- erimposing them, one on another, is imperative, or whether the modern fashion is admissible of having only one cloth, on which are woven or embroidered in different colors the symbols of the several scapulars. All these weighty mat- ters were maturely considered with the assistance of a consultor. and the Most Eminent Fathers decided that wool is indispensable and cotton inadmissible ; weaving is requisite, and knitting and embroidery must be rejected, but em- broidery on wool can be allowed, even with foreign substances, provided the prevailing color be preserved; the old quadrangular form is not to be changed, and in multiple scapulars the stratified structure is to be observed. All this THE CARMELITE SCAPULAR. 265 to whom he related the occurrence. This life, though quoted by one Carmelite writer after another, was long supposed to be lost, and did not see the light until the seventeenth century, when, during a violent controversy over the truth of the story, it was found, with that opportuneness which distinguishes Carmelite documents, in the archives of the Order in Bordeaux by the prior, Jean Cheron, and printed by him in his Vindicice ScapuIaiHs.^ It is deplorable to think that even this did not convince the opponents of the Order, who continued to denounce the story as a figment.^ The opposition was led by the learned Jean Launoy, whose tract on the subject, issued in 1642, was not put on the Index until 1690, with many of his other iconoclastic works,' and the Carmelites summoned to their assistance one of the most distinguished Jesuits of the day, The- ophile Raynaud, who urged the repeated confirmation of the Vision, the wearing of the scapular by kings and popes, and the innumer- able miracles which had attested its virtues, and he triumphantly pointed out that, if evidence be required to prove the truth of tra- was submitted to the pope, who in about a month confirmed it (Deer. Authent. n. 772). This affords a salutary warning as to the minutiae on whicli the fate of body and soul may depend. It seems remarkable that questions of the kind should remain to be settled at so late a date. In 1838 the Carmelite General was obliged to decide that the form of a single cloth hanging on the breast was irregular. Those wearing such scapulars were members of the confraternity, but they must conform to the regular pattern (Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulg. p. 732). In 1840 the Congregation of Indulgences was appealed to to know whether the fashion of wearing them under the arms was admissible, when it replied in the negative — they must be worn so that the cloths rest on breast and back (Deer. Authent. n. 516, 518), though it is not essential that they should be next to the skin (n. 694) ; as for the exact tint it is indifferent, provided it is a shade of brown or black (n. 517). In 1841 Archbishop Doney of Bordeaux represented that from time immemorial the faithful had been accustomed to wear scapulars of two pieces of cloth sewed together and hanging on the breast, that it would be very difficult to change this custom, and that it would cause much perturba- tion of the faith ; he therefore asked that this form be recognized as a true scapular ; if this be refiised he prayed that similar privileges be granted to it. In reply the pope cured the defect of the brethren received with the single scapular, but the archbishop was instructed to arrange prudently that in future the regular double form alone be used (Jouhanneaud, pp. 733-4). 1 Benedicti PP. XIV. De Festis Lib. ii. Cap. vi. 2 J. B. Thiers, Traite des Superstitions, T. IV. p. 253 (Paris, 1704). ' Innocent. XI. Indicis Append, p. 32. 266 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. dition, all the traditions on which the ecclesiastical structure was based, unsupported by documents, must be swept away. Had he foreseen the miserable ending of the reign of Louis XIV. perhaps he would have forborne to attribute the glory of its opening years to the monarch's use of the scapular.^ Raynaud was justified in his line of defence, and the Carmelites could afford to regard with indifference the assaults of their enemies, for the Church had accepted the Vision as a fact by authorizing its recital in the office for the feast of St. Simon Stock, May 16, as approved by the Congregation of Rites. It was also included in the office of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, July 16, and this office was gradually extended throughout the Catholic world — to Venice in 1704, to the Tarvisina in 1714, and finally, at the request of Louis XV., Benedict XIII., in 1726, ordered its recitation every- where by all Christians of both sexes who are bound to the observance of the canonical hours. Benedict XIA^., moreover, expressed his belief in it.^ Yet in accepting the Vision as an undoubted fact the Church ex- ercised praiseworthy caution as to its essential feature — the promise of the Virgin that those who wear the Carmelite garment shall escape eternal fire. The men who framed the legend were simply desirous of appropriating for their Order the wide-spread popular belief that a man who should die in a monkish habit would be saved, but they expressed this too crudely to be acceptable to skilled theologians, and thus they overshot the mark. It would seem im- possible to admit the truth of the Vision and reject this portion of it, and yet this is what the Breviary does, prudently if not logi- ' Theop. Raynaudi Scapulare Partheno-Carmeliticum, Colon. 1658, pp. 130, 257. The first edition appeared in Lyons in 1653. If we are to believe Feller (Diet. Hist. s. v. Raynaud) the incurable tendency to dishonesty of the Carmelites so modified this work that when it appeared in print Raynaud disavowed it, which did not prevent them at his death from paying him funeral honors in all their convents. ^ Raynaudi Scap. Parth. Carmel. p. 20. — Pittoni Constitt. Pontificales, T. I. P. II. n. 1551, 1728, 1894.— Benedicti PP. XIV. De Servorum Dei Beatifica- tione Lib. iv. P. ii. Cap. 9, n. 4. — Ejusd. De Festis Lib. ii. Cap. 6. Yet it would appear that St. Simon was never regularly canonized. In 1671 Clement X. commenced proceedings for the purpose, but abandoned them as superfluous, for the Carmelites claimed that his Office had been approved in 1277, by Nicholas III.— Maffei, Vita, pp. 54-55. THE CARMELITE SCAPULAR. 267 cally/ for it could not accept the theory that the Virgin can promise pardon for the culpa of sins simply on condition of wearing the Car- melite habit, or the scapular which took its place as a more convenient article of attire. Raynaud attempts to reconcile the difficulty by arguing that tiie scapular is a sign of predestination.^ Others suggest that the Virgin operates in two ways to preserve her devotees from hell — by gaining for them aid to die in grace, or, if they die in mortal sin, by obtaining that they shall be restored to life and be enabled to repent and be saved.^ In proof of this there are endless miracles rekited. As early as 1252 a noble of Winchester, who was a notorious sinner, blasphemed and was impenitent on his death-bed. His brother brought to him St. Simon Stock, who, after praying, cast his garment upon the dying man. The latter was immediately converted, made a most edifying end, and after death appeared to his brother and reported that the habit had proved a shield against Satan.* This would seem to interfere seriously with free-will, but such an objection does not lie against the well-authenticated case of Antonio, a soldier on board the Santa Teresa, in the fleet under the Duke of Aveyro, in 1665. He died September 20th, after confession and absolution, and was prepared for burial at sea, but during the night awoke the crew by shouting for his Carmelite confessor. Fray Camilo de Alzamora. When the latter was brought he explained that he had been condemned to hell for a mortal sin forgotten in confession, but by the intercession of the Virgin, in consideration of having worn the scapular for twenty years and fasted on Wednes- days and Saturdays, he had been permitted to return and confess it, which he did and immediately expired. This case, again, casts unpleasant doubts on the efficacy of absolution for forgotten sins, but there is another one, free from all complications, of a man mur- dered by an enemy, who cut off his head and rolled it down a ^ Bened. PP. XIV. De Festis loc. cit. — Guglielmi, Eecueil des Indulgences Authentiques, p. 132 (Paris, 1873). As I shall have further occasion to quote the Abbe Guglielmi's book, I may mention here that it bears the approbation of the Congregation of Indulgences, March 7, 1863. " Raynaudi Scap. Parth. Carniel. pp. 125, 252. ^ Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 51-2 (Madrid, 1768). — Golden Book of the Confraternities, pp. 107-14. * Vintimiglia, p. 35. 2G8 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. mountain. The head cried out unceasingly for a confessor till the relenting murderer brought one, who was so disturbed by the cries that he refused to listen to the confession till the head was brought back to the body. When this was done they immediately reunited ; the corpse leaped with joy and confessed a long catalogue of crimes. When asked by the confessor how it had, though so great a sinner, merited so great a favor, it replied that it had always worn the scapular and fasted on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and with that it expired — the moral teaching of which case we will not examine too closely.^ While thus there is a decided incompatibility between the absolute promises of the Vision and the received theories as to the pardon of sin, this antagonism is not without its attendant advantages from a practical point of view. It enables the writers of popular works of piety to copy the words so emphatically pronounced by the Virgin and to point out that this has been confirmed by the Congregation of Rites in its repeated approbations of the Carmelite breviary, under the investigation of such men as Cardinals Bellarmine and de Torres,^ and that it has been accepted by popes and universities. Whatever may follow after this of cautionary exhortation as to the practice of virtue can only leave the impression on the uninstructed reader that it is merely the prudent reserve of the individual moralist seeking the moral elevation of his flock.^ It would be impossible for any one to recite believiugly certain passages in the novena of Our Lady of Carmel without acquiring a conviction that the scapular is itself a pledge of salvation.* ' Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 106-10. The benefit of the Scapular is dependent on recitation of the Little Office, or, for those who cannot do this, fasting on Wednesdays and Saturdays, but this latter can be commuted for prayers or " almsgiving." — Ibid. pp. 200, 333-4. * Decreta Authentica Congr. Sac. Rituum n. 704, 1514. ^ Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, pp. 703, 705. — Golden Book of the Confraternities, pp. 89-90, 94. See, however, the more moderate expositions of Vintimiglia, p. 34, and Stanton's Menology of England and Wales, p. 213 (London, 1887). * Thus in the prayers of the sixth day — " The holy Scapular which the Virgin has deigned to give us is a sign of salvation for the soul as well as the body ; it guarantees and offers to the soul an efficacious refuge fi-om our com- mon enemies." In the seventh day — " The sacred garment of Mary is terrible to demons ; THE CARMELITE SCAPULAR. 269 The scapular thus is more than an indulgence, for it addresses itself directly" to the culpa and not to the poena, but the confraterni- ties based upon it have been endowed with countless indulgences, as we shall presently see. Meanwhile some reference can scarce be omitted to the enormous increase of the value of the scapular in the popular mind wrought by the addition made, in 1494, by Jan van Oudewater to the original promise, when he introduced the idea that it would confer safety in danger. xVmulets and talismans have been eagerly sought for in all ages and in all faiths, and Latin Christianity has always encouraged this belief and turned it to account in incul- cating the preservative influence of relics and other sacred objects, legends concerning which form so considerable a feature of the hagiology of the Church. That the Scapular possesses such virtue has been industriously exploited by those interested, and forms a fixed article of faith in a large portion of the Catholic world. It is eloquently and comprehensively inculcated in the prayers of the novena of Our Lady of Carmel — " No one can sufficiently conceive the great virtues which you, O Mary, have granted to your vestment to perform miracles without number. Heaven, earth, and the ele- ments have always been subjected to it and have always respected those who wear it with devotion. . . . The most terrible tem- pests sink into perfect calm . . . men buried at the bottom of wells and in the abvsses of the ocean are found to be livino- . men fall from the tops of towers and of trees without a bruise, are struck by red-hot cannon-balls without injury, lightning loses its power, conflagrations have no heat. . . . The most obstinate diseases and death itself yield to the powerful virtues of this holy garment. There is no prodigy that it does not perform, no grace merely at sight of it these furies of hell, beaten and helpless in their malice, fly and plunge themselves in the depth of their abysses like wild beasts seek- ing to hide themselves in their dens from the sun. . . . How beautiful it will be to see, at the terrible moment of death, the good brethren of Carmel, drunken with joy, conversing deliciously with the Blessed Virgin, and thank- ing her for having numbered them among her children." In the ninth day — "If it is impossible for him who lives and reposes under the protection of the Mother of Mercies ever to fall into eternal perdition, what have we, O Mary, to fear for our bliss, since you have long ago settled with God, in favor of your brethren, the contract of their deliverance from the fires of hell?"— Guglielmi, op. cit. pp. 221, 224, 227. 270 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. that it does not win, no suppliant that it does not console." ^ This so completely sets forth the virtues of the scapular in temporal affairs that the reader may be spared a selection from the countless authentic cases which the industry of pious writers has compiled to illustrate its miraculous powers in every conceivable contingency — though it must be admitted that Father Huguet makes a tri- fling mistake when he attributes Edward II. 's victory at Bannock- burn to the wearing of a scapular by that pious prince.^ What impresses one particularly in reviewing these marvels is that, like the rain of heaven, they fall on the good and the evil alike, and that innocence and guilt or even faith are matters of no conse- quence. The inventive genius of the Carmelites, however, did not exhaust itself on the Vision of Simon Stock and the scapular. These saved in life and from hell, and to render the gifts of the Order complete something equally efficacious was wanting to obtain control of pur- gatory. This was found in the celebrated Sabbatine Bull. The legend of the Order relates that in the disgraceful conclave which, in 1316, finally put an end to the long interregnum after the death of Clement V., Cardinal Jacques d'Ozo addressed his earnest prayers to the Virgin that the choice might fall on him. His devotion was rewarded with a vision in which the Mother of God promised him the tiara on condition that he would publish certain graces conceded to the Carmelite Order and confraternity by Christ. The next day he was elected, taking the name of John XXIL, but he seems to have been in no haste to keep his word, for, although there are two ver- sions of the date of the Sabbatine Bull, the earliest places it nine months after his installation and the later one nearly six years — a ^ Guglielmi, Eecueil des Indulgences, pp. 220-1. ^ Le R. P. Huguet, Vertu miraculeuse du Scapulaire, Paris, 1872, jjp. 10-11. — See also Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 165-304; Guglielmi, op. cit. p. 137 ; Jouhanneaud, op. cit. pp. 702, 709-10 ; Golden Book of the Confra- ternities, pp. 119-126. — Grassi, Narrazione dell' Indulgenze etc. concesse all' Ordine del Carmine, pp. 29-31 (Roma, 1807). We are assured that not only Edward II. wore the scapular as a member of the confraternity, but St. Louis, Henry Duke of Lancaster, Henry Count of Northumberland, Angela, daughter of the King of Bohemia, and a host of other royal and noble personages. — Oamillo d'Ausilio, Sommario, p. 41. In view of his miserable end the prominence accorded to Edward II. as a wearer of the scapular indicates the customary ignorance of English history. THE SABBATINE BULL. 271 discrepancy which the advocates of the Order vainly seek to explain/ The bull itself — Sacratissimo uti culmine — is wild and emotional, almost unintelligible, a document such as never emanated from the papal chancery, and peculiarly incompatible with the hard and prac- tical character of John XXII., which is so clearly visible in his authentic utterances. It relates how the Virgin told him to con- cede, what Christ had ordered in heaven, that all who enter the Order shall be saved ; those who join the confraternity shall be relieved of a third part of their sins on their promising to observe chastity according to their state ; the brethren professed are released both from punishment and culpa, and finally the Virgin promises that every Saturday she will descend to purgatory, liberate those whom she finds there and carry them back to the holy mountain of eternal life, but the members of the confraternity must recite the canonical hours, according to the rule of St. Albert, or, if too igno- rant, must observe the fasts of the Church and abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays, except when Christmas occurs on one of those days. This holy indulgence John accepts, ratifies and con- firms on earth even as granted by Christ in heaven on account of the merits of the Virgin.^ ^ Vintimiglia, pp. 66, 74. — Raynaudi Scap. Parth. Carmel. pp. 15-16, 167. — Guglielmi, p. 139.— Serrada, p. 92. ' I have followed the version given in the official collection of the Barefooted Carmelites, Madrid, 1700. There are variants, some of them important. In the papal confirmation the older reading makes John describe the indulgence as granted by the Virgin — "ab ea." This was a serious error, as the Virgin has no power to perform an act incompatible with her sex, so the ab ea was quietly dropped (Raynaudi op. cif. pp. 204-6). In the final recension the for- mula adopted is that given in the text. This is also the version printed by Amort, Be Indulgentiis, I. 147. In the earlier form, moreover, John is made to confirm the Order as well as the indulgence — an admission which was shrewdly stricken out. The pledge to release from culpa as well as pcena occurs in all the recen- sions, offering a difficulty which Raynaud (pp. 208-9) vainly endeavors to explain away. The Virgin's promise to liberate from purgatory reads " Et die quo isti ab isto sseculo recedunt properatoque gradu accelerant purgatorium, Ego Mater Gloriosa Gratis et Misericordise descendam Sabbato post eorum obitum et quos inveniam in purgatorium liberabo et eos in montem sanctum vitse feternse reducam." This power ascribed to the Virgin shows the late date of the fabrication of 272 THE LA TEE MIDDLE A GES. As a matter of course no original of this remarkable document has ever been produced, though Friar Thomas Bradley, in the fifteenth century, is said to have seen it in London, and, in 1661, Father Augustinus a Virgine Maria asserts that an authentic copy exists at liennes. The official explanation is that it was preserved in the archives of the Order in England, where it perished in the Reforma- tion, unless it may yet be lying there in some unknown corner/ What is presented in place of the original is a bull of Alexander Y., December 7, 1409, embodying it,^ but even this is not to be found in the original, thougli we are told that there is an authentic copy at Avignon.'^ It is said to have been delivered to Alfonso de Theramo, prior of the Carmelite convent at " Chapteriensis " in England, to be kept in the archives, and presumably disappeared in the Reforma- tion.^ The shape in which it reaches us is two-fold. A transcript is said to have been made of it in Majorca, in 1421, but even this is not produced (though it is said to be preserved in Genoa), but in- stead of it two notarial copies made in Sicily, one dated 1430 and the other 1432, from which subsequent copies were preserved in the convents of the Order, one of 1502 at Valencia, one of 1605 at Toledo and one of 1606 at Medina del Campo. Then there is another transcript attested, in 1633, by INIaria Antonio Franciotto, Apostolic Prothonotary, who asserts that the original bull of Alex- ander V. was submitted to him in a perfect state with the seals, and of this a further transcript was made, in 1639, at Ijouvain.^ the bull. Towards the middle of the fifteenth century the Blessed Peter of Palermo, in treating of indulgences, says that the Virgin cannot grant them, for she has not the keys. Had the Sabbatine bull been current at the time he could not have argued thus. —Petri Hieremise Quadragesimale, de Peccato, Serm. xxvil. ^ Serrada, op. eit. p. 98. — Amort de Indulgentiis I. 144. — Vintimiglia, p. 74. ^ Of this there are two recensions ; one is a simple vidimus by Alexander, authenticating the act of his predecessor ; the other contains an implied con- firmation of the indulgence. — Diplomata Frat. Discalc. Ord. B. V. M. de Monte Carmeli, pp. 10, 17. ^ Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulg. p. 723. * Vintimiglia, p. 74. Of course if either of these bulls could be found in the papal registers Carmelite industry would have long since discovered and pub- lished them. An effort has been made to explain the absence of that of John XXII. by suggesting that the anti-pope Benedict XIII. carried it to Peniscola, but the registers of the Avignonese popes are in Rome. ^ Diplomata, pp. 8-11, 16-18. — Vintimiglia, loc. cit. THE S ABB AT IN E BULL. 273 The fabrication of the document can, I think, be assigned with reasonable probability to the early part of the sixteenth century. Had it existed in 1476 it would unquestionably have been embodied in the Mare Magnum of Sixtus IV. (supposing that bull to have really been issued at that time), for the latter contains five compara- tively trivial letters of John XXII., and this could not possibly have been omitted. On the other hand, it must have been put together prior to the forgery of the confirmation bull of Honorius III., for it speaks of the Order having been confirmed by Innocent IV. Every- thing points to its having been prepared with the view of obtaining confirmation from Clement VII. and thus authenticating it. To bridge over the interval of two centuries since its date, some inter- mediate confirmation appeared essential, and Alexander V. was doubtless chosen, because his short and troubled pontificate of ten months seemed to offer less chance of detection. If the object of the fiibrication was to obtain its confirmation by Clement VII., it was not entirely successful. That Pontiff indeed, in 1524 or 1528, did, in the bull Dilecte fili, confirm the Sabbatine Bull, with its promise from the Virgin to visit purgatory on Satur- days and liberate the souls of the brethren, but the contest with heresy had rendered theologians keener and more cautious ; these monstrous assumptions were recognized as inadmissible, and, in 1530, Clement VII. issued another bull superseding the former. This recited that the refrigescence of charity rendered the Carmelites unable to keep their churches in repair, and therefore, to stimulate the faithful, all who should lend a helping hand should enjoy the numer- ous privileges bestowed on the Order. Among these is included the Sabbatine Bull, wherein John XXII. and Alexander V. remitted one-third of their sins to those joining the confraternity and promis- ing to observ^e its conditions, and, moreover, the Virgin would help their souls after death with her continual intercession, pious suffrages and special protection.^ When Gregory XIIL, in 1577, confirmed the privileges of the Order he was careful to use the same guarded » Guglielmi, p. 139.— Vintimiglia, p. 186.— Bullar. I. 685.— The modified form of the liberation from purgatory is "Ac ipsa gloriosissima Dei Genetrix, semper Virgo Maria, ipsorum Confratrum seu Religiosorum ac Sororum animas post eorum transitum, suis intercessionibus continuis, piis suflfragiis et speciali protectione adjuvabit." III.— 18 274 2'ifJ5 LATER MIDDLE AGES. terms.^ As in the case of the Vision of Simon Stock, a compromise was reached whereby the vision was recognized as a fact and the promises of the Virgin were ruthlessly cut down, a result more creditable to the diplomacy than to the candor of the Holy See. It is probable that the Carmelites had little scrnple in availing themselves of the confirmation of the Sabbatine Bull without much reference to the restrictions on its promises, for opposition sprang up which required them to obtain further confirmations, by Paul IV., in 1534, and Pius V., in 1566. The latter seems to have been called for by an extensive hostile movement in Spain, led by the prelates and based on a report that the privileges of the scapular and the Sabbatine Bull had been abrogated by the council of Trent. The matter was referred to the University of Salamanca, which decided in favor of the Order.^ Still more serious was the trouble when, in 1609, the Inquisition in Portugal and at Avignon prohibited the teaching of the Sabbatine Bull. An appeal, supported by the influ- ence of Philip III., was made to the Holy Office at Rome, and, after a prolonged discussion, in 1613 a decree was issued, confirmed by Paul v., following the lines laid down by Clement VII., that it might be taught and piously believed that the Virgin helps, espe- cially on Saturday, by her suffrages the wearers of the scapular who observe the conditions, so that they are sooner liberated, while a final clause prohibiting pictures representing the Virgin as descending to purgatory shows how little the Carmelites had allowed themselves to be bound by the compromise of 1530.^ Similar caution was observed in the office of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, where the assistance of the Virgin to souls in purgatory is merely stated as a pious belief.* Something was gained, in 1673, when the Carmelites procured from 1 Maffei, Vita di S. Simone Stock, p. 151. ^ Serrada, p. 100. — Viiitimiglia, p. 193. — Jouhauneaud, pp. 173-4. — Maffei, p. 154. * Amort de Indulg. I. 145. — Vintimiglia, pp. 77, 211. — Raynaudi op. cit. pp. 19, 203. — Serrada, p. 101. — With characteristic dishonesty the final clause of the decree is omitted from it as printed in the official collection of the Bare- footed Carmelites, p. 13, and by Maffei, p. 155. In 1624 the Sorbonne compelled the Carmelite Pierre Arcis to revoke his error in ascribing to the Virgin power over the souls of the departed, based on her promise to John XXII. — D'Argentre, Collect. Judic. de Error. II. ii. 161. * Benedict! PP. XIV. De Testis Lib. ii. Cap. vi.— Maffei, Vita di S. Simone Stock, p. 97. THE SABBATINE BULL. 275 Clement X. the coutirmation and approbation of their summary of indulgences, including the old forgeries from Leo IV. down. In the clause concerning the Sabbatine Bull, Clement VII. is represented as approving the letters of John XXII. aud Alexander V., and as confirming and rendering perpetual the indulgences and graces and remissions of sin therein granted to those wearing the habit and join- ing the confraternity.' The phrasing of this is evidently drawn with much care to justify all the claims of the Sabbatine Bull without apparently departing from the limitations adopted by Clement VII. Yet even after this the French theologians, following the lead of Launoy, had no hesitation in expressing their disbelief in the genu- ineness of the Sabbatine Bull and their contempt for it, while Bene- dict XIV., who twice had occasion to allude to it, was conspicuously careful to avoid any clear revelation of his opinion on the subject.^ The matter has thus been skilfully left so that the Carmelites can claim the full benefits of the Sabbatine Bull for all who assume the scapular aud join their confraternity, while the Church can appeal to the decree of the Inquisition of 1613 and the cautious phraseology of the breviaries, and thus relieve itself of responsibility for the doc- trinal errors contained in the promises of the Virgin. The writers of manuals for popular instruction have therefore no hesitation of assuring the devout of the absolute certainty of the Saturday libera- tion of the souls of all who enter the confraternities and observ^e the rules. Serrada even argues that those who fulfil the conditions with zeal may reasonably hope that the Virgin will not wait till Saturday, but will release them sooner ; it is fatuous, he says, to think that a meritorious brother who dies on Sunday will have to wait till Satur- day ; that term is only for those who merit longer torment, and he has ample store of miracles and visions to prove that the weekly liberation takes place regularly.^ Guglielmi, after giving a garbled 1 Clement. PP. X. Bull. Commissa nobis, 1673 (Bullar. T. VI. Append, p. 45). * J. B. Thiers, Traite des Superstitions, T. IV. pp. 253-55. —Bened. PP. XIV. De Festis Lib. ir. Cap. vi. ; De Servorum Dei Beatificatione Lib. iv. P. ii. Cap. 9, U4. Father Noel Alexandre (Hist. Eccles. Saec. XIII. et XIV. Diss. XI. ad calcem) has tersely given the reasons, historical, critical and doctrinal, which prevent his acceptance of the bull as genuine. ^ Serrada, Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 134-7, 321-22. On the other hand, to enforce the necessity of the observances required, he relates a vision in which a 276 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. history of the bull interprets the decree of the Inquisition, in 1613, as permitting the Carmelites to publish the privilege conferred by the Virgin on all who wear the scapular, namely, that it is a certain pledge of safety in the dangers of life, a powerful aid to a good end and an infallible preservative against the flames of purgatory, espe- cially on the Saturday after death, all of which is summed up in the line " Protego nunc, in morte juvo, post funera salvo." ^ The " Golden Book of the Confraternities " gives the absolute promise of the Virgin to descend to purgatory on Saturday and deliver the souls of the brethren, and adds " These are the very words of the bull . . . M'hich has been approved by Pope Alexander V., Clement VII., Pius V. and Gregory XIII." After this it can safely quote the more cautious utterances of the Inquisition and the breviary without danger of weakening the confidence of the devotee.^ Even Bishop Bouvier admits the descent of the Virgin and her liberation of souls on Saturdays, though he conveys the impression that he would be glad to deny it if he could.^ Yet notwithstanding these pre-eminent privileges, which would seem to supersede the necessity of others, the Carmelites steadfastly kept alive all the interminable line of spurious indulgences from the ninth century onwards, the confirmation of which it so carefully procured from Sixtus IV. and Clement X. One of these is justly characterized by their own writers as the most extraordinary of all indulgences, stupefying those who consider it. It purports to have been granted by Urban VI., and offers three years and three quar- antines to any one who will speak of the Order as that of the Virgin of Mount Carmel, or who on seeing a Carmelite will say, ^' Behold Carmelite soul begs for suffrages, and explains that there are few who gain the indulgence of the bull on account of their neglect. — Ibid. pp. 139, 142. The moral of this is that ij^will not do to omit providing for mortuary masses in I'eliance on the scapular. Grassi agrees with Serrada that the Virgin does not wait till Saturday to liberate the souls of the brethren. — Narrazione dell' Indulgeuze etc., Roma, 1807, pp. 33-4. ^ Guglielmi, Traite des Indulgences, pj). 139-40. 2 Golden Book, pp. 96-99, 106. ^ Bouvier, Trait6 des Indulgences, p. 296. That there still are those Avho doubt the authenticity of the Sabbatine Bull is seen in the heated defence of its genuineness which Padre Mattel appends to his "Ristretto della Vita de S.^Simone Stock," Roma, 1873. PROFUSION OF INDULGENCES. 277 a brother of the most glorious Virgin Maiy " — aud not content with this we are told that Nicholas V. doubled it and then added seven years and seven quarantines, so that it consists in all of thirteen years and as many quarantines. Guglielmi may well urge every one to gain at so easy a rate such remission of purgatorial pains.' In addition to all this a summary, issued in 1603, of the indulgences obtainable by members of the brotherhood in Rome amounts to four hundred aud fis^e plenaries during the year and the liberation of sixtv-five souls, too;;ether with the indulgences of the Stations of Rome, of Jerusalem, aud of Compostella, to say nothing of partials amounting to hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.^ This hasty review of the development of the Portiuncula and scapu- lar may serve to indicate the tendency which existed towards the close of the middle ages to multiply indulgences jjer /as et nefas. They were like a debased currency, constantly falling in value, the productive- ness of which can only be maintained by correspondingly enlarged issues. The profusion with which the jubilee and the so-called cru- sading indulgences were poured forth after the time of Boniface IX. vulgarized the system, while the insatiable appetite of the people, eager to avoid the penalties of sin without surrendering its enjoy- ments or undergoing the restrictions and hardships of penance, fur- nished an inexhaustible market for the dispensers of the treasure of the Church. The indulgence, which in its earlier period was an exceptional incentive to liberality or to the performance of arduous service, was rapidly becoming an essential part of the ecclesiastical system and as much a matter of course as any of the ordinary observances of religion. The change which thus gradually effected itself is well illustrated by the contrast between the ten days offered by Innocent IV. for prayers for St. Louis when a prisoner in the hands of the Saracens and the plenaries granted by Leo X., on the occasion of the coronation of Francis I., in 15L5, to all who would ' Raynaud! Scap. Parth. Carmel. pp. 38-9.— Cleineat PP. X. Bull. Commissa nobis (BuUar. VI. Append, p. 45). — Guglielmi, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 129, 160. — Grassi, op. cit. p. 74. Serrada explains this indulgence by a story that in Chester the people per- secuted the Carmelites for styling themselves Brethren of the Virgin until during a procession an image of the Virgin pointed to them and said, " See, those are my brothers." — Escudo del Carmelo, pp. 80-2. ^ Camillo d'Ausilio, Sommario dell' Origine della Religione Carmelitana, pp. 87-156 (Brescia, 1603). 278 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. attend high mass on the first, second or third Simday in Lent and pray for his health and prosperity.^ The process, however, was gradual until towards the close of the fourteenth century, when probably the Great Schism assisted in breaking down all restraint. Even as late as 1359, when " the priests' emperor," Charles IV., begged for an indulgence for a chapel in his castle of Carlstein, where he had assembled particles of the true cross, one of the nails and a piece of the sponge of the Crucifixion, a thorn from the crown of thorns and numerous other relics, all that Innocent VI. granted to it was seven years and quarantines, and even this could be gained only once a year.^ In this development the activity of the religious Orders continued, both as to the graces obtainable by their members and those which contributed to their wealth and influence by reaching the laity through their churches and organizations. The amount of con- cessions of all kinds which they accumulated is almost beyond com- putation, and to present even a partial enumeration would tax the reader's patience too severely. I have alluded above to one granted to the Observantine Franciscans, the Clares and the Tertiaries, by Leo X., by which all the indulgences, plenary and partial, of the churches of Rome, Jerusalem, Compostella, and Assisi were obtain- able by a few recitations of the Pater, Ave, and Gloria Patri before the sacrament with arms outstretched ; then these conditions were relaxed and the prayers could be recited anywhere, at any hour of the day or night and in any position, and this moreover toties quotles — as often as the devotee chose to repeat it and apply it to a soul in purgatory. All this was multiplied indefinitely by repeated bulls admitting all the regular Orders to the privileges conferred on any one, so that each profited by the assiduity and inventiveness of all the others in procuring these graces. In every way papal liberality was exploited to stimulate for them the veneration and lavishness of the people. John XXI I. is said to have granted five years and five quarantines to all who should kiss the habit of a mendicant friar. To Clement IV. is attributed a remission of one third of all sins to those who died and were buried in the Franciscan habit, and those who sought this were expected to pay for the habit — not the indul- 1 Hergeurother, Leonis PP. X. Regesta n. 13791, 14628. ^ Weruusky, Exceri^ta ex Registris Clein. VI. et Innoc. VI. p. 137 (Inas- bruck, 1885). EXAGGERATED PARTIALS. 279 gence — a fitting "alms." Finally Urban VIII. empowered tlie provincials and superiors of the Franciscans to apply to all bene- factors of the Order all its suffrages, indulgences, prayers and spiritual benefits, and this, we are told, is the modern practice.* When plenaries came to be distributed with so prodigal a hand it can readily be imagined that partials were no longer restricted to the few days or years which were so eagerly sought in the earlier period. There has been a disposition in modern times to call in question the genuineness of indulgences for tens and hundreds of thousands of years on the ground that popes never could have issued them, and that the satisfaction due even by the greatest sinners could never extend to terms so prolonged.^ We may grant with van Est that they are absurd, but we must also admit with Bishop Bouvier that at any rate they are less than plenaries, and that if the latter can be granted so can the former.^ It is true that as they were remissions of so many years of penance they had no real significance beyond that of making an indulgence speculativ^ely attractive, though possibly it might be assumed that ignorant folk regarded the remission as that of so many years of purgatory, and these enormous terms served a double purpose of impressing timid souls with the prospect of what would seem a virtual eternity and at the same time offering them an easy means of escape. Doubtless many of the pardons of this kind freely hawked around were fraudulent, but I can see no reason to question that generations which would frame and accept belief in the scapular and Sabbatine Bull would be equally ready to grant and to seek these exaggerated indulgences. A vernacular English account of the " Stacions of Rome," drawn up about the year 1370, enumerates the enormous indulgences offered by the hundred and forty-seven Roman churches, of which two or three will serve as examples. We learn that at St. Peter's, from Holy Thursday to Lammas (August 1st), there is a daily indulgence of 14,000 years, and whenever the Vernicle (Sacro Volto) is exhibited there is one of 3000 years for citizens, 9000 for ^ Ferraris Prorapta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia, Art. v. n. 1-9, 18-43,71-6. —Amort de Indulg. I. 154-60. ^ Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 1.— Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. I 10.— Benedict! PP. XIV. De Synodo Diceces. Lib. xiii. Cap. xviii. § 8. See also Zerola's awkward attempt to explain them away (Tract. Jubilsei ac Indulg. Lib. i. Cap. xxi. Q. 7). ' Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, pp. 28-9. 280 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. Italians and 12,000 for pilgrims beyond the sea. At San Anastasio there is one of 7000 years every day, and at San Tommaso one of 14,000 years, with one-third of sins for all comers.^ Evidently the growth had been rank in the two centuries since Peter Cantor (p. 198) specified the modest two or three years to be gained in Rome on Holy Thursday. No papal documents could be produced to authenticate these extravagant promises, but they continued to be openly published from generation to generation, and to attract pilgrims from every part of Christendom, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of successive popes, so that they were at least tacitly confirmed, and the Holy See could not escape responsibility for them.^ It is true that Gerson suggests that all such excessive ^ The StacioDs of Rome, pp. 3, 4, 8 (Early English Text Society, 1867). See also pp. 30 sqq. for a later prose recension of this, of the last quarter of the fifteenth century. There is also a longer metrical version of the middle of the fifteenth century in the "Political, Eeligious and Love Poems" issued, in 1866, by the Early English Text Society. Evidently such advertisements of the attractions of Rome as a place of pilgrimage were widely and industriously disseminated during the later middle ages. Mr. Rossetti, in his notes to the earliest of the above (p. xv.), alludes to a German block-book of nearly 200 pages, entitled Mirabilia Eomce, apparently intended to perform the same service in Germany. ^ Benedict XIV. admitted the responsibility incurred by tacit acquiescence when, in 1751, he confirmed on this account all the indulgences claimed by the church of St. John Lateran, although there was no evidence to prove their genuineness (Bened. PP. XIV. Const. Assidme soUcitudinis, § 7, 6 Mali, 1751). The Lateran was perhaps the boldest of the Roman forgers. Among other frauds it displayed a tablet stating that Sylvester I. granted plenary remissions of all sins to all visiting it at any time ; that Gregory I. confirmed this on rebuilding the church after its destruction by heretics (!), and that Boniface had declared that " The Indulgences of the Lateran church cannot be counted save by God alone, and I confirm them all" (Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia, Art. vi. n. 24). This claim was as old as the fourteenth century. The earliest version of the Stacions of Rome says — Pope Silvester thenne seide he Of peter and poul and of me Thei schal be clene of synne and pyn As crist clanset the of thyn, And as the fulthe fel fro the So clene of sunne schal thei be (p. 9). The tablet was not displayed in the church till the close of the sixteenth century. Onofrio Panvinio, in 1568, in his elaborate description of the Lateran EXAQGEBATED PABTIALS. 281 indulgences may be fictions of the pardoners, for purgatory will end with the end of the world,^ but the popes had no hesitation in making equally liberal distribution of the treasure. In 1513 Leo X. granted to the Servite chapel of St. Annunciata at Florence, that all visiting it on Saturdays should obtain a thousand years and as many quar- antines, aud double that amount on the feasts of the Virgin, Christ- mas and Friday and Saturday of Holy Week.^ Even after the council of Trent had enjoined moderation in dispensing the treasure, Pius IV., in 1565, granted to the members of the confraternity of the hospital of St. Lazarus — besides several plenaries and the indul- gences of Santo Spirito in Saxia and the stations of Home, the jubilee and the Holy Land — a year and a quarantine for every day, 2000 years on each of the feasts of the Apostles, 100,000 years on Epiphany and each day of the octave, 3000 years and as many quarantines with remission of one-third of sins on every Sunday, 2000 years and 800 quarantines on Christmas, Resurrection, and Ascension and each day of their octaves, 8000 years and 8000 quar- antines on Pentecost and each day of the octave, 2000 years and one-seventh of sins on Corpus Christi aud each day of the octave, 30,000 years on the Nativity of the Virgin and each day of the octave, 3000 years and 3000 quarantines on All Saints and each day up to St Leonard's (November 1 to 6).^ When such reckless prodi- gality was possible after the council of Trent had called a halt there is no reason to question the validity of pre-Reformation in- dulgences simply on account of their excess. Miguel Medina had not long before justified this liberality by the argument that indul- gences cover the penance that ought to be enjoined as well as that which is enjoined ; no man knows what this is, nor anything about the duration of purgatorial punishment, nor even what are the years of purgatory, aud therefore the popes have acted wisely and pru- dently in granting these prolonged terms in order to make men feel and all its inscriptions (Le Sette Chiese di Roma), makes no mention of it; but about 1600 Rodriguez describes it (Explications della Bolla della S. Crociata, p. 94). ' Jo. Gersonis Opusc. de Indulg. Decima Consid. ^ Amort de Indulgent. I. 163. 3 Pii PP. IV. Bull. Infer assiduas, §? 143-5 (Bullar. II. 158). Pius V., on his accession, confirmed these privileges, but in 1567 he greatly reduced the por- tentous indulgences. — Bull. Sicuti bonn-^, § 62 (Ibid. p. 226). 282 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. safe.^ Lavorio adduces the iudulgences of 15,000 or 20,000 years as proof of the extent of purgatorial suffering which hardened sinners may expect, and Polacchi argues that they should not seem absurd or incredible when we reflect that a single day in purgatory corre- sponds to many years of the fiercest bodily anguish during life.^ About the year 1700 Viva tells us that the church of S. Maria Maggiore enjoys a daily indulgence of 12,000 years from Assumption to the Nativity of the Virgin (August 15th to September 8th), while Ferraris explains that if the cause for the grant is insufficient, an indulgence for 300,000 years may be good only for a thousand, and we shall see hereafter, when we come to consider the Stations of Rome, how recklessly these enormous concessions were multiplied/'' A recent manual of devotion asserts, on the authority of Liguori, that there is an indulgence of 3800 vears for hearino; mass, and the members of the confraternity of Our Lady of Consolation enjoy one of a thousand years/ With this multiplication and extension of pardons they became a sort of current coin with which the Church paid for any service that it might require. As was jocularly remarked in reference to the leaden seals appended to the bulls, the pope accomplished what the alchemists only attempted, for he changed lead into gold.^ If he desired to make good his claims on any attractive piece of territory contiguous to the Patrimony of St. Peter or to reduce to submission a recalcitrant vassal, the offer of an indulgence would speedily raise an army to effect his purposes. The curia was always in need of money, and, as we have seen, the one unfailing resource was a cru- zada or a jubilee, offered at a steadily diminishing price as time wore on and the market grew slack, or, as it was found that reduced cost increased the number of purchasers. Nor were these or the " alms- giving" to churches and convents the only objects, for indulgences came to be issued for the most varied and incongruous purposes. From 1 M. Medinae Disput. de Indulg. Cap. xlviii. — Pagai, Trattato dell' ludul- genze, Firenze, 1588, p. 12. ' Lavorii de Jubilaeo et Indulg. P. ii. Cap. x. n. 28. — Polacchi Comment. in Bull. Urbani VIII. p. 116. ^ Viva de Jubilaeo ac Indulg. p. 53. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth, s, v. Indul- gentia, Art. il. n. 36. * Golden Book of the Confraternities, p. 282. — Beringer, De Abliisse, p. 55. * Hemmerlin, Recajjitulatio de anno jubileo (Ed. 1497, q 3). MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS. 283 an early period, as we have seen, the building and repair of bridges and roads were regarded as appropriate motives, and the resource was too facile and too inexhaustible not to be extended farther. When, in 1229, Raymond of Toulouse, by one of the articles of the Treaty of Paris, was required to found a university in his capi- tal, as one of the means of eradicating heresy, the nascent institution, in a circular addressed to teachers and students everywhere, informs them that among its advantages is that, by the liberality of the car- dinal legate, it is enabled to offer a plenary indulgence to all professors and scholars.^ When, in 1367, Cardinal Albornoz died and his body was to be carried from Viterbo to Toledo, the gratitude of Urban V. for the territories which the martial legate had recovered for the Holy See expressed itself in the offer of a plenary to every one who on the long journey would lend a hand to carry the bier for howev^er short a distance.^ When, in 1514, the Lateran council adopted a severe decree against blasphemy it offered to judges for every con- viction an indulgence of ten years and one-third of the fine — a mingling of spiritual and temporal bribery not conducive to even- handed justice.^ In 1515 we find Leo X. appointing Adrian of Utrecht commissioner in the whole of the Low Countries for the sale of a plenary to raise money for the repair of the dykes.* There was perhaps a flavor of the crusades in plenaries granted in 1513 to en- courage privateering against Turkish commerce and corsairs, but this does not apply to so gross a prostitution of the treasure as an indul- gence, in 1514, offered to all visiting any cathedral church in Eng- land and contributing to the rebuilding of Xorham Castle, which ^ Denifle, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I. 129-31. — " Erat enim Moyses noster dominus cardiualis et legatus in regno Francie dux et protector et auctor post Deum et dominum papam tarn ardue inchoationis, qui statuit quod omnes Tholose studentes et magistri et discipuli, omnium peccaminum suorum indulgentiam consequantur." I cannot but feel some doubt as to the exactitude of this offer. The power of legates to issue indulgences was, as we have seen (p. 168), very limited, and at this period plenaries were strictly reserved for crusades. Possibly however the office of teaching and learning orthodox theology amid the heretic popu- lation of Toulouse may have been regarded as a continuation of the Albigensian crusades. "^ Sepulvedfe Rer. Gest. ^^gid. Albornot. Lib. in. ' C. Lateran. V. Sess. ix. (Harduin. IX. 1755). * Hergenriither, Regest. Leonis PP. X. n. 1742L 284 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. had been destroyed the year before by the Scots in the Flodden campaign/ If the favor of Henry VIII. was to be purcliased in this way, it was equally easy to bestow marks of papal benevolence on influential personages, as in the personal indulgence granted, in 1514, to Bernardo de Villamarin, Viceroy of Naples, his wife and children and all reciting certain prayers in his chapel, and to Alouso Pimentel, Count of Benavente, his wife and children and all visiting his chapel.^ We even find territorial indulgences, such as one granted by Alexander VI., at the instance of Inigo de Cordova, ambassador of Ferdinand and Isabella, to the town of Baena, which had distin- guished itself in the war with Granada, and this, in 1513, Leo X. extended for twelve years to all the population within twelve leagues of Baena.^ When we add to such as these the plenaries which were lavished apparently on every church that applied properly for them, and those which the Holy See was selling everywhere for its own benefit, we can appreciate the truth of Grone's admission when he says "All sluices of church indulgences were thrown open and the Bride of Christ let her treasures of grace stream over her faithful and contrite children as though from an inexhaustible cornucopia. Unfortunately the recipients w^ere not always so disposed as to derive the wished-for fruits of salvation from the benevolence of the Church."* The evils of this indiscriminate and reckless outpouring of the treasure were aggravated by the system adopted to extend the sale of pardons and reap the profits thence accruing. To render them fully productive it was necessary that they should be carried around and their benefits be fully explained to the faithful, who were ex- horted to perform the service or give the " alms " which would procure them. As early as 1118, in the indulgence oifered to those who would contribute to the necessities of the new bishopric of Sara- gossa, Bishop Pedro despatches his archdeacon Miorrand on this errand and promises that God will grant eternal life to those who hospitably receive liim and his companions.^ Of course the manner 1 Ibid. n. 7745, 7750, 9889. ^ Ibid. n. 11636, 11639. Cf. n. 6834, 7648, 7806. ^ Ibid. n. 8561. * Groae, Der Ablass, p. 76. ^ Blanca, Aragoneusium Rerum Comment, p. 140, THE PARDONERS. 285 in which this duty was performed depended upon the character of those commissioned. Men like St. Bernard, Foulques de Neuilly and Conrad of Marburg, who were empowered to " preach the cru- sade," as it was called, would do it irreproachably and with the object rather to inflame the religious ardor of the people than to gather in money, and yet where money was concerned it was impos- sible to keep out the baser elements and to prevent scandals. Even Foulques de Neuilly, who in three years had imposed the cross on 200,000 pilgrims and had collected immense sums, did not wholly escape, for though he remitted large amounts to Palestine, he was said to have retained a portion, and he evidently considered it sub- ject to his control, for we are told that on his death, in 1202, he bequeathed it to the crusade.^ The system of hiring preachers of indulgences must have become well established and its abuses patent when, in 1212, the council of Paris endeavored to control it by forbidding any one to serve for pay, whether he carried relics with him or not, except for a proper cause and with episcopal letters ; moreover the device of letting or farming out districts to such persons, which inevitably led to the grossest evils, was strictly prohibited." Sometimes these qucestuarii, as they were called, carried relics, through the virtue of which they deceived the people with lying promises of pardon, sometimes they bore indulgences, and sometimes both. Ciesarius of Heisterbach, who characterizes them as swindlers, relates how, when the monks of Bru- weiler desired to enlarge their church, some covetous priests obtained from them the precious relic of a tooth of St. Nicholas and carried it around the land, deceiving the people, till the saint, becoming in- dignant at their indecent conduct, broke the crystal of the reliquary, and the good monks recalled it and resolved that it should never again be allowed to leave the monastery.^ How these gentry con- ' Joannis Iperii Chron. aan. 1201; Rad. de Coggeshall. Chrou. ami. 1201 ; Rob. Altissiodor. Chronolog. ann. 1202; Chroa. Anon. Laudens. anu. 1199 (Dom Bouquet, XVIII. 601, 93, 265, 711). * C. Parisiens. ann. 1212, P. i. Cap. viii. (Harduin. VI. ii. 2002). ' Csesar. Heisterbacens. Dist. vill. Cap. 67, 68. Chaucer's description of the pardoner with his false relics and cozening ways is well known (Canterbury Tales, Prologue). See also Piers Plowman, Prologue, 68-79, and Sir David Lyndesay's "Satire of the Thrie Estaits " (Ed. Early English Text Soc. pp. 453-55). This practice of carrying around relics was already an old one. About 970 286 THE LA TER MIDDLE A GES. ducted themselves is indicated by a letter of Innocent III., in 1198^ to the Archbishop of Lyons, who had complained of those acting for the Hospitallers ; they had beaten the vicar of a church to the eiFu- sion of blood, and when tlie archbishop had interdicted the church until it should be reconciled they had continued to have divine ser- vice performed in it ; they permitted priests suspended by their bishops to perform their sacred functions ; though illiterate laymen, living with their wives or leading disorderly lives, they asserted their claims to privileges and immunities, aud refused to be responsi- ble to the laws of the land ; in short, they evidently were a peculiarly disreputable and dangerous element in the community.^ The council of Lateran, in 1216, sought to repress all these scandals. It ordered the bishops to see that the people were not deceived, as they were in so many places, by figments and false documents, that relics should not be taken from their places and hawked around to make money, and that the quaestuarii should be decent aud economical, avoiding taverns, not weariug the habit of Orders to which they did not belong, and not promising anything but what is set forth in their commissions, and that they should not be received unless they bore letters from the pope or the bishop of the diocese.^ From this time forward the councils everywhere throughout Europe were constantly occupied with the subject, giving ample evidence of the evil reputation of the clerics who followed the trade of pardoner, of the fruitless eflFort to keep them in restraint and to check their mendacity and extortion, while at the same time in many cases we have inklings that the bishops wished no interference with their profitable rights of issuing indulgences, and that the priests used their positions to share in the proceeds. Occasionally drastic measures were devised, as when, about 1266, Clement IV. decreed that priests were not bound to receive them in their houses or to provide them with neces- saries or to assemble the people to listen to them, even if required to Thietmar of Merseburg relates (Chron. Lib. iv. Cap. 47) that Abbot Liudulf of Corvey sent out a young monk with some relics of martyrs ; he treated them negligentlj'-, wherefore the indignant martyrs slew him and reported the matter to Liudulf, who had some trouble in procuring pardon for the soul of the delinquent. ^ Cap. 11 Extra, Lib. v. Tit. xxxiii.— Innoc. PP. III. Regest. Lib. i. Epist. 450. ' C. Lateran. ann. 1216, Cap. 62. — Cap. 14 Extra, Lib. vi. Tit. xxxviii. THE PARDONERS. 287 do so in their letters, and that any excommunication thereby in- curred was invalid/ The council of Salzburg, in 1274, went even further when it suspended all indulgences on account of their evil influence, chiefly arising from the qusestuarii, who led the people into error and caused the keys to be despised.' We need scarce be surprised at this if we may believe the utterance of the council of Maiuz, in 1261, which denounced the qufestuarii as in- famous liars, skilled in all wickedness, whose tongues know nothing but falsehood, and who abuse the word of God for filthy gain. They often exhibit as relics the profane bones of men and beasts, they in- vent miracles, their eyes are trained to weep, and with haggard faces, loud clamors and pitiful gestures they set forth their wares and promise remission of sins in such fashion that scarce any one can restrain himself from purchasing, to the destruction of discipline, for there are few who will accept penance from their priests, believ- ing, or at least asserting themselves to be absolved from their sins by such indulgences. And the gains thus stolen from the Church are spent in drunkenness, feasting, gambling and lechery. These pestiferous men are ordered to be perpetually banished from the province ; they are to be arrested wherever found and brought before the bishop, while, if any church requires assistance for repairs, the bishop shall send letters to the priests of the diocese setting forth the case and the indulgence offered, and the money so collected shall be conveyed to the church in need. How futile were these admirable regulations is seen by the provisions of a subsequent council in 1301, which orders all such persons to be suspended until they should be examined carefully and be furnished with new credentials.^ Quaes- * Clement. PP. IV. Extrav. Sedis apostolicce (Jo. Friburgens. Suminfe Con- fess. Lib. III. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 194). * C. Salisburgens. ann, 1274, Cap. 6 (Dalham Concil. Salisburgens. p. 119). ^ C. Mogunt. ann. 1261, Cap. 48; ann. 1301, Cap. 7 (Hartzheim III. 612-13, IV. 96). It is scarce worth while to accumulate passages on this subject from the conciliar proceedings. The student who desires further details can find them in C. Xarbonnens. ann. 1227, Cap. 19 (Harduin. VII. 148). — C. San- quintanum, ann. 1231, Cap. 7 (Gousset, Actes etc. II. 359). — C. Biterrens. ann, 1246, Cap. 5 (Harduin. VII. 409).— C. Cenomanens. ann. 1248 (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 1330-1).— C. Burdegalens. ann. 1255, Cap. 2, 9 (Harduin. VII. 470).— C. Monspeliens. ann. 1258, Cap. 6 (Ibid. p. 507).— C. Claromontan. ann. 1268, Cap. 11 (Ibid. p. 603).— X. Gelant. Episc. Andegavens. Synod. X. 288 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. tuarii were a necessity for pecuniary indulgences, and all efforts to restrain them or do without them were fruitless, for, no matter what wholesome rules might be devised by diocesan and provincial synods, there were always greedy prelates and needy churches to disregard them. As the council of Salzburg, in 1456, complains, a pardoner would buy for a livre a commission from a church, on which he would collect forty or fifty livres a year and squander the money in filthy dissipation.^ Those, moreover, who bore papal letters and travelled with a retinue of clerks and confessors were not easy to restrain, and had no scruple in resorting to forcible means when the local priesthood endeavored to keep them within bounds. In 1433 the priests of Freisingen appealed to the council of Bale for protec- tion against the quaestuarii of the Knights of St. John, who had come armed with indulgences granted by Martin V. and Eugenius IV. and insisted on extending the powers of their letters in various ways, absolving the people a culpa et a pcena, threatening all who interferred with them with suspension and excommunication and aun. 1270, Cap. 2; Synod. XXI. ann. 1277, Cap. 4 (D'Acliery I. 730, 733).— C. Budens. ann. 1279, Cap. 27-8 (Harduin. VII. 798).— Constit. Gualtheri Episc. Pictaviens. ann. 1280, Cap. 10 (lb. p. 854).— Statuta Cadurcens. c. ann. 1289, Cap. 13 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 692).— Synod. Remens. ann. 1303 (Martene Ampl, Collect. VII. 1364). — Statut. Cameracens. c. ann. 1310 (Hartzheim IV. 93).— C. Ravennat. ann. 1314, Cap. 20 (Harduin. VII. 1391) —Synod. Carno- tens. ann. 1325, Cap. 18; ann. 1368, Cap. 53 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 1366, 1399).— Statuta Cadurcens. ann. 1330, Cap. 8 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 689).— Statut. Eccles. Suessionens. ann. 1350, Cap. 19 (Gousset, Actes etc. II. 579). — Statut. Joh. Archiep. Remens. ann. 1362 (Ibid. p. 605).— Statut. Anton. Episc. Minorcens. ann. 1368 (Villanueva, Viage Literario XXI. 7).— Statut. Petri Archiep. Tarraconens. ann. 1372 (Ibid. XX. 7). — Statut. Petri Archiep. Tarra- conens. ann. 1410 (Ibid. p. 204). — Nueva Recopilacion, Lib. I. Tit. ix. ley 1. — C. Suessionens. ann. 1403, Cap. 105 (Gousset, II. 637).— C. Parisiens. ann. 1429, Cap. 27 (Harduin. VIII. 1048).— C. Frisingens. ann. 1440, Cap. 24 (Hartzheim V. 279).— C. Ambianens. ann. 1454, Cap. 3 | 10 (Gousset, II. 701).— C. Remens. ann. 1455 (Ibid. p. 736). — Statut. Cai^ituli Ambianens. ann. 1465, Cap. 12 (Ibid. p. 743).— C. Arandens. ann. 1472, Cap. 13 (Aguirre, V. 347).— C. Torna- cens. ann. 1485, Cap. 12 (Gousset, II. 768). — C. Bambergens. ann. 1491, Tit. 55 (Hartzheim V. 628).— C. Senonens. ann. 1524 (Bochelli Decret. Eccles. Galli- can. p. 981).— C. Carnotens. ann. 1526 (Ibid. p. 982).— C. Bituricens. ann. 1528, Cap. 5 (Harduin. IX. 1921). — Edit de 1538 (Isambert, Anciennes Loix Fran- gaises, XIII. 551).— Concilio de Coria, ann. 1537 (Barrantes, Aparato para la Historia de Extremadura, I. 473). 1 C. Salisburgens. ann. 1456 (Dalham, p. 239). THE PARDONERS. 289 stirring u]) disaffection among the people, doubly dangerous in view of the vicinity of the Hussites/ These little eccentricities might be viewed with equanimity at headquarters so long as the proceeds were honestly accounted for, but men of the character employed in the business were apt to prefer their own gains to the interests of their superiors. AVe have seen how Boniface IX. treated his commissioners, and how violent were the means by which he forced them to disgorge. This must have been a not uncommon experience, for a Formulary of the fifteenth century contains a form suited to such occasions. In it the chief of the hospital of Santo Spirito describes how his qua?stuarii, especially in Spain, had deceived the people by false promises, and how they had converted the receipts to their own use, wherefore he commis- sions his representative to follow them, seize all their belongings, equipages and money, arrest their persons, calling, if necessary, on the secular arm, and deposit all the property he obtains in safe hands. ^ Xothing is said as to punishing them for their frauds on popular credulity, for such offences were easily condoned if unaccom- panied by the far more serious guilt of malversation. According to the taxes of Benedict XII. the scrivener's fee was only six grossi for absolution for selling indulgences on forged letters, as well as for pretending to be a priest and as such hearing confessions and administering the sacrament of penitence.^ The Church at large did little to second the efforts of local councils to pnrifv the system. The popes, it is true, not infrequently, when ^ MS. Hist. Frisingensis (Amort, II. 37-9). That the Freisingen priests were clearly within their rights under the canon law is evident from Bishop William Durand's summary of the mutual duties of the qutestuarii and local clergy. — Durandi Speculi Lib. iv. Partic. iv. De Pcenit. et Remiss, n. 1, 2. The Extravagant of Clement IV. releasing priests from all obligation of receiving pardoners and summoning the people to hear them continued to be quoted until the sixteenth century. — Summa Angelica s. v. Qucesfunrii ; Summa Syl- vestrina s. v. Qucestuarii. Yet sometimes towards the close of the middle ages bulls of indulgences contained a clause excommunicating and suspending all parish priests and monks and friars who should interfere with their publica- tion and preaching. For an example of this, in a grant to the church of Xaintes . see Appendix. ■■* Formularium Instrumentorum ad usum Curie Romane, fol. 32 (v/wc noto). ^ Denifle, Die iilteste Taxrolle der Apost. Ponitentiarie (Archiv f. Litt. u. K.- Geschichte. IV. 224-5. Ill— 19 290 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. granting indulgences, made it a condition that they should not be exploited through quajstuarii, and a clause to this effect is to be found in the formulary of the Avignonese papal chancery for indul- gences conditioned on money contributions to churches ;^ but as they almost never adopted this precaution with those issued for the benefit of the Holy See the inference is clear that it was simply to prevent competition with their own agents and not from any desire to curtail abuses. The same motive may be ascribed to the power granted to inquisitors to coerce all preachers of indulgences. Gregory IX., in 1235, when sending Dominicans to preach the cross in Tuscany, ordered them to silence, by censures without appeal, any qusestuarii who should interfere with their success. Innocent IV., in 1253, granted the same power to those who in France were preaching the cross in aid of St. Louis, and Clement IV., in 1265, when organ- izing the crusade against Manfred of Sicily, gave the same authority to the preachers. The Inquisition, which by this time was in thorough working order, formed a convenient instrument for per- forming this function everywhere and at all times, and, in 1254, Innocent IV., when engaged in raising a crusading army against Ezzelin da Romano, included in the commission to inquisitors facul- ties for preventing qusestuarii from preaching, a clause which became usual in all such commissions, and finally became embodied in the canon law.' This power to silence them, if exercised with moderate vigilance, would have put an end to the lies and deceits with which they fleeced the people and disgraced the Church, and the fact that the Inquisition exercised no perceptible influence in checking these abuses, which continued unabated until after the Reformation, shows that the faculty was not designed for such use, but merely to prevent interference with the papal harvests.^ ^ The earliest instance I have met of this is in an indulgence granted to the cathedral of Aarhuus, in 1254:, by Innocent IV. (Langebek et Suhm, Scriptt. Rer. Danic. VI. 391), and it is found occasionally thereafter, as in some of Clement IV. (Boletin de la Eeal Academia de la Historia XVI. 52. — Eaynald. ann. 1268, n. 194), one of Honorius IV. in 1286 (Ripoll, II. 12), one of Benedict XI. in 1304 (Ibid. p. 98), and several of Clement V. in 1309 (Regest. Clement PP. V. n. 4747, 4762, 4829).— Tangl, Die papstlichen Kanzlei- Ordnungen, pp. 331-2 (Innsbruck, 1894). 2 Ripoll I. 82, 233, 242, 461.— Cap. 11, f 2 in Sexto, Lib. v. Tit. ii. ^ I have met with but one case of the trial of a pardoner by the Inquisition THE PARDONERS. 291 It is true that at the general coiiucil of Lyons, in 1245, tlie Arch- bishop of Reims was forbidden to grant to his qna?stuarii, employed for the fabric of his cathedral, power of citing before the archi- episcopal court the subjects of his suffragans on the charge of resist- ance or disobedience, though it was added that the suffragans can kindly warn their subjects to give the pardoners a benignant recep- tion, and the incorporation of this in the canon law indicates that the tyranny and extortion against which it was directed cannot have been uncommon.' At the next general council, held in Lvons in 1274, Humbert de Romanis, who had been General of the Domin- icans, urged action on the subject, representing that the qusestuarii by their lies and uncleanness disgraced the Church and rendered it a subject of ridicule ; they corrupt the prelates by bribery and are therefore allowed to say what they like ; they gain much and pay over but little to the churches and they deceive the people with false relics.^ The appeal was wasted and the council took no action. The council of Vienue, in 1312, was more energetic. It enumerated in vigorous terms the frauds and lies whereby the pardoners amassed gold, to the peril of souls and discredit of the Church ; it ordered the provisions of the Lateran canon to be enforced, and the qufestu- arii themselves to be examined before intrusting them with com- missions ; it withdrew all privileges on which they could base their excesses, and it exhorted the bishops to punish them when found guilty, without regard to their claims of exemption.^ This was all well devised legislation, but its enforcement was impossible in the corruption of the age and in the face of the numerous interests in- extricably intertwined with the abuses of the system. John XXII. gave an example of how reform could alone be brought about when, on November 1, 1330, at the same hour, he caused throughout France — that of Berenger Pomelli by Guillaume de Saint-Seine, in 1289, at Carcas- sonne. He was a poor varlet who made a livelihood by selling indulgences for local purposes. Had he been engaged on a crusading indulgence he would probably not have been interfered with. See History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, III. 623, 662. 1 Cap. 1 in Sexto Lib. v. Tit. i. - H. de Eomanis de Tractandis in C. Lugdunens. P. in. Cap. 8 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VIII. 197). ' Cap. 2 Clement. Lib. v. Tit. ix. — Cf. Summa Pisanella s. v. Qucestiiarii, n. 3. 292 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES. all the brethren of the Hospital of Altopasso to be seized and thrown into the episcopal prisons because they exceeded in their promises the warrant of their papal letters.^ At least this was the reason alleged, though we may surmise that some political motive connected with his struggle with Louis of Bavaria was rather at the bottom of his vigorous action, for we hear of no other victims, while the trade of pardon-selling continued to flourish unchecked. At the council of Constance Cardinal d'Ailly presented an enumer- ation of the abuses calling for abatement, among which he specified, nearly in the words of Humbert de Romanis, the frauds and wrong- doing of the quaestuarii, and, in the project of reform drawn up by the council, the enforcement of the canon of Vienne is urged, only priests of good reputation being permitted to sell indulgences, and this without preaching or lying. In the very slender measure of reform, however, finally conceded by Martin V. there was no mention of this, and of course there was no improvement.^ The council of Bale took no action, though Gilles Charlier, in his answer to the complaints of the Hussites, airily remarked that there was nothing to be said as to the venality and excesses connected with indulgences except that they should be abolished.^ The promise was easily made, but there was no thought of its performance. In the instructions as to interrogato- ries to be put in the confessional there is one to bishops as to whether they permit quaestuarii to offer indiscreet and false indulgences, while priests are to be asked whether they allow them to put forward fic- titious pardons and spurious relics, and whether they make bargains to share in the proceeds, all of which are mortal sins.* This partici- pation of bishop and priest in the unhallowed gains of these unscrupu- lous knaves had long been the object of remonstrance by zealous reformers, who clearly saw that it lay at the root of the whole ^ Contin. Guillel. de Nangiaco aun. 1330. The Spedale del Altopasso was established in the twelfth century on the Arno, with the speciality of ferrying pilgrims over rivers. Apparently the good brethren served as their own qusestuarii. "^ P. de Alliaco de Emendatione Ecclesiae Cap. iv. (Von der Hardt, I. 424). — Decret. Reform. Lib. v. Tit. x. (Ibid. p. 754).— Decreta Martini PP. V. in Synodo Constant, n. xiv. (Harduin. VIII. 883). '3 Harduin. VIII. 1793. * S. Antonini Confessionale fol. 666. — Bart, de Chaimis Interrogator, fol. 93a. THE PARDONERS. 293 trouble.' It was, perhaps, through au effort to escape the moral responsibility thus involved that the question was seriously debated whether a man deceived by the lies of a pardoner into purchasing an indulgence really gained or not the indulgence which he expected." When the progress of the Reformation w^arned the curia that the time was coming to put its house in order, Paul III., in dread of the general council, so loudly demanded on all sides, submitted to his counsellors for their opinions the questions as to the abuses most bitterly complained of. A report presented to him, probably in 1536, asks why the employment of pardoners should be condemned; if they are disreputable and abuse the faculties granted to them, the episcopal officials have full power to stop their proceedings and to punish their ill-deeds. The only remedy proposed is the futile one suggested by the council of Vienne — that the bishops should have them examined and approve their fitness.^ The celebrated Coa- siliuiii de emendanda Ecdesia, drawn up for Paul, in 1538, by a com- mission of cardinals and exalted prelates, was more outspoken. It recommended the abolition of the qusestuarii of the hospitals of Santo Spirito, St. Antony and the like, who deceive the ignorant and teach them innumerable superstitions — but it cautiously refrains from touch- ing on those who labored for the Holy See in vending indulgences for St. Peter's and the crusade.^ Finally, the council of Trent took the matter energetically in hand, but its action and results can be more conveniently considered hereafter when we come to treat of the counter-Reformation and its consequences. The reckless dispensation of the treasure of the Church did not wholly escape condemnation by the more thoughtful and unselfish ecclesiastics. Even before the evil had attained its subsequent pro- portions the great Franciscan preacher, Berthold of Regensburg, constantlv inveighed in his sermons against the hawking around of so many papal indulgences.^ A tract attributed to Gersou, and > Opusc. Tripartit. P. in. Cap. 8 (Fascic. Rer. Expetend. Ed. 1690, IT. 227). — Collectio de Scandalis Ecclesise (Dollinger, Beitriige zur politischen, Kirch- lichen u. Cultur-Geschichte, HI. 184). ^ Steph. ex Xottis Opus Remissionis fol. Ibla. 5 Dollinger, op. cit. III. 233. * Le Plat, :Monumentt. Concil. Trident. II. 603. ^ Gassari Annales Augstburgens. ann. 1266 (Menkenii Scriptt. R. Germ. I. 1452). 294 THE LATER MIDDLE AOES. written to prove the necessity of assembling a general council to reform the Church, is excessively bitter on the venality of the curia, which lies to God and man with its indulgences and benedictions and dispensations, calling evil good and good evil. The writer attributes this to Boniface IX., and adds that if it cannot be eradi- cated the pope and cardinals will appropriate all the wealth of the world, and what they gain by these simonies is lavished on the worst of men to enlarge the temporal dominion of the Roman Church.^ When the council had failed to provide for the desired reform the concordats framed between the Holy See and England and Germany show how oppressive and injurious the system was felt to be by Christendom. The English document is especially outspoken ; men are led into greater audacity of sinning; churches which enjoy in- dulgences are frequented to the impoverishment of others, which are thus deprived of the oblations of their parishioners, wherefore the bishops are authorized to investigate all indulgences, with power to suspend those which are scandalous and report them to the pope for revocation.^ Gerson, in 1427, urged those who granted indulgences to be more moderate, so as not to derogate from divine justice and create scandal for the weak.^ ,Other writers endeavored to abate the evil by insisting on rigorous rules as conditions for winning these remissions of sin ; if forgotten sins are to be included the con- science must be repeatedly searched and the penitent must return to his confessor several times, while to gain a plenary there should be a full and general confession of all sins since infaucy.* Indeed, about the middle of the fifteenth century there seems to have been * a strong reactionary tendency against the whole system. Dionysins Rickel, Johannes Major, and other authorities of the period show a disposition to call in question the value of indulgences, to dwell on their evil influence and to insist more strongly upon the necessity of the penitent earning for himself a claim for pardon.^ Cardinal Matthew of Krokow denounces the sale of iudulsences as a sale of ^ Jo. Gersonis de Reform. Eccles. Cap. xxv. xxvii. (Von der Hardt, I. v. 129-30, 134). ^ C. Constantiens. Sess. xliii. Concord. Anglican. Cap. 2 ; Concord. German. Cap. 10 (Harduin. VIII. 893). ^ Jo. Gersonis Opusc. de Indulgent. Cousid. xir. * Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. 14, 15. 5 Amort de Indulgent. II. 93-4, 114-15, 118, 126. OPPOSITION AROUSED. 295 the blood of Christ.^ In 1457 Martin Meyer, writing to ^lilneas Sylvins to congratulate him on his elevation to the cardinalate, takes occasion to complain of the papal exactions which have reduced Germany from affluence to poverty, and among them he includes the constant issue of new indulgences with the sole object of scrap- ing money together, and the new cardinal can only in reply express his wonder that objection should be made, seeing that the proceeds are entrusted to the pope for distribution ; in fact, he adds, it is all merely a question of money, and this has always existed, because men are greedy and insatiable." The abuse continued to be felt, and in 1511 it formed one of the grievances of the German nation against the papacy, drawn up by order of Maxmilian I.^ Of course complaints grew louder after Luther had raised the standard of revolt. The orator who replied to the papal legate at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1518, bewailed the fact that Germany, in constantly admitting indulgences, was exchanging gold for lead, and he even ventured to allude to the story in circulation that the money raised was not really spent on St. Peter's, but that the marble ostensibly carved for it by day was secretly at night conveyed to Florence to con- struct the Mediceau palace.^ With the progress of the quarrel all reticence was cast aside, and in the list of a hundred grievances drawn up by the Assembly of Xiirnberg, in 1523, and sent to Adrian VI. the scandals and oppression connected with the sale of indulgences were treated with a candid vigor that could scarce be exceeded by Luther himself.^ This, however, belongs to a period beyond our present scope, and will be alluded to more fully hereafter. ^ Matt, de Cracovia de Squaloribus Rom. Curia? (Fascic. Eer. Expetend. II. 603). ' Goldast. Politica Iinperialia, p. 1039.— .Enese Sylvii Epistt. 338, 345, 369. ^ Gravamina German. Xationis n. viii. (Freher. et Struv. Rer. Germ. Scrijitt. II. 677) " Indulgentise novse cum revocatione aut suspensione veterum (laicis contra clerum murmurantibus) ad corradendas pecunias conceduntur." * Op. cit. pp. 702-3 — " Laurentius sedificat, non Petrus. Lapides noctu migrant." The story is told more at length by Paul Lang, Chron. Citizens. ann. 1513 (Pistorii Rer. Germ. Scriptt. I. 1280). The authorship of the Augs- burg oration has been commonly attributed to Ulric Hutten. ' Gravamina Centum, Cap. iii. iv. (Le Plat, Monumentt. Cone. Trident. II. 165-6). CHAPTER YI. APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. Not the least of the causes which stimulated the development of indulgences toM'ards the close of the medieval period was the dis- covery that they could be used to relieve the souls of the departed in purgatory. This, which speedily became one of the leading objects of the dispensation of the treasure, requires for its proper comprehension a brief review of the gradual evolution of the belief in purgatory as a sojourn where the spirits of those who die in a state of grace pay in torment the debt due for venial sins and for the mortals of which the guilt has been absolved in the sacrament of penitence, without the performance of sufficient satisfaction. The primitive eschatology which provided only the alternatives of heaven and hell, both eternal in duration, could scarce fail to raise doubts and questions as to the fate of tliose whose imperfections seemed not to merit the reward of the endless joys promised to the saints, and yet for whom the never-ending torments of hell were a doom too merciless to be ascribed to a just and benignant Father. The predestinarianism of St. Paul rendered speculation on this point superfluous, but as men trained in the culture of the age began to build up a body of theology they could scarce avoid considering the subject, to which, despite its tremendous importance, they could find no Avord of guidance in gospel and epistle.^ The problem moreover ^ The chief texts in which the necessities of Catholic exegesis have sought to find a reference to purgatory have pkinly no bearing on the matter. They are — " But he that shall speak against the Holy G-host it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come " (Matt. xil. 32)— the force of which is weakened by the corresponding passages in Luke (xii. 10) and Mark (iii. 29), where there is no allusion to the world to come. The argument derived from it is that it infers that there are sins which may be pardoned in the future life, and therefore that there must be a purgatory— a wholly irrelevant deduction, incompatible with the accepted doctrine that no mortal sin can be pardoned after death. PRIMITIVE ESCHATOLOGY. 297 was seriously complicated by the acceptance of the doctrine of the resurrection and day of judgment, derived from Mazdeism through Judaism, under which the destiny of the soul is not to be determined until the Second Advent. It was impossible to reconcile this with the parable of Dives and Lazarus, with the words of Christ to the penitent thief, "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise" (Luke XXIII. 43), and with the desire expressed by St. Paul to be dissolved and to be with Christ (Philipp. i. 23). We shall presently see the devices finally adopted to elude the incompatibility.^ As there was nothing in scripture to teach an intermediate state between heaven and hell, where souls not damned might be prepared "Amen, I say to thee thou shalt not go from thence till thou repay the last farthing" (Matt. v. 26). " For other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid ; which is Christ Jesus. "Xbw if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble : " Every man's work shall be manifest ; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. " If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. " If any man's work burn he shall suflFer loss ; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." (I. Cor. iii. 11-15.) If these somewhat enigmatical utterances are intended to refer to the future life, the Fathers who, as we shall see, deduced from them that punishment is not to be eternal, were fairly justified. When the question of purgatory was debated between the Latins and Greeks at the council of Florence, in 14.38, the passage, I. Cor. iii. 11-15, was the only one cited by the former in support of their doctrine. — Bzovii Annal. ann. 1438, No. 25. More ingenious than convincing is the argument of Werstemius against Luther, that the apostles did not specifically refer to purgatory, because it was so universally recognized that no allusion to it was necessary. — Joan. Werstemii adversus Lutherante Sectse Eenatum quemdam de Purgatorio Disputatio (s. 1. e. a. sed Colon. 1528). ^ The Jews were exposed to the same ditficulty. See the four conflicting theories enumerated by Maimonides, Comment, in Mishnam, Sanhedrin, xi. 1. See also Abarbanel's "Fourteen Roots," in his introduction to Isaiah, printed with illustrative notes by Pococke. Cf. ii. Esdras vii. 26-35. For the Mazdean conception of the resurrection and judgment at the com- ing of the Messiah Saoshyans, see Zamyad-Yasht, 11, 19, 89 (Avesta, Traduit par C. de Harlez, III. 77. 78, 88-9).— Diog. Laertii Vit. Philosoph. Procem. 9. — Bundehesh Cap. xxxi. (Uebersetzt von Justi, pp. 40-43). 298 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. for eternal bliss, the earlier Fathers, for the most part, had no con- ception of such a provision, and indeed the constant expectation of the Second Advent as momentarily impending seemed to render such speculations superfluous. As a rule, they do not waste much time on eschatological doctrines; they know of heaven and hell and the resurrection, but of nothing else.' It is the same with the creeds. That of Hippolytus alludes to the day of judgment, but not to any provision for preparing souls to meet it, and the gradually develop- ing symbols which were evolved from it show an equal absence of any belief in a doctrine which has since become so prominent an article of faith.- Perhaps the most authoritative utterance in the third century is the letter to Cyprian from the Roman church, in 250, during the interregnum between Fabianus and Cornelius, in which God is said to have prepared heaven and hell, and no allusion is made to any intermediate condition, a reference to which would have been unavoidable had there existed a conception of such a place.^ Cyprian himself shows how vague and unsettled were as yet the beliefs as to all details beyond this ; he tells us that there is no place for repentance hereafter ; the destiny of the soul is decided here; the end of the world is at hand; but he ignores the delay till the day of judgment when he comforts his flock during a pestilence by assuring them that their dear ones are awaiting them in paradise in the company of the prophets, apostles and martyrs, and again he assumes that those who die unreconciled go at once to hell, while 1 Clement. Epist. I. ad Corintli. xi. 16-20.— Justini Martyris Apol. ii. — Tatiaui contra Grsecos Orat.— Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, Philipps's Transl. p. 45 (London, 1876).— Tertull. de Poenit Cap. xii.— Ps. Clement. Epist. II. ad Corintli. ll. 16. — Athenag. de Resurrect. Mortuorum. — Minucii Felicis Octavius. —Clement. Recognit. Lib I. Cap. 24, 49, 51 . 2 Canon. Hippol. xix. 122; xxxviii. 257 (Achelis, pp. 96-7, 136). So in the Symbol of the Apostles Ave have the resurrection and the coming of Christ to judge the quick and the dead, but nothing about an intermediate state. In the Tridentine Confession of Faith, however, purgatory is introduced " Con- stanter teneo Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium sufFragiis juvari."— Pii PP. IV. Bull. Injunctam Nobis, 13 Nov. 1564. ^ Cypriani Epist. xxx. (Ed. Oxon.) " Deus . . . paravit co?lum sed paravit et tartarum. Paravit refrigeria sed paravit etiam seterna supplicia. Paravit inaccessibilem lucem sed paravit etiam perpetuse noctis vastam seter- namque caliginem." PRIMITIVE ESCHATOLOGY. 299 those mHo die iu the Church will be judged by God when he comes.' In the apocalyptic and apocryphal writings, so numerous in the earlier centuries, which, though not canonical, unquestionably rep- resent the ideas current among Christians to explain what M'as left uncertain in Holy Writ, there is no conception of a condition inter- mediate between heaven and hell. The soul is judged as soon as it leaves the body ; the references to the resurrection are merely such as are necessary to keep in line with dogma ; if the soul is found to be righteous, which rarely occurs, it is admitted at once to bliss ; if wicked, it is delivered to the avenging angel Tar- taruch, and is carried to eternal punishment. There are disputes between good and evil angels over doubtful cases, resulting in salva- tion or damnation as may happen ; in the Syriac version of the Apocalypse of Paul there is an attempt to explain the salvation of the partially good by the assertion that, if a righteous man sins, God sends him punishment in retribution during life. Purification post-mortem evidently as yet formed no part of belief, unless we accept as such an intimation iu the Testament of Isaac that the punishment of sinners is not eternal, but endures only " until the God of mercy be merciful and have mercy on them."- The question as to whether judgment is immediate or postponed till the resurrection was a puzzling one. St. John had said (v. 28 -29) that the dead rest in their graves till the Lord comes, when the good shall arise to life and the wicked' to judgment, but this did not meet Avith universal acceptance. A tract which passes nnder the name of Ju.stin Martyr, but which belongs to the third or fourth century, declares that at death the good are at once conducted to paradise, where they enjoy the Beatific Vision, while the evil are thrust into hell to await the resurrection and judgment; during the ^ Cypriani Epi>t. ad Demetrianum ad calcem ; De Mortalitate ad calcem; Epist. LV. ad Autonianuin. A passage in the latter epistle has been adduced to prove that Cyprian believed in the future purgation of sinners by fire, but in view of his other utterances it can only be regarded as a figure of rhetoric. 2 The Testament of Abraham, by M. E. James (Cambridge, 1892).— The Revelation of Paul (Clark's Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. XVI. pp. 480-3). — Jude, I. 9. — Origenis Homil, xxxv. in Lucam. 300 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. interval the soul has consciousness but not the bodily senses.^ Lac- tantius, on the other hand, postpones the judgment till the last day, at least for Christians ; if their good works prevail they are then admitted to bliss; if the evil preponderates they are coudemned to torment : but those who know not God are already condemned and are not resurrected (John iii. 18).- In either case, it will be seen, the idea of a place or term of purgation is excluded. The question as to immediate judgment or postponement until the resurrection refused to be settled. St. Hilary of Poitiers assumes that the pun- ishment of the impious commences at once, while the glory of the blest is postponed till the resurrection, and at that time sinners will be judged.^ St. Optatus assumes that at the day of judgment Christ will determine who are his children and who are not.* St. Zeno, on the other hand, assures us that at death the soul is assigned to a place of rest or of punishment where it awaits the resurrection, when the saints will arise to heaven and the sinners and heathen to hell.'' Chrysostom holds that at once the righteous go to Christ and the wicked to torment, and that there is no place for repenting and washing away our sius after death.^ The Sibylline Books consign all souls to Hades, a place of darkness and silence where they await the day of judgment, the righteous encouraged with the hopes of heaven, and the wicked tormented with the anticipations of eternal fire.^ There is no provision for the purification of the intermediate class. Yet it was impossible that all minds should assent to this arbitrary division into the elect and the reprobate, and some middle term was naturally sought which should reconcile divine justice and mercy with the infinite gradations of human imperfection. As early as the second century St. Irenseus suggests that after the resurrection the righteous will dwell on earth, iu paradise or in heaven, according to ^ Ps. Just. Mart. Explicationes Qutestt. a Gentt, Christiaais positar. Q. 2, 3, 60, 75, 76, 77, 109, 120. ^ Lactant. Divin. Institt. Lib. Vll. Cap. xi., xx., xxiii. ' Hilarii Pictaviens. Tract, in Ps. i. n. 17-19; in LVii. n. 5; Comment, in Matth. Cap. 5. * S. Optati de Schismate Donatist. Lib. vii. Cap. ii. * S. Zenonis Veronens. Tractatus. Lib. I. Tract, xvi. n. 2, IL * S. Jo. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Philippens. Homil. ill. n. 3, 4 ; De Lazaro Concio II. n. 8. ' Alexandre, Excursus ad Sibyllina, Exc. Vi. Cap. xxi. (Parisiis, 1856). SVGGESIIONS OF PURGATION. 301 their several deserts, and there is au obscure intimatiou of some pre- liminary discipline which shall prepare man for incorruption/ It was quite natural that such conceptions should be formed, for among the pagans there was belief in a future life in M'hich the wicked are tormented in a purgatorial process, gradually purging the sins which have not been punished on earth.^ The Shepherd of Hermas speaks of purification by torment after death of those who have not justified themselves in life, when their degree of repentance will determine whether the punishment is temporary or eternal.'^ Origeu's specu- lations were not wholly consistent. In one passage he tells us that at the day of judgment every one will be sent to a place fitted for his merits and demerits ; elsewhere he asserts that no man is per- fectly pure, even Peter and Paul require purification after death. God will sit in judgment and purge all souls with fire ; the lead will be burnt away and the pure gold remain, but the more the lead the longer will be the process, while he who is all lead will be plunged into the abyss as lead into the sea.^ St. Hilary of Poitiers to some ^ Ireiifei contra Hferes. Lib. v. Cap. 35, 36. '^ Plutarcbi de Sera Numina Vindict. xxir. — Virgilii ^Eneidos vi. 738-47. See also the Commentary of Servius on this passage. ^ Hermse Pastor. Lib. i. Vis. iii. * Origenis Tvept A'px<^v Lib. li. Cap. ix. |§ 6-8; In Numeros Homil. xxv. | 6 ; In Ps. XXXVI. Homil ili. § 1 ; In Exodum Homil. vi. Cap. 4. Those who are resurrected to eternal fire will be clothed in an incorruptible body capable of enduring it forever, but this fire is supplied by each for himself out of his own sins ; it is the consciousness of his sins and the fury of his passions that will torment him. — Hepl A'px(^v Lib. ii. Cap. ix. | 3. This was a heresy combated by St. Jerome (Epist. cxxiv. § 7), who likewise accuses Origen (|§ 10-11) of teaching metempsychosis. Origen however ex- pressly denies transmigration (Contra Celsum Lib. iv. § 17), though he asserts that all souls are pre-creations, sent to earth, heaven or hell, according to their deserts in the anterior life {Ylfpl A'px(^v, ubi sup.). See also Hieron. Epistt. LXXXV. § 5 ; xcvi. ^1 7, 8; xcvill. |§ 10, 11. The orthodox doctrine of the resurrection was not adopted without consider- able opposition. It was not only heresiarchs such as Marcus, Hieraca and Seleucus that denied it (S. Augustin. de Hseresibus, xiv. XLVii. Lix.), but, if Celsus is to be believed, many Christians rejected it (Origenis contra Celsum Lib. V. I 14). During the fourth century we find Hilary of Poitiers (Com- ment, in Matth. Cap. 5), St. Ambrose (de Excessu Fratris Lib. ll. |§ 48-108) and St. Jerome (contra Joannem Hierosol. Cap. 31 ; contra Eufinum Lib. ll. Cap. 5) busy in defending it, and even at the close of the sixth century Gregory the Great tells us not only that many disbelieved it, but that he himself had done so formerly (Homil. in Evangelia, Homil. xxvi. ? 12). 302 APPLICATION^ TO THE DEAD. extent followed Origeu ; after the day of judgment there will be a purgatorial fire to burn away our sins — doubtless proportioned to their gravity.^ St. Ambrose sought to solve the problem by a theory which assimilates him to the Chiliasts. He quotes the Apocalypse (xx. 6) " Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrec- tion," and says that these come to grace without judgment, while those who are reserved for the second resurrection will burn through- out the interval between the two, and then, if they shall not have fulfilled their punishment they will be kept still longer in torment.^ St. Jerome is not wholly consistent in his utterances. He mentions, without condemning, a current belief that after death there will come a personal struggle with Satan, fiercer than in life ; he tells us that there is no opportunity for repentance hereafter — the tree lies as it falls — but, when balancing between those who held future punish- ment to be temporary and those who regarded it as eternal, he in- clines to the belief that the devil and the impious who deny God will suifer for ever, while wicked Christians will all have their sins purged by fire and find the sentence of the judge to be mercifuP — a conception not very far removed from the speculations of Origen. Rufinus seems to know no alternative between endless bliss and bale.^ Thus far there had been no definite acceptance of the idea of purga- ^ S. Hilarii Pictaviens Tract, in Ps. cxviii. n. 5, 12. 2 S. Ambros. in Ps. I. Enarrat. I 54. Cf. H 51-3, 56 ; De Spiritu Sancto Lib. I. I 170 ; De Fide Lib. v. Cap. xvii. For the Chiliasts or Millenarians see Epiphan. Panar. Hteres. Lxxvii. This first resurrection was a matter not easily explained. Hippolytus of Porto (De Christo et Antichristo | 65) accepts it without expounding it. St. Augustin (De Civitate Dei Lib. xx. Cap. 6) places the first resurrection in the present life, when the sinner becomes converted and reforms ; no one can share in the glories of the final resurrection who has not experienced the first. In this he is followed by St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (De Eemiss. Peccator. Lib. ii. Cap. xii.) and St. Eloi of Noyon (Homil. viii.), while the Venerable Bede (Explanat. Apocalyps. Lib. iii. Cap. xx.) explains that the first resurrection is baptism. This however was not the accepted doctrine, for some liturgies of the period, in the prayers for the dead, ask that the soul may be admitted to the first resurrection. — Missale Gothicum (Muratori T. XIII. P. iii. pp. 305, 417, 432); Sacrament. Galilean. (Ibid. pp. 895, 896). For the various attempts to solve the enigma see Patuzzi, Defuturo Impiorum Statu, pp. 301 sqq. ^ S. Hieron. Comment, in Epist. ad Ephes. Lib. ii. Cap. vi. v. 13; Super Ecclesiast. 11 ; Comment, in Isaiam Lib. xvii. Cap. Ixvi. * Rufini Comment, in Symbol. Apostolor. n. 43. SPECULATIONS OF ST. AUGUSTIN. 303 tory, a place or condition of temporary punishment, intermediate between heaven and hell, destined for those not good enough for the former and too good for the latter. Speculation however had been tending in that direction, and it received a decided impulse from St. Augustin, who, in his repeated discussions of everything connected with faith and morals, was necessarily forced to treat of eschatology from every point of view. He is the authority most frequently and confidently quoted in support of the antiquity of the modern doc- trine of purgatory, but his views with respect to it were by no means consistent or decided. In an extended discussion on the future life he asserts positively that there are but two places for the soul after death — the Kingdom of God and damnation with Satan/ Yet the interval between death and the day of judgment seemed to require some provision for disembodied spirits. To supply this, like St. Zeno of Verona, he tells us that they are received into various hid- den receptacles, where the good enjoy rest and joy, the wicked suffer torment, until the resurrection, when the joy of the one and the tor- ment of the other will be increased bv reincarnation.^ In this there ^ S. August. Serm. ccxciv. Cap. iii. ^ S. August. Enchirid. Cap. cix. ; In Joannis Evangel. Tract. XLIX. | 10. While thus providing these tenqjorary receptacles, St. Augustin, in com- bating the Pelagians, positively denies that there is a separate place for the souls of unbaptized children — the Limbus Parvulorum or Puerorum of the schoolmen (Serm. ccxciv. Cap. iii.) ; the most that he will allow is that for them the pains of hell will be greatly lessened (Enchirid. Cap. xciii.). When the schoolmen undertook to perfect the details of eschatology they recognized the necessity of such a place, as well as a limbo for the fathers prior to the Atonement. William of Paris argues (Opera de Fide etc. Norimbergte 1496, fol. 206rt) that there must be manifestly such a place for those guilty only of original sin ; they cannot go either to purgatory or to the Limbus Patrum, for they are not worthy of it, and he concludes that they enjoy great happiness, though not comparable to that of the Divine Vision. Aquinas holds that the Limbus Puerorum and Limbus Patrum are the same place, but that the holy fathers enjoy a more blessed rest than the children (Sunimse Supplem. Q. LXix. Art. 6), and this is not hell (Art. 7). Dante (Inferno ill.) describes only one limbo, and assigns it to the tirst circle of hell. It is not a place of torment, but of sighs and sorrow — Non avea pianto, ma che di sospiri, Che I'aura eterna facevan tremare : E cio avvenia di duol senza martiri, Ch' avean le turbe, ch'eran molti e grandi D'infanti e di femmine e viri. 304 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. is no trace of purgation by fire, through wliich the soul is purified and fitted for heaven, but elsewhere he hazards the opinion that such purgation is not incredible, but is fairly debatable.' In some pas- sages he relegates this to the day of judgment, while in others he regards it as antecedent, and again he thinks it perhaps true that venial sius may be thus expiated,^ but there is no such hope for those who have learned the Christian faith and have lived wickedly.^ "Whatever weight St. Augnstin may have ascribed to these crude and tentative speculations they seem to have awakened no response. Among his later contemporaries Zacchajus denies that souls are purged with ethereal fire before rejoining their Creator, and Evagrius the Monk knows of no middle term between salvation and damna- tion.* A little later St. Salvianus argues that every man's fate is in his own hands, and that according to his acts will the divine judg- ment aMard him endless torment or eternal bliss.^ St. Leo I., in 452, evidently knew nothing of a purgatory accessible to the suffrages of the living when he asserted that a penitent who dies before the completion of his penance cannot be reconciled because God has Good pagaus, prior to Christ, are there — Virgil himself, Homer, Brutus etc. After the crucifixion Christ descended there and withdrew Adam, Moses, Abraham and the rest of the fathers. Frangois de Mayrone (In IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Q. iv.) divides the limbos, and says that that of the fathers was emptied when the law of grace began. In 1575, in an authoritative profession of faith, drawn up by Gregory XIII. for acceptance by the Greeks, the Limbus Puerorum disappears ; all who die in mortal sin and all who have only original sin descend together to hell, but are punished differently (Gregor. PP. XIII. Const. XXXIII. I 4. — Bullar. II. 429). Yet when, in 1786, the Synod of Pistoia (Sess. IV. Deer, del Battesimo \ 3) followed St. Augustin in denying as a Pela- gian fable the existence of a separate place for unbaptized children, Pius VII. condemned the utterance as false, rash and insulting to Catholic teaching (Bull. Audorem fidel Prop. xxvi.). ^ S. Augustin. Enchirid. Cap. Ixix. " Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredible non est, et utrum ita sit quteri potest." See also De Fide et Operibus Cap. xvi. ; De Odo Dulcitii Qucestionibus Q. I. ^ 13. ^ S. August, de Civitate Dei Lib. xx. Cap. xxv. ; Lib. xxi. Cap. xiii. xxiv. xxvi. — Yet venial sins are wiped out by daily recital of the Lord's Prayer, and those who have nothing else go to blessed rest (Serm. cccxciii.). ^ S. August, de Fide et Operibus Cap. xxv. * Zacchiei Consultatiouum Lib. i. Cap. xxii.-xxiii. — Evagrii Monachi Sen- tentise, i. ^ S. Salviani adv. Avaritiam Lib. in. Cap. 3. GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF PURGATORY. 305 reserved him for his own jutlgineat/ while the pseudo-Dionysiac speculations, about this period, teach a course of purgation through which the soul gradually fits itself for absorption in the Divine Essence."'^ In the following century St. Fulgentius of Ruspe argues at much length to prove that there can be no remission of sin after death — it is a time of retribution, not of remission, and the false hope of this held out by the devil leads many to hell.^ As the distinction between culpa and pceaa had not yet been invented, this excludes all idea of purgatorial expiation. Victor of Tunones, in his vivid description of heaven and hell, knows of no intermediate state and no alternative, and it is the same with St. Dorotheus.^ Yet undoubtedly the belief in some kind of post-mortem purga- tion must have gradually spread, not as a point of faith, but as an admissible pious belief. Towards the close of the sixth century a passing allusion occurs to it by Gregory of Tours.^ In 593 Gregory the Great in his Dialogues makes his interlocutor ask to be instructed whether it is to be believed that there is a fire of purgation after death, to which Gregory's answer is affirmative, but he limits it to trifling sins, such as idle talk, immoderate laughter and the like, 1 S. Leonis PP. I. Epist. cvni. Cap. iii. Yet in the Sacramentary which passes under the name of Leo there is a prayer antagonistic to this utterance — " Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui contulisti fidelibus tuis remedia vitas post mortem, praesta qusesumus propitius ac placatus, ut anima famuli tui (illius) a peccatis omnibus expiata in tuae re- demptionis sorte requiescat." — Sacram. Leonian. Super Defunctos, I. (Muratori T. XIII. P. I. p. 730). A subsequent prayer even assumes that the soul of the dead can be cleansed of sin by the sacrifice ofiei'ed for it — " Ut quidquid terrena conversatione con- traxit his sacrificiis emundetur." - Book of Hierotheos, Bk. iii. (Frothingham, Stephen Bar Sudaili, pp. 100 -1, Leipzig, 1895) — Cf. S. Dionysii Ccelestis Hierarchise Lib. I. Cap. xiii. In another passage (Eccles. Hierarchise Cap. vii. ) the pseudo-Dionysius rep- resents the high priest as praying over the dead that God may pardon their sins. This gave extreme comfort to the controversialists against Luther. Job. Werstemius (Adversus Lutheranse Sectae Eenatum quemdam de Pur- gatorio, Colon. 1528) pronounces it as sufficient in itself to prove the existence of purgatory. * S. Fulgent. Ruspens. de Remiss. Peccator. Lib. i. Cap. vi. ix. xxiv. ; Lib. II. Cap. vi. * Victor Tununens. Lib. de Pcenitent. Cap. xxx. xxxi.— S. Dorothtei Archi- mandritie Doctrina xii. De Timore et Po?nis Inferni. * Gregor. Turonens. de Gloria Martyrum Lib. ll. Cap. cvii. Ilf.— 20 306 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. which are inseparable from humau infirmity. How crnde as yet were the conceptions of such temporary punishment is seen in his stories of slaves working in baths, who were spirits condemned thus to expiate their sins. One of these was Paschasius, a deacon of the Roman Church and a man of most exemplary life, wlio made the mistake of adhering to Laurence in the strife between him and Symmachus for the papacy in 498, and another was the lord of Civita Vecchia.' Naturally the growing belief was stimulated with the customary arts of forgery. A letter was fabricated from Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, to St. Augustin, relating how a powerful sect of heretics sprang up who denied the existence of purgatory until the dead St. Jerome appeared in a vision to the holy priest Eusebius and told him to reanimate three dead men whom St. Jerome had providently carried to heaven, hell, and purgatory, and who there- fore were able to give full and accurate descriptions of the three abodes.^ In the seventh century St. Eloi of Noyon has no doubt of the existence of purgatorial fire, based on the text I. Cor. iii. 13, but his exegesis is literal. It is a test through which every soul must pass; the wicked will go through it into hell, the just will overcome it, and if they have venial sins these will be burnt out ; it will last until the day of judgment, when every one will be saved ' Gregor. PP. I. Dial. Lib. iv. Cap. xxxix. xl. Iv. It was long before this idea of localized purgatory, by which spirits in the shape of men expiated their sins on earth, was abandoned. Hugh of S. Victor (De Sacramentis Lib. ll. P. xvi. Cap. 4) says that many revelations and ex- amples show that purgatory is on earth, and it is probable that the punish- ment is inflicted where the sins were committed. St. Bonaventura (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. P. 1, Art. 2, Q. 3) alludes to this belief as held by some, but he regards it as improbable. Aquinas, however (Summa Suppl. Q. LXix. Art. vii. ad 8) says that it occasionally occurs, though the real place of purgatory is elsewhere. Even in the fifteenth century Gerson (Serm. II. Pro Defunctis), on the authority of Gregory, says that it is sometimes on earth, but its regular place is near the Limbus Patrum, D'Achery prints (Spicileg. I. 225) a tract, De Ordine Creaturarum, attributed to St. Isidor of Seville (died 636), in which Cap. xiv. is devoted to the purga- torial fire. This is described as exceeding in severity all that human imagina- tion can conceive, and though it is restricted to trifling sins, the whole has an air of assured positiveness which convinces me that it must be posterior in date. •^ Ps. Augustin. Epist. xix. (Migne, XXXIII. 1126). GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF PURGATORY. 307 or damned.^ This theory, however, seems to have had little cur- rency, and Gregory's conception of a purgatorial fire which cleansed the soul of trifling sins was elaborated in a sermon, which long passed under the name of St. Augustiu, and which was apparently composed about this time. It probably Jiad considerable influence in establishing the doctrine and perfecting the details. Many deceive themselves, it says, with the belief that mortal sins will be purged with temporary fire, but this is a mistake ; it is only the trifling ones that will be thus burnt away, and that no one may be in doubt as to the difi^erence it gives quite an elaborate list of mortals and venials ; some make light of the purgatorial fire, but its intensity is beyond human conception, and the moral is drawn that both classes of sins should be assiduously redeemed during life, while there is no hint that after death there can be any assistance rendered to the soul, and of course no allusion to a pcena remaining for mortal sins after absolution.- About this time also in a Galilean liturgy we begin to find traces of a rudimentary conception of expiatory punish- ment after death,^ but in the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries there is no allusion to any alternative save bliss or condemnation.* In fact, the subject seems to have attracted very little attention. The Venerable Bede, in commenting on the text of Matthew xii. 32, merely says that it shows that some sins, such as idle words and superfluous thoughts will be forgiven in the next world, without any ^ S. Eligii Noviomens. Homil. viii. St. Augustin (De Fide et Operibus Cap. XV. xvi.) alludes to a somewhat similar belief as current in his time, but he condemns it. There is some similarity between this test and the Bridge Chiuvat of the Mazdean eschatology, which only the just could cross, while the wicked were plunged into hell. See Vendidad, Fargard xix. 96-108 ; Arda-Yiraf, iv. xvii. In the completed myth it is called Chandor, and, like the corresponding Islam- itic bridge Sirat, it is as narrow as a hair and as sharp as a razor for the wicked, while for the just it is broad and easy. — Minokhired ii. 1 14-91 ; Dabistan i. 285. 2 Ps. August. Serm. CIV. Append. (Migne, XXXIX. 1946). In the old classification it is Serm. XLI. de Sanctis. It is also given by Gratian, post cap. 3 Dist. XXV. 3 Sacram. Gallican. (Muratori, T. XIII. P. in. pp. 729, 897-8).—" Ut eisdem, Dominus, adtenuatis quae merito aspera sunt cujpte piaculis, clementissime remissionis suae refrigeria largiatur." * Sacram. Gelasian. Lib. ill. n. xci.-cvi. (Muratori, T. XIII. P. ll. pp. 415 -42).— Sacrament. Gregorian. (Ibid. pp. 834, 837-57). 308 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. allusion to purgatorial torment, aud a tract ascribed to Bede, in treating of future rewards and punishments, knows nothing of any temporary purgation.^ On the other hand, a vision related by St. Boniface shows the existence of a belief that some souls may lie in torment till the day of judgment aud then be admitted to bliss.^ In the Carlovingian revival this takes a more definite shape. Alcuin tells us that those who are to be sav^ed at the last day will feel this fire in proportion to the degree of their sin ; to the perfect it will be as the Babylonian furnace to the three children, and at the resur- rection the saints and the impious will be divided.^ Yet some theologians of the ninth century in treating of cognate matters pass it over in silence,* while others have a more or less crude conception of it. Rabanus Maurus, in one passage, says that there will be pur- gation for trifling sins if merited by good works during life, and in another he copies St. Augustin in thinking it not incredible and a fair subject of inquiry whether there may be some testing by fire in the future life.^ Walafrid Strabo states that the fire which will consume the world at the judgment day will last until those who are to be saved are purged.^ Thus far it is observable that this purgatorial fire is to continue till the resurrection, aud this is the view of Haymo of Halberstadt, who treats the subject more in detail than any of his predecessors. He is rather argumentative and inconsistent ; he limits it as usual to the trifling sins inseparable from human life, but he finally concludes with St. Augustin that between death and the day of judgment souls are placed in hidden receptacles of rest or suffering as they have merited, but he adds the highly important corollary that this period of torment may be short- ened by the prayers and lamentations of the survivors, their alms- ^ Bedse in Matth. Exposit. Lib. il. Cap. xii. — Ps. Bedae aliquot Qusestionum Liber, Q. x.-xii. (Migne, XCIII. 464-5). Bede relates (Hist. Eccles, Lib. v. Cap. xix.) the vision of the holy Furseus, who was carried by angels to the other world. Four centuries later we should have had a detailed account of purgatory, but here there is no word about it. ^ S. Bonifacii Epist. xx. ad Eadburgam. * Alcuini de Fide Lib. ill. Cap. xxi. * Druthmari Corbeiens. Exposit. in Matthseum Cap. xxxiv. — Ps. Alcuini de Divinis OflSciis Lib. ill. Cap. 50. ^ Rabani Mauri Comment, in Matthseum Lib. IV. Cap. xii. ; Enarrat. in Epp. Pauli Lib. ix. Cap. iii. ^ Wal. Strabi Glossa Ordiuaria in Epist. I. ad Corinth, ill. 13. GROWTH OF THE IDEA OF PURGATORY. 309 giving and causiug masses to be celebrated' — the earliest indication I have met of the direct application of the doctrine of purgatorial fires to stimulate the liberality of mourners. In spite of this recog- nition of the productiveness of the belief it does not appear as vet to have attained sufficient importance to be alluded to in the progress of the Greek schism, although purgatory has been wholly confined to the Western Church aud never ha* been accepted in the East. In 859 Photius does not include it iu his confession of faith ; in 866 [Nicholas I. does not allude to it in his detailed reply to the Bul- garians, who were proposing to submit to Rome ; in 868 ^Eneas of Paris makes no mention of it in his elaborate discussion of the dif- ferences between the Churches, and in 869 the canons aud anathemas of the council of Constantinople are silent respecting it.^ It evi- dently was too uncertain or too trivial a question to be ranked with the procession of the Holy Ghost, clerical celibacy, the character of the Lenten fast, shaving the beard, image worship, and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. In the tenth century there is little to be learned on the subject, which had apparently not grown in importance. Odo of Cluny, in discussing the wicked, the good and the imperfect, seems to know nothing save heaven and hell, but the belief undoubtedly was spread- ing among the people aud taking a wider scope, for Ratherius of Veroua warns his flock not to delude themselves in expectation of it, for it is reserved only for trifling sins, and, in 1025, Gerard of Cambrai quotes Gregory I. to the same eflect.' It is not till we reach the middle of the eleventh century that we find in St. Peter Damiani the modern conception of purgatory, when he says that tliose who live as though the body were a prison go to heaven, those who persevere in sin until the end go to hell, while those who com- mit mortal sin, but repeat before death, are sent to purgatory, where they are duly punished.* This view did not immediately prevail. ^ Haymon. Halberstat. de Varietate Librorum Lib. ill. Cap. i.-ix. ^ Baron. Annal. aun. 859 n. 64-8. — Nicholai PP. I. Epist. xcvii. — iEneae Paris. Episc. adv. Grsecos (D'Achery Spicileg. I. 113). — C. Constantinop. ann. 869, Act. X. (Harduin. V. 899-918). ^ Odon Cluniac. Collationum Lib. I. a. 37-41. — Ratherii Veronens. Serm. II. n. 22. — Acta Synod. Atrebaten?. ann. 1025, Cap. ix. (D'Achery Spicileg. L619). * S. Pet. Dainiau. Serm. Lix. He tells an illustrative story (Epistt. Lib. vi. 310 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. About 1100 Auselni of Laou, the foremost theologian of his time and one of the founders of the schools of Paris, recurs to the ideas of Gregory I., saying that purgatory is for trifling sins, and even for these it is to be obtained only by those who have merited it during life. On the other hand, Hildebert of Le Mans inclines to the newer theory ; there is a kind of life that is not so chastened but that it requires placation after death, nor so wicked that it does not deserve it. Ivo of Chartres speaks of purgatories in the plural, as though there were several.^ Yet still the conception of such an intermediate receptacle for departed souls had by no means become universally accepted. In the poetical account of the legend of St. Brandan's wanderings in search of hell and the terrestrial paradise there are full descriptions of the horrors of the one and the delights of the other, but there is no allusion whatever to the existence of purgatory.^ With the development of scholastic theology the conceptions of purgatory became firmer and more defined. Hugh of St. Victor says that those who die with some sins, but are just and predestined to eternal life, are tormented for a time and purged, but, as we have seen, he follows Gregory I. in thinking that this is done on earth.^ The pseudo-Augustin, who did so much to crystallize the current thought in these matters, develops in an assured tone the theory which finally became accepted. Hell is reserved for the impenitent. The sinner who repents, but postpones to the future life the fruits of his repentance, will be purged by the fires of purgation, which are of wondrous intensity, greater than all suffering in life, for there is no torture of the flesh equal to it.* By this time the existence of purgatory may be regarded as generally accepted. St. Bernard treats it as a matter of course, though he mingles cold with fire as an Ep. 20) of a monk who undertook to share the penance of a friend and died before he had completed it. He had no sins of his own to answer for, but was detained in purgatory to expiate those of his friend. He appeared to the latter and begged for a speedy release, when the monks of the convent divided the unfinished penance among them and on its performance he appeared again and announced his translation to glory. 1 Anselmi Laudunens. Enarrat. in Matthseum Cap. xil.— Hildeberti Ceno- manens. Epistt. Lib. i. Epist. xvi. — Ivon. Carnotens. Epist. clxxiv. 2 Voyages Merveilleux de Saint Brandan. Publics par Francisque-Michel, Paris, 1878. 3 Hugon. de S. Victore de Sacram. Lib. ii. P. xvi. Cap. 4. * Ps. Augustini de Vera et Falsa Pcenit. Cap. xvii. PURGATORY ACCEPTED. 311 element of its torment, and when the Cathari denied that there was such a place he enumerates this among their heresies. His disciples, Nicholas of Clairvaux and Guerric, Abbot of Igny, naturally follow him. The former describes it as destined for those who delay repentance till the approach of death and are unable to complete their penance ; the latter enlarges on the intensity of its fires transcending all human conception, and informs us that the elect are few, but of these elect scarce any are so perfect as to escape it.^ Peter Lombard vacillates ^ S. Bernardi Senn. tie Diversis, Serm. XLll. n. 5; Serin, in Cantica, Serm. Lxvi. n. 11. — Nicolai Clarse Vallensis Senn. de S. Nicolao n. 6 (Migne, CLXXXIV. 1058). — Guerrici Abbatis de Purificatione Marise Serm. vi. n. 2 (Ibid. CLXXXV. 89). It is probably to this period that is to be attributed the belief in what was called the purgatory of St. Patrick — a cave on an island in Lough Derg, county Donegal, Ulster. The legend relates that when the Irish were incredulous as to future rewards and punishments, St. Patrick, to convince them, obtained from God a revelation of this place and established a monastery to superin- tend it. Henry of Saltrey, an Irish monk of the second half of the twelfth century, appears to be the earliest writer to describe it. He gives a long account of the experience of Owen, an Irish knight in the service of King Stephen, who resolved to undergo it in expiation of his sins. As a permit from the bishop of the diocese was necessary, he made full confession to him and obtained the required license. The monks warned him to resist the wiles and threats of the demons whom he would encounter, for many of those who entered were never seen again. The entrance was surrounded by a wall with a locked gate ; after introducing a penitent the gate was locked ; the next morning it was opened, and if he was not found there it was assumed that he had succumbed to the demons, and it was locked again. In this case Owen gropes his way through the cavern until he comes to a great temple, where fifteen reverend old men instruct him that by invoking the name of Jesus the demons will have no power to harm him. Then come a multitude of evil spirits who threaten him with torments if he persists, and promise to convey him back in safety if he will return. He perseveres, and they carry him through all the regions of hell and endeavor to subject him to the different species of torture in each place, but the name of Christ carries him in safety through all. Then he comes to the terrestrial paradise and surveys its delights, after which he hurries back to be in time for the opening of the gate. — Henrici Salteriensis Tract de Purgat. S. Patricii n. 39-65 (Migne, CLXXX ). Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl. ann. 1153) transcribes this account, and Csesarius of Heisterbach (Dial. Dist. XII. Cap. xxxvii ) describes the same conditions. Giraldus Cambrensis, however (Topog. Hibernicae Dist. ii. Cap. 5), speaks of nine caves, and says that whoever passes a night in one of them is seized by the demons and is so tortured by fire and water that in the morning he is found scarce alive. He adds that it is said that if this is endured as enjoined 312 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. between St. Angustin and the pseiulo-Augustiu and is by no means consistent in his utterances on the subject/ His contemporary, penance the penitent will be free from infernal punishment unless he commits fresh sins. Jacques de Vitry (Hist. Hierosol. Lib. i. Cap. xci.) tells us that unless he who enters is truly penitent and c )ntrit3 he is at once slain by the demons; if confessed and contrite he is purged by the demons with fire and water and a thousand kinds of torments. He who emerges purged can never afterwards laugh or play or take any pleasure in the world, but always sighs and groans and forgets the past, thinking only of the future. Or, as Gautier de Metz exj^resses it, in 1265 — Ki de eel liu revenuz est Nule riens James ne li plest En cest siecle, ue james jur Ne rira mes, adez en piur ; E gemissent les maus ki sunt E les pechiez ke les gens funt. See Roquefort's notice of the poem of Marie de France on the same subject (Poesies de Marie de France, Paris, 1820, II. 409). The impression which the story made on the popular mind is seen in the number of versions of it during the thirteenth century. That the original idea was derived from the cave of Trophonius (Pausauise ix. xxxix.), as has been suggested, seems to me im- probable, as there is no resemblance in details, but that the descent of .^Eneas to Hades (^Eneid. vi.) may have furnished the groundwork is by no means unlikely. Even as late as 1.395, on the death of Juan I. of Aragon, his faithful cham- berlain, the Vizconde de Perellos, is said to have visited St. Patrick's Purga- tory in order to learn the fate of his master, and saw him suffering terrible tortures. Padre Abarca, S. J., who relates this in 1674, is at some pains to disavow belief in the story and in the supernatural terrors of the spot. — Abarca, Anales de los Reyes de Aragon, P. II. fol. 155. Roquefort tells us {loc. elf. p. 406) that Alexander VI. ordered the place destroyed, and that Henry VIII. had it partially filled up, but notwithstand- ing this it retained the veneration of the people. About 1640 David Roth, the Catholic Bishop of Ossory, describes it as still largely frequented ; in spite of the surrounding Protestant population as many as fifteen hundred pilgrims at a time are sometimes seen on the little island. The cave is so small that it will contain only nine persons, though a tenth may sometimes be squeezed in. Of course the sexes are kejit separate. The demonic tribulations have disap- peared, but in place of them the ceremonies occupy nine days, spent in the severest fasting on bread and water, barefooted processions over sharp rocks and stones and constant prayers, ending with confession and communion, after which the pilgrims pass a night in the cave. They were still warned of the horrors in store for them if they ventured in unrepentant and unconfessed (Migne, he. elf.). ' P. Lombard. Sentt. Lib iv. Dist. xx., xxi., xlv. 5f 1, 5. PURGATORY ACCEPTED. 313 Cardinal PuUus, however, urges confession and penance for the reason that they relieve the sinner from the far greater purgatorial suffering of the future, which may be either in this world or in the next.' Still the old conception that purgatorial pains endure to the resurrection was not entirely forgotten. About 1160 a vision accorded to a dead man who revived relates that jjurgatory is a large and deep valley with ice on one side and flames on the other, the souls being tossed from one to the other ; it is for those who post- pone repentance and confession till the death-bed, and they will thus suffer until doomsday.^ The belief being thus established in purgatory as a place of tran- sient punishment for sins not washed away by penance, it fitted in admirably with the sacramental theory, developed at this period, 1 Card. Pulli Sentt. Lib. vi. Cap. 59, 61. ^ Helinandi Montis Frigidi Chron. ann. 1160. The number of visions appearing through the remainder of this century and during the next, describing in minute detail the fate of the soul, show the in- creased attention attracted to the future life and the industry of the clergy in awakening the fears of sinners. They culminate in the Diviaa Commedia, of which they are the precursors. For two elaborate ones see Matthew Paris, Hist. Angl. ann. 1196 and 1206. We learn from these that St. Nicholas pre- sides over purgatory, whence doubtless is derived the irreverent designation of Satan as Old Xick. In the latter one a feature of purgatory is a bridge which must be passed to get to heaven ; those souls for whom masses and alms are offered traverse it easily; those destitute of such aid have their bare feet pierced by the sharp points with which it is studded, they fall, are lacerated all over and roll back to the bottom. In this we may recognize a thrifty modi- fication of the Sirat and Chinvat of the Oriental faiths, possibly bi'ought to Europe by the Crusaders, though there is something analogous in the Giallar- bru of the Xorse mythology (Finni Magnusen Priscae Vet. Boreal. Mytliol. Lexicon, s. v. GiuU), from which is evidently derived the conception in the Lyke-Wake Dirge, which Scott tells us (Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border) was still in his time used by Catholics in the north of England, though there it leads to purgatory — From Brigg o' Dread when thou mayst passe, Every night and alle ; To Purgatory fire thou comest at laste. And Christ receive thye saule. In the story of Sir Owen's progress through St. Patrick's Purgatory, after traversing hell he comes to a bridge across a river so steep and narrow and slippery that it seems impassable ; the demons seek to cast him from it, but as he proceeds it grows broad and easy and leads him to the terrestrial jiaradise. 314 APPLICATION 10 THE DEAD. which taught that by contrition and confession the culpa which con- demned to hell was remitted, and there remained only the pcena or expiatory punishment in purgatory, and this again was removed by satisfaction, or the performance of the penance enjoined by the con- fessor. The whole was moulded into a consistent system, and pur- gatory attained the position of an article of faith, indispensable in the diviue order which apportioned retribution to offence and committed to the Church the power to bind and to loose. With the evolution of theology in the hands of the schoolmen every detail became known, and purgatory assumed the character w^iicli it has since retained. Thus Alexander Hales tells us that the fire of purgatory is material and that the duration and character of punishment is proportioned to the amount of sin. All will probably suffer equally from the deprivation of the Divine Vision, but the homicide will endure a fiercer fire than the fornicator, and the latter will suffer in propor- tion to the pleasure which he experienced in sinning ; it is true that souls in purgatory feel contrition, but it is not meritorious or sacra- mental contrition, and does not serve as satisfaction. Bonaventura adds that the pains are endured voluntarily, although release is desired ; some hold that they are so severe as to absorb all the fac- ulties of the soul, so that it does not know whether it is in hell or not, but this is not so, for the pains of hell are incommensnrably greater, and they do not deprive souls of consciousness ; in purgatory souls have a greater certainty of glory than during life ; it is probably a mistake to suppose that they are tortured by demons, the matter is uncertain, but the likelihood is that this office is performed by good angels.^ 1 Alex, de Ales Suinmse P. IV. Q. xvi. Membr. ii. Art. 4, §? 2, 3 ; Q. xvir. Membr. ii. Art. 1, § 6 ; Membr. ii. Art. 2, § 3.— S. Bonaventurae in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. P. 1, Art. 1, Q. 1-3 ; Art. 2, Q. 1, 2. Frangois de Mayrone (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv.), while admitting the fearful pains of purgatory, adds that the joys there are greater than any in this world, and the souls there would prefer them to any mundane delights, for a man can be blest while suffering, and they know and meditate on the Divine goodness. This speculation however threatened too seriously the jirofits of prayers and masses to be adopted, though I believe S. Francois de Sales was of the same opinion. A somewhat modified form is taught in the Roman catechism of 1545, where it is said that the souls in purgatory, secure as to the future and sustained by charity, endure their torments willingly. — Christianum de Fide et Sacramentis Edictum, p. 93 (Romse, 1545). TIME OF JUDGMENT. 315 Before leaving this portion of our subject it is necessary to consider the changes that have taken place in the theories as to the time at which the destiny of the soul is settled and judgment passed upon it. The discrepancy between the parable of Lazarus and the promise to the penitent thief on the one hand and belief in doomsday at the end of the world on the other mis^ht be glossed over so long; as the Second Advent was momentarily expected, but as this gradually faded away it was difficult to reconcile. We have seen that some of the early writers pronounced in favor of immediate judgment, but the majority held to the postponement until the resurrection, and even when speculations commenced as to a possible period of purgatorial punishment it was expected to continue until the last day, when the eternal destiny of saints and sinners would be determined and announced. Gradually however it became accepted that the bliss of the right- eous ought not to be thus delayed. To the question whether the souls of the just are received into heaven before the resurrection Gregory I. replies that this is not to be universally affirmed or denied ; some undoubtedly go there at once while others are kept waiting and pass the interval in various mansions.^ To accommo- date this belief with the received dogma of the final judgment, a place of abode was assumed, which, from the parable of Lazarus, was known as Abraham's Bosom.^ The earliest allusion to this would seem to be in the so-called Apostolical Constitutions^ — while in the writings which pass under the name of Denis the Areopagite, it is synonymous with the Limb us Patrum, for he speaks of praying that souls may be sent to the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a place where there is neither sorrow nor suffering.* This negative fate however did not satisfy the popular longings, and the Church, in its liturgies from the seventh to the eleventh centuries, constantly put up prayers that the soul for which masses were celebrated should await the first resurrection in Abraham's Bosom, which is alluded ^ Gregor. PP. I. Dial. Lib. iv. Cap. xxv. ^ This figurative expression for paradise or heaven was current among the Jews. Josephus even attributes it to the time of the Maccabees when he speaks of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob receiving the dead into their bosoms. — Fl. Joseph! de Maccabseis ? 13 (Ed. Oxon. 1720, p. 1405). ' Constitt. Apostol. VIII. 47. * S. Dionysii de Eccles. Hierarch. Cap. vii. 316 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. to as a region of light and space and a temporarv Jerusalem — a sub- ordinate heaven in fact.' To Ivo of Chartres it was the highest destiny to which the soul could immediately aspire, and thus virtu- ally was heaven, while Hugh of St. Victor asserts positively that the righteous are wafted at once to Christ and the wicked are plunged in hell.- With the development of the doctrine of a temporarv purga- tory and sacramental absolution the idea of a judgment postponed until doomsday gradually disappeared and the intervention of an intermediate state such as Abraham's Bosom became unnecessary. Aquinas asserts positiv'ely that the judgment is immediate, and that to assume otherwise is an error, but there may be other matters to be considered at doomsday, and he endeavors to explain that Abra- ham's Bosom is the same as the Limbus Patrum, but that since Christ came it is no longer part of hell, but is in fact lieaven, to which the prayers of the Church ask that souls be taken, for at death all souls are either plunged into hell or ascend to heaven, save those whose passage to the latter is delayed in purgatory.^ Other authorities agree with him that Abraham's Bosom is the same as the Limbus Patrum, but that it is now empty.* Evidently by this time there could > Sacr. Gregorian. (Muratori T. XIII. P. ll. pp. 834, 923-4, 931, 1047 ; P. ill. p. 167).— Missale Gothicum (Ibid. P. in. pp. 305, 337, 373, 394, 411, 432).— Missale Francorum (Ibid. P. iir. p 496). — Missale Gallicanum (Ibid. P. iii. p. 508).— Sacram. Gallican. (Ibid. P. in. pp. 624, 829, 897).— Sacramentar. Vetus (Migne, CLI. 871).— Cod. Liturg. Fontanellan. (Migne, CLI. 930, 946, 947). ^ S. Ivon. Carnotens. Epist. CLXXiv. — H. de S. Victore de Sacramentis Lib. II. P. xvi. Cap. 4. ^ S. Tb. Aquin. Summte P. I. Q. Ixiv. Art. 4 ad 3 ; P. in. Q. Hi. Art. 2 ; Q. lix. Art. 5 ad 1 ; Supplem. Q. Ixix. Art. 2, 4. Aquinas enumerates five recejitacles for souls — paradise, limbus patrum, pur- gatory, hell, and limbus puerorum (Ibid. Art. 7). * Fr. de Mayrone in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Q. 4. — Roberti Aquinat. Ojdus Quadragesimale Serm. 48. Francois de Mayrone also mentions four divisions of the infernal regions. First, the lowest, the abode of the damned ; second, the Limbus Parvulorum ; third, purgatory, for those not yet perfect; fourth, Abra- ham's Bosom or the Limbus Patrum. The occupants of the first are in actual culpa and pain of sense and loss (of the Diviue Vision); those of the second are in original sin and only in pain of loss ; those of the third are in grace and in pain ; those of the fourth are in grace and in great consolation, for they have no pain. The pain of loss {pcena damni or la jieine die dam) we are assured is incom- TIME OF JUDGMENT. 317 be little question as to the fate of the soul being decided as soon as it leaves the body. In 1254 Innocent IV., in laying down points of faith for the acceptance of the Greeks, asserts that the souls of baptized infants and of adults dying in grace without unsatisfied sin fly at once to heaven. If any doubt remained it was removed when, early in the fourteenth century, John XXII. was so ill-advised as to assert that the blessed in heaven will not enjoy the Divine Vision till the day of judgment. All Europe arose and denounced him as a heretic ; he was forced to retract on his death-bed, and his suc- cessor, Benedict XII., in 1335, issued a bull emphatically asserting that souls which after baptism incur no sin, or, if sinning, have been duly purged, are at once received into heaven and enjoy the supreme bliss of the sight of God — a doctrine which was included as a point of faith in the Decree of Union with the Armenians at the council of Florence in 1439.^ To adjust this with the Creed, the Tridentine Catechism asserts that there are two judgments — the first of which is the particular one, at death, when the soul is at once hurried to the judgment-seat of God, where all its thoughts, words and acts are investigated and its doom pronounced." Thus at last a way was parably greater than the torment, or pama sensus. — L'Eeho dii Purgatoire, XlVeme Annee, p. 133 (Mai 1879). It was revealed to St. Birgitta (Revelat Lib. IV. Cap. vii. n. 6, 7) that purga- tory is situated on top of hell and has three stories ; in the lowest the torments are similar to those of hell, though some souls suffer more and others less, according to their deserts; in the second there is only languor and debility; in the third only the prena damnl. Souls may be sent to either, and very few escape at least the third. Those which are consigned to the lowest pass suc- cessively through the two upper before admission to heaven, and those which are sent to the second pass through the third. 1 Innoc. PP. IV. Epist. ad Card. Tusculan. Cap. sxv. (Harduin. VI. 366).— D'Argentre Collect. Judic. de novis Erroribus I. i. 816-22. — Cone. Florent. ann. 1439 (Harduin. IX. 986). - Cat. Trident. Lib. I. P. ii. Cap. 9 | 2. The texts cited in support are Hebrews ix., Luke xvi , Ecclus. ii. At what time this doctrine of two judgments — one particular and one gen- eral—was accepted by the Church it might not be easy to determine. It is to be found in Aquinas (Summae Suppl. Q. lxxxviii. Art. 1 ad 1), who sug- gests that the particular judgment affects the soul and the general one at the resurrection affects the body. Yet, in an official catechism issued at Rome, in 1545, by the papal vicar. Bishop Archinto, prescribing the doctrine to be taught under pain of excommunication, it is simply stated that at death the good are wafted at once to heaven, the impenitent are plunged into hell and 318 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. found to reconcile the parable of Lazarus with the doctrine of the resurrection. Xaturally, as this view of the destiny of the soul developed and prevailed, the importance of the day of judgment shrank. The latter was too distinctly set forth in Scripture and in the Symbol of the Apostles to be ignored and dismissed, but it was quietly set in the background. Aquinas and Bonaveutura, when asserting the immediate judgment of souls, allude to the resurrection merely as a time when the glory of the blessed will be enhanced and the tor- ments of the damned will be sharpened ; this was the view asserted by the Latins at the council of Florence in 1438, while, in 1575, Gregory XY. suppresses the day of judgment entirely in the pro- fession of faith drawn up for acceptance by the Greeks.* Yet it still forms part of the received doctrines of the Church whenever they are formally stated,^ and the Dies Irce still has its place in the offices for the dead, but the principal use made of it is as a stimulus to confession, for the reason that it is vastly better to confide sins in private to the priest than to endure the humiliation of having them proclaimed to the universe at doomsday.^ One of the chief arguments relied upon to prove the belief of the primitive Church in purgatory is the custom which has existed from the beginning of endeavoring by religious observances to succor the souls of the departed. This would be unanswerable if the modern doctrine of a "particular judgment" had been received in the early ages, but as the belief then was that the determination is postponed until doomsday, and as the condition of departed spirits during the interval was the subject of vague and inconclusive speculation, there those who die iu grace with poena unsatisfied are carried to purgatory. There is no allusion to a subsequent judgment. — Christianum de Fide et Sacramentis Edictum, pp. 92-3 (Romae, 1545). 1 S. Th. Aquin. Summse Suppl. Q. LXix. Art. ii. — S. Bonavent. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxr. P. i. Art. 2, Q. 2.— Bzovii Annal. ann. 1438, n. 25.— Gregor. PP. XIII. Const. XXXIII. § 4 (Bullar. II. 429). - Pii PP. IV. Bull. Injunctum nobis, 13 Nov. 1564 (Bullar. II. 138).— Cat. Trident. Lib. i. P. ii. Cap. 9, § 2.— Ritualis Roman. Tit. vi. Cap. 8. 3 Gratian. post cap. 87 Cans, xxxiii. Q. iii. Dist. 1.— P. Lombard. Sentt. Lib. IV. Dist. xvii. ? 6.— Concil. Wigorn. ann. 1240, Cap. 16 (Harduin. VII. 336). — Confessionale Raynaldi, c. 1476. — Leuterbreuver, La Confession coupee, Paris, 1751.— Joseph Faa di Bruno, Catholic Belief, p. 310. SUCCORING THE DEAD. 319 was no difficiiltv in imao-iuino- that the living; mitrht by earnest prayer and sacrifice propitiate an offended God and secure some greater measure of mercy in the final doom. The infinite yearning of loving hearts to aid those whom they had lost, and the hope of rejoining them iu a blessed eternity, would alone suffice to stimulate such a belief, but, even without these incentives, the straggling Church would have had slender chance of securing converts if it had disclaimed all power to succor the dead and had admitted that it abandoned them to the justice of God, while proclaiming under divine sanction a code of morality far more rigid than that accepted by the easy-going gentile world, and insisting on the infinite dis- parity between the present and the future life. All its converts, in fact, had been trained in the belief that the dead could be assisted by the living, and that the observances requisite for tliis were a supreme duty. Save the pre-exilian Hebrews, who denied immor- tality, and their successors the Sadducees, all races and religions of the ancient civilized world were agreed as to this, aud when, after the Hasmonean revolution the Pharisees became domiuaut in Judea, the custom became general of praying for the dead — a custom which they had acquired from their Persian masters along with the belief in the future life.^ The passage in 11. Maccabees xii. 43-6, which has been the stronghold of the Church in defending the practice of suffrages for the dead, only shows by the argumentative clause, " For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead," that the Pharisaical party sought to strengthen itself by the authority of the national hero, Judas Maccabseus.^ In this it succeeded, though ^ The Yazishne sacrifice of the Mazdeans, which bears so strange a resem- blance to the mass, is like it performed for the benefit of the dead. Arda- Viraf. II. 28 (Hang's Translation, p. 151). — Shayast-la-Shayast, xvii. (West's Pahlavi Texts, I. 382). ^ The Jews themselves rejected from the canon the two books of Maccabees, and modern Jewish scholars are inclined to regard them as political mani- festoes, Book I , in the interest of the Sadducees, and Book ii., in that of the Pharisees (Cohen, Les Pharisiens, I. 168-73). They were not accepted by the early Church without question. About 350 the council of Laodica?a {Cap. 60) rejected them, while in 397 the third council of Carthage (Cap. 47) accepted them. Finally they were included in the canon by the council of Rome, under Gelasius, in 494 — probably on account of the passage in question. In the Protestant Bible they are included among the Apocrypha. 320 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. for some time there was discussion, as to the duration of future pun- ishment, between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, when the milder views of Hillel gradually prevailed which limited torment to twelve mouths, and as this is the extreme for the impious a son is required to recite the prayer Ivaddish for the soul of his father daily for eleven mouths, as he is not to presume that his father was impious.^ Among the Hindus the Sraddha, the sacrifice to the Pitris or souls of the ancestors, was an immemorial custom of the highest obligation, and the institution of levirate marriage was designed to raise up descendants for this purpose to those who had died childless.'^ In the strange eschatology of Egypt, which taught a perpetual mys- terious connection between the body and its departed soul, offerings of food and wine, sacrificial victims and prayer were requisite for the welfare of the dead, and the omission of a name from the series of ancestors thus remembered was a severe punishment only to be inflicted for unpardonable crime.* In Greece the supreme duty owed by the living to the dead is emphatically asserted in Antigone's answer to Creon, when she had disobeyed his commands as to the body of Polynices, and defiantly told him that the laws of the gods Avere superior to his. Nor was this a mere passing observance, for 1 Buxtorfi Synagog. Jud. Cap. 49. A story from the Talmud, quoted by Buxtorf, bears a curious resemblance to those told by Gregory I. R. Akiba in travelling met a man staggering under a load of wood sufficient for a horse and asked him whether lie was a man or a spectre. The stranger replied that he was dead and was obliged to carry daily to Gehenna the wood wherewith to burn him. Akiba inquired whether he had a son and where he lived, went there and taught him the Kaddish. After the son had performed this duty for awhile the spirit appeared to Akiba and reported that it was released from torment and was in Gan Eden. Other authorities were even more merciful. R. Johanan ben Nuri limited torment to the fifty days from Passover to Pentecost (Mishna, Edioth, il. 10). There would appear, however, even yet not to be an entire consensus of opinion on this point, for a will of a Jew recently probated in Philadelphia bequeathed to a synagogue the income of $500 for sixty years for prayers to be recited for the benefit of his soul. When David, in his grief over Absalom, cried out eight times " O Absalom, my son !" each of the first seven ejaculations released the soul of Absalom from one of the stations in Gehenna. — Wagenseilii Sota, pp. 210-11. Cf. p. 220. ^ Manava Dharma Sastra IV. 257 ; vi. 1-81. " Mariette Bey, La Musee de Boulaq, pp. 28-9, 41, 47, 73, 103, 105, 119, 121, 199, 235, 317. SUCCORING THE DEAD. 321 Plutarch tells us that in his time was still continued the feedincj of those who had fallen at Platiea, nearly six hundred years before.' Lucian describes the popular belief as holding that the good enjoy eternal bliss in Elysium ; the wicked undergo eternal torment in Tartarus; while tiie numerous indifferent wander as shades in Hades, disappearing like smoke to the touch, nourished by the libations made to them and by the sacrifices at their tombs. He "^o has left no friend or kindred starves and is tortured with hunger.- Italiote belief was similar. The Etruscans held the nether world to be a place of pure torment, which could only be brought to an end through certain mysterious rites performed by the living, which transferred the soul to the celestial regions.^ A mong the Romans the succors rendered to the dead were very elaborate and were mat- ters of indispensable obligation. The funeral rites were costly, but the heir was required to perform them, and he who contributed any- thing to those of another's dead could recover it from the representa- tives, or a widower could deduct it from the dos of the wife, for they were requisite to the comfort of the shade in the nether world. ^ After this came the sacrum noirndlale or offerings made on the ninth day, the parentalia, and the fera/ia or annual celebrations at the tomb, in which milk, wine and blood were offered for the sustenance of the shades, and these were required to be perpetual* Thus not only were the original disciples of Christ trained in the duty of succoring the dead, but all the gentiles from among whom their converts were drawn had kindred beliefs. Christianity was too spiritual to accept the grosser superstition of material aid in food for the shades, but the undetermined condition of the soul in the in- terval between death and doomsday offered ample scope for observ- ances whereby the mercy of God could be invoked or his justice be placated. There is a curious passage in St. Paul which shows that ^ Sophoclis Antig. 450-7. — Plutarchi Vit. Aristidis. ^ Luciani de Luctu 7, 8, 9. Cf. Odyssese xi. 23 sqq. ^ Mommsen's Rome, I. 189. * Festus s. V. Sine sacris. — Pauli Sentt. Receptt. i. xxi. 10, 11. — Virg. JIneid. VI. 224-7; x. 517-20; xi. 80-4 — Lucani Pharsal. viii. 751.— Statii Thebaid. VI. 126. * Festus s. vv. JRespersum, Fabam. — Macrob. Sat. I. 10. — Varro ap. Macrob. I. 4.— Virg. JEneid. V. 77-80.— Plutarchi Cato Major, xv. 3.— Ovid. Fastor. ii. 532-66.— Ciceronis de Legibus ii. 8, 9, 19, 20. ITL— 21 322 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. iu the Apostolic Church there was already a belief that the vicarious baptism of a survivor could eifect the redeinptiou of the dead, aud that this was practised as a usual custom, presumably for converts who had not yet been admitted to the rite.^ Prayers for the dead also were regarded from a very early period as efficacious, for although the Apology of Aristides makes no allusion to them, and assumes that nothing can be done for those m4io die in sin, yet we are told that, at the death of Addai the Apostle, all the members of the ehurcli went to his tomb from time to time aud prayed there diligently and commemorated his death annually as he had commanded of them.^ Tertullian also speaks of prayers for the dead and of the oblations annually oflPered for them that they might partake of the first resur- rection and have repose during the interval.^ The power ascribed to prayer is very significantly illustrated, in 208, in the Passion of St. Perpetua, who relates that when in prison awaiting her martyrdom she suddenly uttered the name of Dinocrates, a brother of whom she had long ceased to think, as he had died of cancer at the age of seven. She commenced to pray for him, and that night had a vision in which she saw him coming out from a dark place, devoured with thirst and seeking to drink from a cistern which was beyond his reach. She con- tinued to pray for him till her transfer to her final prison, when she had another vision iu which she saw him bright and happy ; the cistern only reached his waist and he drank and played with the water. As she belonged to a pagan family her child brother had evidently been unbaptized ; his spirit desired baptism after death and her prayers accomplished what the vicarious baptism of apostolic times had sought.^ The commemorations for the dead, alluded to by Ter- ^ I. Cor. XV. 29. " Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?" There is also a symbolical allusion to baptism after death in the Shepherd of Hermas, Lib. iii. Vis. ix. n. 16. 2 Apology of Aristides Ch. xv. (Rendel Harris's Transl. p. 50).— Doctrine of Addai the Apostle (Phillips's Translation, p. 47). 3 Tertull. de Corona Militis Cap. 3 ; de Monogam. Cap. 10 ; de Exhort. Cas- titat. Cap. 11. The oblation rendered the soul for which it was offered a participant in the mysteries of the Eucharist. * Passionis SS. Perpetuse et Felicitatis Cap. ii. U 3, 4. This celebrated case is one of the main arguments of the Church to prove early belief in purgatory, it being assumed that Dinocrates was there and was released by the prayers of his sister. That it was regarded in the fourth and tifth centuries as indi- SUCCORING THE DEAD. 323 tulliau as a settled custom of the Church, are recognized and de- scribed by Hippolytus, and by the time of the Apostolic Constitu- tions we have the formulas of the prayers employed, supplicating God to pardon the sins of the deceased, voluntary and involuntary, and place his soul in Abraham's Bosom. We learn, moreover, that this was customary on the third, ninth and fortieth days and on the anniversary.^ In this there is no allusion to the performance of mass, nor do we find it in the request which, in 250, Celerinus sent from Rome to Carthage for aid in redeeming the soul of his sister, who had died after lapsing in the Decian persecution. He was per- forming heavy vicarious penance for her, and this he hopes, Avith the prayers of the Carthaginian confessors and martyrs, will procure her pardon.^ Cyprian, however, attached a special value to commemora- tion in the service of the mass, which was efficacious both for the living and the dead ; in the case of the latter special offices Avere recited on anniversaries and other commemorations,^ and this came eating his baptism after death is shown by the eiforts of St. Augustin to dis- prove it, but he is reduced to the argument that if this were so it would have been stated in the account, and he might have committed sin at the age of seven, besides the Passio is not a canonical writing (S. Augustini de Anima et ejus Origine i. 12. Cf. ii. 14, 16 ; lii. 12 ; iv. 27). As a young child at the age of seven in a pagan femily he could not have been baptized — nor, if he had, would he have been responsible for sin. Dr. Robinson, to whose edition of the Passio (Cambridge, 1891, p. 29) I am indebted for these references, also points out that the word used for the cistern, piscina, ecclesiastically suggests the baptismal font. ' Canon. Hippolyti xxxiii. 169 (Achelis, p. 106).— Constitt. Apostol. viii. 47, 48. The third day was symbolical of Christ's resurrection (Isidori Pelu- siotie Epist. 114). The ninth and the anniversary were borrowed from the pagan novendialia and parentalia, the fortieth was in imitation of the forty days' mourning of the Jews for Moses (Constitt. Apost. loc. cif.). - Cypriani Epist. xxi. ^ Ejusd. Epist. XXXIX. To be remembered by name in the mass was a reward for benefactions. When, in 253, a barbarian inroad carried into slavery a number of Numidian Christians and Cyprian made collections to purchase their liberation, in sending the money to the Numidian bishops he added a list of the donors with a request that they should be remem- bered in the prayers and sacrifices (Epist. LXll.). Thus arose the use of diptychs, in which were inscribed the names of benefactors and others ; no special service distinguished the living from the dead, except that in the prayer absolution is asked for the dead and salvation for the living (Missale Gothicum, ap. Muratori T. XIII. P. iii. p. 265). Sometimes the names were 324 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. to be regarded as the most powerful means of atoning for the sins of the departed and of winning the mercy of God. It was the sole reliance of St. Arseuius on his death-bed, when he forbade his b/ethren to do anything else for liim.^ Chrysostom took the same view ; of all means of succoring the dead the best is the mention of the name in the sacred mysteries, a custom of which he attributes the origin to the apostles, though there is benefit in the charities and prayers of the faithful, for all are members of one body. Even the resignation of the survivor is of service, while lamentation and weep- ing provoke the wrath of God.^ individually recited and sometimes they were merely alluded to in block as those which were written in front of the altar (Sacrament. Gregorian, ap. Muratori T. XIII. P. ii. pp. 851, 923-4; Missale Gothicum, Ibid. P. in. p. 301 ; Sacrament. Gallican. Ibid. pp. 839-40). The latter became a necessity when the lists in course of time grew to inordinate length, as that of St. Gall, which contained several thousand names, commemorated on Nov. 14 (Goldast. et Senckenb. Eer. Alamann. Scriptt. II. 157). It was deemed necessary to continue this aid to the soul indefinitely. In the seventh century, on the day of St. Leo I., who died in 461, the formula of the prayer is "Annue nobis, Domine, ut animte famuli tui Leonis hsec prosit oblatio quam immolando totius mundi tribuisti relaxari delicta" (Sacram. Gregorian, ap. Muratori, T. XIII. P. II. p. 650), though this was subsequently altered to an invocation of the suffrage of St. Leo — "Annue Domine, qusesumus, per intercessionem beati Leonis hsec nobis prosit oblatio " (Pet. Hieremige Quadragesimale, de Peccato, Serm. xxv.). A thirteenth century necrology of the nuns of St. Julia of Brescia, printed by Muratori (Autiq. Ital. Diss. 68) contains the name of Ethelwulf, King of the West Saxons, who died in 858. St. Monica had lived a most saintly life, yet fifteen years after her death St. Augustin is still pray- ing for her (Confessionum Lib. ix. Cap. 13). 1 Vitse Patrum Lib. in. Cap. 163 (Migne, LXXII. 794). 2 S. Jo. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Philippens. Homil. in. n. 4; In Epist. I. ad Corinth. Homil. XLl. n. 5. The Christian was taught to repress all outward manifestation of grief at the loss of beloved ones. See St. Augustin's touching account of the death of his mother Monica and his insistance on his own stoic- ism in spite of his bitter grief " sauciabatur anima mea et quasi dilaniabatur vita, quse una facta erat ex mea et illius " (Confessionum Lib. ix. Cap. 12). The same'idea as to the injury inflicted on the dead by the grief of the sur- vivor is found in the Zoroastrian law, which forbade lamentations for the righteous and taught that all tears shed for the departed formed a river which was a barrier to the passage of the bridge Chinvat.— Vendidad, Farg. ill. 35-7. — Arda-Viraf, Chap, xvi.— Sad der, Porta xcvii. A later myth describes a river in hell formed by the tears shed for the dead, in which are drowned those who are mourned for. — Dabistan (Shea's Translation, I. 294). SUCCORING THE DEAD. 325 St. Aiigustin, of course, makes frequent reference to the subject. As for the funeral rites to which such extreme importance was sub- sequently attributed, he is led, by consideration of the innumerable corpses left unburied at the sack of Rome by Alaric, in 410, to the conclusion that they are a solace for the living and not an assistance to the dead, who can know nothing about them.' All that the living can do is by the sacrifice of the altar, by prayer and by alms- giving, and these are only of benefit to those who have rendered themselves worthy of such assistance — a limitation to which he is not always consistent. This he says has been handed dowu from the Fathers, and is practised universally by the Church. He also shows that alreadv had commenced the custom of invokino; the suffrage of the saints when he argues that the only advantage of burial near their tombs is that it may remind the living to commend them to those saints as patrons. He further objects to the com- memoration on the ninth day as derived from the pagan novendkdia, and prefers the seventh day, because seven days of lamentation were prescribed at the funeral of Jacob. ^ Though St. Augustin speaks of these customs as universal there were some who denied their efficacy. Epiphauius describes the Aerians as heretics, who, among their other errors, held that such observances were inefficient and argued that otherwise a man might live as he pleased if he could purchase or beg enough prayers for himself after his death.^ S. Salvianus was no heretic, yet he teaches that the soul before the judgment-seat of God can find no aid save in its own innocence and virtues and repentance, thus excluding all ^ S. August, de Civ. Dei Lib. i. Cap. 12, 13. ^ Ejusd. de Cura pro Mortuis Cap. 4, 18 ; Serin. CLXXii. Cap. 2 ; Quiaestt. in Heptateuch. Lib. i. Q. 172. The substitution of the seventh for the ninth day prevailed, and the fortieth was changed to the thirtieth, so tliat from at least the seventh century to the present time the services have been held on the third, seventh, and thirtieth days and on the anniversary — Sacram. Gelasian. Lib. ill. n. 105. — Amalarii de Eccles. Offic. Lib. iii. Cap. 44. — Ps. Alcuini de Eccles. Offic. Lib. iii. Cap. 50, 51. — Dithmari Merseburgens. Chron. Lib. vi. Cap. 43. — Ritualis Roman. Tit. VI. Cap. 4. Evodius, writing to St. Augustin, speaks only of mass on the thii'd day. — S. Augustin. Epist. CLViii. ^ Epiph. Panar. Hseres. 75. 326 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. succor from the acts of others/ On the other hand, we are told that when St. Honors was elevated to the see of Aries he forthwith spent all the accumulated treasures of his church in celebrations for the dead, so that the givers might themselves have the benefit of their oblations.^ In fact, the belief was too productive to the Church, both in influence and money, not to be developed to its utmost pos- sibilities. The Sacramentaries of the following centuries show us how large a portion of the services consisted in mortuary masses, and when in these the prayers solicited the pardon of all sins in return for the tremendous sacrifice of the Eucharist the inference to the minds of the faithful was that the request must be granted.^ The suffrages of the saints were also invoked, and it was assumed that they would be freely given.* All this was to be paid for, then as now, and the "alms" must have formed a considerable portion of the revenues of the priest.^ It was not sufficient that the name should be inscribed on the diptychs, but special masses — missce adventitice — were celebrated for the benefit of the soul of a single individual. St. Augustin had one thus sung for his mother, St. Monica, at her funeral, and this was evidently the custom with those who cared for the soul of the departed,® but a single observance such as this grew insufficient and they became enormously multiplied, to the advantage of the officiating priest at a time when he was not restricted in the performance of his sacred functions. About the year 600 Gregory of Tours happens to mention the case of a widow ^ S. Salviani adv. Avaritiam Lib. iii. Cap. 3. ^ S. Hilarii Arelatens. Vit. S. Honorati Cap. 6. ^ " Hanc igitur oblationem quam tibi pro defunctis offerimus Domine . . . concedas ut ab omnibus quae per terrenam conversationein traxerunt his sacri- ficiis emundentur." — Sacram. Gelasian. Lib. in. n. 104. " Da propitius veniam peccatorum ut a cunctis reatibus absolutis sine fine l^tantur.'"— lb. n. 103. * Sacrament. Leonianum, Super Defunctos, 4, 5. Astesanus tells us (Summae Lib. II. Tit. xxxviii. Art. 1, Q. 1) that the perfection of beatitude for the saints depends upon their being praised and invoked by men, and in assisting those who invoke them. * Sacrament. Gregorian. (Muratori T. XIII. P. ii. p. 850). When the Ven- erable Bede was on his death-bed he said that he could not, like the rich, give gold and silver, but he nevertheless begged his brethren to be diligent in pray- ing and celebrating mass for him. — Cuthberti Vit. Bed?e, Cap. 5. ® S. August. Confess. Lib. ix. Cap. 12. MORTUARY MASSES. 327 who ordered a daily mass for a year for the soul of her husband and supplied every day a pint of choice wine for the celebration ; the knavish subdeacon drank it and substituted vinegar till the soul of the dead man appeared to the widow and complained that she gave him vinegar to drink.* At the council of Attigny, in 765, attended by twenty-seven bishops and seventeen abbots, it was unanimously agreed that when any of those present should die he should have the benefit of a hundred masses celebrated by priests and three hundred by bishops, and they all signed a contract to that eflPect.^ It was inevitable that succor for the dead on so large a scale should be paid for by those unable to reciprocate in this way; it was inevi- table that the belief should be propagated that the more liberal the payment the surer the sinner would be of salvation, and it was further inevitable thai this should be the source of innumerable scandals and of debasing the sacred functions of the priest to a mercenary struggle for the opportunity of selling his promises of salvation.^ * Gregor. Turonens. de Gloria Confessor. Cap. 65. A nice question arose whether it is better to have a daily mass sung for a year or 365 masses in a week by fifty-two priests. The answer is that the former is more meritorious, but the latter brings speedier relief. — Pet. Hieremiae Quadragesimale, de Peccato, Serm. xxvi. ^ C. Attiniacens. ann. 765 (Harduin. III. 2009). In 1114 the prelates assem- bled at the council of Compostella entered into a similar agreement to assist each other to attain eternal bliss. — Hist. Compostellan. Lib. I. Cap. 101. ^ Thus, in 895, the council of Tribur (Cap. 15) orders the dead to be brought to the episcopal seat for interment, or if that is too far to some monastery, or if that is too difficult they can be buried where they pay their tithes— the object evidently being to secure the bequests and oblations. The greed thus displayed did not diminish with time. Several councils in the early part of the thirteenth century forbid priests from compelling the dying to leave lega- cies for the celebration of masses, from entering into bargains for yearly, three- yearly or seven-yearly masses, and from so burdening themselves with masses that they have to hire priests to celebrate them or sell them out to others (C. Parisiens. ann. 1212, P. i. Cap 11 ; Constitt. Richardi Poore Episc. Sares- buriens. ann. 1217, Cap. 15; Constitt. S. Edmundi Cantuai'ens. circa ann. 1236, Cap. 8). In 1303 Guillaume le Maire, Bishop of Anjou, complains that priests celebrating mortuary masses exact fourteen deniers from the heirs or executors, in consequence of which, when they hear of a coming funeral, they leave their churches, and, like crows or vultures on the scent of carrion, they rush from five or six leagues around and in an unseemly crowd, to the scandal of the people, they quarrel as to who shall perform the service, sometimes even 328 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. There are few indications in the earlier periods of the direct appli- cation of these remedial agencies to the relief of souls in purgatory, though in the two cases of localized punishment related by Gregory I., one is remitted by the mass and the other by prayer. The first general assertion of the principle that I have met with does not occur resorting to blows, wherefore he orders that in future the representatives of the dead shall select the officiating priest, and he shall be content with what they voluntarily give. — Guillel. Major. Andegav. Synod, xiv. ann. 1303, Cap. 3 (D'Achery, I. 741). The thin disguise of simony by calling the payment "alms" is quaintly revealed by Bart, de Chaimis (Interrogator, fol. 91b), who, after instructing the confessor to inquire of priestly penitents w^hether they have bargained about the celebration of mortuary masses, for it is simony, adds that laymen may be excused if, through simplicity and in accordance with custom, they use in these transactions the expression of purchase, for their pious intention is rather to be regarded than their words. The troubles arising from the " stipend " paid for masses are incurable. In 1625 Urban VIII. forbade the practice of taking orders for them and then subletting at lower prices. The Congregation of the Council of Trent soon after prohibited the custom of celebrating one mass for several payments, and, in 1659, it condemned the doctrine that when a priest had received the i^rice of a mass he could also sell his own share in it. Yet, in 1665, Alexander VII. was obliged formally to condemn propositions justifying all these abuses (Decret. 1665, Prop. 8, 9, 10). Caietano argued that if a mass is offered for a thousand persons, each one derives from it the same benefit as if it were specially for himself, but Domingo Soto denounced this opinion as scandalous, because it tended to divert the faithful from offering " alms" for special masses. — Juenin de Sacram. Diss. v. Q. vii. Cap. 1, Art. 5. Churches had little scruple in accepting payments for more masses than they could celebrate. Julius 11. and Leo X. sought to relieve the regular Orders by authorizing the generals to issue dispensations to their priests, whereby a mass with nine collects would satisfy for nine masses (Summa Diana s. v. Missarum redudio n. 5). The council of Trent adopted a more compre- hensive measure (Sess. xxv. De Reform. Cap. iv.) by authorizing the bishops in their synods, and the abbots and generals in their chapters, to make such provision as might comport with the honor of God, the needs of the Church and the commemoration of the dead who had left pious legacies for the salva- tion of their souls, which is held to mean that they can reduce the burden of masses (J)i2i\i2i ubi snp. n. 1-4). That the faithful do not always receive the benefit paid for would appear from the case of Juan de la Vega, Carmelite Provincial, tried by the Inquisition of Logrono, in 1743, for so-called Molinism. He denied the charge under torture, but confessed that he had received pay- ment for 11,800 masses which had never been celebrated. — Llorente, Hist. Crit. de I'Inq. IV. 37. RELIEF FROM HELL. 329 until the middle of the ninth century, when Haymo of Halberstadt savs that those not wicked enouo;h for damnation nor sood enough for immediate salvation can, through tlie supplications of the Church, be liberated with remedial pains, which last till doomsday, unless shortened by the prayers and weepiug of friends, almsgiving and the mass.' This infers that the function of the Church is to relieve from hell, and the fact is that during the whole period prior to the develop- ment of the sacramental theory there was the vaguest conception as to the extent and value of these intercessory observances. The ex- istence of purgatory was so nebulous and uncertain that to limit the influence of the Church to relief from it was not calculated to stimu- late the fruitful devotion of the faithful, and there Avas claimed a power, more or less definite, to preserve the sinner from hell, or at least to mitigate his sufferings there. Chrysostom teaches that prayers and almsgiving for those who have died in sin, for catechu- mens, and even for pagans, afford them some comfort, though not much.^ St. Augustin, as usual, is inconsistent in his utterances. lu one passage he asserts that damnation can thus be rendered more en- durable,^ while again he says it is heretical to offer the sacrifice of the mass for the unbaptized, and one might as well pray for Satan and his angels as for wicked Christians in hell.^ Throughout the middle ages there was a legend current that Gregory the Great rescued the soul of Trajan from hell by praying for him, which gave infinite trouble to the schoolmen after the question of such interposition had been decided in the negative.^ However this may be, Gregory him- ^ Haymonis Halberstat. de Varietate Libror. Lib. ill. Cap. 7, 8, 9. - S. Jo. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Philippens. Homil. iii. n. 4. ^ " Quibus autem prosunt aut ad hoc prosunt ut sit plena remissio aut certe ut tolerabilior fiat ipsa damnatio "— S. August. Encbirid. Cap. 110. When the Church finally decided that it was powerless to relieve souls in hell this passage gave much trouble, which was only removed by arguing that St. Augustin used damnatio in the sense of condemnation to purgatory. — Astesani Summse Lib. III. Tit. xxxvii. Art. 3, Q. -3. * S. August, de Anima Lib. I. Cap. xi.; Lib. ii. Cap. xi.; De Civ. Dei Lib. XXI. Cap. xxiv. n. 1, 2. ° Aquinas (Summte Suppl. Q. lxxi. Art. 5 ad 5) suggests that Trajan was probably recalled to life and acquired grace, or that he was not definitely con- demned to hell, or that his sentence was suspended until the day of judgment. Francois de Mayrone (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. 5, Art. 3) states that Gregory was sharply punished for his indiscretion by severe suffering during life, which 330 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. self entertained no doubt as to the power of the mass to confer abso- lution after death and to release from damnation, for he relates that when he was abbot of S. Andrea, in 590, three gold pieces were found among the effects of Justus, one of his monks, Avho was dying. Gregory ordered the body to be thrust into a dunghill and for thirty days withheld all mortuary services ; then for thirty days more he had mass celebrated for the soul, after which the spirit of the de- ceased appeared to his brother Copiosus and announced that he had received communion and -was happy after suffering.^ This was the unquestioned belief of the Church in those ages. The liturgies of the period are full of formulas which show that the prayers in the masses were not to relieve from purgatorial pains, but to release from Domingo Soto (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xlv. Q. ii. Art. 2, Concl. 1), on the authority of Alonso de Avila, assures us was a disease of the stomach. William of Ware accepts the story and adds (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi., that Dagobert I. was similarly released at the intercession of St. Denis (doubtless because Dagobert built the abbey of St. Denis), and also a Franciscan of the convent of Vannes, who was saved by the merits of St. Catherine. Even in the last century Peter Dens (Theologia, Tract, de Quatuor Noviss. No. 20), while say- ing that the story of Trajan is now considered to be a fable, asserts that in all such cases the sentence of condemnation has not been definitive. 1 S. Gregor. PP. I. Dial. Lib. iv. Cap. 55, 57.— Joann. Diac. Vit. S. Gregor. Lib. I. Cap. xvi. This is commonly cited in proof of the existence of purgatory, but in error. Justus had died in mortal sin unconfessed, and consequently was condemned to hell, whence he was extricated by the mass. Adrian VI. (Disput. in IV. Sentt. fol. clxvii. col. 1) endeavors to elude this by assuming that Justus had repented during life. A somewhat similar story is told of Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Gluny, about the middle of the twelfth century. Three coins were found in the clothes of one of his monks who had just died. Peter ordered the body to be thrown out, when it was enclosed in a cask and rolled away. After a time the spirit appeared to various monks begging for Christian burial, but Peter was implacable until the spirit brought to the prior a letter addressed to him by Jesus Christ, ordering him to show mercy. Then the cask was brought back, the body was found uucorrupted and was buried in due form, after which the visitations ceased — showing that even Christ could not release the soul without the ceremonies of the Church. — Rodulfi Vit. Petri Vener. Cap. 9 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 11 96). We have see above (p. 325) how little importance St. Augustin attached to the funeral rites, and this saner view has revived in modern times. Domingo Soto (In IV. Sentt. Dist. XLV. Q. 2, Art. 3) says that it makes no difference where a man is buried — on the battle-field, at sea or in church, but the funeral services and oblations are an assistance to his soul. RELIEF FROM HELL. 321 bell/ and a survival of this in the moderD ritual, after such power has beeu disclaimed, has not been found easy of explanation. - It is true that, in 738, Gregory III, solved the doubts of St. Boni- face by instructing him that the prayers and oblations of the Church were not to be offered for impious Christians, but some Irish canons of the period explain that they are performed for the righteous in thanks, for the wicked as consolation for the living, for those not wholly bad that damnation may be rendered more endurable, for those not wholly good that they may gain full remission, and in the next century Haymo of Halberstadt takes virtually the same position.' Xot long after this occurred the letter of John VIII. to the Frankish bishops, already alluded to (p. 132), in which he assumed, as far as was right, to absolve and commend to God those who had fallen in battle with the pagans in defence of the Christian faith. ^ "With the ^ " Precibus imploremus ut eductis a Tartaro defunctorum spiritibus non prsevaleant sepultis infernae portae per crimina, quas per apostoli fidem vinci credit ecclesia." — Missale Gothicum (iluratori T. XIII. P. ill. p. 283 ; Cf. pp. 253, 323, 400, 403).— Sacrament. Gallicaa. (Ibid. p. 669, 898, 899).— Excerptt. ex Codd. Liturg. Fontanellan. (Migne, CLI. 930). ^ In the mass for the dead there is tlie pi'ayer " Libera animas omnium fide- lium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu ; libera eas de ore leonis, ne absorbeat eas tartarus."— Missal for the Laity (Phila., 1861, p. 515). St. Antonino (Summse P. ill. Tit. xxxii. Cap. 1, § 2) endeavors to get over the inconsistency of this with the revised doctrine of the Church by suggest- ing that " infernus " is here to be taken in a large sense as including purga- tory ; he prudently, however, says nothing about the deep lake, the lion's mouth and Tartarus, which latter is always used as a synonym of hell. Adrian VI. (Disput. in IV. Sentt. fol. clxvi.) more wisely confines himself to explain- ing away the word " absorbeat," and leaves the rest of the prayer severely alone. ' Gregor. PP. III. Epist. i. Cap. 3 (Bened. Levitfe Capit. vii. 407.— Cap. 13 Caus. XIII. Q. ii.). — Poenitent. Martenian. Cap. xiv. (Wasserschleben, p. 286). — Hayiuonis Halberstat. de Varietate Libror. Lib. ill. Cap. 9. So also Ps. Alcuin. de Diviuis Officiis Lib. lii. Cap. 50. This rule of action was sure to prevail, as it not only avoided passing judgment on the deceased, but was much more profitable to the clergy. * Johann. PP. VIII. Epist. 186. The assumption of absolution in this case would appear to be perfectly superfluous, as in the commencement of the epistle he asserted that those who thus were slain were certain of repose in eternal life, and in this he only repeated an assurance given some twenty or thirty years before by Leo IV. (Epist. 1). The epistle of John VIII. has been largely used as evidence both of the power of the keys and of early granting 332 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. gradual development of the power of the keys, and in the confused conceptions still existing as to the future state, the belief was ac- cepted that absolution could be granted after death. In 1002, at the obsequies of Otho III. at Cologne on Holy Thursday, the archbishop granted remission to his soul, and when, in 1077, the Empress Agnes died in Rome, Gregory VII., after several days spent in masses and prayers for her soul, gave her remission of her sius.^ With the rise of scholastic theology in the next century all this was recognized as incompatible with the theories which were being so rapidly moulded into a system, and as early as the time of Cardinal Pullus the prin- ciple was emphatically expressed that the sacerdotal power expires with death — the Church has no jurisdiction over the world to come.^ This principle became a common-place of the schools, but it was not easy to abandon wholly a power once claimed and exercised. Inno- cent III. decided that a man dying under excommunication, but M'ith signs of repentance, is to be absolved after death, and this was ex- tended to all sinners manifesting repentance and unable to obtain the sacrament. In these cases, however, it is assumed that they are absolved by God, and that the Church only publishes the fact.^ With the definite distinction that became established between hell and purgatory, and the development of the sacramental system with its assured power of relief from eternal torment, there arose a natural disposition to restrict more vigorously the benefit of the suffrages of the Church to those who were assumably in purgatory. The unre- pentant sinner who had died without the sacrament was denied Christian sepulture, masses and prayers, but whether masses and prayers were beneficial to souls in hell still for a time remainecl a disputed question. One of the errors of Gilbert de la Porree, con- of indulgences, but the passage in question is evidently only a meaningless expression of encouragement to those who were struggling with the Norsemen. 1 Dithmari Merseburg. Chron. Lib. iv. Cap. 33. — Berthold. Constant. Aunal. ann. 1077. ^ R. Pulli. Sententt. Lib. VI. Cap. Iviii. — " Dum super terram sunt suos pres- byter! noverunt parrochianos ; cum sub terram vadunt in summi sacerdotis dicecesim transeunt. In alienum jus manum non porrigas." '' Ita quoque verba Domini consulens attende id solum ad curam tuam per- tinere quamvis super terram judices, nou etiara sub terra putrescentem." — Ibid. Cap. Ixi. ^ Cap. 28 Extra Lib. v. Tit. xxxix. — Hostiens. Aurese Summae Lib. v. De Eemiss. | 6. — Astesani Summte Lib. v. Tit. xvi. RELIEF FROM HELL. 333 demued in the coimcil of Paris iu 1147, was his denial of the necessity of the sacrament, and his assertion that all who are bap- tized will be saved, but his disciples seem to have abandoned this, while arguing that sutfrages for the damned diminish their torment by subdivision, so that, however long continued the former might be, there would always be something left of the latter.' William of Auxerre attempted a compromise by suggesting that suffrages for the damned give them comfort but not mitigation or release ; others held that prior to doomsday souls in hell can be helped, but not subsequently ; others again that those who die without faith or the sacrament cannot be aided, but those can be who die in the Church and are not wholly wicked.^ The garrulous Csesarius of Heisterbach manifests the confusion of ideas current by asserting iu one passage that prayers, masses and alms lighten the endless pains in hell of those not wholly bad, while in another he says that such attempts to assist them only injure them — a belief which we find as late as the fifteenth century.^ The cautious St. Ramon de Penafort declines to decide whether the good works of the living can benefit souls in hell ; he states the opinions on either side and merely re- marks that one seems to be more merciful and the other more orthodox.* Johannes Teutonicus, whose Gloss on the Decretum enjoyed immense authority, recurs to the opinion of St. Augustin 1 Otton. Frisingens. de Gestis Frid. I. Lib. i. Cap. 50. — S. Th. Aquin. Summae Suppl. Q. LXXI Art. 5, in corp. ^ S. Th. Aquin. ubi sup. ^ Caesar. Heisterbacens. Dial. Dist. xii. Cap. iii. xxxix. In a curious fifteenth, century poem, " The Adulterous Falmouth Squire," the son of the sinner is brought to him in hell by an angel to witness his suf- ferings, when the father addresses him : Sonne, thu shalt be a preeste, y wote it wele ; Onys or this day seven yere, Att messe ne matynes, mette ne mele, Thou take me neuer in thi prayer ; Loke, Sonne, thu do as y the saye ! Therfore y warne the wele before. For euer the lenger thu prayes for me My paynes shall be more and more. Political, Eeligious and Love Poems, p. 100 (Early English Text Soc. 1866). * S. Kaymundi Summae Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. 'i 4. 334 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. that those not wholly bad cau thus obtain mitigation of torment, though not release.' Cardinal Henry of Susa imitates the caution of S. Ramon in avoiding a decision, but he manifests the progress of opinion by telling us that the prevailing belief is that souls in hell cannot be helped.- Finally Aquinas settled the long-mooted ques- tion by the positive assertion that suffrages are of no benefit to the damned, and his dictum has since been accepted.^ The question then arose whether it is lawful to pray for one who has died in mortal sin. Pierre de la Palu says that prayers and suffrages may be offered for him in secret, for he may have secretly repented, but for the avoidance of scandal he cannot have public suffrages such as masses, or be buried in consecrated ground.* Frangois de Mayrone goes further and asserts it to be a mortal sin to pray for souls in hell ; in this Domingo Soto agrees with him, but more recent authorities do not put it so crudely, though they assume that it is unlawful to do so.^ In view of the impossibility of accurate knowl- edge as to the fate of any given soul, it would seem that no prayers can be offered for any one without incurring the risk of sin, but we may presume that invincible ignorance renders the sin merely miaterial. To return to our more immediate subject, the relief of souls in purgatory, we find that as belief in the latter became more defined, the promise of release through the ministrations of the Church became gradually more assured. Ivo of Chartres seems to entertain no doubt that it will be obtained through the prayers of the faithful, though Honorius of Autun assumes that it is more effective for those who have while living thus aided their predecessors, and Hildebert ^ Gloss, in Cap. 23 Decret. Caus, xiii. Q. ii. ^ Hostiens. Aureoe Summse Lib. v. de Poenit. et Remiss. I 59. * S. Th. Aquin. Summae SupiDl. Q. lxxi. Art. 5. "Suffragia illis minime prodesse." — S. Antoniui Suinma? P. iii. Tit. xxxii. Cap. 1, | 2. Yet Tliomas of Walden (De Sacramental. Tit. xi. Cap. cvii. n. 4) still holds with St. Augustin that the damned can thus obtain some alleviation. * P. de Palude in IV. Seutt. Dist. XLV. Q. i. ad 2, Concl. 4.— S. Antonini Summse loc. cit. § 7. = Fr. de Mayrone in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. 5, Art. 8. — Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist, XLV. Q. ii. Art. 2, Concl. 1. — P. Dens Theologia, Tract, de Quatuor Noviss. No. 20. — Gousset, Theologie Dogmatique, II. 161. — Bonal Institt. Theol. II. 338. RELIEF FROM PURGATORY. 335 of Le Mans only promises absolutely mitigation in case complete release is not obtained.^ The means to be employed remain the same as of old without additions. Gratian enumerates four — masses, prayers of the saints, alms by friends or fasting by kindred, and this long continued to be the received teaching.^ Yet it would seem as thouo^h the men who were earnestlv eugao-ed in framino- and establishing the sacramental theory looked somewhat askance on these methods of diminishing the terrors of purgatory as an ex- crescence which interfered with the completeness of their system. They dwelt on the supreme importance of contrition which remitted the culpa in the sacrament and released from hell, leaving the poena of purgatory to be remitted by the satisfaction of penance ; the corollary from this was that he who would not purchase immediate admission to heaven on terms so easy did not deserve to have his temporal punishment cancelled by the vicarious satisfaction per- formed by his kindred. The very name of purgatory meant purga- tion, or the cauterization of sin by fire, and what purgation was there if a few masses or alms or prayers conferred immunity ? Thus Hugh of St. Victor is not advanced beyond St. Augustin, whose utterances he quotes ; the pseudo-Augustin makes no allusion to any succor for the dead. Peter Lombard briefly quotes St. Augustin that some help may be had by those who have merited it, adding that no one who neglects this need hope for it ; after death the soul deals directly with God and is treated according to its deserts in life ; evidently, as far as he dared, he desired to diminish reliance on suffrage. Richard of St. Victor was too earnestlv engaged in proving that the perfected sacrament of confession, absolution and satisfaction relieved the soul of both hell and purgatory to waste any time on the succor which the dead could expect from survivors, especially as there can be no true repentance which does not embrace the firm resolve to perform the penance enjoined, and in this injunc- tion the divine sentence is translated into a human one, the non- performance of which inevitably inflicts eternal damnation.^ ^ Ivon. Carnotens. Epist. CLXXiv. — Honor. Augustod. Elucidar. Lib. iii. Cap. 2. — Hildeberti Cenomanens. Serm. 85. - Cap. 22, Caus. xiii. Q. ii. Cf. Honor. Augustodun. et Hildebertum Ceno- manens. ubi sup. — Hugonis Rothomagens. Dialogor. Lib. v. Interr. xix. ^ Hugon. de S. Victore de Sacramentis Lib. ir. P. xvi. Cap. 6. 7. — Ps. 336 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. Yet the revolution effected by the sacramental theory increased vastly the importance of purgatory as a factor of the future life, and consequently the demand for the observances which should mitigate or shorten its torments. Hitherto the suggestions of St. Augustin and the assertions of Gregory I. that it was only for the expiation of the minuta peccata, the trifling sins of overmuch talking, immod- erate laughter and the like, had been universally accepted.^ When, however, the distinction between culpa and poena was established and sinners were taught that only the guilt was remitted in the sacrament, while the punishment remained to be endured in purga- tory unless expiated by the severe and prolonged canonical penance, and when it became the fashion to diminish or evade the penance and take the chances of purgatory, it was seen that scarce any of the faithful could escape the latter. The pressure for relief from it neces- sarily became correspondingly greater, and the business of furnishing this relief fully compensated for the abandonment of claims to rescue from hell, which were recognized as impossible under the new theo- logical system. How purely mechanical and business-like it was becoming is seen in the answer of Alain de Lille to the heretics who insisted that the value of suiFrages and prayers for the dead depended on the virtue of the officiating priest : he argues that the virtue is in the formula and not in the devotion or purity of the ministrant ; it may be a sin for him to perform his functions without zeal or devo- tion, but they are none the less efficacious for the relief of the suffering soul.^ Perhaps we need not be surprised that, in the development of this spirit, Dr. Amort should inform us, in the eighteenth century, that the value of prayers for the dead is in proportion to the rank of the person offering them and the amount of his gifts. ^ Although, by the end of the twelfth century, the use of indulgences was fairly introduced and was developing rapidly, they were reserved for the living. They were recognized as a function of jurisdiction, and the principle was settled that the jurisdiction of the Church is confined to this world and does not extend to the next. S. Ramon de Augustin. de Vera et Falsa Poenit. Cap. xviii. — P. Lombardi Sententt. Dist. XLV. ?| 1, 2, 4.— R. de S. Victore de Potestate Ligandi Cap. v. vi. vii, xxiii. 1 Gratiani Deer. Cap. 4 Dist. xxv. ^ Alani de Insulis contra Hsereticos Lib. ll. Cap. xii.-xiv. ^ Amort de Indulgent. II. 294. DISCUSSION IN THE SCHOOLS. 337 Peiiafort is silent ou the subject, as though the idea had not yet been suggested, and not long afterwards his commentator, William of Renues, expresses disbelief in tlie extension of indulgences to the dead, as the power of the keys is confined to this world ; it is true that the pope or bishops can obligate the Church or the individual churches to pray for souls, and he adds that if the pope, in the plenitude of his power, should issue such an indulgence he would not venture to dis- pute it.* This shows that in the interval the C|uestion had been raised, and in effect Alexander Hales, in 1245, speaks of it as ex- ceedingly probable. His theory of the treasure of the Church was prolific and suggested that if the pope would apply it to the living there was no reason why he should not also use it for the benefit of those in purgatory. It is true that he cannot do this judicially or in commutation, but it may reasonably be said that he can do it by way of suffrage and impetratiou, and Hales shows the tentative nature of this speculation by adding that if the keys had authority over souls in purgatory it would serve to solve the problem.^ Albertus Magnus sees no reason why indulgences should not be of service to souls in purgatory if they had deserved such relief during life, but he has never seen any grants specially applicable to them, and no man can transfer, either to the living or the dead, an indulgence gained by him.^ Cardinal Henry of Susa holds that indulgences gained in life help subsequently, while he denies flatly that those granted for souls in purgatory are of any benefit to them. Apparently already the attempt was made to promise a year of indulgence to the soul of the father of anyone who would pay the required " alms," but Cardinal Henry declares that those who thus deceive the people sin greatly, for the power of the keys is of no avail to souls which have passed from the judgment of the Church to that of God.^ Soon after this Bona- ventura adopts the suggestion of Hales ; indulgences are only of service to the dead by way of suffrage and can be obtained only by the living performing the enjoined work and transferring it, and in this he is followed by Peter of Tarantaise.^ Vicarious satisfaction ^ Postill. super S. Eayinundi Summse Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. g 5. ^ Alex, de Ales Summae P. IV. Q. xxiii. Art. ii. Membr. 5. ^ Alb. Magni in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx, Artt. 18, 22. * Hostiens. Aurese Summte Lib. v. De Remiss. ^§ 6, 9. ° S. Bonaventurse in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. P. ii. Art. 1, Q. 5. — Petri HieremiiB Quadragesimale, De Feccato Serni. xxvii. IIL— 22 338 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. was so thoroughly recognized, the application of merits had been so long practised, and the use of suffrages of various kinds was so old a custom that this extension of the use of indulo-ences might well appear reasonable enough to overcome all scruples as to the limitation of the power of the keys to this world, especially when it was so ingeniously evaded by the substitution of the word "suffrage" for that of "jurisdiction." Aquinas was not disposed to listen to any such compromises. He boldly argued that there is no reason why the Church cannot trans- fer the common treasure to the dead as well as the living ; a remis- sion in the forum of the Church is good in the forum of God, but prelates must not imagine that they can liberate souls at will, for there must be a sufficient cause for granting indulgences.^ Thus already there was a dispute between those who admitted indulgences for the dead as to whether they could be granted directly and authori- tatively or whether they were merely suffrages offered to God in deprecation — a question which was not settled for two centuries to come. The whole matter in fact was as yet scarce more than an academical one, of no practical importance, for indulgences for the dead were scarce known. It is true that, in 1300, Boniface VIII., at the close of his jubilee, announced that those who had died on the road to Rome gained the indulgence,^ but this would seem to be regarded rather as a definition than a grant, and it is also true that, in 1310, the bishops assembled at the council of Mainz granted an indulgence of forty days to all buried in their churches, while not long afterwards Pierre de la Palu alludes to such indulgences issued by prelates, which he holds to be strictly within their competence, and that if it is so expressed in the concession anyone who gains an in- dulgence can apply it to a soul in purgatory,^ but, on the other hand, the four modes of suffrage enumerated by Gratian continued to be repeated, as though there had been no addition to them, except by Pierre himself, who describes these indulgences as a fifth, and by Dr. Weigel, who tells us that burning candles is of service provided 1 S. Til. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist. XLV. Q. ii. ad 3 ; Q. iii. ad 2 ; Summse Suppl. Q. XXV. Art. 1 ; Q. LXX. Art. 10. '^ Amort de Indulgent. I. 80. 3 C. Mogunt. ana. 1310 Lib. ii. (Hartzheim, IV. 197).— P. de Palude in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. Art. iii. Concl. 6 ; Dist. XLV. Q. 1, Art. 3, Concl. 5. DISCUSSION IN THE SCHOOLS. 339 they are offered to God and are otherwise uselessly consumed.^ If credence may be given to an account of the other world related by a man named Godfrey, who died at Brnchsall in 1321, and revived after six hours, the mass was still regarded as the most efficient aid that can be rendered to a sutfering soul.^ How little disposition there was, indeed, to supersede the time-honored forms of suffrage is manifested by the fourteenth and fifteenth century practice (p. 185) of granting indulgences to those who would pray for the souls of certain magnates. So roundabout a method of relief would not have been asked for or granted had the popes imagined themselves com- petent to apply the treasure directly as a suffrage for the souls in question.^ Certain theologians like Frangois de May rone had no hesitation in denying such power,* and the council of Vienne, in 1312, in its enumeration of the evil practices of the qucesiuarii, in- cludes their lying promises to extract from purgatory the souls of the kindred of those who buy their indulgences.^ Evidently none thus applicable had Ijcen issued by the Holy See, nor was there any thought that there could be. The theologians, however, went on discussing and disputing. Pierre de la Palu, as stated above, saw no difficulty in such indulgences even when granted by bishops. Durand de S. Pourgain took the position that souls in purgatory are not de foro eccleske, but they can enjoy ^ Hostiens. Aurete Summfe Lib. v. De Pcen. et Eemiss. ^ 59. — J. Friburgens. Summse Confessor. Lib. in. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 167. — Fr. de Mayrone in IV. Sentt. Dist. XXI. Art. 3. — Gloss, in Clement. (Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remiss, fol. 1566). — Weigel Claviculse Indulgent. Cap. Ixxix. Of course these modes of suffrage gave rise to innumerable nice questions which need not detain us here. They may be found elaborately discussed by Peter of Palermo, Quadragesimale, Be Peccato Serm. xxv. xxvi. " Trithem. Annal. Hirsaug. ann. 1321. ^ When Philippe le Long was dying, in 1322, he asked for the prayers of John XXII. to cleanse his soul, and the pope responded with an indulgence of twenty days to all who should pray for him. Even as late as 1470, on the eve of granting indulgences for the dead, Paul II. gave seven years aud seven quarantines to all who should visit the chapel of St. Anthony at Lisbon on the anniversary of Ferdinand, Infante of Portugal, and pray for his soul and those of his sister Isabella of Burgundy and their ancestors. — Amort de Indulg. I. 198, 202. * Fr. de Mayrone in IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. Cf. Dist. xxi. Q. 5. '= Cap. 2 I 1 Clement. Lib. v. Tit. ix. 340 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. indulgences through suffrage.^ Bartolommeo da S. Concordio im- pliedly denies this when he follows the council of Vieune in rebuking the pardoners for their lying promises of liberating souls. ^ Joan Andrea, the greatest canonist of the age, the Fons canonum and the Noimia legum, in commenting on the decree of Alexander III. re- stricting the indulgences of bishops to those under their jurisdiction, draws the conclusion that indulgences are of no benefit to souls in purgatory, for they are wholly under the jurisdiction of God, but he somewhat irrelevantly adds that the theologians say there is no reason why the treasure cannot be applied to them as well as to the living.^ William of Montlun, although he quotes Aquinas, asserts definitely that indulgences are of no service to souls in purgatory, for the keys have no power over those who have reached the judg- ment of God.* St. Birgitta seems to know nothing of such indul- gences in sundry revelations concerning purgatory and the assistance which the living can render to the dead.^ At last, however, there commenced a tentative movement to take practical advantage of the vague academic theories that were floating around. The Roman churches were ever conspicuously unscrupulous in assuming and asserting anything that would render them attractive to the oblations of sinners, and the assimilation of indulgences for the dead to suf- frages suggested the idea of special benefits derivable from certain altars — an idea which subsequently was developed into the "privi- leged altars" now forming so large a portion of the machinery for the release of souls. The chapel known as the Scala Coeli rejoiced in the legend which related that St. Bernard, when celebrating there a funeral mass, saw the souls for which he prayed ascending to heaven on a ladder. That there should be claimed for it, therefore, some peculiar advantage, now that indulgential suffrages were in the air, was not unnatural, but the undefined nature of these claims shows how completely uncertain as yet were all the ideas on the subject. 1 Durandi de S. Porciano iu IV. Sentt. Dist. xx. Q. iv. § 11. ■■* Siimma Pisanella s. v. Qucestuarii n. 3. ^ Gloss, in C. 4 Extra Lib. v. Tit. xxxviii. (Stepli. ex Nottis Opus Remiss, fol. 148a). * Guill. de Monte Lauduno, De Indulgentiis Q. 9. — "Sed nee illis qui sunt in purgatorio prosunt quia cum fiunt et procedunt virtute clavium et clavis non liget vel absolvat mortuos qui sunt relicti divino judicio." '" S. Birgittae Revelat. Lib. iv. Cap. 7, 9 ; Lib. vi. Cap. 52 ; Lib. vii. Cap. 14. TENTATIVE INDULGENCES. 341 According to the 1370 MS. of the "Stacions of Rome," it was the only church in Rome that asserted any especial privilege, and this was of the vaguest description, though the number of popes alleged as granting it shows that its importance was magnified to the utmost. Heore soules in heuene for to come There men may helpe, quike and dede As the clerkes in bokes rede Foure and fourti popes granted than That liggen at seint Sebastian. Pope Urban, Sihiestre and Benet Leon, Clement coufermede liit.^ The active minds that were exploiting the Portiuncula were not behindhand in making claims that their indulgence was as efficient for the dead as for the living, and Bartolorameo da Pisa soon after this asserts that one of its special advantages is that it can be taken by the living, and when applied to the dead it liberates them at once from purgatory — a fact which he proves by abundant miracles.^ ^ Early English Text Society, p. 5 (1867). In the fifteenth century recension this had greatly developed, but so crude were still the conceptions on the sub- ject that it claimed to release from both hell and purgatory, showing that it was self-asserted and unauthorized — Ther men may helpe bothe qwykke and dede, As clerkes yn her bokes rede ; Who-so syngeth masse yn that chappelle For any frend he loseth hym fro helle. He may hym brynge thorow purgatory y-wys In to the blys of paradys. Ther sowles abyde tylle domis day In myche ioye as y you say. — Ibid. p. 119. In the final prose version of about 1460-70, this extravagance is toned down. " He that sayeth a masse ther with good devossyon may brynge a soule out of pulcatorry to heyvyn and gretly helpe hys frende that is alyve, and iii M. yere of pardon ys granted by popys xlvii that Hue at sent sebestyande." — Early English Text Soc. 1867, pp. 31-2. ^ Lib. Conformitatum Ed. 1513, fol. 136, 139. I have already alluded (p. 243) to the contempt with which Cardinal Bonifazio de' Araanati treats this claim in his commentary on the Clementines, likening it to the abuses denounced in the council of Vienne. He relates that when there he passed through the little church as often as he chose, applying the indulgence each time to a soul in purgatory, including a mistress whom he had kept when a student at Padua. He evidently regarded the whole matter as a joke. — J. B. Thiers, Traits des Superstitions, T. IV. p. 259. 342 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. Still the general question whether such indulgences are possible remained undecided. Cardinal Zabarella quotes Henry of Susa and others on the one side and Aquinas and his followers on the other, and leaves it open/ It is not alluded to by Huss in his assaults on indulgences, and an anonymous tract in refutation of the Hussite Jacobel of Mies, in rehearsing the virtues of indulgences, says nothing about it,^ showing that it was of no practical importance and had attracted no public attention. Gerson reflects the uncertain condition of opinion at this time ; in one passage he denies that such indulgences can be granted ; in another he says that the opinions on each side are equally probable, and in a third he admits that the power of the keys can extend to purgatory indirectly, in view of the communion of saints in the creed.^ Even when Eugenius IV. and the council of Bale were issuing rival indulgences to raise money to carry on their competition for the Greek envoys, neither of them thought of having recourse to this attraction, and when, in 1439, the council of Florence presented to the Greeks a formula on purgatory, it mentioned as aids to the souls there only the old enumeration of masses, prayers and almsgiving.* In 1441 Dr. Weigel still cites the authorities on both sides, and, like Cardinal Zabarella, avoids a decision,^ while Peter of Palermo asserts resolutely that the pope can grant indulgences directly to souls in purgatory as a matter of jurisdiction, but this power is reserved to the pope alone — even the Virgin and the angels cannot exercise it." John of Imola, on the other hand, recurs to the old theory that the whole subject is ^ Steph. ex Nottis Opus Eemissionis fol. 1556, 2 Von der Hardt, Concil. Constant. T. III. pp. 685-90, * Jo. Gersonis Serm. ii. pro Defunctis (Ed, 1488 LX. B) ; Opusc. de Indul- gent, Consid. XI. ; De Absolutione defuncti Carthusianens. (xxxiii. M). At the end of the Opusc, de Indulgentiis there are some verses — Arbitrio Papse proprio si clavibus uti Possit, cur sinit ut poena jjios cruciet? Cur non evacuat loca purgandis animabus Tradita? Sed servus esse fidelis amat . . . Carus in Ecclesia thesaurus et utilis assit, Quern dat larga manus prodiga crimen habet (xxxiv. D). * C, Florent. aun. 1439 (Harduin. IX. 985). * Weigel Claviculfe Indulgent. Cap. lix. ® Pet. Hieremife Quadragesimale, De Peccato, Serm. xxviii. CONTINUED DISCUSSION. 343 based on the lies of the qusestuarii, and though he quotes the authorities on either side he conchides in the negative/ while Felix Hemmerlin, in his treatise preparatory to the jubilee of 1450, asserts confidently that the pope has power over the souls of the living and of the dead in purgatory, without drawing any distinction between them.^ The matter had thus been in debate for more than two centuries, and no decision had yet been reached, but the final result was inevit- able. However long the Church might hesitate to transcend the grant of the keys which were admitted to be confined to earth, and to regu- late the destinies of the souls which it had always said had passed to the judgment seat of God, it could not be expected always to reject the power which the schoolmen asserted to belong to it and to abstain from reaping the harvest promised by that extension of power. The frauds of the qusestuarii had produced a demand for indulgences for the dead, and such a demand would not fail in time to produce a supply. St. Antonino, whose authority was of the greatest, treats the subject repeatedly in a manner to show that it was attracting a constantly increased attention ; he admits that some denied the power; he asserts positively that the pope has authority to grant indulgences for purgatory, but denies that he can so exercise it as to release all the souls confined there : the concession, however, must specifically declare that it is so applicable, for no one can gain an ordinary indul- gence and apply it to the dead.^ About this time, moreover, another Roman church, San Giovanni di Porta Latina, asserted that on St. John's day its altar had the power of liberating a soul,^ and there are ^ Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis fol. 156. ^ Et potest vivis et defunctis, saltern degentibus in purgatorio, remissionis peccatorum gratiam impertiri. — Fel. Hemmerlin Dyalogus de annojubileo, p 3 (Ed. 1497). 3 S. Antonini Summfe P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3 ; P. iii. Tit. xxii. Cap. HI; Cap. 5 §6. * Stacions of Rome, MS. circa 1450, p. 122 — At seynt John the porte latyn Is a chapelle fayr and fyne ; At the feste of his day A sowle fro purgatorye wynne thou may. The 1370 text has no reference to this church, and neither has the later prose version. The claim was probably one that attracted no attention and was abandoned. 344 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. several papal iudulgences for the dead of this period which I think can be safely rejected as fictitious.^ Not long afterward the church of St- Praxeda, in Rome, displayed a tablet at the entrance of a chapel con- taining the pillar at which Christ was scourged, bearing the inscrip- tion tliat Pope Paschasius V. granted plenary remission, in the way of suffrage, to any soul in purgatory for which anyone should cele- brate or cause to be celebrated five masses in it ; that Paschasius, after celebrating the fifth mass for the soul of a nephew, saw through the window in front of the altar the Virgin extracting the said soul from purgatory, and further that eleven popes had confirmed the indul- gence." The novelty and boldness of this excited much attention, ^ The Hospital of S. Spirito in Saxia claimed to have an indulgence for the dead granted in 1447 by Nicholas V., which was confirmed by Leo X, Such an innovation would have attracted attention and could not have been passed over in silence by the writers of the period, while the earliest reference to it is in 1516, in the Chronicon Curice of Widemann (Menkenii Script, German. III. 735-7). For the same reason I doubt the accuracy of Voight who says (v. Raumer's Historisches Taschenbuch, 1833, p. 141) that in 1451 Nicholas of Cusa, in publishing the jubilee of 1450 in Germany, offered indulgences for the dead as well as for the living. The same argument applies to a similar indulgence said to have been granted by Calixtus III. (1455-58) to the cathe- dral of Taragona, and besides, had such grant been made it would not have escaped the researches of the editors of the Espana Sagrada, Tom. 49, 50. We shall see how great was the discussion raised when Sixtus IV., in 1476, really made such a concession to the church of Xaintes. "^ This account is given in the instructions issued by the church of Xaintes in 1482, of which more hereafter. It is also quoted by Gabriel Biel (in IV. Sentt. Dist. XLV. Q. iii. Art. 2), who states that Cardinal Raymond Perauld had it printed and circulated throughout Europe in 1500 to remove the doubts as to the indulgence for the dead in the jubilee of Alexander VI. Jean le Maire (in IV. Sentt. Dist. XX. Q. ii. ap. Amort de Indulg. II. 126) also alludes to it in connection with a discussion on the subject by the Sorbonne about the same time. All these contemporaries agree in ascribing the indulgence and the miracle to Paschasius V. As there never was a pope of that name, the blunder of the fabricator is evaded by modern authorities by attributing to Biel a mistake in the name, and by asserting that the real pope was Paschal I. (Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. i. Cap. 14. — Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 329), to whom they ascribe therefore the invention of privileged altars. As Paschal I. was pope from 817 to 824, of course the substitute is as impossible as his imaginary prototype. The tablet must have been displayed at St. Praxeda only a short time pre- vious to its use by the church of Xaintes as a proof of indulgences for the dead. THE FIRST INDULGENCE FOR THE DEAD. ^45 and several other churches speedily followed the example. San Lorenzo fuor le mura hung up a double bull iDefore the high altar under which reposed the relics of St. Lawrence and of St. Stephen protomartyr, announcing that two popes granted by way of suffrage to anvone who woidd visit devoutly that altar on a Thursday, the release from purgatory of a soul ; St. Sebastian extra urbern promised the same for those celebrating or causing to be celebrated a mass for a soul, and a similar promise was made in the chapel where St. Peter celebrated his first mass in Rome.' All these are so evidently fabrications that their only value is to indicate the tendency of the time to extend the function of indulgences to the dead and the keen desire felt to discover some new and profit- able field of operations. The first authentic response to this is found in a grant by Sixtus IV. in 1476 to the church of Xaintes. Why this recipient of the favor was chosen was probably because the Cardinal of San Grisostomo had obtained a valuable benefice in that church, while the mention of Raymond Perauld, the papal commissioner, and of papal collectors shows that the curia shared in the profits. The bull of concession granted, by way of suffrage, plenary remis- sion from purgatory to the souls for which kindred or friends would There is no allusion to it in any of the recensions of the " Stacions of Rome." In the earliest one, St. Praxeda had less indulgences than most of the Roman churches — Ther be graunted to everi man A thousend yere to pardoun And thridde part thi sinnes remissioun ( Ubi sujj. p. 18). In the second recension we find that St. Praxeda had grasped a plenary for Lammas day, and also one of a year and forty days with one-fourth of sins, but the general indulgence had fallen to five hundred years (lb. p. 139). In the condensed prose version of 1360-70 all that is said is " At sent praxsede the iiii. parte of synnys ys foregeyflf"' {'.(bi sup. p. 33). Evidently up to this time it was far behind its competitors, and the need of some new attraction must have been keenly felt. It was a cardinalate church, and Giovanni Colonna, who bore its title, about 1220 brought from Palestine and set up in it the pillar of scourging (Ciacconius, II. 58). ' All these are duly recited in the instructions of the church of Xaintes, and Biel tells us {loc cit.) that they were in the circular disseminated by Cardinal Perauld in 1500. Perauld had been papal commissioner, in 1482, to superintend the working of the indulgence granted to Xaintes, and doubtless furnished all this material. 346 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. pay a fixed sum to the church of Xaintes or to the papal collectors.' A grant so novel and unprecedented aroused an earnest discussion^ and was so little understood that, in 1477, Sixtus was obliged to issue another bull reciting that he had granted an indulgence for the dead per modum suffragii, which had given rise to many scandals and abuses, and that many errors had been preached to the eifect that it rendered all the old methods of suffrage superfluous ; to counteract this he had written to the bishops to explain that it had not been issued to prevent the faithful from offering the customary suffrages, but to relieve souls in purgatory, to which end it served in the same way as the others. Then, again, to his great disgust and indignation, the bishops proclaimed, on the strength of this, that the indulgence was no better than prayers and alms ; for this he rates them soundly, he explains that prayers and alms differ greatly from indulgences per modum suffragii; he had only meant that they both operated in the same manner and that the latter supplied what was lacking in the former, and in this sense he ordered the indulgence to be accepted.^ This exhibits to us the inevitable antagonism which immediately sprang up when the officiating priests everywhere saw one of their main sources of revenue threatened by this new intruder, which prom- ised to perform more effectually what for centuries had been their lucrative and exclusive privilege in celebrating masses for the dead. Sixtus evidently saw that he had a narrow path to tread, and in his equivocating bull he endeavored in a confused way to soothe the clergy by representing the old and the new as mutually com- plementary. The clergy might well feel alarmed, for the preachers employed by the church of Xaintes had been little scrupulous in their eagerness to dispose of the indulgence and had not hesitated ^ As the earliest indulgence of this kind, the bull has a special interest. The clause concerning souls in purgatory will be found in the Appendix, as given in the tract issued by the church of Xaintes. 2 Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Romani Pontlficls, 27 Nov. 1477. Amort (II. 292) prints this bull from the Cathedral Library at Augsburg. It is also included in a mani- festo or prospectus of the indulgence issued by the church of Xaintes in 1482. I have a copy of this extremely scarce production, without date or place of impression. It is a folio of thirty-four unnumbered pages and consists of two parts — the first a collection of opinions and documents, the second a Summarium of the Indulgence or instructions for the preachers and qusestuarii sent out to publish it to the faithful. As one of the rarest of the incunabula, I present considerable extracts from it in the Appendix. OPPOSITIOy AND DEBATE. 347 to make promises which rendered all the older suffrages unnecessary. They declared that no matter how long a soul had to suffer in pur- gatory it would at once fly to heaven as soon as six blancs were given for it as suffrage in alms for the repair of the church of Xaintes. Although Sixtus, iu his bull of 1477, might repudiate any such interpretation of his grant, the preachers continued to give these assurances, and in 1482 the Sorbouue felt obliged formally to con- demn them as not to be absolutely affirmed and as not warranted by the bull nor safely to be preached to the people.^ It can readily be understood that the innovation excited much discussion and provoked many doubts. The subject had hitherto been confined to the schools, and even there theologians had not been able to reach an unanimous conclusion in favor of the power thus assumed. To the people it was a novelty wliich could not be at once accepted, even on the authority of the Holy See. The bene- ficiary of the grant therefore was obliged to use every means to over- come popular incredulity and clerical opposition. It sought the opinions of learned doctors in its favor and accumulated all the evi- dences and precedents that it could find, and printed them for the edification of the community, to prove that the pope had the power which he had assumed, and in this it relied largely on the forged bull of Clement VI., purporting to have been issued in 1346, in wliich he commanded angels to extract from purgatory the souls of pilgrims who should die on the road to his jubilee (see p. 203). In the Appendix will be found the salient points of one of the opinions, ' D'Argentre, I. ii. 307. " Talis propositio non est simpliciter, absolute et catholics asserenda, nee ex tenore buUte seu virtute indulgentiarum prsedictse ecclesiee S. Petri Xantonensis concessarum, sane nee secure populo quovis modo preedicanda." The grand blanc was a trifle less than one-third of a gros tounwls, and as there were ten gros to a florin, the price of liberation of a soul was about one- fifth of a florin. In spite of this condemnation the Sorbonne was obliged, in 1516, to repeat it more emphatically when the preachers of the crokade in Paris declared that as soon as a feston (12 sous tournois) was deposited in the chest the soul would infallibly fly to paradise, and that for a thousand fe^fofis a thousand souls would be thus liberated. — D'Argentre, I. ii. 355. In Germany at the same period there was attributed to Tetzel the doggerel rhyme — So bald das Geld im Kasten klinget So bald sich die Seele in Himmel schwinget.. 348 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. given by Dr. Johaunes de Fabrica, who proves the validity of the iDdiilgeuce by the illimitable power of the papacy, which no one must oppose or question ; the pope not only has the right to assist souls in purgatory by way of suffrage, but direct jurisdiction to relieve them of their torments. There is another and longer argu- ment by Master Nicholas Richard, who points out that an ordinary indulgence cannot be transferred to the dead, but it can be if it em- bodies a provision to that effect. He argues that souls in purgatory are still on earth and subject to papal jurisdiction ; he also proves that the pope, as the sole custodian of the treasure, can grant indul- gences by way of suffrage, shifting from one to the other as though his object was to confuse the question, and he warns the people not rashly to doubt the judgment and power of the pope, for in the one way or the other he can effect it ; this suffices, and to question it is sacrilege. To soothe the jealous alarm of the priests he assures them that indulgences need not supersede the ordinary suffrages, for the latter, if unnecessary for souls in purgatory, will redound to the tem- poral and spiritual benefit of the giver. He discusses also a curious question, which shows how many interests were affected by the inno- vation— whether, when a man left a bequest for masses for his soul and an indulgence was procured for him, the bequest should still be paid, and this he decides in the affirmative for many reasons, among others that, although he would already be in paradise, his joys would be increased by the masses. This is followed by a collection of bulls, including the forged one of Clement VI., and extracts from Gerson and St. Antonino, show- ing how much material was deemed necessary to convince the people of the validity of this novel exercise of papal authority. Finally we have the instructions for the guidance of the preachers of the indul- gence— or rather indulgences, for the liberality of Pope Sixtus had bestowed on the church of Xaintes graces for both the living and the dead. This document sheds so much light on the business as conducted at this period that I have inserted the more important sections in the Appendix. It enumerates the four graces conferred on the church and offered lor the liberality of the pious. First, there is a jubilee, equal to that obtainable by a pilgrimage to Rome. Sec- ond, there is a faculty to confessors to absolve for all papal reserved cases and to grant plenary indulgence as often as the sinner thinks himself in danger of death. Third and chief is the jubilee for souls OPPOSITION AXD DEBATE. 349 in purgatory, and fourth, is participation offered to both living and dead in all the suffrages, prayers and good works of the Church Universal. All these are set forth in the most alluring terms, and their superior and unprecedented a^lvantages are fervently described. Allusion is made to the opposition excited by the high prices asked for these benefits, especially as confessional letters have recently been sold everywhere for whatever purchasers were willing to give for them, the chaffering over which was a scandal and disgrace to the Church, and the faithful are assured that for the present one no abatement will be made. Moreover, it is explained that these letters are much more desirable than the former ones — better indeed than those customarily sold in Rome for three florins. As to the objection urged that the poor are thus deprived of the benefits offered, the reply to be made is that the condition of the poor is worse in many other respects than that of the rich, and it is better that they should thus suffer than that the treasure of the Church should be vilipended — besides, the commissioners are empowered to use discretion in some cases. ^ The indulgence for souls in purgatory evidently gave to the framers of the instructions considerable trouble from the necessity of finding answers to the doubt and wonder which its novelty had excited, the incredulity as to its validity and the disposition existing to consider an indulgence per laodum suffragii as no better than the customary suffrages of the Church. There is a long and labored discjuisition to confuse the matter, to prove that the popes have direct jurisdiction over purgatory, and to convey the impression that the term " suffrage " means nothing;. Finally the instructions conclude with an extract from the fictitious bull of Clement YI., ordering the angels to conduct souls from purgatory, and to this the attention of preachers is specially directed. I have dwelt thus at length on this indulgence " because it was the first authentic assertion by the Holy See of power over purgatory, a power which has borne such abundant fruits, and which marks so great an advance in the spiritual attributes of the papacy. Some writers have sought to extenuate it by arguing, as did the clergy of ^ A less brutal argument than this, as to the advantage which the rich have over the poor through indulgences is "And very fit they should ; having so many disadvantages and running so many hazards from their Wealth other waies." — The Roman Doctrine of Repentance and of Indulgences vindicated from Dr. Stillingfleet's Misrepresentations, p. 63 (London, 1672J. 350 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. Xaintes, that it in fact was nothing but the time-honored custom of offering suffrages for the dead, in view of the fact that Sixtus, in adopting the formula per modum suffragii, settled the academic dis- cussion whether such indulgences could be granted as a matter of jurisdiction or of suffrage. Dr. Amort is virtually of this opinion, arguing that the Church has always prayed for the dead ; if, at the end of the fifteenth century, it operated in a new manner, and if the new method is more efficacious and certain than the old, there was cruelty in not using it for fifteen centuries ; now the Church cannot be said to have been ignorant of its power or to have been cruel ; it cannot have left the souls of the faithful to languish in purgatory when it could have relieved them, and therefore its present method must be merely the same as its former one.^ In spite of the repeated bulls of Sixtus and of the efforts of the beneficiaries of Xaintes the new indulgences for the dead did not meet with universal acceptance. Angiolo da Chivasso admits theo- retically the papal power to issue them as suffrage, but to him it is still evidently only an academic question. Baptista Tornamala equivocates and shuffles the matter aside.^ Gabriel Biel argued against it in his Exposition of the Mass, but on being shown, about 1485, the bull of Sixtus IV., and that Innocent VIII. soon after- wards extended the indulgence to the crusade against the Turks, he yielded assent, and added an appendix to his book, in which he showed his dialectic skill by disproving his previous arguments ; but he still maintained that the traditional suffrages are indispensable, since the validity of indulgences depends on God's approval of the causes for which they are issued, and if the keys err by granting them with simoniacal or avaricious intent they are inefficient.^ After the papal power had once been asserted, however, to call it in ques- tion was dangerous, and there was scant hesitation in enforcing unanimity of opinion. The denial of it was one of the heresies ' Amort de Indulgent. II. 291. ^ Summa Angelica s. vv. Indulgentia ? 21, Purgatovium, Suffragia. — Summa Rosella s. vv. Indulgentia § 14, Saffragium. ^ Gab. Biel Expositio Missis Lect. 57 (Ed. 1515 fol. 153-55).—" Sed dubium esse posset an causa indulgentiarum sit ea quam Deus approbat : an couferentis intentio sana sit et Integra et non subdola ex simoniae vitio vel avaricise pro- cedens, quae licet non sint facile praesumenda, non tamen sunt undequaque certa, nam, clave errante, potestas clavium debita caret efficacia." GRADUAL INTRODUCTION. 351 which Pedro de Osma was forced to recant in 1478/ and even more severe was the treatment of Dr. Dietrich Mohring, a canon of Bamberg, Wiirtzburg, and Eichstadt, in 1489, when Raymond Perauld came as papal commissioner to preach a jnbilee with indul- gences for the dead. He asserted that such indulgences could only be granted as suffrage, whereupon the commissioner flung him in gaol, where he lay for nine years," When Alexander VI. published his jubilee of 1500 he did not neglect this fresh source of profit. As usual, no ''alms" were required of pilgrims seeking the indulgence for themselves, but he announced that there would be a chest placed in St. Peter's, where the penitentiaries were empowered to grant plenary indulgences by ■svay of suffrage to all souls in purgatory on the deposit in the chest of such sums as they might designate, giving as a reason for this the suifering of the souls arising from the suspension of all other indulo-ences which he had ordered.^ It was the same when he ex- tended the jubilee elsewhere, and we have seen how, to overcome the incredulity which still prevailed as to the validity of indulgences for the dead, Raymond Perauld, by this time a cardinal, printed and circulated an account of the privileged altars in St. Praxeda and other Roman churches. Julius II. was not likely to overlook this resource w^hen, to raise money for the gigantic structure of St. Peter's, he issued, in 1510, the celebrated bull Liquet Omnibus, which finally aroused the oppo- sition of Luther. In this the plenissima indulgence by way of suffrage for souls in purgatory is promised to all who wnll pay the amount determined by the commissioners. Participation in the good works of the Church Universal is further promised to all who will stretch forth a helping hand to the fabric, aud, curiously enough, when Albert of Mainz, in 1517, undertook to farm out this bull, the indulgence promised for the dead is only this participation. 1 Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Licet ea, I 3 (Bullar. I. 417). ^ Linturii Append, ad Rolewinek ann. 1489 (Pistorii Rer. Germ. Scriptt. II. 578)._Widemanni Chron. Curiae ann. 1489 (Menkenii III. 722-3), ' Alex. PP. VI. Bull. Inter. euros wiM^^tp^tces (Bullar. Vatican. III. 321. — Steph. ex Nottis Opus Remissionis fol. 160]. So, in a sermon preached on Ash Wednesday, 1500, before Alexander VI. by Gaspar Pou, indulgences for the dead are spoken of as granted by way of suffrage. — Oratio Gasparis Pou, s. 1. e. a (sed Romae, 1500). 352 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. showing how crude and uncertain as yet were the conceptions of the whole subject.^ In Rome, however, by this time the matter was beginning to be pretty well understood, and indulgences for the dead were becoming part of the recognized resources of the curia. In 1512 Leo X. granted to the Benedictine Congregation of St. Justina that any one celebrating three masses on an altar, to be designated by the prior of a house, for the soul of a kinsman within the third degree, should liberate it as though the masses had been sung at the altar of St. Gregory or St. Sebastian ^ In 1515 we hear of various privileged altars in Sj)ain and Naples, and Leo conceded an indul- gence to the Roman Hospital of the Savior, in which there is a clause granting unconditional release from purgatory, by way of suffrage, to all souls for whom alms are given to the Hospital. There is no expression of doubt and no condition that it shall depend on the good pleasure of God.^ Luther naturally did not neglect this comparatively weak spot in the enemy's line. It was a theory which he could deny without denying purgatory or the efficacy of good works for the souls lan- guishing there, and in 15 L8, while he yet considered himself to be within the Church, he expressed his disbelief in it as a recent doc- trine, which had never been proved or authoritatively sanctioned, and he declared that the old methods of prayer and pious works were more certain. Tetzel, in reply, contented himself with referring to the privileged altars in Rome and elsewhere and to the infallibility of the Holy See which had granted such indulgences, while the opin- ions of Aquinas and other doctors in their favor had never been condemned.* A more authoritative champion entered the lists about the same time in Cardinal Caietano, who expressly disclaimed for the papacy any jurisdiction over souls in purgatory ; they are wholly subject to the pleasure of God ; the pope can only offer to help them from the treasure, confiding that the divine mercy will accept Avhat is offered ; it is not all souls that can be thus relieved, but only those which in life showed special submission to the keys and zeal in aid- ^ Julii PP. II. Bull. Liquet omnibus (BiiUar. I. 502). — Amort de Indulg. I. 210. 2 Amort de Indulg. I. 214. 3 Hergenrother, Regest. Leou. PP. X. n. 6572, 14248, 14275, 16800, 17062. ^ Lutheri Coucio de Indulgent, n. 19 (0pp. I. 126). — Tetzel's Vorlegung, XVIII. (Grone, Tetzel u. Luther, p. 231). GRADUAL INTRODUCTION. 353 ins: those which had o-one before ; besides the oiFer for each soul must be acceptable to God. Thus while iudulgeuces for the living are infallible, those for the dead are uncertain, and the Church is not responsible for the errors which the preachers of indulgences may- utter through greed. ^ Leo X., whose growing laxity on the subject is manifested by a grant about this time to the Observantine Fran- ciscans, under which any friar could liberate a soul on Palm Sunday, the feast of St. John (Dec. 27) and of St. John ante Portam Latiuam (May 6) by simply reciting before the altar the penitential psalms or live Paters and Aves' — Leo X. was not disposed to admit these limi- tations and distinctions, and in his epistle addressed to Caietano, November 9, 1518, which contains the first authoritative definition on the subject, he only admits that the indulgence to the living is direct absolution, while the application to the dead is per modum suffragii, without recognizing that there is any difference as to their efficacy.^ It is somewhat carious that, two years after this, the learned Jacobus Latomus, in defending the condemnation of Luther's heresies by his univ^ersity of Lou vain, seems to regard the question as still unsettled and defines the indulgence by way of suffrage as merely a supplication, an opinion which, he says, he holds subject to the determination of the Church/ Even more significant is the fact that Adrian VI., in his Disputatious on the Fourth Book of the Sen- tences, printed in 1522 (though doubtless written long before), while debating keenly the intricate questions relating to indulgences, is silent as to their application to souls in purgatory.' Eight years later Berthold of Chiemsee is cautiously non-committal ; we know noth- ing of what is done with the souls in purgatory, but we are allowed to hope that if the work enjoined by the indulgence is performed it will aid in lightening or removing the punishment assigned to them.^ ^ Caietaui Tract, xvi. De ladulg. Q. 5. ^ Amort de Indulgent. I. 158. 3 Leo. PP. X. Epist. Cum posfguam, 9 Nov. 1518 (Le Plat, Monum. C. Tri- dent. 11. 23). "Sive in hoc vita sint, sive in purgatorio, indulgentias ex superabundantia meritorum Ohristi et sanctorum, ac tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis, apostolica auctoritate indulgentiam concedendo, thesaurum meri- torum Cliristi et sanctorum dispensare, per modum absolutionis indulgentiam. ipsam conferre, vel per modum suflfragii illain transferre, consuevisse." * Jac. Latomi adv. Hterese-s Art. vii. ^ Adriani PP. VI. Disput. in IV. Sentt. fol. clviii.-clxv. « Bertoldi Ciiiemens. Theologise Cap. 83, n. 9, 10 ; Cap. 89, n. 2. 111.-23 354 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. It was possibly in view of the discussiou aroused on the subject and the desire to avoid the attacks of the heretics that Clement VII. did not make his jubilee of 1525 applicable to the dead.^ A more re- markable feature, however, in the development of the doctrine is the fact that the council of Trent is entirely silent on the subject, and does not even include indulgences among the means by which the livino; can assist the dead.^ Soon after this Miguel Medina tells us that there were still s'ood and learned Catholics who could not recog- nize the efficacy of indulgences for souls in purgatory. They argued that the powers to bind and to loose are correlative, and as the pope cannot bind the souls of the dead so he cannot loose them, and thev quoted the decree of the council of Vienne denouncing the lies of the pardoners.^ Even Azpilcueta only admits that there is a valid presumption that the pope grants such indulgences by way of suf- frage.* Whatever doubts and scruples might be entertained by individual theologians, the Church at large by this time was fully committed to the doctrine, and the popes felt no misgivings as to their own power. It might seem incredible that a human being can persuade himself that he wields such authority, but tliere can be no reasonable doubt that the conviction is honestly entertained. How limitless and arbitrary it is may be estimated from the fact, serai- officiallv related by Cardinal Valerio, that, during the jubilee ot 1600, the Societd iW Suffragj, formed to aid souls in purgatory, marched, on October 1, 25,000 strong to the four churches. Clement VIII. met them on the way and was so aifected by the sight that on the spot he empowered each of them, and all who would accompany them, to release a soul.^ It is scarce worth while to follow further in detail this portion of our subject. The irresistible tendency to multi- ply and facilitate indulgences showed itself in this as in those for the living, and now all those collected in the RaccoUa are applicable to the dead. This is perhaps natural, in view of the popular teaching that God is impotent to release souls from purgatory before their ^ Eaynald. aim. 1525, u. 2. ^ C. Trident. Sess xxv. Deer, de Purgatorio. ^ Mich. Medinje Disp. de Indulgent. Cap. xxxii. — " Sed quosdam etiam Catholicos et alioque doctos viros acerrime torsit, dum qua ratione ecclesias- tica potestas in corpore jam exutas animas extendatur non satis percipiunt." * Azpilcuetse de Jubilseo Notab. xxii. I 33. ^ Valerius de Sacro" Anno 1600, p. Ixxvi. THE EMPTYING OF PURGATORY. 355 allotted time without the aid of man — perhaps the most significant indication of the degree to which the Church has succeeded to the functions of the Almighty/ In view of this extension of the papal power, the question has naturally arisen whether the pope can, by tlie exercise of his authority, empty purgatory. As a subject about which the disputants cannot possibly know anything, it has had a strong attraction for theologians whose opinions in general are none the less positive because of their ignorance, and few have had the caution of Agostino da Ancona, who admits that he does not know and doubts whether anyone, even the pope himself, does know.^ Astesanus answers the question, why, if the pope has the power, he does not empty purgatory at a word, by saying that as God's minister he must exercise his power discreetly, otherwise God will not accept his acts.^ St. Antonino denies the papal ability on the similar ground that such exercise of his power would be irrational and indiscreet.^ In 1483, when a zealous Fran- ciscan preached that souls in purgatory were under the jurisdiction of the pope, who could release them all at will, the Sorbonne condemned it as dubious in itself, scandalous, and on no account to be taught to the people.^ In an Ash AVednesday jubilee sermon preached, in 1500, ' " On peut dire qu'envers les ames du Purgatoire Dieu se trouve dans un etat violent. Dieu aime ces ames comme un pere et 11 ne peut leur faire aucun bien. II les volt pleines de merite, et 11 ne peut encore les recompenser ; 11 reconnait en elles ses epouses, et il est force de les frapper. Son amour est comme un torrent pret a leur inonder, mais arrete par I'obstacle d'un peclie non expi^. Xons pouvons lever cet obstacle et faire cesser cette violence par nos satisfactions." — Pieux Commerce des Vivants avec les Morts, p. 13. The " Bibliotheque Catholique de I'Hopital Militaire de Toulouse," to which this little tract belongs, was blessed by Pius IX., May 1, 1862. The same view is presented by Pere Gay, Neuvaine en I'Honneur des Ames du Purgatoire, pp. 53-4. When Ricci, at the synod of Pistoja, denounced as chimerical the application of indulgences to the dead, Pius VI. condemned this opinion as false, rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the popes and to the practice and sense of the Church Universal, and leading to the error condemned in Pedro de Osma and Luther. — Bull. Audorem fidei Prop. 42. ^ Aug. de Ancona Lib. de Potestate Ecclesise Q. xxir. Art. iii. (Amort de Indulg. II. 76). ' Astesani Summre Lib. v. Tit. xl. Art. 4, Q. 6. < S. Antonini Summre P. i. Tit. x. Cap. 3 | 2 ; P. ill. Tit. xxii. Cap. 5 J 6. * D'Argentre, I. ll. 305. 356 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. before Alexander VI. by Gaspar Poii, professor of theology and apostolic prothonotary and penitentiary, the preacher prudently de- clines to discuss the question whether his master can empty purgatory, and leaves it for those more learned than himself.' When Luther used the power to empty purgatory as an argnmentum ad ahsurdum against all indulgences for the dead, Ambrogio Catarino admitted its force by replying that the pope could not do so, because indulgences without just cause are invalid.^ With the introduction and spread of these indulgences, however, theologians were becoming more inclined to laxity. Prierias and Bartolommeo Fnmo argue that the papal power is illimitable over both earth and purgatory, and that he could empty the latter if anyone would do what he prescribed for such purpose, but he would sin in making such indiscreet concession ; and this is the sense in which doctors have denied him the power.'' Miguel Medina inferentially admits the power when he replies to the taunts of the heretics that to do so would not be consistent with the example of Christ.^ Bellarmine is more conservative ; the pope cannot arbi- trarilv empty purgatory, for the benefit of the souls and the glory accruing to God from their liberation would not be adequate cause.^ Polacchi hedges somewhat by asserting that the power of the pope and the treasure at his disposal are both sufficient, but the exercise of it is an impossibility, for a sufficient cause is required and works must be duly performed by the living.^ The commentators on the cruzada were loyally disposed to exaggerate as far as possible the potencv of their wares, and Nogueira informs us that they are unani- mous in asserting the papal power.'' ]\Iodern theologians are more moderate. Ferraris denies the power because there can be no rational cause for such a concession, and Palmieri asserts that no one now concedes that the pope can empty purgatory at his discretion.^ Yet ^ Oratio habita Roiute Anno Jubilaei MCCCCC in die cinerum coram Alex- andre Sexto Pontifice per Gasparem Pou Ilerdensem. s. 1. e. a. (sed Romfe. 1500). 2 Ambr. Catarini adv. Lutheri Dogmata Lib. ill. (Florentite, 1520, fol. 756). * Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Papa, | 6.— Aurea Armilla s. v. Papa, I 11. * Micli. Medina Disputat. de Indulgent. Cap. 36. * Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. I. Cap. xiv. « Polacci Comment, in Bull. Urbani PP. VII I. p. 112. ^ Nogueira Expositio Bull* Cruciatop, Ed. Colon. 1744, p. 525. * Ferraris Prompta Bibl. s. v. ladidgentia, Art. ll. n. 32.— Palmieri Tract, de Indulg. p. 479. EFFICACY OF INDULGENCES. 357 Leo Xlir. nearly accomplished this when, as one of the incidents of his jubilee in 1888, he ordered for the last Sunday in September a mass in commemoration of all the faithful dead, when every altar should be privileged and to every one taking the Eucharist was given a plenary indulgence for the dead/ The question which we have seen disputed by the schoolmen, as to whether these indulgences are a matter of jurisdiction or are merely equivalents offered to God by way of suffrage, was virtually settled when Sixtus IV., in issuing the earliest one, specified that it was in suffi'age, and was followed by his successors. This has been accepted by modern theologians with general unanimity, the onlv writer of distinction, so far as I have observed, who holds that the jurisdiction of the keys extends to purgatory being Miguel Medina.^ The point is not wholly a scholastic distinction without a difference, because, if the keys have jurisdiction, bishops can grant such indulgences, while if the relief of souls is accomplished only through suff'rage, the grant can be made only by the pope as the sole dispenser of the treasure. In practice it is recognized that this is no part of the episcopal powers, unless through special papal delegation.^ The question being settled in favor of suff'rage leads to another and still more important one as to the real value and efficacy of these indulgences. In this the Church had a narrow and difficult path to tread. A large portion of the revenues of the clergy arose from the suff'rages which, from time immemorial, it had been their special privi- lege to offer, and we have seen, when the innovation was inaugurated at Xaintes, the clamor which it aroused and the position which Sixtus IV. was forced to assume that the new indulgences were not intended to supersede the old suff'rages, but only to complement them. Another two-edged motive makes itself apparent in the discussion which has lasted from that time to this — on the one hand, the more confident the assurances of efficacy, the more desirable are the indulgences; on the other, if a shade of doubt is cast upon them there is ground for urging their repetition. Accordingly the question has been the sub- ject of endless debate. At first the natural desire on the part of tlie 1 Leo PP. XIII. Epist. Quod anniversarius (Acta, VIII. 159). ^ Mich. Medinse Dir^putat. de Indulgent. Cap. xxxiv. xxxvi. xli. ' Privitera Manuale Antistituni, p. 306 (Xeapoli, 1890). 358 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. body of churchmen was to represent them as uncertain in their action, which, as we have seen, Caietano based on the varying qualifications of the souls in purgatory, while the Sorbonue asserted that it depends on the will of God.^ Leo X., however, in his contemporaneous defi- nition, placed indulgences for the living and the dead on precisely the same basis ; in either case the liberation from temporal punishment is the same, and there is no intimation that the result is less certain in the one case than in the other.^ As this was ordered to be every- where taught and published under pain of suspension and in virtue of the obedience due to the Holy See, it might seem to decide the question authoritatively in favor of the infallible action of indul- gences for the dead. Yet the question has been discussed from that time to this without agreement being reached, and if Diana assures us that God has no free-will in the matter, and that the perpetual tradition of the Church is that the infallible release is promised by Christ, and Cardinal Toletus argues that it is a compact made by God, Bouvier tells us that no one can feel certain of having accom- plished in this matter the liberation of a soul, and the Raccolta, after affirming that the effect is immediate, prudently adds the condition, if Divine Justice deigns to accept it.^ We need hardly wonder, there- fore, that modern authorities inform us that there are two opinions on the subject, but that at least it may be safely asserted that indul- gences help the dead, otherwise the Church would do what is fruitless in thus applying them, which cannot be admitted without impiety.* Those who argue in favor of infallible efficacy, and that God is bound to accept the payment of the treasure, admit, however, that the in- dulgence must be properly granted, and that, if there is not just cause for it, it is invalid, and moreover there may be some special reason why God may make an exception of an individual soul.^ ^ Mais s'en faut rapporter a Dieu, qui accepte ainsy qu'il liiy plaist le tresor de I'Eglise applique aux dictes ames. — D'Argentre I. ii. 356. - Leon. PP. X. Epist. Cumposfquam. "Ac propterea omnes tarn vivos quam defunctos, qui veraciter omnes indulgentias hujusmodi consecuti fuerint, a tanta temporali poena, quanta concessse ac acquisitse indulgentise sequivalet." ^ Summa Diana s. v. Indulgentia n. 4. — C. Toleti Instruct. Sacerd. Lib. vi. Cap. 26. — Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 35. — Raccolta, p. si. * Palraieri Tract, de Pcenit. p. 480.— Gury Compend. Theol. II. 1049.— Berin- ger, Die Ablasse, pp. 43-44. * Ferraris Prompta Bibl. s. v. Indulgentia, Art. ill. n. 16, 18, 19. EFFICACY OF IXDULGENCES. 359 This shade of uncertainty aifords a reason why, after a plenary indul- gence is procured for a soul, it should not be relied upon, but there should be diligence in procuring others and in ordering suffrages for its relief, such as masses and other pious works.^ The Bala de Di/untos, which is sold to-day in Spain for fifteen cents, promises a plenary indulgence to the soul for which it is taken, without an inti- mation that the effect may be in any way doubtful, and it is described by the Commissioner General as an authentic receipt in full, but the commentators are thriftily agreed that it is prudent not to rely on a single one, but to make matters sure by purchasing more.^ ^ Ferraris, loc. cit. — Bouvier, loc. cit. — Joubanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 202. Grone informs us (Der Ablass, pp. 81-2) that there is much popular misap- prehension respecting the certainty of indulgences for the dead, and he instances a French pilgrim to Rome who believed that he had secured the liberation of the souls of all his relatives up to the seventh degree of kinship. - Rodriguez, Esplicazione della BoUa de' 3Iorti, pp. 5-6. — TruUench Esposit. Bullse Cruciatse Lib. iv. Dub. ix. n. 7. — Salces, Explicacion de la Bula de la Santa Cruzada, pp. 74, 79 (Madrid, 1881). The Bula de Difuntos will be found in the Appendix. Dr. Amort, writing in 1730, furnishes us with a very curious arithmetical computation in order to demonstrate conclusively his proposition that indul- gences for the dead are uncertain. He rejects as too severe the assertion of a woman revived by Berthold of Ratisbon, who related that of 60,000 souls ac- companying her, only three were admitted to purgatory and the rest were consigned to hell (Raderi Bavaria Sancta, T. I. p. 152), and assumes that of Catholics one-third go to purgatory, one-third to hell, and the remaining third are children below the age of responsibility. Assuming the number of Catho- lics to be 166,000,000 (a large estimate for 1730, for it is said that within a cen- tury Catholics have increased from 120,000,000 to 200.000,000, and Protestants from 40,000,000 to 148,000,000), and the deaths to be 40 per 1000 annually, we have 18,192 Catholic deaths per diem, or, in round numbers, 7000 for purgatory, but to be safe he places the figures at 10,000, or 3,650,000 per annum. In the 1730 years since Christ this would amount to 6,314,500,000 souls. Now of the 166,000,000 Catholics, he says, each one on an average takes out five indul- gences for the dead every three years, making, in round numbers, 800,000,000 eveiy three years, being more than enough in 30 years (Dr. Amort says every three years, but he adds a cypher in his calculations) to release all the souls which, since the birth of Christ, can be presumed to have entered purgatory. Besides this are to be reckoned 20,000 masses daily on privileged altars, more than sufficient twice over in themselves to release the daily entries into purga- tory, to say nothing of about 600.000 ordinary masses daily. 100,000 communions, and innumerable prayers. If, therefore, he concludes, all indulgences and 360 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. Another troublesome question, which has been found impossible of solution, is whether one who desires to take out an indulgence for a soul in purgatory must himself be in a state of grace. To insist on this is very seriously to limit the application of this relief to the suffering spirits ; to deny it shows indifference as to the channel through which the grace may pass. Before the subject became prac- tical Peter of Palermo asserted that the performer of the work enjoined for tlie indulgence need not be in a state of grace.^ So long as this Avork simply consisted in placing a coin in the chest of the commissioner it was not to be expected that any doubt should be raised as to the efficacy of " alms " from those in mortal sin. Luther was hardy enough to deny it, and was vigorously answered by Tetzel, who moreover defended his proposition in his thesis for the doctorate at the recently founded university of Frankfort on the Oder, where he received for it the applause of all the professors, showing this to be the accepted doctrine.^ So long as indulgences continued to be sold there Avas naturally no question raised as to this, except when one applicable to the dead was based on pious works. As Domingo Soto argues, if it is dependent on the payment of money, the condition of the purchaser is of no importance, if on reciting psalms or visiting a church this must be done in a state of grace, for these works are worthless when performed in sin, but even this limitation was not admitted by Azpilcueta,^ The commentators privileged masses liberate a soul, it is impossible for one to remain in purga- tory. Such a calculation would be much more forcible to-day, when privileged altars have been so enormously multiplied, plenary indulgences have been increased, and their application to the dead so greatly extended. It should be observed that an indulgence or a mass for a soul which is not in purgatory is not lost, but is applied to the rest or to some other one (Grone, Der Ablass, p. 139). How little confidence, in fact, is felt in the efficacy of indulgences and privileged masses, and how little they interfere with the revenues of the churches, is shown by a contested will case which came before the courts of Philadelphia in 1891. The testatrix, leaving an estate of from $30,000 to $35,000, bequeathed $4,500 in pious legacies and the whole of the residue for masses for her soul and those of her brother and daughter. The contest was on the ground of alleged unsound mind and undue influence by her confessor. ' Pet. Hieremise Quadrages. De Peccato Serm. xxvil. ^ Grone, Der Ablass, p. 83. ^ Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. XLV. Q. ii. Art. 3. — Azpilcueta, De Jobilseo Notab. XXII. n. 30, 31. THE STATE OF GRACE. 361 on the cruzada, therefore, assume that the Bula de Difiuitos is as effective when paid for bv a sinner as by one in grace, except that in one passage Rodriguez hints at a possible doubt as an argument why repeated bulls should be taken and why the dying sliould order their heirs to take all the bulls that may be offered.^ The discouragement of eleemosynary indulgences by St. Pius V. by no means removed the question from the forum of debate, and the authorities on either side seem to be about evenly balanced. The curious materialist and mercantile view introduced into all these matters by the treasure of the Church shows itself in the argument of those who hold that the condition of him who takes out the bull is indifferent. He may perform all the works enjoined in a state of sin, for the price of the punishment remitted is not the work thus performed, but the treasure of the Church which is applied in exchange for the work : the performer is not considered to satisfy for the punishment but to perform the work, whereupon the pope applies the indulgence, for it has its efficacy ex opere operato, inde- pendent of the grace of him who gains it.^ On the other hand, those who maintain that the state of grace is requisite argue on a higher plane, that works performed in sin are valueless, and that no one in a state of sin can win the indulgence in order to apply it to a soul in purgatory.^ ^ Rodriguez Esplicazione della Bolla de' Morti, pp. 5-7, 101.— Mendo Bullae S. Cruciatse Elucidatio, Disp. xxxvi. Cap. ii. n. 10. — Onofri, Spiegazione della Bolla della S. Crociata, p. 229.— Mig. Sanchez Exposit. Bullte S. Cruciatae, p. 310. — Salces, Explicacion de la Bula de la S. Cruzada, p. 82. 2 Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgentia, Art. ill. n. 21-22. Cf. Toleti Instruct. Sacerd. Lib. vi. Cap. 26. ^ Bellarmini de Indulg. Lib. I. Cap. xiv. — Wigandt Tribunal. Animarum Tract. XIV. Exam. iii. Q 8, Resp. 3.— S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. n. 534 ad 10. A quaint argument used, in 1699, by Bianclii (Foriero dell' Anno Santo, pp. 163-5) is worth transcribing, as anticipating and reinforcing that of Dr. Amort. He holds that the state of grace is requisite in the living who gain indul- gences for the dead, and urges the "inconvenience" of the laxer theor}'-- " The first inconvenience is that if one in mortal sin could gain an indulgence for the souls in purgatory, purgatory would be, so to say, empty every day. For as there are daily plenary indulgences gained for the souls in purgatory by the confraternities of the Rosary, Carmelites, Cintura, Cordigeri, etc., and there are so many privileged altars in the regular and secular churches on which the sacrifice of the mass liberates a soul ; and there are so many privi- 362 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. It would seem that a question such as this, underlying the validity" of indulgences for the dead, is one which the Holy See, as the source leged masses, as those of St. Gregory and the Rosary, to which is annexed the privilege of liberating a soul ; and there are so many sanctuaries, like the seven churches of Rome, Loreto, Jerusalem, Compostella, Assisi, where a visit gains an indulgence, with the privilege of applying it to a soul ; it is certain that if, besides these, those in mortal sin could gain indulgences, the number of the living applying them to souls would be greater than that of the souls to receive them. Thus purgatory would be depopulated, and there would be little probability that any soul would remain there long. Moreover, besides the devotees and those under obligations with Mansionarie [chapels with privi- leged altars, and foundations to support priests to serve them], who assist special souls, there are innumerable others who pray and gain indulgences for souls in general. Therefore, if so many impenitents (as most of them are) could gain indulgences for the dead, I would not say there would be an end of purgatory, but souls would stay there for the shortest possible time. Yet preachers in the pulpit tell us that many souls are suffering prolonged torment there and crying ' Take pity on me, take pity on me, O my friends !' I know that it would be not an undesirable but a desirable thing that purgatory, if possible, should be always depopulated, and that it should be only a frontier cus- tom-house to be passed through, but it is unseemly that we should be saying that souls suffer so long in purgatorj^, and at the same time say that there are so many who gain and can gain plenary indulgences, efficacious and certain. And this unseemliness would increase immensely if we admit that indulgences act in purgatory per modum absolutionis, with power to remit punishment ex opere operafo, without reference to the condition or state of the operator. This would render purgatory only a contemptible custom-house of transit {gabel- hiccio dipasmgio). " Another inconvenience is that this belief induces a confidence in the im- penitent that the souls thus benefited will obtain for them final penitence. Too often have I heard this used from the pulpit as a stimulus, with the promise that whoever helps the souls in purgatory by giving them frequent suffrages will be helped by them in return, and they will not suffer him to die impenitent. This merely confirms them in obstinate perseverance in offending God, with the certain hope of final conversion." This latter paragraph refers to a curious feature in the reciprocal interchange of benefits between the living and the dead, which has attained considerable development in modern times. A person in trouble, in place of making a vow to God or calling upon the saints, will promise one or more masses to the " bonnes ames " in purgatory if they will help him. This leads to a traffic iu masses sufficient to sustain in Paris a little monthly journal entitled " L'Echo du purgatoire," of which the numbers for 1879 are before me. It contains numerous communications, frequently accompanied with remittances of two francs for each mass, relating the experience of the correspondent in the suc- cessful result of such a promise. A person wants a situation and obtains it in THE STATE OF GRACE. 363 of these graces, could not allow to remain in dispute for three cen- turies, yet when, in 1822, the Congregation of Indulgences was asked whether the state of grace is requisite in gaining them for the dead either directly or indirectly, it shuffled the question oif by post- poning it without a decision, and again, in 1847, when the Bishop of S. Flour reported that a debate had arisen among the priests of his diocese whether a man in mortal sin can win for the dead an indulgence for which communion is not required, the evasive answer was a command to consult good authors.^ Consequently "good authors" are confusingly at odds. Bouvier takes the ground that when confession and communion are requisite for the indulgence, the person gaining it must necessarily be in a state of grace, but that when these are not conditioned the preponderance of authority is in favor of its being unnecessary. Palmieri, on the other hand, says that the more common opinion requires it. Beringer hedges by asserting that the former opinion is probable, but the latter is safer, which, therefore, it is well to follow in practice, adding, however, that the laxer view is of much service in not preventing this manner (p. 20) ; a man is robbed and promises two masses if he recovers the money, and next day it is returned to him (p. 21) ; an invalid vows a novena for recovery on September 8th, and threatens, if the illness is prolonged beyond that time, never to pray again for the poor souls, and the cure comes on that day (p. 22) ; a conflagration threatens a house, the owner of which promises masses if it escapes, and the flames miraculously stop short of it (p. 49) ; a landlord has a tenant who does not pay and is too powerful to be sued ; he commences a novena for the kindred of the tenant, who immediately sends him the rent (p. 50) ; a freshet threatens a man's property, he promises five masses and the waters subside without injury (p. 81) ; a man has a lawsuit with an old friend and vows nine masses if the good souls will enlighten his adversary, who thereupon abandons the suit and seeks a reconciliation (p. 121) ; another escapes from a serious family diSiculty by merely promising to sub- scribe to the Echo (p. 176) ; another eludes the conscription by a promise to publish the result, if favorable, in the Echo (p. 175) ; another, involved in an important lawsuit, gains it by simply invoking the bonnes dmes (p. 201). The most frequent occasions for their interposition, however, seem to be for students and others who have failed to pass their examinations. A typical example of this is a girl who had been sent back for a second trial. She in- voked the bonnes dmes, and then with closed eyes opened her text-books at random, reading the paragraphs on which her glance happened to fall : in the examination-room the next day the questions were confined to these special passages, and she passed with honor (p. 140). 1 Deer. Authent. n. 442, 615. 364 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. those in siu from attempting to win indulgences for suflfering souls. ^ Privileged altars — that is, altars at which a mass celebrated for an individual soul liberates it at once from purgatory — are always classed as indulgences, and form a large portion of the existing means of aiding the dead. We have seen that they took their rise in the so called grant of " Paschasius V." to the church of St. Praxeda, the success of which naturally led to imitations until the church at Santa Maria Liberatrice fabricated a grant from Silvester I., under which a single mass liberated a soul.^ We have also seen that Leo X. and Clement YII. made occasional concessions of the kind. Gregory XIII., towards the close of the sixteenth century, has the reputation of extending these privileges until there was scarce a town in Italy in which there were not one or two,^ It was natural that churches possessing such privilege should seek to make the most of it as a source of profit. From a contemporary document, in a trial before the Inquisition of Toledo, we chance to learn that a mass on such an altar was charged at the high price of four reales,^ and the desire to stimulate so lucrative a business led to the printing and dissemination of false miracles and promises of immediate liberation not justified by the terms of the grant, all of which led Sixtus V. to ^ Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 38. — Palmieri Tract, de Poenit. i). 482. — Beringer, Die Abliisse, p. 64. ^ Bianchi Foriero dell' Anno Santo, y>. 12. ^ Jouhanneaud, Diet, des Indulgences, p. 329. Amort (De Indulg. I. 212 ; II. 285) gives one granted by Gregory, in 1577, to the altar of St. Juvenal in the cathedral of Narni. * Proceso de Hernando Valente (MSS. Kouigl. Bibliothek, Halle, Yc. 20, T. I.). I believe that at present, o^ying to the multiplication of privileged altars, the price charged for masses at them is the same as for the unprivileged. This was not formerly the case. In a concession of privileged masses, in 1761, for All Saints there is a condition that the "alms" for the mass, licet privilegiata, shall only be the regular amount as defined by the custom of the diocese. — Deer. Authent. n. 255. That the object in obtaining this privilege was pecuniary is frankly and crudely set forth, in 1779, in the petition of Antonio Makale of Zlarin, Dal- matia, for a privilege for his altar of the Virgin, and that this was a matter of course would appear from the prompt granting of the request by Pius VI. — Deer. Authent. n. 380. PRIVILEGED ALTARS. 365 entertain seriously the intention of abolishino- all such privileo-es, but he was deterred by the fear of scandal from carrying the project into effect.^ Of course the pressure to obtain such profitable privilege must have been constant, leading to its gradual extension and to abuses needing repression, and that some attempt was made to restrict the number would appear from a remark by a writer, in 1699, that privileged altars were no longer allowed in secular churches except special ones for confraternities." Whatever hesitation may have existed, on the part of an occasional pontiff, as to the extension of the privilege disappeared in the eigh- teenth century and its multiplication proceeded rapidly. One of the earliest acts of Benedict XIII., in 1724, was to concede a daily privileged altar to every cathedral church that did not already pos- sess one.^ Similar grants to the churches of the religious Orders followed — in September, 1724, to all the altars and all the priests of the Dominicans, in December, 1725, to the churches of the Fran- ciscans, in 1726 to the order of S. Johannes de Deo, and to the Augustinians ; in 1727 to the Trinitarians; in 1729 to the Recol- lects of Germany, to the altars of St. Bruno in all Carthusian churches and to the Franciscans of ^Mexico ; in 1738 to all Car- melite altars; in 1739 to all altars of St. Benedict in Benedictine churches, and in 1742 to all the Benedictine churches in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia; in 1747 to the Sylvestrins, the Recollects and the Barnabites; in 1750 to all the altars of the Scholre Piae and those of the Order of Trinity for the Redemption of Captives; in 1751 to the Conventual Franciscans for all their kindred and bene- factors; in 1753 to the Order of Merced; in 1754 to that of St. Philip Xeri ; in 1755 to the Benedictine Congregation of Bursfeldt and that of S. Piero da Pisa, and in 1757 to the Benedictines of Portugal.* In 1745 the Premonstratensian nunneries petitioned that the privileged altars granted to the Order might be extended to them, and were refused ; but when, in 1763, the privilege was con- ceded to all the churches of the Order their wishes were doubtless ^ Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten V. ill. 495. ^ Bianchi, Foriero dell' Anno Santo, p. 283. * Bened. PP. XIII. Const. Omnim saluti, 20 Jul. 1724 (Bullar. X. 235). * Ainort de Indulg. II. 288.— Deer. Authent. n. 55, 56, o>i, 60, 61, 63, 110, 132, 152, 154, 155, 192, 198, 199, 203, 213, 219, 221, 222, 240, 283. Append, n. 17. — Guglielmi, Recueil des Indulg. p. 168. 366 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. gratified.^ It would be impossible, with the resources at my com- mand, to follow out these details completely, but it is probably safe to say that before the end of the century all the churches of the countless regular organizations were thus provided, especially as, in 1759, Clement XIII. granted a daily privileged altar to every parish church in the Catholic world for seven years, at the expiration of which all bishops were instructed to ajDply for a renewal in their dioceses. Nor was the grant confined to parish churches, for in lauds of persecution, where ecclesiastical organization was incomplete, altars in churches not parochial, and even in private houses, were privil- eged; in 1761 the same grace was accorded to every altar on the solemnity of All-Souls, and, in 1817, this was extended to those in all churches during the performance of the forty hours' prayer.^ As regards parish churches, the existing policy apparently is to grant to bishops faculties for seven years to designate a privileged altar in each church ; when these faculties expire they are renewed if there is no valid reason to the contrary, and thus the control is kept in the hands of the Holy See.^ "SVhat may be the existing number of privileged altars under these regulations it would not be easy to estimate with accuracy, but it must considerably exceed one hundred thousand, on each of which a mass to liberate a soul from purgatory can be celebrated daily.^ But this does not by any means represent the total of privileged masses. There are personal privileges which render ev'ery altar privileged to the celebrant.^ This was one of the earliest forms 1 Deer. Authent. u. 145, 262. 2 Deer. Authent. n. 247, 251, 252, 255, 536. 3 Deer. Autheut. n. 538, 554, 572, 575. * I have not been able to obtain statistics as to the number of parishes in the Catholic world, but among the 20,000,000 Catholic souls who are under the charge of the Projjaganda there are about 30,000 churches and chapels (Missiones Catholicse cura S. Congregatiouis de Propaganda Fide descriptse in anno 1892, Romje, 1892). Less than half of these however are probably parish churches. In Ireland there are 1313 parishes for 3,473,250 Catholics, or one for every 2645 souls; in Holland, 1235 for 1,738,600, or one for every 1408. Taking the average of these, if the total number of Catholics is 200,- 000,000, there would be about 105,000 parishes. To this must be added the churches of the regular Orders, which are numerous. ^ It was decided, in 1852, that a priest enjoying a personal privilege can earn his fee by celebrating at an unprivileged altar (Deer. Authent. n. 653). This personal privilege therefore has a definite i>ecuniary value. PRIVILEGED ALTARS. 367 which the concession assumed. In lol3 Julius IT. granted that all Observantine Franciscans, bv repeating the penitential psalms or five Paters and Aves before the sacrament, could liberate a soul from purgatory on three feasts during the year, and this was con- firmed by Leo X. in 1518. Leo also decreed that any Franciscan, by celebrating three masses on any altar, could liberate the soul of a relative within the third degree of kinship, and he granted the same favor to the members of the Benedictine Congregation of Justina. In 1524 Clement VII. conceded to the Minims of S. Francisco de Paula that in all their churches the superior and the senior brother could celebrate a privileged mass on every Monday and ^Vednesday. In 1541 Paul III. granted to the Confraternity for educating orphans, and. in 1560. Pius lA". conceded to the Confraternity of St. Roch that any mortuary mass celebrated by them should be privileged.^ Personal privilege of this kind is still granted. In 1747 Benedict XIV. conferred it on the Confraternity of S. Caietano for the souls of members; in 1777, Pius VI. did the same for the Order of the Trinity, and, in 1838, Gregory XVI. granted to the Congregation of Missions that the superior shall have a personal privileged altar four days and each priest three days in the week.- How many con- gregations and confraternities enjoy these privileges it would be impossible to say. There are also certain masses that are privileged, such as the mass of the Rosary, which can be celebrated only by Dominicans, and the mass of St. Gregory.^ Xor is this all. t^r there are many blessed objects the possession of which confers on the priest this personal privilege. It is true that Domingo Soto argues strenu- ously against this belief — ''The clemency of the pious," he says, ''towards the tormented souls in purgatory has so increased in our time that by importunate supplication there was extorted an indul- gence from the pope that any one holding a certain blessed pebl^le and reciting a Pater or an Ave can release a soul. I will not call this a pious fraud, for that is an expression of the heretics .... but it is to accuse God of wanton cruelty to suppose that he would torture atrociously a soul for three years whose liberation could be had by touching a pebble and reciting a single Pater or Ave. The ^ Amort de Inclulg. II. 284-5. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. ?. v. Indulg. Art. V. n. 13.— Raccolta (Camerino, 18u3, p. 161). ^ Deer. Authent. n. 160, 371, 501. ' Bianchi, Foriero, p. 802. — Ferraris, s. v. J//.«*a Art. xiv. u. 24-32. 368 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. pope couceded all he could, but it is uot credible that he believed his concession to be what the applicants thought it .... if purgatory- can be so easily evaded it ceases to inspire men with fear."^ Yet what seemed incredible to Soto passed into the current belief and practice of the Church. Bishop Zerola, it is true, draws a technical distinction as regards privileged masses If a priest, he says, has a bead blessed so that at whatever altar he celebrates he liberates a soul (and Gregory XIII. gave such a one to me), and he is asked to celebrate on a privileged altar, it is safer to use the altar, for the bead does not satisfy the request.^ But it was not only objects blessed personally by the pope that had this power. A grant by Urban YIII., in 1625, confirmed by Innocent XII. at the close of the century, to the good Benedictines of Monserrat, enriched the crosses and medals which they manufactured with the privilege that any priest possessing one can twelve times a year liberate a soul by celebrating three masses.^ Even more efficacious is the medal known as that of the Five Saints, under which, as we are told, a priest pos- sessing one and celebrating at a privileged altar can liberate three souls bv a single mass — one by the indulgence of the altar, the second bv the indulgence of the medal, and the third by applying his own indulgence from the medal.* The facilities for extricating in this manner souls from purgatory havinw; increased so enormously since Bianchi and Amort considered them excessive, it becomes even more important to determiue what is the actual value of a privileged mass. The formula of concession to the altar manifests no doubt whatever as to the result ; it is a formal liberation from the pains of purgatory by way of suffrage, based on the treasure, and infers that God ratifies the act.^ Yet ^ Doni. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. Art. 2. —Somewhat similar is an indulgence granted by Clement VII. to the scapular of the Holy Trinity and still current in the seventeenth century. The purchaser for two reales not only received a plenary for himself, but on three Saturdays in a year could release a soul by reciting before the venerable sacrament the penitential psalms or five Paters and Aves. — Perez de Lara, Compendio de las tres Gracias, pp. 22-24. ^ Zerolfe Tract, de Jubilaeo Lib. i. Cap. xiv. n. 28. ^ Amort de Indulg. I. 215. * Bianchi, Foriero, p. 356. ^ "Ut quandocunque sacerdos aliquis s?ecularis vel cujusvis ordinis, congre- gationis vel instituti regularis missam proanima cujuscumque Christifidelis qui Deo in charitate conjuncta ab hac luce migraverit, ad altarem proefatum cele- PRIVILEGED ALTARS 369 there are various sources of iiucertainty which serve to render it prudent not to depend too confidently on a single mass. Ferraris, while he quotes Katzenberger to prove that God is bound to accept the equivalent offered from the treasure, yet admits that it cannot be known whether he may not have reason to make an exception in any individual case.^ The question was one on which no authorita- tive decision seems to have been rendered until 1840, when, in response to a direct enquiry by the Bishop of Saint-Flour the Con- gregation of Indulgences replied that, as respects the intention of the pope and the use of the power of the keys, it is a plenary indulgence, liberating the soul forthwith, but as respects efficiency it is to be understood as an indulgence of which the measure depends on the pleasure and acceptance of the Divine Mercy." As early as 1745, indeed, the Holy See had felt that it was somewhat compromised by the confident promises made by churches which possessed privileged altars ; that of S. Lucia of Rome, under a grant made by Gregory XIII., in 1577, had been in the habit of issuing certificates which read ''this very soul will be delivered from purgatory the same as if the mass had been celebrated at the altar of St. Gregory," and these it was ordered to change to " each mass shall obtain the same end as if it had been celebrated at the privileged altar of the monas- tery of St. Gregory."'^ Binterim, in fact, among the tests for fraudu- lent indulgences, enumerates as forgeries those which promise the infallible liberation of one or more souls from purgatory, even when they are displayed in sacristies or printed in books of devotion.^ brabit, anima ipsa de thesauro ecclesiae per modum suffragii indulgentiam consequatur ; ita ut Domini Xostri Jesu Christi ac Beatis^imse Virginis Mariae sanctorumque omnium meritis sibi suifragantibus a purgatorii poenis liberetur, concedimus et indulgemus." — Bened. PP. XIIT. Const. Omnius saluti (Bullar. X. 236). Cf. Deer. Autbent. n. 192, 199, 219, 221 etc.— Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. v. Indulgent. Art. ill. n. 17. ^ Ferraris s. v. Indulgent. Art. ill. n. 17, 19. ^ Deer. Autbent. n. 522. Tbis is tbe decree as printed. As originally drawn it made a furtber admission and added " Quod spectat ad applicationem Indulgentite tali anim* defuncti, an fieri debeat necne, non potest certo de- finiri ; cum defunctus non sit amplius subditus concedentis, nee ulla adsit Dei promissio in S. Litteris, qua de infallibilitate talis acceptionis, pro suae satis- factione justitiae, Ecclesiam et fideles certiores fecerit." — Sacr. Congr. Indul- gent, de Gregorio Missarum Tricenario, p. 27 (Roma, 1884). ^ Deer. Autbent. n. 139. * Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, V. ill. 501. III.— 24 370 APPLICATION TO THE DEAD. There are other sources of uucertaiuty thau this. The long- debated questiou as to the validity of sacraments in polluted hands had been so thoroughly settled, on the authority of St. Augustin, in repressing the Waldensian heresies, that one would scarce look to see it started again with respect to masses on privileged altars, yet it came to be argued that, although the sacrament is perfect, the priest in mortal sin is not capable of receiving the indulgence and apply- ing it to the soul.^ This might well seem to be an over-refinement, and yet when, after a century and a half, the Bishop of Saint-Flour, in 1847, applied for a resolution of his doubts on the subject, the Congregation of Indulgences evaded a direct reply by telling him to consult approved authors.^ There is another and more serious cause of doubt, arising likewise from the person of the ministrant, which no Congregation of Indulgences can remove. This is whether the priest has a sufficiently definite intention while performing his functions, and, if he has such intention, whether he directs it aright, for if he chooses to misapply the indulgence it is in his power to do so. With priests of the regular Orders, moreover, there is an additional complication, for many authors hold that the application follows the will of his superior and not his own ; it is true that there are two opinions as to this, but Diana holds that both are equally probable.^ There are also intricate questions concerning the solemnities — black draperies, feast-days and semi -double and double offices, unintelligible to the student not versed in the niceties of ritual, which have given rise to uncertainties and have required offi- cial decision.* How serious may be the consequences of the neglect of any minute detail may be gathered from a single instance. In 1825 the Oblate Missionaries of the Virgin were granted a privileged altar in each of their churches; in 1867 the attention of the general of the Order was awakened to the fact that as a rule none of the churches had fixed, but only portable, altars, and he prayed that the high altar in each church might be considered privileged, even though it were portable. Pius IX. responded by benignantly making good ^ Bianchi, Foriero, p. 178. '■* Deer. Authent. d. 615. * Siioima Diana s. v. Missam applicare n. 5, 6. — Ferraris Prompta Biblioth. s. V. Indulgent. Art. ill. n. 19. * Deer. Authent. n. 720, 755, 757. A double office is when the antiphons are sung both before and after the psalm. It is more solemn and requires a double number of candles and singers. — Macri Hierolexicon s. v. Duplex. PRIVILEGED ALTARS. 371 all defects that bad occurred in the celebration on these illegitimate altars, so far as the application of the indulgence to souls in purga- tory was concerned, and gave instructions for their avoidance in the future.^ Now here was a pious Order which, through its ignorance for forty-two years, was allowing to languish in purgatory innu- merable souls which it was paid to release and thought that it was releasing. It is an instructive illustration of the improvidence of Providence in resio^ninp; control of the destiny of its creatures and entrusting this to the fallible hands of those who, with the best intentions, are constantly liable to make mistakes. ^ Deer. Authent. n. 766. CHAPTER YII. THE REFORMATION. The development of the system of indulgences had not been unaccompanied with protests from those who were hardy enough to view with disaifection the growth of all-pervading sacerdotalism. We need not enquire as to the opinions of the Cathari or Albigenses, for they were outside of the Christian pale, and their dualism necessarily excluded all notions of the kind. The earliest of the true heretics, the Petrobrusians or followers of Pierre de Brueys, who was burned at Saint-Gilles, in 1126, flourished at a time anterior to the development of indulgences, and consequently did not express disbelief in them, but they ridiculed the offerings and the suffrages for the dead and denied their efficacy.' The same may be said of the Henricians, or disciples of Henry of Lausanne the successor of Pierre de Brueys, who were suppressed through the efforts of St. Bernard. The earlier Waldenses belong to the same category ; in rejecting sacramental confession and asserting that the ministration and suffrages of those in mortal sin were worthless, they impliedly rendered indulgences impossible.^ Their scattered communities, however, during centuries of persecu- tion, did not always entertain the same tenets. Those who were burned in Cologne and Mainz at the close of the fourteenth century denied the existence of purgatory and pronounced indulgences to be frauds invented through greed.^ About the same period the Nobla Leyczon rejects all human power to pardon sin, for it is God alone who pardons,* yet at the same time the Waldenses of Pomerania had * Petri Veuerab. Tract, contra Petrobrusianos Preefat. (Migne, CLXXXIX. 722). '•' Alani de Insulis contra Hsereticos, Lib, il. Cap. 8, 9, 12. ' Dollinger, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, p. 620 (Miinchen, 1890).— Tract, de Paup. de Lugduno (Martene Thesaur. V. 1792). * La Noble Le§on, v. 411-15 (Ed. Montet, p. 64)— "Que tuit 11 papa que foron de Salvestre entro en aquest, Et tuit 11 cardenal, e tuit 11 evesque, e tuit li aba, tuit aquisti ensemp, Non ban tant de poeata de dever asolver qu'ilh poysan perdonar A nenguna creatura pur un peca mortal. Solament Dio perdona que autre non o po far." MEDIEVAL HERESIES. 373 imbibed enough of the beliefs around them to liold that confession and absolution would for a year admit a man directly to heaven, and even speaking with a juinister preserved from damnation for a twelve- month ; in one case we hear of a legacy of eight marks to procure prayers for the soul after death. ^ The Flagellants were another sect of heretics who denied the effi- cacy of sacramental absolution and indulgences. When a wave of repentance, stimulated by the Black Death, spread over Christendom in 1349, it expressed itself in the shape of the sharpest penance. Companies spontaneously formed themselves which wandered around for thirty -three days, scourging themselves with " scorpions " having triple lashes garnished with iron points, and the vigor displayed in their use is described by an eye-witness as " most pious and horrible." It was an effort to restore peace on earth and goodwill, but the Flagel- lants superseded all priestly ministrations, and when they lashed each other it was accompanied with the formula, "May God remit to thee all thy sins ! " holding that by this discipline they were fully absolved. This was a dangerous exercise of p)ivate judgment which threatened the autocracy of the Church, and Clement VII., in his bull Inter solicitucUnes, October 20, 1349, condemned it as unauthor- ized and in contempt of the keys, and ordered its rigid suppression.^ The persecution which followed was not mild, and converted the potential heresy into an actual one. Cut oflF from the Church, the Flagellants naturally denied its authority, and under various names and disguises they developed uncompromising anti-sacerdotalism. Under the designation of Brethren of the Cross they were discovered in 1414 at Sangerhauseu, in Misnia, holding the belief that certain writings laid by angels on the altar of St. Peter, in 1 343, had vacated the authority of pope and prelate : the baptism of water had been replaced by the baptism of blood, drawn by their scourges, which cleansed them of sin and without which salvation was impossible. This was the only sacrament necessary ; confession and absolution were valueless, but all sins could be washed out by flagellation, and indulgences were, of course, unavailing. The butchery of these poor ^ Wattenbach, Sitzungsberichte der Preuss. Akad. 1886, pp. 51, 52. * Chron. ^gidii de Muisis (De Smet, Corp. Chronic. Flandrise, 11. 355-8). — Herm. Corneri Chron. ann. 1250 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. Med. JEvl II. 1083-4). —Mag. Chron. Belgic. ann. 1349 (Pistorii Her. Germ. Scriptt. III. 328).— Trithem. Cliron. Hirsaus. ann. 1349. 374 THE REFORMATION. wretches in 1414 and 1416 effectually suppressed the heresy, aud little more is heard of it.' More serious was the revolt led by John Wickliffe. When the Great Schism commenced, in 1379, he had already advanced far on his career as a reformer, but the spectacle of two angry antagonists cursing each other and using all spiritual and temporal weapons for mutual destruction sharpened and stimulated his zeal. Though he did not deny purgatory or the sacrament of penitence, his predesti- narian theories rendered superfluous the received machinery of salva- tion and he rejected with ridicule the treasure of the Church subject to papal dispensation. When, in 1382, Urban VI. commissioned the Bishop of Norwich to preach a crusade in England against France as a supporter of his rival, Clement VII., with all the customary indul- gences and dispensations, Wickliffe earnestly opposed it in several tracts. In the Trialogus, which contains the most authoritative expo- sition of his system, he expresses boundless contempt for indulgences, which he attributes to the temporalities of the Church ; if it could be stripped of these there would be an end of the blasphemies con- cerning the spiritual power of the pope to absolve from guilt and punishment and the baseless concession of indulgences beyond what Christ and his Apostles ever attempted, and infinite other blasphemies ; it is blasphemy for the pope to pretend to grant indulgences.^ The Lollards accepted these teachings and professed them uncompromis- ingly when, in 1388, they answered the charges against them by an outspoken profession of their faith. ^ ^ Gobelini Personse Cosmodrom, ^tas vi. Cap. 93. — Cf. Gersonis de Secta Flagellator. (Von der Hardt, III. 98-102) ; Theod. Vrie Hist. Concil. Constant. Lib. IV. Dist. xiii. (Ibid. I. 126-33.) * Amort de Indulg. I. 73.— Ryiuer Fcedera, VII. 393.— Cruciatse Cap. 2, 10 (Biiddensieg's Latin Works of Wiclif, II. 592, 627). — Arnold's Select English Works of John Wyclif, Serm. xxiv. XLVii. LXi. xciv. Cii. — Trialogi Lib. iv. Cap. 1, 2, 18, 32. ^ Arnold's Select English Works III. 459-60. — " Cristen men seyne that these indulgencis, by maner as thai bene tied in writyng, done mykel harme to Cristen soulis and sownen erroure ageyne tho gospel. . . . Also tho pepul bileveth more to suche dede bullis then to Cristis gospel, for thai bileven to have more thonke of God for spendyug of tlier money at tho ordynaunce of tho pope, then to spende hit on pore men as Crist biddis in tho Gospel. Yit these indulgencis bene fals, for so mony thowsand of yeris as thai speken of schul never be bifore tho day of dome, and after thai serven of nought. . . . THE HUSSITES. 375 WicklifFe's doctrines were not formally condemned until the council of Rome in 1413, and, as early as 1390, his writino-s were read in the University of Prague. Yet the jubilee indulo-enee of 1392 awakened no open opposition w^hen it was published in Bo- hemia ; Wenzel Kohle, of St. Martin's church in the Altstadt was the only priest who did not preach it, and though he denounced it privately as a fraud he did not venture openly to express his opin- ions. It was. on this indulgence that John Huss spent his last four groschcn when he had only dry crusts to eat.* Yet the heresies of WickliiF spread rapidly in Bohemia, and, early in the fifteenth cen- tury, they found in Huss an enthusiastic supporter, althouo-h in 1403, the University condemned forty-five articles drawn from his writings, including the one concerning indulgences, and, in 1410 Archbishop Zbinco publicly burned two hundred of his books. The clash came in 1412, when John XXIII. issued his bull of indul- gences for a crusade against Ladislas of Naples, who supported the rival Gregory XII. This was in the usual form, granting a plenary to all contrite and confessed who would serve a month or contribute to the cause. The papal commissioner, Wenzel Tiem, and his preachers, as usual, did not restrict themselves to the terms of the bull, but announced it as a culpa et poena ; they promised heaven to tho>e who bought it, threatened hell to those who refused, and threw" in the salvation of the parents of purchasers. The bull had been brought to Prague in May, when, with sound of trump in the public squares, the people were informed where the chests were placed to receive their money, and a brisk trade sprang up. Huss could not restrain his indignation ; he announced for June 7th a public dis- putation on the subject in the great hall of the Carol inum, and he held it in spite of the efforts of the University faculty to prevent it. In this he did not deny the sacrament of penitence or the power of the keys, but he argued that indulgences are only efficient in pro- By thes bullis riche men drede nout to synne, and myche wynuynge and worldly glory is goten to worldly prelatis by hem. . . . Ande more then a man disserves by gode lyif ending in charite schal he never have, for alle tho bullis in erthe." The forty-seventh article of Wickliffite heresy condemned at Constance was " Fatuum est credere indulgentiis papae et episcoporum." — Von der Hardt, IV. 1525. ' Loserth, Hus und Wiclif, pp. 13, 63. 376 THE REFORM A TION. portion to the contrition and devotion of the recipient ; the pope had no power to promise indulgences as a reward for slaying fellow- Christians or for money wherewith to promote slaughter, and there- fore his bull is not to be obeyed ; it is a mere device for raising money and is simoniacal. Huss's indignation is raised to the utmost by the lying promises of the preachers to grant remission a culpa et jioena, which he easily proves to be impossible, and he denounces their greed and rapacity in the strongest terms. '^ In the debate which followed, the sympathies of the people were with Huss, and a few days later there occurred the celebrated scene of the public burning of the jjapal bulls by a crowd under the lead of Wok von AValdstein, a favorite of King Wenzel. Yet the king resolved to put down the ojiposition, and three youths, Martin, John and Stan- islas, who interrupted the preaching of the indulgence by denouncing it as a fraud, were beheaded ; many others were imprisoned and tortured, until the threateniug aspect of the people called a halt and they were released. This brought the long-seething troubles to a crisis; the lines were drawn on both sides; John XXIII. subjected Huss to the major excommunication and ordered the Bethlehem chapel in which he preached to be torn down ; his followers who would not abjure were excommunicated and summoned to appear before the Roman curia. Yet when Huss was departing for Con- stance he had no difficulty in procuring a certificate of his orthodoxy from Nicholas, Bishop of Xazareth, the papal inquisitor in Prague.^ The tragedy at Constance was the result, and also the terrible Hussite wars, which were naturally conducted as crusades with a plentiful distribution of similar indulgences. It is true that in the articles on which Huss was condemned there is no allusion to indulgences, but when, in 1418, Martin V. instructed his inquisitors to examine the Bohemians, one of the questions to be put is whether the pope can grant indulgences in remission of sin, especially to those visiting ^ Palacky, Documenta Joannis Hus. p. 330. — Loserth, Hus und Wiclif, pp. 129-30.— Joannis Hus Monumenta, I. fol. 171-3, 175, 177, 181, 184-5, 187 (Ed. 1558). A considerable iiortioii of Hass's disputation was borrowed from Wickliffe, though the harsher expressions were softened. — Loserth, p. 211. 2 Loserth, pp. 131-33.— Palacky, Documenta, ])p. 330, 457-61. Cf. Stephani Cartusian. Antihussus Cap. 5 (Pez, Thesaur. IV. ii. 380, 382). OPPOSITION DEVELOPING. 377 and contributiug to churches.' The matter formed the subject of debate in the preliminary negotiations at BSle, but it was dropped, and is not alluded to in the Compactata or articles under Avhich Bohemia was nominally reunited to the Church.^ Persecution naturally leads the persecuted to deny the powers of the persecutor. The heresy of the Fraticelli, or Spiritual Francis- cans, originally was at first only an assertion of the absolute poverty of Christ and his disciples, but, under the careful stimulation of a century and a half of persecution, they came at last to refuse cre- dence to papal indulgences, and claimed that the only genuine one was that which their founder had obtained from Christ for the Portiuncula. In this were unanimous a group of the poor wretches who were tried and tortured in Rome in 1466.'^ In the ferment, spiritual and intellectual, which accompanied the diffusion of the Xew Learning and heralded the Reformation, the awakening intelligence of Europe did not spare the increasing abuses of indulgences. The shameless venality with which they were hawked around in every laud aroused an ever-louder opposition. In 1447, we are told, throughout France and Burgundy there were many of the clergy, both regular and secular, who in private disputation and public addresses denounced not only the indulgences themselves, but the doctrines of the power of the keys and sacramental confession, on which they were based. This gave rise to so much scandal and threatened so much danger that the attention of the Holy See was aroused, and, in 1448, Xicholas V. sent orders to the Bishops of Chalons and Siou to suppress it energetically, with the aid of the Inquisition.* Men, however, would think and reason ; the Inquisition was fall- ing into contempt ; it no longer inspired the old-time terror, and a freedom of speech and debate, to which Europe had long been a stranger, was becoming habitual in that great upheaval of the human intellect. While Sixtus IV. was extending the dispensation of the treasure to souls in purgatory a protest against the whole system of indulgences with a negation of their efficacy was uttered in Spain by 1 Von der Hardt IV. 125-7.— Harduin. VIII. 915. ^ Harduin. VIII. 1793.— Hartzheim V. 768-70. * Dressel, Vier Documente aus romischen Arcliiven, p. 29 (Berlin, 1S72). * Raynald. Annal. ann. 1418 n. 9. 378 THE REFORMATION. Pedro de Osma of Salamanca, to be silenced by the council of Alcala and condemned by the pope.^ About the same time John Ruchrath von Wesel, a leading German theologian of the day, was tried before the inquisitor von Elten at Mainz. He had long been disseminating heresy unchecked in his university of Erfurt, and would probably have been allowed to continue had not the Dominican Realists desired to silence him as a leader of the Nominalists, for his opposition to indulgences dated from the jubilee of 1450. In the articles of accusa- tion it Avas stated that he believed indulgences to be worthless ; in the beginning God inscribed in a book the names of all the Elect ; those admitted there can never be erased, those omitted can never be in- serted. He whom God wishes to save will be saved, though all priests wish to damn him ; he whom God wishes to damn will be damned, though priest and pope strive to save him. Predestina- rianism could not be more rigidly carried out to its logical conclu- sions. In his examination he admitted having written a tract on indulgences, in which he asserted that the treasure could not be dis- pensed by the pope, because it Avas not left on earth ; compensation of the poena due for sin could not be made from the suiferings of Christ and the saints, because their merits could not be applied to men in satisfaction for their sins. Inquisitorial methods forced a retraction, and the heretic soon perished through age and infirmities in the prison into which he was thrust, but the reporter of the trial seems to think that his error as to the procession of the Holy Ghost was the only one deserving of severe reprehension, and he names various learned men who said that most of John of Wesel's articles could be sustained." John Wessel of Groningeu, who died in 1489, a distinguished doctor of the University of Paris, was equally hetero- dox. The parish priest had as much power to grant indulgences as the pope, for neither had any ; God reserves to himself direct deal- ing with man, and the pope can no more remit the punishment than the sin. In spite, of this and other heresies he died peacefully in 1 Sixti PP. IV. Bull. Licet ea,^ Aug. 1478 (Bullar. I. 416).— D'Argentre, Collect. Judic. de novis Error. I. li. 198. ■' D'Argentr^, I. ii. 291, 296.— Fascic. Rer. Expetend. et Fugiend. I. 325 sqq. (Ed. 1690). Dr. Johann Fabri compared the doctrines of Huss, the Wal- denses and John of Wesel with those of Luther, much to the disadvantage of the latter, whom he proved to be the worst of heretics. — Wie sich Johannis Huszs, der Pickarder und Johannis von Wessalia Leren und buecher, mit Martino Luther vergleichen, Leyptzck, 1528. PAPAL :yECESSITIES. 379 the bosom of the Church, held iu the highest honor bv his fellow citizens.^ In 1484 a priest named Jean Lailliei*, in his Sorbonique, or thesis, presented to the University of Paris for the doctorate, had the audacity to maintain a number of dangerous errors, among which was the assertion that the pope could not grant a plenary indulgence to the living, even though it had just and reasonable cause. The extreme difficulty experienced in dealing with this hardy heretic, and the support which he received, rendering necessary an appeal by the University to the pope, show how lax were current opinions and how rusty had become the machinery of persecution. Equally flagrant was the teaching of Jean Vitrier, an Observantine friar, at Tournay in 1498, who asserted that money should not be given to the church for indulgences, and that they came from hell. The Sor- bonne, of course, had no hesitation in pronouncing this unorthodox, but what was done to the friar does not appear.^ More effective were the measures adopted to suppress a little sect of the followers of Savonarola, who, after his execution, organized themselves under the lead of Pietro Bernardino, whom they elected as autipope. The only sacrament which they seem to have retained was unction with a certain oil, whence they were popularly known as the Anointed. Driven from Florence, they took refuge with Gianfrancesco Pico at Mirandola ; on his fall, Bernardino and some of his sectaries were burnt and the rest were sent back to Florence, where they were lost to sight.^ Thus at the opening of the fateful sixteenth century there was a widely diff'ased tendency to deny the efficacy of indulgences, while at the same time the necessities of the thoroughly secularized Holy See were leading to the distribution of the spiritual treasure with ever-increasing lavishness and venality. Alexander VI. was chron- ically in want of money to aid the ambitious designs of his son Ctesar Borgia ; Julius II. was constantly waging war to extend the Patri- mony of St. Peter ; and when he conceived the project of demolishing the venerable Basilica of St. Peter and erecting in its place a mag- nificent edifice, which should fitly represent the temporal and spiritual ' Chr. Lupi Dissert, de Peccator. et Satisfact. Indulgentiis Gap. 4. — Ubbon. Emmii Eer. Friscar. Hist. Lib. xxx. ann. 1489-90. 2 D'Argentre, I. ii. 308, 341. * Pastor, Geschichte der Piipste, III. 840. Pastor is in error (Ibid. p. 156) in saying that the sacred oil was used to anoint the apartments in which they worshipped. It was the temples or heads of the sectaries that were anointed. 380 THE REFORMATION. domiuation of the Oliurcli of Christ, after vaiuly begging throughout Europe for assistance, he had no other resource for meeting the enor- mous expense than by issuing, in 1510, the bull Liquet omnibus, which Avas destined to have results so little foreseen/ It was ominous of the future that, in the same year, the states of Germany formally presented to the Emperor Maximilian the list of grievances alluded to above (p. 295), among Avhich was enumerated the issuing of new indulgences with revocations of the old, for the mere purpose of extorting money, leading to murmurs of the laity against the clergy. The scholars of the Xew Learning, moreover, were giving expression to their contempt for the frauds of the pardoners and the traffic in pardons, and the jjopularity of their writings shows how rapidly there was forming an intelligent public opinion which would not much longer endure a continuance of increasing abuses.^ 1 Pastor, Geschichte tier Piipste, III. 710, 717, 857.— Bullar. Roman. I. 502.— I have already (p. 74) alluded to the unblushing venality with which pardon for all manner of sins and offences was cynically put up for sale in this indulgence. ' Erasmi Encom. Morife (Ed. Tauchnitz II. 342) ; Colloq. Be Votis iemere susceptis. The enormous influence of Erasmus and the dread which he excited are seen in the secret dispatches of Aleauder, the papal nuncio in 1521, who repeatedly alludes to him as the originator of the whole trouble. — Balan, Monumenta Reform. Lutherante, Romre, 1883, pp. 101-2, 129 etc. Sebastian Brandt, in his Karrenschiff, classes among beggars the Heilthumb fiirer, or salvation carriers, who travel around with false relics — a bone of Balaam's ass, a feather from St. Michael's wing etc.— and Geiler von Kaisers- berg, in his commentary, even includes the Holy Coat, said to be at Treves. — Narrenschiff, No. 63 (Scheible's Ed. pp. 563, 567). The Epistoke Obscurorum Vironim (Tom. II. Epist. Fr. Othon Flersklirdrii) represent a pardoner jiromising that his indulgences will absolve from sin as effectively as Christ himself, and silenced by Dr. Reyss, who declares them inoperative for evil livers and superfluous for the virtuous. Even Johann Fabri, who was subsequently an earnest opponent of Luther and Bishop of Vienna, in his Tracfatus de Ruine Ecdesie Planvtu (Memmingen, s. «.), includes in his animadversions — Sic dona spiritualia Und alle sacrament Sunt omnia venialia Ach got nymant das wendt. Nam latas indulgentias Gibt man in alle weldt. Causa non diseutitur Man fragt niir nach dem geldt. Sit reprobus impeuitens Wilet niir pfennig geben Et si foret dyabolus Er muest in der evig leben, Quantum quis deum leserit Es wirt als licht vergeben. It was Fabri who, as vicar of the Bishop of Constance, started Zwingli on his career as a reformer by urging him to preach against the Franciscan Ber- PAPAL NECESSITIES. 381 Xo attempt seems to have beeu made by Julius to publish the St. Peter's indulgence in Germany, and indeed his bull only appoints Francisco Zeno, the Observantine Vicar General as commissioner to organize the cismontane territories. To his successor, Leo X., he bequeathed the burdensome enterprise of the new basilica, and Leo was not only involved in political enterprises demanding large ex- penditure, but he was recklessly extravagant, always in debt, and eager to embrace any financial expedient promising present relief without much regard to morality or to ultimate cost. The inordin- ate greed of the Roman curia had for centuries excited the angry remonstrances of Europe, and under the system, or lack of system, followed by Leo, the oppressiveness of its exactions beame harder than ever to endure, while the faithful were rapidly becoming less enduring.^ AVhen some measures of reform were expected of the nard Samson, who had come there to sell the St. Peters' indulgence. — Wetzer u. Welte, IV. 1172. The satirists lost none of their bitterness with the development of the Refor- mation, as may be seen in the collection printed by Oskar Schade — " Satiren und Pasquille aus der Reformationzeit," Hannover, 1863. ^ In reviewing the 18,000 briefs calendered by Hergenrother, during about two years and a half, from March, 1513, to October, 1515, it is suggestive to observe how very few are concerned with the real spiritual duties of the Holy See. The great mass of them are presentations to benefices, the right to which had been usurped by the popes since the twelfth century, with the result of either selling them to the highest bidder or distributing them among the crea- tures of the curia to the infinite desolation of the faithful. " Expectatives," en- titling the holder to seize on any vacant benefice, were freely granted, naturally leading to intricate quarrels, the settlement of which brought fresh harvests to the Roman courts, recognized everywhere as notoriously unjust and venal (See a dispatch from Campeggio to Sadoleto, Sep. 23, 1524, in Balan, Monum. Reform. Luth. p. 370. Also dispatches from Aleander, in 1521, Ibid. pp. 59, 83). Another large portion of the briefs consists of grants of pensions to the papal officials assessed on churches and religious houses — pensions which the incumbents had to pay and which they naturally sought to recoup by additional exactions on their unhappy subjects. Still more numerous are the letters of dispensa- tion sold to applicants, by which it would almost seem that wholesome regula- tions were established by the Church principally with the object of enabling the curia to make money by setting them aside. When to these are added the letters concerning the temporal ambitions and political intrigues of Leo, his financial perplexities and expedients for their relief, it will be seen how few are left to rejiresent the interests of religion. All the abuses so eloquently denounced at the councils of Constance and Bale are seen flourishing in re- doubled vigor. These abuses bore with especial hardship on Germany, which 382 THE REFORMATION. Lateral! coimcil convoked for 1512, the common consent of Christen- dom demanded that it should commence at Rome, which was recog- lay defenceless, aud some appreciation of them is necessary to understand the delirious joy with which the Lutheran revolt was hailed there. The annates, or payment of a year's revenue on installation in a benefice, was an extortion particularly odious, nor was it rendered less so by the im- providence which led to its being farmed out as security for loans. July 24, 1513, Leo acknowledges a debt of 13,087 ducats to the Fuggers of Augsburg, to secure which he* assigns to them the annates of churches and monasteries, especially in Germany, Hungary and Poland. In January, 1515, he acknowledges a fur- ther debt to them of 8000 ducats, secured by a similar hypothecation (Hergen- rother. No. 3791, 13677). Even so Catholic a monarch as Ferdinand, King of the Eomans, declared, in 1540, that the pope should have no more annates from his dominions, and his brother Charles V. ought to do the same, for the popes do no good, and only seek the gratification of their desires (Dittrich, Nunciaturberichte Giovanni Moroues, p. 211). The venality of the papal court was increased by the fact that all its offices were purchasable and were transmitted by purchase. Leo X. levied a com- mission of five per cent, on all such transactions, and then with careless munificence made over the proceeds to the Cardinal of Santa Maria in Porticu, Bernardo Tarlato, a hanger-on of the Medici family, whom he had elevated to the Sacred College (Hergenrother, n. 13661). Julius II. had constituted a college of 101 scriveners of papal briefs, with definite emoluments, for which they had contributed 74,000 ducats to the papal necessities. In the conclave which elected Leo the cardinals had divided the offices among themselves ; this alarmed the scriveners, who threatened to defend their places before the courts, and to avert the scandal Leo was obliged to confirm the brief of Julius and promise the scriveners to refund the money if they were deprived of the offices (Ibid. n. 4850). It was doubtless a financial expedient when he decreed that his chamberlains should not exceed sixty in number and his squires a hundred and forty ; that their places should be for life and that they should enjoy sundry privileges in consideration of the chamberlains having subscribed 90,000 florins and the squires 112,000 for the support of the papal army (Ibid, n. 16627)— sums which indicate the opportunities enjoyed by these oflacials for despoiling the faithful. Leo, in fact, cared little whence the money for his necessities was derived. June 8, 1517, he accused in consistory two cardinals, Hadrian of S. Chrysogono and Soderini of Palestrina, of privity in Cardinal Petrucci's plot to poison him, but let them off with a fine of 25,000 ducats apiece. Paride Grassi, who relates this (Diarium, Romae, 1884, pp. 49-50), is a little scandalized at it, but excuses him because he needed the money to carry on his war with Francesco Maria of Milan. Moreover Cardinals Riario and Sauli were condemned, and Leo exacted from their friends 100,000 ducats as the price of the life of the former and 20,000 for that of the latter (Ciacconii Hist. Pontiff", et Cardinall. III. 71, 298). A few of the briefs in Hergenrother's Re