Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of auricular confession and indulgences in the Latin church"

See other formats 


A    HISTORY 


OF 


CONFESSION  AND  INDULGENCES 


so® 

\  A    HISTORY 


OF 


AURICULAR  CONFESSION// 


AND 


INDULGENCES 

IN  THE  LATIN  CHURCH. 


BY 

HENRY   CHARLES  *LEAf  LL.D. 

VOLUME  l^ 
CONFESSION   AND   ABSOLUTION. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
LEA    BROTHERS    &    CO. 

1896. 


1*$ 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  189fc,by 

HENRY  CHARLES  LEA, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress.     All  rights  reserved. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
DORNAN,    PRINTER. 


PREFACE. 


PERHAPS  in  treating  the  subject  of  the  present  work  I  may  be 
accused  of  threshing  old  straw.  For  nearly  four  centuries  it  has 
served  as  material  for  endless  controversy,  and  its  every  aspect  may 
be  thought  to  have  been  exhausted.  Yet  I  have  sought  to  view  it 
from  a  different  standpoint  and  to  write  a  history,  not  a  polemical 
treatise.  With  this  object  I  have  abstained  from  consulting  Pro 
testant  writers  and  have  confined  myself  exclusively  to  the  original 
sources  and  to  Catholic  authorities,  confident  that  what  might  thus 
be  lost  in  completeness  would  be  compensated  by  accuracy  and 
impartiality.  In  this  I  have  not  confined  myself  to  standard  theo 
logical  treatises,  but  have  largely  referred  to  popular  works  of 
devotion  in  which  is  to  be  found  the  practical  application  of  the 
theories  enunciated  by  the  masters  of  theology.  I  have  purposely 
been  sparing  of  comment,  preferring  to  present  facts  and  to  leave 
the  reader  to  draw  his  own  conclusions. 

I  may  perhaps  be  pardoned  for  the  hope  that,  in  spite  of  the  arid 
details  of  which  such  an  investigation  as  this  must  in  part  consist, 
the  reader  may  share  in  the  human  interest  which  has  vitalized  the 
labor  for  me  in  tracing  the  gradual  growth  and  development  of  a 
system  that  has,  in  a  degree  unparalleled  elsewhere,  subjected  the 
intellect  and  conscience  of  successive  generations  to  the  domination 
of  fellow  mortals.  The  history  of  mankind  may  be  vainly  searched 
for  another  institution  which  has  established  a  spiritual  autocracy 
such  as  that  of  the  Latin  Church,  or  which  has  exercised  so  vast  an 
influence  on  human  destinies,  and  it  has  seemed  to  me  a  service  to 
historical  truth  to  examine  somewhat  minutely  into  the  origin  and 


vi  PREFACE. 


development  of  the  sources  of  its  power.  This  can  only  be  done 
intelligently  by  the  collocation  of  a  vast  aggregate  of  details,  many 
of  them  apparently  trivial,  but  all  serving  to  show  how,  amid  the 
clash  of  contending  opinions,  the  structure  gradually  arose  which 
subjugated  Christendom  beneath  its  vast  and  majestic  omnipotence, 
profoundly  affecting  the  course  of  European  history  and  moulding 
in  no  small  degree  the  conception  of  the  duties  which  man  owes  to 
his  fellows  and  to  his  God.  Incidentally,  moreover,  the  investigation 
affords  a  singularly  instructive  example  of  the  method  of  growth  of 
dogma,  in  which  every  detail  once  settled  becomes  the  point  of 
departure  in  new  and  perhaps  wholly  unexpected  directions. 

The  importance  of  the  questions  thus  passed  in  review  is  by  no 
means  limited  to  the  past,  for  in  the  Latin  Church  spiritual  interests 
cannot  be  dissociated  from  temporal.  The  publicist  must  be  singu 
larly  blind  who  fails  to  recognize  the  growth  of  influence  that  has 
followed  the  release  of  the  Holy  See  from  the  entanglements  conse 
quent  upon  its  former  position  as  a  petty  Italian  sovereign,  and  the 
enormous  opportunities  opened  to  it  by  the  substitution  of  the  rule 
of  the  ballot-box  for  absolutism.  Through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  confessional,  the  sodality  and  the  indulgence,  its  matchless  organi 
zation  is  thus  enabled  to  concentrate  in  the  Vatican  a  power  greater 
than  has  ever  before  been  wielded  by  human  hands. 

PHILADELPHIA,  DECEMBER,  1895. 


CONTENTS, 


PAET  I. 

CONFESSION  AND  ABSOLUTION. 


CHAPTER   I. — PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 

PAGE 

Scriptural  Forgiveness  of  Sin 

Rudimentary  Organization  in  the  Early  Church     . 


CHAPTER    II.— DISCIPLINE. 

Condition  of  Admission  of  Converts 

Episcopal  Courts  for  the  Forum  Externum 

Reconciliation  a  Matter  of  Discipline 

Voluntary  Confession  Mitigates  Penance 

The  Church  has  no  Jurisdiction  over  the  Forum  of  Conscience 

Class  of  Sins  Subjected  to  Discipline 

Sinners  are  Punished  as  Criminals  .  .         ...       18 


CHAPTER   III.— PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

Character  of  Spiritual  Penalties 

Public  Penance  Alone  Recognized 

Gradual  Development  into  Criminal  Codes     . 

The  Four  Stages  of  Penance  . 

Episcopal  Discretion 

Severity  and  Duration  of  Penance 

Reconciliation  is  not  Pardon  of  Sin 

oo 

Formulas  for  Imposition  of  Penance 
No  Repetition  of  Penance  Permitted 


vjji  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


Decline  of  Public  Penance  in  the  Middle  Ages  .  .  37 
The  Clergy  not  Admitted  to  Penance  .  .38 
Penance  of  Ecclesiastics  in  the  Middle  Ages  ...  .45 

CHAPTER   IV.—  RECONCILIATION. 

Reconciliation  Distinct  from  Absolution          .....  50 

Nature  of  Imposition  of  Hands      .......  50 

Imposition  of  Hands  Gradually  Disused  in  the  Sacrament       .         .  53 

Reconciliation  an  Episcopal  Function     ......  54 

But  also  Performed  by  Priests  and  Deacons    .         .         .         .         .56 

Death-bed  Reconciliation        .         .         .         ...         .         .59 

CHAPTER    V.—  THE  HERESIES. 

Origin  of  Heresy   ..........  63 

The  Montanists      ..........  64 

The  Xovatians        ..........  65 

The  Donatists         ..........  70 

CHAPTER  VI.—  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

Intercessory  Prayer        .........  76 

Expiation  by  Temporal  Misfortune.          .                          ...  77 

Repentance  and  Amendment           .......  78 

Origen's  Seven  Methods          ........  81 

The  Eucharist        ........  85 

The  Mass  —  Oblations      .........  87 

Extreme  Unction            .....  92 

Justification  by  Faith  and  Grace    ....  93 

Pelagianism  —  Predestination           .....         -.  95 

Contrition  and  Attrition          ..... 


CHAPTER    VII.—  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

Martyrs  and  Saints  as  Mediators     .         .         .  105 

The  Texts  in  Matthew  and  John     ....  107 

The  Early  Church  Knows  Nothing  of  the  Keys      .  108 

Gradual  Development  of  the  Claim        ...  110 

Opinions  of  Jerome  and  Augustin           .  Ug 


CONTENTS.  jx 

PAGE 

Uncertainty  in  the  Fifth  and  Sixth  Centuries  .  .  .  .118 
Priests  Claim  Episcopal  Functions — Formulas  of  Ordination  .  .121 
Priests  Exercise  only  a  Delegated  Power  .  .  .  .  .124 

Influence  of  the  False  Decretals 126 

Gradual  Advance  from  the  Ninth  to  the  Eleventh  Centuries  .     129 

Uncertainty  of  St.  Bernard  and  Gratian 134 

Influence  of  the  University  of  Paris  and  the  Schoolmen  .  .136 
Tentative  Theories  of  Hugh  of  St.  Victor  ...  .140 

Peter  Lombard  Divides  Remission  into  Culpa  and  Pcena  .  .142 
Debate  over  the  Function  of  the  Priest  in  Absolution  .  .  .144 
Elaboration  of  the  Theory  as  to  Culpa  and  Pcena  .  .  .  .149 
Remission  of  Sin  is  Effected  only  by  the  Keys  .  .  .  .152 
Discussion  as  to  the  Nature  and  Certainty  of  Absolution  .  .157 

The  Key  of  Knowledge 161 

Sacerdotal  Control  of  Salvation  166 


CHAPTER   V 1 1 1  .—CONFESSION. 

Discussion  Whether  Confession  is  of  Divine  Law    .         .         .         .168 

Auricular  Confession  Unknown  to  the  Early  Church      .         .       ',     171 
Confession  to  God  in  Public   .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .174 

Private  Consultation  with  Experts          ....  .175 

Introduction  of  Private  Confession  to  Priests  .     179 

Private  Confession  Recognized  by  Leo  I. 

Confession  in  the  Monastic  Orders 

Gradual  Development  of  Confession  to  the  Priest  .         .  .185 

It  Remains  Voluntary  and  Infrequent    . 

Ineffectual  Efforts  to  render  it  Annual    .... 

The  Monastic  Orders  Retain  Capitular  Confession  . 

Capitular  Confession  is  the  Ancient  Public  Confession     . 

Urgency  in  the  Twelfth  Century  to  Popularize  Auricular  Confession     205 

The  Schoolmen  Demonstrate  its  Necessity — The  Pseud o-Augustin  . 

Contrition  Implies  a  Vow  to  Confess 

Confession  Becomes  More  Frequent — Abuses  . 

Prolonged  Struggle  to  Suppress  Confession  to  Laymen    . 

CHAPTER   IX.— ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

Efforts  to  Render  Auricular  Confession  Obligatory 

The  Lateran  Canon  of  1216  Prescribes  Annual  Confession     . 


x  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Difficulty  of  Enforcing  the  New  Kule    ...         .         .         .231 

Questions  to  which  it  gave  Rise      .......  237 

Unfitness  of  the  Clergy  for  the  Confessional    .....  241 

Methods  of  Coercion  Adopted 250 

Modern  Observance  of  Confession  .......  254 

Improvement  in  the  Character  of  Confessors 255 

Duty  of  Physicians  to  Force  Patients  to  Confess     ....  262 

Confession  by  Ecclesiastics 267 

Confession  by  Priest  before  Celebrating  Mass          271 


CHAPTER  X  .—JURISDICTION. 

Origin  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Priest 274 

Power  of  the  Keys  Circumscribed  by  Jurisdiction  .  .  .  .  277 

The  Exclusive  Right  of  Parish  Priests  over  their  Subjects  .  .  278 

Absolution  Invalid  without  Jurisdiction 282 

Exceptions  Admitted  to  This 283 

Perplexities  Arising  from  Jurisdiction 286 

Confessors  of  Men  of  Rank  and  Prelates 288 

Licences  to  Choose  a  Confessor — Confessional  Letters  .  ...  292 

Modern  Relaxation  of  Jurisdiction  ....  .  296 

Struggle  with  the  Mendicants  over  the  Question  of  Jurisdiction  .  297 
The  Council  of  Trent  requires  Episcopal  Approbation  of  Confessors 

—Efforts  of  the  Regulars  to  Neutralize  it  .  .  .  .303 
Question  as  to  the  Necessity  of  Annual  Confession  to  the  Parish 

Priest — Heresy  of  John  of  Poilly         .  307 


CHAPTER   XI.— RESERVED  CASES. 

Origin  of  Reserving  Cases  to  the  Bishop         .  312 

Growth  of  the  Custom  in  the  Twelfth  Century  313 

Explained  by  Delegation  of  Jurisdiction        .         .  314 

Papal  Letters  Overriding  Episcopal  Reservation     .  316 

Arbitrary  Exercise  of  Episcopal  Power          .  317 

The  Council  of  Trent  Confirms  the  Power      .  31  g 

Variations  in  Different  Dioceses      .         .  319 

Papal  Reserved  Cases     ....  321 

Confesssional  Letters  for  Papal  Cases      .  325 

Conflict  Between  the  Council  of  Trent  and  the  Popes  327 


CONTENTS.  x[ 

PAGE 

Incompatibility  of  the  System  with  the  Sacramental  Theory — Per 
plexities  in  Applying  it 329 

Methods  of  Evasion  by  Priests — Indirect  Absolution      .         .         .  333 

Faculties  are  Usually  Granted  for  Reserved  Cases  ....  334 

Impediments  which  Excuse  the  Penitent         .....  336 

Question  of  Erroneous  Absolution 338 

Various  Questions  Arising  from  Reserved  Cases      ....  340 

Conflict  over  Reserved  Cases  Between  the  Secular  and  Regular  Priests  342 

CHAPTER   XII.— THE   CONFESSIONAL. 

Requisites  for  a  Perfect  Confession          .         .  .     347 

Exceptions  to  the  Rule  of  Completeness 

Scrupulous  Penitents       .         .  •     353 

Divided  Confession          .         .  ,  354 

Gregarious  Confession     .... 

Repeated  Confession 

Confession  and  Absolution  by  Writing  or  Messenger       .  .     362 

Interrogation  of  Penitents 

Danger  to  the  Penitent 

Danger  to  the  Confessor 

Solicitation 

Efforts  to  Diminish  Risk — Confessionals 
Demanding  the  Name  of  Accomplice  in  Sin  . 
Minimum  Age  for  Confession 
Fees  for  Confession 

CHAPTER   XIII  .—THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

The  Seal  Asserted  to  be  of  Divine  Law  . 

Origin  and  Development  of  Secrecy 

Made  Obligatory  by  the  Lateran  Canon  of  1216 

But  is  Merely  a  Privilege  of  the  Penitent 

It  is  Gradually  Enforced 

Martyrs  Claimed  for  It  . 

Pressure  on  Confessors  for  Evidence— Evasion  Taught   . 

Penalties  for  Violation— Difficulty  of  Prosecution 

Extension  of  the  Seal— Exaggeration  of  its  Importance 

Consultation  with  Experts 

Complications  Arising  from  Reserved  Cases    . 


xji  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Various  Questions  Arising  from  the  Seal         .....  439 

Its  Influence  on  Penance 442 

The  Penitent  also  Bound  to  Secrecy       ......  444 

Exceptions — Future  Sins — Debts  and  Deposits — Matters  Mentioned 

by  the  Penitent 445 

Extent  to  which  the  Confessor  may  Allude  to  Confessions       .         .  448 

Impossibility  of  Enforcement — Garrulity  of  Confessors           .         .  450 

Cases  of  Violation 453 

Habitual  Violation  in  the  Religious  Orders    ...                  .  456 


CHAPTER   XIV .—ABSOLUTION. 

Absolution  Unknown  in  the  Early  Church     .         .         .  460 

Power  of  Intercessory  Prayer          ....  460 

Deprecatory  Formulas  of  so-called  Absolution        ....     463 

Development  of  Absolution  from  Reconciliation     .         .  .     465 

The  Theory  of  the  Sacraments        .         .         .  459 

Early  Conceptions  of  the  Sacraments         .  .         .     469 

Development  in  the  Twelfth  Century         .  .         .471 

Established  by  Peter  Lombard 473 

Gradual  Acceptance  of  the  Theory  ....     475 

Authoritatively  Adopted  in  1439       .         .  479 

Transitional  Formulas  of  Absolution      .         .  480 

The  Indicative  Formula  Introduced        .         .  433 

Rendered  de  fide  by  the  Council  of  Trent  488 

Recapitulation        ....  400 

The  Sacrament  in  Sinful  Hands      .         .  495 

Death-bed  Absolution    ....  49^ 

Causes  of  Invalidity  of  Absolution         .  493 

Partial  Absolution          ...  .-A-, 

Conditional  Absolution  ...  ™ 

Reimputation  of  Sins     .         .         .  ™ 

Absolution  Before  or  After  Performance  of  Penance  506 

Confession  and  Absolution  in  the  Lutheran  Church  515 

in  the  Calvinist  Church     .         .  519 

in  the  Anglican  Church    . 


PART  I. 

CONFESSION  AND  ABSOLUTION 


I.— l 


CONFESSION  AND  ABSOLUTION. 


CHAPTER   I. 

PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANITY. 

WHEN  Christ  described  his  mission —  "  They  that  are  whole  need 
not  a  physician  but  they  that  are  sick  .  .  .  for  I  am  not  come 
to  call  the  righteous  but  sinners  to  repentance,"1  he  assumed  as  a 
postulate  that  in  the  dealings  of  God  with  man  repentance  suffices 
to  procure  pardon  for  sin.  In  this  he  was  merely  giving  expression 
to  traditional  Hebrew  thought,  The  Psalmist  had  said  long  before 
"  A  sacrifice  to  God  is  an  afflicted  spirit ;  a  contrite  and  humbled 
heart  O  God  thou  wilt  not  despise ;"  and  the  Deutero-Isaiah  "  Let 
the  wicked  forsake  his  way  and  the  unjust  man  his  thoughts:  and 
let  him  return  to  the  Lord  and  He  will  have  mercy  upon  him  ;  and 
to  our  God  for  He  is  bountiful  to  forgive."2  Hebrew  tradition  how 
ever  prescribed  certain  outward  manifestations  of  the  internal  change 
of  heart.  When  the  Ninevites  desired  to  avert  the  vengeance  of 
God  they  put  on  sackcloth  and  cast  ashes  on  their  heads,  turned 
from  their  evil  ways,  fasted  and  prayed  and  were  spared.3  The 
purer  prophetical  school,  however,  made  light  of  these  observances ; 
Joel  says  to  the  sinner  "  rend  your  heart  and  not  your  garments, 
and  turn  to  the  Lord  your  God  ;"4  and  Christ,  who  sought  to  spirit 
ualize  the  prevailing  materialism  of  Judaism,  assumed  in  all  his  acts 
that  change  of  heart  was  the  only  thing  needful.  The  woman  com- 

1  Matt.  ix.  12-13.  It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  the  Vulgate  and  the  Douay 
version  omit  the  words  "to  repentance."     The  original  has  a?  per&vo 

even  so  orthodox  a  scholar  as  Benito  Arias  Montano  adds  to  the  Vul 
pomitentiam."  A  still  higher  authority  is  Pope  John  XIX.  who  m  K 
the  text  in  the  same  way  (Johan.  PP.  XIX.  Epist.  17). 

2  Ps.  L.  19;  Isaiah,  LV.  7.     Cf.  Ezek.  xvm.  23;  xxxni.  11. 
»  Jonah,  m. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 


monly  identified  with  Mary  Magdalen,  of  whom  he  said  u  Many  sins 
are  forgiven  her  because  she  hath  loved  much,"  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  the  salvation  of  the  penitent 
thief,  the  forgiveness  of  Peter  for  denying  his  Master,  the  exhorta 
tion  to  become  as  little  children,  the  parable  of  the  king  and  his  ser 
vants,  his  identification  of  himself  with  the  poor,  all  show  that  in 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  externals  were  of  no  importance,  that  man 
dealt  directly  with  God  and  that  repentance,  love,  humility,  pardon 
of  offences  or  charity  sufficed  to  win  forgiveness.1  It  required  all 
the  ingenuity  of  theologians  for  thirteen  centuries  to  build  up  from 
this  simplicity  the  complex  structure  of  dogma  and  observance  on 
which  were  based  sacramental  absolution  and  the  theory  of  indul 
gences. 

Materials  for  this  structure  were  contributed  early.  James  and 
John  both  dwelt  upon  the  redeeming  character  of  mutual  confes 
sion  of  sins  "one  to  another,"  and  the  power  of  intercessory  prayer, 
and  James  prescribed  the  cure  of  the  sick  by  calling  in  the  pres 
byters  to  anoint  with  oil  and  pray  "  And  the  prayer  of  faith 
shall  save  the  sick  man,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up;  and 
if  he  be  in  sins  they  shall  be  forgiven  him."2  Paul  attributes  the 
remission  of  sin  to  the  blood  of  Christ,3  and  he  gives  countenance  to 
the  theory  that  it  may  be  expiated  by  temporal  suffering,  in  the  well- 
known  passage  "  To  deliver  such  a  one  to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of 
the  flesh  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"4  The  early  Christians  however  adhered  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Master  and  to  the  traditional  Hebrew  view  of  the  expiatory 
power  of  almsgiving.5  Towards  the  close  of  the  first  century  we 


Q  L  40~43;  John»  VIIL  3-n 

3-4,  35  ;  xxv.  31-46  ;  xxvi.  69-75. 

«  James,  v.  14-16  ;  I.  John,  I.  9;  v.  16.  »  Ephesians,  i.  7. 

.  o.  This  would  seem  to  be  the  most  probable  explanation  of  the 
somewhat  enigmatical  text,  especially  as  it  was  the  current  belief  of  the  Jews 
the  period  that  sin  is  punished  here  rather  than  hereafter.     This  is  seen  in 
he  question  of  the  disciples,  «  Kabbi,  who  hath  sinned,  this  man  or  his  parents 
tiiat  he  should  be  born  blind?"  (John  ix.  2),  and  though  on  this  occasion 
Chnst  answered,  "Neither  hath  this  man  sinned  nor  his  parents,"  yet  in  the 
cure  of  the  palsied  (Matt.  ix.  2-5)  he  accepted  the  belief  by  askin*  "Whether 
it  i.  easier  to  say,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  ;  or  to  say,  Arise  and*  wall" 

i  33      ^^f       n",  flaTg  fire  "^  almS  reslsteth  ^''-Ecclesiasticus, 
Wherefore  O  king  let  my  counsel  be  acceptable  to  thee,  and  redeem 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY.  5 

find  St.  Clement  of  Rome  assuming  that  repentance  and  prayer  to 
God  for  pardon  suffice,  without  any  formula  for  priestly  intermedia 
tion,  though  he  also  recommends  intercessory  prayer  for  those  who 
have  fallen  into  sin.1  About  the  same  period  the  Didache  and  Bar 
nabas  both  inculcate  almsgiving  as  a  means  of  redeeming  sins,2  and 
so  soon  afterwards  does  the  second  epistle  which  passes  under  the 
name  of  Clement.3  St.  Ignatius  speaks  only  of  repentance  as  requi 
site  for  reconciliation  to  God,4  and  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias  seems  to  know  of  no  other  means 
of  remission.5 

Yet  as  the  Church  grew  and  extended  itself  among  the  nations, 
absorbing  converts  of  every  race  and  every  degree  of  intellectual 
development  and  moral  fitness,  its  old  simplicity  of  faith  and 
organization  disappeared.  Philosophers  and  rhetoricians  sought  to 
explain  the  relations  between  God  and  man,  leading  to  the  evo 
lution  of  doctrine  which  we  shall  consider  hereafter.  Converts, 
too,  there  were  in  multitudes  whose  weakness  under  temptation 
created  the  necessity  of  some  rules  of  discipline  by  which  the  inter 
course  between  the  brethren  should  be  regulated.  Every  Church, 
like  all  other  human  associations,  must  determine  its  own  conditions 
of  fellowship,  and  among  Christians  the  test  of  this  speedily  came  to 
be  admission  to  the  love-feast  or  Lord's  Supper.  He  whose  conduct 
was  at  variance  with  his  Christian  profession  was  liable  to  excom 
munication — suspension  from  communion  until  his  repentance  and 
amendment  satisfied  the  rulers  of  his  congregation.  Thus  gradually 
and  insensibly  grew  up  the  enormous  power  derived  from  the  control 

thou  thy  sins  with  alms,  and  thy  iniquities  with  works  of  mercy  to  the  poor; 
perhaps  he  will  forgive  thy  offences."— Daniel,  iv.  24.     "  For  alms  clelivereth 
from  death  and  the  same  is  that  which  purgeth  away  sins."— Tobias,  xn.  £ 
"  Give  alms  and  behold  all  things  are  clean  unto  you."— Luke,  XT.  41. 

1  Clement.  Epist.  i.  ad  Corinth,  vm.  1 ;  xxn.  1 ;  xxm.  1,  15. 

2  Didache,  c.  iv.— Barnabas  Epist.  xiv.  20.     But  already  the  evil  of  indis 
criminate  almsgiving  was  recognized—"  Let  thine  alms  sweat  in  thy  hands 
thou  hast  learned  to  whom  to  give  "  (Didache,  c.  I.). 

3  Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  n.  ad   Corinth.  8,  13.      "Fasting  is  better  than 
prayer  and  almsgiving  than  both    ....    for  almsgiving  lifteth  the  burdt 
of  sin"— Ib.  16.     So  Pius  IX.  in  proclaiming  the  jubilee  of  1875,  urg 
bishops  to  exert  themselves  "ut  peccata  eleemosynis  redimantur."- 

IX.  Encyc.  Gravibus  (Acta,  T.  VI.  p.  358). 

4  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Philadelph.  c.  in.  vm. 

5  Hermse  Pastor.  Lib.  I.  Vis.  ii.     Lib.  n.  Mandat.  iv.     Lib.  m.  Simil.  ix. 


6  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY. 

of  the  Eucharist  which  formed  so  controlling  a  factor  in  establishing 
the  domination  of  the  Church  over  Christendom.  I  have  considered 
this  subject  in  some  detail  elsewhere1  and  need  only  refer  to  it  here  in 
so  far  as  it  forms  the  leading  feature  in  the  system  of  discipline  which 
insensibly  arose  to  determine  the  relations  between  the  sinner  and  his 
fellow  Christians.  When  his  guilt  was  made  manifest  and  proven  he 
was  suspended  from  communion ;  when  restored  he  was  said  to  be 
reconciled.  What  were  the  rules  in  force  in  the  infant  Church  it  is 
impossible  now  to  say.  Probably  at  first  the  power  to  suspend  and 
restore  lay  with  the  spiritual  teachers  of  the  congregation,  as  indi 
cated  by  the  injunction  of  St.  Paul—"  Brethren  and  if  a  man  be 
overtaken  in  any  fault,  you  who  are  spiritual  instruct  such  a  one  in 
the  spirit  of  meekness  ;"2  although  when  addressing  the  whole  body 
of  believers  in  Corinth  he  seems  to  regard  the  function  as  inherent  in 
the  congregation  at  large/3  and  when  they  refrained,  in  a  peculiarly 
scandalous  case,  he  had  no  hesitation  in  passing  judgment  on  the 
offender  himself/  subsequently  ratifying  the  pardon  granted  by  the 
local  church  on  the  repentance  of  the  sinner.5  Towards  the  close  of 
the  first  century,  St.  Ignatius,  who  magnified  on  all  occasions  the 
sacerdotal  and  episcopal  office,  assumes  that  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  bishop  are  requisite  for  restoration ;  no  formulas  or  ceremonies 
are  necessary,  simple  repentance  suffices  to  win  from  God  pardon  of 
the  sin,  provided  the  sinner  is  readmitted  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.6 
Half  a  century  later  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Armas- 
trians,  orders  them  to  receive  back  kindly  all  repentant  sinners  and 
even  heretics.  No  formalities  are  prescribed  and  no  penance  is  indi- 

r»a-f /-»/-!   7 


1  Studies  in  Church  History,  2d  edition,  1883.  *  Galat   vi.  1 

1  But  now  I  have  written  to  you  not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is 
i  brother,  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  a  server  of  idols  or  a  railer 
or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner :  with  such  a  one  not  so  much  as  to  eat  »-I* 
Cor.  v.  11. 

"I  indeed,  absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit,  have  already  judged  as 
^       W6re  present'  him  that  hath  so  done  "-Ibid.  3. 
"And  to  whom  you  have  pardoned  anything,  I  also  "—II   Cor  n   10 
S.  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Philadelph.  c.  vm.     The  shorter  Latin  version  says 
>  igitur  poenitentibus  dimittit  Deus  si  poeniteant  in  unitatem  Dei  et 
n^piov)  episcopi."    The  longer  version  is  «  Omnibus  igitur  pceni- 
enubus  dmutot  Deus,  si  ad  unitatem  ecclesi*  concurrerint  et  ad'consensum 
episcopi."     (Petermann's  Ignatius,  pp.  206-7  ) 
7  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY.  7 

In  a  body  such  as  the  primitive  Church,  composed  of  earnest  souls 
striving  to  earn  salvation  amid  obloquy  and  persecution,  there  was 
little  chance  that  aggravated  and  permanent  sin  would  find  a  lodg 
ment  ;  for  the  most  part  the  law  of  love  would  suffice  to  preserve 
purity ;  those  who  lapsed  would  be  eager  to  regain  their  standing 
and  to  make  their  peace  with  God  and  with  their  fellows,  and  the 
simplest  rules  would  be  ample  to  maintain  discipline.  Yet  the  weak 
ness  of  human  nature  occasionally  asserted  itself,  and  there  was 
sometimes  friction.  The  epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  quoted  above 
was  called  forth  by  a  revolt  against  the  priests  of  the  Corinthian 
church,  showing  that  even  among  the  faithful  of  that  early  time  those 
entrusted  with  control  might  exercise  it  arbitrarily,  or  that  those  who 
were  subordinate  might  recalcitrate  even  against  that  rudimentary 
authority.  Thus  everywhere  in  the  teachings  and  in  the  nascent 
organization  of  the  Church  lay  the  germs  which,  after  countless 
struggles  and  vicissitudes,  were  to  develop  into  a  system  so  strangely 
at  variance  with  the  simplicity  out  of  which  it  has  grown. 

Of  these  germs  the  first  for  us  to  consider  is  the  jurisdiction  over 
the  sins  and  crimes  of  the  faithful  which  gradually  established  itself 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  controlled  the  administration  of  the 
Eucharist.  In  dealing  with  this  and  with  the  numerous  questions  to 
which  it  gave  rise  Ave  must  bear  in  mind  that  during  these  early  cen 
turies  there  was  no  central  authority  and  consequently  no  uniformity 
of  practice.  At  first  it  may  be  said  that  every  local  church,  and, 
after  general  organization  had  been  introduced,  each  province,  and 
almost  each  diocese,  was  a  law  unto  itself  in  matters  of  discipline. 
As  churches  were  organized  numerous  points  had  to  be  decided  for 
which  there  was  no  precept  in  evangel  or  epistle.  Doctrine  and 
practice  had  to  evolve  themselves  out  of  the  confused  struggle  of 
warring  opinions  and  interests,  and  it  is  frequently  impossible  at 
present,  from  the  fragmentary  remains  of  that  period,  to  decide  as 
to  what  was  the  prevailing  consensus  of  opinion  at  any  given  time 
on  a  given  subject.  No  one  was  empowered  to  speak  for  the  Church 
at  large  and  the  most  that  we  can  do  is  to  gather,  from  what  we 
know  of  the  customs  of  local  churches  and  the  expressions  of  leade 
of  thought,  such  facts  and  views  as  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  gradu 
evolution  and  crystallization  of  Latin  Christianity  in  relation  t 
and  its  remission. 


CHAPTEE    II. 

DISCIPLINE. 

THE  code  of  morality  taught  in  the  gospels  was  wholly  different 
from  that  prevailing  in  the  society  from  which  converts  to  Christi 
anity  were  drawn.  In  the  latter,  license  was  all-prevailing  and  the 
standard  erected  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  was  one  not  easily  en 
forced.  Some  effort  consequently  was  made  to  test  the  sincerity  of 
the  postulant's  conversion.  The  simplicity  of  the  earliest  time  which 
required  only  a  two  days'  fast  preliminary  to  baptism1  was  soon 
found  to  be  insufficient.  The  pardon  symbolized  by  the  baptismal 
rite  was  only  to  be  earned  by  a  cleansing  of  the  heart,  confession  of 
sin  to  God  and  earnest  repentance.2  According  to  the  Clementine 
Recognitions,  which  probably  date  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  this  period  of  probation  was  extended  to  three  months,  to  be 
spent  in  self-examination  and  frequent  fasts.3  The  catechumen  wept 
and  mourned  over  his  past  delinquencies,  praying  God  for  pardon, 
the  congregation  fasted  and  prayed  with  him ;  he  pledged  himself  to 
live  righteously  for  the  future  and  when  the  rite  was  accomplished  he 
was  assured  that  he  was  released  not  only  from  original  sin  but  from 
all  actual  sin.4  He  was  regenerate,  he  was  born  again  without  sin 

1  Didache,  c.  vii. 

"And  he  confesses  to  God,  saying  In  ignorance  I  did  these  things ;  and  he 
cleanses  his  heart  and  his  sins  are  forgiven  him  because  he  did  them  in  ignor 
ance  in  former  time."— Apology  of  Aristides,  c.  xvii.  (Rendel  Harris's  Transla 
tion,  p.  51). 

"Clement.  Recogn.  Lib.  m.  c.  67.    The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
1.  Vienna*,  1838,  p.  161)  is  careful  to  inform  us  that  these  preliminaries  were 
not  works  of  satisfaction  but  only  to  impress  the  convert  with  the  venerable 
character  of  the  sacrament. 

4  Justin.  Mart.  Apologise  in.-Clement.  Recogn.  Lib.  I.  c.  69  — Tertull 
de  Baptismo  c.  xx.-S.  Zenonis  Lib.  i.  Tract,  xxxix.,  xl  xli  (Mis-ne's 
Patrolog.  XL  486-90).-Epist.  Theodori  ap.  S.  Hieron.  (Migne  XXIII  106)  - 
S.  Augustin.  Lib.  de  Fide  et  Operibus. 

According  to  the  Didascalia  Petri  the  sins  of  a  convert  were  only  remitted 
l         ean      f  repentanCe-Clement'  Alex-  Stromata   Lib.   vi.  (Ed. 


EPISCOPAL  COURTS.  9 

and  it  was  his  duty  to  maintain  this  condition  of  purity.  If  he  failed 
in  this  it  was  the  duty  of  the  heads  of  the  congregation  to  summon 
him  to  repentance  and  amendment.  In  the  simple  Ebionitic  society 
of  Palestine  this  was  enforced  by  segregation  from  his  fellows — "  To 
everyone  who  acts  wrongly  towards  another  let  no  one  speak,  nor  let 
him  be  listened  to  till  he  repents."1  In  the  expanding  and  more 
complex  organizations  of  the  Gentile  churches,  with  their  tendencies 
to  sacerdotal  development,  the  means  of  enforcement  lay  in  the  con 
trol  of  the  Eucharist.  The  offender  was  suspended  and  if  persistently 
impenitent  he  was  ejected  from  the  church,  outside  of  which,  as 
Cyprian  tells  us,  there  was  no  more  hope  of  salvation  than  in  the 
Deluge  outside  of  the  ark ;  no  one  could  have  God  for  father  who 
had  not  the  Church  for  mother ;  he  was  slain  with  the  sword  of  the 
spirit.2 

Thus  alongside  of  the  secular  criminal  courts  there  grew  up  at  each 
episcopal  seat  another  criminal  court  of  which  the  function  was  to 
determine  the  relations  between  sinners  and  their  congregations. 
These  were  however  in  no  sense  spiritual  courts  or  courts  of  con 
science.  Their  jurisdiction  was  exclusively  in  the  forum  externum  ; 
any  influence  which  they  might  exert  over  the  forum  internum,  over 
the  relations  of  the  sinner  with  God,  was  merely  indirect  and  inci 
dental,  and  this  is  a  point  which  it  is  important  to  keep  in  view  for 
it  has  been  systematically  overlooked  or  confused  by  apologists  Avhose 
duty  it  is  to  find  precedent  in  the  first  three  centuries  for  all  the  insti 
tutions  and  dogmas  of  the  middle  ages.3  It  is  true  that  the  Church 


1  Didache,  c.  xv. 

2  Cypriani  de  Unitate   Ecclesiss   p.  109.     Of.  Epist.  ad  Pomponium  p.   ! 
(Ed.  Oxon.). 

3  See  Estius  in  Lib.  iv.    Sententt.  Dist.  xv.  g  13.     Modern  theologians  find 
it  difficult  to  reconcile  the  facts  with  their  necessities.     Francisco  Suarez,  S.  J.} 
frankly  admits  that  the  early  penance  was  not  sacramental,  but  wholly  in  the 
forum  externum,  regulating  the  relations  of  the  sinner  with  the  Church  but  not 
with  God  (Fr.  Suarez  in  3  P.  Disp.  xlix.  §  2,  ap.  Amort  de  Indulgentiis,  II. 
172-3).     Juenin  (De  Sacramentis,  Diss.  vn.  Q.  vii.  cap.  4  art.  3)  says 
Domingo  Soto  is  alone  among  canonists  and  theologians  in  denying  the  sacra 
mental  character  of  ancient  reconciliation. 

The  question  is  a  troublesome  one  for  apologists  as  the  antiquity  of  indi 
gences  depends  wholly  upon  the  sacramental  character  of  ancient  penance. 
See  Bouvier  Trait'e  des  Indulgences,  Ed.  1855,  pp.  17  sqq.  Grone  (Der  Ablass, 
Geschichte  und  Bedeutung,  Eegensburg,  1863,  p.  27)  endeavors  to  recc 
the  difficulty  by  assuming  that  the  old  penance  was  a  censure,  identical  with 


10  DISCIPLINE. 


could  destroy  by  expulsion,  but  it  claimed  as  yet  no  correlative  power 
to  save.  It*  could  grant  the  penitent  "  peace  "  and  reconciliation,  but 
it  did  not  pretend  to  absolve  him,  and  by  reconciliation  he  only  gained 
the  opportunity  of  being  judged  by  God.  St.  Cyprian,  who  tells  us 
this,  had  evidently  never  heard  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  or  that  what 
the  Church  loosed  on  earth  would  be  loosed  in  heaven ;  it  cannot, 
he  says,  prejudge  the  judgment  of  God,  for  it  is  fallible  and  easily 
deceived.1  This  was  not  merely  the  opinion  of  the  African  Church, 
for  the  council  of  bishops  assembled  in  Rome  after  the  Decian  perse 
cution  decided  that  homicides  and  those  who  had  lapsed  to  idolatry, 
if  truly  repentant,  could  be  admitted  to  reconciliation  on  the  death 
bed,  but  what  this  reconciliation  was  worth  it  declined  to  say,  for  the 
judgment  lay  in  the  hands  of  God.2  When  Cyprian  allowed,  in  case  of 
necessity,  the  ceremony  of  reconciliation  by  the  imposition  of  hands  to 
be  performed  by  deacons,  in  order  that  the  penitent  might  go  to  God 
with  the  peace  of  the  church,  it  shows  clearly  that  no  sacramental 
exercise  of  the  power  of  the  keys  was  involved,  for  this  has  never 
been  conferred  on  the  diaconate,  of  which  the  functions  are  ministerial 
and  not  sacerdotal,  and  the  proceedings  of  several  Spanish  councils 


modern  minor  excommunication,  and  thus  in  foro  externo,  but  having  in  con 
nection  with  it  sacramental  satisfaction.  Palmieri  (Tract,  de  Poenit.  Ronise, 
1879,  p.  77)  controverts  the  views  of  those  who  assert  that  the  penitence  of  the 
early  Church  was  only  in  foro  externo,  to  reconcile  the  sinner  to  the  Church, 
and  condemns  it  as  opposed  to  Catholic  opinion.  Subsequently,  however,  when 
he  has  to  face  the  troublesome  question  of  the  old  deprecatory  form  of  absolu 
tion  he  boldly  affirms  (pp.  127-41)  that  public  reconciliation  was  not  sacra 
mental,  and  he  adopts  (pp.  463-4)  the  theory  of  Dr.  Amort,  that  when  the 
sinner  confessed  his  sin  he  received  absolution,  and  that  reconciliation  was 
only  another  form  of  indulgence.  All  this  of  course  is  the  baldest  assumption, 
but  these  questions  will  come  up  for  consideration  hereafter. 

Innocent  I.  (Ad  Exsuperium  cap.  iv.)  indicates  how  accusations  were  brought 
and  how  the  accused  was  deprived  of  communion.  The  power  of  oppression 
thus  lodged  in  the  hands  of  an  unscrupulous  prelate  is  exhibited  in  the  prose 
cution  of  the  priest  Isidor  by  Theophilus,  the  arbitrary  archbishop  of  Alexan 
dria.— Palladii  Vit  S.  Jo.  Chrysost.  c.  vi. 

1  Cypriani  Epist.  LV.  ad  Antonianum  ''  Et  quia  apud  inferos  confessio  non 
est  nee  exomologesis  illic  fieri  potest,  qui  ex  toto  corde  poenituerint  et  roga- 
verint  in  eccle?ia  debent  interim  suscipi  et  in  ipsa  Domino  reservari,  qui  ad 
ecclesiam  venturus,  de  illis  utique  quos  in  ea  intus  invenerit,  judicabit." 

2  Cleri  Roman.  Epist.  ad  Cyprian.  (Cypriani  Epist.  xxx.)   "  Ipso  Deo  sciente 
quid  de  talibus  faciat  et  qualiter  judicii  sui  examinet  pondera." 


RECOXCILIA  TIOX.  1  ] 

of  the  fourth  century  prove  that  diaconal  reconciliation  was  not  con 
fined  to  the  African  Church.1 

Reconciliation  thus  was  merely  a  matter  of  discipline.  When 
Marcion  the  heretic  returned  to  the  faith  and  repented  he  was  prom 
ised  reconciliation  under  the  condition  that  he  would  bring  back  to 
the  fold  those  whom  he  had  led  astray — a  condition  which  had  no 
relation  to  the  state  of  his  own  soul,  for  it  depended  wholly  upon  the 
free  will  of  others,  as  was  shown  by  his  death  before  he  was  able  to 
accomplish  it.2  The  account  which  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  about 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  writes  to  Pope  Fabianus  of  the  mira 
cle  attending  the  death  of  Serapion,  who  had  sacrificed  to  idols  and 
had  vainly  sought  reconciliation,  shows  that  pardon  by  God  was  not 
dependent  upon  the  ecclesiastical  ceremony,  though  that  was  also 
needed  to  restore  him  to  the  Church,  and  so  little  doubt  of  it  had 
Dionysius  that  he  enquires  whether  Serapion  ought  not  to  be  in 
cluded  in  the  glorious  list  of  confessors.3  St.  Augustin  gives  us  clearly 
to  understand  that  the  so-called  penitents  of  the  early  Church  were 
simply  excommunicates  ;4  and  when  Bishop  Therapius  received  the 
priest  Victor  to  the  peace  of  the  Church  before  he  had  satisfied  God 


1  Cypriani  Epist  xviii.— C.  Illiberitan.  can.  32.— C.  Toletan.  I.  aim.  400,  c. 
2.  Cf.  C.  Carthag.  IV.  arm.  398,  c.  4  "  Diaconus  cum  ordinatur,  solus  epis- 
copus  que  eum  benedicit  manum  super  caput  illius  ponat  quia  non  ad  sacerdo- 
tiuin  sed  ad  ministerium  consecratur." 

These  passages  naturally  give  concern  to  modern  apologists,  who  endeavo 
with  more  zeal  than  success  to  argue  them  away.    See,  for  instance,  Binterim. 
Denkwiirdigkeiten  der  Christ-Katholischen  Kirche,  B.  VI.Th.ii.  pp.  201-7. 

We  shall  see  that  even  after  the  sacramental  character  of  penance  was 
accepted  in  the  twelfth  century  there  was  difficulty  in  preventing  deacons  from 
administering  it. 

'2  Tertull.  de  Prsescriptionibus  c.  xxx. 

3  Euseb  H.  E.  vi.  44. 

4  S.  Augustin.  Epist.  cclxv.  n.  7.    "Agunt  homines  poenitentiam  si  po= 
tismuin  ita  peccaverint  ut  excoinmunicari  et  postea  reconciliari  mereantur,  sicut 
in  omnibus  ecclesiis  illi  qui  proprie  poenitentes  appellantur." 

In  referring  to  St.  Augustin  it  is  important  to  bear  in  min 
influence  which  he  exercised  in  moulding  the  doctrine  and  discipline 
medieval  and  modern  Church.     This  is  illustrated  in  the  Decreium  of  < 
where  no  less  than  607  canons  are  taken  from  his  works,  genuine  and  supp< 
tious.     Much  as  current  Christianity  owes  to  St.  Paul,  he  furnishes 
canons.     It  was  on  Augustin  rather  than  on  Paul  that  the  schooluiei 
is  obvious  in  the  Sentences  and  the  commentaries  upon  them  whi 
main  bodv  of  scholastic  theology. 


12  DISCIPLINE. 

by  due  penitence  Cyprian  allowed  the  reconciliation  to  stand,  thus 
showing  that  reconciliation  to  God  and  to  the  Church  were  two 
different  things.1 

The  episcopal  tribunals  which  were  established  to  administer  this 
discipline,  were  not,  like  the  modern  confessional  which  has  been 
affiliated  upon  them,  simply  designed  to  ease  the  conscience  of  des 
pairing  sinners  who  came  forward  to  unburden  their  souls  and  seek 
salvation  at  sacerdotal  hands.  They  were  the  prototypes  of  the 
Officially,  or  episcopal  court  in  the  forum  externum.  Their  sessions 
were  public,  they  heard  accusations,  they  examined  witnesses,  they 
convicted  or  acquitted  the  accused  according  to  the  evidence,  and 
they  apportioned  the  punishment  or  penance  to  be  endured  before 
he  should  be  admitted  to  reconciliation.  If  he  came  forward  volun 
tarily  and  confessed  before  the  congregation,  this  evidence  of  repent 
ance  gained  for  him  a  mitigation  of  the  penalty.  The  earliest  account 
we  have  of  these  proceedings  is  in  the  Canonical  Epistle  of  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  written  about  the  year  267,  after  the  invasion  of 
Pontus  by  the  Goths,  when  many  Christians  had  committed  serious 
offences,  aiding  the  invaders,  plundering  their  neighbors,  and  even 
enslaving  their  fugitive  brethren.  The  magnitude  and  novelty  of 
the  crimes  and  the  number  of  the  criminals  were  apparently  so  great 
that  the  bishop  of  the  culprits  seems  to  have  been  at  a  loss  and 
applied  to  Gregory  for  instructions.  His  answer  shows  that  the 
system  was  still  crude  and  rudimentary.  He  sends  a  learned  clerk, 
Euphrosynus  to  guide  his  colleague  in  the  trials  and  to  inform  him 
who  may  be  received  as  accusers.  He  specifies  the  length  of  pen 
ance  to  be  inflicted  for  the  several  offences  and  the  diminution  to  be 
granted  for  voluntary  self-accusation.  The  whole  business  is  evi 
dently  intended  merely  to  settle  the  relations  of  the  sinners  with  the 
Church,  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  obtaining  pardon  from  God.  It  is 
exclusively  a  matter  of  the  forum  externum  ;  the  penalties  inflicted  are 
punishment  in  the  guise  of  penance,  deterrent  as  well  as  medicinal.2 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions,  which  reflect  the  customs  of  nearly 
the  same  period,  represent  the  bishop  not  only  as  a  judge  but  as  in 
some  sort  a  prosecuting  officer.  Whenever  he  learns  that  a  member 
of  his  flock  has  sinned  it  is  his  duty  to  investigate  the  case.  There 


1  Cypriani  Epist.  Ixiv. 

2  Greg.  Thaumaturg.  Epist.  Canon.  (Harduin.  Concil.  I.  191-4). 


CONVICTION  OR  CONFESSION.  j  3 

must  be  at  least  three  witnesses  of  good  reputation  and  not  inimical 
to  the  accused.  If  the  offence  is  proved  the  bishop  orders  the  deacons 
to  eject  the  offender  from  the  church ;  on  their  return  they  are  to 
intercede  for  him ;  he  is  sent  for  and  interrogated  and  if  he  is  found 
to  be  repentant  a  moderate  penance  of  fasting  is  to  be  assigned  to 
him,  after  the  performance  of  which  he  is  to  be  received  back  with 
fatherly  kindness.  The  bishop  is  warned  that  he  who  refuses  to 
welcome  back  one  who  seeks  to  return  is  a  slayer  of  his  brother, 
but  if  the  sinner  is  obdurate  to  prayers,  entreaties,  exhortations, 
warnings  and  threats,  then  is  he  to  be  cut  off.1 

A  hundred  years  later  we  find  the  same  judicial  system  in  force  in 
the  canons  of  St.  Gregory  of  Xyssa,  who  lays  down  the  rule  that 
voluntary  confession  is  a  sign  of  amendment  and  that  therefore  a 
man  who  reveals  what  was  not  known  and  seeks  a  remedy  should  be 
visited  with  a  shorter  penance  than  he  who  is  convicted  through  sus 
picion  and  accusation.2  About  the  same  period  St.  Basil  the  Great 
recognizes  this  principle ;  he  gives  alternative  penances  for  confession 
and  conviction  and  says  that  the  bishop  to  whom  is  entrusted  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  will  not  be  blameable  if  he  diminishes 
the  term  of  those  who  confess  and  show  signs  of  amendment.3 

All  this  demonstrates  that  in  its  penitential  functions  the  Church 
was  engaged  in  framing  a  system  of  criminal  jurisprudence  adapted 
to  its  needs  and  supplementing  the  civil  jurisdiction.  It  did  not 
trouble  itself  about  the  distinction  between  crime  and  sin.4  It  pun- 


1  Constitt.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.  c.  xix  ,  xxiv.,  xli.,  xlv. 

2  Greg.  Nysssen.  Epist.  Canon,  c.  iv. 

3  Basil.  Epist.  Canon,  n.  c.  Ixi.,  Ixv.,  Ixx.,  Ixxi.,  Ixxiv.     About  the  same 
period  St.Pacianus  objurgates  the  sinner  who  will  not  confess  and  who  baffles  the 
investigation  of  his  bishop  (St.  Paciani  Paransesis  ad  Poenit,  c.  viii.).     Synesius, 
Bishop  of  Ptolemais,  tells  us  that  in  the  case  of  the  priest  Lampridianus,  although 
the  accused  anticipated  conviction  by  confession  he  inflicted  the  full  punish 
ment  and  referred  him  to  the  see  of  Alexandria  for  mitigation  (Synesii  Epist. 
Ixvii.).   This  indicates  that  even  when  the  confession  was  not  spontaneous,  but 
was  elicited  by  accusation  and  the  dread  of  conviction,  it  still  was  considered 
as  giving  a  claim  to  mercy. 

4  The  distinction  between  crime  and  sin  would  seem  to  have  been  unknown 
to  the  early  Fathers.     St.  Augustin  uses  the  words  erimen  and  peccafum  as 
indicating  only  difference  in  degree.     The  saints  are  without  erimen  though  no 
man  is  without  peccatum  (Enchirid.  c.  64.     Cf.  Serin.  CCCXCiil.).     Towards  the 
close  of  the  fifth  century  the  Sacramentarium  Leonianum  makes  communion 
purge  from  erimen  (Jejunii  Sept.  in.,  Octobris  iv.— Muratorii  Opp.  T.  XIII 


14  DISCIPLINE. 

ished  the  crime  ;  if  the  criminal  was  rebellious  and  refused  to  undergo 
the  punishment  designated  it  ejected  him  as  the  only  means  of  enfor 
cing  discipline.  If  he  was  repentant  and  performed  the  penance 
enjoined  on  him  it  received  him  back  to  peace  and  reconciliation  : 
he  had  paid  the  penalty  of  his  crime  and  he  settled  for  himself  with 
God  the  question  of  his  sin.  He  was  invited  to  voluntary  confession 
by  a  mitigation  of  the  penalty  incurred,  but  if  he  did  not  confess  it 
made  only  the  difference  that  he  was  tried  and  convicted  and  incurred 
the  full  rigor  of  the  canons.  We  shall  find  these  features  of  the  peni 
tential  system  of  the  Church  continue  with  some  gradual  modifica 
tions  until  the  middle  ages  were  well  advanced.  Penance  might  be 
voluntarily  assumed  by  a  sinner  seeking  salvation,  but,  if  it  were  not, 
and  if  his  sin  could  be  discovered,  it  was  imposed  on  him  and  its 
performance  enforced  by  the  severest  penalties  within  reach.1  It  was 
the  duty  of  every  member  of  the  congregation  to  denounce  any  sin  of 
which  he  might  have  cognizance,  but  St.  Augustin  tells  us  that  this 
duty  was  neglected  by  some  because  they  might  need  the  sinner's 
favor  in  their  own  cases,  and  by  others  because  they  were  unable  to 
produce  proof  sufficient  for  conviction.  He  warns  the  bishop  more 
over  that  he  must  not  condemn  without  positive  evidence ;  and 
though  suspension  from  communion  was  medicinal  and  not  mortal, 
it  was  not  to  be  inflicted  without  confession  or  conviction  in  some 
secular  or  ecclesiastical  court.2  Thus  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church 
was  wholly  in  the  forum  externum ;  how  little  it  imagined  that  it  had 
any  coercive  power  in  the  forum  of  conscience  is  seen  in  the  com- 


P.  I.  pp.  669,  729).  Gregory  I.  follows  St.  Augustin  in  regarding  the  distinc 
tion  between  crimen  and  peccatum  as  one  merely  of  degree  and  not  as  involving 
the  difference  between  the  external  and  internal  forum.  (Moral.  Lib.  xxi. 
c.  xii.)  In  another  passage  he  seems  to  use  peccatum  in  the  sense  of  crime 
and  delictum  in  that  of  sin.  "  Hoc  enirn  inter  peccatum  et  delictum  distat 
quod  peccatum  est  mala  facere,  delictum  vero  est  bona  delinquere  quse  summo- 
pere  sunt  tenenda.  Vel  certe  peccatum  in  opere  est,  delictum  in  cogitatione  " 
(Homil.  in  Ezek.  Lib.  n.  Homil.  ix.  c.  3).  Yet  again,  he  uses  delictum  as 
synonymous  with  peccatum  (Moral,  xm.  v.).  It  all  shows  how  completely 
vague  as  yet  wrere  the  conceptions  as  to  jurisdiction  over  conscience. 

1  Concil.  Venetici  ann.  465  c.  1. — Concil.  Agathens.  ann.  511  c.  37. 

2  S.  August.  Serm.  CCCLI.  n.  10.     St.  Augustin's  assertion  that  excommuni 
cation  was  purely  medicinal  does  not  find  support  in  the  earlier  penitential 
canons,  such  as  those  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  where  the  character  of  the 
penalties  is  almost  purely  vindictive. 


THE  THREE  SIXS.  15 

plaint  of  Chrysostom  when  he  dwells  upon  the  difficulty  of  the  task 
imposed  upon  the  bishop  who  is  charged  with  the  consciences  of  his 
flock,  for  in  this  forum  of  conscience  he  has  no  power  to  coerce,  and 
if  he  had  he  could  not  use  it,  for  God  pardons  those  only  who  come  to 
him  freely  and  willingly.1  Apparently  soon  after  this  there  was  an 
effort  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  to  the  forum  of  conscience  and  it  was 
emphatically  repressed.  A  canon  of  419,  subscribed  to  by  St.  Angus- 
tin  himself,  provides  that  if  a  bishop  suspends  from  communion  a 
sinner  for  a  sin  known  to  him  only  through  private  confession,  and 
the  sinner  denies  it  and  refuses  to  submit,  the  neighboring  bishops 
shall  refuse  communion  to  their  offending  brother  so  long  as  he  per 
sists  in  the  suspension,  to  teach  him  not  to  punish  unless  he  can 
produce  conclusive  evidence.2 

One  notable  feature  of  this  system  of  discipline  is  that  it  was  con 
fined  to  certain  sins  of  especial  heinousness.  In  this  however,  as  in  so 
much  else,  the  practice  of  the  Church  was  by  no  means  persistently 
uniform.  We  have  seen  that  St.  Paul  enumerated  quite  a  number  of 
offences  for  which  offenders  were  to  be  segregated.  In  this  he  was 
followed  by  the  canons  of  Hippolytus,  which  date  from  about  230  and 


1  S.  Joan.  Chrysost.  de  Sacerdotio  Lib.  n.  c.  2-4. 

2  Cod.  Eccles.  African,  c.  cxxxii-iii.  (Concil.  African.  VI.  ann.  419  c.  5). 
— Photii  Nomocan.  Tit.  ix   c.  20. 

This  canon  is  so  absolutely  destructive  of  the  antiquity  claimed  for  the  power 
of  the  keys  and  the  sacrament  of  penitence  that  efforts  have  naturally  been 
made  to  pervert  it.  To  accomplish  this  some  of  the  ancient  collectors  of 
canons  did  not  scruple  to  substitute  for  the  final  clause  a  wholly  contradictory 
one — "  secrete  tamen  [episcopus]  interdicat  ei  communionem  donee  obtem- 
peret "  (Burchardi  Deer.  Lib.  xix.  c.  127)  It  does  not  reflect  much  credit  on 
modern  Catholic  criticism  and  candor  to  find  Binterim  (Denkwiirdigkeiten  der 
Christ-Katholischen  Kirche,  Bd.  V.  Th.  ii.  pp.  269  sqq.)  seriously  quoting  it 
in  this  shape,  without  alluding  to  the  forgery.  The  final  clause  "  Quamdiu  ex- 
communicato  non  communicaverit  suus  episcopus  eidem  episcopo  ab  aliis  non 
communicetur  episcopis  ut  magis  caveat  episcopus  ne  dicat  in  quemquam  quod 
aliis  documentis  convincire  non  potest"  is  in  all  editions  accessible  to  me. 
See  Surii  Concil.  Colon.  Agripp.  1567  T.  I.  p.  587  ;  Voelli  et  Justelli  Bibl.  Juris 
Canon.  Vet.  1.398;  Harduin.  Concil.  I.  938,  1250;  Brims,  Canones  Apost.  et 
Concil.  I.  196.  This  canon  only  expresses  what  was  the  current  practice.  A 
tract  against  the  Novatians,  which  long  passed  current  under  the  name  of  St. 
Augustin,  tersely  puts  it  "  eum  abjicere  non  liceat  qui  publice  detectus  non 
fuerit."  Pseudo- Augustin.  Questiones  ex  Vet.  et  Novo  Testam.  c.  102  (Migne, 
XXXV.  2310). 


IQ  DISCIPLINE. 

form  the  foundation  of  the  later  code  known  as  the  Apostolic  Consti 
tutions.  Here  we  find  numerous  sins  and  evil  customs  specified  for 
which  the  offender  is  to  be  expelled  from  the  Church  until  he  per 
forms  penance  with  weeping,  fasting  and  Avorks  of  charity,  and  the 
minuteness  of  the  code  is  seen  in  including  in  the  list  the  artist  who 
uses  his  art  for  any  purpose  save  supplying  human  wants.1  These 
passages  are  omitted  from  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  as  a  rule  the 
only  crimes  of  which  the  Church  felt  itself  bound  to  take  cognizance 
were  three — unchastity,  idolatry,  and  homicide — and  for  this  it  had 
ample  Scriptural  warrant,  in  spite  of  the  conflicting  instructions  of 
St.  Paul.2  Even  late  in  the  fourth  century  St.  Pacianus  tells  us  that 
all  other  offences  can  be  redeemed  by  good  works  and  amendment,3 
and  this  opinion  was  still  widely  current  in  the  time  of  St.  Augustin.4 
How,  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  the  Church  gradually 
extended  its  cognizance  over  a  wider  range  of  less  serious  offences,  is 
well  set  forth  in  the  canons  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  After  provid 
ing  definite  punishments  for  the  three  crimes,  unchastity,  homicide 
and  heresy  (which  by  this  time  had  virtually  replaced  idolatry)  he 
proceeds  "  For  avarice  and  the  sins  arising  from  it  the  Fathers  have 
provided  no  remedy.  The  apostle  has  said  that  money  is  the  root  of 


1  Canones  Hippolyti  xi.  65;  xiv.  74;  xv.  79  (Achelis,  Die  Canones  Hippo- 
lyti,  Leipzig,  1891). 

No  periods  of  penance  are  specified  in  this,  and  the  whole  shows  a  very 
crude  and  archaic  form  of  discipline,  the  origin  of  which  I  would  be  disposed  to 
attribute  an  earlier  period  than  the  third  century. 

"  For  it  hath  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us  to  lay  no  further 
burden  upon  you  than  these  three  necessary  things :  That  you  abstain  from 
things  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from 
fornication:  from  which  things  keeping  yourselves  you  shall  do  well."— Acts, 
xv.  28-9. 

Pliny  states  of  the  Bithynian  Christians,  in  112,  that  when  on  trial  they 
asserted  that  in  their  assemblies  they  took  a  mutual  oath  not  to  commit  theft 
or  robbery  or  adultery,  not  to  break  faith  or  deny  the  receipt  of  deposits,  show 
ing  these  to  be  the  sins  most  deprecated  at  that  time.— C.  Plin.  Secund.  Lib. 
ix.  Epist.  xcvii. 

3  Reliqua  peccata  meliorum  operum  compensatione  curantur ;  h«c  vero  tria 
crimina  metuenda  sunt.— S.  Paciani  Parasnesis  ad  Poanit.  c.  iv. 

4  Qui  autem  opinantur  csetera  eleemosynis  facile  compensari,  tria  tamer 
mortifera  esse  non  dubitant  et  excommunicatione  punienda  donee  poenitentk 
humiliori  sanentur,  impudicitiam,  idololatriam.  homicidium.— S.  August.  d( 
Fide  et  Operibus  c.  xix. 


A'.V  TENSION  OF  J  URISDICTION.  \  7 

all  evil,  and  yet  this  disease  has  been  neglected  and  no  cure  provided 
for  it.  Thus  it  abounds  in  the  Church  and  no  one  enquires  whether  he 
who  is  admitted  to  the  priesthood  is  infected  with  it.  Our  authority 
however  suffices  for  this.  The  robber  is  prepared  to  commit  murder. 
His  penance  therefore  should  be  that  of  voluntary  homicide.  For 
secret  theft,  if  the  thief  repents  and  spontaneously  confesses,  his  dis 
ease  can  be  cured  by  contraries.  Let  him  therefore  give  to  the  poor 
all  he  has ;  if  he  has  nothing  but  his  body,  let  him  mortify  his  body. 
The  violation  of  sepulchres  is  also  divisible  into  pardonable  and 
mi  pardonable.  If  it  is  merely  carrying  away  of  stones  to  use  in 
other  constructions,  this  is  not  laudable  but  custom  sanctions  it  for 
works  of  utility ;  but  violation  of  the  grave  in  search  of  ornaments 
of  value  is  to  be  punished  like  fornication.  Sacrilege,  or  the  theft 
of  things  dedicated  to  God,  used  to  be  punished  with  lapidation, 
according  to  Scripture,  but  I  know  not  why  this  has  been  treated 
with  greater  leniency  and  the  Fathers  punish  it  with  a  shorter  period 
than  adultery."1  Tentative  as  this  is,  the  process  of  extending  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Church  proceeded  even  more  slowly  in  the  West. 
It  is  true,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  that  elaborate  codes  were  pro 
vided  by  local  councils,  such  as  that  of  Elvira,  but  the  offences  aimed 
at  can  mostly  be  referred,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  one  of  the  three 
crimes,  and  even  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century  St.  Csesarius 
of  Aries  tells  us  that  sins  of  the  eye  and  heart,  of  speech  and  of 
thought  can  be  cured  by  prayer  and  private  compunction,  but  perjury 
and  false  witness,  unchastity  and  homicide  and  abandonment  to  the 
devil  through  augurs  and  diviners  require  public  penance.2 

It  is  true,  as  the  council  of  Elvira  shows  us,  that  all  Christians 
were  not  satisfied  with  this  laxity,  and  discontent  with  it  led  to  the 
heresy  of  the  Montanists.  Tertullian,  while  yet  orthodox,  taught 
that  God  pardons  all  sins  through  repentance,3  but  when  he  became 
inflamed  with  Montanism  he  rejected  the  limitation  of  mortal  sins  to 
the  three ;  he  added  to  them  fraud,  blasphemy  and  some  others,  as 


1  S.  Gregor.  Nysssen.  Epist.  Canon,  c.  vii.  viii. 

2  S.  Caesar.  Arelatens.  Serm.  CCLXII.  c.  1,  in  Append.  S.  Augustin. 

The  Council  of  Elvira  had  included  usurers,  actors,  informers,  and  false 
accusers  of  priests  among  capital  offenders  (C.  Illiberit.  c.  20,  62,  73,  75).  We 
shall  see  hereafter  the  contrast  between  these  simple  delimitations  of  sins  with 
the  bewildering  perplexities  of  modern  classification. 

3  De  Pcenitent.  c.  4. 

I.— 2 


18 


DISCIPLINE. 


those  for  which  Christ  would  not  intercede  and  gave  a  long  list  of 
minor  offences  for  which  Christ  would  procure  pardon.1  It  may  per 
haps  be  assumed  from  Tertullian's  burst  of  indignation  and  arguments 
when  Pope  Zephyrinus  admitted  adulterers  to  penitence  that  during 
the  first  two  centuries  the  Church,  or  at  least  a  portion  of  it,  reso 
lutely  refused  reconciliation  for  the  three  crimes  and  refused  to 
intercede  for  them  with  God.2 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that  the  Church  in  dealing  with  sinners 
considered  them  only  as  criminals  and  confined  its  action  to  defining 
its  own  relation  with  them.  The  penance  which  it  inflicted  was  pun 
ishment,  medicinal,  it  was  hoped,  but  also  vindictive,  and  a  passage 
in  St.  Augustin  would  seem  to  show  that  the  secular  courts  sometimes 
would  release  convicted  criminals  at  the  intercession  of  bishops,  on 
the  understanding  that  they  should  be  subjected  to  penance.3  The 
modern  assumption  that  alongside  of  this  jurisdiction  in  the  forum 
externum  there  was  a  corresponding  authority  exercised  over  the  forum 
internum,  and  that  a  system  existed  through  which  absolution  was 
granted  for  secret  sins,  which  the  sinner  shrank  from  confessing  openly 
before  the  congregation,  is  wholly  gratuitous  and  it  is  admitted  that 
there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  it.4  That  repentant  sinners  sought  to 
placate  an  oifended  God  by  mortification  and  almsgiving,  and  occa 
sionally  by  confession  of  their  sins,  is  a  matter  of  course ;  doubtless 
they  often  sought  the  advice  of  priest  or  bishop  as  experts  in  spiritual 
medicine,  and  they  asked  the  prayers  of  the  congregation  to  intercede 
for  them  with  God.  That  the  Church,  however,  made  no  claim  to 
exercise  any  control  over  them  in  this  is  rendered  evident  by  the 
very  absence  of  evidence.  When  exhortations  to  repentance  formed 
so  large  a  part  of  the  early  patristic  writings  it  is  impossible  that  if 
the  Church  had  prescribed  any  formulas,  or  had  exercised  the  power 
to  grant  or  withhold  absolution,  no  allusions  would  have  been  made 


1  De  Pudicit.  c.  19. 

2  De  Pudicit.  c.  1,5.    There  has  been  an  active  controversy  as  to  the  custom 
of  the  Church  on  this  point,  in  which  the  Doctors  are  about  equally  divided. 
See  Morini  de  Administratione  Sacram.  Poanitentise  Lib.  ix.  c.  20,  and  Pal- 
mieri  Tract,  de  Poanit.  pp.  85,  91.     The  fact  doubtless  is  that  there  was  no 
universal  rule,  each  local  church  having  its  own  practice. 

3  S.  Augustin.  Epist.  CLTII.  c.  3. 

4  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  Bd.  V.  Th.  ii.  pp.  269  sqq. 


.VO  FOR  UM  INTERNUM.  ]  9 

to  them  in  the  works  of  the  Fathers,  and  that  no  instructions  would 
have  been  given  in  the  numerous  bodies  of  canons  which  have  reached 
us.  The  proof  is  as  strong  and  incontrovertible  as  any  negative 
proof  can  be.  We  have  indirect  evidence,  moreover,  that  public 
confession  and  public  penance  were  the  only  process  recognized  by 
the  Church  in  a  passage  of  Origen  recommending  the  anxious  sinner 
to  lay  bare  his  soul  to  some  expert  in  whom  he  has  confidence,  and, 
if  the  latter  advises  confession  in  the  face  of  the  congregation,  to  fol 
low  the  counsel.1  The  confessor,  whether  priest  or  layman,  had  evi 
dently  no  power  either  to  impose  penance  or  to  grant  absolution ;  he 
could  only  suggest  whether  the  case  was  one  in  which  the  penitent 
could  best  deal  directly  with  God,  or  humiliate  himself  before  the 
Church  and  ask  its  prayers  in  public  penance. 

There  have  been  various  theories  elaborated  to  explain  the  manner 
in  which  Christian  morality  supplanted  that  of  the  pagan  philosophy, 
yet  it  should  seem  that  the  process  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  philoso 
phers  had  only  moral  suasion  with  which  to  enforce  their  ideals  on 
their  disciples.  The  secular  legislator  contented  himself  with  laws 
to  preserve  the  peace  of  society  and  the  rights  of  property.  On  the 
other  hand,  Christianity,  at  the  period  of  the  conversion  of  Constan- 
tine,  presented  itself  as  an  organized  body,  armed  with  penalties  more 
or  less  severe  to  coerce  the  faithful  who  should  transgress  the  moral 
code  of  which  the  propagation  formed  its  real  mission.  In  becoming 
the  religion  of  the  state  it  soon  found  means  of  reinforcing  its  ethical 
sanctions  with  penalties  in  which  secular  privations  and  disabilities 
were  added  to  spiritual.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  moral  status  of 
the  community  was  elevated  to  any  great  degree,  but  at  least  the 
ideal  standard  was  accepted  and  the  teachings  of  the  philosophers 
rapidly  disappeared  before  those  of  the  gospels. 


1  Origenis  Hoinil.  n.  in  Psalm  xxxvil.  c,  6. 


CHAPTEE    III. 

PUBLIC    PENANCE. 

IN  the  criminal  code  which  was  gradually  developed  under  the 
conditions  which  I  have  described,  the  Church  at  first  was  necessarily 
restricted  to  so-called  spiritual  penalties.  Bishops  had  not,  in  the 
early  centuries,  like  their  medieval  successors,  prisons  at  their  com 
mand  ;  they  could  pass  no  sentence  of  death  or  mutilation ;  the  disci 
pline  had  not  yet  been  adapted  as  a  feature  of  penance,  and  they  were 
even  forbidden  to  strike  a  sinner  under  pain  of  deposition  :l  Yet  they 
could  inflict  on  him  the  keenest  pangs  of  humiliation  and  they  could 
enjoin  on  him  the  severest  macerations,  nay  more,  they  could  destroy 
his  career  in  life  and  condemn  him  to  an  existence  of  ignominy, 
poverty,  and  isolation.  They  were  thus  abundantly  provided  with 
resources  for  the  rigorous  punishment  of  offences,  and  they  used 
their  opportunities  with  a  freedom  which,  however  efficient  in  a  puni 
tive  sense,  must  have  rendered  voluntary  confession  and  assumption 
of  penance  comparatively  rare.  Jerome's  well-known  description  of 
the  penitence  of  the  noble  Roman  matron  Fabiola,  who  exhibited 
herself  in  the  porch  of  the  Lateran  with  hair  unbound,  face  livid 
and  swollen  with  weeping  and  neck  and  hands  unwashed,  shows  that 
such  spontaneous  manifestations  of  repentance  must  have  been  un 
common  indeed  thus  to  excite  his  wondering  admiration  and  his 
declaration  that  such  tears  and  lamentations  would  cleanse  the  soul 
from  any  sin.2  Pacianus,  indeed,  gives  us  to  understand  that  many 
penitents  were  distinguishable  only  by  greater  luxury  in  vestments 
and  banquets.8 

1  Canon.  Apostol.  xxvi.  (Ed.  Dion.  Exig.  xxviii.).     One  of  the  accusations 
against  Chrysostom  in  the  Synod  ad  Quercum  was  that  he  had  in  church  struck 
Memnon  with  his  fist  and  drawn  blood,  in  spite  of  which  he  performed  divine 
service.     Other  charges  as  to  his  cruelty  would  seem  to  show  that  chains  and 
prisons  were  by  that  time  among  the  recognized  episcopal  resources  (Harduin. 
Concil.  I.  1039,  1042). 

2  Hieron.  Epist.  LXXVII.  $  4  ad  Oceanum. 

3  Paciani  Paraenesis  ad  Poenitentiam. 


PRIVATE  PENANCE  UNKNOWN  IN  EARLY  CHURCH.  21 


For  at  least  the  first  four  centuries  the  Church  prescribed  only 
public  penance.  It  is  the  penance  "secundum  morem  ecclesise"  repeat 
edly  alluded  to  by  St.  Augustin,1  who  tells  us  that  it  was  only  adminis 
tered  for  grave  sins,  lighter  ones  being  removed  by  daily  prayer.2 
The  first  allusion  to  private  penance  occurs  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century,  and  then  it  is  a  special  privilege  accorded  by  Leo  I.  to  priests 
and  deacons,  who,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  were  governed  by  different 
rules  from  those  imposed  on  the  laity  as  regards  penance.3  As  late 
as  the  commencement  of  the  seventh  century  the  only  form  of  penance 
which  St.  Isidor  of  Seville  seems  to  know  is  that  of  sack-cloth  and 
ashes,  which  is  public  penance.4  There  has  been  much  discussion 
among  orthodox  theologians  whether  this  applied  to  private  sins 
revealed  in  confession  as  well  as  to  those  publicly  confessed  or  proved  ; 
the  weight  of  learning  is  on  the  affirmative  side,  and  the  only  argu 
ment  urged  against  it  is  that  to  concede  it  would  be  fatal  to  the  divine 
origin  of  the  seal  of  the  confessional,  which  is  de  fide.5  The  fact  is 
that  there  is  no  evidence  against  it.  The  only  penance  known  was 
public,  for  it  comprised  suspension  from  communion.  Every  one 
was  required  to  take  the  Eucharist  whenever  he  attended  divine  ser 
vice  ;  if  he  abstained  it  was  a  sign  that  he  was  in  penance  and  in 
most  churches  he  was  obliged  to  withdraw  on  a  summons  from  the 
deacon,  so  that  secret  penance  for  secret  sins  was  impossible.6  St. 


1  S.  Augustin.  Enchirid.  c.  Ixxxii;  Serin,  cccxcu.  c.  iii. 

a  In  his  sermon  I)e  Si/mbolo  to  the  catechumens  (cap.  7)  he  tells  them  "  Illi 
enim  quos  videtis  agere  pcenitentiam  scelera  commiserunt,  aut  adulteria  aut 
aliquse  facta  imrnania  ;  inde  agunt  poenitentiam.  Nam  si  levia  peccata  eorum 
essent  ad  hsec  quotidiana  oratio  delenda  sufficeret."  We  shall  see  hereafter, 
however,  that  St.  Augustin  was  by  no  means  consistent  in  his  classification 
of  sins. 

3  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVII.  c.  2.    At  the  same  time  there  seems  to  be 
springing  up  a  practice  of  less  rigorous  penance  for  minor  offences.     Leo  says 
that  for  eating  sacrificial  meats  in  banquets  with  gentiles  a  man  can  be  read 
mitted  to  the  sacraments  by  fasting  and  the  imposition  of  hands,  but  for  the 
three  sins  of  idolatry,  fornication  and  homicide  he  must  undergo  public  pen 
ance.— Epist.  CLXVII.  Inquis.  19  (Bened.  Levitse  Capitul.  v.  133  and  the  collec-* 
tions  of  canons). 

4  S.  Isidor.   Hispalens.  de   Ecclesiae  Officiis  Lib.  u.  c.  xvii.  §§  4,  5.— Cf. 
Epiphan.  Panar.  Hseres.  LIX. 

5  See  Palmieri,  Tract,  de  Poenit.  pp.  393-402. 

"  Audis  prreconem  stantem  et  dicentem  Quicimque  estis  in  pcenitentia  abite. 
Ornnes  qui  non  participant  sunt  in  poenitentia.     Si  es  ex  iis  qui  sunt  in  pceni- 


22  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

Ambrose  prescribes  public  penance  for  secret  sins,1  and  a  sermon 
attributed  to  St.  Augustin  speaks  of  endeavoring  to  persuade  sinners 
to  undertake  it — persuasion  which  only  could  be  necessary  to  those 
whose  crimes  were  unknown.2  St.  Augustin  indeed  had  advanced 
to  the  point  of  considering  secret  repentance  insufficient  and  that 
pardon  was  only  to  be  obtained  through  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing  lodged  in  the  Church  as  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  and  he 
assumes  that  this  can  only  be  accomplished  through  public  penance.3 
Even  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  when,  as  we  shall  see,  private 
penance  was  commencing  to  be  employed,  Gennadius  still  recommends 
public  for  all  mortal  sins  ;  he  does  not  deny  that  they  can  be  redeemed 
by  private,  but  only  on  condition  that  the  penitent  abandon  secular 
garments  and  by  life-long  amendment  and  sorrow  win  the  pardon  of 
God4 — a  process  in  which  the  priest  had  no  share. 

This  public  penance  was  an  observance  of  the  severest  kind,  and  we 
can  readily  understand  from  it  why  the  early  Church  only  took  cog 
nizance  of  the  three  crimes.  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  tell  us  in  general 
terms  of  the  rigors  and  austerities  which  alone  were  accepted  as  proof 
of  the  sincerity  of  repentance — the  ashes  sprinkled  on  the  head,  the 
garments  of  sack-cloth,  the  fasting,  the  days  spent  in  grief  and  the 
nights  in  tearful  vigils,  the  continuous  prayer,  the  devotion  to  good 
works  and  almsgiving  whereby  forgiveness  is  obtained.5  Nor  were 


tentia  non  debes  participare,  nam  qui  non  participat  est  in  poanitentia." — S. 
Job.  Chrysost.  in  Epist.  ad  Ephesios  Horn.  in.  n.  4. 

It  would  seem  that  in  time  the  rule  requiring  the  withdrawal  of  those  unable 
to  take  communion  received  but  slack  obedience,  for  Gregory  I.  felt  obliged  to 
warn  them  with  a  story  of  two  nuns  conditionally  excommunicated  by  St. 
Benedict  They  died  and  were  buried  in  the  church,  but  regularly  at  mass 
when  the  deacon  ordered  those  not  communicating  to  withdraw  they  were  seen 
to  rise  from  their  tombs  and  go  out  until  St.  Benedict  kindly  removed  the  ban. 
—  Dialog.  Lib.  u.  c.  23. 

1  S.  Ambros.  de  Pcenitent.  Lib.  I.  c.  16. 

2  S.  August.  Append.  Serm.  258  §  2. 

3  S.  Augustin.  Serni.  392,  cap.  5. 

4  Gennadii  de  Eccles.  Dogmat.  c.  53. 

"  Quod  inlotos,  quod  sordulentos,  quod  extra  laetitiam  oportet  deversari,  in 
asperitudine  sacci  et  horrore  cineris  et  oris  de  jejunio  vanitate."  Tertull.  de 
Pcenit.  c.  xi. 

"  Orare  oportet  impensius  et  rogare,  diem  luctu  transigere,  vigiliis  noctes  et 
fletibus  ducere,  tempus  oinne  lachrymosis  lamentationibus  occupare,  stratos 
solo  adhserere,  in  cinere  et  cilicio  et  sordibus  volutari,  post  indumentum 


TERM  OF  PENANCE.  23 

these  manifestations  of  the  profoundest  contrition  a  merely  transitory 
matter,  though  it  is  impossible  in  the  earlier  periods  to  determine 
definitely  the  terms  imposed  as  they  varied  with  time  and  place,  and 
show  a  constant  tendency  to  augmentation.  In  the  Apostolic  Con 
stitutions,  fasts  of  two  or  three,  or  five,  or  seven  weeks  only  are 
alluded  to.1  The  Apostolic  Canons  only  once  prescribe  a  term  of 
penance,  which  is  three  years  for  a  layman  mutilating  himself.2 
Originally  the  rule  seems  to  have  been  that  each  case  was  considered 
on  its  merits,  and  an  appropriate  length  of  penance  prescribed  to  the 
culprit.3  This  was  the  plan  proposed  by  Cyprian  after  the  Decian 
persecution4  and  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  Leo  I.  lays 
it  down  as  the  rule  in  spite  of  the  multifarious  legislation  of  councils 
on  the  subject.5  This  manifestly  however  was  productive  of  confu 
sion  and  uncertainty  and  efforts  were  made  to  introduce  definite  terms 
for  each  offence,  though  the  independence  of  the  episcopate  rendered 
them  purely  advisory  and  not  obligatory.  In  252  Cyprian  tells  us 
that  in  Africa  some  bishops  refused  absolutely  to  assign  penance  to 
adulterers  while  others  admitted  them  ;6  and  after  the  second  council 
of  Carthage  had  prescribed  rules  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  lapsed 
in  the  Decian  persecution,  Cyprian  admits  that  they  were  not  binding 
on  the  bishops/  though  again  he  speaks  of  received  rules  and  an 
established  order  of  discipline.8  We  obtain,  however,  some  idea  of 
what  was  regarded  as  an  appropriate  term  of  penance  for  the  supreme 
crime  of  idolatry  in  the  case  of  Xinus,  Clementianus  and  Florus, 
who  had  lapsed  only  after  prolonged  prison  and  torture,  and  who 


Christi  perditum  nullum  jam  velle  vestitum,  post  diaboli  cibum  malle  jeju- 
nium,  justis  operibus  incumbere  quibus  peccata  purgantur,  eleemosynis  fre 
quenter  insistere,  quibus  a  morte  animae  liberantur." — Cyprian,  de  Lapsis  xxxv. 
Cf.  C.  Agathens.  ann.  506  c.  xv. 

Constitt.  Apostol.  Lib.  n.  c.  xix. 

Canon.  Apostol.  c.  xxiv 

Euseb.  H.  E.  Lib   vi.  28. 

Cyprian.  Epist.  Ivii. 

Leon.  PP.  I  Epist.  CLVII.  c.  5,  6. 

Cypriani  Epist.  LV.  Cf.  S.  August.  Epist.  xciii.  §  42. 

Cyprian.  Epist.  Ivii. 

''Agunt  peccatores  poenitentiam  justo  tempore  et  secunduui  discipline 
ordinem  ad  exomologesin  veniant." — Cyprian.  Epist.  xvi.  xvii.  For  virgins 
who  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  seduced  he  threatens  "  pcenitentiam  plenam  " 
(Epist.  iv.)  but  what  this  was  it  would  be  impossible  now  to  say. 


24  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

after  three  years  spent  in  penance  Cyprian  thinks  might  be  received 
to  reconciliation.1  Yet  the  matter  was  Avholly  discretionary,  for 
when  a  second  persecution  became  imminent  the  African  Church 
resolved  to  admit  at  once  all  penitents,  alleging  as  a  reason  that  it 
was  to  strengthen  them  for  the  trial — they  could  not  become  martyrs 
unless  they  were  members  of  the  Church.2  Somewhat  similar  Avas 
the  action  of  Peter  Archbishop  of  Alexandria  in  306,  three  years 
after  the  Diocletian  persecution.  Those  who  had  been  in  penance 
during  that  time,  if  they  had  lapsed  only  through  torture  were  recon 
ciled  after  an  additional  fast  of  forty  days,  while  those  who  had 
yielded  to  prison  without  torture  were  to  be  kept  on  probation  for 
another  year.3  We  shall  have  occasion  to  see  hereafter  how  confused 
a  medley  of  legislation  sprang  up,  first  in  the  local  councils  and 
afterwards  in  the  Penitentials. 

Thus  a  sort  of  code  gradually  established  itself  in  each  region  with 
more  or  less  authority,  prescribing  the  length  of  penance  proportioned 
to  each  offence,  and  rules  were  framed  dividing  it  into  several  stages. 
These  in  their  perfected  form  were  devised  to  symbolize  the  gradual 
readmission  of  the  sinner  to  the  Church  which  had  expelled  him  and 
were  modelled  on  those  through  which  converts  advanced  to  baptism.4 
The  first  wasfatus  or  weeping,  in  Avhich  he  stood  outside  the  church, 
lamenting  his  sins  and  begging  the  prayers  of  the  faithful  as  they 
entered :  the  second  was  auditio  or  hearing,  when  he  was  admitted  to 
the  porch  among  the  catechumens  and  heard  the  sermon,  but  went 
out  before  the  prayers  :  the  third  was  substratio,  lying  down  or  kneel 
ing  during  the  prayers  uttered  for  his  benefit :  the  fourth  was  consis- 
tentia  or  conyregatio,  in  which  he  remained  with  the  faithful  during 
the  mysteries,  but  was  not  allowed  to  partake ;  and  after  this  stage 
had  been  duly  performed  he  was  finally  admitted  to  the  Eucharist 
after  the  ceremony  of  reconciliation  by  the  episcopal  imposition  of 


1  Ejusd.  Epist.  Ivi.     When  Bishop  Therapius  admitted  to  communion  the 
priest  Victor  before  he  had  performed   full   penance,  a  council  of  sixty-six 
bishops  scolds  Therapius  and  orders  him  not  to  do  so  again  but  concludes  not 
to  withdraw  communion  from  Victor  (Cyprian.  Epist.  Ixiv.).     This  effectually 
disposes  of  the  customary  claim  of  antiquity  for  episcopal  indulgences  which 
all  modern  authorities  seek  to  find  in  the  reconciliation  of  the  lapsed  under 
Cyprian. 

2  Ejusd.  Epist.  Ivii. 

3  Petri  Alexandri  Canones  (Max.  Bibl.  Patrum,  III.  370  sqq). 

4  Concil.  Neocsesar.  ann.  314  c.  5. 


STAGES  OF  PENANCE.  25 

hands.1  This  elaborate  system  was  of  gradual  development.  Ter- 
tullian  seems  only  to  know  the  single  stage  of  fletus.2  Cyprian  in  his 
multifarious  discussions  on  penance  apparently  is  ignorant  of  any 
stages,  and  so  is  Peter  of  Alexandria  in  306.  The  Apostolic  Consti 
tutions  of  about  the  same  date  speak  only  of  one  stage,  in  which  the 
penitent  left  the  church  before  the  commencement  of  prayer.3  The 
Council  of  Ancyra,  held  in  314,  knows  only  the  three  stages  of 
auditio,  substratio  and  consistentia  and  for  those  who  had  lapsed  under 
persecution  it  orders  one  year  of  the  first,  three  of  the  second,  and 
two  of  the  third.4  The  great  council  of  Mcsea,  in  325,  also  speaks  of 
only  three  stages  and  provides  for  the  lapsed  three  years  of  the  first, 
six  of  the  second  and  two  of  the  third.5  In  the  East,  the  adoption  of 
the  four  stages  by  St.  Basil  the  Great  rendered  them  traditional  in  the 
Greek  Church,6  but  the  West  never  adopted  the  system  wholly  or 
generally.  It  is  not  alluded  to  in  any  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  in  spite 
of  the  authority  of  the  Nicene  Council.  In  443  the  council  of  Aries, 
while  quoting  that  of  Nicaea,  reduces  the  stages  to  two,  auditio  and 
consistentia,  and  the  whole  term  to  seven  years,7  and  we  hear  little 
more  of  it  in  the  Latin  Church,  although,  in  488,  the  synodical  epistle 
of  Felix  III.  prescribes,  for  the  readmission  of  those  rebaptized  by 
heretics,  three  years  of  auditio^  seven  of  substratio  and  two  of  con 
sistentia,8  a  provision  which  was  carried  into  the  Capitularies  of  Bene 
dict  the  Levite  and  through  the  various  collections  of  canons  into  the 
Decretum  of  Gratian.9  Yet  even  so  recent  a  writer  as  Father  de 


1  Gregor.  Thaumaturg.  Epist.  Canon,  c.  xi.     As  the  date  of  this  epistle  is 
about  267,  and  as  these  four  stages  were  not  known  until  considerably  later, 
there  would  seeni  to  be  little  doubt  that  this  canon  is  a  subsequent  interpola 
tion.     See  Morin.  de  Pcenitent.  Lib.  vi.  c.  1.  §  9  sqq. 

2  Tertull.  de  Poenitent.  c.  6.  3  Constitt.  Apostol.  u.  xliii. 

4  Concil.  Ancyran.  ann.  314  c.  4. 

5  Concil.  Nicam.  I.  ann.  325  c.  11. 

6  One  Greek  writer,  posterior  to  the  sixth  century,  counts  five  stages,  reckon 
ing  admission  to  communion  as  the  fifth,  but  this  is  merely  a  question  of  words. 
Joan.  Abbat.  Raythu  Schol.  in  S.  Joan.  Climac.  c.  12  (Bibl.  Max.  Patr.  VI.  n. 
30-4).     In  706  the  Council  of  Constantinople  provides  for  adulterous  wives  one 
year  of  fletus,  two  of  auditio,  three  of  substratio  and  one  of  consistentia,  and  at 
the  end  of  the  seventh  year  the  culprit  is  admitted  to  communion. — Quinisext 
in  Trullo  ann.  706,  cap.  87  (Harduin.  III.  1671). 

7  Concil.  Arelatens.  ann.  443,  c.  x. 

8  Felicis  PP.  III.  Epist.  vii. 

9  Capitul.  v.  134.— C.  118,  P.  in.  Dist,  iv. 


26  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

Charmes  describes  the  four  stations  as  the  regular  poenitentia  canonica, 
although  he  says  they  have  long  been  obsolete.1 

Thus  the  duration  of  these  several  stages  could  be  lengthened  or 
shortened  indefinitely,  or  one  or  more  of  them  could  be  omitted, 
producing  an  infinite  variety  of  penalties,  and  they  were  prolonged 
with  little  mercy.  Towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  St.  Basil 
the  Great  drew  up  a  code  for  the  information  of  a  neighboring  bishop, 
which  shows  us  how  rugged  was  the  path  laid  out  for  the  sinner, 
especially  when  he  did  not  confess  but  was  convicted.  Thus  for 
involuntary  homicide  the  penance  lasted  for  ten  years,  divided  into 
two  offletus,  three  of  auditio,  four  of  substratio  and  one  of  consistentia  ; 
for  fornication  the  term  was  seven  years,  two  each  of  the  first  tlree, 
and  one  of  the  last ;  for  voluntary  homicide  the  period  was  extended 
to  twenty  years,  the  stages  being  respectively  four,  five,  seven  and 
four  years ;  for  denying  Christ  the  stage  of  fletus,  the  severest  of  all, 
lasted  through  life,  communion  being  administered  at  death  in  reliance 
on  divine  clemency.2 

This  pitiless  legislation,  however,  was  wisely  rendered  to  a  greater 
or  less  extent  dependent  on  the  discretion  of  the  bishop  who  adminis 
tered  it.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions,  indeed,  assume  that  the  whole 
matter  is  subject  to  his  judgment ;  they  exhort  him  to  give  careful 
consideration  to  the  details  of  each  case,  and  in  warning  him  not  to 
sell  exemptions  for  filthy  gain  they  indicate  the  abuses  that  were 
already  creeping  in.3  When  definite  terms  of  penance  came  to  be 


1  Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  universalis  Diss.  v.  cap.  v.  Q.  2,  Concl.  2. 

2  S.  Basil.  Epist.  Canon.  III.  c.  Ivi.,  lvii.,lix.,  Ixxiii.,  Ixxx.     The  uncertainty 
of  these  rules  is  illustrated  by  Basil's  prescribing  fifteen  years  for  adultery, 
divided  into  terms  of  four,  five,  four,  and  two  years,  while  in  a  subsequent 
clause  he  says  that  for  dismissing  a  wife  and  taking  another  the  penance  is  the 
same  as  for  adultery,  eight  years  in  terms  of  two,  two,  three  and  one  year. 
(Ibid.  c.  Iviii.,  Ixxvii.).    It  is  evident  that  his  epistle  as  it  has  reached  us  has 
suffered  many  changes  and  interpolations. 

According  to  the  council  of  Ancyra  in  314  (can.  xli.,  xlii.)  the  penance  for 
voluntary  homicide  was  life-long,  for  involuntary,  five  or  seven  years.  Various 
other  councils,  notably  those  of  Elvira  and  Nicaea,  busied  themselves  with 
prescribing  penances  for  crimes  of  various  grades,  but  there  is  little  to  be  gained 
by  investigating  their  discordant  legislation.  Its  chief  importance  consists  in 
its  having  served  as  the  groundwork  of  the  Penitentials,  which  will  be  consid 
ered  hereafter. 

3  Constitt.  Apostol.  Lib.  ir.  c.  ix.,  x.,  Hi. 


EPISCOPAL  DISCRETION.  27 

prescribed,  the  councils  ordering  them  were  frequently  careful  to 
instruct  the  bishops  to  temper  or  increase  them  as  the  behavior  of  the 
penitent  before  and  during  his  penance  might  render  advisable.1  Basil 
the  Great  seems  to  limit  the  episcopal  power  to  diminish  penance  to 
cases  where  the  culprit  has  earned  it  by  confession,  and  even  this  he 
admits  rather  grudgingly,2  while  Gregory  of  Nyssa  asserts  it  unre 
servedly  when  there  is  real  repentance  and  amendment.3  The  African 
Church  went  further  and  in  397  declared  that  the  whole  subject  of 
penance  was  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops,  who  were  empowered  to  use 
their  discretion  in  its  imposition,4  and  even  in  the  Eastern  Church, 
despite  the  authority  of  the  Basilian  canons,  Chrysostom  assumes  that 
the  duration  of  penance  is  entirely  within  his  control,  and  that  in 
assigning  it  he  is  governed  solely  by  the  temper  of  the  penitent.5  In 
the  West  also  this  was  declared  to  be  the  rule  of  the  Church  by  both 
Innocent  I.  and  Leo  I.,  whose  decisions  were  carried  through  all  the 
collections  of  canons  to  the  time  of  Gratian — the  bishop  was  to 
watch  the  repentance  of  the  penitent  and  release  him  when  he  had 
rendered  due  satisfaction  for  his  oifence.6  Various  councils  in  Gaul, 


1  Concil.  Ancyran.  ann.  313  c.  xxiv. ;  Concil.  Neocsssariens.  ann.  314  c.  iii.  ; 
Concil.  Nicsen.  I.  c.  xii.  The  Council  of  Elvira  however  has  no  such  provision, 
for  the  Spanish  Church  of  the  period,  under  the  guidance  of  Hosius  of  Cordova 
was  excessively  rigid,  but  in  time  it  softened,  at  least  in  favor  of  priests  guilty 
of  lapses  of  the  flesh,  and  authorized  the  bishops  to  increase  or  diminish  their 
punishment  (C.  Ilerdens.  ann.  523,  c.  v.).  Soon  afterwards  Pope  Vigilius  in 
538,  writing  to  the  Spanish  Bishop  Eutherius  assumes  to  grant  this  discretion 
as  a  special  grace  to  converts  from  Arianism  (Vigilii  PP.  Epist.  ad  Eutherium 
c.  iii.). 

-  S.  Basil.  Epist.  Canon,  in.  c.  Ixxiv. 

3  S.  Gregor.  Nyssseni  Epist.  Canon,  c.  iv.  v. 

"  Ut  poenitentibus  secundum  peccatorum  difFerentiam  episcopi  arbitrio 
poenitentise  tempora  decernantur." — C.  Carthag.  III.  ann.  397  c.  xxxi. 

5  S.  Joh.  Chrysost.  Homil.  xiv.  ad  II.  Corinth.  §  3. 

"Ceterum  de  pondere  sestimando  delictorum  sacerdotis  est  judicare,  ut 
attendat  ad  confessionem  poenitentis  et  ad  fletus  atque  lacrymas  corrigentis 
ac  tune  jubere  dimitti  cum  viderit  congruam  satisfactionern  " — Innoc.  PP.  I. 
Epist  xxv.  c.  7,  ad  Decentium. — Gratian.  c.  17  P.  in.  Dist.  iii. 

"  Tempora  poenitudinis  habita  moderatione  constituenda  sunt  tuo  judicio 
prout  conversorum  animas  perpexeris  esse  devotas." — Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist.  clix. 
c.  6,  ad  Nicetam. — Gratian.  c.  2  Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  7. 

By  the  early  Fathers  the  word  sacerdos  was  commonly  used  as  synonymous 
with  episcopus. 


28  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

from  the  fifth  to  the  seventh  century,  take  the  same  position1  so  that 
it  may  be  a  assumed  to  be  the  rule  of  the  Latin  Church,  until  the  rise 
of  the  Penitentials  reintroduced  the  system  of  determinate  periods  for 
each  class  of  crimes,  and  even  then,  as  we  shall  see,  a  certain  amount 
of  discretion  was  conceded  to  the  confessor. 

During  the  lengthened  periods  prescribed  for  penance,  the  head 
was  kept  shaven,  or  in  the  case  of  women  it  was  veiled,  the  vest 
ments  were  of  sack-cloth  sprinkled  with  ashes,  baths  were  forbid 
den  and  abstinence  from  wine  and  meat  were  strictly  enjoined — 
as  St.  Jerome  tells  us,  the  filthier  a  penitent  is  the  more  beautiful 
is  he.2  The  time  was  to  be  passed  in  maceration,  fasting,  vigils, 
prayers  and  weeping — the  penitent,  as  St.  Ambrose  tells  us,  must  be 
as  one  dead,  with  no  care  for  the  things  of  this  life.3  In  fact,  he  was 


1  Concil  Andegavens.  aim.  453  c.  xii. ;  0.  Aurelianens.  IV.  ann.  541  c.  viii. ; 
C.  Cabilonens.  ann.  649  c.  8. 

This  question  of  discretion  in  the  prescription  of  penance  has  its  importance 
as  it  is  the  main  reliance  of  the  Church  in  justifying  the  assertion  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  that  indulgences  were  known  and  granted  from  the  earliest 
times  (C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxv.  Deer,  de  Indulg.).  Of  course  the  two  have  no 
connection,  belonging,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  to  entirely  different  systems. 
The  great  development  of  indulgences,  in  fact,  only  took  place  at  a  time  when 
the  Penitentials  were  obsolete  and  the  arbitrary  discretion  of  the  priest  in 
assigning  penance  was  fully  conceded,  so  that  the  distinction  between  the  two 
powers  was  taken  for  granted. 

2  "  Quanto  foedior  tanto  pulchrior."     S.  Hieron.  Epist  liv.  c.  7  ad  Furiam. 

The  custom  of  shaving  the  heads  of  male  penitents  in  public  penance  con 
tinued  at  least  until  the  fourteenth  century. — Bened.  Levitce  Capitular.  Lib  v. 
c.  116.— Alex,  de  Ales  SumniEe  P.  iv.  Q.  xiv.  Membr.  6  Art.  3  — T.  Aquinat. 
Summae  Suppl.  Q.  xxviir.  Art.  3.— J.  Friburgens.  Summae  Confessorum  Lib. 
ill.  Tit.  xxxiii.  Q.  8. — Astesani  Summae  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxv.  Q.  2. 

At  the  same  time  there  was  also  a  custom  of  allowing  the  hair  and  beard  to 
grow  during  the  whole  period  of  penance.  See  Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  Lib. 
viii.  c.  20.  In  a  forged  indulgence  of  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century  among 
the  privileges  enumerated  is  that  of  shaving  and  haircutting,  showing  the  con 
trary  to  be  the  sign  of  penance  (D'Achery,  Spicileg.  III.  383).  Early  in  the 
twelfth  century  Hildebert  of  Le  Mans  says  (Sermo  xxxiv.)  that  the  hair 
and  beard  are  not  to  be  cut  in  penance ;  and  Sicardo  Bishop  of  Cremona, 
in  speaking  of  the  tonsure  and  shaven  chins  of  ecclesiastics  observes  (Mitrale, 
Lib.  ii.  c.  1)  "sed  in  jejuniis  capillos  et  barbam  crescere  permittimus  ut  habi- 
tum  poenitentium  repraesentamus."  Probably  the  contradiction  may  be  ex 
plained  by  a  difference  in  the  penance  of  clerics  and  laymen,  each  following 
the  custom  that  would  render  most  conspicuous  the  fact  of  his  penance. 

3  Tertull.  de  Poenit.  c.  ix. — Cyprian,  de  Lapsis  ad  calcem. — S.  Paciani  Para- 


SEVERITY  OF  PENANCE.  29 

forbidden  to  engage  in  secular  pursuits  ;  if  he  threw  off  his  penitential 
garments  and  returned  to  the  world,  he  was  cut  off  from  all  associa 
tion  with  the  faithful  and  was  segregated  with  such  strictness  that 
anyone  eating  with  him  was  deprived  of  communion.1  Whenever 
the  faithful  were  gathered  together  in  church,  the  penitents  were 
grouped  apart  in  their  hideous  squalor,  and  either  left  the  church 
before  the  sacred  mysteries,  or,  if  they  were  allowed  to  remain,  they 
were  not  admitted  to  the  Eucharist,  but  were  brought  forward  to  be 
prayed  for  and  received  the  imposition  of  hands — in  short  their 
humiliation  was  utilized  to  the  utmost  as  a  spectacle  and  a  warning 
for  the  benefit  of  the  congregation.2  In  view  of  the  fragility  of 
youth,  it  was  recommended  that  penance  should  not  be  imposed  on 
those  of  immature  age ;  and,  as  complete  separation  between  husband 
and  wife  was  enforced,  the  consent  of  the  innocent  spouse  was  neces 
sary  before  the  sinful  one  could  be  admitted  to  penitence.*  Trade,  if 
not  absolutely  forbidden  to  the  penitent,  was  at  most  grudgingly 
allowed ;  he  was  prohibited  from  litigation,  but  if  the  matter  was  of 
urgent  necessity,  he  might  seek  justice  in  an  ecclesiastical  court.  In 
some  respects,  indeed,  the  effects  of  penance  were  indelible ;  no  one 
who  had  undergone  it  was  allowed  to  resume  the  profession  of  arms 
or  to  partake  of  wine  and  meat  if  fish  and  vegetables  were  accessible  ; 
Pope  Siricius  forbade  absolutely  marriage  to  reconciled  penitents, 
and  the  Council  of  Aries  in  443,  in  cases  of  infraction  of  this  rule, 
expelled  from  the  Church  not  only  the  offender  but  the  newly-wedded 
spouse.  Leo  I.  however,  in  case  the  penitent  was  young  and  found 
continence  perilous,  was  willing  to  admit  that  marriage  was  a  venial 


naesis  ad  Pcenit  c.  x.  xi. — Concil  Cabillon.  ann.  813  c  xxxv. — S  Arabros.  de 
Lapsu  Virginis  $  35;  de  Poenitent.  Lib.  u.  c.  x. 

1  Concil.  Turonici  ann.  460  c.  viii. — C.  Venetici  ann.  465  c.  iii.  — C.  Aure- 
lianens.  I.  ann.  511,  c.  xi. — C.  Aurel.  III.  ann.  538  c.  xxv. — C.  Barcinonens.  I. 
ann.  540  c.  vi.  vii. 

2  Sozomen.  H.  E.  vn.  16      The  imposition  of  hands  was  not  confined  to  the 
final  act  of  reconciliation;  it  was  performed  on  all  occasions  (Statuta  Eccles. 
Antiq.  c.  Ixxx.).     The  custom  however  varied  somewhat  according  to  time  and 
place,  and  the  learned  are  sadly  at  variance  as  to  the  rules  which  governed  it ; 
see  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  Bd.  V.  Th.  ii.  pp.  403-15.     The  importance 
of  the  matter  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  repeated  imposition  of  hands  shows  that 
it  did  not  confer  absolution  and  had  no  sacramental  character. 

3  Concil.  Agathens.  ann.  506  c.  xv. — C.  Aurelianens.  III.  ann.  538  c.  xxiv. — 
C.  Arelatens.  II.  ann.  443  c.  xxii. 


30  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

sin,  not  to  be  forgiven  as  a  rule,  but  to  be  tolerated  as  the  least  of  two 
evils,  for  after  performing  penance  life-long  chastity  was  proper.  It 
was  not  till  the  ninth  century  wras  well  advanced  that  permission  to 
marry  was  freely  given  by  Nicholas  I.1  The  life  of  the  penitent 
truly  was  hard,  and  we  can  readily  believe  the  assertion  of  a  council 
of  Toledo  in  693  that  despairing  escape  from  it  was  sometimes  sought 
in  suicide.2  Optatus,  indeed,  in  scolding  the  Donatists  for  impiously 
condemning  bishops  to  perform  penance,  asserts  that  it  is  worse  than 
death.3 

With  these  tremendous  penalties  in  view,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that 
voluntary  penitents  were  few,  and  that  those  who  persevered  were  still 
fewer,  a  fact  which  may  be  inferred  from  a  remark  of  St.  Pacianus.4 
St.  Ambrose  indeed  tells  us  that  it  was  easier  to  find  a  man  who  had 
preserved  his  innocence  than  one  Avho  had  properly  performed  pen 
ance,  and  he  denounces  the  frequent  practice  of  postponing  it  till  the 
approach  of  death  in  the  same  way  that  catechumens  postponed  the 
saving  waters  of  baptism.5  Yet  where  the  episcopal  police  was 
vigilant  the  number  was  not  small,  and  as  they  were  obliged  during 
their  prolonged  terms  always  to  be  present  in  church,  the  ceremony 
of  imposition  of  hands  upon  them  lengthened  greatly  the  services.0 
These  involuntary  penitents  did  not  always  submit  peaceably,  espe 
cially  in  the  earlier  periods  when,  after  the  cessation  of  a  persecution, 
there  Avere  great  numbers  of  the  lapsed  whose  public  idolatry  admitted 
of  no  concealment  and  who  were  necessarily  condemned  to  penance 
in  its  full  rigor.  The  troubles  of  Cyprian  are  well  known  with  the 


1  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  I.  c.  5  ad  Himerium.— S.  Osar.  Arelatens.  Serm.  CCLXI. 
c.  3,  in  Append.  S.  Augustin.— Concil.  Arelatens.  II.  ann   443  c.  xxi.-Leonis 
PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVII.  c.  x-xiii.— Ivon.  Carnotens.  Deer.  P.  xv.  c.  Ixxii.  Ixxx.— 
Gratian.  c.  16  Caus.  xxxiu.  Q.  ii. 

The  decretals  of  Siricius  and  Leo  were  carried  through  all  the  collections  o 
canons  up  to  Gratian  and  were  held  to  be  the  law  of  the  Church. 

2  Concil.  Toletan.  XVI.  ann.  693  c.  iv. 

"  O  impietas  inaudita  quern  jugulaveritis  inter  poenitentise  tormenta  ser- 
vare !  in  comparatione  operis  vestri  latronum  levior  videtur  immanitas.  Vo& 
vivum  facitis  homicidium  ;  latro  jugulatis  dat  de  morte  compendium."— Optati 
de  Schism.  Donatist.  Lib.  n.  c.  xxi.  Cf.  c.  xxv. 

4  S.  Paciani  Paranaesis  ad  Pcenitent.  c.  x.  xi. 

5  S.  Ambros.  de  Pcenitent.  Lib.  n.  c.  x.  xi. 

"Abundant  hie  poenitentes  :  quando  illis  manus  imponitur  fit  ordo  longis- 
simus." — S.  August.  Serm.  ccxxxn.  c.  7. 


EFFICACY  UNCERTAIN.  31 

turbulent  violence  of  the  lapsed  in  the  Decian  persecution  of  250, 
who  clamored  and  insisted  on  speedy  reconciliation,  urging  the  re 
commendations  to  mercy  which  they  had  obtained  from  the  martyrs 
and  confessors,  till  even  Cyprian's  firmness  gave  way  and  the  second 
council  of  Carthage,  as  we  have  seen,  reconciled  them  by  wholesale 
on  the  plea  of  strengthening  them  for  an  expected  revival  of  the 
persecution.  Even  more  determined  was  the  resistance  of  the  Roman 
lapsed  after  the  persecution  of  Diocletian :  finding  it  impossible  to 
obtain  from  Pope  Marcellus  a  relaxation  of  rigor  they  rose  in  open 
sedition,  leading  to  bloodshed  and  culminating  in  his  banishment 
nor  was  his  successor  Eusebius  more  fortunate.  He  refused  to  yield 
to  the  demands  of  the  malcontents  and  in  a  few  months  he  was  driven 
from  the  city  and  died  exiled  in  Sicily.1 

The  Church  thus  held  at  a  high  price  restoration  to  its  communion 
but  it  made  no  promises  that  the  reconciliation  thus  dearly  purchased 
comprised  absolution  or  pardon  from  God.  Towards  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century  St.  Epiphanius  repeats  what  St.  Cyprian  had  already 
admitted,  the  assertion  of  ignorance  as  to  what  Avas  in  store  for  the 
penitent  sinner.  This  rested  with  God  and  he  alone  knew ;  we  can 
only  hope  that  in  his  infinite  mercy  he  will  pardon  the  repentant.2  St. 


1  The  epitaph  on  Marcellus,  attributed  to  Pope  Damasus,  says — 

Veridicus  rector  lapsos  quia  crimina  flere 
Praedixit  miseris  fuit  omnibus  hostis  amarus  : 
Hinc  furor,  hinc  odium,  sequitur  discordia,  lites, 
Seditio,  csedes,  solvuntur  fo3dera  pacis. 

— Baron.  Annal.  ann.  309,  n.  7. 

There  is  a  similar  epitaph  on  Eusebius,  which  shows  that  a  certain  Heraclius 
was  the  leader  of  the  malcontents : 

Heraclius  vetuit  lapsos  peccata  dolere 
Eusebius  miseros  docuit  sua  crimina  flere. 
Scinditur  in  partes  populus  gliscente  furore, 
Seditio,  csedes,  bellum,  discordia,  lites. 
Exeinplo  pariter  pulsi  feritate  tyranni  [Maxentii] 
Integra  cum  rector  servaret  foedera  pacis, 
Pertulit  exilium  omnino  sub  judice  laetus 
Littore  Trinacrio  mundum  vitamque  reliquit. 

— Migne's  Patrolog.  T.  VI.  p.  28. 

"  Suscipit  enirn  Deus  poanitentiam  etiam  post  baptisma  si  quis  lapsus  fuerit. 
Quomoda  vero  postea  facit,  ipse  solus  novit.  .  .  .  Neque  igitur  promittimus 
libertatem  omnino  his  qui  post  baptisma  lapsi  sunt,  neque  desperamus  de  vita 


32  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

Augustin  tells  us  virtually  the  same  thing.  A  sinner  who  undergoes 
penance  and  is  reconciled  and  subsequently  commits  no  sin  may  feel 
secure  of  salvation,  but  if  one  leaves  repentance  to  the  last  and  is 
reconciled  on  the  death-bed,  the  matter  is  in  the  hand  of  God  and  the 
presumption  is  against  him  :l  reconciliation  thus  was  only  an  outward 
sign,  it  concerned  only  the  relations  between  the  sinner  and  the 
Church,  and  the  real  issue  lay  between  him  and  his  God.  So  little 
importance,  in  fact,  did  St.  Augustin  attribute  to  the  jurisdiction  and 
ministration  of  the  Church,  that  in  spite  of  Cyprian's  opinion  he 
admits  that  there  may  be  salvation  outside  of  it,  and  that  its  refusal 
to  receive  a  sinner  to  penance  and  reconciliation  does  not  signify 
that  God  will  not  pardon  him,  for  he  can  still  earn  eternal  life  by 
amendment.2  That  penance  was  simply  punitive  and  deterrent  and 
not  medicinal  is  seen  by  the  way  in  which  Pope  Siricius  speaks  of 
the  treatment  of  those  who  relapsed  subsequently  into  sin.3  This 


ipsorum  .  .  .  Secundum  vero  novimus  quod  misericors  est  Deus  si  ex  tota 
anima  pcenitentiam  egerimus  a  delictis.  Habet  enim  in  manu  vitam  et  salutis 
benignitatem.  Et  quid  quidem  ipse  facit  ipsi  soli  notum  est."— S.  Epiphan. 
Panar.  Haeres.  LIX. 

We  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  see  how  little  correspondence  there  is 
between  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  and  the  modern  doctrines  of  the  Church 
— a  fact  candidly  admitted  by  the  Salamanca  theologians  when  they  remark 
that  there  is  much  apparent  heresy  in  the  ancient  writings ;  in  view  of  the 
sanctity  of  the  writers  this  is  explained  away  by  theologians,  but  if  uttered 
by  men  of  less  authority  it  would  be  condemned  as  heresy.  "  Inventse  sunt 
multoties  in  scripturis  SS.  Patrum  propositiones  ex  vi  terminorum  hseresin 
dicentes,  tamen,  attenta  sanctitate  et  doctrina  praedictorum  Sanctorum,  pnefatse 
propositiones  in  aliquum  verum  sensum  interpretatae  sunt  Doctoribus,  quse  in 
aliis  hominibus  inferioris  notae  inventse,  ut  hsereses  sunt  damnatse."— Salman- 
ticens.  Cursus  Theol.  Moral  Tract,  xvn.  c.  ii.  n.  106. 

A  more  effective  plan  of  preserving  the  faithful  from  the  errors  of  the 
Fathers  was  that  of  expurgating  their  works.  In  1570  we  find  the  great 
Spanish  scholar  Arias  Montano  thus  employed  on  St.  Augustin,  St.  Jerome 
and  other  leading  writers  (Colleccion  de  Documentos  ineditos,  T.  XLT.  375). 

1  S    August.  Serin,  cccxcui.     Yet  by  this  time  the  theory  was  gaining 
ground  that  pardon  might  be  had  from  God  through  the  power  of  the  keys 
lodged  in  the  Church  at  large,  and  this  was  shared  in  some  degree  by  St. 
Augustin  (Serm.  cccxcn.  |5).     His  views  on  the  subject  will  be  considered 
hereafter. 

2  Ejusd.  Epist.  CLIII.  c.  iii.  ad  Macedonian. 

"  Et  ipsi  in  se  sua  errata  castigent  et  aliis  exemplum  tribuant."— Siricii 
PP.  Epist.  I.  c.  5. 


CEREMONIES  OF  IMPOSITION.  33 

evidently  was  the  current  opinion  of  the  Church,  for  a  hundred  years 
earlier  the  council  of  Elvira  gives  a  long  list  of  offences  for  which 
culprits  were  to  be  denied  reconciliation  even  on  the  death-bed,  and 
we  cannot  imagine  that  even  the  rigid  Spanish  Church  supposed  that 
it  was  thus  depriving  them  of  all  hope  of  salvation  and  condemning 
t  hem  to  hell.  The  crimes,  it  is  true,  are  mostly  serious  ones,  but  among 
them  is  included  the  accusation  of  a  bishop,  priest  or  deacon  and  fail 
ing  to  prove  the  charge.1  It  marks  a  radical  change  wrought  by  the 
growth  of  sacerdotalism  when  in  428  Coelestin  I.  speaks  with  horror 
of  the  denial  of  the  sacrament  to  the  dying  sinner  as  consigning  his 
soul  to  perdition.2  By  this  time  belief  in  the  power  of  the  keys  was 
growing  and  an  advance  is  seen  in  Leo  I.'s  allusion  to  reconciliation 
as  the  gate  through  which  the  sinner,  purged  by  penance,  is  admitted 
to  communion  and  gains  pardon  through  the  supplications  of  the 
priests.3 

What  were  the  ceremonies  connected  with  the  imposition  of  penance 
in  the  early  church  it  would  be  difficult  now  to  determine.  The  only 
case  of  which  we  have  accounts  is  that  of  Theodosius  in  390  which 
would  seem  to  be  wholly  irregular.  The  offence  was  the  slaughter  of 
Thessalonica,  which,  as  voluntary  homicide,  involved  a  penance  under 
the  canons  either  life-long  or  of  twenty  years,  yet  the  emperor  was 
admitted  to  reconciliation  after  eight  months'  excommunication,  and 
though  during  that  period  he  laid  aside  the  imperial  insignia,  he 
was  not  debarred  from  resuming  them  or  from  military  command.4 
At  a  later  period  the  imposition  of  penance  had  become  one  of  the 
great  annual  solemnities  of  the  Church.  Even  as  baptism  was  an 
elaborate  ceremony,  to  be  performed  on  the  Saturday  of  Easter,  after 
preliminary  observances  the  previous  week,5  so  penance  was  imposed 
at  the  beginning  of  Lent,  on  Ash  Wednesday,  and  reconciliation  on 
Holy  Thursday.  On  the  former  day,  all  those  undergoing  or  about 


1  Concil.  Illiberitan.  c.  1,  2,  7,  8,  12,  13,  17,  18,  63,  64,  65,  66,  70,  71,  72, 
73,  75. 

2  Coelestin  PP.  II.  Epist.  n.  cap.  2.. 

3  Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist.  cvm.  ad  Theodorum  cap.  2. — This  passage  sufficiently 
shows  that  there  was  no  absolution  preceding  reconciliation  as  has  been  imag 
ined  by  some  modern  apologists. 

4  S.  Ambros.  Orat,  de  Obitu  Theodos.  c.  34. — Paulini  Vit.  S.  Ambros.  c.  34. — 
Rufini  H.  E.  Lib.  n.  c.  18.— Theodoriti  H.  E.  Lib.  v.  c.  18. 

5  Sacramentarium  Gelasianum,  Lib.  i.  n.  xxix.  xlii.  xliv. 

I.— 3 


34  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

to  assume  penance  in  the  diocese,  were  ordered  to  present  themselves 
to  the  bishop  in  front  of  the  cathedral  porch.  Thither  also  came 
their  priests  and  the  archpriests  of  the  several  parishes,  instructed  to 
investigate  diligently  their  conversation  and  to  enjoin  penance  in 
accordance  with  their  several  deserts.  They  were  then  led  into  the 
church ;  the  bishop  and  clergy  prostrated  themselves  and  with  tears 
sang  the  seven  penitential  psalms.  Then  the  bishop  arose,  laid  his 
hands  on  the  sinners,  sprinkled  them  with  holy  water,  cast  ashes  over 
them,  covered  their  heads  with  sack-cloth,  and  with  sighs  and  groans 
announced  to  them  that,  as  Adam  was  expelled  from  Paradise,  so  they 
were  to  be  ejected  from  the  Church,  and  with  this  he  ordered  the 
clergy  to  drive  them  out,  which  was  done,  chanting  "  In  the  sweat 
of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread."1  It  was  a  spectacle  dramatically 
arranged  to  be  as  impressive  as  possible,  and  its  effect  upon  the 
assembled  crowd  could  not  fail  to  be  edifying.  In  the  later  periods 
the  penitents  were  sometimes  confined  in  the  sacristy,  or  in  the  dia- 
conium  (a  place  of  imprisonment  for  clerical  criminals),  where  they 
were  duly  starved  and  made  to  watch  and  pray.2  Every  year  this 
ceremony  was  repeated,  as  long  as  the  penance  lasted.3 

A  remarkable  feature  of  this  ancient  penance  was  that,  like  bap 
tism,  it  could  be  undergone  but  once  in  a  lifetime.  This  rule  was 
established  at  a  very  early  period,  in  fact,  almost  as  soon  as  allusions 
occur  to  penance  of  any  kind.  The  Shepherd  of  Hernias  tells  us  that 
but  a  single  opportunity  for  repentance  is  open  to  the  servants  of 


1  This  formula  is  detailed  by  Eegino  (De  Eccles.  Discipl.  Lib.  I.  c.  291), 
Burchard  (Deer.  Lib.  xix.  c.  6),  Ivo  (Deer.  P.  xv.  c.  45)  and  Gratian  (Deer. 
Dist.  50  c.  64)  and  is  credited  by  all  of  them  to  the  Council  of  Agde.     That 
council  has  a  brief  canon  on  the  subject  (C.  Agathens.  ann.  506  c.  15)  repre 
senting  a  much  simpler  ceremony.     It  probably  received  accretions  at  various 
times  and  developed  into  that  described  in  the  text,  which  is  sufficiently  in 
accord  with  the  Ordines  ad  dandam  Pcenitentiam.     As  late  as  the  middle  of  the 
thirteenth  century  Alexander  Hales  describes  it  in  substantially  the  same  detail 
(Summse  P.  iv.  Q.  xiv.  Membr.  6  Art.  3). 

In  the  Ambrosian  Church  however  reconciliation  took  place  on  Good  Friday 
(Morin  de  Poanit.  Lib.  ix.  cap.  29,  §  3,  4)  and  this  custom  prevailed  in  Spain 
at  least  until  the  seventh  century.— Concil.  Toletan.  IV.  ann.  633,  c.  7. 

2  Gregor.  PP.  II.  Epist.  xiii.   The  sixteenth  council  of  Toledo  (ann.  693,  c.  4) 
speaks  of  penitents  "  sub  pcenitentise  satisfactione  custodies  mancipati." 

3  Innoc.  PP.  I.  Epist.  xxv.  c.  7.— Abbonis  Sangermanens.  Serm.  iii.  (D' Achery, 
Spicileg.  I.  339).— Gloss,  super  Dist.  50,  c.  64. 


ONLY  ALLOWED  ONCE.  35 

God.1  Tertullian  argues  that  he  who  had  once  received  pardon  in 
baptism,  had  lapsed  into  sin  and  had  again  been  pardoned,  could  ask 
and  expect  no  further  mercy ;  his  reincidence  into  sin  shows  that  he 
ivpcnts  of  his  repentance  and  aims  to  satisfy  Satan,  not  God.2  St. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  argues  that  to  require  repeated  penitence  is 
no  penitence.3  For  mortal  sins  Origen  tells  us  that  there  is  but  one 
chance  of  repentance.4  St.  Ambrose  warns  the  penitent  that  he  should 
not  undertake  it  unless  he  knows  that  he  can  persevere  to  the  end, 
for  if  he  fails  his  only  chance  is  lost  as  he  cannot  repeat  it.5  In  the 
East  it  would  seem  still  to  have  been  an  open  question  at  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century,  for  we  hear  of  a  synod  in  which  it  was  deter 
mined  that  penance  should  only  be  allowed  once  to  a  sinner.  Chry- 
sostom  dissented  from  this,  saying  that  if  a  man  performed  penance 
a  thousand  times,  he  should  still  be  admitted  to  penance,  but  opinion 
was  against  him  and  even  his  friends  took  him  to  task  severely.6 
In  the  West  it  had  already  become  a  recognized  law  of  the  Church. 
In  385  Siricius,  in  an  authoritative  decretal,  says  that  those  who  after 
penance  return  to  their  wrorldly  ways,  not  only  by  committing  fresh 
sins,  but  by  going  to  the  theatres  and  games,  marrying  and  having 
children,  since  they  cannot  be  again  admitted  to  penance,  are  to  be 
allowed  to  remain  in  the  churches  during  the  mysteries,  but  are 
not  to  be  allowed  communion  until  the  death-bed.7 

This  shows  that  the  refusal  of  a  second  penance  and  reconciliation 
by  no  means  debarred  the  sinner  from  salvation.  Though  not  at 
peace  Avith  the  Church  he  could  be  at  peace  with  God.  St.  Augustin 
had  no  doubt  as  to  this  and  is  at  pains  to  explain  that  although  a 
second  penance  is  denied  to  one  who  had  relapsed  into  sin,  this  is  by 


1  Pastor.  Hermae  Lib.  n.  Mandat.  iv.  1,  3.     "Servis  enim  Dei  una  pceni- 
tentia  est." 

2  Tertull.  de  Poenitent.  c.  v.  vi.  vii.  ix.    "  Sed  amplius  nunquam  quia  proxime 
frustra.     Non  enim  et  hoc.  semel  satis  est  ?     Habes  quod  non  jam  merebaris  ; 
amisisti  enim  quod  acceperas." 

3  S.  Clement.  Alexand.  Stromata,  Lib.  n  (Ed.  Sylburg.  p.  386). 

4  Origenis  Homil.  in  Leviticum  xv.  2.  -"  In  gravioribus  enim  criminibus 
semel  tantum  pcenitentise  conceditur  locus." 

5  S.  Ambros.  de  Pcenitent.  Lib.  n.  c.  xi.  Cf.  c.  xcv. 

6  Socrat.  H.  E.  vi.  xxi.   Chrysostom  in  fact  says  "  Si  quotidie  peccas,  quotidie 
poenitentiam  age."— De  Poenitent.  Homil  VIII.  \  1. 

7  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  i.  c.  5.     The  Council  of  Nicsea  (c.  13)  had  ordered  that 
communion  should  never  be  refused  at  death. 


36  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

no  means  to  be  understood  as  denying  that  God  may  pardon  him  and 
that  he  may  earn  eternal  life  by  amendment.1  Though  he  could  be 
reconciled  to  the  Church  but  once,  St.  Jerome  tells  us  that  he  could 
have  his  sins  pardoned  by  God  seventy  times  seven  by  repentance.2 
As  far  as  the  Church  was  concerned,  however,  he  was  cut  off.  Among 
the  accusations  brought  against  Chrysostom  in  the  Synod  ad  Quercum, 
in  403,  was  that  he  gave  license  to  sinners  by  saying  to  them  "  If  you 
sin  again,  again  perform  penance,  and  as  often  as  you  sin  come  to  me 
and  I  will  heal  you,"3  and  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  motives  of 
those  who  persecuted  the  saint,  the  bringing  of  such  a  charge  shows 
that  what  is  the  universal  daily  practice  of  the  modern  confessor  was 
regarded  in  those  times  as  heresy.  The  same  lesson  is  taught  by  the 
third  council  of  Toledo,  in  589,  which  deplores  the  execrable  presump 
tion  of  some  priests  who  grant  reconciliation  to  penitents  as  often  as 
they  ask  it,  an  abuse  which  it  strictly  prohibits  and  requires  the 
ancient  canons  to  be  observed.4  It  is  true  that,  about  the  same  period, 
Victor  Tunenensis  asserted  that  the  sinner  can  be  cured  as  often  as 
he  lapses,5  but  the  Church  held  fast  to  the  ancient  ways  and  the  rule 
is  theoretically  still  in  force  though  it  has  long  since  ceased  to  be  opera 
tive.  We  shall  see  hereafter  how  this  public  penance  gradually  came 
to  be  supplanted  by  private  penance  and  sinners  no  longer  allowed 
their  sins  to  accumulate  through  life  to  be  erased  by  a  spasmodic 
paroxysm  of  repentance  as  it  drew  to  a  close.  Public  penance 
gradually  grew  rare  and  came  to  be  known  as  solemn  penance,  im 
posed  only  for  crimes  that  were  notorious  and  scandalous,  for  by  that 


1  S.  August.  Epist.  CLIII.  c.  iii.  ad  Macedonian. 

2  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  cxxn.  c.  3,  ad  Rusticum. 

3  Synod,  ad  Quercum  (Harduin,  I.  1042).     The  Pseudo-Justin  Martyr  was 
apparently  of  the  same  opinion  as  Chrysostom.— Pseudo- Justin.  Mart.  Explica- 
tiones  Q.  97. 

4  C.  Toletan.  III.  ann.  589  c.  xi  — "  Quoniam  comperimus  per  quasdam  His- 
paniarum  ecclesias,  non  secundum  canonem  sed  fcedissime  pro  suis  peccatis 
homines  agere  pcenitentiarn,  ut  quotiescunque  peccare  voluerint  toties  a  pres- 
byteris  se  reconciliari  expostulent;  ideo  pro  coercenda  tarn  execrabili  prse- 
sumptione    id   a  sacro  concilio   jubetur,   ut    secundum    formam   canonicam 
antiquorum  detur  pcenitentia     ....     hi  vero  qui  ad  prasvia  vitia  vel  infra 
poenitentise  tempus  vel  post  reconciliationem  relabuntur  secundum  priorum 
canonum  severitatem  damnentur." 

5  Victoris  Tunenens.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  c.  xii. — "  Unde  dudum  curatus  fueras 
inde  iterum  curaberis."     And  this  is  the  rigorous  penance — "  Saccum  indue, 
cinerem  asperge,  in  jejunio  semper  ora,  in  oratione  jejuna"  (Ibid.  c.  xviii.). 


SOLEMN  PENANCE.  37 

tinu1  the  seal  of  the  confessional  had  been  invented  and  sins  revealed 
in  confession  could  not  be  betrayed  by  penance  visible  to  the  public. 
In  this  survival  the  rule  was  maintained  that  solemn  penance  could 
l)c  imposed  but  once.  During  the  transition  period,  and  before  the 
sacramental  system  was  solidly  established  with  auricular  confession 
and  secret  penance,  the  conflict  between  the  old  practice  and  the  new 
was  somewhat  puzzling  to  the  schoolmen.  Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  who 
did  so  much  to  bring  about  the  change,  about  1130,  argues  the  ques 
tion  of  a  single  penance  at  much  length  and  in  a  way  to  show  that 
there  were  still  upholders  of  the  old  forms.  Some,  he  says,  explain 
it  by  saying  that  the  sinner  should  repent  and  abstain  from  sin  during 
life ;  others  that  it  referred  only  to  the  public  penance  which  could 
not  be  repeated  on  account  of  its  rigor ;  personally  he  seems  to  incline 
to  the  former  opinion,  but  he  leaves  the  matter  in  doubt.1  In  the 
middle  of  the  century  Gratian  shows  the  importance  and  difficulty  of 
the  question  by  the  long  array  of  authorities  cited  for  its  resolution, 
but  he  hopelessly  confuses  it  by  the  standing  difficulty  of  the  ambig 
uity  of  the  Avord  pcenitentia,  meaning  both  penance  and  repentance. 
His  conclusion,  however  is  that  the  refusal  of  repetition  refers  to 
solemn  penance  which  in  some  churches  is  administered  only  once, 
and  in  this  Peter  Lombard  agrees  with  him.2  ToAvard  the  close  of 
the  century,  when  the  neAv  system  Avas  fairly  established,  Alain  de 
Lille  refers  the  rule  exclusively  to  solemn  penance  and  endeavors  to 
explain  it  on  the  score  of  the  solemnity  of  the  ceremony  and  that  its 
repetition  would  breed  contempt.3  After  the  Lateran  canon  of  1216 
had  rendered  annual  private  confession  to  the  priest  obligatory,  of 
course  the  distinction  between  it  and  public  penance  became  absolute. 
St.  Ramon  de  Penafort  differentiates  them  clearly  ;  solemn  penance  is 
Imposed  by  the  bishop  on  Ash  Wednesday,  it  cannot  be  repeated  and 
the  penitent  incurs  the  old  disability  of  marriage.4  By  this  time  it 
had  lost  whatever  medicinal  character  it  may  have  had  of  old  and 
Avas  wholly  vindictive  and  deterrent.  Alexander  Hales  explains  the 
prohibition  of  repetition  by  its  symbolizing  the  expulsion  from  Para- 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  n.,  P.  xiv.  c.  4.     Of.  Ejusd. 
Sumrnse  Sentt.  Tract,  vi.  c.  12. 

2  Grat.  Deer.  Caus.  xxxm.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  4.  ad  calcem.—P.  Lombard.  Sententt. 
Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xiv.  I  3. 

3  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Pcenitent.  (Migne's  Patrol.  CCX.  296). 

4  S.  Raymond.  Summre  Lib.  II.  Tit.  xxxiv.  \  3. 


38  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

dise  which  was  once  for  all,  and  adds  that  it  is  not  designed  to  grant 
immunity  to  persistent  sinners,  for  they  are  to  be  punished  for  relapse 
in  some  other  way  with  equal  severity,  but  he  says  that  it  was  the 
greatest  error  to  hold  that  penance  could  not  be  repeated  for  it  forced 
sinners  to  despair.1  The  matter  continued  to  be  a  crux  for  the  school 
men,  especially  in  consequence  of  the  ambiguity  between  penance  and 
repentance.  Aquinas  says  penitence  can  be  repeated  except  the  pceni- 
tentia  solemnis*  Yet  there  seem  to  have  still  been  some  who  owing 
to  the  confusion  of  terms  held  that  repentance  could  not  be  repeated, 
for  Astesanus  de  Asti  in  1317  denounces  this  energetically  as  a  most 
wicked  and  cruel  error ;  at  the  same  time  he  describes  very  fully  the 
solemn  penance,  with  its  disabilities  as  to  marriage  and  bearing  arms, 
and  says  that  it  can  be  imposed  but  once,  except  in  some  churches 
which  allow  its  repetition ;  he  also  asserts  that  it  is  sacramental.3 
Durand  de  Saint- Pourgain  is  equally  mystified  by  the  assertions  of 
Ambrose  and  the  other  fathers  and  exerts  himself  to  prove  that  a  man 
can  have  penance  as  often  as  he  lapses  into  sin.4  When  ecclesiastical 
archaeology  had  come  to  be  better  understood,  Juenin  tells  us  that  the 
custom  of  denying  a  second  penance  died  out  in  the  East  early  in  the 
fifth  century,  but  was  continued  in  the  West  until  the  seventh,  when 
the  habit  arose  of  imposing  public  penance  only  for  public  sins,  while 
private  sins  were  penanced  as  often  as  necessary — in  which  he  is  cor 
rect,  except  as  to  the  dates.5 

The  applications  of  the  penitential  system  to  ecclesiastics  offer  one 
or  two  points  worthy  of  brief  consideration.  The  indelible  character 
of  penance  in  the  early  Church  and  the  life-long  disabilities  which  it 
entailed  render  it  a  matter  of  course  that  no  one  who  had  undergone 
it  was  eligible  to  holy  orders.  This  seems  at  first  to  have  been  tacitly 
assumed  as  a  necessary  implication,  and  may  be  inferred  from  canons 
of  the  council  of  Nicsea.6  Toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  centurv  how- 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Surnmse  P.  IV.  Q.  xiv.  Membr.  5,  Art.  2;  Membr.  6,  Art.  2. 
"  Debet  enim  punire  tanta  poena  ut  confusio  solemnis  pcenitentiae  in  acerbitate 
et  magnitudine  recompensatur." 

2  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Sumrnse  P.  m.  Q.  Ixxxiv.  Art.  10. 

3  Astesani  Stimmae  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  vi.  Q.  3 ;  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxv.  Q  3,  4. 

4  Durandi  di  S.  Portiano  Comment,  super  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  6, 
§6. 

5  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  vi.  Q.  vii.  Cap.  1,  Art.  2,  §  2. 

6  C.  Nicsen.  aim.  325  c.  ix.  x. 


PENANCE  OF  ECCLESIASTICS.  39 

ever  Pope  Siricius  orders  it  as  though  it  were  a  new  regulation,  and 
mitigates  it  by  providing  that  if  a  penitent  has  been  ordained  ignorantly 
he  can  retain  his  position  and  functions.1  Soon  afterwards  the  fourth 
council  of  Carthage  is  more  severe;  if  he  has  been  ordained  in 
ignorance,  he  is  to  be  deposed ;  if  the  bishop  has  done  it  knowingly, 
he  is  to  be  deprived  of  the  power  of  ordination.'2  This  more  rigorous 
view  prevailed.  St.  Augustin  speaks  of  it  as  an  established  rule,  that 
no  penitent  could  enter  or  remain  in  or  return  to  clerkship.3  This 
however  was  not  strictly  observed  and  the  prohibition  had  to  be  occa 
sionally  repeated.  In  465  the  council  of  Rome  forbade  penitents  to 
aspire  to  holy  orders.4  In  506  the  council  of  Agde  repeated  the 
injunction,  adding  that  those  who  had  been  ordained  through  ignorance 
could  retain  their  position  with  limited  functions.5  The  council  of 
Epaone  in  517  again  enunciated  it,  and  that  of  Aries  in  524  declared 
it  to  be  the  universal  rule ;  if  any  bishop  violated  it  by  ordaining  a 
penitent  he  was  to  be  suspended  for  a  year  from  celebrating  mass.6 
Evidently  the  rule  was  one  which  it  was  not  easy  to  enforce.  Some 
of  the  Sacramentaria  in  the  Ordo  de  sacris  ordinibus  benedicendis 
enunciate  it,  showing  that  it  had  to  be  kept  perpetually  before  the 
eyes  of  bishops  ;7  and  about  700  the  established  formula  of  papal 
instructions  to  the  suburbicarian  bishops  on  their  consecration  con 
tains  a  clause  reminding  them  of  it.8  Gratian,  in  the  twelfth  century, 
gives  the  decretal  of  Siricius  and  the  Carthagenian  canon,  but  restricts 


1  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  I.  c.  14.— Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  xxxix.— Yet  a  letter 
which  is  variously  attributed  to  Siricius  and  to  Innocent  I.  limits  the  prohibition 
to  those  who  after  performing  penance  have  returned  to  a  military  career. 
—  Siricii  Epist.  ad  Episc.  Afric. ;  Innoc.  PP.  I.  Epist.  II.  ad  Victricium  c.  2. 

2  Statuta  Ecclesiae  antiqua  c.  Ixviii.     But  about  the  same  period  the  Council 
of  Toledo  allowed  penitents  to  be  admitted  to  the  lower  orders. — Can.  Toletan. 
I  aim.  400  c.  2. 

3  St.  Augustin.  Epist.  CLXXXV.  ad  Bonifacium  $  45.    Carried  through  all  the 
collections  of  canons  to  Gratian,  Dist.  50  c.  25. — "Ut  constitueretur  in  ecclesia 
ne  quisquam  post  alicujus  criminis  pcenitentiam  clericatum  accipiat  vel  ad 
clericatum  redeat,  vel  in  clericatu  maneat,  non  desperatione  indulgentise  sed 
rigore  factum  est  disciplinse." 

4  C.  Roman,  ann.  465,  c.  3. 

5  Concil.  Agathens.  ann.  506,  c.  43. 

6  Concil.  Epaonens.  ann.  517,  c.  3.— C.  Arelatens.  IV.  ann.  524  c.  3. 

7  Sacramentar.  Gelasianum,  Lib.  I.  n.  xcv.  (Muratori  Opp.  XIII.  n.  208). — 
Sacramentar.  Gregorian.  (Ibid.  XIII.  in.  26). 

8  Lib.  Ditirn.  Roman.  Pontiff.  Cap.  in.  Tit.  ix.  n.  2. 


40  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

the  rule  of  course  to  those  who  have  undergone  solemn  penance,  and 
nullifies  the  sentence  of  deposition  for  bishops  by  adding  the  clause, 
"  unless  the  necessity  of  the  Church  demands  it  or  a  contrary  custom 
prevails ;"  he  also  gives  the  milder  Toledan  canon.1  Nominally  the 
rule  was  preserved  by  the  canonists,  but  we  may  safely  assume  that 
in  practice  it  became  obsolete.2 

The  early  Church  honestly  endeavored  to  keep  the  ranks  of  the 
clergy  pure  and  to  exercise  a  strict  supervision  over  admission.  How 
great  an  honor  this  was  esteemed  to  be  may  be  gathered  from  the 
emphasis  with  which  Cyprian  announces  to  his  flock  that  he  had  con 
ferred  the  inferior  grade  of  lector  on  Celerinus  who  had  earned  the 
title  of  confessor  by  his  constancy  under  persecution  in  Rome.3  The 
council  of  Nicaea  forbade  admission  to  the  newly  baptized  or  to  those 
who  had  been  guilty  of  any  crime;  all  postulants  were  to  be  strictly 
examined  and  any  one  who  confessed  to  sin  was  to  be  rejected.4 
Siricius  ordered  that  admission  should  be  refused  to  any  one  who  since 
baptism  had  been  stained  with  unchastity,  had  administered  justice  or 
performed  military  service/  and  Innocent  I.  added  to  the  causes  of 
exclusion  the  discharge  of  any  public  functions  because  this  inferred 
that  the  candidate  had  been  concerned  in  the  public  games  of  the 
circus.6  Innocent  deplored  the  inobservance  of  these  rules  in  Spain, 
where  lawyers,  judges,  soldiers,  courtiers,  and  officials  were  received 
to  orders  though  they  must  be  burdened  with  sins ;  what  has  been 
done,  he  says,  may  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  God,  but  hereafter  all 
such  and  those  who  ordain  them  must  be  degraded  and  deposed,  and 
the  Nicene  canons  must  be  obeyed.7  Whether  this  produced  a  reform 
in  Spain  may  be  doubted,  though  two  centuries  later  Isidor  of  Seville 
tells  us  that  no  one  convicted  of  mortal  sin  is  eligible  to  ordination.8 

It  was  easy  to  adopt  canons  and  issue  decrees,  but  their  enforcement 


1  Gratiani  Deer.  c.  55,  66,  68,  Dist.  50. 

2  Astesani  Summae  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxv.  Q.  1. 

3  Cypriani  Epist.  xxxix. 

4  Concil.  Nicsen.  aim.  325  c.  ii.  ix. 

5  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  x.  c.  8,  13. 

6  Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  n.  c.  12.    For  the  frenzied  passion  of  the  Christians 
for  the  public  games  see  Salvianus,  De  Gubematione  Dei. 

7  Innoc.  PP.  I.  Epist.  in.  c.  4,  6.     Yet  with  singular  inconsistency  Innocent 
decided  (Epist.  vi.  c.  3.)  that  administering  torture  or  passing  capital  sentences 
was  no  bar  to  orders,  thus  reversing  the  mandate  of  Siricius. 

8  Isidor.  Hispalens.  de  Eccles.  Officiis  Lib.  u.  c.  5  \  14. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  MORALS.  41 

was  a  different  matter,  and  the  Church,  which  it  had  been  difficult  to 
keep  pure  during  the  periods  of  persecution,  when  Christianity  became 
the  state  religion  rapidly  filled  with  ambitious,  self-seeking  and  un 
principled  men.  Pope  Siricus  denounces  the  habit  of  some  bishops 
in  conferring  the  diaconate,  priesthood  and  even  the  episcopate  on 
vagrants  styling  themselves  monks,  rather  than  be  at  the  expense  of 
aiding  them,  and  this  without  even  knowing  whether  they  were  ortho 
dox  or  baptized,  while  others  ordained  neophytes  and  laymen  as 
deacons  and  priests.1  St.  Isidor  of  Pelusium  tells  us  that  Bishop 
Eusebius  of  that  see  sold  ordination  to  a  number  of  wretches  stained 
with  every  vice  and  crime,  and  when  Hermogenes  succeeded  Euse 
bius  Isidor  cautioned  him  about  them,  sadly  adding  that  it  would  be 
of  no  use  to  eject  them  as  experience  showed  that  they  would  have 
no  difficulty  in  obtaining  positions  elsewhere.2  St.  Jerome  does  not 
hesitate  to  apply  to  the  clergy  of  his  own  period  Jeremiah's  denuncia 
tions  of  the  wickedness  of  the  priests  of  Judah.3  If  Optatus  is  to 
believed  in  his  account  of  the  Donatist  schism  the  African  Church 
was  filled  with  criminals  of  the  Avorst  type,  both  bishops  and  priests,4 
and  if  Cyprian  is  to  be  believed  this  degradation  of  morals  had  existed 
since  the  middle  of  the  third  century.5  Salvianus  gives  an  even  more 
deplorable  account  of  the  condition  of  clerical  morals  in  Gaul  in  the 
fifth  century  and  declares  that  Rome,  the  ecclesiastical  city,  is  the 
most  polluted  of  all.6  When  in  496  a  certain  Eucaristus  endeavored 
to  purchase  consecration  to  the  episcopate  for  sixty-three  solidi,  it  is 
true  that  Gelasius  I.  condemned  him  in  a  synod,  but  the  fact  that  he 
made  the  attempt  shows  that  such  transactions  were  familiar  to  men's 
minds.7  Indeed,  a  provision  in  the  Apostolic  Canons  punishing  with 

1  Siricii.  PP.  Epist.  vi.  c.  2,  3. 

2  S.  Isidori  Pelusiot.  Lib.  n.  Epist.  121,  127;  Lib.  in.  Epist,  17,  103,  127, 
224,  259. 

3  Hieron.  Comment,  in  Jeremiam  Lib.  u.  c.  viii.  v.  10-11. 

4  Optati  de  Schismate  Donatistar.  Lib.  i.  c.  15-20.     In  the  synod  of  Cirta, 
held  about  307,  Purpurius,  Bishop  of  Limata,  was  accused  of  having  slain  his 
nephews  while  they  were  in  prison,  to  which  he  fiercely  replied  that  he  had 
done  so  and  that  he  did  so  to  all  who  were  opposed  to  him. 

5  Cyprian,  de  Lapsis.     Yet  when  Cyprian,  who  attacked  his  fellow  bishops 
so  vigorously,  was  himself  assailed,  he  assumed  that  to  accuse  bishops  is  to 
accuse  God  who  sets  them  over  his  Church.     The  mere  fact  that  they  are 
bishops  is  sufficient  proof  of  their. innocence.— Epist.  LXVI. 

6  Salviani  de  Gubern.  Dei  Lib.  v.  c.  10 ;  Lib.  vn.  c.  17,  18,  22. 

7  Lowenfeld,  Epistt.  Pontiff.  Roman,  ined.  n.  22. 


42  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

deposition  both  the  ordainer  and  the  ordained  guilty  of  this  peculiarly 
objectionable  simony  indicates  that  it  was  a  vice  of  old  standing/ 
and  two  general  councils  felt  it  necessary  to  repeat  the  provision,2 
while  Gregory  the  Great  speaks  of  its  occurrence  as  a  matter  within 
his  own  knowledge.3  In  fact,  it  subsequently  became  a  received  rule 
of  the  Church  that  its  offices  could  be  sold  if  the  money  was  to  be 
applied  to  a  charitable  purpose  such  as  the  redemption  of  captives.4 

The  Church  thus  in  its  members  offered  ample  material  for  both 
repentance  and  penance,  but  unfortunately  it  came  to  adopt  a  rule 
that  no  cleric  should  be  subjected  to  penance.  This  originally  was  not 
an  expression  of  laxity,  but  rather  of  severity.  Even  as  no  criminal 
was  to  be  admitted  to  orders,  so  none  was  to  be  allowed  to  retain  them. 
The  layman  could  be  punished  by  penance  of  greater  or  less  duration. 
For  the  cleric  the  only  punishment  was  deposition,  and  it  shows  how 
purely  all  these  penalties  were  disciplinary  and  not  sacramental,  how 
completely  confined  to  the  forum  externum,  that  the  culprit  thus  de 
graded  was  not  suspended  from  communion  but  was  allowed  to 
receive  the  Eucharist  as  a  layman.  The  loss  of  position  was  con 
sidered  to  be  sufficient  punishment,  and  scripture  was  cited  forbid 
ding  two  punishments  for  the  same  offence5  If  the  sinner  chose  to 
placate  the  wrath  of  God  by  voluntary  repentance  and  mortification 
of  the  flesh,  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  him,  as  Jerome  advises  the 
deacon  Sabinian,  who  had  been  guilty  of  adultery,  to  do — to  enter  a 

1  Canon.  Apostol.  c.  xxviii. 

2  Concil.  Chalced.  ann.  451,  c.  2.— Concil.  Quinisext.  in  Trullo  ami.  701,  c.  22. 
Cf.  Concil.  Namnetens.  c.  ann.  895,  c.  7  (Harduin.  VI.  458.J. 

3  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Homil.  xvn.  in  Evangel,  n.  13. 

4  S.  Anselmi  Lucens.  Collect.  Canon.  Lib.  v.  c.  48.     "Quod  ministeria  eccle- 
sise  pro  captivorum  redemptione  vendenda  sunt." 

5  Cyprian.  Epist.  Ixviii.  Ixxii.— Canon.  Apostol.  xxiv.     "  Dicit  enim  Scrip- 
tura :  bis  de  eodem  delicto  vindictum  non  exiges." — S.  Basilii  Epist.  Canon,  i. 
ii.— Concil.  Carthag.  v.  ann.  401  (Cod.  Eccles.  Afric.  c.  xxvii.).     So  Basil  the 
Great  in  laying  down  the  rule  adds  "  non  enim  vindicabis  bis  in  idipsum." 
(Basil.  Epist.  Canon,  n.  c.  xxxii.  cf.  in.  li.  Ixx  ).    Yet  in  the  case  of  the  priest 
Victor,  who  had  lapsed  in  the  Decian  persecution,  there  was  both  deposition 
and  penance  (Cyprian.  Epist.  Ixiv.),  and  Basil  advises  that  the  priest  Bianor 
be  admitted  to  penance  for  taking  an  oath  (Epist  Canon,  n.  c.  xvii.).    Syne- 
sius,  also,  in  the  case  of  the  priest  Lampronianus  already  alluded  to  above, 
seems  to  have  inflicted  penance  for  he  deprived  the  offender  of  communion, 
reserving  the  right  to  admit  him  on  the  death-bed,  when,  if  he  recovered,  he 
was  to  fall  back  into  excommunication. — Synesii  Epist.  LXVIT. 


PENANCE  OF  ECCLESIASTICS.  43 

monastery  and  implore  " divine  mercy"  with  tears  and  sack-cloth 
and  ashes.1 

AVith  the  development  of  sacerdotalism  this,  which  was  a  simple 
matter  of  proportioning  punishment,  came  to  be  claimed  as  a  privilege 
of  immunity,  releasing  the  clergy  from  all  responsibility  for  their 
crimes.  One  of  the  most  serious  oifences  of  the  Donatists  was  that 
they  subjected  clerics  to  penance,  reducing  them  thus  to  the  condition 
of  laymen,  although,  as  Optatus  claims,  the  consecrating  oil  releases 
them  from  human  judgment  and  they  are  to  be  left  to  that  of  God.2 
When,  however,  Pope  Siricius  enunciated  the  rule  that  ecclesiastics 
were  not  to  be  penanced,  he  did  not  base  it  on  that  ground,  and  when 
Innocent  I.  pronounced  that  heretical  ordination  conferred  no  such 
exemption  he  ridiculed  the  claim  put  forward  that  the  sacerdotal 
benediction  removed  all  sin — the  time  had  not  yet  come  to  recognize 
a  power  of  absolution  in  the  ceremonies  of  the  Church.3  With  such 
material  as  we  have  seen  existing  in  the  higher  grades  of  the  Church, 
this  practical  immunity  from  all  punishment  short  of  the  extreme 
penalty  of  degradation,  which,  for  the  avoidance  of  scandal,  can  rarely 
have  been  exercised  except  for  purposes  of  persecution,  could  only 
work  an  increase  of  evil,  while  for  the  conscientious  priest  who  had 
yielded  to  temptation  it  was  a  hardship  that  he  could  not  relieve  his 
conscience  without  suffering  expulsion.4  It  was,  we  may  assume,  to 
meet  these  difficulties  that,  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  Leo 
I.  introduced  an  innovation  destined  in  time  to  modify  the  whole 
theory  and  practice  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  sinners.  After 
reciting  the  fact  that  priests  and  deacons  were  not  liable  to  public 
penance  for  any  crime,  he  proposes  that  they  should  seek  mercy 
from  God  in  private,  and  promised  that  if  they  should  thus  render 
due  satisfaction  it  should  be  sufficient.5  At  the  time  this  seems  to 

1  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  CXLVJI.  g  8,  ad  Sabinian. 

2  Optati  de  Schism.  Donatist.  Lib.  n.  c.  xxiv.-xxv. 

3  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  T.  c.  14.— Innoc.  PP.  I.  Epist.  xvu.  c.  3,  4 ;  Epist.  xxiv. 
c.  3.     He  attributes  to  the  necessities  of  the  times  the  fact  that  the  council  of 
Nicsea  (c.  viii )  admitted  the  validity  of  the  ordinations  of  the  Novatians  and 
that  those  of  the  heretic  bishop  Bonosus  held  good  in  Macedonia  (Epist. 
xvu.  c.  5). 

4  We  have  a  hint  as  to  this  in  a  canon  of  the  first  council  of  Orange  in  441 
relaxing  the  rule  that  clerics  could  not  be  admitted  to  penance — "  Pcenitentiam 
desiderantibus  clericis  non  denegandam" — C.  Arausican.  I.  aim.  441  c.  4. 

5  Leon.  PP.  I.  Epist  CLXVII.  Inquis.  ii.     "Alienum  est  a  consuetudine  eccle- 


44  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

have  been  speedily  forgotten  and  produced  no  observable  effect,  but 
we  shall  see  hereafter  how  this  recognition  of  secret  penance  by  the 
Church  germinated  and  developed  until  it  virtually  replaced  the 
time-honored  public  penance. 

In  the  East  the  ancient  rules  continued  to  be  obeyed.  John  the 
Faster,  who  was  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  from  586  to  596  asserts 
that  bishops,  priests  and  deacons  are  not  to  be  heard  in  confession 
unless  they  furnish  security  in  advance  that  if  they  have  done  aught 
which  should  prevent  performance  of  their  functions  they  will  not  min 
ister  in  future,  for  no  penance  can  be  assigned  to  them.  They  may 
still  however  officiate  as  lector  and  need  not  abstain  from  communion.1 
In  the  West  the  confusion  caused  by  the  Barbarian  invasions  and 
the  gradual  development  of  the  new  order  of  things  caused  the  rule 
to  be  virtually  forgotten  for  a  time.  In  511  the  council  of  Orleans 
says  that  a  deacon  or  priest  who  had  withdrawn  himself  from  com- 

siastica  tit  qui  in  presbyterali  honore  aut  in  diaconii  gradu  fuerint  consecrati, 
ii  pro  crimine  aliquo  suo  per  manus  impositionem  remedium  accipiant  poeni- 
tendi:  quod  sine  dubio  ab  apostolica  traditione  descendit,  secundum  quod 
scriptum  est :  Sacerdos  si  peccaverit  quis  orabit  pro  illo.  .  .  Unde  hujusmodi 
lapsis  ad  promerendum  misericordiam  Dei  privata  est  expetenda  secessio,  ubi 
illis  satisfactio  si  fuerit  digna  sit  etiam  fructuosa." 

Leo's  invocation  of  apostolical  authority  for  clerical  immunity  from  penance 
is  an  instructive  illustration  of  the  exegesis  which  finds  warrant  for  whatever 
is  needed.  The  text  cited  has  not  much  bearing  on  the  subject,  but  doubtless 
it  served  as  a  demonstration  when  enunciated  with  such  solemnity  in  a  papal 
utterance.  Yet  it  was  a  simple  imposition  on  the  presumptive  ignorance  of 
the  people.  The  editors  of  Leo  refer  it  to  the  Septuagint  Leviticus  V.  but 
there  is  no  such  text  there,  and  Leo  can  hardly  have  been  unaware  that  the 
Levitical  regulations  are  wholly  opposed  to  his  thesis.  The  Vulgate  says — 

"  Si  sacerdos  qui  unctus  est  peccaverit,  delinquere  faciens  populum,  offeret 
pro  peccato  suo  vitulum  immaculatum  Domino."— Levit.  iv.  3  (virtually  the 
same  in  LXX.). 

"  Et  expiabit  sanctuarium  et  tabernaculurn  testimonii  atque  altare,  sacer- 
clotes  quoque  et  universum  populum." — Ibid.  xvi.  33  (the  same  in  LXX.). 

When  Pope  Zachary  (Epist.  vnr.  c.  14)  quoted  Leo,  the  text  "Sacerdos  si 
peccaverit,"  etc.,  is  referred  to  I.  Kings  n. — but  this  is  equally  incorrect,  the 
passage  being  "  si  autem  in  Dominum  peccaverit  vir  quis  orabit  pro  eo  ?  " — 
which  is  destructive  of  all  intercession  for  sins  against  God. 

1  Johann.  Jejunator.  Libellus  Pcenitentialis  (Morini  Tract,  de  Pcenitent. 
Append,  pp.  85-6).  Of.  Ejusd.  Sermon.  (Ibid.  p.  97).  Yet  the  Justinian 
legislation  empowered  the  bishop  to  diminish  the  penance  and  restore  to  his 
functions  a  cleric  guilty  of  dicing  or  attending  the  public  games,  and  this  was 
embodied  by  Photius  in  the  Nomocanon,  Lib.  ix.  c.  39. 


PENANCE  OF  ECCLESIASTICS.  45 

miinion  by  profession  of  penance  can  still  baptize.1  In  523  the 
council  of  Lerida  shows  priests  and  deacons  subject  to  penance  by 
suspending  from  function  and  communion  for  two  years  those  who 
shed  human  blood,  ordering  them  to  pass  the  time  in  vigils,  prayers 
and  almsgiving,  and,  though  allowing  them  to  resume  their  func 
tions,  pronouncing  them  incapable  of  promotion.2  It  is  shortly  after 
this  that  we  may  date  the  rise  of  the  system  of  Penitentials,  or  col 
lections  of  canons  prescribing  the  administration  of  penance,  by 
which  until  the  twelfth  century  the  Church  governed  the  faithful. 
In  these  public  penance  was  assigned  to  cleric  and  laic  alike,  the 
only  distinction  being  that  a  longer  period  was  assigned  to  the  cleric, 
and  that  this  was  increased  in  proportion  to  his  rank.  This  begins 
with  the  earliest  collection,  attributable  to  the  sixth  century,  which 
provides  that  for  voluntary  homicide,  fornication  or  fraud  the  bishop 
shall  perform  thirteen  years  of  penance,  the  priest  seven,  the  deacon 
six,  the  monk  not  in  orders  four ;  adding  that  the  saints  of  old  had 
prescribed  twenty-three  years  for  the  bishop,  twelve  for  the  priest, 
seven  for  the  deacon,  and  four  for  monk,  nun  and  lector,  while  the 
nature  of  the  observances  prescribed  and  the  suspension  from  com 
munion  rendered  this  a  public  and  not  a  private  penance.3 

In  the  rudeness  of  those  dreary  ages,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully 
hereafter,  the  distinction  between  secular  and  spiritual  penalties  was 
well-nigh  lost;  they  were  combined  together  and  penance  became 
more  and  more  a  temporal  punishment,  with  little  trace  of  its  medi 
cinal  character.  Thus  a  canon  which  is  found  in  a  Avhole  class  of 
Penitentials  provides  that  if  a  cleric  commits  homicide  he  shall  be 
exiled  for  ten  years ;  on  his  return,  if  he  can  bring  testimonials  from 
bishop  or  priest  that  during  this  period  he  has  duly  repented  on 
bread  and  water  he  can  be  received  back,  but  he  must  satisfy  the 
parents  of  the  slain  and  serve  them  as  a  son.  If  he  will  not  do  this 
he  shall  be  like  Cain  a  wanderer  on  the  face  of  the  earth.4  Another 
penitential  provides  that  if  a  man  wounds  another  he  shall  pay  him 

1  Concil.  Aurelianens.  I.  ann.  511,  c.  12. 

2  Concil.  Ilerdens.  ann.  523,  c.  1.  Cf.  c.  5. 

3  Excerpta  ex  Libro  Davidis  \\  7,  10  (Wasserschleben,  Bussordnungen  der 
abenliindischen  Kirche,  pp.  1,  2). 

4  Poenitent.  Columban.  B.  c.  1  (Wasserschleben,  p.  355).— P.  Merseburgens. 
a.  c.  1  (p.  391).— P.  Bobiens.  c.  1  (p.  407).— P.  Parisiens.  c.  1  (p.  412).     The 
prescriptions  of  time  in  these  codes  are  very  uncertian.     Cap.  13  of  the  P. 
Columban.  repeats  the  above  with  the  substitution  of  three  for  ten  years. 


46  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

the  wer-gild  or  compensation  and  provide  a  physician  to  cure  him ; 
then,  if  a  layman,  he  shall  do  penance  for  forty  days,  if  a  simple  cleric 
twice  forty  days,  if  a  deacon,  seven  months,  if  a  priest  a  year.1  This 
rigor  of  punishment  had  full  papal  assent.  In  742  St.  Boniface  con 
sulted  Pope  Zachary  as  to  what  measures  he  should  adopt  to  check 
the  universal  licence  of  the  clergy,  such  as  deacons  keeping  four  or 
five  concubines,  and  while  leading  this  scandalous  life  rising  to  the 
priesthood  and  episcopate.  The  same  year  St.  Boniface  held  a  synod 
in  conjunction  with  Carloman  and  the  prescriptions  of  that  body  may 
presumably  be  held  to  embody  the  papal  counsel.  All  clerics  and 
nuns  guilty  of  unchastity  wrere  ordered  to  perform  penance  in  prison 
on  bread  and  water.  If  a  priest,  he  was  to  be  scourged  and  flayed 
and  his  imprisonment  was  to  last  for  two  years,  with  power  to  his 
bishop  to  increase  it.  If  a  simple  clerk  or  monk  he  was  to  have  three 
scourgings  and  a  year's  imprisonment,  and  the  same  for  nuns,  besides 
shaving  the  head.2  In  Spain  shortly  before  the  Saracenic  invasion  a 
council  of  Toledo  had  no  hesitation  in  prescribing  a  year's  penance 
for  any  priest,  deacon  or  monk  wrho  sheltered  a  fugitive  cleric  from  a 
sentence  of  his  prelate.3  Evidently  Pope  Leo's  prescription  had  been 
forgotten.  The  Church  made  no  distinction  between  public  and 
private  penance,  and  there  was  no  hesitation  in  subjecting  cleric  and 
laic  to  either  indiscriminately,  though  Rabanus  Maurus  argues  that 
for  public  crimes  a  cleric  should  be  deposed  on  account  of  the  scandal, 
while  for  secret  sins  he  can  confess,  and  perform  penance.4 

The  incompatibility  of  sin  and  clerical  functions  gradually  also 
faded  out.  A  council  of  Toledo  in  633  decided  that  if  a  man  in 
mortal  sickness  accepted  penance  but  only  made  a  general  confession 
that  he  was  a  sinner,  if  he  recovered  he  was  eligible  to  ordination, 
but  any  one  who  had  publicly  confessed  a  mortal  sin  must  still  be 
excluded.5  The  question  of  the  deposition  of  clerical  penitents  was 
settled  in  the  Toledan  council  of  683,  where  Bishop  Gaudentius  of 
Valeria  asked  whether  he  should  continue  to  perform  his  functions, 
seeing  that  he  had  accepted  penance.  To  this  the  answer  was  long 
and  argumentative,  showing  that  the  decision  in  his  favor  was  known 

1  Poenitent.  Pseudo-Roman,  c.  vii.  §  7  (Wasserschleben,  p.  369.) 

2  S.  Bonifacii  Epist.  XLIX. — Capit.  Carolomanni  i.  c.  6  (Baluz.  I.  105). 

3  Concil.  Toletan.  XIII.  ann.  693,  c.  xi. 

1  Rabani  Mauri  Poenitentium  Liber,  cap.  1. 
5  Concil.  Toletan.  IV.  ann.  633,  c.  liv. 


PENANCE  OF  ECCLESIASTICS.  47 

to  be  a  reversal  of  the  ancient  rule.  Penitents  are  to  abstain  from 
sin  and  from  secular  affairs,  but  not  from  what  is  holy ;  but  if  they 
have  confessed  mortal  sin  it  is  left  for  the  metropolitan  to  decide.1 
Thus  the  incompatibility  was  practically  set  aside.  It  was  in  vain  that 
Nicholas  I.,  about  865,  insisted  that  a  priest  after  lapsing  could  not  be 
restored  to  his  functions,2  in  1089  Urban  II.  decided  like  the  Toledan 
council  that  it  was  a  matter  within  the  discretion  of  his  bishop.3  At 
the  same  time  he  retained  a  portion  of  the  ancient  rigor  by  ordering 
that  a  layman  who  had  undergone  penance  and  reconciliation  should 
not  be  admitted  to  orders,  or  a  cleric  be  promoted  to  a  higher  grade.4 
About  the  same  period  Anselm  of  Lucca  assumes  this  as  regards  lay 
men,  and  explains  that  it  is  a  matter  of  discipline  and  need  not 
make  them  despair  of  pardon  from  God,  while  any  deviation  from  the 
ancient  rigor  is  a  matter  reserved  for  papal  decision,  and  those  who 
truly  amend  and  render  satisfaction  may  be  restored.5 

The  men  who  were  concerned  in  the  manufacture  of  the  False  De 
cretals,  during  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century  had,  while  accepting 
the  liability  of  the  clergy  to  public  penance,  sought  to  remove  all  the 
disabilities  which  it  inflicted  on  both  clerks  and  laymen,  in  a  passage 
which  found  its  place  in  the  collections  of  canons.6  Yet  Benedict  the 
Levite,  who  belonged  to  the  same  school,  endeavored  to  resuscitate  the 
old  rule ;  priests  and  deacons  were  not  to  be  subjected  to  penance, 
but  were  to  be  degraded  and  never  restored.7  That  in  practice,  how 
ever,  they  could  be  both  degraded  and  penanced  is  shown  by  an  edict 
of  the  Emperor  Lothair,  about  850,  in  which  he  orders  that  priests 
and  deacons  who  have  been  deposed  shall  perform  penance  according 
to  the  canons  in  the  places  assigned  to  them  and  not  wander  around  ; 
if  they  do  not  obey  they  are  to  be  scourged,  and  if  this  fails  they  are 
to  be  thrust  into  prison  and  undergo  their  penance  there.8  Even 

1  Concil.  Toletan.  XIII.  ami.  693,  c.  x. 

2  Nichol.  PP.  I.  ad  Arducium  c.  vi.  (D'Achery,  I.  597). 

3  Lowenfeld,  Epistt.  Pontiff.  Roman,  inedd.  p.  63. 

4  Harduin.  Concil.  VI.  u.  1653. 

5  Anselmi  Lucens.  Canon.  Lib.  vm.  c.  3,  30,  37. 

6  Pseudo-Calixti  Epist.  ad  Galliae  Episcopos  (Migne's  Patrol.  CXXX.  136.) 
Possibly  this  may  have  been  framed  to  justify  Louis  le  Debonnaire's  resump 
tion  of  the  empire  after  the  Penance  of  Attigny. 

7  Capitularia,  Lib.  v.  c.  131. 

8  Capit.  Lothar.  Imp.  Tit.  iv.  c.  3  (Baluz.  II.  223).    Lothair  states  that  all  the 
laws  in  Tit.  iv.  are  excerpts  from  those  of  Charlemagne  and  Louis  le  Debonnaire. 


48  PUBLIC  PENANCE. 

slenderer  respect  for  the  tonsure  and  equal  disregard  for  the  distinc 
tion  between  secular  and  spiritual  remedies  are  exhibited  in  an  Hun 
garian  canon  of  1099  which  orders  that  clerics  accused  of  theft  shall 
be  tried  by  the  bishop  or  archdeacon,  when  any  one  found  guilty  is  to 
be  deposed  and  his  property  confiscated,  or  if  he  has  nothing  to  con 
fiscate  he  shall  he  sold  as  a  slave.1 

With  the  gradual  revival  of  learning  the  antagonism  of  these  con 
flicting  rules  greatly  puzzled  the  canonists  who  sought  to  bring  into 
something  like  order  the  medley  of  legislation  developed  in  the  suc 
cessive  epochs  of  the  Church.  Ivo  of  Chartres  is  much  worried  by 
the  prescription  that  no  one  who  had  performed  penance  is  to  be 
admitted  to  orders,  or  if  in  orders  is  to  be  degraded.  It  was  the 
unquestioned  ancient  law  of  the  Church,  but  in  spite  of  Urban  II.  it 
was  nowhere  observed.  Ivo  can  only  explain  it  by  showing  that  in 
many  other  things  the  observances  of  the  Church  had  been  modified, 
and  comforts  himself  with  the  reflection  that  charity  covereth  a  mul 
titude  of  sins.2  Gratian  find  the  question  equally  insoluble  ;  he  gives 
thirteen  canons  on  one  side  and  twelve  on  the  other  and  vainly 
endeavors  to  reconcile  them.3 

As  in  the  matter  of  the  repetition  of  penance,  the  trouble  finally 
settled  itself  through  the  happy  invention  of  private  penance  and  its 
gradual  superseding  of  public  penance.  When  the  latter  became 
exceptional  and  was  known  as  solemn  penance,  to  be  applied  only  in 
cases  of  notorious  crimes  which  had  scandalized  the  community,  it  was 
easy  to  enforce  the  ancient  rule  that  it  must  not  be  applied  to  clerics, 
and  at  the  same  time  tacitly  to  drop  the  alternative  penalty  of  degra 
dation.  The  schoolmen  came  to  define  three  varieties  of  penance — 
private,  public,  and  solemn.  In  this  the  later  so-called  public  penance 
differed  from  private  only  in  being  inflicted  in  sight  of  the  congregation, 
or  in  consisting  of  observances  which  could  not  be  concealed,  such  as 
pilgrimages.  The  old  expulsion  from  the  church  on  Ash  Wednes 
day  and  reconciliation  on  Holy  Thursday  became  known  as  "  solemn 
penance."  Clerics  were  still  held  liable  to  the  later  public  penance, 
and  towards  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century  Alain  de  Lille  tells  us 
that  for  them  it  consisted  in  exclusion  from  the  choir  during  singing 
and  from  the  table  during  meals,  the  knowledge  of  it  thus  being  con- 

1  Synod.  Strigonens.  II.  c.  arm.  1099  (Batthyany,  Legg.  Eccles.  Hung.  II.  128.) 

2  Ivonis  Decreti  Prologus.  3  Decreti  Dist.  50. 


PENANCE  OF  ECCLESIASTICS.  49 

fined  to  their  fellows.  If  solemn  penance  was  not  to  be  imposed  on 
them,  it  was  not,  as  of  old,  on  account  of  the  purity  required  of  them, 
but,  it  was  a  special  favor,  granted,  as  he  says,  on  account  of  the  dig 
nity  of  the  cloth,  and  chiefly  because  their  sins  are  to  be  concealed, 
for  if  known  to  the  laity  they  would  be  an  evil  example  and  a  scan 
dal,  and  the  name  of  God  Avould  be  blasphemed  among  the  nations1 
— a  candid  admission  of  the  reasons,  not  particularly  creditable  to  the 
Church,  which  continued  to  be  put  forward  in  justification.2  It  thus 
became  a  received  rule  among  the  canonists  and  theologians  that 
solemn  penance  was  not  to  be  imposed  on  clerics  on  account  of  scandal, 
unless  the  offender  was  previously  degraded  or  reduced  to  the  lower 
orders.  Some  say,  however,  that  he  was  simply  rendered  ineligible  to 
promotion  without  a  papal  dispensation,  and  others  that  the  prohi 
bition  of  solemn  penance  extended  to  nobles  and  men  of  rank.3  The 
authorities  are  not  altogether  in  harmony,  but  this  is  natural  and  is 
of  little  importance  for  practically  the  time-honored  public  penance 
of  the  Church  had  become  obsolete. 


1  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Pcenitentialis  (Migne's  Patrol.  CCX.  295-6). 

2  About  1325,  after  scholastic  theology  had  been  fully  constructed,  the  reasons 
alleged  for  the  exemption  of  clerics  from  solemn  penance  show  how  widely  the 
Church  had  strayed  from  the  ancient  landmarks.     It  was  now  regarded  as  a 
favor,  the  justification  advanced  for  which  was  thoroughly  discreditable  "  Hsec 
autem  pcenitentia  non  est  imponenda  clericis,  non  propter  favorem  persons  sed 
ordinis,  quia  agens  publicam  poanitentiam  non  debet  ad  ordines  promoveri  .  .  . 
primo  propter  dignitatem  eorum.    Secundum  propter  timorem  recidivi.   Tertio 
propter  scandalum  vitandum  quod  in  populo  posset  oriri  ex  memoria  prseceden- 
tium  delictorum.      Quarto  quia  non  haberet  frontem  alios   corrigendi   cum 
peccatum  ejus  fuerit  publicurn."— Durand.  de  S.  Portiano  super  Sententt.  Lib. 
IV.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  4  ^  6-7. 

3  Kaynumd.  de  Pennaf.  Summse  Lib.  n.  Tit.  xxxv.  §  3. — Alex,  de  Ales 
Suminse  P.  iv.  Q.  xiv.  Membr.  6,  Art.  3.— Aquinat.  Sumrnse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixxxix. 
Art.  3. — Astesani  Summse  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxiv.  xxxv.  Q.  1.— Angeli 
de  Clavasio  Summ.  Angel,  s.  v.  Pcenitentia  $$  4,  5. 


1—4 


CHAPTBK    IV. 

KECONCILIATION. 

RECONCILIATION,  as  we  have  seen,  was  merely  a  matter  of  disci 
pline.  The  sinner's  path  to  salvation  was  rendered  easier  by  his 
redintegration  to  the  Church,  but  it  was  not  assured,  nor  did  his 
exclusion  infer  that  he  was  not  pardoned  by  God.  Still  there  are 
some  points  concerning  it  which  merit  consideration,  especially  as 
the  old  reconciliation  gradually  merged  into  the  modern  absolution, 
and  it  has  been  the  aim  of  most  of  the  apologists  to  prove  their 
identity. 

The  essence  of  the  ceremony  of  reconciliation  was  the  imposition 
of  hands,  the  exact  original  significance  of  which  it  would  be  at 
present  impossible  to  define  with  accuracy.  It  could  not  have  been 
considered  as  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  according  to  Cyprian 
it  was  participated  in  by  the  bishop  and  all  the  clergy,1  nor  was  it 
confined  to  the  final  act,  but  was  also  performed  at  the  commence 
ment  when  the  sinner  asked  for  penance  and  received  the  sack-cloth,2 
and  was  repeated  whenever  penitents  were  present  in  church  during 
their  term  of  penance,3  while,  as  we  have  already  seen  (p.  10)  in 
case  of  necessity  the  final  imposition  conferring  the  peace  of  the 
Church  could  be  performed  on  the  dying  by  a  deacon.  Yet  in  some 
quarters  it  was  held  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost  and  that  this  was 
essential  to  the  redintegration  of  the  penitent  in  the  Church.  Thus 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions  compare  it  to  baptism,  and  represent  the 
apostles  as  saying  that  by  it  they  gave  the  Holy  Ghost  to  believers.4 


1  Cypriani  Epistt.  xvi.  xvn. 

2  C.  Agathens.  ann.  511,  c.  15. — Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVII.  Inquis.  2. — 
Bened.  Levit.  Capitularia,  Lib.  v.  c.  116,  122,  123. 

3  C.  Laodicens.  ann.  324  c.  19.— S.  August.  Serm.  ccxxxn.  c.  7. — In  the 
African  Church  it  would  seem  that  this  was  only  done  during  Lent. — C.  Car- 
thag.  IV.  ann.  398,  c.  80  (Gratian.  Deer.  c.  6,  Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vii.). 

4  Constitt.  Apostol.  n.  xlv.     "  Et  erit  ei  in  locum  lavacri  impositio  manuum. 
Nam  per  impositionem  manuum  nostrarum  credentibus  Spiritus  sanctus  daba- 
tur."     Cf.  Acts  vi.  6  ;  vm.  17-19 ;  I.  Tim.  v.  22. 

Had  this  belief  been  accepted  and  current  this  last  assertion  would  have 


THE  IMPOSITION  OF  HANDS.  51 

As  yet  the  ceremony  of  reconciliation  was  much  simpler  than  it 
became  subsequently.  It  could  be  performed  on  any  Sunday ;  the 
deacon  uttered  a  prayer  entreating  God  to  pardon  the  sinners,  and 
the  bishop,  in  imposing  hands,  prayed  God  to  accept  the  penance  of 
the  suppliants,  to  lead  them  back  into  the  Church  and  to  restore  them 
to  their  previous  honor  and  dignity.1  There  was  no  pretence  of  exer 
cising  any  sacerdotal  power  of  absolution,  and  the  episcopal  function 
was  simply  intercessory. 

That  the  imposition  of  hands  thus  administered  merely  readmitted 
the  sinner  to  the  Church  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  his  relations  to 
God  is  seen  in  the  regulations  with  respect  to  dying  penitents.  It  is 
easy  to  understand  how  men  would  postpone  penance  to  the  last  and 
ask  for  it  on  the  death-bed.  The  prevailing  rule  was  that  penance 
and  communion  were  never  to  be  denied  to  the  dying2  and  if  after 
their  reception  the  sinner  unexpectedly  recovered  he  would  be  apt  to 
claim  that  he  was  reconciled  and  in  communion  with  the  Church.  To 
obviate  this  the  plan  was  adopted  that  communion  was  to  be  adminis 
tered  to  the  dying,  who  was  thus  furnished  with  the  viaticum  which 
was  sufficient  for  his  consolation,  but  the  imposition  of  hands  which 
reconciled  him  to  the  Church  was  withheld,  so  that  in  case  of  recov 
ery  he  could  be  required  to  perform  penance  and  seek  reconciliation 
in  a  legitimate  way.3  The  Eucharist  thus  reconciled  him  to  God  but 


been  superfluous.     It  is  perhaps  significant  that  there  is  nothing  of  all  this  in 
the  Canons  of  Hippolytus. 

1  Constitt.  Apostol.  vm.  xi.  xii. — "  Recipe  nunc  quoque  supplicantium  tibi 
poenitentiam     .     .     .     et  reduc  eos  in  sanctam  tuam  ecclesianij  restitutis  illis 
priori  dignitate  et  honore  per  Christum  Deum  et  Salvatorem  nostrum." 

Palmieri  (Tract,  de  Poenitent.  p.  159)  following  Sirmond,  endeavors  to  recon 
cile  the  ancient  use  of  the  imposition  of  hands  with  the  modern  dogmas  by 
arguing  that  there  were  three  varieties  of  it — one  used  at  the  imposition  of 
penance,  one  during  its  performance  and  the  third  at  reconciliation.  This  is 
of  course  purely  supposititious. 

2  C.  Nicaen.  I.  ann.  325  c.  xiii.— Cosiest.  PP.  I.  Epist.  iv.  c.  2  (Gratian.  c.  13 
Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vi.).     A  canon  attributed  to  Julius  I.  which  is  found  in  all  the 
collections  says  "  Si  presbyter  poenitentiam  morientibus  abnegaverit  reus  erit 
animarum"  (Gratian.  c.  12  Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vi.— P.  Lombard.  Sententt.  Lib. 
iv.  Dist.  xx.  g  5). 

"  Qui  recedunt  de  corpore,  pcenitentia  accepta,  placuit  sine  reconciliatoria 
manus  impositione  iis  communicari,  quod  morientis  sufficit  consolation!  secuii- 
dum  definitiones  patrum,  qui  hujusmodi  couimunionem  congruenter  viaticum 
nominarunt.  Quod  si  supervixerint,  stent  in  ordine  pcenitentiuin,  et  ostensis 


52  RECONCILIATION. 

not  to  the  Church,  the  imposition  of  hands  accomplished  the  latter 
and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  former. 

As  the  Church  gradually  asserted  the  power  of  the  keys  and  recon 
ciliation  began  to  assume  the  character  of  absolution,  Benedict  the 
Levite,  who  in  the  ninth  century  labored  so  earnestly  in  the  develop 
ment  of  sacerdotalism,  asserts  that  only  through  imposition  of  hands, 
accompanied  by  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  prayers  of 
the  bishop,  or  of  the  priest  to  whom  he  delegated  the  function,  could 
sins  be  absolved,  and  for  lack  of  other  explanation  he  asserts  it  to 
be  derived  from  the  precept  in  the  Old  Law  by  which  the  priest  in 
sacrifice  laid  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  victim.1  When,  however, 
in  the  thirteenth  century  the  schoolmen  had  thoroughly  elaborated 
the  theory  of  the  sacraments  and  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  and 
when,  as  we  shall  see,  the  formula  of  absolution  became  an  absolute 
assertion  of  sacerdotal  control  over  pardon,  it  became  evident  that 
this  was  incompatible  with  the  necessity  of  invoking  the  Holy  Ghost 
by  the  imposition  of  hands.  Conservative  theologians  who  objected 
to  the  change  in  the  formula  used  as  one  of  their  main  arguments  the 
immemorial  custom  of  imposition  of  hands,  and  they  cited  in  support 
the  great  authority  of  William  Bishop  of  Paris."  When  Aquinas 


necessariis  pcsnitentise  fructibus  legitimam  communionem  cum  reconciliatoria 
manus  impositione  percipiant." — Concil.  Arausican.  I.  aim.  441  c.  3. — Concil. 
Arelatens.  ann.  443  c.  28.  This  was  not  a  mere  local  regulation.  It  is  virtually 
the  same  in  Concil.  Nicarn.  I.  c.  13  and  C.  Carthag.  IV.  ann.  398  c.  78.  Of. 
Gregor.  Nyssaen.  Epist.  Canon,  c.  5. 

Yet  another  canon  (c.  76)  of  the  same  council  of  Carthage  provides  that  if 
the  dying  man  is  delirious  or  insensible  the  testimony  of  his  friends  that  he  has 
asked  for  penance  suffices  "  et  si  continue  creditur  moriturus,  reconcilietur  per 
manus  impositionem  et  infundatur  ori  ejus  Eucharistia  "  So  also  Leo  I.  (Epist. 
cvni.  c.  5  ad  Theodorum.).  "  Testimonia  eis  fidelium  circumstantium  prodesse 
debebunt  et  pcenitentiae  et  reconciliationis  beneficium  consequantur."  This  is 
only  another  instance  of  the  contradictory  character  of  the  prescriptions  of  the 
early  Church.  In  the  Capitularies  of  Benedict  the  Levite  an  attempt  is  made 
to  reconcile  the  incongruity  by  quoting  cap.  76  of  the  Council  of  Carthage  and 
only  part  of  that  of  the  Council  of  Agde  (Capitular.  Lib.  v.  c.  120,  121). 

1  Bened.Levit.  Capitul.  Lib.  v.  c.  127  (Isaaci  Lingonens.   Canon.  Tit.  I.  c.  11.) 
Again — "  Nee  se  quisquam  a  peccatis  absolutum  sine  reconciliatoria  manus 

impositione  credat,  sed  per  manus  impositionem  precibus  sacerdotum  recon 
cilietur."— Ibid,  c.  129  (Isaaci  Lingon.  Tit.  I.  c.  13).  So  in  a  Eoman  Ordo  of 
the  ninth  century  priests  touch  the  heads  of  the  penitents  while  the  bishop 
officiates. — Morin.  de  Discipl.  Sacr.  Pcenit.  App.  p.  67. 

2  But  William  of  Paris  does  not  seem  to  regard  the  imposition  of  hands  as 


THE  IMPOSITION  OF  HANDS.  53 

was  summoned  to  defend  the  new  formula,  he  brushed  aside  William 
of  Paris  as  a  canonist  of  insufficient  weight  to  be  conclusive  on  so 
great  a  matter ;  he  argued  that  the  words  of  absolution  constitute 
the  sacrament  of  which  the  penitent  is  the  material,  and  that  impo 
sition  of  hands  is  unnecessary.1  The  tendency  to  sacerdotalism  was 
irresistible.  The  innovators  triumphed  over  the  conservatives ;  the 
new  formula  gradually  spread  everywhere,  and  the  imposition  of 
hands  became  a  mere  unimportant  adjunct  in  the  ceremony.  Still 
it  held  its  place  for  awhile.  In  1284  the  synod  of  Nimes,  in  its 
elaborate  instructions  to  confessors,  directs  them  to  perform  it  when 
granting  absolution,2  but  not  long  afterwards  John  of  Freiburg  accepts 
the  dictum  of  Aquinas ;  making  the  sign  of  the  cross  over  the  peni 
tent  he  says  is  more  important  than  imposition  of  hands,  but  neither 
is  essential.3  About  1325  Durand  de  Saint-Pourgain  argues  that 
while  imposition  of  hands  is  requisite  in  ordination  because  a  character 
is  conferred  on  the  recipient,  it  is  unnecessary  in  absolution  for  no 
change  is  made  there  in  the  status  of  the  penitent4  which  shows  that 
the  schoolmen  were  still  seeking  for  arguments  to  justify  the  aban 
donment  of  the  old  rite.  About  the  middle  of  the  next  century  St. 
Antonino  of  Florence  shows  that  the  change  had  been  fully  accepted : 
imposition  of  hands  is  unnecessary,  and  in  the  case  of  female  peni 
tents  it  is  not  decent ;  besides,  the  sign  of  the  cross  replaces  it.5 
Early  in  the  sixteenth  century  Prierias  tells  us  that  it  is  not  per 
formed,  and  that  crossing  is  more  effective  though  not  essential.6 
Still  the  custom  had  been  so  inseparably  connected  with  the  remission 
of  sins  that  it  was  not  easily  eradicated.  In  1524  the  council  of  Sens 
'felt  obliged  to  assert  that  it  was  not  necessary  and  that  the  sign  of 
the  cross  was  more  fitting.7  About  1550  Domingo  Soto  admits  that 


conferring  the  Holy  Ghost. — "  Manus  enim  sacerdotis  super  caput  poenitentis 
manum  divinam  sive  virtutem  adesse  significat  ad  sanctificandum  vel  signifi- 
candum  poenitentem. — Guill.  Paris,  de  Sacram.  Poenitentise  c.  3  (Ed.  Paris, 
1674,  T.  I.  p.  461). 

1  Th.  Aquinat.  Opusc.  xxn.  c.  4.     Of.  Summae  P.  in.  Q.  Ixxxiv.  Art,  3. 

2  Synod.  Nemaus.  ann.  1284  (Harduin.  Concil.  VIII.  911). 

3  Job.  Friburgens  Summ.  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  90. 

4  Durand  de  S.  Portiano  Comment,  sup.  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xxii.  Q.  2  §  7. 

5  S.  Antonini  Confessionale  (Ed.  sine  nota,  fol.  69a) ;  Summse  P.  III.  Tit.  xvii. 
c.  21  |  1. 

6  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Absolutio  vi.  §  2. 

7  Bochelli  Deer.  Eccles.  Gallicanse  Lib.  n.  Tit.  vii.  c.  138. 


54  RECONCILIATION. 

it  was  still  used  by  some  confessors  ;T  towards  the  close  of  the  century 
or  beginning  of  the  next  Bellarmine  uses  the  terms  imposition  of 
hands  and  absolution  as  synonymous  f  soon  afterwards  Zerola  and 
"Vittorelli  regard  it  as  desirable  though  not  necessary  f  and  the  preva 
lence  of  its  employment  is  seen  in  the  advice  of  Willem  van  Est 
that  the  confessor  should  not  omit  it,  especially  if  from  any  cause  the 
penitent  is  dismissed  without  absolution  and  there  are  bystanders 
near,  as  its  absence  would  betray  the  fact  of  the  denial4 — which  fur 
ther  shows  that  by  this  time  it  was  regarded  as  a  mere  formality, 
without  real  significance.  At  this  period,  however,  the  use  of  confes 
sionals  in  churches  was  rapidly  spreading  and  with  their  universal 
introduction  the  performance  of  imposition  became  an  impossibility. 
Thus  the  rite  which  until  the  thirteenth  century  had  been  regarded 
as  the  one  indispensable  condition  of  reconciliation  and  absolution 
was  discarded  as  useless  and  devoid  of  all  significance.5 

Strictly  speaking,  reconciliation  was  an  episcopal  function.  As  the 
executive  head  of  his  church,  it  was  naturally  part  of  the  duties  of 
the  bishop  to  enforce  its  discipline  and  determine  when  and  how  the 
sinner  who  had  been  ejected  should  be  readmitted,  and  we  have  seen 
above  that  to  the  bishop  alone  was  entrusted  the  discretion  of  decid 
ing  whether  the  contrition  of  the  sinner  required  a  reduction  or  pro 
longation  of  the  term  of  penance.  If  reconciliation  had  involved  any 
supernatural  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  if  it  had  concerned  the  forum 
internum  as  well  as  externum,  the  priest  would  have  been  equally 


1  Dom.  Soto  Comment  in  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  iv.  art.  3. 

2  Bellarmin.  Concio  vm.  de  Domin.  4  Adventus  (Opp.  Neapoli,  1861,  T.  VI. 
p.  50). 

3  Zerola,  Praxis   Sacr.   Poenitentise   c.   xxiv.   Q.   4. — Victorelli  Addit.   ad. 
Aphoris.  Confessarior.  Emanuelis  Sa.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  25. 

4  Estius  in  iv.  Sententt.  Dist.  xv.  §  5. 

5  Naturally  this  complete  change  in  practice,  which  infers  a  corresponding 
change  in  dogma,  is  puzzling  to  Catholic  writers.     Palmieri,  as  we  have  seen, 
endeavors  to  show  that  there  were  several  species  of  imposition  of  hands. 
Binterim  (Denkwiirdigkeiten,  Bd.  V.  Theil  n.  p.  453)  tells  us  that  it  is  impos 
sible  to  determine  when  the  rite  disappeared,  but  that  all  trace  of  it  is  lost  after 
the  sixth  century,  except  in  the  solemn  reception  of  public  penitents  on  Ash 
Wednesday  which  is  alluded  to  in  c.  76  of  the  Council  of  Meaux  in  845. 

The  Lutherans  naturally  retained  the  custom  and  considered  that  private 
absolution  was  conferred  by  it. — Steitz,  Die  Privatbeichte  und  Privatabsolution 
der  Lutherischen  Kirche,  n.  §  40  (Frankfurt  a  M.  1854,  p.  143). 


AN  EPISCOPAL  FUNCTION.  55 

competent  to  perform  it,  for  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church  there  was 
no  distinction  between  the  spiritual  functions  of  the  two  offices.  The 
Canons  of  Hippolytus  give  the  same  formula  of  ordination  for  both, 
and  distinctly  assert  that  the  only  difference  between  them  is  in  the 
name  and  in  the  fact  that  the  bishop  alone  can  ordain  j1  and  Jerome 
and  Chrysostom  both  incidentally  say  that  their  functions  are  the 
same,  except  as  to  ordination.2  Thus,  as  a  matter  of  discipline,  the 
infliction  of  penance  and  the  admission  to  reconciliation  naturally  fell 
to  the  bishop,  and  it  is  always  spoken  of  as  performed  by  him  or  by 


1  "  Etiam  eadem  oratio  super  eo  oretur  tota  lit  super  episcopo  cum  sola  ex- 
ceptione  nominis    episcopatus.      Episcopus    in   omnibus   rebus   aequiparetur 
presbytero   excepto  nomine  cathedrae  et  ordinatione,  quia  potestas  ordinandi 
ipsi  non  tribuitur." — Canon.  Hippolyti  c.  IV.  31-2. 

In  this,  as  in  so  much  else,  however,  it  is  impossible  to  assert  that  the  rule 
was  universal.  One  r.ecension  of  the  Egyptian  Ordo,  based  on  Hippolytus, 
says  nothing  about  equality  and  gives  a  different  formula  of  prayer  (Achelis, 
Die  Canones  Hippolyti,  p.  61),  and  this  is  followed  in  the  Apostolic  Constitu 
tions,  vin.  25. 

2  "Quid   enim   facit,  excepta  ordinatione,  episcopus   quod  presbyter   non 
faciat?"— S.  Hieron.  Epist.  CXLVI.  ad  Evangelum. 

So  Chrysostom  in  explaining  why  Paul  alludes  only  to  bishops  and  deacons 
and  not  to  priests,  says  "  Quia  non  multum  spatii  est  inter  presbyteros  et 
episcopos  .  .  .  et  qua3  ille  de  episcopis  dixit  etiam  presbyteris  competunt. 
Sola  namque  ordinatione  superiores  sunt  et  hinc  tantum  videntur  presbyteris 
praestare."— Chrysost.  Homil.  xi.  \  I  in  I.  Timoth. 

In  fact  it  is  fair  to  infer  from  I.  Peter  iv.  10-11  that  at  the  period  when  it 
was  composed  there  were  no  definite  officials  set  apart  for  special  duties  but 
that  each  member  of  the  congregation  performed  such  functions  as  his  gifts 
enabled  him  to  do,  while  from  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (I.  Timoth.  in.)  it  would 
appear  that  at  that  time  there  were  only  bishops  and  deacons,  and  that,  as  the 
churches  grew,  assistants  under  the  name  of  elders  or  priests  were  furnished  to 
the  bishops  and  were  also  placed  over  congregations  springing  up  in  the  smaller 
towns.  These  latter  came  to  be  known  as  chorepiscopi ;  all  were  on  an  equality 
with  the  bishop  as  to  function,  with  the  exception  of  ordination,  which  it  was 
necessary  to  reserve  to  the  bishop  in  order  to  preserve  his  authority  as  execu 
tive  overseer  or  superintendent  of  the  district  or  diocese.  Yet  Aquinas  says 
it  was  an  error  of  the  Arians  to  assert  that  there  was  no  difference  between 
bishops  and  priests  (S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Opusc.  v.)  and  when  the  Bishop  of 
Chartres,  in  1700,  ventured  to  say  that  there  was  no  distinction  between 
bishops  and  priests  under  the  apostles  his  chapter  complained  of  him  to  the 
assembly  of  the  Gallican  Church  which  pronounced  his  assertion  erroneous, 
rash,  scandalous,  etc.  (D'Argentre  Collect.  Judic.  de  no  vis  Erroribus  III.  n. 
413).  For  the  discussion  on  this  subject  see  S.  Alph.  Liguori,  Theol.  Moral 
Lib.  vi.  n.  738. 


56  RECONCILIATION. 

his  authority.1  How  entirely  devoid  of  all  sacramental  character  was 
this  is  seen,  about  the  year  310,  when,  after  the  Maxentian  persecu 
tion,  a  number  of  African  bishops  who  had  been  "  traditores  " — that 
is,  had  surrendered  the  sacred  books  to  the  Pagans — assembled 
together  and  mutually  reconciled  each  other.2 

There  was  no  difficulty  however,  when  the  case  required  it,  in  the 
performance  of  the  ceremony  by  priests  and  deacons.  Although  in 
390  the  second  council  of  Carthage  positively  forbade  priests  from 
administering  public  reconciliation,3  the  third  council  in  397  relaxed 
the  rule  and  permitted  it  when  the  bishop  was  consulted,  and  in  cases 
of  necessity  in  his  absence,4  and  this  must  have  been  by  no  means 
infrequent  with  the  dying.  As  regards  deacons,  we  have  seen  the 
function  confided  to  them,  about  250,  under  Cyprian.  Early  in  the 
fourth  century  the  council  of  Elvira  requires  that  bishops  alone,  to 
the  exclusion  of  priests,  shall  grant  penance,  but  in  case  of  necessity 
in  sickness  priests  can  admit  to  communion  and  even  deacons  by 
command  of  priests.5  This  long  continued  to  be  the  rule  of  the 
Church.  Up  to  the  eleventh  century  the  Carthaginian  canon  con 
tinued  to  be  embodied  in  the  collections,  either  textually  or  in  spirit,6 
and  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop  or  priest,  a  deacon  could  officiate.7 


1     K 


In  societatem  nostram  nonnisi  per  pcenitentiae  remedium  et  per  imposi- 
tionem  episcopalis  manus  communionis  recipiant  unitatem." — Leon.  PP.  I. 
Epist.  CLIX.  c.  6. 

2  Optati  de  Schismate  Donatistarum  Lib.  I.  c.  xix. 

3  Concil.  Carthag.  IT.  ann.  390,  c.  3. 

"  Ut  presbyter  inconsulto  episcopo  non  reconciliet  poenitentem,  nisi  absente 
episcopo  et  necessitate  cogente."— C.  Carthag.  in.  ann.  397,  c.  32. 

This  canon  also  provides  that  when  the  crime  has  been  notorious  the  peni 
tent  shall  receive  the  imposition  of  hands  in  front  of  the  apse,  which  would 
imply  that  there  was  also  a  private  reconciliation.  There  may  have  been  a 
local  custom  of  this  nature,  but  no  other  allusion  is  to  be  found  to  it  anywhere. 

5  Concil.  Eliberit.  can.  32.    It  is  probably  in  allusion  to  death-bed  repentance 
that  the  apostolic  canons  class  bishop  and  priest  together  as  receiving  the 
sinner  back— "Si  quis  episcopus  aut  presbyter  eum  qui  a  peccato  revertitur 
non  recipit  sed  rejicit,  deponitor,  eo  quod  Christum  offendat  qui  dixit  ob  unum 
peccatorum  qui  resipiscat  gaudium  oboriri  in  ccelo."  —  Can.  Apost.  51. 

6  Bened.  Levit.  Capitul.  v.  127,  vn.  202.— Isaaci  Lingonens.  Canon.  I.  35.— 
Eegino  de  Discip.  Eccles.  I.  306.— Burchardi  Deer.  xix.  40,  70.—  Penitent. 
Pseudo-Theodori  c.  5  (Wasserschleben,  Bussordnungen,  p.  571). 

7  Morini  de  Discipl.  Sacram.  Poenitentiae  Lib.  vni.  c.  xxiii.  n.  12.— Martene 
de  antiq.  Ecclesise  Ritibus,  Lib.  i.  c.  vi.  art.  7,  Ord.  2,  10.— Hadriani  PP.  I. 
Epitome   Canonum,   Kegula?    Ancyrani   II.   (Harduin.   Concil.   III".  2036).— 


PERFORMED  B  Y  DEA  CONS.  5  7 

As  reconciliation  gradually  developed  into  absolution  the  irregularity 
of  this  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  keys  by  those  not  in  priest's  orders 
became  recognized  and  efforts  were  made  to  restrict  the  practice 
— efforts  which  only  betrayed  the  consciousness  of  the  incompati 
bility  of  the  ancient  system  of  the  Church  with  the  new  theology, 
while  yet  making  the  fatal  admission  that  extreme  necessity  would 
justify  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  by  deacons.  Thus  the 
council  of  York  in  1196  forbids  deacons  to  baptize,  to  give  the  Eucha 
rist  or  administer  penance  except  under  pressure  of  the  gravest 
necessity:1  and  that  of  London  in  1200  defines  this  necessity  to  be 
when  the  priest  is  unable  or  foolishly  refuses  and  there  is  danger 
of  death.2  Eudes,  Bishop  of  Paris,  in  1198,  utters  the  same  injunc 
tion  and  shows  the  novelty  of  the  principle  involved  by  explaining 
that  deacons  do  not  possess  the  keys  and  cannot  grant  absolution.3 
Peter  Cantor,  about  the  same  time,  takes  the  same  position,  but  adds 
that  they  can  do  so  if  they  have  a  delegated  power  from  the  pope,4 
which  manifests  how  confused  were  the  ideas  of  the  period  as  yet 
concerning  the  mode  by  which  control  of  the  sacraments  could  be 
acquired.  It  was  long  before  deacons  were  finally  excluded  from  the 
function  of  granting  absolution  in  cases  of  necessity.  Even  in  the 
authoritative  Decretals  of  Gregory  IX.,  issued  about  1235,  there  is  a 
curious  canon  to  the  effect  that  robbers  slain  in  the  act  of  robbery  are 
not  to  be  prayed  for,  but  if  they  have  confessed  to  a  priest  or  a  dea 
con  they  may  have  the  Eucharist.5  The  canons  of  various  councils 
to  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  continue  to  admit  that  in  case 

Pseudo-Alcuini  Lib.  de  Divinis  Officiis  c.  13.— Pcenitent.  Floriacens.  (Wasser- 
schleben,  p.  423).— Poenitent.  Merseburg.  a.  (Ibid.  p.  389).— Eeginon.  de  Discip. 
Eccles.  Lib.  I.  c.  296.— Burchardi  Deer.  Lib.  xix.  c.  154.— Canons  of  ^Ifric 
16  (Thorpe's  Ancient  Laws,  II.  349).— Fez  Thesaur.  Anecd.  II.  n.  611.— Ivon. 
Deer.  P.  xvi.  c.  161,  162.— Stephani  Augustodun.  de  Sacram.  Altaris  c.  vii. 
(Migne,  CLXII.  1279). 

This  assertion  of  Stephen  of  Autun  called  forth  a  special  correction  by 
Brisighelli  in  his  expurgation  of  the  Fathers.  Index  Expurg.  Brasichillens. 
Romse  (Bergomi)  1608. 

1  Concil.  Eboracens.  ann.  1196,  c.  4  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1931). 

2  Concil.  Londinens.  ann.  1200,  c.  3  (Ibid.  1958). 

3  Odonis  Paris.  Synod.  Constit.  c.  56  (Ibid.  1946). 

4  Morini  de  Discipl.  Sacram.  Poenitent.  Lib.  viil.  c.  xxiii.  n.  14. 

5  C.  2  Extra  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xviii.     Singularly  enough  this  purports  to  be  taken 
from  the  council  of  Tribur,  in  895,  which  in  c.  31  has  a  similar  prescription,  but 
it  says  nothing  about  deacons  and  only  alludes  to  confessions  to  priests. 


58  RECONCILIATION. 

of  necessity  deacons  can  grant  valid  absolution,  although  sometimes 
the  good  fathers  seek  to  hedge  by  adding  the  incompatible  propo 
sition  that  deacons  have  not  the  power  of  the  keys.1  Gradually, 
however,  the  practice  became  forbidden.  In  1268  the  council  of 
Clermont  prohibits  deacons  from  hearing  confessions  and  priests 
from  committing  that  office  to  them  as  they  have  not  the  power  to 
bind  and  to  loose.2  In  1280  Gautier,  Bishop  of  Poitiers,  speaks  of 
it  as  a  prevalent  abuse,  arising  from  ignorance,  which  must  be  eradi 
cated,  and  he  proceeds  to  argue  against  it  in  a  manner  to  show  that 
the  scholastic  theology  had  not  yet  penetrated  to  the  rural  parishes.3 
The  prohibition  triumphed  finally  everywhere,  however,  though  strin 
gent  laws  were  still  requisite  to  prevent  the  administration  of  the 
sacrament  of  penitence  by  deacons,  which  had  become  a  most  serious 
offence  as  it  was  deluding  souls  to  perdition.  In  1574  Gregory 
XIII.,  in  1601  Clement  VIII.  and  in  1628  Urban  VIII.  issued  bulls 
which  pointed  out  that  absolution  granted  by  any  one  not  in  priest's 
orders  was  null  and  void.  The  offender  was  handed  over  to  the 
Inquisition ;  if  over  the  age  of  twenty  he  was  to  be  degraded  and 
relaxed  to  the  secular  arm  to  be  put  to  death,  and  ignorance  was 
declared  to  be  no  excuse.4  This  apparently  remains  the  law  of  the 


1  Concil.  Eotomagens.  aim.  1231,  c.  36  (Harduin.  VII.  189).— Constitt.  S. 
Edmundi  Cantuarens.  circa  1236,  c.  12  (Harduin.  VII.  269).— Constitt,  Wal- 
theri  de  Kirkham  Episc.  Dunelm.  ami.  1255  (Ibid.  p.  492). — Nich.  Gelant. 
Episc.  Andegav.  Synod.  XV.  ami.  1273,  c.  1  (D'Achery  Spicileg.  I.  731). — 
Statuta  Eccles.  Meldens.  c.  77  (Martene  Thesaur.  I.  904). 

This  is  so  completely  destructive  of  the  accepted  sacramental  theory  that 
efforts  are  naturally  made  to  argue  it  away.  Palrnieri  however  can  only  assert 
(Tract,  de  Pcenit.  p.  166)  that  all  this  refers  to  reconciliation  and  not  to  absolu 
tion,  in  which  he  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  words  of  the  statutes  themselves. 

2  C.  Claromontens.  ann.  1268,  c.  7  (Harduin.  VII.  596,  599). 

3  Constitt.  Gaulteri  Episc.  Pictav.  ann.  1280,  c.  5  (Ibid.  p.  851).   Pere  Guillois 
endeavors  to  meet  this  difficulty  of  the  administration  of  a  sacrament  by  dea 
cons  by  assuming  that  anciently  there  were  two  kinds  of  reconciliation,  perfect 
and  imperfect,  of  which  the  latter  could  be  performed  by  deacons  as  it  had 
been  preceded  by  absolution  granted  by  the  priest  (Guillois,  History  of  Con 
fession,  translated  by  Louis  de  Goesbriand,  Bishop  of  Burlington ;  New  York, 
1889,  p.  133).     Of  course  there  are  no  facts  on  which  to  base  such  a  theory. 

4  Gregor.  PP.  XIII.  Const.  21,   Officii  nostri,  6  Aug.    1574   (Mag.  Bullar. 
Eoman.  II.  415).— Clement.  PP.  VIII.  Const.  81,  Etsi  alias,  1  Dec.  1601  (Bullar. 
III.  142).— Urbani  PP.  VIII.  Constit.  79,  Apostolatus  offidum  23  Mar.  1628 
(Bullar.  IV.  144).— Cf.  Marc.  Paul.  Leonis  Praxis  ad  Litt.  Maior.  Poenitentiar. 


IN  SOLEUM  PENANCE.  59 

Church,  and  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  change  wrought  by  the 
elaboration  of  the  sacramental  theory. 

Although  during  the  middle  ages  public  penance  became  almost 
obsolete,  as  we  have  seen,  yet  it  still  retained  its  place  in  theory  and 
served  the  theologians  as  a  means  of  reconciling  the  old  formulas 
with  the  new  practice.  The  questions  connected  with  the  transition 
from  reconciliation  to  absolution  will  be  considered  hereafter,  and 
meanwhile  it  will  suffice  to  observe  that  although  public  reconciliation 
had  been  freely  delegated  to  priests  and  deacons  not  only  at  a  time 
when  it  was  the  only  process  known  but  subsequently  when  private 
reconciliation  was  gradually  supplanting  it,  yet  when  the  process  was 
fully  accomplished  there  was  a  revival  of  the  old  rule  that  it  apper 
tained  strictly  to  the  episcopal  office.  About  the  middle  of  the  twelfth 
century  Peter  Lombard  repeats  the  Carthaginian  canon  which  pro 
hibited  the  priest  from  granting  reconciliation,  except  in  case  of 
necessity,  without  consulting  the  bishop,  and  makes  no  attempt  to 
harmonize  this  with  the  existing  earnest  effort  to  render  confession 
universal  and  frequent  and  to  bring  every  one  under  control  of  the 
parish  priest,  but  Gratian  in  giving  the  same  canon  rather  clumsily 
seeks  to  evade  this  difficulty  by  applying  it  to  excommunicates  who 
by  this  time  were  by  no  means  necessarily  the  same  as  penitents.1 
When  the  sacramental  system  and  annual  confession  had  been  estab 
lished  with  the  distinction  between  public  or  solemn  and  private 
penance  it  became  the  recognized  rule  that  only  bishops  could  impose 
solemn  penance  and  reconcile  for  it,  or  priests  to  whom  they  delegated 
the  faculty.2  It  was  by  this  time  administered  only  for  reserved  cases, 
and  even  in  them  it  was  scarce  more  than  a  theoretical  prescription, 
recognized  in  the  books  but  forgotten  in  practice. 

The  question  as  to  the  administration  of  death-bed  reconciliation 
has  already  been  incidentally  alluded  to  and  will  require  but  brief 
consideration.  The  subject  is  obscure,  the  practice  of  the  Church  was 
not  uniform,  and  the  questions  concerning  it  are  complicated  by  the 


Mediolani,  1665,  p.  297.— Ferraris,  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  Art.  1.  n. 
58,  59. 

1  P.  Lombard.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xx.  \  6.— Gratiani  Deer.  can.  xiv.  Cans.  xxvi. 
Q.6. 

2  Durandi  Spec.  Juris  Lib.  I.  Partic.  1,  §  5,  n.  22. — Astesani  Summse  de  Casi- 
bus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxv.  Q.  3. 


60  RECONCILIATION. 

difference  which  at  times  was  recognized,  as  we  have  seen,  between 
reconciliation  and  admission  to  communion.  The  epistle  of  the 
Roman  clergy  to  Cyprian  after  the  Decian  persecution,  quoted 
above,  advises  that  the  truly  penitent  be  granted  reconciliation  at 
death,  without  prejudice  to  the  judgment  of  God.  Cyprian  himself 
takes  the  ground  that  those  who  have  not  repented  during  life  are 
not  to  be  received  to  reconciliation  and  communion  when  in  fear  of 
impending  death.1  The  council  of  Elvira,  held  probably  in  313, 
under  the  influence  of  the  rigid  Hosius  of  Cordova,  gives  a  long  list 
of  sins  for  which  communion  is  to  be  denied  on  the  death-bed,  im 
plying  of  course  also  the  refusal  of  reconciliation.  At  Nicgea,  in  325, 
in  spite  of  the  presence  of  Hosius,  the  laxer  party  triumphed  and  it 
was  ordered  that  communion  was  never  to  be  refused  to  the  dying 
who  asked  for  it.  Yet  at  Sardica  in  347,  where  Hosius  again  was  the 
dominant  spirit,  it  was  ordered  that  any  bishop  translated  from  one 
see  to  another  should  be  deprived  of  communion,  and  if  he  had  in 
trigued  for  the  change  he  was  not  to  be  readmitted  even  at  death.2 
The  matter  remained  in  doubt,  for  it  formed  one  of  the  questions  put 
by  Exsuperius,  Bishop  of  Toulouse,  to  Innocent  I.  about  405.  Inno 
cent  replied  that  there  had  been  two  customs  in  the  Church  ;  one,  more 
rigid,  during  the  period  of  persecution,  granted  penance,  but  denied 
communion  to  those  who  after  a  life  of  pleasure  asked  for  penance 
and  the  reconciliation  of  communion ;  but  after  God  gave  peace  to 
the  Church  a  milder  rule  was  introduced  and  communion  was  grantee 
as  a  viaticum  in  view  of  the  mercy  of  God  and  to  avoid  appearing  to 
follow  the  harshness  of  the  Novatians.3  This  practice  prevailed. 
Coelestin  I.  soon  afterwards  in  a  decretal,  which  passed  into  all  the 


"Nee  dignus  est  in   morte  recipere   solatium  qui   se  non  cogitavit  esse 
moriturum."— Cypriani  Epist.  55. 

2  C.  Sardicens.  ann.  347,  c.  1,  2.     Hosius  was  a  man  of  the  highest  repute 
Before  the  council  of  Nicaea  Constantine  sent  him  to  Alexandria  to  suppress 
the  Arian  heresy  (Sozomen.  H.  E.  1. 17).   Eusebius  says  of  him,  in  describing  the 
council  of  Nic&a  "Ab  ipsa  quoque  Hispania  vir  ille  multo  omnium  sermons 
celebratus,  unacum   reliquis  aliis  consedit "  (Euseb.  Vit.  Constant,  in.  7.- 
Socratis  H.  E.  i.  8,  13). 

3  Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  6,  c.  2.     The  expression  "  reconciliationem  conr 
munionis  "  is  noteworthy,  as  showing  that  the  distinction  between  communior 
and  reconciliation  was  not  recognized  in  Eome,  though  it  had  been  in  the 
councils  of  Nicsea  and  Carthage,  and  continued  to  be  in  those  of  Orange  anc 
Aries. 


ON  THE  DEATH-BED.  61 

collections  of  canons,  speaks  with  horror  of  those  who  refused  to 
receive  to  penance  the  dying  seeking  for  it,  as  though  they  despaired 
of  the  mercy  of  God  who  carried  to  Paradise  the  penitent  thief  for  a 
single  word.1  We  have  seen  however  that  the  viaticum  did  not 
always  imply  reconciliation  and  that  precautions  were  taken  to  avoid 
emit  'erring  the  latter  with  the  former.  On  the  other  hand  there  arose 
a  custom  of  posthumous  reconciliation,  whereby  those  undergoing 
penance  and  dying  without  the  opportunity  of  communicating  re 
ceived  Christian  burial,  their  memories  were  included  in  the  services 
and  oblations  made  for  them  were  accepted.2  Finally  Leo  I.,  while 
warning  sinners  of  the  danger  of  delaying  repentance  and  satisfaction 
to  the  last,  laid  down  the  positive  rule  that  the  dying  who  asked  for 
it  should  receive  both  penance  and  reconciliation ;  if  the  moribund 
had  become  speechless  when  the  priest  arrived,  the  testimony  of  the 
bystanders  as  to  his  desire  sufficed  and  the  rites  were  to  be  administered 
— a  decision  which  was  carried  through  the  collections  of  canons  and 
has  remained  the  law  of  the  Church  since  the  old  reconciliation 
became  the  new  absolution.3  Yet  in  spite  of  the  authority  of  St. 
Leo  his  precept  did  not  receive  universal  obedience,  for  some  of  the 
rigid  prescriptions  of  the  council  of  Elvira  still  continued  occasionally 
to  show  themselves  in  the  collections  of  canons.4 

The  efficacy  of  these  final  rites  was  a  matter  about  which  the  Church 


1  Ccelest.  PP.  I.  Epist.  iv.  c.  2  (Gratian.  c.  13  Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vi.). 

2  Concil.  Vasens.  I.  ann.  442,  c.  2. 

3  Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist.  108,  c.  5.— Gratian.  c.  10,  Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vi.— Kodulfi 
Bituricens.  Capit.  c.  44  (Migne  CXIX.  724).     During  the  middle  ages  in  some 
places  when  there  was  a  doubt  as  to  death-bed  repentance  it  was  necessary  for 
a  friend  to  prove  it  by  undergoing  the  cold-water  ordeal  before  Christian 
burial  was  accorded  to  the  corpse.     Very  moderate  external  evidence  however 
sufficed.     At  a  time  when  all  participating  in  tournaments  were  subject  to  ipso 
facto  excommunication  a  knight  slain  in  one  was  refused  sepulture.      His 
friends  appealed  to  the  pope  and  proved  that  his  right  hand  had  been  raised 
to  his  face  as  though  to  make  the  sign  of  the  cross;  this  was  admitted  as 
showing  his   repentance   and   he  was  duly  interred  in   consecrated  ground. 
(Dollinger,  Beitrage  zur  Sektengeschichte  des  Mittelalters,  Miinchen,  1890,  II. 
622-3.)   Leo  I.  was  more  rigid ;  if  a  penitent  died  before  the  completion  of  his 
penance  and  prevented  by  some  obstacle  from  receiving  the  viaticum,  he  was 
refused  the  services  of  the  Church;  it  was  useless  to  discuss  his  acts  and 
merits,  for  God  had  reserved  him  to  his  own  judgment  (Epist.  108  c.  2). 

4  Canon.  Ingelramni  Ixii.  (Hartzheim  Concil.  German.  I.  256). — Pcenitent. 
Pseudo-Gregor.  III.  c.  4, 12, 14  (Wasserschleben,  Bussordnungen,  pp.  539,  541). 


62  RECONCILIATION. 

was  long  in  coming  to  a  decision.  We  have  seen  that  St.  Augustin 
considered  death-bed  repentance  and  reconciliation  as  a  doubtful 
matter  with  the  chances  against  the  penitent.1  A  homily  variously 
attributed  to  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustin  and  St.  Csesarius  of  Aries 
takes  the  same  ground — the  wishes  of  the  dying  are  to  be  gratified, 
but  no  promises  are  to  be  made,  and  there  is  no  presumption  in  favor 
of  the  sinner.2  The  severer  virtue  of  St.  Salvianus  regards  as  useless 
the  repentance  postponed  till  there  is  no  time  to  redeem  sin  by  pro 
longed  penance,  and  of  course  priestly  ministrations  in  such  case, 
could  effect  nothing.3  On  the  other  hand  the  great  advocate  of 
sacerdotalism,  Gregory  I.,  illustrates  the  efficiency  and  necessity  of 
priestly  intervention  by  the  story  of  the  priest  Severus  who  on  being 
summoned  to  a  dying  man  delayed  in  order  to  finish  pruning  his 
vines,  and  on  reaching  the  spot  found  that  he  had  been  anticipated 
by  death.  His  remorse  at  thus  slaying  a  soul  was  so  intense  that  the 
dead  was  brought  to  life,  performed  penance  for  seven  days  and 
passed  away  happily.4  Then  again  the  Penitential  of  Gregory  III. 
in  repeating  the  prescription  that  if  the  priest  finds  the  patient 
delirious  or  speechless,  he  is  to  perform  the  rites  and  pour  the  Eucha 
rist  down  his  throat,  adds  that  the  result  depends  on  the  judgment  of 
God.5  Finally  when  the  schoolmen  had  worked  out  the  theory  of 
contrition,  of  infused  grace  and  of  purgatory,  Peter  Lombard  tells 
us  that  death-bed  repentance  may  save  from  hell  and  the  penance  be 
replaced  by  purgatory,  or  that  contrition  may  be  so  ardent  that  it  will 
suffice  in  itself  as  full  punishment  for  sin.6 


1  S.  Augustin.  Serm.  cccxciu. 

2  "  Fateor  vobis  non  illi  negamus  quod  petit,  sed  nee  prsesumo  quia  bene  hinc 
exit ;  non  prsesumo,  non  polliceor,  non  dico,  non  vos  fallo,  non  vos  decipio,  non 
vobis   promitto.     .     .     .     Pcenitentiam   dare   possum,   securitatem   dare   non 
possum." — S.  Caesar.  Arelatens.  Homil.  xix. 

3  Salviani  adv.  Avaritiam  Lib.  I.  $.  10. 

4  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Dialog,  iv.  12 

5  Po3nitent.  Pseudo-Gregor.  c.  31  (Wasserschleben,  p.  546). 

6  P.  Lombard.  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xx.  $  1.     "Nisi  forte  tanta  sit  vehe- 
mentia  gemitus  et  contritionis  quse  sufficiat  ad  delicti  punitionem." 


CHAPTEK    Y. 

THE    HEKESIES. 

THUS  far  we  have  been  considering  the  theories  and  practices 
which,  however  divergent  and  even  contradictory,  were  yet  held  to 
conie  within  the  limits  of  orthodoxy.  In  the  fluid  condition  of 
dogma  much  freedom  of  opinion  was  allowed,  and  indeed  was  inevit 
able,  especially  as  there  was  as  yet  no  central  source  of  authority, 
short  of  the  cumbrous  device  of  a  general  council,  to  decide  between 
different  opinions,  and  when  debates  arose  it  was  not  easy  to  foretell 
which  would  be  finally  accepted  as  orthodox  by  a  general  consensus. 
If  a  hardy  disputant  differed  from  his  bishop  and  refused  submission, 
he  would  be  excommunicated  ;  if  he  had  followers,  and  if  the  neigh 
boring  bishops  or  the  patriarch  concurred 'in  the  sentence,  a  sect  arose 
which  was  freely  anathematized  and  consigned  to  perdition.  Or  the 
Theresiarch  might  himself  refuse  obedience,  defiantly  proclaim  his 
independence,  and  gather  what  disciples  he  could.  Thus  through 
endless  debates  and  more  or  less  peaceful  clash  of  opinions  the  struc 
ture  of  doctrine  and  practice  gradually  arose,  and  the  simple  teachings 
of  the  Master  developed  into  a  complicated  mass  of  theology  and 
ritual,  absorbing  many  elements  from  speculative  philosophy  and 
pagan  observance.  The  tenets  which  had  satisfied  the  needs  of  the 
little  Ebionitic  band  at  Jerusalem  were  manifestly  insufficient  for  the 
cravings  of  the  Athenian  schools  and  the  cultured  courts  of  Rome 
or  Constantinople,  and  the  effort  to  enlarge  them  so  as  to  meet  these 
growing  demands  necessarily  led  to  many  tentative  developments 
which  in  failing  to  be  generally  received  became  naturally  stigmatized 
as  heretical.  Struggles  there  were  also  between  rival  factions  for 
power,  and  as  these  either  grew  out  of  some  doubtful  point  of  belief  or 
practice,  or  created  in  their  development  antagonisms  on  such  matters, 
each  side  held  the  other  to  be  heretical  and  the  ultimate  decision  as 
to  orthodoxy  depended  upon  which  should  finally  triumph.  In  this 
confused  medley  of  warring  opinions  our  special  subject  did  not 
figure  largely  ;  for  the  most  part  the  differences  which  we  have  noted 


64  THE  HERESIES. 

excited  no  particular  animosities  and  were  allowed  to  coexist.  Few 
heresies  arose  from  them,  and  the  consideration  of  these  need  not 
detain  us  long. 

The  earliest  of  the  heresies  which  is  usually  asserted  to  be  con 
cerned  with  the  pardon  of  sins  is  that  of  the  Montanists,  otherwise 
known  as  Cathari  or  Pure,  Cataphrygse,  Phrygastse,  Pepuzeni  or 
Tascodrugitse,  who  are  said  to  have  denied  all  pardon  to  sinners. 
Yet  it  would  seem  more  than  doubtful  whether  errors  on  this  subject 
formed  a  portion  of  their  beliefs.  Montanus,  we  are  told,  nourished 
in  Phrygia  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  Antoninus  Pius  (A.  D.  156-7),. 
where  he  proclaimed  himself  the  Paraclete  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  gifted 
with  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  His  followers  reverenced  him  and  hi& 
two  leading  female  disciples,  Priscilla  and  Maximilla,  as  prophets, 
ranking  them  even  above  Christ  and  their  writings  as  superior  to 
Scripture.  In  their  ardent  seeking  for  purity  they  prohibited  as- 
some  say  marriage  and  as  others  say  second  marriages,  but  none  of 
the  earlier  authorities  allude  to  any  refusal  by  them  to  admit  sinners 
to  penance,  an  assertion  which  makes  its  first  appearance  towards  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century  in  Jerome,  though  even  then  his  contem 
porary  Epiphanius,  who  made  a  special  study  of  heresies,  is  silent  as 
to  this  feature  of  their  doctrines,  while  saying  that  they  were  still 
numerous  in  Phrygia,  Cappadocia,  Cilicia  and  Constantinople.1  It 
is  probable  that  the  ascription  of  this  implacability  to  them  has  arisen 
from  the  rigor  of  their  most  conspicuous  convert,  Tertullian,  who 
after  combating  their  heresy  adopted  it.  He  seems  to  have  been 
alarmed  at  a  tendency  manifested  to  exalt  the  functions  of  the  Church 
in  the  remission  of  sins  and  his  protest  took  the  shape  of  quoting  I. 
John  v.  16,2  and  dividing  sins  into  remissible  and  irremissible — peni- 


1  Hippolyti  Refut.  Omn.  Hseres.  vm.  19.— Tertull.  de  Prsescriptionibus  cap. 
lii.— Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  16,  18,  19.— Philastrii  Lib.  de  Hseres.  n.  LXXXIII.— 
Epiplian.  Panar.  Haeres.  48. — S.  Basilii  Epist.  CanoD.  i.  1. 

St.  Jerome  in  384  says  of  the  Montanists  "  Illi  ad  omne  pene  delictum 
ecclesia3  obserant  fores"  (Epist.  XLI.  n.  3,  ad  Marcellam)  and  in  399  he  classes 
Montanus  with  Novatus  as  refusing  admission  to  penance  (Epist.  LXXVII.  n.  5 
ad  Oceanum).  Possibly  this  may  be  true  of  the  Cathari  who  are  spoken  of  by 
Basil  the  Great  (loc.  cit.}  as  a  branch  of  the  sect.  St.  Augustin  makes  no  allu 
sion  to  any  special  rigor  as  to  penitence  but  tells  a  wild  story  as  to  their  using 
the  blood  of  an  infant  in  place  of  the  Eucharist.— S.  August,  de  Haeresibus 

XXVI.,  XXXII. 

"  He  that  knoweth  his  brother  to  sin  a  sin  which  is  not  to  death,  let  him 


THE  MONTANISTS.  65 

tence  and  the  intercession  of  the  faithful  secure  pardon  of  the  one;  for 
the  other,  man  can  assume  nothing  save  that  penitence  will  not  be  in 
vain ;  though  man  may  withhold  pardon  the  reward  will  come  from 
God.1  It  was  in  no  sense  a  denial  of  the  power  of  repentance  to  wash 
out  mortal  sin ;  it  was  merely  an  assertion  that  the  wholesome  discipline 
of  the  Church  though  binding  on  earth  was  not  binding  in  Heaven. 
Tertullian  soon  wearied  of  his  Montanist  alliance,  though  his  aggres 
sive  and  independent  spirit  would  not  permit  his  return  to  the  ranks 
of  the  orthodox.  He  founded  a  church  of  his  own  in  Carthage, 
which  was  still  in  existence  in  the  early  years  of  the  fifth  century, 
but  it  had  dwindled  away  and  St.  Augustiii  chronicles  the  reception 
of  the  survivors  and  of  their  property  by  the  Catholics  in  his  time.2 
There  was  in  fact  little  or  nothing  to  distinguish  the  views  of  Ter 
tullian  from  those  which  were  regarded  as  perfectly  consistent  with 
orthodoxy,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  St.  Cyprian  mentions  that  in  his 
time  there  were  African  bishops  who  would  not  admit  repentant 
adulterers  to  reconciliation. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Nbvatus  and  Novatianus,  whose  so-called 
heresy  was  in  reality  only  a  schism,  to  which  vastly  greater  impor 
tance  has  been  customarily  ascribed  than  it  is  really  entitled  to.  The 
epistles  of  Cyprian  show  how  vague  and  uncertain,  in  the  middle  of 
the  third  century,  were  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Church  as  to 
the  readmission  of  sinners  to  peace  and  reconciliation.  The  African 
Church,  after  the  Decian  persecution,  was  in  an  uproar ;  the  lapsed 
were  clamoring  for  readmission ;  a  strong  faction  urged  that  they 
should  be  gratified  without  undergoing  due  penance;  Cyprian  re- 


ask  and  life  shall  be  given  to  him  who  sinneth  not  to  death.     There  is  a  sin 
unto  death :  for  that  I  say  not  that  any  man  ask." 

1  Secundum  hanc  differential!!  delictorum  poanitentia?  quoque  conditio  dis- 
criminatur.    Alia  erit  quse  veniam  consequi  possit,  in  delicto  scilicet  remissibili ; 
alia  quse  consequi  nullo  modo  possit,  in  delicto  scilicet  irremissibili." — Tertull. 
de  Pudicit.  c.  ii. 

"  Et  si  pacem  hie  non  metit,  apud  Dominum  serninat :  nee  amittit  sed  prse- 
paret  fructum ;  non  vacabit  ab  emolument©  si  non  vacaverit  ab  officio.  Ita 
nee  poenitentia  hujusmodi  vana,  nee  disciplina  ejusmodi  dura  est.  Deum 
ambse  honorant." — Ibid.  c.  iii. 

But  amendment  is  indispensable — "Sed  etsi  venia  est  potius  poenitentiaa 
fructus,  hanc  quoque  consistere  non  licet  sine  cessatione  delicti.  Ita  cessatio 
delicti  radix  est  venise  ut  venia  sit  pcenitentiae  fructus." — Ibid.  cap.  x. 

2  S.  Augustini  de  Hseresibus  n.  LXXXVI. 

I.— 5 


66  THE  HERESIES. 

sisted  until  it  nearly  cost  him  his  see  and  then  he  yielded  under 
pretext  of  arming  the  sinners  for  another  impending  persecution. 
The  Roman  Church  Avas  involved  in  the  same  troubles.  In  January 
250  Pope  Fabianus  was  martyred  and  after  an  interregnum  of  about 
a  year  his  successor  Cornelius  was  chosen  to  the  perilous  dignity. 
A  large  portion  of  the  Roman  Christians,  led  by  Trophimus,  a  priest 
who  had  sacrificed  to  idols,  refused  to  acknowledge  him,  doubtless 
for  the  purpose  of  forcing  him  to  admit  them  to  reconciliation.  He 
yielded  and  admitted  Trophimus  to  communion.1  This  was  a  serious 
offence,  especially  in  view  of  the  turbulent  conduct  of  the  lapsed  who 
demanded  reconciliation.  It  was  just  at  this  time  that  the  Car 
thaginian  clergy  refused  communion  to  a  priest  and  deacon  who 
had  communed  with  the  lapsed,  and  Cyprian  approved  of  it  and 
ordered  it  extended  to  any  who  might  commune  with  the  offenders. 
Moreover,  not  long  afterwards,  among  the  misdeeds  of  Fortunatus 
and  Felicissimus,  he  enumerates  the  admission  to  peace  of  the  lapsed 
without  enforcing  due  penance.2  The  laxity  of  Cornelius  naturally 
excited  strong  antagonism.  The  confessors  who  had  survived  refused 
to  acknowledge  him  and  the  Roman  Church  was  in  turmoil.  At  this 
juncture  Novatus,  a  Carthaginian  priest  whom  Cyprian  describes  as 
the  leader  of  the  opposition  to  him  and  consequently  as  stained  with 
every  vice,  hurried  to  Rome.3  What  share  he  had  in  the  subsequent 
disturbances  we  do  not  precisely  know,  but  he  seems  to  have  organ 
ized  the  opponents  of  Cornelius,  who  elected  as  the  first  antipope 
Novatianus,  an  aged  priest  of  exemplary  character  and  learning. 
Cornelius  says,  in  a  letter  to  Fabian  of  Antioch,  that  Novatianus  got 
together  three  ignorant  bishops  of  obscure  Italian  sees,  made  them 
drunk  and  forced  them  to  ordain  him,  but  this  may  safely  be  set 
down  as  part  of  the  exaggerations  customary  in  the  ecclesiastical 
squabbles  of  the  period.4  The  rivals  at  once  endeavored  to  secure 
support,  sending  envoys  and  letters  to  all  the  churches.  A  synod 
of  sixty  bishops  held  in  Rome  accepted  Cornelius  and  condemned 
Novatianus,  and  the  Roman  Christians  generally  submitted,  but  else 
where  there  was  dissension.  Cyprian  cautiously  waited  till  he  could 
receive  the  report  of  two  bishops  whom  he  sent  to  Rome  to  investigate 
the  case ;  it  was  favorable  to  Cornelius  and  Cyprian  acknowledged 


1  Cypriani  Epist.  LV.  2  S.  Cypriani  Epist.  xxxiv.,  LVIII. 

3  Ibid.  Epist.  LII.  4  Eusebii  H.  E.  vi.  xliii. 


THE  NO  VA  TIANS.  Q  7 

him.  So  did  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  but  St.  Firmilian  of  Cappa- 
docia  and  Theoctistus  of  Palestine  called  a  council  at  Antioch  in  sup 
port  of  Novatianus,  and  Marcianus  of  the  great  Gallic  see  of  Aries 
was  energetic  in  his  favor.  Each  side  endeavored  to  supplant  the 
other  by  getting  bishops  favorable  to  them  elected  in  ail  the  sees  of 
their  opponents  and  a  schism  was  fairly  started.1 

It  naturally  became  the  fashion  of  the  orthodox  controversialists 
to  exaggerate  the  rigor  of  the  Novatians,  or  Mundi  or  Cathari  as  they 
called  themselves,  and  to  ascribe  to  them  the  teaching  that  God  was 
unforgiving,  penitence  useless,  and  the  case  of  the  sinner  hopeless.2 
It  is  true  that  in  their  debates  they  occasionally  used  a  text  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  would  seem  to  justify  this  position,3 
but  in  reality  their  practice  differed  little  if  any  from  that  of  many 
churches  which,  by  acknowledging  the  line  of  Roman  bishops,  wrere 
held  to  be  thoroughly  orthodox — that  is,  there  were  certain  sins  for 
which  they  refused  communion  and  reconciliation  to  the  last.  One 
of  the  accusations  brought  against  Novatianus  by  Cyprian  was  that 
he  pardoned  adulterers  and  refused  to  receive  to  penitence  libellatici, 
or  those  who  during  persecution  had  purchased  exemption  by  pro 
curing  libelli  attesting  their  paganism  from  the  officials,  and  he 
admits  that  Novatianus  urged  sinners  to  repentance,  while  refusing 
them  readmission  to  the  Church.4  The  epistle  of  the  Roman  clergy 


1  Cypriani  Epist.  XLIV.,  XLV.,  XLVI.,  XLVII.,  XLVIII.,  XLIX.,  L.,  LI.,  LV., 
LVIII.— Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  xliv.,  vn.  viii. 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  43.— Hilarii  Pictaviens.  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxxxviu.  n.   8. — 
Paciani  contra  Novatianos  Epist.  iii. — Epiphan.  Panar.  Hseres.  LIX. — Philas- 
trii  Lib.  de  Hseres.  n.  xxxiv. — Zacchsei  Consultationum  Lib.  n.  c.  xvii.  xviii. 
St.  Augustin  adds  that  they  forbade  second  marriages. — S.  August,  de  Haeresibus 

XXXVIII. 

"  For  it  is  impossible  for  those  who  were  once  illuminated,  have  tasted  of 
the  heavenly  gift  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

"  Have  moreover  tasted  the  good  word  of  God  and  the  powers  of  the  world 
to  come, 

"And  are  fallen  away :  to  be  renewed  again  to  penance,  crucifying  again  to 
themselves  the  Son  of  God,  and  making  him  a  mockery." — Hebrews,  vi.  4-6. 
Cf.  S.  Ambros.  de  Prenitent.  Lib.  n.  c.  ii. 

They  also  quoted  Matt.  xn.  31-2  concerning  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  were  naturally  unable  to  define  it. 

4  Cypriani  Epist.  LV.  Cyprian  in  the  heat  of  controversy  became  subse 
quently  more  fervid  in  his  descriptions  of  the  errors  of  Novatianus— "  ut 
servis  Dei  pcenitentibus  et  dolentibus  .  .  .  lenitatis  paternse  solatia  et 


68  THE  HERESIES. 

to  Cyprian  in  250,  prior  to  the  election  of  Cornelius,  is  ascribed  to 
Novatianus  :  in  it  the  position  is  taken  that  the  ancient  rules  must 
be  observed,  in  spite  of  the  turbulence  of  the  lapsed,  clamoring  for 
reconciliation  ;  those  who  die,  showing  marks  of  true  contrition,  may 
be  helped  and  the  result  left  in  the  hands  of  God.1  It  is  quite  possible 
that  the  laxity  shown  by  Cornelius  may  have  reacted  on  Novatianus 
and  rendered  him  somewhat  more  rigid,  for  in  the  letters  which  he  sent 
to  the  churches,  after  his  schismatic  election  to  the  papacy,  he  urged 
them  not  to  admit  to  communion  those  who  had  sacrificed  to  demons 
but  to  excite  them  to  repentance  and  leave  the  question  of  reconcilia 
tion  to  God,  with  whom  it  lay  to  reconcile  sinners.2 

St.  Ambrose  thus  was  mistaken  in  saying  that  Novatianus  taught 
that  penance  was  not  to  be  assigned  to  any  one,  but  he  is  correct  in 
describing  the  Novatians  of  his  time  as  admitting  the  efficacy  of 
repentance  for  minor  sins  and  leaving  the  graver  ones  for  God.3 
The  habit  of  exaggerating  the  opinions  of  an  opponent,  so  customary 
in  secular  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  polemics,  could  not,  however,  be 
restrained,  and  the  Catholics  continued  to  ascribe  to  them  the  pitiless 
condemnation  of  all  sinners,  in  spite  of  their  assertions  that  they  only 
deprived  of  communion  those  guilty  of  mortal  sin.4  Probably  they 
only  followed  the  custom  which  was  prevalent  in  many  orthodox 
churches  of  denying  death-bed  communion  and  reconciliation  for 
the  graver  sins  of  idolatry,  fornication  and  homicide.  The  diver 
gent  tendency  of  the  Church  is  strikingly  exhibited  in  the  contem 
poraneous  councils  of  Elvira  and  Ancyra,  both  held  about  314  to 
reorganize  the  faithful  after  the  tenth  persecution — the  former  deny 
ing  death-bed  communion  for  many  offences  which  at  the  latter 
were  subjected  to  various  terms  of  penance.  At  Nicsea,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  laxer  party  seems  to  have  obtained  control  and  the  rule 
was  adopted  that  death-bed  communion  should  never  be  denied,  while 
at  Sardica  this  was  disregarded  in  the  case  of  bishops  seeking  trans- 


subsidia  claudantur  .  .  .  sed  sine  spe  pacis  et  communicationis  relicti  ad 
luporum  rapinam  et  prsedam  diaboli  projiciantur." — Epist.  LXVIII.  Cf.  Pseudo- 
Cyprian.  Epist.  ad  Novatianum  (Ed.  Oxon.  App.  pp.  19-20). 

1  Novatiani  Epist.  §§  2,  6,  7  (Migne's  Patrol.  III.  994,  997-1000).— Cypriani 
Epist.  xxx. 

2  Socrat.  H.  E.  iv.  28.  3  Ambros.  de  Poenit.  Lib.  I.  c.  3. 

4  Socrat.  H.  E.  iv.  28,  vn.  25.— Hist.  Tripart.  Lib.  xn.  c.  2.— Sozomen.  H. 
E.  i.  22. 


THE  NO  VA  TIANS.  6  9 

fer  to  other  sees.  The  Novatians  evidently  only  adhered  to  what 
had  been  regarded  as  a  perfectly  proper  exercise  of  the  judgment  of 
the  local  churches. 

That  the  Novatians  Avere  not  considered  as  heretics,  in  spite  of 
their  protest  against  the  growing  sacerdotalism  which  was  commenc 
ing  to  attribute  a  pardoning  power  to  priestly  ministrations,  shows 
that  that  question  had  not  as  yet  become  a  crucial  one,  but  that  it  was 
open  for  all  men  to  entertain  their  own  opinions.1  The  council  of 
Nicsea  invited  them  to  unity  and  promised  that  their  priests  and 
bishops  should  retain  their  positions  where  the  whole  Christian 
community  belonged  to  their  sect,  and  where  there  was  already  a 
Catholic  bishop  they  should  if  they  chose  retain  the  title  and  be 
provided  for.2  Constantine  invited  to  the  council  the  Novatian 
Bishop  Acesius,  who  professed  his  adhesion  to  the  dogmas  there 
adopted  but  refused  to  subscribe  them  and  resisted  the  entreaties  of 
the  emperor  to  join  in  communion  with  them.3  Under  Constantius 
they  were  subjected  with  the  Catholics  to  the  fierce  persecution  of  the 
Arians  :  deprived  of  their  churches,  both  parties  worshipped  together 
and  they  came  near  agreeing  to  join  in  communion,  but  some  unquiet 
spirits  succeeded  in  keeping  them  apart,  until  the  accession  of  Julian 
brought  them  peace  in  common.4  When  in  383  Theodosius  the  Great 
made  an  effort  to  unite  all  the  warring  sects,  he  consulted  Nectarius 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  as  to  the  best  means  of  effecting  it.  Nec 
tarius  applied  for  advice  to  the  Novatian  Bishop  Agelius,  who  in 
turn  called  in  his  lector  Sisinnius,  and  it  was  in  accordance  with  the 
counsel  of  the  latter  that  a  general  colloquy  was  held.  On  its  failure, 
Theodosius  issued  a  severe  edict  to  repress  heresy,  but  the  Novatians 
were  unaffected,  as  their  faith  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Catholics.5 
Thus  they  continued  to  exist,  numerous  and  respected,  with  their 
bishops  alongside  of  those  of  the  Catholics,  especially  in  the  East. 
In  the  West,  in  426,  Ccelestin  I.  found  it  irksome  to  have  a  rival 
bishop  of  Eome,  and  so  persecuted  his  competitor  Kusticus  that  the 


1  The  Council  of  Trent  (Sess.  xiv.  de  Poanit.  c.  1)  evinces  its  customary 
disregard  of  historical  accuracy  in  asserting  that  the  Novatians  were  condemned 
by  the  Fathers  in  consequence  of  their  heretical  denial  of  the  power  of  the 
Church  to  pardon  sin. 

2  Concil.  Nicaen.  I.  c.  8.  3  Sozomen.  H.  E.  i.  22. 

4  Socrat.  H.  E.  n.  38.— Sozomen,  iv.  20.  5  Sozomen.  H.  E.  vii.  12. 


70  THE  HERESIES. 

latter  was  obliged  to  celebrate  in  secret.1  The  growing  power  of  Rome 
throughout  the  Western  Empire  caused  the  Novatians  thereafter  to 
be  treated  as  heretics,  and  in  443  the  council  of  Aries  decreed  that 
they  should  not  be  received  to  communion  unless  they  would  con 
demn  their  errors  and  perform  due  penance.2  As  late  as  the  eighth 
century,  in  the  profession  of  faith  made  by  the  popes  on  their  instal 
lation,  they  were  required  duly  to  curse  Moutanus,  Novatus  and 
Donatus.3  Thus  schism  grew  to  be  heresy  under  the  development  of 
sacerdotalism  and  papal  authority.  Some  modern  writers  have  attri 
buted  to  Novatianism  an  important  change  in  the  practice  of  the 
Church  with  regard  to  penance,  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  that 
effect  :4  it  was  merely  a  protest,  and  an  ineffectual  one,  against  change. 
Innocent  I.  admitted  this  when  he  ascribed  the  relaxation  in  granting 
communion  to  penitents  to  a  desire  to  avoid  seeming  to  follow  the 
harshness  of  the  Novatians.5 

The  heresy  of  the  Donatists  was  a  much  more  serious  one,  which 
for  nearly  three  centuries  plunged  the  whole  African  Church  into  the 
most  deplorable  confusion.  We  have  seen  that  although  clerics  could 
not  be  subjected  to  penance  they  were,  theoretically  at  least,  punished 
with  degradation  for  the  sins  which  entailed  on  laymen  submission  to 
penitence.  When  these  sins  were  notorious  the  corollary  seemed  to 
follow  that  if  man  did  not  degrade  them  God  would  deprive  them  of 
the  power  of  performing  the  mysteries.  Thus  in  the  African  Church 
there  sprung  up  the  belief  that  sinful  priests  and  bishops  were  incap 
able  of  administering  the  Eucharist  or  baptism  or  ordination,  and 
consequently  that  these  rites  when  so  administered  were  invalid,  that 
an  ordination  thus  performed  was  null,  and  a  baptism  must  be  re 
peated.  The  repetition  of  a  baptism  administered  by  heretics  had 
been  a  question  somewhat  hotly  discussed.  Cyprian  and  the  council 
of  Carthage  in  256  had  pronounced  in  its  favor  against  the  dictum 
of  Pope  Stephen.  The  East  followed  the  same  practice,  while  in 
Egypt  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  was  inclined  to  be  neutral ;  he  had 


1  Hist.  Tripart.  xi.  10.— Socrat.  H.  E.  vn.  12. 

2  Concil.  Arelatens.  II.  arm.  443,  c.  9. 

3  Lib.  Diurn.  Eoman.  Pontif.  Tit.  viii. 

4  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Dist.  vi.  Q.  vi.  c.  8  Art.  1  $  2.     For  a  different  view 
see  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  Bd.  V.  Th.  n.  pp.  356-61. 

5  Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  vi.  c.  2. 


THE  DONATISTS.  71 

learned,  he  said,  from  his  preceptor  Heraclas,  to  admit  heretics  with 
out  rebaptism,  but  he  knew  the  other  to  be  the  custom  of  the  most 
populous  churches,  confirmed  by  the  councils  of  Iconium,  Synnada 
and  others,  and  he  was  loath  to  disturb  his  neighbor's  landmarks.1 
Rome  finally  triumphed  though  not  till  after  a  prolonged  struggle. 
The  council  of  Nicsea  required  rebaptism  of  Paulicians  received  into 
the  church.2  In  360,  after  the  council  of  Rimini,  Pope  Liberius  sent 
an  epistle  through  the  provinces  prohibiting  rebaptism,  but  as  late  as 
385  Himerius  of  Tarragona  reports  that  in  Spain  opinions  were  divided 
on  the  subject,  wherefore  he  asks  Pope  Siricius  for  instructions  con 
cerning  Arians  who  were  converted,  and  in  404  Innocent  I.  was  called 
upon  by  Victricius  of  Rouen  to  decide  the  same  question  concerning 
the  Novatians  who  sought  admission  into  the  Church,  while  Basil 
the  Great  treats  it  as  an  open  question  dependent  on  local  custom.3 
Even  St.  Augustin  was  so  carried  away  by  the  heat  of  the  Donatist 
controversy  as  to  assert  his  agreement  with  Cyprian  that  although 
the  heretics  could  baptize  their  baptism  conveyed  no  remission  of 
sin,4  of  which  the  necessary  corollary  was  that  rebaptism  was  essen 
tial  to  salvation.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  antagonism  created  by 
the  Donatists,  with  whom  the  rebaptism  of  Catholics  was  the  most 
prominent  dogma,  may  have  contributed  to  the  ultimate  triumph 
of  the  rule  that  there  can  be  but  one  baptism  whether  administered 
by  Catholic  or  heretic.5 


1  S.  Cypriani  Epist.  LXIX.  LXX.  LXXI.  LXXII.  LXXV.— Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  9. 
— S.  Hieron.  de  Viris  Illust.  c.  Ixix. 

2  C.  Nicsen.  I.  c.  19. 

3  Siricii  PP.  Epist.  i.  c.  1.— Innocent.  PP.  I.  Epist.  n.  c.  8.— S.  Basil.  Epist. 
Canon  I.  1.     Curiously  enough,  the  most  authoritative  of  the  Penitentials,  that 
of  Theodore,  adopts  fully  the  Donatist  heresy  that  baptism  by  a  priest  whose 
sins  are  notorious  is  invalid  and  must  be  repeated—"  Presbyter  fornicans  si 
postquam  compertum  fuerit  baptizaverit,  iterum  baptizentur  illi  quos  baptiza- 
vit."— Pcenit.  Theodori  Lib.  n.  c.  ii.  §  12.     (Wasserschleben  p.  203.) 

"Proinde  consentimus  Cypriano  haereticos  remissionem  dare  non  posse, 
baptismum  autem  dare  posse,  quod  quidem  illis  et  dantibus  et  accipientibus 
valeat  ad  perniciem,  tanquam  tanto  munere  Dei  male  utentibus."— St.  August. 
de  Baptismo  contra  Donatistas  Lib.  iv.  c.  22. 

5  Theory  and  practice  as  to  the  administration  of  baptism  have  undergone 
many  vicissitudes.  Originally  the  rite  was  performed  only  by  bishops.  Towards 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century  we  hear  of  priests  and  deacons  allowed  to  act, 
but  only  in  the  name  of  the  bishop,  and  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  the  forehead, 
by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  was  granted,  was  reserved  for  the  bishop. — (Siricii 


72  THE  HERESIES. 

The  origin  of  the  Donatist  heresy  lay  in  this  ancestral  scruple  as 
to  the  validity  of  the  ministrations  of  the  guilty.  In  the  Maxentiau 
persecution  many  priests  and  bishops  had  committed  the  grave  offence 
of  surrendering  to  the  pagans  the  sacred  vessels  and  books,  and  were 
thus  known  as  traditores,  and  this  in  the  African  Church  incapaci 
tated  them  from  performing  their  functions.  On  the  death,  about 
305,  of  Mensurius  Bishop  of  Carthage,  the  African  bishops  assembled 
and  elected  as  his  successor  Csecilianus,  who  was  ordained  by  Felix 
Bishop  of  Aptungis.  Doubtless  there  Avere  disappointed  ambitions 
ready  to  kindle  strife.  Felix  was  accused  of  being  a  traditor,  ren 
dering  void  the  ordination  of  Csecilianus,  and  a  large  portion  of  the 
African  Church  refused  to  recognize  him,  electing  in  opposition  to 
him  Majorinus,  and,  after  the  death  of  the  latter,  Donatus,  a  priest 
justly  respected  for  learning  and  probity.  It  was  in  vain  that  Con- 
stantine  interposed  his  authority  and  held  councils  which  decided  in 
favor  of  Csecilianus,  the  schism  spread  and  organized  itself  till  it 
covered  all  the  African  provinces.  At  a  Donatist  council  held  at 
Carthage,  about  330,  there  were  assembled  270  bishops ;  even  after 


Epist.  x.  c.  4. — Innocent.  I.  Epist.  xxv.  c.  3).  As  for  laymen,  according  to 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions  any  laic  daring  to  baptize  is  threatened  with  the 
fate  of  Ozias,  for  laying  unhallowed  hands  upon  the  Ark  of  God  (Constit. 
Apost.  in.  10).  It  is  true  that  the  council  of  Elvira,  about  314,  permitted  it 
in  case  of  necessity  on  the  death-bed,  but  if  the  neophyte  survives  he  must  be 
brought  to  the  bishop  for  imposition  of  hands  (C.  Eliberitan.  c.  38),  and  this 
custom  was  preserved  in  Spain  (S.  Isidor.  de  Eccles.  Officiis  Lib.  n.  c.  25,  |  9). 
The  rule  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  prevailed  elsewhere  and  in  the  Peni- 
tentials  of  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries  it  was  provided  that  if  a  layman 
performed  the  rite  he  was  to  be  ejected  from  the  Church  and  could  never  be 
received  into  orders.  If  a  priest  discovered  that  he  had  never  been  baptized, 
all  those  whom  he  had  baptized  were  subjected  to  rebaptism  (Canones  Gre- 
gorii  32;  Penitent.  Theodori  i.  ix.  §  11 ;  u.  ii.  §  13.— Wasserschleben,  pp.  164, 
194,  203).  In  the  ninth  century  however,  Nicholas  I.  decided  that  a  number 
of  baptisms  by  a  man  of  whom  it  was  not  known  whether  he  was  a  Jew,  a 
Pagan  or  a  Christian,  were  valid  (Gratian.  Deer,  de  Consecr.  iv.  xxiv.),  and 
at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  an  epistle  of  Urban  II.  shows  that  bap 
tism  by  women  in  case  of  necessity  was  recognized  as  valid  and  proper  (Ibid. 
c.  4,  Caus.  xxx.  Q.  iii.).  In  the  thirteenth  century  we  find  priests  instructed 
to  impart  to  their  parishioners  the  formula  of  baptism  that  they  may  perform 
it  in  case  of  necessity  (Constitt.  Coventriens.  ann.  1237;  Concil.  Wigorn.  ann. 
1240,  c.  5  ;  Constitt.  Waltheri  de  Kirkham  ann.  1255.— Harduin.  278,  303,  332, 
487).  Alexander  Hales  draws  the  line  at  the  devil  who  he  says  cannot  baptize 
(Reschinger  Reporter.  Alex,  de  Hales  s.  v.  Baptisare,  Basilege,  1502). 


THE  DONATISTS.  73 

long  decades  of  persecution  when,  in  411,  Honorius  ordered  a  confer 
ence  held  between  the  warring  factions  it  was  attended  by  286 
Catholic  and  279  Donatist  bishops.  They  even  maintained  a  church 
in  Rome  tinder  a  succession  of  so-called  popes,  though  they  were 
obliged  to  meet  in  secret  in  the  suburbs,  whence  they  were  variously 
known  as  Montenses,  Campitse,  Rupitse,  Cutzupitse,  etc.  The  fiery 
African  blood  did  not  permit  this  strife  to  be  peaceful.  The  ortho 
dox  accounts,  which  alone  have  been  permitted  to  reach  us,  are  full  of 
recitals  of  the  oppression,  rapine  and  slaughter  committed  by  the 
Donatists,  but  their  admission  of  the  thirst  for  martyrdom  which 
distinguished  the  sectaries  shows  that  the  extremity  of  violence  was 
not  confined  to  the  heretic  side.  After  bitter  persecution  under 
Constantine  and  Constans,  Julian,  in  362,  restored  to  the  Donatists 
the  churches  of  which  they  had  been  deprived  and  granted  them 
freedom  of  worship.  In  373  Valentinian  I.,  and  in  377  Gratian, 
endeavored  to  repress  them.  In  400  the  rescript  of  Julian  was  for 
mally  withdrawn  by  Honorius ;  in  404  the  Catholic  council  of  Car 
thage  petitioned  him  for  still  bitterer  persecution,  to  which  he 
responded  the  next  year  by  savage  edicts,  and  these  were  followed 
in  413  by  still  others  from  Theodosius  II.  The  stubbornness  of  the 
Donatists  carried  them  through  the  sufferings  in  wrhich  they  were 
involved,  together  with  the  Catholics,  under  the  domination  of  the 
Arian  Vandals ;  when  Justinian  reconquered  Africa,  his  retention  of 
the  old  laws  against  rebaptism  shows  that  he  labored  to  suppress 
them,  but  it  was  in  vain.  In  594  Gregory  the  Great  complains  of 
their  still  performing  rebaptism  and  ousting  Catholics  from  their 
churches  and  he  orders  the  civil  power  to  enforce  the  laws  against 
them.  With  such  tenacity  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  their  existence 
was  prolonged  until  the  land  was  overwhelmed  in  the  Saracen  con 
quest.1 

A  special  complaint  of  the  Catholics  against  the  Donatists  was 
the  unsparing  severity  with  which  they  inflicted  penance  on  all 
without  distinction.  We  have  seen  that  in  orthodox  practice  clerics 
were  not  liable  to  penance  and  that  penance  disqualified  from  ordi- 


1  S.  Optat.  de  Schism.  Donatist.  Lib.  I.  c.  20,  24;  Lib.  n.  c.  4,  16,  17,  18.— 
S.  August.  Epist.  xcni.  n.  43 ;  Contra  Lib.  Petilian.  n.  97 ;  Brevic.  Collat. 
Diei  i.  c.  14.— Cod.  Eccles.  African,  c.  92-3.— Cod.  Theodos.  xvi.  v.  37,  38 ;  vi. 
1.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7.— Lib.  I.  Cod.  Tit.  vi.— Gregor.  PP.  I.  Epist.  Lib.  iv.  34,  35. 


74  THE  HERESIES. 

nation  and  function.  By  disregarding  the  former  and  enforcing  the 
latter  the  Donatists  found  in  this  an  easy  method  not  only  of  dis 
abling  those  of  their  antagonists  who  fell  under  their  jurisdiction, 
but  of  rendering  even  the  laity  incapable  of  ordination  and  of  sup 
plying  the  places  thus  vacated,  which  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  Catholics  felt  themselves  obliged  to  recognize  the  penance  im 
posed  by  the  Donatists  and  respect  its  indelible  character.1  Accord 
ing  to  their  view  Catholicism  was  heresy,  and  it  was  the  universal 
rule  that  heretics  were  not  to  be  received  back  without  penance. 
Thus  when,  after  being  driven  from  their  churches  by  persecution,  a 
lull  would  occur  and  they  were  able  to  return,  the  whole  population, 
which  had  submitted  to  Catholic  ministrations,  could  only  be  recon 
ciled  by  penance.  This  was  perfectly  logical  according  to  the  prac 
tice  of  the  time,  but  the  Catholic  controversialists  made  it  a  special 
crime,  and  curiously  enough  raised  the  further  objection  that  all 
were  not  subjected  to  a  similar  prolonged  term,  but  were  treated 
individually,  some  escaping  with  a  day,  others  with  a  month,  while 
others  were  subjected  to  a  year,  and  this  penance  moreover  was 
assigned  to  the  people  in  masses.2 

St.  Optatus  could  scarce  have  anticipated  the  time  when  the 
Church  would  imitate  these  erroneous  practices  of  heretics  by  ren 
dering  penitence  virtually  compulsory  on  all  the  faithful  and  admin 
istering,  if  not  penance,  absolution  and  indulgences  to  the  people  in 
crowds  and  masses.  He  animadverts  moreover  on  several  other 
errors  of  the  Donatists,  which,  though  not  directly  connected  with 
our  subject,  are  yet  of  interest  as  illustrating  how  far  the  Church 
has  drifted  from  its  old  moorings  and  how  the  heresy  of  one  age 
becomes  the  orthodoxy  of  another.  Thus  he  accuses  them  of  apply 
ing  their  theory  of  the  vitiation  of  the  sacraments  in  sinful  hands  only 
to  Catholic  prelates  and  of  holding  that  when  their  own  sinned  his 
faculties  continued  to  operate  irrespective  of  his  personality  ;3  which 
is  the  well-known  orthodox  theory  of  effects  wrought  ex  opere  operate 


1  S.  Optati  Lib.  n.  c.  24.  2  Ibid.  n.  c.  26. 

The  heresiologists  class  the  Donatists  with  the  Novatians  as  refusing  for 
giveness  to  all  who  lapsed  after  baptism,  which  is  a  curious  blunder  seeing 
that  the  Novatiau  error  was  the  refusal  of  penance  while  that  of  the  Donatists 
was  its  indiscriminate  infliction.  —  Epiphan.  Panar.  Haeres.  LIX. — Philastrii 
Lib.  de  Haeres.  n.  35. 

3  S.  Optati  Lib.  n.  c.  9. 


THE  DONATISTS.  75 

and  not  ex  opere  operantis.  The  Donatists  also  anticipated  Latin 
Christianity  in  declaring  the  Church  independent  of  the  State,  greatly 
to  the  disgust  of  St.  Optatus,  who  little  thought  that  the  doctrine 
which  he  so  emphatically  taught  of  the  supremacy  of  the  State 
over  the  Church  would  be  condemned  as  an  error  from  the  time 
of  Hildebrand  to  the  present  day.1  In  another  matter  the  Do 
natists  were  only  in  advance  of  their  time.  Regarding  Catholics  as 
heretics,  they  refused  to  them  burial  in  their  cemeteries,  for  which 
St.  Optatus  takes  them  severely  to  task,  arguing  that  hatred  should 
end  with  death  and  that  this  was  simply  an  insult  to  the  dead  for 
the  purpose  of  terrifying  the  living.2  He  would  probably  have  been 
indignantly  incredulous  had  he  been  told  that  the  time  would  come 
when  Catholicism  would  not  only  deny  Christian  burial  to  heretics 
but  would  dig  up  their  bones  and  burn  them,  not  merely  to  terrify 
but  to  edify  the  living. 


1  "  Cum  super  imperatorem  non  sit  nisi  solus  Deus,  qui  fecit  imperatorem, 
dum  se  Donatus  super  imperatorem  extollit,  jam  quasi  hominum  excesserat 
metas,  ut  prope  se  Deum  non  hominem  a3stimaret,  non  reverendo  eum  qui  post 
Deum  ab  hominibus  timebatur." — S.  Optati.  Lib.  in.  c.  3. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  vi.  c.  7. 


CHAPTEE    VI. 

THE    PAEDON    OF    SIN. 

HITHERTO  we  have  been  dealing  with  the  forum  externum — with 
the  relations  between  the  sinner  and  the  Church.  It  remains  for  us 
to  consider  what  were  the  current  beliefs  as  to  his  relations  with 
God,  and  the  means  by  which  he  could  obtain  pardon  for  sins  com 
mitted  after  the  cleansing  waters  of  baptism  had  for  the  moment 
restored  him  to  primal  purity. 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  simplicity  of  the  earliest  times  repentance 
and  charity  were  relied  upon  as  the  means  of  reconciling  the  soul 
with  God ;  that  the  intercessory  prayers  of  the  faithful  were  re 
garded  as  efficient  aids,  and  that  the  Divine  wrath  was  sometimes 
placated  by  patient  endurance  of  temporal  sufferings  sent  as  punish 
ment.  All  this  continued  to  be  taught.  It  would  be  useless  to  seek 
any  universally  received  theory  when  every  writer  framed  his  own 
and  dwelt  with  especial  stress  upon  what  best  suited  his  individual 
temperament,  without  caring  what  his  predecessors  or  contemporaries 
thought — in  fact,  when  an  eloquent  and  emotional  preacher  like 
Chrysostom  would  let  himself  be  carried  away  by  the  impulse  of 
the  moment  and  utter  in  one  homily  what,  if  rigidly  interpreted, 
would  contradict  what  he  had  said  in  another.  It  would  be  unprofit 
able  and  would  carry  us  too  far  to  enumerate  all  the  teachings  of  the 
Fathers  as  to  the  means  of  procuring  pardon  for  sin.  It  must  suffice 
to  allude  to  a  few  which  illustrate  the  general  tendencies  of  thought. 

For  the  most  part  the  Church  as  yet  taught  the  sinner  to  rely 
upon  himself,  to  address  himself  directly  to  God  and  to  work  out 
his  own  salvation.  But  there  was  one  notable  exception  to  this  in 
the  importance  ascribed  to  intercessory  prayer,  which  as  we  have  seen 
had  Apostolic  warrant  and  was  practised  from  the  earliest  times. 
This  introduced  an  element  out  of  which  eventually  grew  the  enor 
mous  development  of  sacerdotalism,  interposing  mediators  of  every 
kind,  terrestrial  and  celestial,  between  man  and  his  Creator.  The 
extravagant  power  attributed  to  it,  even  in  the  second  century,  is 


INTERCESSION.  77 

shown  by  the  remark  of  Aristides,  which  might  seem  borrowed  from 
some  Brah manic  revery,  "And  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  world  stands 
by  reason  of  the  intercession  of  Christians."1  There  is  a  well-known 
story  of  St.  John  the  Divine,  Avhich  has  been  used  by  modern  apolo 
gists,  in  lack  of  other  evidence,  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  indulgences, 
reciting  how  he  won  back  a  youth  who  had  gone  astray  and  become 
a  robber  chief,  by  adjuring  him  to  repent  and  offering  his  own  soul 
as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God ;  this  softened 
the  robber  and  they  prayed  and  fasted  together  until  the  sinner  was 
regenerated  and  restored  to  the  Church.2  Rufinus,  at  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century,  relates  of  Apollonius,  a  Mtrian  monk  of  his 
acquaintance,  how  that  holy  man  sought  to  make  peace  between  two 
villages  about  to  engage  in  war,  by  promising  to  a  robber,  who  was 
captain  of  one  of  the  opposing  forces,  that  he  would  pray  to  God  to 
pardon  his  sins.  Arms  were  thrown  aside  and  the  robber  accom 
panied  the  monk  to  his  monastery,  where  they  prayed  together  till 
they  were  rewarded  with  a  vision  of  heaven  and  a  voice  which  said 
"The  salvation  of  him  for  whom  thou  hast  prayed  is  granted  to 
thee."3  The  prayers  of  the  congregation  for  those  who  were  in 
penance  are  a  further  instance  of  this  belief;  while  the  Church  was 
exercising  its  disciplinary  power,  and  the  sinner  was  awaiting  recon 
ciliation,  the  faithful  prayed  for  him  that  he  might  also  be  redeemed 
from  sin,  and  the  tears  and  prayers  of  the  people  were  held  to  be 
efficacious  in  thus  purifying  his  heart  and  reconciling  him  with  God 
as  well  as  with  the  Church.4  This  is  a  subject  to  which  we  shall 
have  to  recur  hereafter,  and  these  instances  will  suffice  to  indicate 
the  germ  to  which  are  traceable  the  productive  theories  of  vicarious 
satisfaction  and  the  Spiritual  Treasury  of  the  Church. 

The  expiatory  power  of  misfortunes  sent  by  God  as  a  punishment 
for  sin  might  seem  also  to  be  beyond  the  control  and  action  of  the 
sinner,  but  their  efficacy  in  this  respect  depended  upon  the  temper 
with  which  they  were  endured ;  if  with  humility  and  resignation, 
they  took  the  place  of  future  punishment.  To  so  great  a  length  was 


1  Apology  of  Aristides  ch.  xvi.  (Rendel  Harris's  Translation). 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  in.  23.  3  Eufini  Historia  Monachorurn  cap.  7. 

4  Velut  enim  operibus  quibusdam  totius  populi  purgaturt  et  plebis  lacrymis 
abluitur,  qui  orationibus  et  fletibus  plebis  redimitur  a  peccato,  et  in  nomine 
mundatur  interiore.— S.  Arnbros.  de  Pcenitent.  Lib.  I.  c.  15.  Cf.  Tertull.  de 
Pcenitent.  c.  10. 


78  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

this  belief  carried  that  Origen  argues  that  capital  punishment  ex 
piates  the  crime  for  which  it  is  inflicted ;  it  absolves  from  the  sin 
and  leaves  nothing  of  it  which  at  the  Judgment  Day  shall  condemn 
the  sinner  to  eternal  torment/  and  Jerome  seems  to  be  of  the  same 
opinion  in  his  explanation  of  the  prohibition  to  slay  Cain.2  Augustin 
is  more  moderate,  but  yet  countenances  the  belief  in  the  expiatory 
character  of  worldly  troubles.3  We  shall  see  hereafter  how  an  all- 
pervading  sacerdotalism  has  assumed  control  of  this  and  made  it 
dependent  on  the  priestly  utterance  in  absolution. 

Apart  from  these,  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  is  that  the  salvation 
of  the  sinner  depends  upon  himself,  although  some  lay  special  stress 
on  one  pious  manifestation  and  others  on  another.  To  Tertullian, 
while  yet  orthodox,  amendment  is  the  main  thing,  without  which 
repentance  is  vain  and  fruitless.4  To  Lactantius  also  repentance  is 
merely  the  resolution  to  sin  no  more :  this  and  almsgiving  wash 
away  sin,  but  not  sin  committed  in  expectation  of  its  pardon  through 
almsgiving.5  In  view  of  its  scriptural  warrant,  almsgiving  naturally 
is  mainly  relied  upon  by  many  authorities,  Avith  an  insistance  that 
explains  the  acquisitive  use  of  it  by  the  medieval  Church.  St.  Am- 


1  Mors  quse  poense  causa  infertur  pro  peccato  purgatio  est  peccati  ipsius  pro 
quo  jubetur  inferri.    Absolvitur  ergo  peccatum  per  pcenam  mortis  nee  superest 
aliquid  quod  pro  hoc  crimine  judicii  dies  et  pcena  seternse  ignis  inveniant. — 
Origenis  in  Levit.  Homil.  xiv.  n.  4. 

This  doctrine  was  still  held  in  the  middle  ages.  Duns  Scotus  even  says 
that  natural  death  may  redeem  sin,  but  Astesanus  de  Asti  denies  this  and 
only  admits  that  violent  death  if  patiently  endured  may  diminish  punishment 
and  even  replace  it  altogether. — Astesani  Surnmse  de  Casibus  Conscientiee,  Lib. 
V.  Tit.  xxiii.  Q.  3. 

2  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  xxxvi.  ad  Damasum. 

3  S.  August.   Enchirid.  c.  66.— The   pseudo-Justin   Martyr  (Explicationes- 
Qusestt.  Q.  124)  seems  to  know  nothing  of  expiation  and  holds  that  the  good 
and  the  evil  have  the  same  experiences  in  life.     Bede  teaches  that  although 
sickness  ancl  death  are  often  sent  in  punishment  of  sin  they  are  valueless  for 
redemption  unless  there  are  sincere  contrition  and  intention  of  amendment. — 
Bedse  Exposit.  in  c.  5  Epist.  Jacobi. 

4  Ubi  emendatio  nulla  poenitentia  necessario  vana,  quia  caret  fructu  suo. — 
Tertull.  de  Poenit.  c.  1. 

5  Agere  autem  pcenitentiam  nihil  aliud  est  quarn  profited  et  affirmare  s& 
ulterius  non  peccaturum. — Firm.  Lactant.  Divin.  Instit.  Lib.  VI.  c.  13.     In  a 
subsequent  passage  (cap.  24)  he  develops  these  views  more  fully,  but  makes  no- 
reference  to  almsgiving.     See  also  his  Lib.  de  Ira  Dei  c.  21. 


ALMSGIVING.  79 

brose  is  careful  to  explain  that  its  efficacy  depends  upon  the  disposi 
tion  of  the  giver  and  that  without  the  spirit  of  charity  it  is  useless.1 
Chrysostom,  carried  away  by  the  extravagance  of  his  own  rhetoric, 
would  persuade  us  that  almsgiving  is  the  sole  thing  needful,  and 
that  salvation  is  secured  by  the  gift  of  a  farthing  or  of  a  cup  of  cool 
water.2  The  cooler  Augustin  follows  Lactantius  and  warns  his  dis 
ciples  that,  while  past  sins  may  be  redeemed  by  alms,  amendment  is 
indispensable  and  liberality  will  not  bring  impunity  for  the  commis 
sion  of  future  ones.3  His  contemporary,  St.  Gaudentius  of  Brescia 
is  a  little  less  reserved.  Almsgiving,  like  baptism,  will  wash  away 
all  the  accumulation  of  past  sins,  but  the  penitent  ought  not  to  add 
new  ones  as  fast  as  he  redeems  the  old.4  In  the  sixth  century  St. 
Csesarius  of  Aries  is  more  emphatic — with  the  help  of  God  every 
man  can  redeem  his  sins  with  alms.5  From  all  this  we  may  fairly 
conclude  that  the  assiduous  teaching  of  the  expiatory  power  of  alrns- 


1  "Neque  ego  abnuo  liberalitatibus  in  pauperes  factis  posse  minui  peccatum, 
sed  si  fides  commendat  expensas.     Quid  enirn  prodest  collatio  patrimonii  sine 
gratia  charitatis  ?  " — S.  Ambros.  de  Poenit.  Lib.  n.  c.  9. 

The  word  "  charity  "  has  acquired  in  our  language  so  completely  the  sub 
sidiary  sense  of  almsgiving  that  perhaps  it  is  necessary  to  remind  the  reader  of 
its  theological  significance,  which  is  far  wider  and  higher,  embracing  the  love 
of  God  and  all  that  this  implies. 

2  Habes  obolum  ?  erne  coalum,  non  quod  vili  pretio  venale  sit  coelum,  sed  quod 
clemens  sit  Dominius.     Non  habes  obolum  ?  da  calicem  frigidse  aquae.     .     .     . 
Da  panem  et  accipe  paradisum  :  parva  da  et  magna  suscipe :  da  mortalia,  im- 
mortalia  recipe:  da   corruptibilia,   incorruptibilia   accipe.     .     .     .     Pretium 
redemptions  animas  eleemosyna  est. — S.  Jo.  Chrysost.  de  Pcenitent.  Homil.  in. 
§  2.     See  also  the  doubtful  Homil.  vn.  |  6. 

3  S.  August.  Enchirid.  c.  70.     This  warning  was  not  superfluous,  for  the 
assiduous  and  not  wholly  disinterested  teaching  by  the  Church  of  the  power 
of  almsgiving  to  remit  sins  naturally  led  to  their  commission  in  expectation  of 
thus  purchasing  pardon.     In  813  the  council  of  Chalons  warns  those  who  do 
so  that  in  such  cases  almsgiving  is  fruitless. — (C.  Cabillonens.  II.  ann.  81S 
c.  36)  and  Ivo  of  Chartres  considers  it  necessary  to  include  the  canon  in  his 
collection  (Deer.  P.  xv.  c.  70). 

4  Sicut  aqua  baptismi  salutaris  extinguit  flammam  gehenni  per  gratiam,  ita 
eleemosynarum  fluvise  omnis  ille  coacervatus  post  acceptam  fidem  peccatorum 
ignis  extinguitur.     ...     Is  enim  qui  eleemosynis    remedium  peccatorum 
pcenitens  quserit  debet  jam  non  agere  poenitenda,  ne  quod  uno  latere  extin 
guitur  alio  succendatur. — S.  G-audentii  Serm.  xin.  Cf.  Serm.  xvin. 

6  Nullus  sine  peccato  esse  potest,  sed  peccata  sua  omnis  homo,  Deo  auxiliante, 
redimere  potest.— S.  Caesar.  Arelatens.  Homil.  xiv.  (Migne,  LXVI.  1076). 


SO  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

giving  led  not  a  few  of  the  faithful  to  imagine  that  it  conferred  a 
licence  to  sin,  and  that,  in  the  words  of  Chrysostom,  heaven  was 
purchasable. 

The  example  of  the  pardon  of  St.  Peter  for  denying  Christ  leads 
St.  Ambrose  to  argue  that  tears  alone  suffice  to  wash  away  sin,  and 
in  this  he  is  copied  a  century  later  by  St.  Maximus  of  Turin.1  The 
irrepressible  enthusiasm  of  Chrysostorn,  in  urging  the  sinner  to  con 
sult  some  expert  physician  of  souls,  causes  him  to  assert  that  the 
mere  act  of  confession  abolishes  the  sin.2  The  belief  that  worldly 
tribulations  were  expiatory  naturally  suggested  the  idea  that  self- 
inflicted  suffering  was  especially  pleasing  to  God  and  therefore  pecu 
liarly  effective.  Bachiarius  the  Monk  in  arguing  with  a  fellow 
cenobite,  who  was  involved  in  a  guilty  passion  with  a  married 
woman,  exhorts  him  to  return  to  his  monastery  and  wipe  out  his 
sin  with  austerities  and  mortifications,  thus  by  sufferings  on  earth 
redeeming  himself  from  the  torments  of  hell.3  The  development  of 
this  idea  led  to  the  extravagant  self-tortures  of  the  anchorites  of 
Palestine  and  the  Theba'id,  of  which  the  aim  seemed  to  be  to  reduce 
man  as  nearly  as  possible  to  a  level  with  the  brute,  which  fill  so  many 
records  of  the  hagiology  and  which  bear  so  singular  a  kinship  to  the 
Yoga  system  of  the  Brahmans.  It  is  a  relief  to  turn  from  these 
deplorable  exhibitions  of  human  wrongheadedness  to  the  more  Chris 
tian  asceticism  of  John  Cassianus,  the  founder  of  the  Abbey  of  St. 
Victor  of  Marseilles,  who,  though  fully  trained  in  the  cenobitic  life 
of  Egypt,  had  a  truer  conception  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  and  of  the 
mode  of  reconciliation  with  an  offended  but  loving  God.  There  are 
many  aids,  he  says,  to  the  expiation  of  sins,  love  and  almsgiving, 
and  weeping  and  confession,  either  to  man  or  God,  mortification  of 
the  heart  and  flesh,  and  greatest  of  all,  amendment.  Sometimes  the 
intercession  of  the  saints  is  useful ;  mercy  and  faith  assist,  and  often 
the  labor  to  convert  others  and  the  forgiveness  of  offences  procure 
pardon  for  ourselves.4  Nearly  contemporary  with  Cassianus  was  St. 


1  Et  tu  si  veniam  vis  mereri,  dilue  lacrymis  culpam  tuam :  eodem  momento, 
eodeni  tempore  respicit  te  Christus.— S.  Ambros.  Exposit.  Evang.  sec.  Lucam. 
Lib.  v.  n.  95,  Lib.  vi.  n.  18,  Lib.  x.  c.  88.  Of.  S.  Maximi  Taurinens.  Homil.  LIII. 

2  Confessio  enim  peccatorum  abolitio  etiam  est  delictorum. — S.  Jo.  Chrysost. 
in  Genesi  Homil.  xx.  n.  3. 

3  Bachiarii  Monachi  de  Reparations  Lapsi  c.  15. 

4  Jo.  Cassiani  Collat.  xx.  c.  8. 


SUMMARIES  OF  METHODS.  81 

Eucherius,  the  saintly  bishop  of  Lyons,  whose  series  of  homilies  to 
monks  is  instinct  with  the  highest  and  purest  moral  teaching.  The 
way  of  salvation  is  hard  and  is  only  to  be  reached  through  earnest 
and  prolonged  repentance.  Love,  charity,  humility,  self-abnegation 
coupled  with  zealous  striving  for  self-amendment,  win  the  pardon 
of  God — not  the  repetition  of  barren  formulas  or  the  intercession 
of  priests  on  earth  or  saints  in  heaven,  while  even  austerities  are 
of  little  use.  Secret  contrition  suffices,  not  outward  confession, 
though  as  a  lesson  of  humility  the  daily  acknowledgment  of  faults 
to  the  assembled  brethren  is  a  wholesome  exercise.  No  sacerdotal 
ministration  is  inculcated — the  sinner  wrestles  with  his  own  heart 
and  deals  directly  with  his  God.1  Very  similar  are  the  teachings  of 
St.  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe,  who  is  classed  with  the  Doctors  of  the 
Church.  Confession  and  tears  and  repentance  are  useless  without 
true  conversion  of  the  heart,  and  this  conversion  means  living  a 
good  and  virtuous  life,  free  from  evil,  and  loving  and  helpful  to 
others.2  Hesychius  assumes  that  the  mere  act  of  confession  with 
prayer  causes  sins  to  disappear,  and  also  that  repentance  shown  in 
fasting,  prayer,  tears  and  almsgiving  procures  full  pardon.3 

Thus  there  were  many  ways  in  which  the  sinner  could  obtain  pardon 
for  himself  without  the  ministrations  of  the  Church,  and  teachers 
sometimes  briefly  grouped  them  together,  to  the  mystic  number  of 
seven.  Origen  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  attempt  such  a  com 
putation,  and  he  enumerates  them  in  order  :  I.  Baptism,  II.  Martyr 
dom,  III.  Almsgiving,  IV.  Forgiveness  of  offences,  V.  Converting 
a  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  ways,  VI.  Abundant  loving  charity, 
VII.  and  lastly,  the  hard  and  laborious  way  of  repentance,  when  the 
sinner  washes  his  couch  with  tears,  when  tears  are  his  daily  and 
nightly  bread,  and  he  does  not  blush  to  reveal  his  sin  to  the  priest 
of  God  and  ask  for  medicine.4  Chrysostom  also  summarizes  the 


1  "Non  levi  agendum  est  contritione  ut  debita  ilia  redimantur  quibus  mors 
seterna  debetur ;  nee  transitoria  opus  est  satisfactione  pro  mails  illis  propter 
quse  paratus  est  ignis  seternus."— S.  Eucherii  Homil.  v.— "  Parum  prodest  carnis 
contritio  si  non  habeatur  cordis  sollicitudo  et  mentis  intentio.     ...     Ac  sic 
fratres  de  omnibus  negligentiis  nostris  compungarnus  in  cubilibus,  id  est  in 
cordibus  nostris ;  si  ita  egeritis  nos  quidem  de  profectu  vestro  laetabimur,  sed 
vos  de  acquisita  salute  gaudebitis." — Ib.  Homil.  ix. 

2  S.  Fulgentii  Euspensis  de  Kemissione  Peccatorum  Lib.  I.  c.  6,  11,  12,  28. 

3  Hesychii  in  Levit.  Lib.  v.  c.  17,  18;  Lib.  vn.  c.  25,  26,  27. 

4  Origenis  in  Levit.  Homil.  n.  c.  4. 

I.-6 


82  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

methods  of  pardon.  The  commencement  of  repentance  is  confession 
— not  to  a  priest,  but  to  God.  Tears  also  are  sufficient  and  so  is  hu 
mility,  also  almsgiving  and  also  prayer,  and  fasting  too  is  efficacious, 
but  pardon  is  the  work  of  God,  who  is  to  be  addressed  directly.1 
About  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  St.  Csesarius  of  Aries  gives  a 
more  elaborate  enumeration  of  twelve  methods — baptism,  charity, 
almsgiving,  tears,  confession,  mortification  of  heart  and  flesh,  amend 
ment,  the  intercession  of  saints,  mercifulness  and  faith,  the  conver 
sion  of  others,  the  forgiveness  of  offences  and  martyrdom.2  A  century 
later  St.  Eloi  of  Noyon  reduces  the  number  to  eight,  either  of  which 
suffices  to  cleanse  the  soul  from  sin  without  priestly  intervention.3  To 
this  period  may  be  assigned  the  commencement  of  the  vogue  of  the 
Penitentials,  by  which  for  three  centuries  or  more  the  conscience  of 


1  S.  Jo.  Chrysost.  de  Poenitentia  Homil.  n.  §  1-4;  Homil.  v.  §  1.—"  Prefer 
lachrymas  et  ipse  [Deus]  indulgentiam  impertitur:  prefer  pcenitentiam  et  ipse 
tribuit  remissionera  peccatorum." 

2  Prima  remissio  est  peccatorum  qua  baptizamur  in  aqua  (Joan.  in.). 
Secunda  remissio  est  charitatis  affectus  (Luc.  vn.). 

Tertia  remissio  est  eJeemosynarum  fructus  (Ecclus.  in.). 

Quarta  remissio,  profusio  lacrymarum  (III.  Reg.  xi.). 

Quinta  remissio  est  criminum  confessio  (Psal.  xxxi.). 

Sexta  remissio  est  afflictio  cordis  et  corporis  (I,  Cor.  v.). 

Septima  remissio  est  emendatio  morum  (Joan.  v.). 

Octava  remissio  est  intercessio  sanctorum  ( Jac.  v.). 

Nona  remissio  est  misericordia  [et]  fidei  meritum  (Matth.  v.). 

Decima  remissio  est  salus  aliorum  (Jac.  v.). 

Undecima  remissio  est  indulgentia  et  nostra  remissio  (Luc.  vi.). 

Duodecima  remissio  est  passio  martyrii  (Luc.  xxin.). — S.  Caesar.  Arelatens. 
Homil.  xin. 

How  insignificant  a  factor  in  all  this  was  sacerdotal  ministration  is  seen  in 
Homil.  xix.  The  priest  can  promise  nothing ;  everything  is  left  to  the  judg 
ment  of  God. 

In  another  Homily  (Homil.  xi.)  he  represents  the  forgiveness  of  offences  as» 
in  itself  the  surest  means  of  pardon :  "  Qui  enim  omnibus  in  se  peccantibus 
clementer  indulserit  nullius  peccati  vestigium,  nullius  macula  in  ipsius  anima 
remanebit." 

3  Sed  etiam  fit  absolutio  peccatorum  per  charitatis  affectum,  per  eleemosyn- 
arum  fructum,  per  profusion  em  lacrymarum,  per  confessionem  criminum,  per 
cordis  et  corporis  afflictionem,  prsecipue  per  morum  emendationem,  interdum 
etiam  per  sanctorum  intercessionem,  per  indulgentiam  quoque  ac  remissionem 
nostram,  qua  peccantibus  in  nobis  dimittimus,  quibus  omnibus  modis  aboleri 
posse  peccata. — S.  Eligii  Noviomens.  Homil.  iv. 


SUMMARIES  OF  METHODS.  83 

Latin  Christendom  was  regulated,  and  in  these  authoritative  handbooks 
for  the  guidance  of  priest  and  sinner  enumerations  of  these  modes  of 
remission  frequently  find  a  place.  These  vary  of  course  with  the  idio 
syncrasies  of  the  compilers,  but  they  are  all  closely  fashioned  after  the 
elder  authorities.  Those  in  the  Penitential  of  Cummeanus  and  the 
Confessionale  of  Egbert  of  York  for  instance,  are  an  accurate  transcript 
from  that  of  St.  Csesarius  of  Aries ;  and,  with  a  slight  injection  of 
sacerdotalism,  this  is  repeated  in  the  ninth  century  in  the  Penitential 
which  also  passes  under  the  name  of  Egbert.1  This  is  also  the 
model  of  the  list  in  the  Merseburg  Penitential,  and  that  which 
passes  under  the  name  of  Gregory  III.,  save  that  they  show  a  still 
higher  degree  of  sacerdotalism  by  bringing  in  pardon  by  the  priest 
as  the  twelfth  remission.2  The  Origenian  computation  of  seven  how 
ever  was  more  popular  and  lasting,  and  is  found  with  little  variation 
in  the  Poenitentiale  Bigotianum  and  Vallicellianum.3  It  is  further 
given  in  the  ninth  century  by  the  Bishops  Theodulf  of  Orleans,  Jonas 
of  Orleans  and  Haymo  of  Halberstadt/  and  it  is  also  to  be  found  in 


1  Poenitent.  Cummeani  Procem.  (Wasserschleben,  Bussordnungen,  p.  461). — 
Confessionale  Pseudo- Egbert!  c.  2  (Ib.  304.)  —  Poenitentiale  Pseudo-Egbert! 
Lib.  iv.  c.  63  (Ib.  341). 

2  Pcenitent.  Merseburgens.  a.  Prolog.  (Ib.  388). — Poenitent.  Pseudo-Gregor. 
III.  c.  2. 

3  Poenitent.  Bigotianum  Prolog.  (Ib.  p.  444). — Poenitent.  Vallicellianum  II. 
Ordo  Poenitent.  (Ib.  552). 

4  Theodulfii  Aurelianens.  Capitula  ad  Presbyteros  xxxvi.  —  Jonse  Aure- 
lianens.  de  Institutione  Laicali  Lib.  I.  c.  5. — Haymonis  Halberstat.  Homilise 
de  Sanctis,  Horn.  11. 

Kabanus  Maurus  gives  virtually  the  same  modes  of  redeeming  sins,  but  at 
greater  length. — Rab.  Mauri  de  Uni verso  Lib.  v.  c.  11. 

Throughout  this  period  there  is  the  same  confusion  as  we  have  observed  in 
the  earlier  centuries  as  to  the  requisites  for  pardon.  Some  authorities  tell  us 
that  confession  alone  suffices  (S.  Donati  Vesontiens.  Kegulae  c.  23. — Canones 
sub  Edgaro,  ap.  Thorpe.  II.  260).  Others  conjoin  repentance  with  confession 
(Isidor.  Hispalens.  de  Eccles.  Officiis  Lib.  u.  c.  17  §  6).  Others  hold  penitence 
alone  to  be  sufficient  (Responsa  Nicholai  PP.  I.  ad  Consulta  Bulgaror.  c.  16.— 
S.  Theodori  Studitae  Serm.  LXXXII.).  Sometimes  almsgiving  suffices  (Ecclesi 
astical  Institutes  Prolog,  ap.  Thorpe,  II.  395.— Sacramentarii  Gelasiani  Lib.  in. 
n.  49),  and  sometimes  it  is  linked  with  fasting  (Sacram.  Gelas.  Lib.  I.  n.  82. — 
Sacram.  Gregoranium  op.  Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  p.  973),  sometimes  fast 
ing  alone  answers  (Missale  Gothicum,  ap.  Muratori  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  pp.  295, 
364),  and  sometimes  amendment  is  added  (Sacram.  Gregor.  Ibid.  p.  976),  while 
forgiveness  of  injuries  is  declared  to  be  indispensable  (Missale  Gallicanum, 


84  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

an  Anglo-Saxon  collection,  which  probably  represents  the  sacer 
dotal  movement  started  by  St.  Dunstan  under  Edgar  the  Pacific,  for 
it  orders  annual  confession  at  Easter.1  The  twelfth  century  naturally 
wrought  a  change,  with  the  development  of  the  sacramental  theory 
and  the  idea  of  absolution.  The  Origenian  list  had  become  too 
widely  diffused  to  be  abruptly  cast  aside,  although  priestly  ministra 
tions  were  becoming  indispensable  to  salvation,  and  it  accordingly 
underwent  successive  modifications.  In  the  hands  of  Honorius  of 
Autun  the  sacerdotal  element  is  rendered  more  prominent.2  By  the 
middle  of  the  century  the  schoolmen  were  remodelling  theology 
after  their  own  fashion,  and  Peter  Lombard  revised  the  formula  by 
introducing  into  it  the  scholastic  idea  of  satisfaction  for  sin  and  an 
older  one  of  the  Eucharist  as  an  expiatory  sacrifice.3  This  seems  to 
to  have  become,  for  a  time  at  least,  the  accepted  teaching,  for  it  is 
repeated  without  modification  by  Alain  de  Lille  towards  the  close 
of  the  century.4 


Ibid.  p.  534).  In  the  Sacramentary  which  passes  under  the  name  of  Leo  I. 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  declared  to  be  in  itself  a  remission  of  all  sins  — "  quia  ipse 
[Sanctus  Spiritus]  est  omnium  remissio  peccatorum"  (Sacram.  Leonian.  ap. 
Muratori  T.  XIII.  P.  I.  p.  527). 

1  Ecclesiastical  Institutes  \  xxxvi  (Thorpe's  Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes 
II.  435.— Spelman,  Concil.  Britann.  I.  612). 

2  Primo  per  baptismum;  secundo  per  martyrium,  tertio  per  confessionem  et 
poenitentiam ;  quarto  per  lacrymas ;  quinto  per  eleemosynam ;    sexto  per  in- 
dulgentiam  in  nos  peccantibus ;  septimo  per  charitatis  opera. — Honor.  Augus- 
todun.  Elucidarium,  Lib.  n.  c.  20. 

3  Septem  sunt  prsecipui  modi  remissionis  quibus  peccata  delentur,  scilicet 
baptismus,  eleemosyna,  martyrium,  conversio  fratris  errantis,  remittere  in  se 
peccanti,  fletus  et  satisfactio  pro  peccatis,  communicatio  corporis  et  sanguinis 
Domini. — Pet.  Lombardi  Comment,  in  Psalmos,  Ps.  vi. 

4  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Penitent.  (Migne's  Patrol.  COX.  298). 

A  more  sacerdotal  conception  is  found  in  Peter  of  Poitiers'  enumeration  of 
the  seven  modes  of  justification,  which  are  all  stages  of  a  single  process  and 
inoperative  without  the  final  one  of  confession — "  Cogitatio  de  Deo  et  viis 
•ejus,  voluntas  sive  desiderium  bene  operandi,  gratia  Dei,  motus  surgens  ex 
gratia  et  libero  arbitrio,  contritio,  peccatorum  remissio,  confessio."  —  Petri 
Pictaviens.  Sententt.  Lib.  in.  c.  16. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century  William  Durand  (Rationale 
Divin.  Offic.  Lib.  vi.  c.  xxiv.  n.  8)  recurs  to  the  older  form  "  per  baptismum, 
per  martyrium,  per  eleemosynas,  per  indulgent iam,  per  prsedicationem,  per 
charitatem,  per  poenitentiam,"  but  by  this  time  the  pcenitentia  was  assumably 
the  sacrament. 


THE  EUCHARIST.  85 

The  idea  that  the  Eucharist  had  a  special  virtue  in  remitting  sin 
was  perhaps  not  unnatural  in  view  of  the  text  "For  this  is  my  blood 
of  the  new  testament  which  shall  be  shed  for  many  unto  remission 
of  sins"  (Matt.  xxvi.  28),  where  the  allusion  to  a  general  atonement 
whereby  man  was  redeemed  and  reconciled  to  God  was  readily 
wrested  to  apply  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar  for  the  benefit  of  the 
individual.1  This  belief,  which  contributed  so  largely  to  the  devel 
opment  of  sacerdotalism,  assumed  two  shapes.  One  was  that  par 
taking  of  the  Eucharist  remitted  sin.  We  have  already  seen  this 
illustrated  in  the  story  of  Serapion.  St.  Ambrose  seems  to  restrict 
it  somewhat  in  assuming  that  when  the  sin  has  been  already  condoned 
it  is  then  remitted  on  the  sinner  partaking  of  the  Eucharist  ;2  but  the 
holy  Apollonius,  whom  Rufinus  describes  as  a  real  prophet  of  God, 
asserted  more  broadly  that  remission  of  sins  was  granted  to  the 
faithful  in  communion.3  This  is  accepted  and  asserted  in  the  most 
positive  manner  by  the  third  Council  of  Braga  in  675,  in  a  canon 
which  was  carried  by  Gratian  into  his  compilation  and  credited  to 
Pope  Julius  I.,4  and  it  is  assumed  in  the  prayers  of  the  Sacramenta- 
ries,  especially  in  the  Missa  pro  peccatis.5  As  the  sacrament  was 
under  priestly  control  this  served  for  awhile  to  satisfy  the  aspirations 
of  sacerdotalism,  but  when  penitence  was  erected  into  a  sacrament 
and  the  confessor  held  the  keys  of  heaven  it  became  a  serious  im 
pediment  to  the  enforcement  of  the  new  discipline  and  it  had  to  be 
gotten  rid  of.  This  was  accomplished  by  rendering  confession  and 


1  This  process  is  very  clearly  illustrated  in  the  False  Decretals,  where  the 
text  is  quoted  with  the  interpolation  "qui  pro  vobis  fundatur,"  and  the  deduc 
tion  is  crudely  drawn  "  Crimina  enim  atque  peccata,  oblatis  his  Domino  sac- 
rificiis,  delentur  .  .  .  atque  haec  Domino  offerenda,  taiibus  hostibus  delectabitur 
et  placabitur  Dominus  et  peccata  dimittet  ingentia." — Pseudo-Alex.  I.  Deer.  1. 

2  Ita  quotiescumque  peccata  donantur  corporis  ejus  sacramentum  sumimus, 
ut  per  sanguinem  ejus  fiat  peccatorum  remissio.— S.  Ambros.  de  Poenitent. 
Lib.  ii.  c.  3.     (Gratian.  c.  52  §4  Caus.  xxxin.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1.) 

3  Addebat  autem  his  quod  etiam  remissio  peccatorum  per  haec  [mysteria] 
credentibus  detur.— Eufini  Hist.  Monachor.  c.  7.     Had  this  been  at  the  time 
an  accepted  belief  of  the  Church,  Kufinus  would  not  have  taken  the  trouble 
to  mention  it. 

4  Cum  omne  crimen  atque  peccatum  oblatis  Deo  sacrifices  deleatur — C. 
Bracarens.  III.  ann.  675  c.  1.— Gratian  P.  III.  Dist.  n.  c.  7. 

5  Hanc  igitur  oblationem  Domine  quam  tibi  offerimus  pro  peccatis  atque 
offensionibus  nostris  ut  omnium  delictorum  nostrorum  reinissionem  consequi 
mereamur,  etc.— Sacram.  Gregor.  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIIL  P.  II.  p.  812). 


86  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

absolution  a  condition  precedent  to  worthily  partaking  of  the  Eu 
charist,  under  the  precept  of  St.  Paul  (I.  Cor.  xi.  29)  and  declaring 
it  a  mortal  sin  to  take  communion  when  not  in  a  state  of  grace.1 
The  schoolmen  exerted  themselves  to  argue  away  the  old  belief  that 
the  Eucharist  remits  sin,  for  they  clearly  saw  and  acknowledged 
that  if  it  was  admitted  it  would  render  all  the  other  sacraments 
superfluous.  Their  ingenuity  was  equal  to  the  task,  though  they 
had  a  narrow  and  tortuous  path  to  thread,  and  they  did  not  at  once 
agree  on  the  result.  Alexander  Hales  asserts  that  the  Eucharist 
remits  venial  sins  but  not  mortal  ones  absolutely,  whether  as  to  the 
pcena  or  the  culpa  into  which  scholastic  ingenuity  had  divided  sin.2 
Aquinas  tells  us  that  it  remits  venial  sins,  and  also  mortal  ones  when 
there  is  no  consciousness  of  sin,  but  when  such  consciousness  exists 
it  only  aggravates  them ;  moreover  it  does  not  remit  all  the  pcena, 
but  only  more  or  less  according  to  the  devotion  with  which  it  is 
taken.3  As  venial  and  forgotten  sins  by  this  time  were  remitted  by 
various  simple  observances,  including  the  general  confession  in  the 
ritual,4  this  was  virtually  eliminating  communion  as  a  factor  in  peni 
tence.  The  council  of  Trent  thus  limits  its  efficacy  to  the  pardon  of 


1  St.  Augustin,  in  arguing  the  question  whether  a  man  conscious  of  sin  ought 
to  pretermit  the  daily  communion  customary  at  the  period  says  :  "  Cgeterum  si 
peccata  tanta  non  sunt  ut  excommunicandus  quisque  judicetur  non  se  debet 
a  quotidiana  medicina   Dominici   corporis   separare." — Epist.  LIV.  c.  3,  ad 
Januarium. 

In  the  twelfth  century  it  began  to  be  asserted  that  confession  is  an  indis 
pensable  preliminary  to  communion  in  those  conscious  of  sin  (Rich.  S.  Victoris 
de  Potestate  Ligandi  et  Solvendi  cap.  xxi.) ;  in  the  thirteenth  it  was  a  matter  of 
counsel  for  those  unabsolved  to  abstain  (Constitt.  Kichardi  Poore  cap.  xxx. 
ap.  Harduin.  VII.  97),  and  the  rule  was  made  defide  by  the  council  of  Trent, 
Sess.  xni.  De  Eucharist,  cap.  vii.,  xi. 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summae  P.  iv.  Q.  x.  Membr.  8  Art.  1,  ||  1,  2. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquinat  Summse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixxix.  Art.  3,  4,  5.     He  adds  (Art.  6)  that 
it  strengthens  the  soul  within  and  repels  the  attacks  of  demons  from  without, 
so  that  it  preserves  the  recipient  from  future  sin. 

John  of  Freiburg  follows  Aquinas.  Before  taking  communion  a  man  must 
diligently  search  his  conscience  and  confess  any  mortal  sin.  If  one  escapes 
his  memory  he  does  not  sin  in  taking  the  sacrament  "imo  magis  ex  vi  sacra- 
menti  peccati  remissionem  consequitur."— Jo.  Friburg.  Summ.  Confessorum, 
Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxiv.  Q  69.  See  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss  iv.  Q.  7.  cap.  1, 
art.  1,  2,  for  the  effort  to  reconcile  ancient  theories  with  modern  practice. 

4  Jo.  Friburg,  Op.  cit.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  147,  156. 


THE  MASS.  87 

venials  and  preservation  from  mortals,  while  the  Catechism  of  the 
council  reconciles  the  old  teaching  and  the  new  by  attributing  its 
agency  to  its  conferring  the  grace  of  repentance.1 

The  other  development  of  the  pardoning  power  of  the  Eucharist 
lay  in  the  efficacy  attributed  to  the  celebration  of  Mass,  and  proved 
of  vastly  greater  utility  to  the  Church.  Originally  the  bread  and 
wine  of  the  sacrifice  were  contributed  by  the  faithful  on  the  spot  and 
were  known  as  oblations,  the  priest  with  his  deacons  moving  through 
the  congregation  to  collect  them  in  a  bag  and  pitcher  and  place  them 
on  the  altar :  if  there  was  a  superfluity  the  solid  portion  was  cut  into 
pieces  of  convenient  size  and  distributed  as  eulogice  or  blessed  bread 
among  those  unable  to  attend  the  services.  In  the  earlier  period,  daily 
attendance  was  expected,  which  subsequently  was  diminished  to  weekly, 
so  that  these  oblations  constituted  a  substantial  contribution  to  the  ex 
penses  of  worship.2  They  were  only  to  be  received  from  members  in 
good  standing  ;  if  conscious  of  sin  they  ought  not  to  offer ;  if  the  sin 
were  known  the  oblation  was  refused,  and  it  thus  became  a  sort  of 
spiritual  tribunal.3  At  first  these  contributions  were  voluntary,4  but 


1  Concil.  Trident.   Sess.  xm.  De  Eucharistia   c.  3.— Catechism,  ex  Deer. 
Con.  Trident.  De  Eucharistise  Sacramento  c.  xiii.    "Hujus  enim  victimse  odore 
ita  delectatur  Dominus  ut  gratise  et  poenitentise  donum  nobis  impertiens  pec- 
cata  condonet." 

2  Canon.  Hippolyti  xxx.  214,  xxxi.  216  (Achelis,  p.  122). — Canon.  Apostol. 
iv.— Concil.  Carthag.  III.  ann.  397  c.  24. — Sacramentar.  Gregor.  (Muratori 
Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  pp.  9, 12 ).— Missale  Francor.  (Ibid.  p.  443)— Ordo  Eomanus 
(Ibid.  945,  947).— Amalarii  Eclogse  de  Off.  Missse  (Migne's  Patrol.  CV.  1324).— 
Concil.  Matiscon.  II.  ann.  585  c.  4. — Hincmari  Capit.  Synod,  c.  7. — Concil. 
Nannetens.  circa  890  c.  9, 10. — S.  August.  Epist.  ccxxviii.  ad  Honorat.  n.  6. — 
Theodori  Pcenitent  Lib.  i.  c.  12. 

The  obligation  to  make  the  oblation  weekly  continued  after  communion  was 
required  only  thrice  a  year,  and  it  thus  became  a  source  of  revenue  to  the 
Church  (Regino  de  Discip.  Eccles.  Lib.  n.  v.  56,  63,  89).  Benedict  the 
Levite  however  urges  daily  oblations  and  weekly  communion  (Capitul.  vi.  170). 

8  Constitt.  Apostol.  v.  6,  7.— Concil.  Carthag.  IV.  ann.  398  c.  93,  94.— Atton. 
Vercellens.  Capitulare,  c.  68. — Towards  the  close  of  the  ninth  century  the  council 
of  Nantes  orders  the  priest  before  celebrating  mass  to  enquire  whether  any  of 
those  present  are  at  enmity  with  each  other.  If  so,  they  must  be  reconciled 
on  the  spot  or  be  ejected  from  the  church.  "Non  enim  possumus  munus  vel 
oblationem  ad  altare  offerre  donee  prius  fratri  reconciliemus  (C.  Nannetens.  circa 
890  c.  1). 

4  Justin.  Mart.  Apolog.  Lib.  II.— S.  Cyprian,  de  Op.  et  Eleemos.  c.  15.— 
S.  Augustin.  Serm.  Append.  CCLXV.  c.  2  (Ed.  Benedict.). 


88  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

this  soon  changed,  and  St.  Jerome  complains  bitterly  of  the  harsh 
ness  with  which  they  were  enforced,  no  one  being  allowed  to  plead 
poverty  under  a  threat  of  excision  from  the  Church.1  In  process  of 
time  the  contributions  in  kind  were  converted  into  a  money  payment 
leading  to  a  system  which  it  would  be  interesting  to  trace  in  detail 
if  it  were  not  somewhat  foreign  from  our  purpose.  It  may  possibly 
have  been  as  a  stimulus  to  liberality  that  the  making  of  these  obla 
tions  was  held  to  procure  remission  of  sins,  and,  that  no  encourage 
ment  might  be  lacking,  a  practice  arose  of  the  priest  reciting  the 
names  of  the  contributors.  St.  Jerome  objects  to  this  because  it  con 
verted  into  glorification  what  was  meant  to  be  a  redemption  of  sin  ;2 
but  Innocent  I.  ordered  the  oblations  to  be  solicited  and  the  names 
of  the  givers  to  be  recited.3  Thus  the  custom  continued  and  many 
passages  in  the  rituals  show  that  God  was  expected  to  remit  sins  in1 
return  for  the  oblations,  either  directly  or  through  the  intercession 
of  the  saint  on  whose  feast-day  they  were  made  :  indeed,  there  is  one 
prayer  which  indicates  that  they  had  a  cleansing  power  over  future 
sins  as  well  as  past.4  This  inevitably  fostered  the  mercantile  spirit 
which  rendered  all  the  functions  of  the  Church  a  matter  of  profit, 
and  occasionally  a  voice  was  raised  in  protest.  In  the  ninth  century 


1  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  xiv.  ad  Heliodor.  c.  8.    This  long  continued  a  debatable 
question.     About  the  year  900  Kegino  shows  us  that  it  was  considered  obliga 
tory  on  the  parishioner,  but  indecent  for  the  priest  to  require  it  (De  Discipl. 
Eccles.  Lib.  I.  Inquis.  n.  72,  73).     In  1078  Gregory  VII.  seems  to  have  felt  it 
necessary  to  enforce  the  rule  that  every  one  who  attended  at  mass  should  make 
an  oblation  (C.  Koman.  V.  ann.  1078  c.  12).     This  was  the  less  excusable,  as 
by  this  time  the  Church  was  richly  endowed,  but  the  observations  in  the 
Micrologus  (cap.  10)  show  that  the  custom  was  regularly  observed. 

In  the  previous  century  it  is  recorded  that  Queen  Matilda,  mother  of  Otho 
the  Great,  went  to  church  at  least  twice  a  day,  and  she  never  went  empty- 
handed.— Vit.  S.  Mathildis  c.  10  (Migne,  CXXXV.  900.)  In  another  passage 
it  is  said  that  daily  at  the  mass  she  made  the  oblation  of  wine  and  bread 
"pro  salute  et  utilitate  totius  sanctse  ecclesiae." — Ib.  c.  19. 

2  At  nunc  publice  recitantur  offerentium  nomina  et  redemptio  peccatorum 
mutatur  in  laudem. — S.  Hieron.  Comment,  in  Jeremiam  Lib.  n.  Cap.  11,  vv. 
15,  16. 

3  Innocent  PP.  I.  Epist.  xxv.  c.  2. 

*  Et  a  prseteritis  nos  delictis  exuant  et  futuris. — Sacrament.  Gregorian. 
(Muratori,  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  p.  769.  Cf.  pp.  617,  642,  645,  646,  651,  684,  697  etc.) 
— Missale  Gothicum  (Ib.  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  pp.  287,  293.  Cf.  pp.  297,  303,  336, 
428  )  See  also  the  Sacramentt.  Leonianum  et  Gelasianum,  passim. 


VOTIVE  MASSES.  89 

Walafrid  Strabo  ridicules  the  prevailing  notion  that  special  oblations 
secured  special  graces  directed  at  the  will  of  the  giver,  and  he  rebuked 
the  tendency  which  held  that  merit  consisted  in  liberal  offerings  rather 
than  in  the  spirit  of  devotion,  so  that  frequently  men  would  come 
and  make  their  gift  and  then  go  out  without  waiting  to  hear  the  mass.1 
The  spirit  of  the  age  was  against  him  however,  and  the  ministry  of 
the  altar  became  more  and  more  an  affair  of  trade. 

If  this  was  the  effect  of  the  trifling  contribution  made  by  the 
devotee,  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar  itself,  the  tremendous  offering  in 
the  mass  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  would  naturally  be  held 
to  be  of  far  greater  efficacy.  The  belief  sprang  up  and  was  sedu 
lously  inculcated  that  there  was  scarce  any  object  of  human  desire 
that  might  not  be  obtained  by  Votive  Masses — masses  celebrated  in 
the  name  of  the  worshipper  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  wishes.  The 
mass  was  an  unfailing  resource,  and  in  the  ancient  rituals  there  are 
formulas  of  masses  for  rain  and  for  fair  weather,  for  peace,  for  victory 
in  war,  for  the  cessation  of  cattle  pests,  for  success  in  law- suits,  against 
unjust  judges,  against  slanderers,  against  tempests  etc.  etc.  They 
were  even  celebrated  in  private  houses  to  obtain  for  the  inmates  safety, 
peace  and  prosperity.2  That  they  should  also  be  used  to  obtain  par 
don  for  sin  was  inevitable,  and  thus  there  came  to  be  rituals  of  masses 
"pro  peccatis,"  "pro  confitente,"  "pro  poenitente,"  in  Avhich  the 
sacrifice  is  offered  as  an  expiation  to  propitiate  God  and  lead  him  to 
pardon  the  sinner,  and  this  apparently  was  considered  so  efficacious 
that  it  was  not  thought  worth  while  to  assume  that  he  was  repentant 
or  contrite.3  What  relations  this  bore  to  the  established  systems  of 


1  Walafridi  Strabi  de  Rebus  Ecclesi^e  c.  22. 

2  Sacrament.  Gregor.  (Ibid.  P.  n.  pp.  813-26).— Sacrament.  Galilean.  (Ibid. 
P.  in.  pp.  833,  835,  842).— As  recently  as  the  sixteenth  century,  Grillandus  (De 
Sortilegiis  Q.  17)  treats  of  the  question  of  the  punishment  due  to  priests  who 
use  the  Mass  for  improper  purposes  by  mingling  in  it  wicked  and  filthy  prayers, 
and  he  emphasizes  this  by  a  recent  case  of  a  Spanish  cleric  in  Eome,  madly  in 
love  with  four  nuns,  who  bribed  some  mendicant  priests  to  offer  in  their  masses 
prayers  to  enable  him  to  seduce  them. 

3  Hanc  igitur  oblationem  quam  tibi  offerimus  pro  famulo  tuo  [illo]  ut  omnium 
peccatorum  suorum  veniam  consequi  mereatur,  quaesumus  Domine  placatus 
accipias  et  miserationis  tuse  largitate  concedas  ut  fiat  ei  ad  veniam  delictorum 
et  actuum  emendationem   .  .  .   et  famulum  tuum  [ilium]  abomni  culpa  liberum 
esse  concede  etc.— Sacramentar.  Gregor.  (Ibid.  P.  II.  pp.  102,  1051,  812). — 


90  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

penance  it  would  be  impossible  now  to  determine  with  accuracy,  but 
with  the  tendency  of  the  Church  in  the  Dark  Ages  to  exploit  all  its 
po\vers  it  is  perhaps  not  unjust  to  assume  that  it  served  as  a  precursor 
to  indulgences,  and  that  judicious  liberality  on  the  part  of  the  so-called 
penitent  might  in  this  way  diminish  the  terrors  of  the  long  years  of 
mortification  prescribed  by  the  canons.  In  the  twelfth  century 
Abelard  had  no  hesitation  in  ascribing  to  the  avarice  of  the  clergy 
their  habit  of  thus  selling  masses  to  the  dying,  which  he  denounces 
as  a  trade  of  empty  promises  of  salvation  for  money — a  denier  being 
the  charge  for  a  single  mass,  while  a  foundation  of  an  annual  mass 
cost  forty.1  The  council  of  Trent  seeks  to  palliate  the  custom  by 
arguing  that  God,  placated  by  the  oblation,  grants  to  the  sinner  the 
gift  of  repentance  and  thus  remits  the  greatest  crimes2  and  such 
masses  are  still  authorized.3  The  most  fruitful  development  of  this 


Alcuini  Lib.  Sacramentarium  c.  2, 17. — Excerptt.  ex  Cod.  Liturg.  Fontanellan. 
(Migne,  CLI.  902). 

In  a  Sacramentarium  Gallicanum  (Muratori  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  p.  847)  there  is 
a  Missa  Dominicalis  which  is  more  elevated  in  tone,  asking  pardon  for  the  peni 
tent  sinner  and  praying  that  he  may  be  granted  strength  to  resist  temptation 
and  merit  salvation. 

In  a  Maronite  Ordo  the  propitiatory  and  absolvatory  power  of  the  sacrifice 
is  fully  expressed.  "  Sacerdotes  .  .  .  qui  sanctificarent  in  unitate  et  con- 
cordia  corpus  et  sanguinem  suum  ad  propitiationem  debitorum  et  remissionem 
peccatorum." — Martene  de  Antiq.  Ecclesise  Ritibus  Lib.  I.  c.  viii.  Art.  11 
Ordo  20. 

1  Et  quia  plerunque  non  minor  est  avaritia  sacerdotis  quam  populi     . 
multos  morientium  seducit  cupiditas  sacerdotum  vanam  eis  securitatem  pro- 
mittentium  si  quse  habent  sacrifices  obtulerint  et  missas  emant,  quas  nequaquam 
gratis  haberent.     In  quo  quidem  mercimonio  praefixum  apud  eos  pretium  con- 
stat  esse,  pro  una  scilicet  missa  unum  denarium  et  pro  uno  annuali  quadraginta. 
—  P.  Abselardi  Ethica  cap.  17. 

2  Huius  quippe  oblatione  placatus  Dominus  gratiam  et  donum  poanitentiae 
concedens,  crimina  et  peccata  etiam  ingentia  dimittit.— C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxn. 
De  Sacrific.  Missae  c.  2. — Arguing  from  this  Juenin  (De  Sacramentis  Diss.  V. 
Q.  vi.  Cap.  1)  asserts  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  remits  both  the  culpa  and 
the  pcena  of  sin. 

3  Ferraris,  Prompta  Bibliotheca  s.  v.  Missa,  Art.  vn.  n.  2. 

The  authority  alleged  in  support  of  the  custom  is  Hebrews,  v.  3. — "And 
therefore  he  [the  high  priest]  ought,  as  for  the  people  so  also  for  himself,  tc 
offer  for  sins." 

The  immense  revenue  accruing  from  the  "stipends"  or  "alms"  paid  foi 
masses  led  to  a  most  careful  and  minute  subdivision  of  the  merits  of  the  sacri 
fice.  Following  Scotus  there  is  recognized  a  threefold  partition — to  the  Churcl 


VOTIVE  MASSES.  91 

practice  was  in  the  direction  of  mortuary  masses  which  does  not 
belong  to  our  immediate  subject  and  cannot  be  discussed  here.1 

There  were  various  other  religious  ceremonies  which  were  held  to 
have  a  power  of  remitting  sins.     Thus  the  prayers  in  the  mass  of 


at  large,  to  the  person  for  whom  it  is  offered,  and  to  the  celebrant  himself 
(Addis  and  Arnold,  Catholic  Dictionary,  s.  v.  Mass),  the  intention  of  the  cele 
brant  determining  how  it  shall  be  directed.  All  this  has  led  to  the  most  curious 
and  intricate  questions,  which  by  their  very  nature  are  insoluble,  though  their 
correct  solution  to  the  believer  is  of  such  infinite  importance.  When  there  are 
two  benefactors  of  the  church  equally  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  a  mass,  the 
priest  is  instructed  to  divide  his  intention  equally  between  the  two,  which  is 
admitted  to  be  a  difficult  matter.  When  one  of  these  is  living  and  the  other 
dead  there  are  nice  discussions  as  to  which  should  be  preferred  to  the  other — the 
living  who  may  be  advanced  in  grace  or  the  dead  who  will  only  have  his  purga 
tory  shortened — and  the  priest  under  these  circumstances  is  advised  to  utter  a 
preliminary  prayer  to  God  to  distribute  the  merits  according  to  the  need  of  the 
recipients  (Nic.  Weigel  Claviculse  Indulgentialis  c.  74).  When  a  man  pays  a 
priest  for  a  mass,  some  doctors  hold  that  the  celebrant  is  required  only  to  apply 
the  benefit  ex  opere  operato  and  not  that  ex  opere  operantis,  including  the  prayers 
uttered  during  the  ceremony.  To  this  the  objection  is  urged  that  in  this  case 
the  mass  of  a  wicked  priest  is  as  efficacious  as  that  of  a  good  one,  and  people 
are  thus  discouraged  from  bestowing  their  custom  on  the  virtuous  (Summa 
Diana  s.  v.  Missam  applicare  n.  8).  It  can  readily  be  seen  that  the  complexities 
of  the  subject  are  endless.  For  the  scandalous  quarrels  to  which  the  system 
gave  rise,  see  the  suits  recorded  in  the  Formularium  Advocatorum  et  Procuratorum 
Romane  Curie,  Basilic,  1493,  fol.  93-4,  132-5. 

The  purely  mercantile  character  of  these  transactions  is  seen  in  the  rule  that, 
if  a  priest  receives  pay  for  a  mass  to  be  celebrated  about  an  important  matter 
and  delays  it  for  a  few  days,  he  is  guilty  of  mortal  sin  and  must  refund  the 
money,  if  during  that  time  the  matter  is  decided  so  that  the  mass  is  useless,  as 
for  example  if  a  sick  man  dies  or  a  law-suit  is  settled ;  but  if  no  harm  has 
arisen  from  the  delay  he  commits  no  sin  and  can  keep  the  money. — Benedict! 
XIV.  Casus  Conscientiae,  Apr.  1741,  c.  iii. 

The  industry  of  selling  masses  at  a  full  price  and  having  them  performed 
elsewhere,  where  the  tariff  is  lower,  has  been  a  flourishing  one,  but  is  forbidden 
by  Pius  IX.  under  excommunication  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  in  the  bull 
Apostolicce  Sedis,  12  Oct.  1869. 

1  How  this,  like  all  other  sacerdotal  functions,  was  exploited  is  seen  in  the 
complaints  presented  to  the  Grands  Jours  of  Troyes  in  1405,  by  the  people 
against  their  parish  priests.  In  the  long  catalogue  of  exactions  is  enumerated 
that  when  a  death  occurred  the  heirs  were  required  daily  for  thirty  days,  and 
then  weekly  to  the  end  of  the  year,  to  offer  oblations  of  bread,  wine,  and  other 
matters.  The  court  ordered  this  to  cease  and  that  the  priest  should  not 


92  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

Exaltatio  Crucis  indicate  that  the  sinner  Avho  adored  the  cross  was 
liberated/  and  the  same  is  seen  in  the  Oratio  ad  capillaturam  on 
bestowing  the  tonsure.2  Entrance  into  religion  was  also  regarded  as 
a  second  baptism  which  washed  away  all  the  sins  of  the  monk.3 
Extreme  unction,  however,  was  a  more  important  and  more  durable 
means  of  obtaining  pardon,  which,  as  it  has  direct  apostolic  warrant4 
one  is  somewhat  surprised  not  to  find  included  in  the  various  enu 
merations  which  are  referred  to  above.  Doubtless,  in  the  earlier 
time,  this  was  practised  generally  with  the  sick,  in  the  hope  that  the 
promise  of  cure  of  body  as  well  as  of  soul  might  be  realized ;  as  the 
result  of  the  former  could  be  tested,  while  that  of  the  latter  necessarily 
remained  an  assumption,  it  came  to  be  reserved  for  desperate  cases 
and  for  the  moribund,  and  when  the  theory  of  the  sacraments  was 
definitely  settled,  the  "chrism,"  which  was  one  of  the  original  three, 
was  divided  into  two,  confirmation  and  extreme  unction. 

The  confection  of  the  chrism  on  Holy  Thursday  was  a  ceremony 
performed  with  much  solemnity.  In  a  Sacramentary,  which  is  prob 
ably  of  the  sixth  century,  the  ritual  for  it  comprises  an  exorcism  in 
which  it  is  assumed  to  have  the  power  of  remitting  all  sins.5  The 
formulas  for  the  ministration  of  extreme  unction  show  that  it  was 
held  to  be  a  cure  for  disease  as  well  as  a  pardon  for  sin,  which  is  fur 
ther  indicated  by  the  application  of  the  chrism  to  the  head,  eyes,  ears, 
nostrils,  mouth,  neck,  throat,  back,  breast,  heart,  hands,  feet,  joints, 


demand  more  than  five  sous  tournois  for  the  office  of  the  dead. — Preuves  des 
Libertez  de  1'Eglise  Gallicane,  II.  n.  89,  92  (Paris,  1651). 

1  Sacramentarium  Gregorianum  (Muratori  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  p.  680). 

2  Ibid.  p.  917. 

3  Theodori  Capitula  c.  2  (Wasserschleben  p.  145).— Theodori  Poenitent   Lib. 
II.  c.  iii.  §  3  (Ibid.  p.  204).     Thus  in  a  life  of  St.  Nilus,  written  by  a  contempo 
rary,  it  is  said  concerning  his  desire  to  become  a  monk — "in  uno  momento 
rejuvenescere  velut  aquilse  juventus  atque  omnibus  prioribus  delictis  liberari" 
(Martene  Ampl.  Coll.  VI.  928). 

4  Is  any  man  sick  among  you  ?  let  him  bring  in  the  priests  of  the  church ; 
and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
And  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  man,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him 
up;  and  if  he  be  in  sins  they  shall  be  forgiven  him.— James,  v.  14-15. 

0  Eisque  ex  eo  ungere  habent  in  remissionem  omnium  peccatorum. — Sacra 
ment.  Gelasianum  Lib.  i.  n.  40  (Muratori  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  p.  105).  In  the 
Sacram.  Gregorianum  (Ibid.  pp.  578-80)  the  formula  expresses  the  virtue  of 
the  chrism  in  more  general  terms. 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH.  93 

and  place  of  chief  suffering.1  Curiously  enough  Peter  Lombard,  in 
quoting  the  text  of  James,  omits  the  words  "  and  the  prayer  of  faith 
shall  save  the  sick  man,"  thus  attributing  the  whole  virtue  of  the 
operation  to  the  chrism  :  he  holds  that  it  is  beneficial  to  both  body 
and  soul,  but  if  it  is  not  fitting  that  the  sick  man  recover,  at  least  he 
gains  health  for  his  soul,  for  there  is  an  interior  unction  which  oper 
ates  remission  of  sin  and  amplification  of  virtue.  There  was  a  ques 
tion  among  the  theologians  whether,  like  baptism,  confirmation  and 
orders,  it  could  be  performed  but  once,  but  Lombard  proves  that 
like  the  Eucharist,  penitence  and  matrimony,  it  can  be  repeated.2 

It  would  carry  us  too  far  beyond  our  scope  to  undertake  a  detailed 
investigation  of  the  controversies  over  Pelagianism  and  justification 
by  faith  and  grace,  but  we  cannot  escape  some  allusion  to  the  part 
assigned  by  the  doctors  of  the  Church  to  God  in  the  conversion  and 
pardon  of  the  sinner — a  subject  which  has  been  perennially  debated 
with  all  the  more  heat  that  all  knowledge  concerning  it  is  unattain 
able. 

As  early  as  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias  we  find  the  doctrine  that 
the  elect  of  God  are  saved  through  faith,3  and  in  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century  this  is  amplified  by  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  who  asserts 
that  faith  is  the  only  means  of  justification ;  no  one  can  remit  sins 
but  God,  therefore  all  remission  is  from  him ;  even  the  repentance 
which  is  a  condition  precedent  to  pardon  is  a  gift  from  heaven  :  it  is 


1  Thus  a  formula  of  the  eleventh  century  has  "  Ungo  te  in  nomine  Patris  et 
Filii  et  Spiritus  sancti,  oleo  sancto  atque  sacrato,  ut  virtute   Spirit!  sancti 
tribuat  tibi  hsec  sacra  unctio   sanitatem   animse  et  corporis  in  remissionem 
omnium   peccatorum   et  vitam    seternam."     And   the   final    instructions   are 
"  Deinde  communicet  eum  sacerdos  corpore  et  sanguine  Domini,  et  sic  septem 
continues   dies,  si   necessitas  contigerit,  tarn  de  communione  quam  de  alio 
officio,  et  suscitabit  eum  Dominius  ad  salutem,  et  si  in  peccatis  fuerit  dimit- 
tentur  ei,  ut  apostolus  ait.— Morini  de  Sacram.  Poenitent.  Append,  p.  27.     Cf. 
pp.  49-50,  52. 

The  modern  ceremony  is  somewhat  less  elaborate ;  the  unction  is  performed 
with  blessed  olive  oil  and  is  applied  only  to  the  organs  which  are  the  cause  of 
sin— the  eyes,  ears,  nostrils,  mouth,  hands,  feet  and  reins— the  latter  being 
now  omitted  in  the  case  of  women  — C.  Florent.  Deer.  Unionis  (Hard.  IX. 
440).— Addis  and  Arnold's  Catholic  Diet.  s.  v.  Extreme  Unction.  Cf.  Bonizonis 
Placentini  Lib.  de  Sacramentis. 

2  P.  Lombard.  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xxiii.  §|  1-3. 

3  Pastor  Hermse,  Vis.  in.  8. 


94  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

not  the  reward  of  merit  but  a  free  and  spontaneous  pardon.1  There 
was  fair  warrant  for  these  deductions  in  the  Fourth  Gospel/  yet  they 
struck  at  once  a  comprehensive  and  fatal  blow  at  human  free-will, 
at  all  incentive  for  moral  improvement,  and  at  all  the  claims  of 
sacerdotalism.  Yet  if  the  priest  was  powerless  to  save  he  could  at 
least  condemn,  for  St.  Hilary  explained  St.  Paul's  delivery  of  sin 
ners  to  Satan  (I.  Cor.  v.  5 ;  I.  Tim.  i.  20)  by  expulsion  from  the 
Church,  when  they  were  at  once  abandoned  bodily  to  the  devil.3  Xot 
long  afterwards  Marius  Victorinus  softened  this  somewhat.  While 
justification  could  only  come  from  the  grace  of  God  and  could  not  be 
asked  for  through  merits,  we  may  seek  by  repentance  to  placate  God 
to  grant  it.4  St.  Jerome  perhaps  hardly  realized  how  he  denied  all 
virtue  to  the  ministrations  of  the  Church  when  he  insisted  on  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  remission  of  sins ; 
even  the  waters  of  baptism  could  not  wash  a  soul  that  had  not  been 
previously  washed  by  the  Spirit.5  Rufinus,  in  attempting  to  answer 
the  mocking  pagans,  who  asked  how  the  Christians  by  a  formula 
could  make  a  murderer  to  be  not  a  murderer,  explains  that  the  acts  are 
not  changed  but  the  soul  is,  and  this  is  by  the  influence  of  God,  and 
faith  suffices  for  this.6  St.  Basil  the  Great,  or  the  Rule  which  passes 
under  his  name,  recognized  how  destructive  this  was  to  the  doctrine 
of  free-will  and  endeavored  to  reconcile  them,  but  without  success.7 

The  question  broadened  and  deepened,  and  the  assertions  of  the 
orthodox  became  more  accentuated,  in  the  controversy  with  Pelagian- 


1  Fides  enim  sola  justificat     .     .     .     Verum  enim  nemo  potest  dimittere 
peccata  nisi  solus  Deus :   ergo  qui  remittit  Deus  est. — S.  Hilar.  Pictavieris. 
Comment,  in  Matt.  c.  viii.  n.  3. 

Peccata  vetera  flentibus  et  crimina  quibus  obsordescimus  conscientia  serum- 
nosis,  hsec  sedula  in  ccelo  consolatio  prseparatur. — Ib.  c.  iv.  n.  4. 

Et  peccatorum  remissio  non  probitatis  est  meritum,  sed  spontanese  indul- 
gentiae  voluntas.— Ejusd.  Tract,  in  Psalm.  LXVI.  n.  2. 

2  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  who  has  sent  me  draw  him.   .  .  . 
No  man  can  come  to  me  unless  it  be  given  him  by  the  Father. — John,  vi. 
44,66. 

3  S.  Hilar.  Pictav.  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxvm.  Lib.  xvi.  n.  5. 

4  Marii  Victorini  in  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  Lib.  I.  Vers.  7 ;  de  Physicis  Libri 
cap.  15. 

5  Neque   enim   aqua  lavat  animam  sed  prius  ipsa  lavatur  a  Spiritu. — S. 
Hieron.  Dial,  contra  Luciferanos  |  6. 

6  Rufini  Comment,  in  Symbol.  Apostol.  c.  40. 

7  S.  Basilii  Regula,  Interrog.  cxxm.  (Migne,  GUI.  532). 


PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.  95 

ism.  Such  teachings  as  the  above  could  hardly  go  unchallenged,  and 
Pelagius  not  only  denied  original  sin  in  the  sense  of  culpability  lead 
ing  to  damnation  unless  remitted,  but  argued  that  man  enjoys  free 
will  and  that  his  eternal  destiny  lies  in  his  own  hands,  to  make 
choice  between  good  and  evil.  In  combating  this,  St.  Augustin  was 
forced  to  define  predestination  and  prevenient  grace  with  a  sharpness 
which  led  to  considerable  opposition.  In  Gaul,  his  Liber  de  Correp- 
tione  et  Gratia  gave  especial  offence  to  men  who  stood  so  high  as  St. 
Hilary  of  Aries  and  John  Cassianus.  Their  arguments  were  diffi 
cult  to  refute,  and  St.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  who  was  carrying  on  the 
unequal  combat,  wrote  to  St.  Augustin  for  aid.  He  responded  in 
one  of  the  latest  works  of  his  fluent  pen,  the  Liber  de  Prcedestinatione 
Sanctorum,  which  a  century  later  received  the  unqualified  approba 
tion  of  Pope  Hormisdas,  but  the  controversy  continued  and  in  529 
the  second  council  of  Orange  was  held  to  define  the  faith  on  this 
subject.  Its  definitions  were  confirmed  by  Felix  IV.  and  as  it  is 
impossible  from  the  premises  to  frame  a  rational  and  consistent  theory, 
we  need  not  wonder  that  the  doctors  have  found  in  it  matter  for 
endless  debate  ever  since. 

In  the  system  thus  laboriously  constructed  justification  comes  only 
by  faith  and  the  free  grace  of  God,1  and  the  one  insurmountable  ob 
struction  to  salvation  is  despair — Judas  would  have  been  pardoned 
had  he  not  despaired  of  pardon  and  hanged  himself.2  Yet  faith  is 


1  Fides  igitur  et  inchoata  et  perfecta  donum  Dei  est :  et  hoc  donum  quibus- 
dam  dari,  quibusdam  non  dari  omnino  non  dubitet  qui  non  vult  manifestissi- 
mis  sacris  litteris  repugnare.     .    .    .    Unde  constat  magnam  esse  gratiam  quod 
plurimi  liberantur     .     .     .     Cur  autem  istum  potius  quam  ilium  liberet  in- 
scrutabilia  sunt  judicia  ejus  et  investigabiles  vise  ejus. — S.  August,  de  Prsedes- 
tinatione  Sanctorum  cap.  8.  Of.  c.  3,  10. 

Quicunque  dixerit  gratiam  Dei  qua  justificamur  per  Jesum  Christum  Do- 
minum  nostrum  ad  solam  remissionem  peccatorum  valere  quae  jam  commissse 
sunt,  non  etiam  ad  adjutorium  ut  non  committantur,  anathema  sit. — Crelest. 
PP.  I.  Epist.  xxi.  c.  10. 

Si  quis  ut  a  peccato  purgemur  voluntatem  nostram  Deum  expectare  con- 
tendit,  non  autem  ut  etiam  purgari  velimus  per  sancti  Spiritus  infusionem  et 
operationem  in  nos  fieri  confitetur,  resistit  ipsi  Spiritui  sancti. — Concil.  Arau- 
sican.  II.  ann.  529  c.  4.  Cf.  c.  3,  5, 15,  19.— S.  Prosperi  Aquitan.  Eesponsiones 
ad  Capit.  Vincentian.  c.  15 ;  Ejusd.  contra  Collatorem  c.  11. — S.  Eligii  Nov- 
iomens.  Homil.  xi. — Rabani  Mauri  Homil.  in  Evang.  et  Epistt.  Horn.  cxi. 

2  Immo  pcenitendo  deterius  peccant  cum  de  peccatorum  remissio  desperant. 
— S.  Fulgentii  Ruspens.  de  Remiss.  Peccatorum  Lib.  n.  c.  16. 


96  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

only  to  be  had  through  the  prevenient  grace  of  God  and  the  will  to 
believe  is  due  to  God.1  Merits  are  rather  a  drawback — if  there  were 
merits  there  would  not  be  grace  and  what  is  given  would  be  the  pay 
ment  of  a  debt  and  not  a  free  gift,2  and  repentance  of  course  is  super 
fluous.3  Of  course  human  free-will  was  incompatible  with  all  this, 
and  it  was  argued  away  in  the  most  absolute  fashion.4  Man's 
will  only  serves  him  to  displease  God,  when  he  serves  God  the  will 
is  God's,  not  his.5  But  the  crowning  doctrine  in  this  deplorable 
theory  was  the  assertion  of  predestination,  of  election  and  reproba 
tion,  for  which  ample  warrant  was  found  in  the  strange  utterances 
of  St.  Paul.6  These  texts  were  used  and  carried  to  their  ultimate 
consequences  without  regard  to  their  practical  nullification  of  the 
fundamental  theory  of  the  Atonement.  When  the  Pelagians  argued 
that  God  foreknew  who  would  save  themselves  by  the  exercise  of 
their  free-will  in  good  works,  St.  August  in  would  have  none  of  such 
temporizing  and  easily  showed  that  the  distribution  of  salvation  was 
regulated  and  predestined  by  the  divine  will,7  nor  had  he  any  greater 
trouble  in  disposing  of  the  Gallican  Semipelagian  saints  whose  doc- 


1  S.  August.  Lib.  de  Praedestinat.  c.  3,  6.     "  Cum  aliis  praeparetur  aliis  non 
praeparetur  voluntas  a  Domino." 

2  Ibid.  c.  3. — Prosperi  Aquitan.  (?)  De  Vocatione  omnium  Gentium  Lib.  I. 
c.  17. — C.  Arausican  II.  ann.  529  c.  6. 

3  S.  August.  Lib.  de  Prsedestinat.  c.  16.     For  this  there  is  the  authority  of 
St.  Paul,  Romans,  xi.  29,  which  was  duly  quoted. 

4  S.  August.  Lib.  de  Praedestinat.  c.  10.— Pseudo-Augustin.  Hypognasticon 
Lib.  in. 

5  C.  Arausican.  II.  c.  23.     "Suam  voluntatem  homines  faciunt,  non  Dei, 
quando  id  agunt  quod  Deo  displicet ;  quando  autem  id  faciunt,  quod  volunt 
ut  divinse  serviant  voluntati,  quamvis  volentes  agant  quod  agunt,  illius  tainen 
voluntas  est  a  quo  et  praeparatur  et  jubetur  quod  volunt." — Of.  c.  7,  8,  9. 

Gregory  the  Great  endeavored  to  remove  one  of  the  incongruities  of  the 
system  by  arguing  that  those  predestined  to  salvation  only  obtain  it  by  labors 
which  merit  what  God  had  predestined  for  them  (Gregor.  PP.  I.  Dialog.  I.  8) 
— but  this  postulates  free-will  for  good  and  was  not  accepted.  See  Flori  Diac. 
Lugdunens.  Serm.  de  Prsedest.  (Migne  CXIX.  97);  Gratian.  Deer.  Caus. 
xxm.  Q.  4  post  c.  19. 

6  Romans,  vin.  29,  30;  xi.  5,  6.— Ephesians,  I.  3-11. 

7  S.  August.  Lib.  de  Praedestinat.  c.  17.     "Non  qui  eliguntur  quia  credunt, 
sed  qui  eliguntur  ut  credant.     .     .     .     Sed  jam  electos  in  se  ipso  ante  mundi 
constitutionem.     Haec  est  immobilis  veritas  praedestinationis  et  gratiae." — Of. 
Ejusd.  de  Correptione  et  Gratia  c.  15;  Epist.  en.  ad  Deogratias,  n.  15.— S. 
Fulgentii  Ruspens.  de  Remiss.  Peccator.  Lib.  n.  c.  2. 


PREDESTINATION.  97 

trines  were  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  the  heretic.1  For  them 
there  was  a  crux  in  the  fate  of  infants  dying  before  the  age  of 
responsibility,  for  they  admitted  original  sin.  To  solve  this  they 
argued  that  such  infants  were  saved  or  damned  according  to  what 
their  lives  would  have  been  had  they  lived,  but  Augustin  easily  ex 
posed  the  fallacy  of  this,  for  it  conceded  fate  and  foreknowledge ; 
his  own  view  is  that  when  infants  die  they  either  are  saved  by  God's 
grace  or  damned  by  his  judgment.2  The  council  of  Orange  did  not 
proclaim  the  doctrine  of  predestination  and  election  in  all  its  repul 
sive  crudeness,  but  it  adopted  a  canon  in  which  foreknowledge  and 
consequently  predestination  is  assumed.3  How  completely  this  was 
accepted  by  the  Church  is  seen  by  the  clear  definition  of  St.  Isidor 
of  Seville,  in  his  assertion  that  one  man  tries  to  be  good  and  is 
unable  while  another  wishes  to  be  wicked  and  is  not  permitted,  and 
in  his  admission  that  the  whole  is  inexplicable  by  human  intelligence.4 
The  Pelagians  argued,  but  in  vain,  that  this  system  removes  all 
pressure  on  men  to  be  righteous.  In  fact  it  neutralizes  all  the  in 
fluence  of  the  promise  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  and  rele 
gates  man  to  the  position  of  a  blind  puppet  of  a  supreme  and 


1  S.  August.  Lib.  de  Praedest.  c.  19.     One  argument  which  St.  Augustin 
seems  to  regard  as  conclusive  (Ibid.  c.  15)  is  a  happy  illustration  of  the  theo 
logical  habit  of  regarding  illustrations  as  reasons.     Christ  was  a  man.     His 
sinless  career  was  predestined.     He  was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
Christians  are  regenerate  in  baptism.     As  the  cases  are  parallel  the  careers  of 
all  Christians  are  predestined,  for  they  are  all  members  of  Christ.     This  is  also 
the  only  argument  that  Peter  Lombard  can  adduce.— P.  Lombard,  in  Epist. 
ad  Romanes,  n.  11. 

2  S.  Augustin.  Lib.  de  Prsedestinat.  c.  12. —  Monastic  asceticism  found  a 
reason  for  the  damnation  of  innocent  infants.     St.  Odo  of  Cluny  asks  "  Quare 
Justus  judex  Deus  infantem  legitimo  matrimonio  et  absolute  tempore  concep- 
tum,  etiam  si  priusquam  peccare  possit  moritur,  cur  aeternaliter  condemnet? 
Sed  dum  proprio  reatu  minime  punitur,  manifestum  est  illud  fieri  propter  illud 
peccatuin  quod  fit  hora  conceptionis.     Si  ergo  tanta  est  culpa  in  conjugali  con- 
cubitu  ut  infans  pro  ilia  sola  puniri  debeat  etc,"— Odonis  Cluniac.  Collationum 
Lib.  n.  c.  24. 

3  Tales  nos  amat  Deus  quales  futuri  sumus  ipsius  dono,  non  quales  sunius 
nostro  merito.— C.  Arausican.  II.  ann.  529  c.  12. 

4  Gemina  est  praBdestinatio,  sive  electorum  ad  requiem,  sive  reproborum 
ad  mortem.     .     .     .     Vult  quis  esse  bonus  et  non  valet ;  vult  alter  esse  malus 
et  non  permittitur  interire.     .     .     .     Et  in  hac  tanta  obscuritate  non  valet 
homo  divinam  perscrutari  dispositionem,  et  occultem  praedestinationis  perpen- 
dere  ordinem. — S.  Isidori  Hispalen.  Sententt.  Lib.  n.  c.  6. 

I.— 7 


98  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

mysterious  power,  working  for  its  own  inscrutable  ends,  regardless 
of  human  virtue  and  happiness,  here  and  hereafter.  Moreover  it 
struck  at  the  root  of  the  groAving  sacerdotalism,  for  logically  it 
eliminated  the  ministrations  of  the  priest ;  if  man  had  no  free-will, 
if  repentance  and  good  works  were  indifferent,  if  he  were  predestined 
to  bliss  or  to  perdition,  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  was  a  figment, 
and  the  sacraments  were  the  merest  simulacra.  It  is  a  most  striking 
illustration  of  the  human  faculty  of  self-deception  that  these  dogmas 
continued  to  be  taught  while  sacerdotalism  in  all  its  forms  was  spread 
ing,  while  men  were  earnestly  urged  to  win  God's  favor  by  good 
works  and  repentance  and  amendment  and  to  earn  salvation  through 
the  sacraments,  as  though  the  freedom  of  the  will  had  never  been 
questioned  and  predestination  had  never  been  heard  of.  The  whole 
practice  of  the  Church  assumed  the  truth  of  the  Pelagian  heresy 
that  every  man  holds  in  his  own  hands  the  destiny  of  his  soul  for 
good  or  for  evil,  while  yet  the  Church  anathematized  Pelagius  and 
condemned  the  astrologers  for  denying  free-will.1  When  in  the 
ninth  century  the  monk  Gotteschalck  taught  the  unvarnished  doc 
trines  of  S.  Augustin,  it  was  easy  to  condemn  and  punish  him  in  the 
councils  of  Mainz  and  Quierzy,  but  he  could  not  be  condemned  with 
out  also  condemning  what  the  Church  had  held  for  more  than  four 
centuries  as  unquestioned  verity,  and  a  theological  storm  arose  which 
ended  only  with  the  exhaustion  or  death  of  the  participants,  leaving 
the  riddle  as  far  from  solution  as  ever.2 

Yet  the  ingenuity  of  churchmen  sufficed  to  reconcile  predestination 


1  A  sermon  attributed  to  St.  Caesarius  of  Aries  says  "  Per  mathematicos  sic 
loquitur:   Numquid  homo  peccat?   Stellae  sic  sunt  positse,  necesse  est  ut  fiiciat 
homo  peccatum  .  .  .  quia  stella  facit  ut  homo  peccet ;  nam  ipse  non  peccat." 
— S.  Augustin.  Append.  Serm.  CCLIII.  n.  2  (Ed.  Benedict).     This  continued  to 
the  last  to  be  the  ground  for  condemning  astrology.     Cecco  d'Ascoli  was  burnt 
because  his  predictions  of  future  events  by  the  stars  inferred  denial  of  free-will. 

2  Gotteschalci  Fragmenta  (Migne,  CXXI.  347)  — Concil.  Mogunt.  II.  ann.  848 
(Harduin.  V.  15).— C.  Carisiac.  I.  ann.  849  (Ibid.  p.  18).  -C.  Carisiac.  II.  ann. 
853  (Ib.  p.  58).— C.  Valentin.  III.  ann.  855  (Ib.  p.  87).— Ratramnus  Corbeiens. 
de  Prsedestinat.   Dei. — Amulonis  Lugdunens.  Sententt.  de  Pnedestinat. — S. 
Hemigii  Lugdunens.  de  Tribus  Epistolis  Liber. — Hincmarus  Remens.  de  Prse- 
destinatione. — Joan.  Scoti  Erigense  Lib.  de  Prsedestinat. — Flori    I  Mac.  Lug 
dunens  adv.  Jo.  Scot.  Erigenam.— Lupus  Ferrariens.  de  Tribus  Qusestionibus  ; 
Ejusd.   Collectaneum  de   Tribus  Quaestionibus. — S.   Prudentius  Trecens.   de 
Praedestinat.  contra  Jo.  Scotum. 


PREDESTINA  TION.  9  9 

with  the  necessity  of  priestly  ministrations,  if  not  logically  yet  coer- 
cively.  When  Gerard  of  Cambrai,  at  his  synod  of  1025,  undertook 
to  convert  the  heretic  Cathari,  he  told  them  that  justification  is  a 
matter  of  grace,  reserved  for  the  predestined,1  but  when  he  came  to 
treat  of  the  sacerdotal  power  he  argued  that  the  sentence  of  the  priest 
absolved  those  whom  God  had  visited  with  the  grace  of  compunction,2 
and  as  the  priestly  sentence  of  excommunication  or  absolution  had  a 
very  effective  value  in  worldly  affairs,  there  would  have  been  small 
use  in  arguing  that  God  had  already  granted  his  grace  to  the  offender. 
In  the  next  century  Abelard  is  thoroughly  orthodox  on  the  subject, 
teaching  prevenient  grace  and  predestination.3  Towards  the  middle 
of  the  century  Cardinal  Robert  Pullus  in  one  breath  lays  down  the 
most  rigid  definitions  of  predestination,  election  and  reprobation,  and 
in  another  assures  us  that  faith  and  charity  suffice  to  obtain  pardon4 
— the  naked  Augustinian  doctrine  was  too  orthodox  to  be  denied  and 
too  repulsive  not  to  be  rejected  at  whatever  cost  of  inconsistency.  Yet 
his  contemporary  Gratian  accepts  it  in  all  its  crudity :  reproof  and 
punishment,  he  says,  are  either  superfluous  or  useless — superfluous 
to  those  predestined  to  salvation,  useless  to  those  predestined  to 
damnation.5  It  would  be  difficult  to  strike  a  more  damaging  blow 
at  the  whole  system  of  the  Church,  whether  in  exhortation  or  the 
imposition  of  penance,  whether  as  a  teacher  or  as  a  judge.  All  her 
functions  in  the  forum  internum  were  idle.  The  same  conclusion  can 
be  drawn  from  Peter  Lombard ;  it  is  impossible  for  those  predestined 
to  be  saved  to  be  damned,  for  those  predestined  to  be  damned  to  be 
saved :  but  God,  he  argues,  is  not  responsible  for  the  latter,  he 
simply  acts  by  withholding  his  grace,  and  leaves  them  to  their  evil 
ways.6  Thus  we  return  to  the  old  postulate  that  man  has  free-will 
only  for  evil  and  the  Church  is  powerless  to  save  or  to  condemn,  yet 


1  Synod   Atrebatens.  arm.  1025  c.  16  (D'Achery,  Spicileg.  I.  623). 

2  Ut  quos  omnipotens  Deus  per  compunctionis  gratiam  visitat,  illos  pastoris 
sententia  absolvat. — Gerardi  Camerac.  Epist.  (Gousset,  Actes  de  la  Prov.  Eccles. 
deEeims,  11.51). 

3  P.  Abajlardi  Ethica,  c.  20. 

4  Card.  Robert!  Pulli  Sententt.  Lib.  I.  c.  12 ;  Lib.  v.  c.  11. 

5  Praedestinati  enim  ad  vitani  sine  correptione  mutantur  sicut  Petrus.    .    .    . 
Praesciti  ad  mortem  inter  flagella  deteriores  fiunt,  sicut  Pharao.  Bonis  ergo 
superflua,  damnandis   hsec  inveniuntur  esse   inutilia. — Gratian.  Deer.  Caus. 
xxur.  Q.  4,  post  c.  19. 

6  P.  Lombard.  Sententt.  Lib.  I.  Dist.  40. 


100  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

this  does  not  prevent  Lombard  from  subsequently  dwelling  upon 
repentance  and  the  sacraments  and  the  power  of  the  keys,  as  though 
he  had  never  heard  of  predestination,  election  and  reprobation. 

It  would  be  mere  weariness  to  follow  the  intricacies  of  the  subject 
through  the  endless  dialectics  of  the  schoolmen.  It  had  never  exer 
cised  the  slightest  influence  on  the  policy  or  the  practice  of  the  Church, 
and  even  as  a  scholastic  question  its  interest  diminished  with  the  rise 
of  the  sacramental  system  and  the  establishment  of  the  power  of  the 
keys.  When  the  function  of  absolution  came  to  be  conceded  to  the 
priest  it  made  little  difference  to  him  or  to  his  penitent  whether  the 
latter  was  one  of  the  elect  or  of  the  reproved.  Predestination  re 
mained  necessarily  an  accepted  dogma,  to  be  used  hereafter  with 
tremendous  effect  by  the  heretics,  but  it  was  not  allowed  to  hinder 
the  growth  of  the  confessional  or  the  development  of  indulgences, 
however  incongruous  and  contradictory  it  was  to  them.  The  only 
effort  made  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  principles,  in  constructing  a 
working  theory  of  penitence,  was  the  assumption  that  as  contrition  is 
a  condition  precedent  of  absolution,  so  there  can  be  no  true  contrition 
save  through  infused  or  prevenient  grace.  It  was  all  the  work  of 
God  who  in  this  way  saved  the  elect.  There  is  no  heart  so  hardened, 
says  Richard  of  St.  Victor,  but  that  God  can  soften  it,  and  there  can 
be  no  repentance  without  his  initiative  for  he  has  reserved  this  func 
tion  to  himself.1  Thus  the  definition  of  contrition  came  to  be  that 
infused  grace  is  its  necessary  commencement  and  that  God  alone 
can  fit  the  sinner  for  the  absolution  of  the  priest.2  The  benumbing 
effect  of  this  was  recognized  by  the  practical  moralists,  and  the 
Dominican  Peter  of  Palermo  complains  of  the  fools  who  say  that  they 
will  satisfy  for  their  sins  when  God  shall  give  them  the  grace  of 
repentance.3  It  is  true  that  there  was  a  reaction  in  favor  of  free 
will  ;  William  of  Paris  asserts  that  there  are  three  modes  of  justifi- 


1  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  Ligandi  et  Solvendi  c.  3,  7. 

2  Pet.  Cantor.  Verb.  Abbrev.  c.  141. — S.  Raymundi  Summae  Lib.  ill.  Tit 
xxxiv.  §  5. — Alex,  de  Ales  Summae  P.  iv.  Q.  xiii.  Membr.  1  Art.  3;  Q.  xvii 
Membr.  2,  Art.  1  \  3. 

Yet  toward  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century  Master  Bandinus  omits  infusec 
grace  in  his  enumeration  of  the  essentials  of  penitence.  The  three  things  an 
"  cordis  compunctio,  oris  confessio,  operis  satisfactio." — Bandini  Sententt.  Lib 
iv.  Dist.  16. 

3  Petri  Hieremiae  Sermones;  De  Poanitentia  Serm.  iv.  (Brixiae,  1502). 


A  TTRITION  A ND  CONTRITION.  101 

cation,  the  first  by  the  gratuitous  grace  of  God,  without  cooperation 
by  the  sinner,  the  second  by  the  suffrages  of  the  saints,  the  third  by 
the  cooperation  of  the  penitent  ;l  Alexander  Hales  specifies  that  it 
must  precede  the  infusion  of  grace  and  that  justification  requires  four 
things — the  movement  of  the  free  will,  infusion  of  grace,  contrition 
and  remission  of  sin,2  and  Aquinas  argued  that  grace  is  infused  by 
repentance,  thus  rendering  it  an  eifect  rather  than  a  cause,3  which  led 
to  a  scholastic  discussion  as  to  whether  the  sinner  by  repentance 
opened  his  soul  to  grace,  or  whether  the  preparation  for  grace  is  the 
operation  of  God4 — a  highly  important  difference,  but  one  not  easily 
decided,  involving  on  the  one  side  a  limitation  of  the  omnipotence  of 
God  and  on  the  other  of  human  free-will.  The  position  of  Aquinas 
would  seem  to  have  been  abandoned,  for  Domingo  Soto  tells  us  that 
a  legitimate  act  of  penitence  cannot  be  had  by  nature  but  only  by  the 
grace  of  God  whose  special  help  is  essential,5  and  when  Cardinal 
Lugo  denied  that  God  could  pardon  sin  unless  there  is  at  least 
virtual  repentance,  Palmieri  answers  him  that  God  can  infuse  sanc 
tifying  grace  without  an  act  either  precedent  or  consequent.6 

The  whole  question  however  sank  for  a  while  into  the  condition 
of  a  theological  abstraction,  of  interest  only  as  a  subject  of  dialectics. 
The  schoolmen  might  expatiate  on  the  saving  grace  of  God  and  its 
influence  on  the  soul  in  producing  perfect  contrition  and  change  of 
heart,  but  experience  showed  that  if  this  were  a  condition  precedent 
of  absolution  few  penitents  would  escape  perdition.  For  practical 
purposes  in  the  confessional  some  new  expedient  must  be  invented, 
and  the  difficulty  was  solved  by  the  discovery  that  imperfect  contrition 
or  "  attrition,77  which  does  not  require  grace  and  charity,  becomes 


1  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Sacr.  Poenitentiae  c.  9  (Ed.  1674,  p.  472). 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  iv.  Q  xvii.  Membr.  4  Art.  6  $  4. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixxxix.  Art.  1. 

Yet  Aquinas  in  his  Samma  contra  Gentiles  had  assumed  that  charity  and 
grace  were  necessary  to  conversion  "  Nam  mens  nostra  debite  ad  Deum  con- 
verti  non  potest  sine  charitate ;  charitas  autem  sine  gratia  haberi  non  potest." 
(Lib.  iv.  c.  72).  The  initiative  and  the  responsibility  rested  with  God  —  '  Quod 
Deus  aliquos  a  peccato  liberat  et  aliquos  in  peccato  relinquit."  (Lib.  in.  c.  162). 
Human  free-will  is  powerless  to  win  grace,  but  it  is  efficient  to  impede  it  (Lib. 
in.  c.  160). 

4  Astesani  Summse  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxii.  Q.  2. 

5  Dom.  Soto  Comment,  in  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5. 

6  Palmieri  Tract,  de  Poenitent.  p.  38. 


102  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

contrition  in  the  confessional  through  the  operation  of  the  sacrament. 
This  consolatory  fact  has  been  hidden  from  the  earlier  schoolmen. 
The  first  germ  of  it,  I  think,  is  to  be  found  in  Alexander  Hales,  about 
1245,  though  he  does  not  attribute  it  to  the  sacrament  but  to  the  act 
of  confession  which  sometimes  he  says  intensifies  attrition  into  con 
trition.1  His  contemporary  William  of  Paris  suggests  that  sometimes 
the  power  of  the  keys  in  the  sacrament  may  supply  defects  in  those 
who  come  to  confession  with  a  vehement  desire  to  regain  the  grace  of 
God,  and  he  even  ascribes  infusion  of  grace  to  the  sacrament.2  Car 
dinal  Henry  of  Susa  seems  to  know  nothing  of  it.3  Aquinas  denied 
that  attrition  could  become  contrition,  but  he  argued  that  the  penitent 
could  acquire  grace  in  confession  and  absolution  if  he  imposed  no 
impediment,  and  thus  became  fitted  for  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
the  keys.4  St.  Bonaventura  however  asserts  positively  that  the  sacra 
ment  of  penitence  converts  attrition  into  contrition  f  this  view  was 
generally  held  by  the  Franciscan  school,6  and  finally  the  Dominicans 
adopted  it.  St.  Antonino  of  Florence  asserts  it  as  an  accepted  fact7 
and  Chancellor  Gerson,  who  detested  equally  both  Thomists  and 
Scotists,  alludes  to  it  as  a  matter  of  course.8  Prierias  not  only  as 
sumes  it  but  quotes  Aquinas  in  its  support,9  while  the  Council  of 
Trent  in  carefully  balanced  phraseology10  approached  it  sufficiently  to 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xvin.  Membr.  ii.  Art.  1. 

2  Guillel.  Paris,  de  Sacram.  Poenitent.  c.  4,  21. 

8  Hostiensis  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  |  5. 

4  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  Supplem.  Q.  1,  Art.  3;  Q.  18,  Art.  1. 

5  S.  Bonavent.  in  Lib.  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xvm.  P.  i.  Art.  2,  Q.  1. 

6  Jo.  Scotus  super  IV.  Sententt.   (Ed.  Venet.  c.  1470  fol.  285a).— Astesani 
Summse  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  18. — Guillermus  Vorrillong  super  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  14,  17,  18,  20. 

William  of  Ware  is  now  a  forgotten  theologian  of  the  early  fourteenth  cen 
tury,  but  in  his  day  he  was  known  as  the  Doctor  Fundatus.  The  wide  extent  of 
his  reputation  is  seen  in  the  various  disguises  which  his  name  underwent.  He 
is  cited  as  Anglicus,  Guill.  Anglicus,  Guaro,  Guaronis,  de  Oona,  Varillio,  Var- 
rilionis,  Varro,  Verus,  de  Waria,  Warrillo,  Warro,  Vorlyon,  and,  as  the  early 
Venice  edition  has  it,  Vorrillong. 

T  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  c.  19^3.  Yet  in  another  passage  (P. 
I.  Tit.  x.  c.  3  $  5)  he  speaks  of  it  as  only  occasional — "cum  per  confessionem 
efficiatur  quis  aliquando  de  attrito  contritus." 

8  Fit  etiam  ut  attritio  minus  sufficiens  fiat  in  confessione  contritio. — Joh. 
Gersoni  Kegulse  Morales  (Opp.  Ed.  1488,  xxv.  G.). 

9  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  vv.  Claves  %  4,  Confessio  Sacrament.  I.  §  1 . 

10  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  c.  4.   Yet  in  an  earlier  session  the  Council 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  WORKS.  103 

justify  subsequent  theologians  in  laying  it  down  as  a  rule  of  practice.1 
Thus  the  grace  of  God  was  brought  within  the  reach  of  lukewarm 
penitents. 

While  thus  the  tremendous  doctrines  of  predestination,  election 
and  reprobation,  of  justification  by  faith  and  grace,  were  made  the 
sport  of  the  schools  and  were  nullified  in  practice ;  while  they  were 
admitted  speculatively  as  articles  of  faith  and  were  contradicted  by 
the  efficiency  ascribed  to  priestly  ministrations,  it  is  no  wonder  if  the 
heretics  who  arose  from  time  to  time  eagerly  seized  them  as  the  most 
effective  weapons  against  the  Church.  Wickliffe  and  his  disciple 
Huss  thus  made  ample  use  of  them,  and  Thomas  of  Walden,  while 
quoting  St.  Augustin  largely,  is  virtually  obliged  to  abandon  predes 
tination  and  reprobation  in  order  to  refute  the  heretic  arguments.2 
Luther's  teaching  of  justification  by  faith,  which  we  have  seen  was  as 
old  as  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  was  the  most  direct  attack  that  he  could 
make  on  all  the  paraphernalia  of  sacerdotalism.  Calvin  carried  out 
the  dogma  of  predestination  with  a  pitiless  logic  that  shrank  from  no 
conclusions  however  repulsive.  When  the  council  of  Trent  assembled 
to  repel  these  heretic  assaults  and  to  frame  a  definition  of  faith  that 
should  separate  at  once  and  forever  the  true  Church  from  the  false 
teachers,  it  was  forced  to  throw  to  the  winds  the  dogmas  of  St. 
Augustin  and  the  council  of  Orange.  It  could  not  in  words  repu 
diate  them,  nor  could  it  abandon  the  sacerdotal  system  that  had  been 
built  up  in  their  despite.  It  had  a  narrow  path  to  tread  and  it  picked 
its  way  with  tolerable  skill,  regardless  of  consistency,  for  the  heretics 
had  taken  possession  of  its  old  position  and  it  was  obliged  to  occupy 
a  new  one.  Justification  by  faith  was  admitted  but  argued  away  in 
favor  of  justification  by  works  ;  human  free-will  was  recognized  as  a 


had  asserted  the  contradictory  proposition  that  prevenient  grace  is  a  necessary 
condition  of  justification ;  that  man  can  do  nothing  of  himself  and  that  his 
will  is  powerless  without  the  grace  of  God. — Sess.  VI.  De  Justificat.  cap.  5  ; 
can.  3. 

1  Attritio,  id  est  imperfectus  de  peccato  dolor,  sufficit  cum  sacramento  pceni- 
tentiae  ad  gratiam  impetrandum. — Eman.  Sa  Aphorism!  Confessariorum  s.  v. 
Confrilio  $  4.— Reiffenstuel,  Theologia  Moralis  Tract,  xiv.  Dist.  vi.  n.  37,  38. 

The  theologians  hold  with  Aquinas  that  attrition  cannot  become  contrition, 
but  that  when  the  love  of  God  is  added  to  it,  contrition  is  the  result  (Pereyra, 
Elucidarium  Theol.  Moral,  n.  1610).  The  distinction  is  too  refined  to  be  recog 
nizable  in  practice). 

2  Thomae  Waldens.  de  Sacrament,  cap.  CLX.  CLXI.  CLXII. 


104  THE  PARDON  OF  SIN. 

factor  in  good  works  and  their  merits ;  predestination  was  kept  out 
of  sight  as  much  as  possible — it  could  not  be  denied  but  it  was  only 
recognized  by  limiting  it.  The  faithful  were  warned  that  no  one 
without  a  special  revelation  could  know  that  he  was  among  the  elect, 
thus  inferring  that  all  need  the  aid  of  the  Church,  and  this  was  fol 
lowed  by  a  declaration  which  virtually  destroyed  predestination  by 
denying  its  universality :  those  not  elect  may  be  justified  by  grace 
and  it  does  not  folloAv  that  they  are  predestined  to  evil.1  Thus  at 
Trent  Pelagius  triumphed  over  St.  Augustin,  and  this  was  empha 
sized  by  the  fact  that  in  the  Tridentine  Catechism  there  is  no  allusion 
to  predestination,  election  and  reprobation.  Even  the  parish  priests 
were  not  to  be  trusted  with  a  hint  of  so  dangerous  a  doctrine.  When 
the  Jansenists  endeavored  to  reconcile  the  doctrines  of  St.  Augustin 
with  those  of  Trent  they  were  promptly  denounced  as  heretics  of  the 
worst  description.2 

It  would  carry  us  too  far  from  our  subject  to  enter  into  the  disputes 
which  agitated  the  Church  for  two  centuries  and  which  can  scarce 
even  yet  be  said  to  be  settled,  between  Molinism  and  Jansenism, 
between  the  doctrines  of  sufficing  grace  and  efficient  grace.  They 
will  occasionally  emerge  into  view  and  need  only  here  be  alluded  to 
as  one  of  the  most  notable  instances  of  human  effort  to  define  the 
undefinable. 

1  C.  Trident.  Sess.  vi.  De  Justificatione  cap.  5,  8,  12;  can.  4,  9,  17.— Free 
will  was  weakened  but  not  destroyed  by  the  sin  of  Adam— Ibid.  cap.  1.— Yet 
Bellarmine  teaches  that  there  is  no  remission  of  sin  save  by  infused  grace 
"Sol  justitiae  et  Pater  hominum  non  remittit  peccata  nisi  per  gratiam  sive 
justitiam  quam  infundit."— R.  Bellarmini  Exposit.  Psalmi  xxxi. 

2  Scavini  Theol.  Moral.  Univ.  Tract,  i.  Disp.  1,  Cap.  2,  Art.  2. 


CHAPTEK    VI  I. 

THE    POWER    OF    THE    KEYS. 

THUS  far  we  have  examined  the  various  theories  which  Christians 
framed  as  to  the  methods  of  God  in  dealing  with  the  sins  of  man. 
We  have  seen  that  the  sinner  appealed  directly  to  his  Creator  and 
was  taught,  except  under  the  baleful  shadow  of  predestination,  to 
earn  his  own  salvation  without  assistance,  save  what  he  might  gain 
by  the  intercessory  prayers  of  the  faithful.  No  special  power  was 
attached  to  the  prayers  of  the  priest ;  those  of  the  laity  were  equally 
efficient ;  presumptively  the  entreaties  of  the  righteous  were  more 
acceptable  than  those  of  the  impious,  but  no  distinction  is  anywhere 
indicated  that  ordination  conferred  any  particular  control  over  the 
grace  and  mercy  of  God.  Martyrs,  confessors  and  saints  however  were 
regarded  as  enjoying  peculiar  favor  as  mediators.  Tertullian  shows 
that  the  tendency  to  this  began  early  when,  after  he  had  embraced 
Montanism,  he  argues  that  it  is  sufficient  for  a  martyr  to  have  purged 
his  own  sins,  and  asks  who  except  Christ  had  saved  another  by  his 
own  death  ;x  and  a  passage  in  Cyprian  shows  us  the  belief  fully  cur 
rent.2  When  martyrdom  went  out  of  fashion  with  persecution  the 
intercessory  office  was  transferred  to  the  saints.  Early  in  the  fifth 
century,  a  passage  in  the  life  of  St.  Honore  by  his  successor  St.  Hilary 
of  Aries,  shows  that  the  saints  were  regarded  as  the  patrons  of  the 
living,  to  intercede  for  them  with  God.3  So  crude,  indeed,  were  the 
notions  of  the  age  that  Bachiarius  argues  that  a  sinner,  whose  crime 
was  so  gross  that  it  wras  an  insult  to  the  saints  to  beg  their  suffrages, 
might  so  weary  them  with  his  importunities  that  they  would  intercede, 
when  their  intercession  would  be  the  more  effective  because  they 


1  Tertull.  de  Pudicit.   c.  22.— "  Sufficiat  martyri  propria  delicta  purgasse. 
Quis  alienam  mortem  sua  solvit  nisi  solus  Dei  filius?" 

2  Cypriani  Epist.  xix.— "Qui  libellum  a  martyribus  acceperunt  et  auxilio 
eorum  adjuvari  apud  Dominum  in  delictis  suis  possunt  si     ...     cum  pace 
a  martyribus  suis  promissa  ad  Dominum  renrittantur." 

3  S.  Hilarii  Arelatens.  Vit.  8.  Honorati  c.  7. 


106  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

themselves  were  injured  parties.1  Yet  direct  prayers  to  the  saints 
do  not  seem  as  yet  to  be  officially  recognized.  In  the  earliest  of  the 
Sacramentaries,  attributed  to  Leo  L,  prayers  are  offered  only  to  God, 
and  the  extraordinary  expedient  is  adopted  of  praying  him  to  make 
the  saints  and  martyrs  pray  for  the  suppliants  and  obtain  from  him 
pardon  for  them.2  When  the  mediator  could  only  be  addressed 


1  Bachiarii  Monachi  de  Reparatione  Lapsi  c.  14. 

"Fac  eos  et  majestatem  tuam  jugiter  exorare  et  salutaria  impetrare  pro 
nobis."  "  Cunctos  martyres  tuos  fac  orare  pro  nobis  quos  digne  possis  audire." 
— Sacram.  Leonian.  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  i.  pp.  483,  487).  Even  on  the 
saints'  days  it  is  God  who  is  thus  addressed  and  not  the  saint  whose  feast  is 
celebrated.— Ibid.  pp.  485,  491,  507,  511,  559,  624,  646,  655,  663,  737. 

Considering  the  supreme  intercessory  power  ascribed  to  the  Virgin  in 
medieval  and  modern  Catholicism  it  is  instructive  to  see  how  subordinate  was 
her  position  at  this  period.  In  the  Calendars  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
printed  by  Muratori,  there  is  no  feast  for  her  (loc.  cit.  pp.  63-8).  In  a 
Gallican  Sacramentary  of  the  eighth  century,  there  is  only  one,  the  Assump 
tion,  and  this  occurs  in  January  (Ib  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  p.  676)  and  not  as  at 
present  in  August.  It  is  true  that  in  the  fourth  century  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
speaks  of  the  feast  of  Purification,  but  this  was  probably  only  a  local  custom, 
for  its  introduction  is  commonly  ascribed  to  Justinian  about  542  to  avert  a 
pestilence  (Martene  de  antiq.  Ecclesise  Kitibus,  Lib.  IV.  c.  15).  In  a  calendar 
presumably  of  the  seventh  century  there  are  four  feasts,  Purification.  Annun 
ciation,  Assumption  and  Nativity  (Sacrament.  Gelasian.  ap.  Muratori  T.  XIII. 
P.  ii.  pp.  238,  243,  276,  285).  In  the  Leonine  Sacramentary  she  is  only 
alluded  to  three  or  four  times  as  the  mother  of  Christ,  and  never  as  an  inter 
cessor  and  her  suffrage  is  never  asked  for.  Evidently  her  cult  had  not  yet 
commenced,  and  in  the  early  allusions  to  pilgrimages  to  the  tombs  and  relics 
of  saints  there  is  no  reference  to  shrines  of  the  Virgin. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  her  cult  may  be  attributable  to  the  zeal  of  the  Bar 
barians  who  may  have  regarded  her  as  a  subordinate  deity.  In  a  Gothic  Missal 
of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  the  mass  on  Assumption  day  is  in  a  strain  of 
laudation  and  adoration  much  beyond  the  contemporary  Roman  ones  (Muratori 
T.  XIII.  P.  in.  pp.  254-6).  Yet  the  progress  was  slow.  In  the  Sacramentarium 
Gelasianum  the  prayers  on  her  feast  days  represent  her  as  no  more  an  advocate 
or  intercessor  than  any  other  saint  (Lib.  II.  c.  8,  14,  47,  54).  In  the  Sacra 
mentarium  Gregorianium  there  is  some  advance.  The  Virgin  is  named  before 
the  other  saints  as  if  deserving  of  peculiar  honor  and  she  is  invoked  on  other 
feast  days  than  her  own  (Muratori  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  pp.  494,  527).  Yet  in  the 
middle  of  the  seventh  century,  St.  Eloi  in  speaking  of  the  prayers  and  merits 
of  the  saints  as  a  means  of  reconciliation  with  God  makes  no  mention  of  the 
Virgin  (S.  Eligii  Noviomens.  Homil.  8).  Even  in  the  ninth  century,  when  a 
holy  priest  had  a  vision  in  which  he  saw  the  saints  interceding  for  sinners, 
there  is  no  allusion  to  her  (S.  Prudentii  Annal.  ann.  835).  A  Sacramentary 


BINDING  AND  LOOSING.  107 

through  God  it  evidently  was  difficult  to  shake  off  the  primitive  idea 
;hat  God,  as  the  sole  source  of  pardon,  was  to  be  approached  directly. 
Be  evidently  had  not  entrusted  to  any  one,  in  heaven  or  on  earth, 
;he  dispensation  of  his  mercy. 

Yet  alongside  of  this  there  had  for  some  time  been  quietly  growing 
i  claim  that  God  had  entrusted  to  the  Church  a  mysterious  and  unde- 
ined  power  over  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  This  was  founded  on  the 
3elebrated  texts  in  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  John — 

"  And  I  will  give  to  thee  [Peter]  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And 
whatsoever  thoti  shalt  bind  on  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven :  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven"  (Matt, 
xvi.  19). 

"Amen  I  say  to  you,  whatsoever  you  shall  bind  upon  earth  shall  be  bound 
•also  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  you  shall  loose  upon  earth  shall  be  loosed  also 
in  heaven"  (Matt.  xvm.  18). 

"  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  for 
given  them;  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained"  (John  xx. 
22-23). 1 

of  the  eleventh  century  however  regards  her  as  the  chief  intercessor  "  Beata 
Maria  semper  virgine  intercedente  cum  omnibus  sanctis "  (Sacrainentarium 
Vetus,  ap.  Migne,  CLI.  872).  After  this  the  progress  was  rapid,  yet  it  was  long 
before  she  attained  the  position  assigned  to  her  in  modern  belief.  When  in 
1179  the  Waldenses  applied  to  the  third  Lateran  Council  for  authority  to 
preach,  Walter  Mapes  relates  (De  Nugis  Curialium  Dist.  I  cap.  31)  that  he  was 
deputed  to  ascertain  their  acquaintance  with  theology,  and  he  demonstrated 
their  ignorance  by  asking  them  successively  whether  they  believed  in  God,  in 
Christ,  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  the  Virgin  Mary,  when  their  answer  in  the 
affirmative  to  all  the  questions  showed  that  they  did  not  understand  the  differ 
ence  between  the  belief  required  as  to  the  Trinity  and  as  to  the  Virgin.  In 
contrast  to  this  is  the  case  of  Juan  Hidalgo  who  was  penanced  in  1590  by  the 
Inquisition  of  Toledo  because  he  asserted  that  we  must  say  we  believe  in  God 
and  believe  the  Virgin  (MSS.  Konigl.  Bibl.  Halle,  Yc,  20,  Tom.  I.). 

Modern  devotion,  in  fact,  assigns  to  the  Virgin  more  than  an  intercessory 
power  and  makes  her  share  the  attributes  of  God.  Pere  Huguet  tells  us  (Vertu 
miraculeuse  du  Rosaire  et  du  Chapelet,  Paris,  1870,  p.  4)  "  Nous  reconnaissons, 
selon  la  foi  Catholique,  a  la  tres-sainte  Vierge  dans  le  ciel,  deux  sortes  de 
pouvoirs  .  .  .  un  pouvoir  d' 'intercession  pour  nous  aupres  de  Dieu,  et  un 
pouvoir  de  cooperation  avec  Dieu  aupres  de  nous.  Nous  invoquons  en  Marie 
le  premier  de  ces  pouvoirs  ...  en  lui  disant  PKIEZ  POUR  NOUS  !  et  le 
second  ...  en  lui  criant  SAUVEZ  NOUS  ! " 

1  The  orthodox  explanation  of  the  reiteration  of  the  grant  of  power  by 
Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  is  that  in  Matthew  he  merely  made  a  promise, 
the  fulfilment  of  which  is  recorded  in  John. 

Even  admitting  that  the  texts  have  the  sense  ascribed  to  them  by  the  Church, 


108  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS 

Whatever  sense  may  be  attributed  to  this  grant  of  power,  the 
primitive  Church  evidently  regarded  it  as  personal  to  the  holy  men 
whom  Christ  had  selected  as  his  immediate  representatives.  At  the 
time  the  gospels  were  composed  the  apostles  were  not  expected  to 
have  any  successors,  for  Christ  had  foretold  the  coming  of  the  Day 
of  Judgment  before  that  generation  should  pass  away/  and  the  pres 
ence  of  this  in  all  the  synoptic  gospels  shows  how  universal  among 
Christians  was  the  expectation  of  its  fulfilment.  In  fact,  how  slowly 
the  idea  was  developed  that  even  the  apostles  had  this  power  is  seen 
in  Philip's  referring  Simon  Magus  to  God  for  forgiveness  after 
repentance2  and  in  the  legend  related  above  from  Eusebius  of  St. 
John  and  the  robber.  Had  the  belief  existed  the  apostle  would  not 
have  been  represented  as  offering  his  own  soul  in  exchange  and  as 
interceding  long  and  earnestly  wTith  God :  as  soon  as  assured  of  the 
sinner's  repentance  he  would  have  been  recorded  as  absolving  him. 
The  early  Christians  would  have  stood  aghast  at  the  suggestion  that 
God  would  confer  such  awful  authority  on  every  vicious  or  ignorant 
man  who  through  favor  or  purchase  might  succeed  in  obtaining  ordi 
nation.  That  such  a  pretension  should  be  accepted  by  Europe,  even 
in  the  Dark  Ages,  would  be  incredible  if  it  had  not  proved  a  fact, 
The  transmission  of  the  power  from  the  apostles  to  those  who  were 


there  is  a  serious  deficiency  in  the  grant,  for  they  do  not  say  that  no  sins  shall 
be  remitted  save  those  pardoned  by  the  Apostles ;  the  power  must  be  exercised 
to  be  effective,  and  a  sinner  may  make  his  peace  with  God  otherwise.  The 
point  is  of  no  importance  save  as  affording  an  illustration  of  the  boundless 
assumptions  by  which  Catholic  teachers  maintain  the  power  of  the  keys.  Thus 
Palmieri  (Tract,  de  Pcenitent.  p.  102)  asserts  that  the  Apostles  bind  whom 
soever  they  do  not  loose — "Apostoli  autem  tamdiu  retinent  quamdiu  non 
absolvunt,"  and  he  even  has  the  audacity  to  represent  Christ  as  saying  "  inde- 
pendenter  a  ministerio  Apostolico  nolo  remitti  quodlibet  peccatum." 

Equally  audacious  was  the  attempt  made  in  1625  by  the  Jesuit  Santarel  to 
prove  that  the  text  in  Matthew  was  not  confined  to  the  forum  of  conscience 
but  that  it  gave  the  Church  and  the  pope  supreme  temporal  power  over  all 
rulers  (D'Argentre,  Collect,  judic.  de  novis  Erroribus  II.  n.  213).  Bellar- 
mine  reaches  the  same  result,  but  by  a  different  process  (De  Controversiis 
Christianas  Fidei,  Cont.  III.  Lib.  v.  c.  6)  and  it  was  the  received  Jesuit 
doctrine.  See  La  Theologie  Morale  des  Jesuites  (Ant.  Arnauld),  Cologne,  1667, 
pp.  121  sqq. 

1  Matt.  xxiv.  34;  Mark,  xm.  30;  Luke  xxi.  32. 

2  Acts,  vin.  22.     This  did  not  escape  Wickliffe  in  his  controversies  over  the 
power  of  the  keys.     See  Thomas  of  Walden's  De  Sacramentis  c.  CXLV.  n.  2. 


GOD  ALONE  PARDONS.  109 

assumed  to  be  their  successors  is  the  most  audacious  non  sequitur  in 
history,  and  the  success  of  the  attempt  can  scarce  be  overestimated  as 
a  factor  in  the  development  of  religion  and  civilization.1 

That  the  primitive  Church  knew  nothing  of  this  is  plainly  infer 
able  from  the  silence  of  the  early  Fathers.  It  is  proverbially  diffi 
cult  to  prove  a  negative,  and  in  this  case  the  only  evidence  is  negative. 
They  could  not  discuss  or  oppose  a  non-existent  doctrine  and  practice 
and  their  only  eloquence  on  the  subject  must  perforce  be  silence,  but 
as  they  treated  earnestly  on  the  methods  of  obtaining  pardon  for 
sins,  their  omission  of  all  allusion  to  any  power  of  remission  lodged 
in  priest  or  Church  is  perfectly  incompatible  with  the  existence  of 
contemporaneous  belief  in  it.  We  have  seen  already  (Chapter  I.) 
that  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  the  Didache,  Barnabas,  St.  Ignatius  and 
the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  while  counselling  sinners  as  to  reconcilia 
tion  with  God,  know  nothing  of  any  authority  under  God.  St. 
Ignatius,  who  magnified  the  episcopal  office,  speaks  indeed  of  the 
council  of  the  bishop  (p.  6)  as  an  element,  but  ascribes  to  him 
no  individual  power.  Irenseus  asks  how  sins  can  be  remitted 
unless  God  against  whom  we  have  sinned  remits  them  to  us2  and 
evidently  is  ignorant  of  any  intermediary  function.  St.  Dionysius 
of  Corinth  orders  all  returning  sinners  to  be  received  back  kindly 
and  says  nothing  about  absolving  them.3  The  Epistle  of  St.  Poly  carp 
to  the  Philippians  is  a  summary  exhortation  as  to  conduct  and  prac 
tice  in  which,  if  confession  and  absolution  were  customary  or  recog 
nized,  he  could  not  avoid  referring  to  them,  but  he  says  nothing  about 


1  When  Luther,  who  followed  his  master  St.  Augustin  in  holding  that  the 
power  of  the  keys  was  lodged  in  the  Church  at  large,  argued  that  otherwise 
there  would  be  no  reply  to  the  heretics  who  asserted  that  the  gift  was  personal 
to  Peter  and  died  with  him,  the  only  answer  which  his  antagonist  Faber 
deigned  to  make  was  that  there  are  no  heretics  so  foolish  as  to  make  an  asser 
tion  so  futile  and  shadowy,  and  with  this  he  declares  that  the  whole  of  Luther's 
position  is  swept  away. — Joh.  Fabri  Opus  adversus  nova  Dogmata  Lutheri, 
Roma,  1522,  H.  ij. 

Faber  was  a  Dominican  Humanist,  allied  with  Erasmus,  Zwingli  and 
other  early  reformers  until  alarmed  at  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  he 
became  one  of  its  most  active  and  efficient  opponents.  His  book  won  him 
much  applause  in  Rome ;  he  became  bishop  of  Vienna,  where  he  manifested 
his  zeal  by  earnest  labors  to  reform  his  clergy  and  also  by  procuring  the  burn 
ing  of  Balthasar  Hubmeier,  March  10,  1528. 

2  Irensei  contra  Haereses  Lib.  v.  c.  xvii.  $$  1,  2. 

3  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23. 


HO  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

them.  Nor  in  the  paragraph  as  to  the  duties  of  priests  is  there  any 
allusion  to  such  functions  or  to  mediation  between  God  and  man. 
As  for  the  priest  Valens  and  his  wife,  who  had  misbehaved  he  only 
says,  "  May  God  grant  them  true  repentance  !"  The  whole  epistle 
pictures  a  church  of  the  utmost  simplicity,  in  which  man  deals 
directly  with  his  Creator.1  In  fact  the  custom  which  prevailed,  as 
we  have  seen,  of  not  admitting  clerics  to  penance  shows  that  the 
whole  penitential  system  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  relations  between 
the  sinner  and  his  God. 

The  first  allusion  to  any  power  of  pardoning  sin  occurs  early  hw 
the  third  century,  when  Tertullian  protested  vigorously  on  hearing 
that  it  was  proposed  at  Rome  to  remit  the  sin  of  fornication  and 
adultery  to  those  who  had  duly  performed  penance.2  Whether  this 
purpose  was  carried  out  or  not  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  posi 
tively,  but  there  is  every  appearance  that  the  project  was  allowed  tc 
drop  as  there  is  no  trace  in  any  subsequent  document  that  adultery 
was  treated  with  greater  mildness  than  homicide  or  idolatry — indeed, 
we  have  seen  that  in  some  African  churches  those  guilty  of  it  were 
not  even  received  to  penitence.  Yet  that  the  subject  was  beginning 
to  attract  attention  and  provoke  discussion  is  shown  by  Tertullian' g 
argument  that  the  grant  to  Peter  was  personal ;  the  apostles  had  the 
power  of  forgiving  sins,  and  this  has  been  transmitted  to  the  Church; 
if  the  bishop  of  Rome  claims  it,  let  him  show  his  right  by  perform 
ing  miracles  like  the  apostles.3 

The  idea  gradually  made  its  way  in  some  churches,  though  nndei 
varying  conditions.  Not  long  after  Tertullian  the  canons  of  Hip- 
polytus,  in  the  ritual  of  episcopal  ordination,  show  that  God  was 
prayed  to  bestow  on  the  bishop  the  power  of  remitting  sins,4  and  th( 


1  S.  Polycarp.  Epist.  ad  Philippenses. 

2  Audio  etiam  edictum  esse  propositum  et  quidem  peremptorium  Pontifex 
scilicet  maximus  quod  et  episcopus  episcoporum  edicit  'Ego  et  moechiae  e1 
fornicationis  delicta  poenitentia  functis  dimitto.' — Tertull.  de  Pudicit.  c.  1. 

3  Ibid.  c.  21. 

4  Tribue  etiam  illi  0  Domine  episcopatum  et  spirituin  clementem  et  potes 
tatem  ad  remittenda  peccata. — Canon.  Hippolyti  in.  17. 

This  was  not  the  only  supernatural  gift  which  the  superstition  of  the  ag( 
ascribed  to  the  episcopal  office.  As  the  shadow  of  Peter  cured  the  sick,  Acts 
v.  15  was  made  the  basis  of  a  claim,  as  well  as  Matt.  xvi.  19,  that  the  bishoj 
was  held  to  be  able  to  relieve  disease.  The  prayer  of  ordination  adds  ue 
tribue  ei  facultatem  ad  dissolvenda  omnia  vincula  iniquitatis  dsemonum  et  ac 


COMMENCEMENT  OF  CLAIMS.  1 1 1 

Apostolical  Constitutions,  based  on  these  canons,  have  nearly  the 
same  formula  at  the  close  of  the  third  century.1  How  completely 
dependent  on  local  usage  however  was  this  claim  is  seen  in  the  ordi 
nation  of  priests.  In  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus  the  same  prayer 
was  used  for  them  as  for  bishops ;  in  an  Egyptian  Ordo  based  on 
the  canons,  the  prayer  for  the  priest  has  no  allusion  to  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  the  same  is  observable  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.2 

Thus  in  some  churches  the  bishops  were  claiming  the  power  of  the 
keys,  but  in  others  their  pretensions  were  ridiculed.  Origen  tells  us 
that  they  cited  the  text  in  Matthew  as  though  they  held  the  power 
to  bind  and  to  loose ;  this  is  well,  if  they  can  perform  the  wrorks  for 
which  Christ  made  the  grant  to  Peter,  but  it  is  absurd  in  him  who 
is  bound  in  the  chains  of  his  own  sins  to  pretend  to  loosen  others, 
simply  because  he  is  called  a  bishop.3  Evidently  to  Origen  ordina 
tion  conferred  no  such  power ;  to  him  the  priest  was  a  mediator  who 
propitiated  God  at  the  altar.4  We  have  already  seen  that  Cyprian 
disclaimed  all  power  to  absolve ;  the  Church  could  condemn  by  re 
fusing  reconciliation,  but  those  whom  it  admitted  to  peace  were  only 
referred  to  the  judgment  of  God  to  confirm  or  annul  the  decision. 
In  another  passage  he  is  even  more  emphatic.  Let  no  one,  he  says, 


sanandos  omnes  morbos  et  contere  Satanam  sub  pedibus  ejus."  This  was 
accomplished  by  a  visit  and  a  prayer  of  the  bishop  — "  Magna  enim  res  est 
infirmo  a  principe  sacerdotum  visitari ;  quia  umbra  Petri  sanavit  infirmum" 
(Ibid.  xxiv.  199).  See  also  Irensei  contra  Haereses,  n.  32-4  and  Tertull.  ad 
Scapulam  c.  4.  It  was  a  common  belief  that  sickness  was  caused  by  demons 
and  that  driving  them  away  ensured  recovery  (Tatiani  contra  Grsecos  Oratio). 
The  canons  of  Hippolytus  do  not  cite  Mark  xvi.  17-18,  which  is  more  to  the 
purpose,  probably  because  the  conclusion  of  that  gospel  as  we  have  it  was 
unknown  at  the  time. 

1  Da  ei  Domine   omnipotens  per   Christum  tuum   participationem  sancti 
Spiritus  ut  habeat  potestatem  dimittendi  peccata  secundum  mandatum  tuum 
(Kara  rr/v  tvrohrjv  aov)." — Constitt.  Apostol.  Lib.  VIII.  C.  3. 

It  is  worth  while  to  remark  the  deprecatory  character  of  these  rituals  in 
contrast  with  the  indicative  form  of  the  later  "  Accipe  Spiritual  sanctum." 

2  Achelis,  Die  Canones  Hippolyti,  pp.  61-2.— Constitt.  Apost.  vin.  24. 

3  Alioquin  ridiculum  est  ut  dicamus  eum  qui  vinculis  peccatorum  suorum 
ligatus  est,  trahit  peccata  sua  sicut  funem    longum  et  tauquam  juge  lorum 
vituli  iniquitates  suas,  propter  hoc  soluin  quoniam  episcopus  dicitur,  habere 
hujusmodi  potestatem  ut  soluti  ab  eo  sint  soluti  in  coalo  aut  ligati  in  terris  sint 
ligati  in  coelo."— Origenis  Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  xir.  $  14. 

4  Origenis  in  Levit.  Horn.  vn.  n.  2. 


112  Till':  row un  OF  THE  KEYS. 

deeei ve  himself,  for  none  hut  Christ  can  pardon  ;  m:m  is  not  Creator 
than  (Jod,  nor  can  the  servant  condone  an  offence  committed  against 
his  master.  The  most  that  ho  will  admit  is  that  the  intercession  of 
priest  and  martyr  may  Incline  (iod  to  mercy  and  change  the  sentence. 
It  is  the  height  of  arrogance  for  man  to  assume  that  he,  can  do  what 
(iod  did  not  concede;  oven  to  the  apostles — to  separate  the  grain  from 
the  chaff  and  the  wheat  from  the  tares.1  A  phrase  of  Cyprian's 
contemporary,  St.  Firmilian  of  Cappadocia,  has  been  quoted  as  assort 
ing  the  power  of  the  keys,  but  it  occurs  in  his  furious  letter  to  Pope 
Stephen  on  the  rebaptism  of  heretics  and  refers  only  to  the  remission 
of  sin  in  baptism;2  that  Firmilian  made  no  claim  for  such  power  is 
shown  by  his  assembling  a  counc.il  in  support  of  Xovatianus.'  Com- 
rnodianus,  in  his  instructions  to  penitents,  says  nothing  of  any  priestly 
ministrations;  as  ho  had  himself  endured  a  course  of  penance  he 
had  every  opportunity  of  knowing  that  the  sinner  dealt  directly 
with  (iod  ;  nor  in  his  remarks  to  priests  and  bishops  does  he  make 
any  allusion  to  their  possession  of  such  authority.4  St.  Peter  of 
Alexandria,  in  ,'{05,  in  his  instructions  for  the  reconciliation  of  those 
who  had  lapsed  in  the  persecution  of  Diocletian  knows  nothing  of 
any  power  to  remit  sin  ;  the  Church  can  only  pray  that  Christ  may 
intercede  for  sinners  with  the  Father.5 


1  Nemo  86  fallat,  nemo  se  decipi.it.   Solus  Domimis  miscreri  potest.    Vcni;nu 
peccatis  <JUIB  in  ipso  commissa  sunt  solus  potent  ille  largiri  qui  peccata  nostra 
portuvit,  qui  pro  nobis  doluit,  qucin  Deus  tnididit  pro  peccatis  nostris.     Homo 
Deo  esse  non  potest  major;  nee  remittere  nut  donare  indulgentia  sua  scrvus 
potest  quod  in  dominum  delicto   graviore   commissum   est. — S.  Cyprian.  <le 
Lapsis  n.  17.     Of.  n.  18,  29;  Epist.  4,  55,  56;  De  Unitate  Ecclesiie. 

Potest  ille  [Deus]  indulgentiam  dare,  sententiaiu  suam  potest  ille  deflec- 
tere  .  .  .  potest  in  acceptum  referre  quidquid  pro  talibus  et  petierint  martyres 
et  fecerint  sacerdotes. —  De  Lapsis  n.  36. 

Tinu  deinde  quantus  arrogantiie  tumor  est,  quanta  Immilitatis  et  lenitatis 
oblivio,  arrogantice  sua;  quanta  jaetatio  ut  quis  aut  audeat  ant  f'acere  se  posse 
credat,  quod  nee  apostolis  conccssit  Dominus,  ut  zi/ania  a  frumento  putet  se 
posse  decerncre,  aut  quasi  ipsi  palam  ferre  et  arearn  purgare  conccssum  sit, 
pa  leas  conetur  a  tritico  separare. — Epist.  55. 

2  Oypriani  Epist.  75  (Ed.  Oxon).     It  is  somewhat  remarkable  to  find  thie 
abusive  epistle  quoted  by  a  Catholic,  as  Binterim  does  (Denkwiirdigkeiten 
Bil.  V.  Th.  ii.  p.  183)  and  to  see  it  moreover  coolly  attributed  to  Cypi  i:m 
himself. 

8  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  44.  4  Commodiani  Instructions,  n.  4!>,  (!i>. 

6  S.  Petri  Alexandr.  Can.  xi. 


SLO  W  DE  VELOrMENT.  1  \  3 

when  a  claim  such  as  that  inferred  in  the  ordination  ritual  of 
the  ( imons  of  Hippolytue  liad  once  been  made,  it  was  sure,  in  the; 
plastic  condition  of  doctrine;  and  practice,  to  develop  with  the  in- 
<-n-;i -ing  power  and  pretensions  of  the  Church  as  it  emerged  from 
IH  i-< ciition  to  domination.  Appetite  grows  by  what  it  feeds  on  and 
it  would  have  required  abnegation  not  often  predieable  of  human 
nature  for  bishops  not  to  grasp  at  such  authority  after  it  had  been 
advanced  and  exercised  by  a  few.  There  is  a  hint  of  this  in  the 
remark  of  the  Xovatian  Bishop  Acesius  who  attended  UK;  council 
of  Nicaea  and  subscribed  to  its  canons  but  refused  to  join  in  com 
munion  with  his  fellow  members,  and  when  asked  by  Constantino  the 

replied  that  he  considered  those  unworthy  of  communion  who 
would  admit  to  the  sacraments  a  man  who  had  sinned  since  baptism, 
for  such  remission  of  sin  depended  on  the  power  of  God  and  not  on 
the  will  of  a  priest,  whereupon  the  emperor  said  to  him  "Acesius, 
get  a  ladder  and  go  up  to  heaven  by  yourself."1  Still  the  development 
of  the  power  of  the  keys  was  wonderfully  slow.  As  Lactantius  was 
not  a  priest  but  a  philosopher,  his  testimony  on  such  a  subject  does 
not  count  for  much,  but  he  knows  nothing  of  the  priest  as  an  inter 
mediary  ;  the  sinner  deals  directly  with  God.2  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers 
is  a  more  significant  witness,  and  in  his  Commentary  on  Matthew  he 
-••cms  ignorant  of  the  claim  that  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing 
\\;is  conferred  on  the  apostles  to  bo  transmitted  to  their  successors. 
II<-  treats  it  wholly  as  a  personal  grant  to  them  and  makes  no 
allusion  to  any  other  view  of  the  matter.1'1  Various  other  writers  of 
( IK  second  half  of  the  fourth  century  ascribe  no  pardoning  power  to 
UK;  Church  ;  the  fate  of  the  sinner  depends  exclusively  on  God.4  St. 

1  Sozomen.  H.  E.  i.  22.     There  is  something  of  the  same  to  be  gathered  from 
the  conference  between  Atticus  Bishop  of  Constantinople  and  Asclepiades,  the 
Novatian  Bishop  of  Nicsea. — Socrat.  H.  E.  vn.  25. 

2  Lactant.  Divin.  Institt.  Lib.  iv.  c.  17;  Lib.  vi.  c.  13,  24. 

•'  8.  Hilarii  Pictav.  Comment  in  Matt.  c.  xvi.  n.  7 ;  c.  xviii.  ri.  8.  Possibly 
hi.-  assertion  that  the  Pharisees  claimed  to  hold  the  keys  of  heaven  (c.  xii.  n. 
3)  may  have  been  intended  as  a  covert  rebuke  to  the  high  sacerdotal ists. 

Juenin  (De  Sacram.  Diss.  vi.  Q.  v.  Cap.  1  Art.  2^2)  admits  that  Hilary 
•Iocs  not  claim  the  power  as  transmitted  to  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  but 
Palmieri  (Tract,  de  Pcenit.  p.  114)  boldly  quotes  what  he  says  as  to  the  apostolic 
power,  as  though  he  conceded  the  transmission. 

4  Philastrii  Lib.  de  Haeres.  n.  34.— Marii  Victorini  in  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  Lib. 
I.  n.  7.— 8.  Epiphanii  Panar.  Haeres.  59. 

I.— 8 


114  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

Pacianus,  when  controverting  the  Novatians,  asserts  that  the  power 
of  the  keys  was  transmitted  to  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  to  be 
exercised  with  the  utmost  caution  and  only  in  accordance  with  the! 
Divine  will,  but  this  was  a  mere  speculative  argument,  for  in  hig 
exhortation  to  sinners  he  only  ascribes  to  the  Church  a  power  to 
assist,  and  it  is  Christ  who  obtains  pardon  for  us.1  The  Manicheeans 
seem  to  have  been  the  first  to  discover  the  power  of  the  keys.  Their 
elect  could  not  handle  money  and  when  in  want  of  food  would  under 
take  to  remit  sins  for  bread.  Ephraiin  Syrus  denounces  them  bit 
terly  for  this ;  there  is  but  One  who  can  remit  sins,  except  in  the 
rite  of  baptism.2  Possibly  this  example  may  have  begun  to  infect 
the  Church,  for  his  contemporary,  St.  Basil  the  Great,  claims  thai 
authority  to  bind  and  to  loose  is  lodged  Avith  the  bishops.3 

It  is  highly  probable  in  fact  that  the  Novatian  schism  stimulated 
greatly  the  progress  of  sacerdotalism  against  which  it  was  a  protest, 
The  schismatics  doubtless  did  not  forego  the  advantage  offered  then 
by  the  hazy  and  dubious  character  of  the  pax  ecdesice  which  the  priests 
conferred  and  contemptuously  asked  what  was  after  all  the  advant 
age  of  the  reconciliation  purchased  at  so  heavy  a  cost,  and  the  ortho 
dox  in  answering  them  would  naturally  be  led  to  exalt  the  efficacy 
of  its  redeeming  power  and  to  assert  that  it  was  equivalent  to  divine 
pardon.  This  process  is  well  illustrated  by  the  contradictory  utter 
ances  of  St.  Ambrose.  Stimulated  by  conflict  with  the  Novatians, 
in  some  passages  he  asserts  the  power  of  the  keys  in  the  hands  of 
bishops  in  an  unqualified  manner ;  Christ,  he  says,  could  remove  sin 


1  S.  Paciani  contra  Novatianos  Epist.  I. — Paranaesis  ad  Poenitentiam. — "Qui 
fratribus   peccata  sua  mm  tacet,  ecclesise  lacrymis  adjutus,  Christi  precibus 
absolvitur." 

2  Wegnern  Manichseorum  Indulgentiae  pp.  187-88  (Lipsiae,  1827). — "Canes 
morbidi  sunt  qui,  cum  panis  buccellas  non  inveniant,  peccata  et  debita  remit- 
tunt.     Qua  in  re  admodum  rabiosi  sunt  et  digniqui  contundantur ;  quum  unus 
tantuin  qui  peccantibus  peccata  remittere  posset." 

It  is  generally  assumed  that  St.  Maximus  of  Turin  (Homil.  civ.)  in  the  lat 
ter  half  of  the  fifth  century  is  describing  the  Manichaeans  when  he  speaks  oi 
the  invasion  of  the  land  by  heretics  whose  priests  sell  pardon  of  sin  for  money, 
and  say  "  Pro  crimine  da  tantum  mihi  et  indulgetur  tibi.  Vanus  plane  et  in- 
sipiens  presbyter,  qui  cum  ille  prsedam  accipiat  putat  quod  peccatum  Christus 
indulgeat."  St.  Maximus  could  hardly  have  anticipated  the  time  when,  as  w< 
shall  see  hereafter,  the  teaching  which  he  thus  denounced  was  practiced  bj 
pardoners  in  all  the  lands  of  the  Roman  obedience. 

3  S.  Basil.  Epist.  Canon,  in.  c.  74. 


INCONSISTENT  UTTERANCES.  115 

by  a  word,  but  he  has  ordered  that  it  should  be  done  through  men.1 
Thus  he  pushes  this  to  an  extent  so  insane  that  he  represents  God 
as  wishing  to  be  asked  to  pardon  and  as  virtually  unable  to  do 
•jo  without  the  action  of  the  priest.2  In  cooler  moments  he  assumes 
that  this  power  is  lodged  in  the  Church  at  large,  and  limits  it  to 
intercessory  prayer  denying  that  the  priest  can  exercise  any  power  ;3 
and  when  it  came  to  the  practical  exertion  of  the  power  he  denies 
that  he  possesses  it  and  attributes  it  solely  to  God,4  while  his  biog 
rapher  Paulinus  tells  us  that  he  regarded  himself  merely  as  an  inter- 
•essor/'  The  same  inconsistency  is  found  in  Chrysostom.  We  have 
seen  how  he  assumes  that  pardon  is  to  be  had  by  almsgiving  and 
rther  good  works.  Elsewhere  he  emphatically  declares  that  no 
ntercessor  is  needed ;  God  freely  forgives  those  who  seek  him  with 
icartfelt  tears ;  the  prayer  of  the  wicked  is  much  more  efficacious 
with  God  than  any  intercessory  prayers  can  be.6  In  other  passages 
le  exalts  the  power  of  the  priesthood  beyond  the  most  extravagant 
claims  put  forward  since  his  time.  Whatever  they  do  is  confirmed 
)y  God,  who  ratifies  the  sentences  of  his  servants ;  their  empire  is 
is  complete  as  though  they  were  already  in  heaven ;  it  is  not  only  in 
mptism  that  they  regenerate  us,  but  they  can  pardon  subsequent 


1  S.  Ambros.  in  Ps.  cxvui.  Serm.  x.  n.  17. — In  Ps.  xxxviil.  Enarrat. 
i.  37,  38.— Exposit.  Evangel,  sec.  Lucam  Lib.  v.  Serm.  10  n.  13.— De  Cain 
•t  Abel  Lib.  u.  c.  iv.  n.  15. — De  Pcenitent.  Lib.  I.  c  7,  8. 

-  Quis  enim  tu  es  qui  Domino  contradicas,  ne  cui  velit  culpam  relaxet,  cum 
u  cui  volueris  ignoscas?     Vult  rogari,  vult  obsecrari.     Si  omnium  justitia, 
ibi  Dei  gratise?     Quis  es  tu  qui  invidias  Domino? — Exposit.  Evangel,  sec. 
jucam  Lib.  vn.  n.  235-6. 

3  De  Poenitent.  Lib.  i.  c.  2. — Exposit.  Evangel,  sec.  Lucam  Lib.  v.  Serm. 
:.  n.  11,  92;  Lib.  vn.  n.  225.— In  Ps.  xxxvm.  Enarrat.  n.  10.— De  Spiritu 
nmcto  Lib.  in.  c.  xviii.  n.  137. 

*  In  his  well-known  letter  to  Theodosius  St.  Ambrose  says,  "  Peccatum  non 
ollitur  nisi  lacrymis  et  pcenitentia.     Nee  Angelus  potest  nee  archangelus : 
)ominus  ipse  qui  solus  potest  dicere  Ego  vobiscum  sum,  si  peccaverimus  nisi 
toenitentiam  deferentibus  non  relaxat." — S.  Ambros.  Epist.  LI.  c.  11. 

5  Paulini  Vit.  S.  Ambros.  c.  39. 

B  Nam  ipse  solus  cordi  medelam  afferre  potest  .  .  .  sine  intercessore 
xorabilis  est,  sine  pecuniis  sine  sumptibus  petitioni  annuit :  sufficit  solo  corde 
lamare  et  lacrymas  offerre  et  statim  ingressus  eum  attraxeris.  —  S.  Job. 
•hrysost.  de  Pcenit.  Homil.  iv.  §  4.  Cf.  Homil.  vm.  $  2.— In  Epist.  ad 
lebrseos  Homil.  ix.  \  4. — Homill.  xi.  non  hactenus  editae  Horn.  vi. — Homil. 
i  Philippens.  i.  18. 


116  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

sins.1  St.  Jerome  is  less  inconsequent.  It  is  true  that  in  one  pass 
age  he  speaks  of  the  bishops  as  succeeding  to  the  Apostles  and,  as 
holders  of  the  keys  of  heaven,  judging  after  a  fashion  before  the  Day 
of  Judgment,  but  he  qualifies  this  by  adding  that  all  bishops  are  not 
bishops ;  there  was  Peter  but  also  there  was  Judas  ;  it  is  not  easy  to 
hold  the  place  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  the  salt  that  has  lost  its  savor 
is  useless  save  to  be  cast  out.2  Ordination  evidently  conferred  no 
power  on  those  unworthy  of  it.  In  commenting,  moreover,  upon  the 
text  of  Matthew  he  is  much  more  condemnatory  of  the  claim,  for  he 
declares  that  bishops  and  priests  have  misinterpreted  the  words  of 
Christ  and  have  assumed  the  arrogance  of  the  Pharisees,  so  they  think 
that  they  can  condemn  the  innocent  and  release  the  guilty,  when  in 
truth  God  only  considers  the  life  of  the  sinner  and  not  the  sentence 
of  the  priests.  The  only  power  he  will  allow  is  that  of  the  priest  in 
the  old  law,  who  did  not  render  the  leper  clean  or  unclean,  but  distin 
guished  between  those  who  were  clean  and  those  who  were  unclean/ 
Luther  himself  could  scarce  have  said  more. 

This  shows  that  the  priesthood  were  beginning  freely  to  claim  and 
exercise  the  power  of  the  keys,  with  the  inevitable  abuses  thenct 
arising,  of  which  we  have  further  evidence  in  the  complaints  of  St 
Isidor  of  Pelusium.  Priests  he  says  can  deprecate  but  not  judge 
they  are  mediators,  not  kings.  The  power  of  the  keys  comes  iron 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  is  not  possessed  by  those  who  are  in  sin,  other 
wise  the  promise  would  be  tyrannical  and  only  for  the  benefit  o 
priests.4  Evidently  the  claim  was  gaining  ground  and  the  powe 
naturally  was  grasped  most  eagerly  by  those  least  fitted  for  its  exercise 

It  was  impossible  that  so  voluminous  a  writer  as  St.  Augiistir 
moved  by  varying  impulses  during  a  long  series  of  years,  should  b 


1  S.  Job.  Chrysost.  de  Sacerdotio  Lib.  in.  c.  5,  6. — "Neque  enim  tantui 
cum  nos  regenerant  [aqua  baptismi]  sed  etiam  post  regenerationem  adiniss 
peccata  condonare  possunt." 

2  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  xiv.  ad  Heliodor.  c.  8,  9. 

3  Istum  locum  [Matt.  xvi.  19]  episcopi  et  presbyteri  non  intelligentes  al 
quid  sibi  de  Pharisaeoruni  assumunt  supercilio,  ut  vel  damnent  innocentes  v 
solvere  se  noxios  arbitrentur :  cum  apud  Deum  non  sententia  sacerdotum  S( 
reorum  vita  quseratur. — S.  Hieron.  Comment,  in  Evangel.  Matthsei  Lib.  in. 
xvi.  v.  19.     We  shall  see  hereafter  what  a  stumbling-block  was  this  passage 
the  theologians  until  they  concluded  to  ignore  it. 

4  S.  Isidori  Pelusiot.  Lib.  nr.  Epist.  260. — "Ministri  enim  sunt,  non  par 
cipes,  deprecatores  non  judices,  mecliatores  non  reges." 


CONFIDED  TO  THE  CHURCH.  117 

wholly  consistent  in  his  treatment  of  a  subject  which  was  as  yet  so 
debatable.  In  one  of  his  latest  productions,  reproaching  the  bishops 
and  priests  for  the  abandonment  of  their  posts  on  the  approach  of 
the  Vandals,  he  argues  that  it  is  the  destruction  of  those  who  for  lack 
of  their  ministrations  die  either  unbaptized  or  not  released  from  their 
^ins.1  This  however  is  probably  rather  a  rhetorical  amplification 
than  an  expression  of  conviction,  for  elsewhere  his  position  is  uniform. 
The  power  granted  to  St.  Peter  was  transmitted  to  the  Church  at 
large,  which  consists  of  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful ;  amendment 
combined  with  faith  in  its  power  to  save  is  all  that  is  needed  to  obtain 
forgiveness.2  In  combating  the  Donatists,  who  assumed  that  the 
power  was  personal  in  the  priest,  he  argues  that  this  is  fatuous  and 
heretical.  Christ  had  said  "  Thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole  "  and 
now  man  presumes  to  do  what  Christ  as  a  man  had  refrained  from 
doing,  and  arrogates  the  power  to  himself.3  The  passage  in  John 
(xx.  22-3)  he  explains  as  meaning  that  the  charity  of  the  Church 
diffused  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  dismisses  the  sins  of  those 


1  Ubi  si  ministri  desint  quantum  exitium  sequitur  eos  qui  de  isto  seculo  vel 
non   regenerati   exeunt  aut  ligati.— 8.   Augustin.   Epist.  ccxxvin.  n.   8  ad 
Honoratum. 

2  After  quoting  Matt.  xvi.  19,  he  says  the  power  of  the  keys  was  conferred 
on  the  Church  "  scilicet  ut  quisquis  in  Ecclesia  ejus  dimitti  sibi  peccata  non 
crederet  non  ei  dimitterentur ;  quisquis  autem  crederet,  seque  ab  his  correctus 
averteret,  in  ejusdem  Ecclesiae  gremio  consti tutus,  eadem  fide  atque  correctione 
sanaretur." — S.  August,  de  Doctrina  Christiana  Lib.  I.  c.  18. 

"  Ergo  Petrus  figuram  gestabat  Ecclesiae ;  Ecclesia  corpus  est  Christi.  Ke- 
cipiat  igitur  jam  mundatas  gentes  quibus  peccata  donata  sunt." — Ejusd  Serm. 
CXLIX.  c.  6.  Cf.  Enarratio  in  Ps.  ci.  Serm.  n.  §  3.— Serm.  ccxcv.  c.  2. — 
Serm.  CCCLI.  c.  5.  — De  Agone  Christiano  c.  31.  —  Enchirid.  c.  65.— Serm. 
cccxn.  c.  3. 

It  will  be  seen  how  nearly  Luther  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  his  master. 

3  Medicus  bonus  [Christus]  segros  non  solum  praesentes  sanabat  sed  et  futures 
etiam  praevidebat.     Futuri  erant  homines  qui  dicerent :  Ego  peccata  dimitto, 
ego  justifico,  ego  sanctifico,  ego  sano  quemcunque  baptizo     .     .     .     Audet  sibi 
homo  hoc  usurpare?     Quid  contra  hsereticus?     Ego  dimitto,  ego  mundo,  ego 
sanctifico.     Eespondeat  illi  non  ego  sed  Christus:    "O  homo  quando  ego  a 
Judaeis  putatus  sum  homo,  dimissionem  peccatorum  fidei  dedi."     Non  ego, 
respondet  tibi  Christus  :  "  O  haeretice  tu  cum  sis  homo  dicis :  Veni  mulier,  ego 
te  sanam  facio.     Ego  cum  putarer  homo  dixi :  Vade  mulier,  fides  tua  salvam 
te  fecit."— S.  August.  Serm.  xcix.  c.  8. 

We  shall  see  hereafter  that  the  heresy  of  the  Donatists  became  the  orthodoxy 
of  Trent. 


1 1 8  THE  PO  WER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

sharing  it,  and  retains  them  in  those  who  do  not  share  it.1  Yet 
with  all  his  learning  and  acuteness  St.  Angustin  had  the  vaguest  pos 
sible  conception  of  what  was  the  nature  of  this  mysterious  power  to 
bind  and  to  loose.  In  one  place  he  explains  it  by  the  judgments 
rendered  by  the  martyrs  who  are  to  sit  on  thrones  during  the  Mil 
lennium  (Eev.  xx.  4).2  Again,  in  praying  for  the  conversion  of  the 
Manicheans,  he  assumes  that  conversion  and  repentance  will  win 
remission  of  their  sins  and  blasphemies,  and,  if  he  refers  casually  to 
the  power  of  the  keys  lodged  in  the  Church,  it  is  apparently  only  to 
indicate  that  by  baptism  in  the  Church  they  will  be  in  a  position  to 
obtain  pardon.3  And  yet  again  he  argues  that  through  the  keys  the 
Church  has  the  power  of  inflicting  punishment  worse  than  death  by 
the  sword,  by  fire  or  by  the  beasts,4  though  the  individual  priest  has 
no  power ;  God  pardons  or  condemns  wholly  irrespective  of  what  the 
priest  may  say  or  do.5 

For  the  next  few  centuries  the  question  remained  in  the  same  state 
of  fluctuation  and  uncertainty.  On  the  one  hand  Coelestin  I.  in  431 
assumes  the  necessity  of  priestly  ministrations  by  denouncing  as  mur 
derers  of  souls  those  who  refused  penance  to  the  dying.6  Leo  I.,  who 
was  so  strenuous  a  sacerdotalist,  only  ascribes  to  the  priest  as  we 
have  seen  (p.  33)  a  deprecatory  and  mediatory  power,  but  the 
exercise  of  this  is  essential  to  the  reconciliation  of  the  sinner.  Zac- 
cheus,  in  controverting  the  Novatians,  claims  the  transmission  of  the 
grant  from  Peter,  but  limits  it  to  sins  that  have  been  duly  expiated, 
for  the  sentence  of  the  bishop  requires  the  assent  of  heaven.7  St. 
Ca3sarius  of  Aries  in  a  remarkable  passage  admits  that  the  office  of 
the  priest  is  merely  to  fit  the  sinner  for  the  judgment  of  God  ;  he  can 
promise  nothing,  but  he  can  advise  that  which  will  enable  the  truly 


1  S.  Augustin.  in  Joannis  Evang.  Tract,  cxxi.  n.  4. 

2  De  Civitate  Dei  Lib.  xx.  c.  ix.  §  2. 

3  De  Natura  Boni  c.  48. 

4  Contra  Adversarium  Legis  §  36. 

5  Quid  volunt  ut  ego  promittam  quod  ille  non  promittit?      Ecce  dat  tibi 
securitatem  procurator ;  quid  tibi  prodest  si  paterfamilias  non  acceptet  ?    .    .    . 
Securitatem  tibi  procurator  dedit :  nihil  valet  securitas  procuratoris.     .     .     . 
Domini  enim  securitas  valet  etiamsi  nolim ;  mea  vero  nihil  valet  si  ille  nolue- 
rit.— S.  August.  Serm.  XL.  cap.  5. 

6  Coelestin.  PP.  I.  Epist.  IV.  c.  2. 

7  Zacchsei  Consultationum  Lib.  n.  c.  17-18. 


OPINION  IN  THE  SIXTH  CENTURY.  119 

repentant  to  win  for  himself  access  to  heaven.1  On  the  other  hand, 
toward  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  John  the  Faster  of  Constanti 
nople  asserts  that  the  power  of  the  keys  has  been  handed  down  from 
St.  Peter,2  but  nearly  all  the  writers  of  this  period  assert  the  capacity 
of  the  sinner  to  make  his  peace  with  God  directly.  There  is  no  denial 
of  the  power  of  the  keys,  but  it  is  quietly  ignored,  or  regarded  as 
confided  to  the  Church  at  large,  and  at  most  the  functions  of  the 
priest  are  treated  as  subordinate  and  indifferent.  It  is  not  worth 
while  to  detail  these  views  at  length,  and  a  few  references  will  suffice 
tor  the  enquiring  student.3  In  the  Sacramentaries  of  the  period  more 
over  the  allusions  to  the  grant  to  St.  Peter  are  singularly  few.4 
Gregory  the  Great,  though  he  alludes  to  the  elect  obtaining  expiation 
at  the  hands  of  bishops,  yet  reminds  his  prelates  that  their  power  to 
bind  and  to  loose  depends  upon  the  use  they  make  of  it ;  if  they 


1  Sed  unde  scis  inquis,  si  forte  Deus  mihi  misereatur  et  dimittet  mihi  peccata 
raea?    Verum  dicis,  frater,  verum  dicis.     Unde  scio,  et  ideo  tibi  do  poeniten- 
tiam  quia  nescio.     At  ille  inquit :  Ergo  dimitte  causam  meam  Deo :  quid  tu 
me  verbis  affligis  et  judici  me  Deo  dimittis?     Illius  judicio  te  committo  cujus 
judicio  me  commendo.     Nam  si  scirem  nihil  tibi  prodesse,  non  te  admonerem, 
non  te  terrerem.     Duae  res  sunt,  aut  ignoscetur  tibi  aut  non  tibi  ignoscetur. 
Quid  horum  tibi  sit  nescio :  sed  do  consilium,  dimitte  incertum  et  tene  certum. 
Et  cum  vivis  age  poenitentiam  veram  ut  cum  veneris  in  judicium  Dei  non  ab  eo 
confundaris,  sed  ab  eo  in  regnum  ipsius  inducaris. — S.  Caesar.  Arelat.  Homil. 

XIX. 

2  Job.  Jejunatoris  Libellus  Poenitentialis  (Morin.  de  Discipl.  Poenitent.  App. 
p.  90).     A  work  of  this  kind  is  especially  liable  to  interpolation  as  it  passes 
from  generation  to  generation  and  probably  this  passage  is  an  addition  to  the 
original  text.     As   late  as  the   ninth   century  St.  Theodore   Studita  (Serm. 
LXXXII.)  in  urging  his  brethren  to  seek  pardon  from  God  by  contrition  knows 
nothing  of  absolution  or  priestly  ministration. 

3  Bachiarii  Monachi  Professio  Fidei,  c.  7;  Ejusd.  de  Reparatione  Lapsi  c. 
22,  23.— Joh.  Cassiani  Collat.  xx.  c.  5.— S.  Prosperi  Aquitan.  contra  Collatorem 
c.  11.— Gennadii  Massiliens.  de  Ecclesiae  Dogrnatibus  c.  53.— Pseudo-Augustin. 
Serm.  de  Symbolo  c.  16  (Migne,  XL.  1199).-S.  Csesarii  Arelatens.  Homil.  18. 
Ejusd.  Serm.  in  Append.  S.  Augustin.  CCLXI.  c.  2  (Migne,  XXXIX.  2228).— S. 
Fulgentii  Ruspens.  de  Remiss.  Peccator.  Lib.  i.  c.  15,  19,  22,  24;  Lib.  n.  c.  20. 
—Julian!  Pomerii  de  Vita  Contemplativa  Lib.  u.  c.  7.— Victor  Tunenens.  de 
Pcenitentia  c.  24.— Hesychii  in  Leviticum  Lib.  vii.  c.  27. 

In  the  Leonine  Sacramentary,  although  there  are  twenty-eight  masses  for 
the  feast  of  Peter  and  Paul  there  is  only  one  incidental  reference  to  the  power 
of  the  keys  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  I.  p.  545).  In  the  Missale  Gothiwm,  of 
a  later  date,  there  are  only  one  or  two  allusions  of  merely  a  passing  nature,  and 
no  conclusions  are  drawn  from  it  (Ibid.  P.  in.  p.  365). 


120  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

abuse  it  they  forfeit  it,  and  it  is  only  effective  when  the  grace  of  God 
and  the  internal  judge  have  pronounced  sentence — or  in  other  words 
it  merely  makes  manifest  the  judgment  of  God.1  At  the  same  time, 
when  he  warns  the  laity  that  if  unjustly  bound  they  must  submit, 
for  resistance  will  bring  sin  where  there  Avas  none  before,  he  shows 
that  at  least  in  Rome  the  power  of  the  keys  was  beginning  to  be 
vigorously  exercised.2  Yet  he  infers  that  all  priestly  ministrations 
were  superfluous  in  his  story  of  a  monk  praying  on  a  mountain,  and 
followed  by  his  curious  abbot,  who  as  he  watched  saw  the  monk  sud 
denly  suffused  with  a  divine  light,  and  subsequently  learned  from  him 
that  at  that  moment  a  heavenly  voice  had  said  "  Thy  sin  is  forgiven."3 
In  the  East  at  this  period  the  symbolical  commentary  on  Leviticus 
by  Hesy chins  of  Jerusalem  indicates  the  advancing  claims  of  sacer 
dotalism  in  attributing  to  the  priests  of  the  New  Law  the  functions 
of  the  Levites  of  the  Old,  enlarged  so  as  to  render  them  the  dis 
pensers  and  not  merely  the  instruments  of  divine  mercy.4  Yet  at  the 
same  time  S.  Anastasius  of  Sinai  describes  the  priest  as  merely  a 
mediator  who  propitiates  God,  and  no  supernatural  functions  are 
ascribed  to  him.5  About  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  the  good 
bishop  St.  Eloi,  in  his  Holy  Thursday  homilies,  naturally  dwells  on 
the  importance  of  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  ceremony  of  recon 
ciliation,  while  with  simple  earnestness  he  warns  his  penitents  thai 
God  will  not  absolve  them  unless  they  are  truly  contrite.6  In  the 
next  century  a  homily,  attributed  to  the  Venerable  Bede,  says  tlia 
only  heresy  or  pagan  superstition,  or  Jewish  infidelity  or  schisn 
requires  the  intervention  of  the  priest;  all  other  sins  God  himsel 
cures  in  the  conscience  and  intellect  of  the  sinner.7 

By  this  time  the  use  of  the  Penitentials — collections  of  canon 


1  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Homil.  in  Evangel.  Lib.  I.  Homil.  xvii.  §  18 ;  Lib.  n.  Homil 
xxvi.  §§  5,  6.     "Unde  fit  ut  ipse  hac  ligandi  et  solvendi  potestate  se  privet  qu 
hanc  pro  suis  voluntatibus  et  non  pro  subjectorum  moribus  exercet  .  .  .  ut  quo 
omnipotens  Deus,  per  compunctionis  gratiam  visitat  illos  pastoris  sententiar 
absolvat.     Tune  enim  vera  est  absolutio  praesidentis  cum   interni  arbitriur 
sequitur  judicis." 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  n.  Horn.  xxvi.  3  Ibid.  Lib.  n.  Horn,  xxxiv.  |  18. 

4  Hesychii  in  Levit.  Lib.  I.  c.  4 ;  Lib.  iv.  c.  13 ;  Lib.  vi.  c.  22. 

5  Nam  cum  sacerdos  mediator  inter  Deum  et  homines  existat,  ac  pro  peccat 
multitudinis  Deum  propitiet. — S.  Anastas.  Sinaitce  Orat.  de  S.  Synaxi  (Canisiu 
et  Basnage,  I.  471). 

6  S.  Eligii  Homil.  vii.  xi.  7  Bedae  Homil.  Lib.  in.  Horn,  xii;' 


CLAIMED  B  Y  PRIESTS.  1 2 1 

prescribing  the  penance  to  be  assigned  to  each  sin — was  becoming 
general  among  the  priests  scattered  through  the  lands  occupied  by 
the  recently  converted  Barbarians.  The  size  of  the  dioceses,  the 
insecurity  of  the  roads,  and  the  troubles  of  those  centuries  of  transi 
tion  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  bishops  to  listen  to  penitents  and 
for  penitents  to  be  confined  to  episcopal  reconciliation.  Much  of 
this  work  necessarily  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  parish  priests,  in 
many  cases  ignorant  leaders  of  ignorant  flocks,  and  a  change  in 
practice  was  inevitable,  leading  eventually  to  a  change  in  doctrine. 
The  bishop  still  performed  the  functions  of  public  reconciliation  on 
Holy  Thursday,  but  public  reconciliation  was  daily  becoming  a 
smaller  part  of  the  dealing  of  the  Church  with  sinners ;  it  was 
gradually  growing  obsolete  and  its  place  was  being  taken  by  the 
private  dealings  of  the  priests  with  their  penitents,  thus  creating  a 
new  want  which  was  filled  by  the  compilation  for  daily  use  of  the 
manuals  which  we  know  as  Penitentials.  We  shall  have  to  consider 
them  further  hereafter  and  meanwhile  it  suffices  to  point  out  the 
radical  change  which  this  introduced  in  the  administration  of  pen 
ance,  resulting  in  time  in  a  complete  modification  of  the  theory  of 
the  power  of  the  keys. 

The  power  of  binding  or  loosing  attributed  to  the  sacerdotal 
office  is  founded  on  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  ordination.1 
We  have  seen  (p.  55)  that  in  the  Canons  of^  Hippolytus  this  was 
prayed  for  equally  in  the  case  of  bishops  and  priests,  while  in  the 
later  Apostolical  Constitutions  there  was  a  distinction  drawn,  the 
prayer  for  the  Holy  Ghost  being  retained  in  episcopal  ordination, 
while  it  was  omitted  in  that  of  priests.  Thus  whatever  function  of 
binding  and  loosing  was  admitted  to  exist  was  confined  to  the  epis 
copal  office,  to  which  likewise  was  entrusted  the  exclusive  control 
over  reconciliation.  It  is  quite  possible  that  this  may  not  have  been 
the  case  everywhere,  for  each  local  Church  was  autonomous,  and  the 
complaints  of  Jerome  and  Isidore  of  Pelusium  indicate  that  at  least 


1  Durand.  de  S.  Portiano  Comment,  super  Sententias  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xix.  Q. 
1  \  6.— Astesani  Suinmae  de  Casibus  Lib.  Y.  Tit.  xxxvi.  Q,  2. 

For  reasons  that  will  presently  be  apparent  Aquinas  passes  over  this  in  his 
Opusc.  v.  de  Fide  et  Sacramentis,  which  is  followed  in  the  Council  of  Florence 
(Deer.  Unionis,  Harduin.  IX.  440),  but  he  plainly  infers  it  in  his  Summa, 
Suppl.  Q.  xxxvii.  Art.  5  ad  2.  See  also  his  Summa  contra  Gnrfilez,  Lib.  iv. 
c.  21. 


122  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

in  some  places  priests  were  found  claiming  and  exercising  the  privi 
lege,  but  this  may  safely  be  assumed  to  have  been  the  rule  in  the 
West,  so  far  as  the  Holy  See  could  exercise  control,  and  in  the  petty 
dioceses  into  which  Italy  and  Africa  were  divided  it  could  create  but 
little  practical  inconvenience,  especially  so  long  as  penance  was  mostly 
a  judicial  and  not  a  voluntary  act.  In  all  the  early  Sacra  mentaries 
and  rituals,  a  portion  of  the  formula  of  episcopal  ordination  is  a 
prayer  to  God  to  grant  to  him  the  keys  of  heaven,  so  that  what  he 
may  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  what  he  looses  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,  that  whose  sins  he  retains  shall  be 
retained  and  whose  sins  he  forgives  shall  be  forgiven,1  while  in  the 
formula  for  the  ordination  of  priests  there  is  no  such  power  asked 
for,  but  only  that  of  offering  the  sacrifice  and  celebrating  mass  for 
the  living  and  the  dead.  Evidently  thus  far  the  bishop,  as  the  suc 
cessor  of  the  apostles,  was  the  sole  inheritor  of  the  power  of  the 
keys,  as  St.  Eloi  in  the  seventh  century  represents  him.2  The 
forgers  of  the  false  decretals  in  the  ninth  century  evidently  de 
sired  to  confine  the  power  to  episcopal  hands.  In  a  decretal 
attributed  to  Pope  Anaclet,  after  quoting  the  text  of  Matthew  and 
stating  that  bishops  succeeded  to  the  apostles,  he  is  made  to  say 
rather  pointedly  that  priests  represent  the  seventy-two  disciples.' 
This  distinction  continued  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  under  the  Peni- 
tentials  the  priests  gradually  invaded  the  episcopal  territory  and 
administered  a  kind  of  quasi  absolution.  Dom  Martene's  exhaustive 
researches  into  ancient  rituals  show  that  these  formulas  remained  in 
use  until  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century,  although  the  immense 
development  of  sacerdotalism  in  the  twelfth  century  had  been  fol 
lowed  in  many  places  by  the  introduction  of  the  modern  formula, 
in  which  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  is  conferred  on  the  priest, 
and  this  no  longer  in  the  deprecatory  form,  but  in  an  absolute  and 

1  Da  ei  Domine  claves  regni  coelorum  ut  utatur,  non  glorietur,  potestate  quiiin 
tribuis  in  sedificationem  non  in  destructionem.  Quodcunque  ligaverit  super 
terrain  sit  ligatum  et  in  coelis,  et  quodcunque  solverit  super  terram  erit  solution 
et  in  ccelis.  Quorum  detinuerit  peccata  detenta  sint,  et  quod  dimiserit  tu 
dimittas.— Sacramentar.  Gregorian.  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  p.  84). 
Of.  Sacrament  Gelasian.  Lib.  i.  n  99  (Ib.  P.  n.  p.  218).— Missale  Franco r. 
(Ibid.  p.  458]. 

?  S.  Eligii  Noviomens.  Homil.  4. 

3  Pseudo-Anacleti  Epist.  2.  Cf.  Ivonis  Carnot.  Deer.  P.  v.  c.  58.— The  same 
distinction  is  drawn  in  Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  1. 


FORMULA  OF  PRIESTLY  ORDINATION.  128 

imperative  one — "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whose  sins  you  shall 
forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them  :  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain 
they  are  retained." *  The  earliest  instance  of  the  use  of  this  formula 
which  the  industry  of  Dom  Martene  has  discovered,  occurs  in  the 
life  of  St.  Libert,  who  was  ordained  a  priest  after  his  election  to  the 
see  of  Cambrai  in  1151,  when  the  emotion  ascribed  to  him  on  hearing 
it  indicates  that  it  was  a  novelty,2  and  the  earliest  formulary  in  which 
it  occurs  dates  from  about  the  year  1 200.  For  a  century  longer  the 
two  forms  of  priestly  ordination  coexisted,  but  the  one  containing 
the  grant  of  power  gradually  triumphed  and  became  universal. 
Then  for  awhile  it  was  dropped  as  superfluous  for  bishops,  who  had 
already  obtained  it  on  acquiring  priesthood,  but  subsequently  it  was 
resumed  for  them,  and  is  still  retained.3  The  fact  that  there  is  no 
clause  conferring  the  keys  in  nearly  all  the  Oriental  rituals — the 
Orthodox  JEuehologium,  the  Maronite,  the  Jacobite  and  the  Coptic — 

1  Accipe  Spiritum  sanctum ;  quorum  remiseris  peccata,  remittuntur  eis,  et 
quorum  retinueris  retenta  sunt  (John  xx.  21-23).— Ferraris,  Prompta  Biblio- 
theca,  s.  v.  Or  do  art.  1.  n.  49. 

2  Vit  S.  Lietberti  Camerac.  c.  17  (D'Achery,  Spicilegium,  II.  142). 

3  Ferraris  s.  v.   Ordo  art.  1  n.  52. — Martene  de  antiquis  Ritibus   Ecclesia? 
Lib  i.  c.  viii.  art.  9,  10,  11. 

The  question  as  to  whether  the  power  of  the  keys  is  conferred  by  this  clause 
in  the  ritual  of  ordination  is  necessarily  a  burning  one.  The  antiquarian 
ignorance  of  the  schoolmen  led  them  naturally  to  assume  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  it  is  (Mag.  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib  iv.  Dist.  18. — Pet.  de  Aquila  in  Sentt. 
Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xviii.  Q.  1)  and  it  was  not  questioned  until  researches  unveiled 
the  forgotten  customs.  Dom  Martene  holds  this  view  to  be  a  gross  error, 
because  the  absence  of  the  clause  from  the  old  Sacramentaries  would  otherwise 
show  that  priests  prior  to  its  introduction  had  no  power  of  absolution  doc.  cit. 
art.  9  n.  12).  But  this  gross  error  is  shared  by  such  authorities  as  Melchor 
Cano,  Bellarmine,  Estius,  Layman,  Escobar,  Vazquez,  Diana  etc.,  and  it  is 
only  the  more  modern  theologians,  Juenin,  Concina,  Tournely,  Menard  and 
others,  who  in  the  light  of  these  revelations  have  recognized  the  error.  All 
that  Liguori  will  say,  after  balancing  the  contradictory  opinions,  is  that  the 
latter  is  the  more  probable  (S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio,  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  749). 

In  fact  the  change  of  practice  places  the  Church  on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma, 
either  of  which  is  sufficiently  damaging  to  its  infallibility  as  the  custodian  of 
the  sacraments.  Benedict  XIV.  felt  this,  for,  after  discussing  the  matter  at 
length  and  stating  the  different  arguments,  he  leaves  it  undecided,  instructing 
bishops  moreover  not  to  allow  such  subjects  to  arise  in  their  synods,  for  they 
will  find  themselves  involved  in  intricacies  from  which  extrication  is  impossible 
(De  Synodo  Dioecesana  Lib.  vnr.  c.  10). 


124  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

would  seem  to  show  that  these  have  been  handed  down  unchanged 
from  a  period  before  the  ascription  to  the  sacerdotal  order  of  the 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose.1 

Even  while,  under  the  Penitentials,  the  priests  were  everywhere 
receiving  such  penitents  as  presented  themselves,  and,  except  in  cases 
of  aggravated  public  scandal,  were  administering  a  sort  of  quasi  abso 
lution,  they  were  exercising  a  power  not  inherent  in  their  office  but 
only  delegated  to  them  by  their  superiors.  We  have  already  seen 
how  jealously  the  bishops  endeavored  to  retain  control  over  recon 
ciliation,  and  they  did  not  recognize  that  ordination  to  the  priesthood 
conferred  the  power  to  admit  to  penance.  At  the  council  of  Pavia,  in 
850,  they  strictly  prohibited  priests  from  reconciling  penitents,  except 
on  the  death-bed,  or  by  special  instruction,  for  the  reason  that  it  is 
exclusively  an  episcopal  function,  like  making  the  chrism  and  conse 
crating  nuns,  since  the  bishops  are  the  sole  representatives  of  the 
apostles  to  whom  was  said  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc.2  The 
schoolmen  had  not  yet  invented  the  theory  of  " jurisdiction"  whereby 
the  cure  of  a  parish  invested  the  incumbent  with  authority  to  bind 
and  loose  his  "  subjects."  Even  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century 
we  have  evidence  that  the  special  assent  or  license  of  bishop  or  pope 
was  requisite  to  enable  the  priest  to  perform  the  functions  of  a  con 
fessor.  In  1065  we  find  two  priests,  Eodolf  and  Theobald,  applying 
to  Alexander  II.  for  authority  to  assign  penance  to  penitents  confess 
ing  to  them,  which  the  pope  grants,  providing  their  bishop  does  not 
object,3  In  1084  Berthold  of  Constance  relates  that  the  Cardinal 
Legate  of  Ostia  promoted  him  to  the  priesthood  and  at  the  same  time 
gave  him  papal  authority  to  receive  penitents — authority  which  evi 
dently  he  would  otherwise  not  have  had;4  and  in  1095  the  great 


1  Martene,  loe.  cit.  Ord.  xix.  xx.  xxn.  xxni.— In  the  Nestorian  Ordo  there 
is  no  thing  about  the  keys  in  the  ordination  to  the  priesthood,  but  in  that  of 
bishops  there  is  the  clause  "Tibi  commendo  ego  claves  thesauri  spiritualis  ut 
liges  et  solvas  quidquid  est  in  terra  et  in  ccelo."— Ibid.  Ord.  xxi. 

2  Synod.  Kegiaticinae  c.  7  (Harduin.  V.  26-7). 

3  Pcenitentiam  confitentibus  vobis  causa  religionis  injungere,  quandoquidem 
vos  igne  divini  araoris  fervere  non  dubitamus,  nisi  episcopi  in  quorum  paro3chiis 
estis  prohibuerint,  licentiam  damus. — Lowenfeld,  Epistt.  Rom.  Pontiff,  inedd., 
p.  54. 

4  Eique  potestatem  ad  suscipiendos  poenitentes  ex  apostolica  authoritate  con- 
cessit.— Berthold.  Constant.  App.  ad   Herman.   Contractual  (Urstisii   Germ. 
Histor.  p.  355). 


STRUGGLE  BUT  WE  EN  BISHOPS  AND  PRIESTS.  125 

council  of  Piacenza,  presided  over  by  Urban  II.,  repressed  the  aspira 
tions  of  priests  by  formally  prohibiting  them  from  administering  pen 
ance  unless  their  bishops  had  confided  this  duty  to  them,  a  command 
which  was  confirmed  by  the  council  of  Clermont  in  the  same  year.1 
The  synod  of  Gran,  about  1099,  took  the  same  position,  asserting  that 
neither  in  ordination  nor  under  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  has  the 
priest  power  to  receive  penitents,  but  only  by  concession  of  the  bishops.2 
A  somewhat  different  plan  of  obtaining  the  same  result  was  adopted 
by  a  council  of  Normandy  about  this  period  :  no  priest  or  monk,  it 
says,  is  to  receive  a  public  sinner  to  penitence  without  command  of 
the  bishop ;  secret  sinners  may  be  received  to  confession,  but  the 
case  is  to  be  referred  to  the  bishop  to  determine  the  penance  without 
reporting  the  name  of  the  penitent.3  It  is  quite  possible  that  this 
determined  assertion  of  episcopal  control  may  be  connected  with  the 
fact  that  at  this  period  the  use  of  the  power  of  the  keys  was,  as  we 
shall  see  hereafter,  increasing  enormously  the  wealth  of  the  Church. 
Evidently  the  priests  were  endeavoring  to  obtain  a  right  to  claim  a 
share  in  this  profitable  faculty  and  the  bishops  were  struggling  to 
retain  control  over  it.  Even  after  the  change  in  the  formula  of 
ordination  towards  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  Peter  of  Poitiers 
asserts  that  priests  have  only  potential  power  of  the  keys  and  cannot 
exercise  it  without  delegation  from  the  bishop.4 

All  this  vagueness  and  uncertainty  explains  to  us  why,  when  the 
priests  were  everywhere  handling  the  Penitentials,  listening  to  such 
penitents  as  might  come  to  them,  prescribing  penance,  and  restoring 
sinners  to  communion,  there  was  no  clearer  admission  than  before 
of  the  power  of  the  keys.  Alcuin  is  as  inconsistent  as  the  earlier 
Fathers.  In  one  passage  he  tells  us  that  the  recital  of  the  seven 
penitential  psalms  will  win  the  mercy  of  God  ;  in  another  he  assumes 
that  repentance  is  the  sole  requisite  for  pardon,  in  yet  another  he 

1  Concil.  Placentin.  ami.  1095.— Concil.  Claromont.  ami.  1098  c.  5.     (Har- 
duin.  VI.  1713,  1736). 

Even  as  late  as  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century  Peter  of  Blois  ob 
jects  to  monks  confessing  to  bishops  "  vel  illis  quos  pro  se  delegant  epis- 
copi"  (P.  Blesens.  de  Pcenitent.)  showing  that  the  power  was  still  only  a 
delegation  from  that  of  the  bishops. 

2  Synod.  Strigonens.  II.  c.  ami.  1099,  c.  21  (Batthyani,  II.  157). 

3  Post  Concil.  Eotomagens.  ann.  1074  c.  8  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  1520). 

4  Petri  Pictaviens.  Sententt.  Lib.  vi.  c.  16.— "Sed  illam  potestatem  habet 
tantem  in  habitu  et  non  in  actu,  nisi  concedatur  ei  ab  episcopo." 


126  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

asserts  that  the  prayers  of  the  priest  will  render  confession  acceptable 
to  God  and  obtain  pardon  from  him,  and  in  another  he  asserts  the 
power  of  the  keys  as  a  matter  of  belief.1  In  a  similar  spirit  many 
rituals  of  the  period  give  a  prayer  of  the  priest  in  which  he  only 
describes  himself  as  an  humble  mediator  constituted  by  God  to  inter 
cede  for  penitent  sinners.2  Smaragdus  indicates  the  uncertain  con 
ceptions  of  the  time  in  saying  that  mortal  sins  are  to  be  submitted  to 
the  priest  who  will  regulate  the  penance  for  them,  but,  after  all, 
the  sufficiency  of  the  satisfaction  is  weighed  by  divine  and  not  by 
human  judgment,3  thus  reducing  the  power  of  the  keys  to  the 
merest  formality. 

With  the  commencement  of  the  Carlovingian  decadence  came  the 
effort  to  establish  the  supremacy  of  the  Church,  of  which  the  most 
conspicuous  embodiment  is  to  be  found  in  the  False  Decretals.  With 
the  crumbling  of  the  secular  power  the  way  lay  open  for  the  Church, 
which  had  been  enormously  strengthened  by  Charlemagne  in  his 
policy  of  using  it  as  an  instrument  for  the  civilization  of  his  em 
pire.  In  the  disintegration  of  existing  institutions  and  the  founda 
tion  of  the  medieval  commonwealths  which  then  occurred,  the  Church 
had  ample  opportunity  for  the  development  of  its  ambitious  schemes. 
For  the  nonce  these  lay  in  the  direction  of  temporal  supremacy 
rather  than  of  spiritual,  and  the  full  evolution  of  the  latter  was  post 
poned  until  the  twelfth  century,  after  the  former  had  been  com 
pletely  established  by  Gregory  VII.  and  his  successors.  Still  the 
opportunity  was  not  wholly  neglected  to  bring  into  prominence  and 
to  practically  exercise  the  power  of  the  keys,  which  thus  far  had 
been  rather  a  theoretical  claim  of  the  high  sacerdotalists  than  an 
actually  conceded  authority.  In  829  the  bishops  assembled  at  the 
great  council  of  Paris  complain  that  many  Christians  hold  that  those 
who  persevere  in  their  wickedness  until  death  are  punished  only 


1  Alcuini  de  Psalmorum  Usu  Prsefat. ;  Ib.  n.  12.— Ejusd.  de  Virtut.  et  Viciis 
e.  13.— Ejusd.  Epistt.  12,  112. 

2  Me  exiguum  humilemque  mediatorem  constituisti  ad  advocandum  et  in- 
tercedendum  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Christum  pro  peccantibus  et  ad  poeni- 
tentiam   revertentibus.  —  Fez,   Thesaur.   Anecdot.   II.   u.    613.— Martene   de 
antiquis  Eitibus  Ecclesiae.  Lib.  I.  Cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ord.  3,  4,  9. 

3  Smaragdi  Diadema  Monachor.  c.   15,  16.—"  Quia  poenitentige  satisfactio 
divino  pensatur  judicio,  non  humano." 


THE  ISIDORIAN  FORGERIES.  127 

temporarily  in  purgatory  and  not  eternally  in  hell,  showing  how 
slowly  the  populations  were  accepting  the  idea  that  sacerdotal  minis 
trations  were  required  to  escape  damnation.  Further  remarks 
coupled  with  extracts  from  Bede  indicate  that  absolution  for  sin  was 
procured  by  prayer  direct  to  God  without  human  mediation.1  Evi 
dently  some  means  were  necessary  to  support  the  claims  of  the 
Church  as  controlling  the  gates  of  heaven  and  hell.  Thus  in  an 
endeavor  to  revive  the  decaying  practice  of  public  penance,  an  Isido- 
rian  decretal  assumes  that  it  reconciles  not  only  to  the  Church  but 
to  God.2  Another  forgery,  attributed  to  Clement  L,  is  a  recital  of 
his  ordination  as  bishop  of  Rome  by  St.  Peter,  in  which  the  apostle 
formally  transmitted  to  him  the  power  of  the  keys  granted  by  Christ, 
showing  that  the  question  of  transmission  was  felt  to  be  doubtful  and 
required  this  authentic  corroboration.8  In  the  same  decretal  St. 
Peter  is  made  to  say  that  bishops  are  the  keys  of  the  Church  ;  they 
have  power  to  open  and  close  the  gates  of  heaven  for  they  are  the 
keys  of  heaven.4  In  all  this,  the  attribution  of  the  power  to  bishops 
alone  and  the  silence  respecting  priests  are  significant.  It  was 
Benedict  the  Levite  however,  in  his  collection  of  Capitularies,  who 
labored  most  strenuously  in  this  direction.  Perhaps  the  earliest 
claim  to  the  absolute  remission  of  sins  and  the  absolution  of  the 
sinner  is  his  assertion  that  Christ  gave  to  his  disciples  and  their  suc 
cessors  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  so  that  they  were  able  to 
remit  the  sins  of  those  who  performed  due  penance,  and  that  he 
knew  this  to  be  a  novelty  is  seen  in  his  explanation  that  no  one 
should  wonder  at  it,  seeing  that  masters  can  confer  upon  their  slaves 


1  Con.  Parisiens.   ann.  829  Lib.  n.  Cap.  x.  xii.  xiii.  (Harduin.  IV.  1344, 
1347-8). 

2  Ipsam  quoque  infamiam  qua  sunt  aspersi  delere  non  possumus,  sed  animas 
eoruin  per  pcenitentiam  publicam  et  ecclesise  satisfactionem  sanare  cupimus, 
quia  manifesta  peccata  non  sunt  occulta  correctione  purganda.    Pseudo-Calixti 
Epist.  ad  Galilee  Episcopos. 

3  Propter  quod  ipsi  trado  a  Domino  mihi  traditam  potestatem  ligandi  et  sol- 
vendi,  ut  de  omnibus  quibuscimque  decreverit  in  terris  hoc  decretum  sit  et  in 
coelis.    Ligabit  enim  quod  oportet  ligari  et  solvet  quod  expedit  solvi.— Pseudo- 
Clement.  Epist.  i.     Carried  into  Ivonis  Decret.  P.  xiv.  c.  1. 

4  Ecclesiam     .     .     .     cujus  claves  episcopos  esse  dicebat.     Ipsi  enim  habent 
potestatem  claudere  ccelum  et  aperiri  portas  ejus,  quia  claves  coeli  facti  sunt. — 
Pseudo-Clement.  Epist.  i.     Carried  into  Burchard.  Deer.  Lib.  I.  c.  125  and 
Ivon.  Carnotens.  Deer.  P.  v.  c.  225. 


128  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

authority  over  their  fellow  slaves.1  This  he  follows  up  by  assuming 
in  his  instructions  for  the  process  of  reconciliation  that  in  it  the 
sinner  is  absolved  and  his  sins  remitted  by  the  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  prayers  of  the  priest.2  As  up  to  this  time,  and 
for  three  centuries  to  come,  the  only  formulas  in  use  were  prayers  to 
God  to  pardon  the  penitent,  Benedict  had  no  hesitation  in  forging 
interpolations  in  papal  decretals  to  show  that  these  prayers  had  an 
absolving  power.  An  epistle  of  Leo  I.  is  thus  falsified  by  injecting 
in  it  the  phrase  "  by  the  absolution  of  the  priestly  prayers/'3  and 
the  Synodical  Epistle  of  Felix  III.  has  a  similar  forgery  inserted  in 
it.4  Having  thus  manufactured  papal  authority  for  the  absolutory 
function  of  the  priestly  prayers  over  the  penitent  he  had  no  hesita 
tion  in  employing  the  same  phrase  in  his  instructions  for  the  conduct 
of  public  reconciliation.5  It  is  probably  to  these  efforts  that  we  may 
attribute  the  efficacy  subsequently  ascribed  to  the  deprecatory  form 
ulas  of  absolution  until  they  were  replaced  by  the  indicative  one 
which  is  still  in  use,  for  these  Capitularies  were  not  issued  simply 
on  the  authority  of  Benedict  or  of  the  church  of  Mainz,  where  he 
professed  to  have  discovered  them,  but  were  presented  and  received 


1  Et  ideo  Doininus  et  inagister  noster  discipulis  suis  et  successoribus  eorumi 
ligandi  ac  solvendi  dedit  potestatem  ut  peccatores  ligandi  habeant  potestatem, 
et  pcenitentiam  condigne  agentes  absolvi  ac  peccata  cum  divina  invocatione 
dimitti  queant.     Nee  mirum  etc. — Capitular.  Lib.  V.  c.  116. 

2  Ibid.  c.  129,  137. 

3  Ibid.  c.  133.     He  quotes  from  Leo's  Epist.  CLIX.  c.  6  "  oportet  ei  per  sacer- 
dotalem  sollicitudinem  communionis  gratia  subvenire,"  injecting  after  "  sollici- 
tudinem"  the  words  "id  est  per  manus  impositionem,  absolutione  precum 
sacerdotalium." 

4  Ibid.  c.  134.     The  Epistle  vu.  of  Felix  III.  in  ordering  the  viaticum  for 
dying  penitents  says  "  aut  similiter  a  presbytero  viaticum  abeunti  a  saeculo  non 
negetur."      Benedict  inserts  after  "presbytero"  "jussu  aut  permissu  tamen 
proprii  episcopi,  per  manus  impositionem,  absolutione  precum  sacerdotalium  " 

Both  these  canons  are  carried  in  this  shape  into  Isaac  of  Langres'  collection, 
Tit.  i.  c  16,  29. 

5  Ibid.  c.  136  (Isaaci  Lingonens.  Tit.  I.  c.  17). 

Much  stress  is  laid  by  modern  apologists  on  a  letter  of  Pope  John  VIII.  in 
879  to  the  Frankish  bishops  respecting  those  who  had  recently  fallen  in  battle 
against  the  pagan  Northmen,  as  proving  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  keys 
at  this  period.  There  was  from  an  early  time  a  certain,  or  rather  uncertain, 
amount  of  influence  claimed  for  the  prayers  of  the  Church  over  the  fate  of  the 
disembodied  soul  after  death  which  will  be  more  conveniently  treated  hereafter 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  subject  of  purgatory. 


GRADUAL  ADVANCE.  129 

s  laws  promulgated  by  Pepin,  Charlemagne  and  Louis  le  Debou- 
laire,  and  thus  as  entitled  to  unquestioned  respect  and  obedience. 
?he  Capitularies  of  Benedict  were  not  the  least  audacious  and  suc- 
essful  of  the  great  cycle  of  Isidorian  forgeries.  It  is  to  the  same 
nfluences  that  we  may  attribute  the  incorporation  of  remission  by 
he  priest  in  the  twelve  methods  of  obtaining  pardon,  by  the  Peni- 
entials  of  Merseburg  and  of  Gregory  III.,  as  mentioned  in  the  previ- 
us  chapter  (p.  83). 

In  spite  of  the  forgeries  the  theory  of  the  power  of  the  keys  made 

low  advance.     It  is  true  that  Jonas  of  Orleans,  who,  as  we  have 

een,  retained  the  Origeniau  list  of  seven   modes  of  remission,  in 

nother  passage  speaks  of  priests  reconciling  men  to  God,1  and  the 

3enitential  which  passes  under  the  name  of  Egbert  of  York  speaks 

f  bishops    granting   remission  of  sins  in   reconciliation  ~     On  the 

ther  hand  Rabanus  Maurus,  Archbishop  of  Mainz  and  perhaps  the 

aost  authoritative  writer  of  the  age,  quotes  approvingly  the  damag- 

ng  passage  of  St.  Jerome ;  he  is  inclined  to  ascribe  the  power  to  all 

he  elect  in  the  church,  and  the  special  grant  to  Peter  he  construes  as 

warning  that  outside  of  the  Petrine  Church  there  is  no  salvation,  yet 

riests  and  bishops  can  relieve  the  penitent  from  the  dread  of  eternal 

eath  and  threaten  the  hardened  sinner  with  endless  torment.3     Simi- 

arly  the  learned  Hay  mo  Bishop  of  Halberstadt,  while  freely  con- 

eding  that  the  power  of  the  keys  was  transmitted  to  bishops  and 

riests  who  represent  the  Apostles,  proceeds  to  illustrate  it  by  the 

Levitical  law  of  leprosy,  which  was  to  be  shown  to  the  priest,  not 

that  he  could    cleanse  the  leper  or    make   him  clean,  but  that  he 

should  distinguish  between  leprosy  and  leprosy — that  is,  between  the 

greater  and  lesser  sins.4     That  he  attached  no  importance  to  the  keys 


1  Moris  est  Ecclesiae  de  gravioribus  peccatis  sacerdotibus,  per  quos  homines 
Deo  reconciliantur,  confessionem  facere.— Jonae  Aurelianens.  de  Instit.  Laicali 
Lib.  i.  c.  16. 

2  Poenitent.  Pseudo-Ecberti  Lib.  I.  c.  12.— "  Et  episcopus  super  eos  cantat  et 
remissionem  dat.     .     .     .     et  ita  ei  juxta  illud  remissionem  dat." 

3  Rabani  Mauri  Comment,  in  Matt.  Lib.  v.  c.  xvi. 

4  After  quoting  Matt.  xvi.  and  xvm.  Hay  mo  says  "  eandem  potestatern 
tribuit  [Christus]  episcopis  et  presbyteris,  qui  officio  Apostolorum  funguntur." 
Then,  after  referring  to  the  Levitical  law,  he  adds  "  non  quod  ipse  leprosum 
mundare  aut  mundatum  leprosum  facere  posset,  sed  quia  ad  ministerium  ipsius 
sacerdotis  pertinet  ut  discernat  inter  leprain  et  leprain,  id  est  inter  peccatum 
majus  et  minus."— Haymon.  Halberstat.  Homil.  de  Sanctis,  Horn.  in. 

I.— 9 


130  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

is  seen  when  in  treating  elsewhere  somewhat  fully  on  confession, 
repentance  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  he  makes  no  allusion  to  sacer«4 
dotal  ministrations.1  Almost  identical  with  Haymo's  conception  is 
that  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  tract,  probably  of  the  tenth  century,  in 
which  annual  confession  at  the  beginning  of  Lent  is  prescribed, 
where  the  priest  assigns  penance  to  be  performed  before  Easter,  and 
the  penitent  obtains  pardon  without  further  ceremonies — "because 
penance  is  like  a  second  baptism,  and  in  baptism  the  sins  before  com 
mitted  are  forgiven,  so  also  through  penance  the  sins  are  purified 
which  were  committed  after  baptism."2  About  the  year  900  Abbo 
of  St.  Germain  tells  the  penitents  whose  penance  was  not  completed 
that  they  must  go  on  with  it  cheerfully,  for  no  bishop  can  grant  ab 
solution  until  it  is  fully  performed,  which  would  seem  to  recognize 
the  function  of  absolving,  but  this  was  mere  reconciliation  with  the 
Church  for  he  had  previously  told  them  that  if  the  penance  assigned 
be  insufficient  they  must  add  to  it  voluntarily  to  satisfy  God.3  As* 
the  distinction  between  culpa  and  pcena  had  not  yet  been  evolved  by 
the  schoolmen  this  was  a  practical  denial  of  the  power  of  the  keys* 
and  of  the  authority  of  the  Church  to  act  for  God. 

Regino,  whose  collection  of  canons,  so  much  more  complete  than* 
those  of  his  predecessors,  virtually  superseded  the  Penitentials  during 
the  tenth  century,  has  no  hesitation  in  asserting  that  the  keys  oft 
heaven  are  granted  to  bishops  and  priests  to  exercise  judgment  on 
penitents,  though  he  admits  that  in  case  of  necessity  a  deacon  can- 
admit  a  penitent  to  communion,4  showing  that  the  recognition  of  the 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose  was  gradually  making  its  way,  though 
the  conception  as  to  its  exercise  was  still  very  vague.     The  Council 
of  Trosley,  also,  in  909,  specified  as  an  article  of  faith  that  repent 
ance  with  sacerdotal    ministration  obtains   pardon  for  sins.5      The 
darkness  of  the  tenth  century,  however,  was  too  dense,  both  intel 
lectually  and  spiritually,  for  progress  of  any  kind,  and  it  has  left  us 
scarce  any  expression  of  its  conceptions  on  this  subject  by  which  tc 
estimate  the  direction  of  its  currents  of  thought.     One  of  the  few 
scholars  of  the  age,  Atto,  Bishop  of  Yercelli,  in  vindicating  episcopal 


1  Haymon.  de  Varietate  Librorum  Lib.  n.  c.  61-67. 

2  Ecclesiastical  Institutes  c.  36  (Thorpe,  II.  435). 

3  Abbonis  Sangermanens.  Serm.  II.  III. 

4  Keginon.  de  Discipl.  Eccles.  Lib.  i.  c.  295,  296. 

5  Concil.  Trosleian.  aim.  909  c.  15  (Hardnin.  VI.  I.  544). 


THE  TENTH  CENTURY.  131 

'.nm unity  irom  secular  jurisdiction,  declares  that  they  are  not  to  be 
ashly  judged  of  men  who  have  received  from  God  the  power  of 
adging  even  the  angels,  which  was  carrying  the  function  of  the  keys 
)  its  highest  denomination,  but  how  little  reference  this  had  to  any 
tactical  exercise  of  it  is  seen  in  his  elaborate  instructions  to  his 
riestri,  in  which  there  is  no  reference  to  anything  but  reconciliation 
o  the  Church  by  the  bishop.1  St.  Ulric  of  Augsburg,  in  his  synodal 
Dnstitutions,  which  are  very  minute,  tells  his  priests  to  invite  their 
arishioners  to  confession  on  Ash  Wednesday,  and  to  impose  due 
enance  on  them,  but  he  says  nothing  about  absolution  and  seems 
rnorant  of  anything  save  the  reconciliation  of  the  dying.2  St.  Odo 
f  Cluny  claims  for  prelates  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  but,  like 
.tto  of  Vercelli,  it  is  as  a  weapon  of  defence  against  the  lawless 
ppressors  of  the  Church,  and  he  relies  to  terrify  them  wholly  on 
lie  worldly  punishments  with  which  God  afflicts  the  wicked.3  Save 
fc  the  approach  of  death,  the  age  was  too  cruel  and  carnal  to  care 
inch  for  spiritual  terrors,  and  the  less  the  Church  deserved  and 
ojoyed  the  respect  of  the  laity  the  greater  became  the  claims  which 
put  forward  to  serve  as  a  shield.  Ratherius,  Bishop  of  Verona, 
rho  was  thrice  driven  from  his  see  by  the  secular  power,  at  the  in- 
oance  of  his  clergy  unable  to  endure  the  rigidity  of  his  virtue, 
aturally  seeks  to  exalt  in  the  most  extravagant  manner  the  authority 
if  his  office.  Bishops,  he  says,  are  Gods,  they  are  Christs,  they  are 
ngels,  kings,  and  princes ;  they  are  physicians  of  souls,  the  janitors 
f  paradise,  bearing  the  keys  of  heaven,  which  they  can  close  or 
pen  at  will.4  Yet  of  these  divine  beings  he  admits  that  there  is 
3arce  one  fitted  for  the  position  or  fit  even  to  lay  hands  on  another 
rhen  elected,  while  the  priests  are  only  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
dty  by  shaving,  the  tonsure,  some  slight  difference  in  garments  and 
le  negligent  performance  of  the  offices,  to  satisfy  the  world  rather 
lan  God.5  It  would  be  curious  to  enquire  what  was  his  conception 


1  Atton.Vercell.  de  Pressuris  Ecclesiasticis  Pars.  I  — Ejusd.  Capitulare,  cap.  90. 

2  S.  Udalrici  Augustani  Sermo  Synodalis. 

3  S.  Odonis  Cluniacens.  Collationum  Lib.  I.  c.  19.     Of.  Lib.  n.  c.  16. 

*  Talibus  igitur,  O  rex,  subdi  ne  dedigneris,  quia  velis  nolis  ipsos  deos,  ipsos 
ngelos,  ipsos  principes,  ipsos  judices  habebis  .  .  .  Medici  animarum  sunt, 
tnitores  paradisi  sunt,  claves  creli  portantes,  reserare  et  claudere  ccelum  valent. 
-Ratherii  Veronens.  Praeloquiorum  Lib.  u.  n.  11,  12. 

6  Ejusd.  de  Contemptu  Canonum  P.  n.  \\  I,  2. 


132  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

of  the  God  who  would  entrust  such  powers  to  such  hands,  or  what 
was  the  intellectual  condition  of  the  populations  that  could  be  brought 
to  admit  such  claims. 

The  eleventh  century  does  not  afford  us  much  material  for  the  il 
lustration  of  the  subject,  but  what  it  does  indicates  that  little  advance 
was  made  in  the  theory  of  the  power  of  the  keys.  Thietmar,  Bishop 
of  Merseburg,  was  one  of  the  most  cultured  men  of  his  day,  and 
yet  his  idea  of  the  authority  of  his  office  was  of  the  vaguest  and 
crudest  description.  When,  about  1015,  Bishop  Bernar  built  a 
church  and  invited  Thietmar  to  consecrate  it,  he  handed  his  guest  a 
long  written  confession  of  his  sins  and  reading  it  with  groans  begged 
for  pardon.  Thietmar  thereupon  granted  him  absolution  (appar 
ently  without  penance)  by  divine  power,  and  then,  fearing  that  in 
his  impotence  this  was  of  no  service  to  the  sinner,  after  consecrating 
the  church,  he  placed  the  confession  on  a  reliquary  so  that  the  saints 
whose  relics  it  contained  might  by  earnest  intercession  obtain  the 
desired  remission  of  sin  for  the  postulant.1  Thietmar  tells  us  that 
he  had  never  heard  of  this  being  done,  but  the  spirit  which  prompted 
it  was  not  confined  to  him.  A  ritual  of  the  period  instructs  the 
priest,  when  his  penitent  is  a  cleric,  to  lead  him  before  the  altar  and 
say,  "  I  am  not  worthy  to  receive  thy  penitence.  May  the  omnipo 
tent  God  receive  thee  and  liberate  thee  from  all  thy  sins,  past,  pres 
ent  and  future."2  Burchard  of  Worms,  in  his  collection  of  canons, 
gives  the  extract  from  the  forged  decretal  of  Clement  I.  alread} 
cited,  in  which  bishops  are  declared  to  have  the  power  of  opening  01 
closing  heaven,  because  they  are  the  keys  of  heaven,3  but  St.  Fulber1 
of  Chartres  seems  to  know  nothing  of  all  this.  In  an  exhortatioi 
to  sinners  he  tells  them  to  perform  the  penance  enjoined  on  them 
but  this  is  useless  without  amendment;  many,  he  says,  have  escapee 
eternal  death  by  penitence  and  many  by  prayer,  but  the  saving 
power  of  the  Church  does  not  appear  to  be  a  factor  in  his  scheme  o 


1  Hoc  nunquain  vidi  aliquem  fecisse  vel  audivi ;  sed  quia  infirinitateui  mear 
huic  nil  prodesse  timui,  ad  sanctos  intercessores  confugi. — Dithmari  Chror 
Lib.  vn.  c.  7. 

2  Non  sum  dignus  ego  tuam  suscipere  poenitentiam.     Suscipiat  te  omnipc 
tens  Deus   et   liberat  te  de  omnibus  peccatis   tuis,  prseteritis,  praesentis  € 
futuris.— Garofali,  Ordo  ad  dandam  Poenitentiam,  Roma,  1791,  p.  21. 

3  Burchardi  Decret.  Lib.  I.  c.  125.     This  forgery  evidently  was  the  basis  c 
the  assertion  of  Ratherius  of  Verona  just  quoted. 


VAGUE  CONCEPTIONS.  133 

salvation.1  Towards  the  close  of  the  century  the  blessed  Lanfranc 
of  Canterbury  evidently  holds  that  the  power  of  the  keys  is  lodged 
in  the  Church  at  large,  to  be  exercised  in  case  of  necessity  by  any 
^f  its  members,  whether  in  orders  or  not.  He  tells  the  penitent  that 
if  his  sin  be  public  it  should  be  confessed  to  a  priest,  through  whom 
the  Church  binds  and  looses  what  it  publicly  knows :  if  the  sin  be 
private  it  can  be  confessed  to  any  cleric,  but  if  none  is  to  be  found 
then  to  a  righteous  layman,  for  the  righteous  can  purify  the  unright 
eous  without  respect  to  orders.  If  this  likewise  fails,  there  is  no 
3ause  for  despair,  for  the  Fathers  agree  that  confession  is  then  to  be 
made  to  God.2  How  vague  as  yet  were  all  conceptions  on  the  sub 
ject  is  seen  in  Gregory  VII.  assuming  to  absolve  correspondents  at 
i  distance  from  their  sins,  by  authority  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  this 
without  requiring  confession  or  knowing  what  were  the  sins  thus 
pardoned  by  writing,3  and  we  shall  see  hereafter,  when  we  come  to 
treat  of  indulgences,  that  various  popes  about  this  period,  in  return 
for  services  rendered  or  expected,  made  indefinite  promises  of  the 
pardon  of  sin  without  reference  to  the  internal  disposition  of  the 
sinner.  All  this  was  wholly  irregular  and  had  no  influence  on  the 
general  theories  of  the  Church.  St.  Anselm  of  Lucca  apparently 
•pays  no  attention  to  the  matter  in  his  compilation,  and  about  the 
rear  1100  St.  Ivo  of  Chartres,  the  highest  authority  of  his  day, 
virtually  denies  the  power  of  the  keys  by  citing  in  his  Decretum  the 
story  of  an  abbot  who  expelled  a  negligent  brother  and  received  by 
in  angel  a  message  from  God  telling  him  never  to  condemn  any  one 
3efore  the  Lord  should  have  judged  him.4  It  is  true  that  St.  Ivo 
inserts  the  exaggerated  description  of  bishops  as  keys  of  heaven 
Prom  the  Pseudo-Clement,  but  he  likewise  gives  the  emphatic  con- 


1  Fulbert.  Carnot.  Serin,  n.     Cf.  Ejusd.  de  Peccatis  capitalibus. 

2  De  occtiltis  omni  ecclesiastico  ordini  confiteri  debemus ;  de  apertis  vero 
solis  convenit  sacerdotibus,  per  quos  Ecclesia,  quse  publice  novit  et  solvit  et 
igat.    Sin  nee  in  ordinibus  ecclesiasticis  cui  confitearis  invenis,  vir  mundus 
ibicumque  sit  requiratur.     .     .     .     Sed  diligenter  intuendum  quid  est  quod 
sine  determinatione   cujusquam  ordinis  homo  mundus  lustrare   immundum 
lieitur :  et  quosdam  sanctorum  Patrum  legimus  qui  animas  rexerunt,  et  tamen 
iorum  ordinum  nescimus.    Quod  si  nemo  cui  confitearis  invenitur,  ne  desperes 
juia  in  hoc  Patrum  conveniunt  sententiae  ut  Domino  confitearis.— B    Lan- 
?ranci  Lib.  de  Gelanda  Confessione. 

3  Gregor.  PP.  VII.  Regest.  Lib.  I.  Ep.  34;  Lib.  n.  Ep.  61 ,  Lib.  vi.  Ep.  2. 

4  S.  Ivon.  Carnot.  Deer.  P.  II.  c.  109. 


134  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

demnation  of  the  keys  by  St.  Jerome/  and  in  a  sermon  he  describes 
priests  and  bishops  as  mediators ;  they  absolve  and  reconcile,  but  it 
is  through  eminent  sanctity,  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  power 
derived  from  the  apostles.2  As  a  bishop  himself,  however,  in  per 
forming  his  functions  he  could  not  abnegate  the  power  of  the  keys, 
and  in  an  Ash  Wednesday  sermon  to  penitents  he  speaks  of  the 
Church  to  which  God  through  its  pastors  had  given  license  to  bind 
and  to  loose.3  St.  Bernard  seems  to  know  little  of  the  power  of  the 
keys.  In  his  book  of  counsel  to  his  sister  he  says  nothing  as  to  her 
confessing  to  the  priest  and  accepting  penance  and  absolution  :  it  is 
God  alone  who  absolves  from  sin,  and  repentance  is  to  be  manifested 
by  amendment  and  mortifications.4  Elsewhere  he  dwells  earnestly 
and  repeatedly  on  the  virtues  of  confession,  which  of  itself  suffices 
to  wash  away  sins,  and  he  only  refers  to  priestly  absolution  in  the 
most  cursory  manner/  He  adopts  without  credit  the  passage  o1 
Smaragdus  quoted  above,  while  he  also  exalts  the  power  of  th< 
priest  over  that  of  cherubim  and  seraphim,  thrones,  dominations  - 
and  virtues,  but  this  is  because  of  the  function  of  transubstantiating 
the  Eucharist,  no  reference  being  made  to  the  power  of  the  keys. ' 
Yet  by  this  time  the  schoolmen  were  at  work,  commencing  to  la^ 
the  foundations  for  the  structure  of  sacerdotalism.  Hugh  of  St 


1  Ibid.  P.  v.  c.  225 ;  P.  xiv.  c.  7 ;  Ejusd.  Panorm.  Lib.  v.  c.  86. 

2  Ejusd.  Serm.  n.  3  Ejusd.  Serin,  xm. 

4  S.  Bernard!  Lib.  de  Modo  bene  vivendi  c.  27.—"  Deus  misereatur  tui  e 
dimittat  tibi  omnia  peccata  tua;    Deus  retribuat  tibi  indulgentiam  tuoruc 
delictorum ;  Deus  indulgeat  tibi  quidquid  peccasti ;    Deus  te  lavet  ab  omn 
peccato." 

5  S.  Bernard!  Serm.  de  Diversis,  Serm.  XL.  ;  Lib.  ad  Milites  Tempi!  c.  12 
Epist.  cxin.  |  4;  Vit.  S.  Malachiae  c.  25;  Serm.  in  Nat.  Domini,  Serm.  II.  \  1 
Serm.  in  Temp.  Resurrect.  §  10;  Serm.  in.  in  Assunipt.  B.  Virginis;  Serm.  r 
in  Festo  Omn.  Sanctt.  g  13 ;    Serm.  de  Diversis,  Serm.  xcr.  §  1.— "Omni 
siquidem  in  confessione  lavantur." 

6  S.  Bernard!  Lib.  de  modo  bene  vivendi  cap.  xxvii;  Instructio  Sacerdot: 
cap.  xxiii. 

The  belief  in  transubstantiation  effected  by  the  priest  of  course  vastly  stimi 
lated  the  growth  of  sacerdotalism  and  led  directly  to  the  assumption  of  th 
power  of  absolution.  At  an  earlier  period  the  fact  that  the  character  of  th 
priest  did  not  affect  the  efficacy  of  the  mass  was  explained  by  saying  that  a 
invisible  angel  stood  by  who.  at  the  words  of  consecration,  changed  the  brea 
and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood. — Pcenitent.  Vallicellian.  II.  cap.  49  (Wa; 
serschleben,  p.  565). 


UNCERTAINTY.  135 

Victor,  who  did  so  much  to  create  the  theory  of  the  sacraments, 
argues  strenuously  that  the  priest  remits  sin ;  he  will  not  listen  to 
those  who  hold  the  old  theory  that  the  sacerdotal  function  is  merely 
to  make  manifest  the  pardon  of  God,  and  he  explains  the  text, 
Matt.  xvi.  18,  to  mean  that  priestly  absolution  precedes  that  of 
heaven — a  step  in  which  St.  Bernard  follows  him  in  spite  of  the 
indifferent  tone  of  the  passages  just  cited.1 

Still  more  illustrative  of  the  vague  and  uncertain  character  of 
thought  at  this  period  is  the  position  of  Gratian  in  his  authoritative 
compilation.  He  does  not  treat  the  question  directly,  though  in  his 
section  on  excommunication  he  inserts  a  portion  of  the  passage  of  St. 
Jerome  and  other  texts  from  St.  Augustin  and  St.  Gregory  the  Great 
which  virtually  deny  the  power  of  the  keys,  without  giving  any  oppos 
ing  opinions.2  When  he  comes  to  treat  of  confession  and  satisfaction, 
however,  which  are  recognized  as  conditions  precedent  of  the  exercise 
of  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  he  gives  a  long  array  of  authorities 
to  the  effect  that  they  are  unnecessary  for  pardon,  and  then  another 
array  arguing  their  necessity.  Between  these  two  he  confesses  his 
inability  to  decide  and  leaves  the  question  for  the  reader,  merely 
remarking  that  each  side  is  supported  by  wise  and  pious  men.  Thus 
up  to  this  period  the  Church  had  arrived  at  no  conclusion  :  it  could 
not  as  yet  decide  whether  the  sinner  should  deal  directly  with  God, 
or  whether  priestly  interposition  was  necessary :  it  could  not  say  that 
absolution  was  essential  and  it  had  not  framed  a  working  theory  of 
the  mysterious  power  of  the  keys.3  Nay  more.  This  non-committal 
position  offended  no  one  at  the  time.  The  Decretum  was  at  once 
received  in  the  most  favorable  manner  by  the  great  University  of 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  n.  P.  xiv.  c.  8.— Bernardi  Serm. 
I.  in  Festo  SS.  Pet.  et  Paul.  n.  2. 

2  Gratian.  c.  44,  45,  60,  62  Caus.  xi.  Q.  iii. 

8  Gratian.  Deer,  post  can.  89  Caus.  xxxnr.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1.  Gratian's  only 
allusion  to  the  keys  is  incidental  (P.  I.  Dist.  xx.  initw)  and  there  he  evidently 
regards  them  as  belonging  to  the  forum  externum — the  power  of  receiving  in  or 
ejecting  from  the  Church. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  a  century  later,  after  the  power  of  the  keys  had  been 
generally  accepted  in  the  schools,  the  authoritative  Gloss  on  the  Decretum 
(Caus.  xxxin.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1,  in  princip.)  gives  various  opinions  as  to  the  re 
mission  of  sins,  without  alluding  to  priestly  absolution,  and  sums  up  "Si 
tamen  subtiliter  intueamur  gratise  Dei  non  contritioni  est  attribuenda  remissio 
peccatorum." 


136  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

Bologna.  Though  not  official  its  use  spread  everywhere  and  it  was 
adopted  universally  as  the  foundation  of  the  canon  law.  From  time 
to  time  it  was  added  t<>  as  papal  legislation  increased,  hut  no  one 
ever  ventured  to  alter  it.  We  shall  see  hereafter  that  (iratian's 
conservatism  respecting  the  theory  of  the  sacrament  >  was  a>  \>m- 
nounced  as  in  regard  to  confession  and  the  power  of  the  keys,  and 
the  fact  shows  in  the  clearest  light  how  completely  modern  ('atlmlie 
theology  is  the  creation  of  the  University  of  Paris.  Gratian  labored 
in  Rome,  where  the  chief  concern  was  to  develop  a  working  body  <»f 
canon  law,  and  where  little  heed  was  taken  of  the  speculations  which 
were  agitating  the  University.  His  compilation  shows  no  trace  oft 
their  influence  and  they  evidently  as  yet  were  regarded  by  the  curia 
as  matters  of  mere  theory,  devoid  of  all  interest  for  the  practical 
churchman.1 

Vet  little  as  the  practical  churchman  might  imagine  it,  his  lal><n> 
were  of  small  account  in  comparison  with  those  of  the  school  men 
who,  in  the  University  of  Paris,  were  destined  to  modify  so  greatly 
the  whole  structure  of  Catholic  belief — to  impose,  we  may  almost 
say,  a  new  religion  on  the  foundations  of  the  old  faith.     The  tw< 
great  development  periods  of  ecclesiastical  power  were  in  the  ninth, 
and  the  twelfth  centuries.      In  the  former,  the  dissolution  of  the* 
empire  of  Charlemagne  gave  rise  to  an  era  of  social  reconstruction 
during  which  feudalism  and  ecclesiasticism  clutched  at  the  fragment! 
of  shattered  sovereignty.     It  was  then  that  the  Church  emancipate* 
itself  from  the  State,  and,  by  skilful  use  of  the  doctrines  promulgate 
in  the  False  Decretals,  formulated  the  principles  which  eventually 
enabled  Gregory  VII.  and  his  successors  to  triumph  over  monarch;- 

.    *  Dante  gives  to  Gratian  full  meed  of  praise  for  his  labors- 
Quell'  altro  fiammeggiare  esce  del  riso 
Di  Gratian,  che  1'uno  e  1'altro  foro 
Ajuto  st  che  place  in  Paradise. — Paradiso,  X. 

But  when  the  schoolmen  had  succeeded  in  revolutionizing  theology,  canon  l 
underwent  a  corresponding  change,  and  the  compilation  of  Gratian,  as  repre 
senting  an  earlier  order  of  things,  ceased  to  have  the  authority  of  law.    It  ha- 
done  its  work  and  was  superseded.    The  admissions  and  conclusions  wil 
represented  the  ideas  and  practice  of  the  twelfth  century  are  unsuited  t« 
modern  times,  and  though  it  retains  its  place  in  the  Corpus  Juris  and  th 
papal  compilations  which  follow  are  merely  addenda  to  it,  it  is  not  to  b* 
quoted  as  authority,  save  in  its  extracts  from  the  Fathers. — Alph.  de  Lconc*. 
de  Offic.  et  Potestate  Confessarii,  Recoil,  n.  n.  55. 


mi:  saJiooLMNN.  137 

No  less  important  was  the  silent  revolution  of  the  twelfth  century 
which  gave  to  the  Church  unquestioned  domination  over  the  souls 
and  consciences  of  men.  As  the  human  mind  began  to  awaken  after 
the  dreary  slumber  of  the  Dark  Ages,  and  thinkers  once  more  com 
menced  to  debate  the  eternal  questions  of  man's  relations  with  (Jod, 
mid  the  Divine  government  of  the  universe,  all  culture  and  intelli 
gence  were  at  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  the  answers  to  these 
questions  could  not  fail  to  be  given  in  favor  of  sacerdotalism.  The 
race  of  schoolmen  arose,  whose  insatiable  curiosity  penetrated  into 
even  corner  of  the  known  and  of  the  unknowable,  framing  a  svstem 
of  dialectics  through  which  their  crudest  and  wildest  speculations 
assumed  the  form  of  incontrovertible  logical  demonstration.  With 
keen  snhtilty  and  untiring  industry,  through  successive  generations, 
thcv  advanced  from  one  postulate  to  another,  building  up  the  vast 
and  complex  fabric  of  Catholic  theology.  Fashioned  bv  their  hands 
the  Christian  faith  emerged  from  the  schools  a  very  different  thing 
from  \\hat  it  had  been  on  entering,  and  the  modifications  which  it 
underwent  \\ere  all  directed  to  the  exaltation  of  eccicsiast icism.  The 
whole  was  moulded  into  svmmetrv  bv  the  master  hand  of  St.  Thomas 
Acjiiinas,  the  most  perfect  product  of  scholasticism,  who  grasped  all 
the  labors  of  his  predecessors  and  reduced  them  to  a  svstem  which, 
despite  the  opposition  of  the  Scotists,  has  held  its  place  to  the  present 
da\.  Seam-  more  than  thirtv  vears  after  his  death  Dante  already 
introduced  him  as  the  spokesman  and  greatest  of  the  schoolmen.1 
His  Summit  might  well  be  laid  upon  the  altar  at  the  council  of 
Trent,  along  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Papal  Decretals,  for,  of  the 
three,  it  \v«s  the  most  important  bulwark  of  the  principles  and  policy 
which  the  Reformation  sought  to  destroy.  Leo  Xlll.  is  not  mis 
taken  in  ceaselessly  urging  its  study  in  all  institutions  of  learning 
as  a  cure  for  the  evils  which  threaten  the  Church,  for  the  Summit  is 
vastly  better  suited  than  the  Pauline  Kpistlcs  to  the  needs  and  de 
sires  of  the  papacy,  and  he  \\as  not  wasting  his  revenues  when  he 
appropriated  .'100,000  lire  to  dcfrav  the  expenses  of  a  new  edition  of 
the  \\ritings  of  the  Angelic  Doctor,  in  which  he  tells  us  that  all 
philoso|>h\  and  all  doctrine  are  to  be  found.2 


1  Paradise  x.  xi. 

Mi  loop  lateque  fluat  Angelid  Doctoria  excellens  sapieutia,  qua  oppri- 
is  opinionibuB  perversis  noatrorum  tewporum  fere  nihil  est  aptius.  o>u 
witati  nihil  effieaeius,— Leonis  PP.  XIII.  Motu  Proprio  Plater* 


138  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

If  Gratian  was  non-committal  as  to  the  power  of  the  priest  to 
remit  sins  it  was  not  because  the  question  had  escaped  discussion  in 


Nobis,  18  Jan.  1880.  Of.  Epist.  Encyc.  ^Eterni  Patris,  4  Aug.  1879 ;  Litterse 
Jampridem,  15  Oct.  1879;  Epistola  Quanta  Noster,  12  Dec.  1884;  Epistola 
Qui  te,  19  Junii  1886. 

In  the  Litt.  Apostol.  Cum  hoc  sit,  4  Aug.  1880,  Aquinas  is  made  the  patron 
saint  of  all  Catholic  schools,  academies  and  universities,  which  are  ordered  to 
pay  him  the  appropriate  cult.  It  would  not  be  easy  to  overestimate  the  effect 
upon  the  minds  of  the  younger  generation  of  ecclesiastics  of  this  persistent 
and  determined  effort  to  bind  them  in  the  chains  of  the  thirteenth  century  and 
to  hold  them  rigorously  to  medievalism.  When  the  Church  is  thus  training 
its  ministers  it  can  afford  to  shake  hands  with  Democracy  and  to  affect  an 
external  liberalism. 

An  instructive  illustration  of  the  system  of  exegesis  which  enabled  the 
schoolmen  to  reach  whatever  conclusion  was  desired  from  a  given  text  is  to 
be  found  in  the  use  made  of  the  Raising  of  Lazarus  (John,  xi.)  as  a  staple 
argument  for  the  power  of  the  keys.  In  fact  a  history  of  the  development  oi 
that  power  can  be  traced  in  following  the  various  explanations  of  the  text. 
It  will  be  remembered  that,  on  that  occasion,  Christ  was  accompanied  by  Mary 
and  Martha  "and  the  Jews  that  were  with  her,"  and  that  in  his  preliminary 
prayer  he  asks  for  the  miracle  "  because  of  the  people  that  stand  about  have 
I  said  it  that  they  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me."  Then  he  ordered 
Lazarus  to  come  forth  "  and  presently  he  that  had  been  dead  came  forth  bound 
feet  and  hands  with  winding  bands ;  and  his  face  was  bound  about  with  a  nap 
kin.  Jesus  said  to  them  [awroZc]  :  Loose  him  and  let  him  go."  To  any  but  8j 
theological  mind  it  would  seem  impossible  to  connect  this  simple  and  straight 
forward  story  with  the  power  of  the  keys  and  absolution,  but  it  was  seriouslj 
adduced  as  scriptural  proof  and  adapted  to  every  successive  change  of  doctrine 

St.  Ambrose  (De  Poenit.  Lib.  n.  c.  7)  employs  it  to  illustrate  the  redemption 
and  revivification  of  the  sinner,  but  the  lesson  he  draws  from  it  shows  how 
different  was  the  belief  of  his  day  from  that  of  subsequent  ages.  Christ  per 
forms  the  whole  work,  save  in  ordering  the  stone  to  be  removed  from  th< 
mouth  of  the  tomb,  showing  that  it  is  for  us  to  remove  the  impediments  am 
for  him  to  resuscitate  and  to  lead  out  from  the  tomb  those  released  from  thei] 
bonds.  St.  Augustin  goes  a  step  further;  in  his  exegesis  the  unbelieving  Jew 
who  stood  around  become  the  disciples;  Christ  resuscitates  the  sinner  am 
orders  the  disciples  to  remove  the  bands,  which,  as  he  argues,  means  that  th> 
Church  loosens  them  (S.  August.  Serin.  LXVII.  c.  1,  2.  Cf.  Serm.  xcvm.  c.  6 
Serm.  ccxcv.  c.  3 ;  Enarratio  in  Ps.  CI.  Serm.  n.  \  3 ;  De  Diversis  Quees 
tionibus  n.  65).  With  Gregory  the  Great  there  is  a  still  further  advance 
Confession  was  now  becoming  a  process  inculcated  by  the  Church,  so  Lazarus 
coming  out  of  the  tomb  signifies  the  sinner's  confession  of  his  sin,  after  whicl 
the  bishops  can  relieve  him  of  the  punishment  incurred  (S.  Gregor.  PP.  I 
Homil.  in  Evangel,  xxvi.  §  6).  St.  Eloi  sees  in  the  story  a  proof  of  justi 
fication  by  grace,  for  the  priest  can  only  loosen  those  whom  God  has  revivec 


THE  SCHOOLMEN.  139 

the  schools.     Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  who  preceded  him  by  some  twenty 
years,  is  the  first  to  treat  the  subject  at  length,  and  he  tells  us  there 


by  sanctifying  grace  (S.  Eligii  Novioinens.  Horn,  xi.),  thus  showing  that  by 
his  time  it  was  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  unbinding  of  Lazarus 
meant  the  release  of  the  sinner  by  the  priest.  In  some  rituals  of  the  eighth 
century  there  are  allusions  to  Lazarus  as  typifying  the  soul  buried  in  the  tomb 
of  its  sins  and  revived  by  the  call  of  God,  but  the  comparison  is  carried  no 
further  (Missale  Gothicum ;  Sacrament.  Gallican.  ap.  Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII. 
P.  in.  pp.  300,  712).  About  800  Alcuin  uses  Lazarus  to  prove  the  necessity  of 
the  intervention  of  the  priest  (Alcuini  Epist.  cxil.)  and  soon  afterwards  Bene 
dict  the  Levite  shows  by  him  that  the  priest  in  the  imposition  of  hands  loosens 
the  bonds  of  the  sinner  (Capitular.  Lib.  v.  c.  127).  Druthmar  of  Corbie,  about 
the  same  time,  uses  the  story  as  a  lesson  to  priests  to  be  cautious,  because  if 
the  disciples  had  loosened  Lazarus  before  Christ  revived  him  they  would  have 
only  produced  a  stench  (Christiani  Druthmari  Exposit.  in  Matthseum  xvi.). 
A  tract  of  uncertain  date,  ascribed  to  St.  Augustin,  asserts  that,  in  delivering 
Lazarus  to  the  disciples  to  be  unbound,  Christ  showed  the  power  of  loosing 
granted  to  priests  (Pseud.  August,  de  vera  et  falsa  Poenitentia  c.  x.  n.  25). 
Then  the  schoolmen  took  hold  of  the  story  and  made  the  most  of  it.  Hugh 
of  St.  Victor  sees  in  it  that  Christ  only  excites  the  heart  to  repentance  by  his 
grace,  while  the  priest  does  the  rest  (Hugon.  a  S.  Victore  de  Sacramentis  Lib. 
n.  P.  xiv.  c.  8),  but  a  further  refinement  was  soon  discovered.  We  shall  see 
how,  to  reconcile  the  competing  functions  of  God  and  priest  in  the  sacrament 
of  penitence,  the  theologians  shrewdly  divided  the  effects  of  sin  into  culpa  and 
pcena,  and  Peter  Lombard  utilizes  Lazarus  to  prove  that  God  pardons  the  culpa 
and  leaves  the  posna  to  the  hands  of  the  priest  (Sententt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  xviii.  § 
4).  Cardinal  Pullus,  in  his  vague  effort  to  explain  absolution,  which  neither  he 
nor  any  of  his  contemporaries  understood,  takes  refuge  in  Lazarus,  who,  when 
recalled  to  life  by  Christ,  was  bound  and  torpid  until  released  by  the  disciples 
(Card.  Rob.  Pulli  Sententt.  Lib.  vi  c.  60).  Now  purgatory  was  beginning  to 
assert  itself  as  the  pcena  left  after  the  pardon  of  the  culpa,  and  Richard  of  St. 
Victor  has  no  difficulty  in  proving  this  also  by  Lazarus  (Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de 
Potestate  Ligandi  etc.  c.  10.  Cf.  c.  16, 17).  Adam  of  Perseigne,  on  the  other  hand, 
tells  us  that  the  bonds  of  Lazarus,  from  which  the  priest  releases  the  sinner,  are 
three— dishonor  of  public  crime,  fear  of  hell  and  denial  of  the  sacraments 
(Adami  de  Persennia  Epist.  xxvi.).  Alexander  Hales  goes  further  than  his 
predecessors  in  holding  that  Lazarus  shows  that  the  priest  releases  from  dam 
nation  (Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  iv.  Q.  xx.  Membr.  6  Art.  3.  Cf.  Q.  xxi. 
Membr.  1 ;  Membr.  3  Art.  1),  for  he  considers  that  the  power  of  the  keys  ex 
tends  to  the  culpa  as  well  as  the  pcena.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  uses  Lazarus  to 
prove  that  confession  can  be  made  only  to  priests  (Summse  Supplem.  Q.  vin. 
Art.  1),  while  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  finds  in  the  story  evidence  to  prove 
that  pardon  does  not  come  from  Christ  alone  but  from  the  Trinity  (Hostiens. 
Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  de  Poan.  et.  Remiss,  n.  6).  Astesanus  contents  himself 
with  asserting  that  Christ  instituted  absolution  in  the  mystery  of  the  raising 


140  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

were  those  who  argued  that  God  alone  remits  sins,  that  man  has  no 
share  in  it,  and  that  to  attribute  such  poAver  to  the  priest  is  to  make 
of  him  a  God.1  Hugh  himself  was  an  earnest  sacerdotal  ist,  who 
contributed  greatly  to  the  framing  of  the  theory  of  the  sacraments, 
but  while  he  asserted  the  power  of  the  keys,  his  uncertainty  about  it 
and  the  limitations  with  which  he  surrounded  it  show  how  hesitat 
ingly  the  idea  was  received,  even  by  its  advocates.  God,  he  says, 
has  really  and  truly  granted  to  priests  the  power  of  absolution  ;  they 
receive  it  in  consecration  from  bishops,  but  some  who  are  not  conse 
crated  have  it,  and  some  priests  have  it  not ;  still  as  a  rule  it  may  be 
said  that  all  priests  and  only  priests  have  it,  but  if  they  use  it  unjustly 
he  who  is  bound  or  loosed  by  them  is  not  bound  or  loosed  by  God. 
In  fact,  priests  do  bind  and  loose  many  who  are  not  bound  or  loosed 
by  God,  and  their  power  is  conditioned  on  its  being  exercised  in  con 
formity  with  the  will  of  God2— all  of  which  showed  common  sense 
vainly  struggling  with  dogmatism  and  reaching  the  conclusion  that 
God,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  scheme  of  the  Atonement,  had  invented 
a  plan  of  salvation  so  vicious  that  it  resulted  in  the  blind  leading  the 
blind.  In  another  passage  he  is  rather  more  decided  :  God,  it  is 


of  Lazarus  (Astesani  Summse  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  ii.  Art.  4).  On  the  other 
hand,  John  Gerson,  who  was  inclined  to  miminize  sacerdotal  power,  finds  in 
Lazarus  proof  that  Christ  absolves  and  that  the  priest  only  makes  the  fact 
manifest  to  the  people  (Joh.  Gersoni  de  Reform.  Eccles.  c.  28).  Nicholas 
Weigel  rallies  to  the  support  of  sacerdotalism  by  discovering  that  Christ 
handed  over  Lazarus  to  St.  Peter  himself  to  unbind  (N.  Weigel  Claviculse  In- 
dulgentialis  c.  9).  The  Council  of  Trent  had  the  good  sense  to  omit  all  reference 
to  this  much  abused  text,  but  subsequent  theologians  have  not  always  imitated 
its  discretion.  Willem  van  Est  gravely  tells  us  that  Christ  gave  Lazarus  to  the 
apostles  to  unbind  and  that  this  prefigures  the  sinner  vivified  by  Jesus  and 
absolved  by  the  priest  (Estius  in  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xvu.  f  3)  and  he  thinks 
so  much  of  the  argument  that  he  recurs  to  it  repeatedly  (Dist.  xvui.  g§  1,  4); 
Bellarmine  contends  vigorously  for  its  significance  against  Calvin  (De  Poeni- 
tent.  Lib.  in.  c.  3)  ;  while  Binterim,  in  his  efforts  to  prove  that  the  old  recon 
ciliation  was  modern  absolution,  brings  in  the  inevitable  Lazarus  as  confidently 
as  though  he  had  anything  to  do  with  the  question  (Denkwurdigkeiten,  Bd.  V. 
Th.  in.  p.  222). 

The  story  of  the  leper  (Matt,  vin.)  and  that  of  the  ten  lepers  (Luke  xvn.) 
were  also  largely  used  as  evidence  of  the  power  of  absolution.  See  Kich.  a  S« 
Victore  de  Potestati  Ligandi  etc.  c.  xii.  xiii.  xiv.  xv.  ;  Thomse  Waldensis  de 
Sacramentis  Cap.  cxlii. 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  u.  P.  xiv.  c.  8. 

2  LOG.  Git.—  Ejusd.  Summae  Sententt.  Tract,  vi.  c.  14. 


THE  SCHOOLMEN.  141 

true,  pardons  for  contrition,  but  the  Church  has  yet  to  be  satisfied ; 
if  the  sinner  has  110  opportunity  to  confess,  the  pardon  is  good ;  if 
he  has  opportunity  and  does  not  confess  he  is  not  absolved  for  the 
ministry  of  the  priest  is  necessary  in  such  case.1  Abelard,  who  was 
the  enfant  terrible  of  the  schools,  was  not  likely  to  allow  the  rising 
claims  of  the  power  of  the  keys  to  pass  without  question.  He  argues 
that  God  had  not  bestowed  on  their  successors  the  wisdom  and  sanc 
tity  which  he  had  granted  to  the  apostles,  and  he  quotes  Origen, 
Jerome,  Augustin  and  Gregory  to  prove  that  the  sentence  of  a  bishop 
is  void  if  it  is  not  in  accord  with  divine  justice.2 

Difficulties  evidently  arose  as  soon  as  the  powers  claimed  for  the 
Church  were  made  the  subject  of  investigation  and  definition.  The 
basis  on  which  they  rested  was  so  narrow  and  the  claims  to  which 
they  gave  rise  were  becoming  so  broad  that  the  acquiescence  which 
they  enjoyed  when  they  were  little  more  than  a  theoretical  point  of 
dogma  required  some  more  positive  exposition.  The  schoolmen 
moreover  were  subjecting  everything  to  analysis  and  Avere  called 
upon  in  debate  to  furnish  dialectic  demonstration  and  some  kind  of 
proof  of  all  assertions,  so  that  questions  arose  on  all  sides  and  cen 
turies  of  discussion  were  still  required  before  arguments  could  be 
agreed  upon  to  substantiate  all  the  pretensions  of  the  Church — in 
fact  the  authoritative  declarations  of  the  Council  of  Trent  were 
necessary  to  establish  a  formula  intended  to  be  final.  Richard  of  St. 
Victor  tells  us  that  some  asserted  that  the  successors  of  the  Apostles 
could  release  from  damnation  ;  others  asked  whether  a  priest  can 
loose  a  sinner  and  bind  a  righteous  man  ;  if  he  can  remit  the  sins  of 
an  impenitent  man  and  retain  those  of  a  penitent.3  These  were  all 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  Summae  Sententt.  Tract,  vi.  c.  11. 

2  P.  Abaelardi  Ethica,  c.  26. — St.  Bernard  includes  these  views  among  the 
errors  of  Abelard  which  he  pointed  out  to  the  college  of  Cardinals  (S.  Bernardi 
Epist.  CLXXXVIII.).     In  another  letter  (Epist.  cxcu.)  he  says  of  him  "  Nihil 
vidit  per  speculum  et  in  seniginate,  sed  facie  ad  faciem  omnia  intuetur."   Simi 
larly  the  prelates  of  the  council  of  Sens,  in  1140,  writing  to  Innocent  II.  about 
the  appeal  which  Abelard  had  made  against  their  sentence  of  condemnation, 
characterize  him  in  the  same  way — "  Ascendit  usque  ad  coelos  et  descendit 
usque  ad  abyssos ;  nihil  est  quod  lateat  eum,  sive  in  profundum  inferni  sive  in 
excelsum  supra  "  (Gousset,  Actes  de  la  Province  eccles.  de  Eeims,  II.  224). 

These  expressions  describe  accurately  enough  the  besetting  weakness  of  all 
the  schoolmen,  but  they  usually  escaped  condemnation  because  they  worked  in 
unison  with  sacerdotalism. 

3  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  Ligandi  et  Solvendi  cap.  1. 


142  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

pertinent  questions,  for  if  the  texts  in  Matthew  and  John  mean  what 
the  Church  claims  for  them  they  mean  this,  and  the  theologians, 
as  we  shall  see,  have  never  been  able  to  frame  a  satisfactory  solution 
of  this  problem. 

It  was  not  easy  to  reconcile  the  theory  of  the  keys  with  the  supre 
macy  of  an  all-wise  God,  and  the  earlier  schoolmen,  like  Hugh  of  St. 
Victor,  while  manfully  asserting  the  power  as  a  general  theorem, 
could  not  avoid  surrounding  it  with  conditions  which  practically 
reduced  it  almost  to  a  nullity,  by  denying  to  it  all  certainty  in 
application.  When  the  vague  declamations  of  emotional  preachers 
like  Chrysostom,  or  the  confident  assertions  of  the  Forged  Decretals 
were  submitted  to  the  scrutiny  of  minds  trained  in  all  the  subtilties 
of  dialectics,  difficulties  presented  themselves  which  seemed  incapable 
of  settlement.  To  consider  them  all  and  the  conflicting  opinions  of 
the  leading  doctors  concerning  them  would  carry  us  too  far,  but  the 
chief  of  them  may  be  grouped  under  three  heads — the  share  to  be 
allotted  respectively  to  God  and  to  the  priest  in  the  pardon  of  sin, 
the  nature  and  certainty  of  priestly  absolution,  and  the  guidance 
which  priests,  who  as  a  class  were  notoriously  ignorant,  might  ex 
pect  in  the  exercise  of  the  awful  authority  conferred  upon  them. 

As  regards  the  function  of  the  power  of  the  keys  in  the  remission 
of  sin,  or  how  much  was  contributed  by  it  and  how  much  directly 
by  God,  Peter  Lombard  reviews  despairingly  the  contradictory  utter 
ances  of  the  doctors,  and  concludes  that  we  may  believe  that  God 
alone  releases  or  retains  sins,  and  yet  he  has  granted  to  the  Church 
the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  but  he  and  the  Church  bind  anc 
loose  in  different  ways.  He  only  dismisses  the  sin,  purifying  th* 
soul  from  its  stains  and  releasing  it  from  the  debt  of  eternal  death 
and  this  power  he  did  not  concede  to  the  priest,  but  only  that  o: 
showing  that  men  are  bound  or  loosed,  for  though  a  man  may  b( 
loosed  before  God,  he  cannot  be  so  considered  in  the  face  of  th( 
Church  save  by  the  judgment  of  the  priest.1  This  reduced  th( 


1  P.  Lombard!  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  18,  \\  5,  6.  In  order  to  give  the  pries 
some  substantive  power  of  binding  and  loosing  he  adds  (§  7)  that  the  pries 
binds  when  he  imposes  penance  and  looses  when  he  remits  part  of  it  or  admit: 
to  communion  those  who  are  purged  by  its  performance. 

The  place  of  Peter  Lombard — the  ''  magister  "  par  excellence — is  unique  in  th< 
history  of  theology,  for  he  was  the  first  who  brought  into  order  the  newly  growing 
science  of  scholastic  theology.  The  schoolmen  were  everywhere  pushing  thei 


TENTATIVE  THEORIES.  143 

priestly  function  to  the  wholly  subordinate  one  of  guessing  and  an 
nouncing  the  judgments  of  God ;  it  gave  rise,  as  we  shall  see,  to 
vigorous  discussion  and  was  finally  cast  aside.  Although  it  seems 
to  have  satisfied  Peter  himself,  he  also  timidly  brings  forward,  as  an 
opinion  held  by  some,  a  division  of  the  pardon  of  sin  into  the  remis 
sion  of  guilt  and  the  remission  of  punishment — into  culpa  and  pcena 
— in  which  God  removes  the  sin  by  cleansing  the  soul,  and  allows 
the  priest  to  remit  the  punishment  of  eternal  damnation.1  Cardinal 
Pullus,  a  contemporary,  seems  to  have  had  a  vague  conception  of 
this  distinction  between  culpa  and  pcena,  which  was  destined  to  be 
come  of  such  supreme  importance,  for  in  answering  the  question 
why,  if  contrition  and  faith  secure  pardon,  confession  and  satisfac 
tion  should  still  be  required,  he  urges  the  commands  of  the  Church, 


subtile  and  daring  enquiries  into  all  the  secrets  of  life  and  all  the  mysteries  of 
the  invisible  world.  Not  content  with  the  simple  faith  inculcated  by  Scripture, 
they  sought  to  support  it,  and  sometimes  to  supplant  it,  with  reason,  and  to 
complete  with  their  dialectics  the  work  which  St.  Augustin  had  commenced. 
If,  as  has  been  argued,  Peter  Lombard  sought  to  set  bounds  to  their  dangerous 
labors,  to  define  the  limits  beyond  which  they  should  not  stray,  and  to  decide 
all  questions  finally,  he  signally  failed.  His  labors  became  simply  the  start 
ing-point  for  future  generations  of  schoolmen ;  his  Sentences  were  the  recog 
nized  basis  of  all  teaching  in  the  schools,  and  almost  the  highest  ambition  of 
all  succeeding  scholars  was  to  write  a  commentary  upon  them — a  hundred  and 
sixty  of  these  are  said  to  have  been  composed  by  English  theologians  alone 
and  even  as  late  as  the  commencement  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  learned 
Willem  van  Est  wrote  one  in  four  folios  which  continued  to  be  reprinted  for 
more  than  a  hundred  years  longer.  But  in  the  eager  wrangling  of  the  schools 
it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  their  skilled  dialectitians  would  be  content  with 
what  Peter  imagined  that  he  had  established,  and  the  process  of  adding  dogma 
to  dogma  continued  with  greater  zeal  than  ever,  for  in  place  of  reaching  a 
finality  he  had  simply  furnished  them  with  a  foundation  on  which  to  construct 
more  and  more  subtile  theories  as  to  the  details  of  the  mysterious  unknown. 

1  Quidam  arbitrati  sunt.  .  .  .  Solus  enim  Christus,  non  sacerdos,  animam 
resuscitat,  ac  pulsis  tenebris  interioribus  et  maculis  earn  illuminat  et  mundat, 
qui  animae  faciem  lavat ;  debitum  vero  seternse  poense  solvere  concessit  sacer- 
dotibus— Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  18  §4- 

Hugh  Archbishop  of  Rouen  is  apparently  one  of  those  alluded  to  by  Lom 
bard  as  dissociating  the  pardon  of  sin  from  the  remissions  of  its  punishment 
(Hugon.  Rotomag.  Dialogor.  Lib.  V.  Interrog.  iii.).  Efforts  have  been  made 
to  trace  it  back  to  St.  Augustin  (De  Peccatorum  Meritis  et  Eemissione  Lib. 
II.  c.  34)  but  the  passage  relied  upon  is  only  an  endeavor  to  explain  why,  when 
death  was  the  punishment  decreed  for  the  primal  sin,  men  who  are  relieved 
from  all  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  should  still  be  obliged  to  die. 


144  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

and  adds  that  the  penance  delivers  the  sinner  from  purgatory.1  This 
was  an  important  contribution  to  the  theory,  in  the  substitution 
of  purgatory  for  hell,  for  the  opinion  recorded  by  Peter  was  mon 
strous,  that  a  sinner  might  be  pardoned  by  God  and  yet  be  condemned 
to  eternal  perdition  for  lack  of  priestly  ministrations. 

These  two  points,  first  as  to  whether  the  priest  absolved  or  merely 
made  manifest  the  absolution  by  God,  and  second,  the  distinction 
between  culpa  and  poena  and  the  power  of  the  priest  over  one  or 
over  both,  were  only  settled  after  long  and  varying  discussion,  and 
it  will  be  more  convenient  briefly  to  follow  them  out  separately.  In 
these  as  in  other  investigations  into  changes  of  belief,  it  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  these  were  not  mere  academic  debates  but  the 
expressions  of  faith  actually  held  and  taught.  In  the  plastic  condi 
tion  of  medieval  theology  there  were  a  vast  number  of  unsettled 
questions  which  might  eventually  be  decided  in  one  way  or  in  an 
other.  General  councils  rarely  troubled  themselves  with  such  mat 
ters,  while  the  Holy  See  looked  placidly  on  without  uttering  final 
definitions,  save  the  brief  and  imperfect  statement  in  the  Decree  of 
Union  with  the  Armenians  drawn  up  by  Eugenius  IV.  at  the  coun 
cil  of  Florence  in  1439,  and  until  the  council  of  Trent  was  obliged 
by  the  heretics  to  formulate  an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  faith 
we  have  no  surer  source  of  information  as  to  the  details  of  medieval 
belief  than  the  writings  of  the  leading  scholars  which  convey  to  us 
the  doctrines  taught  in  the  principal  schools.  Occasionally  a  uni 
versity  might  condemn  a  proposition  or  a  series  of  propositions,  or 
the  opinions  of  a  heretic  such  as  Wickliffe  or  Huss  or  Pedro  of  Osma 
might  be  anathematized,  but  outside  of  these  scanty  materials  it  is  to 
the  books  of  such  men  as  St.  Ramon  de  Peflafort,  Alexander  Hales, 
Bonaventura,  Aquinas  and  others  down  to  St.  Antonino,  Prierias 
and  Caietano  that  we  must  turn  to  know  what  our  forefathers  really 
believed. 

The  theory  that  the  priest  does  not  absolve  but  merely  makes 
manifest  the  absolution  by  God  had  its  warrant  in  the  passage  of  St. 
Jerome  cited  above,  and  it  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  middle  of  the 


1  Card.  Rob.  Pulli  Sententt.  Lib.  vi.  c.  59.  How  perfectly  tentative  was  all 
this  is  seen  in  Pullus's  next  remark  (Ib.  c.  60)  that  he  who  confesses  and  is 
absolved  is  held  to  punishment  until  his  penance  is  performed,  but  what  thai 
punishment  is  God  only  knows. 


FUNCTION  OF  THE  PRIEST.  145 

ninth  century  by  Druthmar  of  Corbie.1  It  is  true  that  the  high 
sacerdotal  Hugh  of  St.  Victor  rejects  it,2  but  when  Peter  Lombard 
adopted  it  he  only  expressed  the  prevailing  opinion  of  his  time.3 
Cardinal  Pullus,  who  was  papal  chamberlain  and  an  undoubted  au 
thority  at  the  period,  not  only  thus  explains  the  function  of  the  priest 
but  adds  that  the  only  use  of  absolution  is  to  quiet  the  anxieties  of 
the  penitent.4  Not  long  afterwards  Richard  of  St.  Victor  attacks 
this  opinion  as  so  frivolous  and  so  absurd  that  it  is  to  be  laughed  at 
rather  than  confuted,  but,  in  the  insuperable  difficulty  of  assigning 
their  respective  shares  to  God  and  the  priest,  he  reduces  the  functions 
of  the  latter  to  that  of  an  automaton  :  according  to  his  theory  what 
the  priest  really  does  is  not  what  he  may  wish  to  do  or  what  he  may 
think  that  he  does ;  it  is  decided  not  by  his  wishes  and  acts  but  by 
the  immutable  laws  of  God,  and  these  laws  moreover  provide  only 
for  the  remission  of  sins  committed  through  infirmity  or  ignorance ; 
for  those  committed  through  malice  there  is  no  pardon,  they  are 
remitted  through  penitence,  but  yet  not  remitted,  and  the  final  punish 
ment  will  be  exacted  of  them,  for  they  are  sins  against  the  Holy 
>st.5  Toward  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century  Peter  of  Poitiers, 


1  S.  Hieron.  Comment,  in  Evangel.  Mattkaei  Lib.  in.  c.  xvi.  v.  19.  — Chris- 
iani  Druthmari  Exposit  in  Matt.  xvi. 

2  Hugon.  S.  Victor.  Summse  Sententt.  Tract,  vi.  c.  11. 

3  It  is  evidently  in  this  sense  that  we  must  understand  the  well-known  post 
mortem  absolution  of  Abelard  by  Peter  the  Venerable  of  Cluny.     Abelard  had 
lied  in  the  Cluniac  house  of  Chalons,  in  1142,  confessing  his  sins  and  receiving 
!)he  viaticum,  and  though  there  is  nothing  said  as  to  absolution,  Peter  assumes 

:hat  the  viaticum  was  to  him  the  pledge  of  eternal  life.  The  body  was  taken 
;o  the  Paraclete  and  buried  there,  when  Heloise  asked  for  a  sealed  patent  of 
ibsolution  to  be  hung  over  the  tomb.  Peter  sent  it  duly  sealed  in  this  form 
'  Ego  Petrus  Cluniacensis  qui  Petruni  Abailardum  in  inonachum  Cluniacensein 
uscepi,  et  corpus  ejus  furtim  delatum  Heloisse  abbatissse  et  monialibus  Para- 
leti  concessi,  auctoritate  omnipotentis  Dei  et  omnium  sanctorum  absolve  eum 
>ro  officio  ab  omnibus  peccatis  suis." — Pet.  Venerab.  Epist.  Lib.  iv.  Ep.  21 ; 
jib.  vi.  Epp.  21,  22,  cum  not.  Andrese  Chesnii  (Migne,  CLXXXIX.  428). 

*  A  peccatis  ergo  presbyter  solvit,  non  utique  quod  peccata  dimittat  sed  quod 
limissa  sacramento  pandat.  Et  quid  est  opus  pandi  nisi  ut  consolatio  fiat  pceni- 
enti?— Card.  Rob.  Pulli  Sententt.  Lib.  vi.  c.  61. 

5  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  Ligandi  etc.  c.  11, 12. — Ejusd.  de  Statu  Inte- 
ioris  Hominis  Tract,  n.  cap.  iii. 

Dante  classes  Richard  of  S.  Victor  among  the  most  eminent  of  theologians — 
Vedi  oltre  fiammeggiar  1'ardente  spiro 
D' Isidore,  di  Beda,  e  di  Riccardo, 
Che  a  considerar  fu  piu  che  viro. — Paradiso,  x. 
I.— 10 


146  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

Adam  of  Perseigne  and  Master  Bandimis  all  adopt  the  views  of 
Peter  Lombard  that  the  priest  only  manifests  who  are  bound  and 
who  loosed,1  while  Peter  Cantor,  when  he  declares  that  repentance 
can  end  only  with  life  if  we  are  to  hope  for  pardon,  denies  inferen- 
tially  that  the  priest  can  even  make  manifest  a  pardon  by  God.2  The 
manifestation  theory  maintained  its  place  in  the  schools  for  a  consid 
erable  period.  It  was  taught  by  St.  Ramon  de  Pefiafort,  the  most 
distinguished  authority  of  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century.3 
Alexander  Hales  is  not  willing  formally  to  admit  it,  but  he  approaches 
to  it  very  closely,4  and  so  does  St.  Bonaventura,  who  endeavors  to 
reconcile  the  contending  opinions  by  arguing  that  as  to  culpa  the 
priest  manifests  the  pardon  and  as  to  pcena  he  grants  it.5  Aquinas, 
while  he  accepts  it,  endeavors  to  explain  it  away ;  the  priest  by  the 
power  of  the  keys  has  control  to  some  extent  over  both  culpa  and 


1  Petri  Pictaviens.  Sententt.  Lib.  in.  c.  16. — Adami  de  Persennia  Epist.  XX* 
— Magist.  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  18. 

Peter  of  Poitiers  was  the  most  eminent  disciple  of  Peter  Lombard.  He  was 
chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris  and  one  of  the  leading  theologians  of  the 
day. 

2  P.  Cantoris  Verb,  abbreviat.  cap.  145. 

3  Judicium  sacerdotis  qui  auctoritate  clavium  ligat  et  solvit  in  terris,  id  esfy 
ostendit  esse  ligatum  vel  solutum  a  Deo.— S.  Kaymundi  de  Pennaforte  SumrnsE 
Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxv.  g  5. 

4  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  iv.  Q.  xxi.  Membr.  1. 

5  S.  Bonavent.  in  Lib.  iv.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  P.  1.  init, ;  Ibid.  Art.  2  Q.  1. 
Willem  van  Est  admits  that  Lombard's  opinion  was  followed  by  a  host  o. 

authoritative  doctors  but  adds  that  it  is  false  and  erroneous  leading  directly  tx 
the  Wickliffite  heresy — "Si  homo  debite  fuerit  contritus  omnis  confessh 
exterior  est  ei  superflua  et  inutilis  " — condemned  by  the  council  of  Constant 
(Artie.  Joann.  Wicliff  n.  7,  Harduin.  VIII.  299),  and  that  it  was  finally  se 
aside  at  Trent.— (Estius  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  §  1).  It  was  also  condemne< 
as  a  heresy  by  the  council  of  Alcala,  in  1479,  when  taught  at  Salamanca  ty 
Pedro  de  Osma  (Alfonsi  de  Castro  adv.  Haereses  Lib.  iv.  s.  v.  Confessio). 

The  Tridentine   Catechism   reconciles  the  discrepancy  by  describing  th.-.» 
degree  of  contrition  requisite  for  the  remission  of  sin  as  so  intense  and  arden 
that  few  mortals  can  attain  it,  wherefore  God  in  his  mercy  has  supplied  th 
sacrament  of  penitence  which  enables  a  lower  degree  of  repentance  to  suffice 
— Catech.  ex  Deer.  Con.  Trident.  De  Poenit.  Sacram.  c.  7. 

Azpilcueta,  on  the  other  hand,  asserts  that  this  sufficing  contrition  is  fre 
quent,  and  cites  in  support  a  host  of  authorities,  including  the  Council  c 
Trent  itself,  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  c.  4. — Azpilcuetae  Manuale  Confessarior.  c. 
n.  24. 


FUNCTION  OF  THE  PRIEST.  147 

pcena,  though  he  can  exercise  this  power  only  on  those  properly  pre 
pared.1  This  however  only  introduced  a  new  difficulty  which  Aquinas 
strove  to  meet  by  asserting  that  the  use  of  the  keys  wras  only  efficient 
when  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  and  that  when  the  priest 
disregarded  the  divine  impulse  his  action  was  invalid,2  which  was 
even  more  damaging  than  the  old  theory,  for  it  denied  him  even  the 
power  of  manifesting  that  the  penitent  was  absolved.  Duns  Scotus 
endeavors  to  escape  the  manifestation  theory  by  adducing  the  power 
of  the  sacrament  which  he  administers,  through  which  he  becomes 
the  arbiter  between  the  sinner  and  God.3  In  1317  Astesanus  admits 
that  a  penitent  may  win  absolution  from  God,  in  which  case  the  priest 
would  only  have  to  make  it  manifest,  but  as  the  priest  cannot  know 
this  he  is  obliged  to  give  absolution  and  impose  penance,  which  is  not 
amiss  as  it  tends  to  increase  the  accumulation  of  merits  in  the  Church.4 
Shortly  afterwards  Durand  de  St.  Pour  gain  rejects  wholly  as  incom 
patible  with  the  dignity  of  the  sacrament  the  idea  that  the  priest  only 
manifests  the  absolution.5  At  the  council  of  Constance  Chancellor 
Gerson  renewed  the  assertion6  but  before  the  council  was  ended,  in  1418, 


1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  xvm.  Art.  2,  3.— Opusc.  xxn.  c.  2. 

It  is  strange  that  so  acute  a  reasoner  as  Aquinas  should  not  see  that,  as  the 
texts  of  Matthew  and  John,  on  which  the  power  of  the  keys  is  based,  impose  no 
limitation  on  its  exercise,  any  limitation  however  reasonable  is  fatal  to  the 
significance  of  the  texts.  Either  tantum  valent  quantum  sonant  or  else  they  are 
worthless.  They  must  be  accepted  as  they  stand  or  it  must  be  admitted  that 
they  have  no  such  meaning  as  that  attributed  to  them. 

2  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  xvm.  Art.  1,  4. 

3  Jo.  Scotus  in  Lib.  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  1. 

4  Astesani  Summee  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  23. 

Astesanus  summarizes  four  theories  of  the  modus  operandi  of  the  keys, 
current  at  the  period — I.  That  of  Peter  Lombard,  that  the  priest  only  makes 
manifest  the  pardon.  II.  That  of  Bonaventura  and  Duns  Scotus  that  they 
have  no  power  of  their  own  but  operate  by  the  divine  virtue  in  cooperation. 
III.  Another  of  Bonaventura  that  they  operate  through  deprecation  and  impe- 
tration.  IV.  That  of  Aquinas  and  Peter  of  Tarentaise  that  they  work  instru- 
mentally  in  predisposing  to  grace  and  justification  and  immediately  effecting 
this  grace  and  justification  (Cf.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xviii.  Q.  1,  Art.  2). 
Of  these  four  Astesanus  prefers  the  second. — Ibid.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxvii.  Q.  1. 

William  of  Ware  also  rejects  Lombard's  theory  and  inclines  rather  to  Duns 
Scotus.  The  sacrament  produces  its  effect  opere  operato,  through  which  God 
works  upon  the  sinner. — Vorrillong  super  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv. 

5  Durandi  de  S.  Portiano  Comment,  super  Sententt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  xviii.  Q.  3  g  6. 

6  Jo.  Gersoni  de  Reform.  Ecclesise  c.  xxviii.  (Von  der  Hardt,  I.  v.  136). 


THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

Martin  V.  condemned  it  by  implication  when  he  included  among  the 
errors  of  Wickcliffe  and  Huss  the  denial  of  priestly  power  of  absolu 
tion,1  and  Thomas  of  Walden,  in  controverting  the  Wickliffite  errors, 
assumes  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  absolution  by  the  priest  precedes 
the  absolution  by  God.2  St.  Antonino  tells  us  that  contrition  deletes 
the  sin  quoad  Deum,  and  the  penance  imposed  in  confession  manifests 
that  it  is  deleted  quoad  ecclesiam.3  In  1439  the  Council  of  Florence 
formally  declared  that  the  sacrament  effects  absolution.4  Subsequently 
Prierias  describes  the  manifestation  of  the  absolution  of  the  penitent 
as  the  first  operation  of  the  functions  of  the  keys.5  About  the  same 
period  Cardinal  Caietano  shows  how  impossible  it  was  for  the  keenest 
minds  to  construct  a  consistent  theory  out  of  the  incongruous  mixture  of 
divine  and  human  elements,  for  in  one  passage  he  virtually  admits  that 
the  priest  manifests  the  pardon  by  God,  while  in  another  he  denies  it.6 
The  Dominican  Giovanni  Cagnazzo  (or  de  Tabia)  in  1518  not  only 
asserts  it  but  adds  that  the  keys  may  err  and  the  absolution  not  be 
ratified  in  heaven.7  Domingo  Soto  on  the  other  hand  denounces  the 
theory  of  manifestation  as  blasphemous  towards  the  Church  and  im 
pious  as  regards  Scripture.8  In  fact,  it  too  nearly  approached  the  views 
of  the  heretics  to  be  permitted,  and  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1551 
solemnly  blasted  it  with  the  anathema,  thus  branding  as  heresy  what 
had  been  received  as  orthodoxy  by  nearly  the  whole  Church  through 
the  greater  part  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.9  Yet  the  au 
thorities  in  its  favor  were  so  numerous  and  unimpeachable  that  van 
Est  feels  it  necessary  to  disprove  it  by  an  exhaustive  argument.10 

1  C.  Constant.  Sess.  ult.  (Harduin.  VIII.  915). 

2  Thomse  Waldens.  de  Sacramentis   cap.    CXLIV.     This  work   may  be  re 
garded   as   authoritative.     It  was  written  by  command   of  Martin  V.  who 
formally  approved  it  after  examination  by  theologians  delegated  for  the  purpose. 

3  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  I.  Tit.  xx.  (Ed.  Venet.  1582,  T.  I.  fol.  299  col.  1). 

4  C.  Florent.  Deer.  Unionis  (Harduin.  IX.  440). 

5  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Claves  I  4. 

6  Caietani  Tract,  iv.  De  Attritione  Q.  4 ;  Tract,  xvm.  De  Confessione  Q.  5 

7  Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Sacerdos  %  4,  5. 

8  Dom.  Soto  Comment,  in  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  1,  Art.  3. 

9  Si  quis  dixerit  absolutionem  sacramentalem   sacerdotis  non  esse  actuir 
judicialem,  sed  nudum  ministerium  pronuntiandi  et  declarandi  remissa  ess( 
peccata  confitenti,  modo  tantum  credat  se  esse  absolutum    ....    anathem* 
sit. — C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenitent.  can.  9. — Cf.  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblio 
theca  s.  v.  Absolvere  Art.  in.  n.  12. 

10  Estius  in  IV.  Sententt.  Dist.  xvm.  I  1. 


GULP  A  ET  PCENA.  149 

An  even  more  important  revolution  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
is  to  be  found  in  its  teachings  on  the  subject  of  culpa  and  pcena — the 
remission  of  guilt  and  the  remission  of  punishment,  into  which  the 
pardon  of  sin  became  divided.  As  this  had  an  important  bearing 
upon  the  theory  of  indulgences  it  will  repay  a  somewhat  minute  ex 
amination  into  the  varying  opinions  to  which  it  gave  rise.  Origin 
ally  there  was  no  conception  of  any  differentiation  between  pardon 
of  sin  and  remission  of  punishment ;  the  one  included  the  other.1  A 
foreshadowing  of  the  distinction  is  to  be  found  in  Hugh  of  St.  Victor, 
who  tells  us  that  the  sinner  is  bound  both  by  sin  and  the  penalty  of 
sin.2  Abelard  seems  to  have  some  conception  of  it  when  he  says 
that  penance  is  useful  as  an  expiation  for  the  temporal  punishment 
which  remains  after  contrition  has  secured  pardon  for  the  sin,  but 
his  hazy  explanation  shows  that  the  theory  had  not  yet  been  worked 
out.3  St.  Bernard  apparently  knows  nothing  of  it  in  his  numerous 
exhortations  to  confession  and  good  works  as  remitting  sin.  We 
have  seen  it  take  a  somewhat  more  definite  shape  in  the  works  of 
Peter  Lombard  and  Cardinal  Pullus,  but  to  Richard  of  St.  Victor 
belongs  the  honor  of  fashioning  it  into  the  form  in  which  it  left  a 
.profound  and  indelible  impression  on  Latin  Christianity,  though  as 
we  shall  see  it  underwent  important  modifications  with  the  advance 
of  sacerdotalism.  He  argues  that  although  God  alone  can  dissolve 
the  obligation  of  sin  he  sometimes  seeks  the  co-operation  of  his 
ministers.  As  soon  as  the  sinner  experiences  true  repentance,  the 
eternal  punishment  due  to  his  sin  is  changed  to  a  temporal  one,  the 
vindictive  fires  of  hell  give  place  to  the  cleansing  fires  of  purgatory, 
but  release  from  purgatory  is  conditioned  on  confession  to  the  priest 
and  the  performance  of  the  penance  which  he  may  enjoin.  This  is 
the  function  which  God  commits  to  his  ministers,  and  this  is  the 
part  which  they  play  in  the  sacrament  of  penitence,  though  they  are 
not  always  necessary,  for  God  sometimes  performs  this  also,  and 
sometimes  commits  it  to  those  who  are  not  priests.  This  grace  of 
co-operation  with  God  some  enjoy  at  one  time  and  some  at  another, 
but  priests  have  it  always  through  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose. 


1  Sacramentarium  Gregorianum  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  II.  p.  1043). 

2  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  Suinmae  Sententt.  Tract,  vi.  c.  11.     Cf.  Ejusd.  de 
Bacramentis  Lib.  n.  P.  xiv.  c.  2. 

3  P.  Abselardi  Expos.  Theolog.  Christianse  cap.  37. 


150  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

Moreover  God  releases  the  debt  of  damnation  only  under  condition 
of  seeking  absolution  from  the  priest,  if  it  is  possible,  and  of  per 
forming  the  penance  that  he  may  enjoin,  for  if  this  is  neglected  the 
sinner  is  consigned  to  eternal  punishment.1  This  theory  of  culpa 
and  poena  was  comprehensive  enough  to  reconcile  the  old  practice  of 
the  Church  with  the  new  ideas  which  were  fermenting  in  the  schools. 
It  is  true  that  it  met  with  opposition  from  those  who  could  not 
understand  how  a  sin  could  be  said  to  be  remitted  when  the  penitent 
was  still  subjected  to  prolonged  punishment,2  while  on  the  other 
hand  there  were  already  zealous  sacerdotal ists  who  claimed  that 
although  God  remitted  the  sin  it  was  the  priest  who  granted  release 
from  hell.3  The  time  however  had  not  yet  come  for  conceding  such 
powers  to  the  ministers  of  the  Church,  and  the  theory  of  Richard  of 
St.  Victor  obtained  general  currency.  Although  Master  Bandinus 
does  not  recognize  it  Alain  de  Lille  virtually  does.4  Early  in  the 
thirteenth  century  the  idea  had  become  generally  diffused,  so  that  the 
good  monk  Csesarius  of  Heisterbach  teaches  it,  though  he  evidently 
had  no  very  clear  conception  of  its  working.5  Ramon  de  Penafort 
adopts  it,  although  he  eliminates  purgatory,  when  he  says  that  for 
every  mortal  sin  there  is  a  double  punishment,  the  eternal  which  is 
remitted  by  contrition,  and  the  temporal  which  is  inflicted  by  the 
Church.6  William  of  Paris  admits  the  division  between  culpa  and 


1  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  Ligandi  c.  2,  3,  4,  6,  7,  8.     Of  course  it  was 
not  easy  for  these  early  explorers  in  the  unknown  to  be  at  all  times  consistent 
and  it  need  not  surprise  us  to  find  in  another  passage  (c.  23)  that  sacerdotal 
absolution  liberates  from  both  hell  and  purgatory. 

2  Sunt  adhuc  qui  mirantur  et  quaerunt  quomodo  dicitur  Deus  et  Dei  ministri 
peccata  remittere  cum  profecto  inveniatur  uterque   poenitentium    peccata  et 
puniendo  expiare  et  expiando  punire.     Quae  est,  inquiunt,  ista  remissio  ubi 
exigitur  diuturna  saepe  et  satis  molesta  expiatio  ? — Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potest 
Ligand.  c.  23. 

3  Petri  Pictaviens.  Sententt.  Lib.  in.  c.  16.— Peter  readily  disposes  of  this 
claim  by  showing  that  when  God  remits  the  sin  the  sinner  necessarily  is  ir 
charity  and  as  such  becomes  worthy  of  eternal  life  and  not  of  eternal  pun 
ishment. 

4  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  de  Pcenitentia  (Migne  COX.  299). 

5  Caesar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  c.  1,  40. 

6  Nota  ergo  quod  pro  quolibet  peccato  mortali  duplex  poena  debetur,  tern 
poralis  videlicet  et  aeterna :  aeterna  remittitur  per  cordis  contritionem  ;  remane 
postea  temporalis  ab  ecclesia  infligenda. — S.  Raymundi  Summae  Lib.  in.  Tit 
xxxv.  §  5. 


GULP  A  ET  PCENA.  151 

pcena,  but  his  confused  and  labored  explanation  only  shows  how 
vague  were  as  yet  the  conceptions  of  the  schools,  and  in  a  subse 
quent  passage,  where  he  ascribes  to  the  sacrament  infusion  of  grace 
and  liberation  from  both  hell  and  purgatory,  he  virtually  eliminates 
contrition  as  an  element  of  complete  pardon.1  Alexander  Hales 
defines  it  clearly  in  a  completed  shape  :  contrition  justifies  from  the 
culpa  of  mortal  sin  and  changes  the  eternal  punishment  to  the  tem 
poral  one  of  purgatory,  which  God  remits  if  the  penitent  performs 
the  penance  enjoined  on  him  by  the  priest,  but  not  otherwise;  thus 
Christ  releases  from  hell  and  the  priest  from  purgatory.2  In  this 
way  a  division  was  established  between  the  functions  of  God  and  the 
priest  which  seemed  to  promise  finality,  for  its  acceptance  by  such 
authorities  as  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  and  St.  Bonaventura  show 
that  it  became  firmly  established  in  the  schools  and  was  taught  as 
the  rule  of  practice.3  Having  gained  this  much,  however,  sacerdo 
talism  asked  for  more.  It  was  not  satisfied  with  the  limitation  on 
its  powers  inferred  from  the  premises  that  true  contrition  was  requi 
site  in  order  to  free  the  sinner  from  the  culpa,  without  which  the 
priest  could  not  remit  the  poena;*  this  left  the  value  of  absolution 
perfectly  uncertain,  and  granted  too  much  efficacy  to  the  unassisted 
striving  of  man  to  reach  God.  To  meet  this  we  have  seen  (p.  102)  how 
the  Franciscan  school  taught  the  agency  of  the  sacrament  in  convert 
ing  attrition  into  contrition.  Before  this  was  accepted  by  the  Domin 
icans  the  latter  solved  the  difficulty  in  another  way  by  attributing  to 
absolution  a  power  over  the  culpa  as  well  as  over  the  pcena.  Alex 
ander  Hales  will  only  admit  that  the  priest  by  prayer  can  exercise 
some  influence  over  God  in  the  remission  of  the  culpa,  as  any  right 
eous  man  can,  without  personally  granting  it,  and  he  even  has  to 
resort  to  the  treasure  of  salvation  to  explain  the  power  of  dirnin- 


1  Guillel.  Paris,  de  Sacram.  Pomitent.  c.  5,  21  (Ed.  1674,  T.  I.  pp.  464,  510). 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summae  P.  iv.  Q.  xvii.  Membr.  4  art.  3 ;  Membr.  6  art.  3. — 
"  Dicendum  quod  aliud  et  aliud  in  peccato  remittit  Christus  et  sacerdos  ;  quia 
Christus  culpam  et  poenara  aeternam  et  sacerdos  poenain  purgatoriam  et  aliquid 
de  poena  prgesenti  taxata  in  canone  si  discretion!  ejus  videtur." 

3  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Pcenit.  et  Remiss.  §  46.— S.  Bonavent. 
in  Lib.  iv.  Sententt.  Dist.  xvin.  P.  I.  art.  2,  Q.  1,  2.— Durand.  de  S.  Portian. 
Comment,  super  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  2,  \  9. 

4  Si  autem  aliquis  non  vere  contritus  est,  sacerdotes  eum  non  possunt  ab- 
solvere,  quia  cum  culpa  remissa  non  est,  poena  derni  non  potest.— Johan.  de 
Deo  Poenitentialis  Lib.  I.  c.  1. 


152  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

ishing  the  pcena ;l  Aquinas  ventures  further,  though  his  confused 
and  contradictory  utterances  prove  that  he  had  no  clear  opinions  on: 
the  subject :  whatever  virtue  repentance  has  in  the  remission  of  the 
culpa  is  due  to  the  power  of  the  keys ;  to  this  the  efforts  of  the 
penitent  are  secondary,  and  thus  the  sacrament  removes  both  culpa 
and  pcena,  yet  God  alone  removes  the  eulpa  and  the  priest  contrib 
utes  in  some  undefined  way,  not  as  an  efficient  but  as  a  predisposing 
cause.2  Yet  in  an  earlier  work  he  had  followed  Alexander  Hales 
in  an  explanation  which  threatened  a  complete  revolution  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  keys,  by  attributing  their  power  to  the  merits  of 
Christ  and  the  saints,  forming  the  treasure  of  the  Church.  This  he 
utilized  to  explain  that  the  keys  derive  their  efficacy  from  the  treas 
ure,  of  which  they  apply  an  equivalent  to  satisfy  God  for  the  sing 
of  the  penitent.3 

1  Alex,  de  Ales  Summae  P.  IV.  Q.  XXI.  Membr.  i. ;  Membr.  ii.  art.  1. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixii.  art.  1 ;  Q.  Ixiv.  art.  1 ;  Q.  Ixxxiv. 
art.  3 ;  Q.  Ixxxvi.  art.  4,  6 ;  Supplem.  Q.  x.  art.  3 ;  Q.  xvii.  art.  3 ;  Summse 
contra  Gentiles  Lib.  iv.  cap.  72. 

In  another  passage  Aquinas  represents  God  as  the  efficient  cause  and  th( 
keys  as  only  an  instrument,  yet  indispensable,  like  water  in  baptism.— Opusc 
xxn.  cap.  2. 

3  Dicendum  est  quod  meritum  ecclesise  est  sub  dispensationem  clavium,  e 
idcirco  tarn  ex  merito  Christi  quam  aliorum  qui  sunt  de  ecclesia,  ecclesi»« 
claves   efficaciam   habent.— S.  Th.  Aquin.   in  IV.   Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii 
art.  5. 

This  is  a  simple  explanation  of  the  virtue  of  sacramental  absolution  whicl'tj 
has  long  maintained  itself  (Caietani  Tract,  iv.  De  attritione  Q.  iv. ;  Dom.  Sot* 
in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  ii.  art.  3 ;  Palmieri  Tract,  de  Pcenit.  p.  422).    A  J 
the  treasure,  however,  was  assumed  to  be  the  basis  of  indulgences  and  as  thes*  «| 
became  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  pope,  who  was  asserted  to  be  the  sol 
dispenser  of  the  treasure,  it  was  seen  that  there  was  danger  in  admitting  th 
priest  to  such  control  over  it,  and  some  theologians  restricted  his  function  i] 
this  respect  to  applying  it  in  diminishing  the  penance,  and  thus  explaining 
the  nominal  satisfaction  which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  gradually  replace* 
the  severity  of  the  canons  (Astesani  Summse  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxvi: 
Q.  2).     Thus  when  Luther  pointed  out  that  if  the  sinner  is  released  by  thrt 
application  of  the  merits  of  Christ  there  is  no  exercise  of  the  power  of  th 
keys,  Ambrogio  Caterino  retorted  that  it  is  impious  to  question  the  power  c  I 
the  keys  and  that  the  application  of  the  treasure  is  made  only  to  those  alread 
absolved  by  the  keys  (Ambr.  Catherini  adv.  impia  ac  valde  pestifera  Martir  i 
Lutheri  Dogmata  Lib.  v.— Florentiae,  1520,  fol.  89).      The  council  of  Trcr  i 
discreetly  avoided  all  allusion  to  the  treasure  in  its  definitions  as  to  the  sacra  •.< 
ment  of  penitence  and  only  referred  to  it  as  removing  original  sin  in  baptist  1 


GULP  A  ET  PCENA.  153 

These  exaggerations  of  the  priestly  function  by  no  means  met  with 
prompt  acceptance.  The  Franciscans  held  to  the  old  landmarks  and 
Duns  Scotus  even  casts  doubts  upon  the  division  of  culpa  from  pcena.1 
In  1317  Astesanus  holds  that  contrition  liberates  from  culpa,  leaving 
only  the  pcena  to  be  remitted  by  the  priest,  though  he  of  course  fol 
lows  what  was  by  that  time  the  accepted  rule  that  true  contrition 
includes  a  vow  of  sacramental  confession,  and  his  vagueness  as  to 
the  character  of  the  poena  shows  how  hazy  as  yet  was  the  scholastic 
mind  on  the  subject.2  William  of  Ware  substantially  agrees  with 
him.3  Pietro  d'Aquila  is  even  more  reactionary  :  God  does  not  limit 
his  power  to  the  sacraments  but  only  confers  his  grace  on  those  who 
have  sufficient  dispositio  congrua ;  contrition  (including  the  vow  to 
confess)  will  remit  all  sins  and  even  serve  also  as  satisfaction ;  it  is 
only  imperfect  contrition  that  has  to  be  supplemented  by  penance ; 
the  function  of  the  priest  and  the  power  of  the  keys  are  confined 
exclusively  to  the  temporal  pcena  of  which  they  can  remit  only  a 
portion.4 

As  a  rule  the  Dominicans  followed  Aquinas  and  developed  his 
views.  Durand  de  S.  Pourgain  argues  that  if  the  contrition  is  insuf 
ficient  the  power  of  the  keys  extends  over  the  culpa  and  by  the 
application  of  grace  supplies  what  is  lacking.5  Peter  of  Palermo 


and  as  employed  in  indulgences  (C.  Trident.  Sess.  v.  De  Pecc.  Orig.  $  3 ;  Sess. 
xxi.  De  Reform,  cap.  xi.). 

The  questions  involved  are  intricate  and  abstruse,  as  the  schoolmen  in 
framing  the  theory  of  the  sacraments  were  unanimous  in  ascribing  their  virtue 
to  the  Passion  of  Christ. — P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  ii.  n.  2.— Alex. 
>de  Ales  Summae  P.  IV.  Q.  v.  art.  4,  Membr.  iii.  $  7.— S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summae 
P.  in.  Q.  xlix.  art.  2  ad  2 ;  Q.  Hi.  art.  8,  ad  2 ;  Q.  Ixi.  art.  1  ad  3 ;  Q.  Ixii. 
art.  5;  Q  Ixix.  art.  1  ad  3. 

1  Bart.  Mastrius  in  IV.  Sentt.  Disp.  VI.  Q.  ix.  Art.  6  (Amort  de  Indulgentiis 
II.  182-3). 

2  Astesani  Summae  de  Casibus  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xix.  Q.  2 ;  Tit.  xxxvi.  Q.  2. 

3  Vorrilong  super  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm. 

*  P.  de  Aquila  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  3 ;  Dist.  xv.  Q.  1 ;  Dist.  xvn.  Q. 
1;  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  1,  2. 

Pietro  d'Aquila  was  highly  esteemed  by  Clement  VI.,  who,  in  1347,  made 
him  bishop  of  Sant-Angeli  de'  Lombardi  and  transferred  him  the  next  year  to 
i  the  see  of  Trivento.  He  was  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Scotists  and  was 
honored  with  the  appellation  of  Scotellus.  His  commentary  on  the  Sentences 
was  printed  at  Speyer  in  1480  and  in  Venice  in  1501  and  1600. 

6  Dur.  de  S.  Portiano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  ii. ;  Q.  iii.  $4,  5 ;  Dist. 
xvm.  Q.  ii.  §i  3,  7. 


154  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

admits  that  Gregory  the  Great  taught  that  the  priest  only  makes 
manifest  the  pardon  of  the  sinner,  but  he  says  that  this  is  false 
except  in  case  of  sufficing  contrition ;  where  there  is  only  attrition 
the  sacrament  converts  it  into  contrition  and  thus  the  priest  absolves 
from  both  culpa  and  posna.1  St.  Antonino  of  Florence,  though  a 
Dominican,  however,  recurs  to  the  older  theory  that  repentance 
remits*  the  culpa  and  if  perfect  the  pcena,  wholly  or  partially,  but 
he  adds  the  saving  clause  that  the  penitent  thus  freed  from  sin  must 
subsequently  submit  himself  to  the  keys  by  confession  and  penance 
under  pain  of  mortal  sin.2  Gabriel  Biel  adopts  the  opinion  of  William 
of  Ockham,  that  the  sacrament  of  penitence  is  only  the  certain  sign 
of  the  remission  of  the  culpa  through  previous  contrition.3  Aquinas 
however  finally  carried  the  day.  The  rigorous  virtue  of  Caietano 
was  disposed  to  exalt  as  much  as  possible  the  efficiency  of  contrition, 
but  he  admits  that,  after  long  debate,  the  question  had  been  decided 
in  favor  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  and  for  this  he  cites  the  council  of 
Florence,  where  the  effect  of  the  sacrament  was  described  as  the 
absolution  of  sin.4  The  Dominican  Prierias  has  no  question  about 
it,  and  leaves  nothing  for  God  to  do ;  the  priest  by  the  power  of 
the  keys  remits  the  culpa,  changes  the  eternal  punishment  to  tem 
poral,  and  diminishes  the  latter  or  sometimes  removes  it  altogether.5 
Sacerdotalism  could  ask  no  more ;  by  successive  steps  it  had  succeeded 
in  eliminating  God  from  the  pardon  of  sin  and  had  replaced  him  with 
the  priest.  It  was  the  practical  use  made  of  these  doctrines  that 
provoked  the  Reformation,  and  when  the  council  of  Trent  was  as 
sembled  to  select  from  the  speculations  of  the  schoolmen  the  faith  to 
be  thenceforth  professed  by  Catholics,  it  had  before  it  a  somewhat 
difficult  task  in  defining  the  power  of  the  keys.  In  its  first  convoca 
tion,  in  1547,  it  considered  the  subject  of  justification;  it  could  not 
deny  justification  by  grace,  and  all  it  could  do  was  to  assert  that  the 
culpa  was  not  so  remitted  by  grace  but  that  a  pcena  remained  to  be 


1  Petri  Hieremise  Quadragesimale,  Serm.  xx. 

2  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  HI.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  17,  §  3 ;  cap.  18. 

3  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  ii.  Art.  2,  Concl.  3,  4,  5. 

4  Caietani  Tract,  iv.  De  Attritione  Q.  4 ;  Tract,  xviir.  Q.  5. 

5  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Claves  $  4.—"  Tertio,  solvit  absolvendo  a  culpa. 
Quarto,  remittendo  pcenam  seternam  et  commutando  earn  in  temporalem  pur- 
gatoriam.      Quinto   minuendo    poenam    temporalem   vel   aliquando    totaliter 
abolendo. 


EFFICACY  OF  THE  SACRAMENT.  155 

satisfied  either  on  earth  or  in  purgatory.1  When  therefore,  in  1551, 
it  treated  of  the  sacrament  of  penitence  its  hands  were  somewhat 
tied,  but  it  did  the  best  it  could,  without  formally  declaring  that  the 
power  of  the  keys  extended  over  the  culpa.  It  asserted  that  the 
sacrament  conduces  to  obtaining  grace  for  imperfect  contrition  or 
attrition,  that  the  perfect  contrition  which  sometimes  reconciles  the 
sinner  to  God  necessarily  involves  the  vow  to  confess,  that  to  obtain 
full  pardon  not  only  contrition  but  confession  and  satisfaction  are 
requisite,  and  that  satisfaction  consists  either  in  afflictions  sent  by 
God  or  in  penance  imposed  by  the  priest,  while  it  forbade  anyone, 
however  contrite,  to  take  the  Eucharist  without  previous  confession.2 
For  a  while  these  cautious  utterances  imposed  a  similar  caution  on 
theologians,  and  there  was  a  tendency  to  return  to  the  older  formulas, 
but  when  Michael  Bay  taught  that  God  justifies  and  that  the  priest 
only  removes  the  penalty  his  opinions  were  emphatically  condemned 
by  St.  Pius  V.  in  1567,  by  Gregory  XIII.  in  1579  and  by  Urban 
VIII.  in  1641.3  Bishop  Zerola  came  perilously  near  to  this,  but 
escaped  condemnation,  in  asserting  the  old  doctrine  that  contrition 
removes  the  culpa  and  part  or  all  of  the  poena,  according  to  its  in 
tensity,  only  adding  that  if  it  does  not  contain  the  vow  to  confess  the 
culpa  is  not  remitted.4  Escobar  only  defines  the  power  of  the  keys 
as  a  faculty  which  enables  the  ecclesiastical  judge  to  admit  the  worthy 
to  heaven  and  to  exclude  the  unworthy5 — which  would  seem  to  render 
the  whole  function  a  trifle  superfluous.  But  it  is  not  deemed  necessary 
to  enlighten  the  people  on  these  niceties  or  to  diminish  their  simple 
faith  in  the  all-embracing  efficacy  of  priestly  ministrations.  Cardi 
nal  Bellarmine,  in  a  popular  catechism,  informs  the  reader  that,  by 
the  words  of  the  priest  in  absolution,  God  internally  releases  the 
soul  from  the  bonds  of  sin,  restores  his  grace  and  liberates  it  from 

1  C.  Trident.  Sess.  vi.  De  Justificatione  can.  30. 

2  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xm.  De  Eucharistia  c.  7,  can.  11 ;  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poeni- 
tentia  cap.  4;  can.  4,  12, 13.— Father  Sayre  (Clavis  Eegise  Sacerd.  Lib.  i.  cap.  6, 
n.  6)  uses  this  as  an  example  of  change  of  doctrine.     All  the  older  theologians, 
he  says,  taught  the  sufficiency  of  contrition,  but  since  the  utterances  of  the 
council  of  Trent  they  necessarily  teach  the  opposite. 

3  Urbani   PP.  VIII.  bull   In  eminenti  Prop.  43,  58  (Bullar.  Ed  Luxemb. 
V.  369). 

4  Zerola,  Praxis  Sacr.  Poenitent.  cap.  vii.  Q.  29. 

5  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn.  Examen  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  29. 


156  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

the  fate  of  being  cast  into  hell  j1  or,  as  he  expresses  it  elsewhere,  it  is 
the  absolution  granted  by  the  priest  that  drives  away  sin,2 — thus  ex 
tending  the  power  of  the  keys  over  both  culpa  and  pcena.  Benedict 
XIII.  in  a  series  of  instructions  for  children  at  their  first  confession, 
requires  them  to  be  told  that  the  priest  stands  to  them  in  the  place 
of  God  and  that  it  is  his  absolution  that  remits  their  sins  and  saves 
them  from  hell.3  The  Tridentine  utterances  have  come  to  be  thus 
interpreted  by  theologians  of  all  schools.  Juenin  expressly  says  that 
the  sinner  cannot  obtain  justification  or  remission  of  sin  without  sacer 
dotal  absolution.4  Palmieri  is  as  confident  and  as  uncompromising  as 
Prierias :  the  power  of  the  keys  is  the  absolute  power  of  admitting 
to  or  of  excluding  from  heaven  ;  it  remits  the  culpa  and  with  that 
remission  the  eternal  punishment  due  to  it  is  remitted ;  the  old 
schoolmen  limited  the  power  incorrectly  when  they  asserted  that 
sacramental  absolution  can  be  granted  only  to  those  whose  contrition 
had  won  justification  from  God,  for  they  were  insufficiently  versed  in 
the  sacraments.5  Who  can  deny  that  Catholic  theology  is  a  pro 
gressive  science,  and  who  can  predict  what  may  be  its  ultimate 
development?  Yet  the  satisfaction  with  which  modern  teachers 


1  Bellarmino,  Dottrina  Cristiana,  Delia  Penitenza  (Opp.  Neapoli,  1862,  T. 
VI.  p.  193) — "  Ed  il  sacerdote  esteriormente  pronunzia  1'assoluzione :  cosi  Iddio 
interiormente  per  mezzo  di  quelle  parole  del  sacerdote  scioglia  quell'  anima  dal 
nodo  de'  peccati  col  quale  era  legata ;  se  le  rende  la  grazia  sua,  e  la  libera  del 
obbligo  che  aveva  d'esser  precipitata  nelP  Inferno." 

2  Bellarmin.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  in.  cap.  2  (Ibid.  III.  679) — "Ut  enim  flatus  ex- 
tinguit  ignem  et  dissipat  nebulas,  sic  enim  absolutio  sacerdotis  peccata  dispergit 
et  evanescere  facit." 

3  Instruzione  per  gli  figliuoli,  in  Concil.  Koman.  aim.  1725 ;  Tit.  xxxii.  cap, 
3  (Romas,  1725,  pp.  138,  432). 

4  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  vi.  Q.  vii.  cap.  5,  Art.  1. 

5  Palmieri  Tract,  de  Pcenit.  p.  72,cf..p.  118.— There  are  some  other  knotty 
and  disputed  points  involved.     Palmieri  asserts  absolutely  (pp.  102-3)  that  sin 
cannot  be  remitted  without  submission  to  the  keys,  at  least  by  a  vow.     Yet  he 
had  previously  pointed  out  the  difference  between  actual  and  virtual  penitence, 
the  latter  of  which  exists  when  an  act  of  charity  is  performed  without  remem 
bering  the  sin,  and  though  the  sufficiency  of  this  for  justification  is  denied  by 
some  theologians  he  affirms  it  (pp.  40-1).    The  two  assertions  seem  irrecon* 
cilable,  but  he  gets  rid  of  the  contradiction  by  asserting  (p.  106)  that  in  the  act 
of  charity  there  must  be  an  implied  admission  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  tanta 
mount  to  a  vow.    How  this  can  be  when  in  virtual  penitence,  ex  vi  termini, 
there  is  no  recollection  of  sin  it  might  not  be  easy  to  explain. 


LIMITATIONS.  157 

may  well  regard  their  conquests  over  the  infinite  must  be  tempered 
with  regret  that  for  the  greater  part  of  its  existence  the  Church  mis 
led  the  faithful  as  to  the  extent  of  the  gifts  bestowed  upon  it  by  God. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  nature  and  certainty  of  the  abso 
lution  thus  wrought  by  the  power  of  the  keys  we  find  ourselves  at 
once  confronted  with  limitations  suggestive  of  human  impotence  in 
its  attempt  to  act  for  the  Omnipotent.  The  hopeless  incongruity 
between  the  weakness,  ignorance,  or  vices  of  the  man  and  the  tre 
mendous  powers  of  the  keys  conferred  upon  him  was  self-evident  in 
almost  every  parish  ;  this  could  not  escape  the  attention  of  the  school 
men  and  their  efforts  to  bridge  the  chasm,  while  striving  to  confirm 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament,  contribute  an  instructive  chapter  to  the 
history  of  human  error.  Peter  Lombard,  while  defining  the  power 
to  bind  and  to  loose  as  merely  the  manifestation  of  those  bound  or 
loosed  by  God,  admits  that  sometimes  the  priest  exhibits  as  bound  or 
loosed  those  who  are  not  bound  or  loosed  with  God ;  the  sentence  of 
the  Church  only  harms  or  helps  according  as  it  is  merited  and  is 
approved  by  the  judgment  of  God.  Still,  the  priest  has  the  power, 
though  he  may  not  use  it  righteously  and  worthily  :  only  God  and 
the  saints  in  whom  dwell  the  Holy  Ghost  can  worthily  and  correctly 
remit  or  retain  sins,  yet  it  is  done  by  those  who  are  not  saints,  but  it 
is  not  done  worthily  and  correctly.1  Evidently  the  dialectics  of  the 
period  could  not  enable  him  to  frame  a  coherent  theory.  Cardinal 
Pullus  is  equally  emphatic  in  asserting  that  God  pronounces  his 
judgments  irrespective  of  the  action  of  the  priest,  and  he  seeks  to 
save  the  power  of  the  keys  by  the  ingenious  suggestion  that  he  who 
uses  it  improperly  loses  it2 — an  eminently  scholastic  device  but  not 
conducive  to  the  peace  of  mind  of  those  who  paid  in  money  or  mor 
tifications  for  salvation.  Richard  of  St.  Victor  can  see  no  way  out 
of  the  difficulty  save  by  admitting  that  an  unjust  sentence  of  pardon 
or  condemnation  by  the  priest  is  void,  for  he  can  use  the  power  not 
arbitrarily  but  only  in  accordance  with  the  merits  of  the  case  and  the 
will  of  God.  At  the  same  time  Richard  endeavors  to  retain  some 
thing  for  the  keys  by  the  extraordinary  assumption  that,  when  God 
pardons,  the  pardon  is  only  conditional  and  does  not  become  absolute 


1  P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xviii.  \  7 ;  Dist.  xix.  §§  3,  5. 

2  Rob.  Pulli  Sentt.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  52,  61. 


158  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

without  the  priestly  absolution.1  Master  Bandinus,  while  asserting 
that  the  sentence  of  the  priest  is  to  be  dreaded,  admits  that  it  mus1 
be  in  accordance  with  justice  to  be  valid.2  With  the  progress  o1 
sacerdotal  development  there  were  enthusiastic  theologians  who  were 
not  satisfied  with  these  moderate  claims.  William  Bishop  of  Paris 
about  1240  asserts  for  the  priestly  order  the  control  of  the  fate  of  the 
soul ;  absolution  releases  it  from  the  sentence  of  damnation  and  the 
terrors  of  the  Day  of  Judgment ;  God  commits  irrevocably  to  the 
priest  the  consideration  of  the  sinner's  case — and  yet  with  inevitable 
inconsistency  he  admits  that  to  the  majority  of  penitents  absolutioi 
is  illusory  through  their  lack  of  due  contrition,  thus  avowing  that  i' 
is  merely  a  snare  by  lulling  them  in  false  security.3  S.  Ramon  d< 
Pefiafort,  about  the  same  period,  is  more  cautious.  He  puts  the  ques 
tion,  What  is  it  that  the  priest  remits  in  penitence  ?  and  essays  t< 
answer  it,  but  fails.  He  states  various  opinions  then  current,  whicl 
show  how  unsettled  as  yet  was  the  matter  in  the  schools,  and  conclude: 
by  conceding  that  the  binding  and  loosing  are  absolute  only  whei 
just.4  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  solves  the  question  in  a  manner  highb 
derogatory  to  the  keys :  sin  creates  a  double  responsibility,  to  Goe 
and  to  the  Church ;  contrition  obtains  pardon  from  God,  but  th 
offence  to  the  Church  remains  and  must  be  expiated  by  confessioi 
and  satisfaction ;  if  the  contrite  sinner  neglects  this  the  sin  does  no 
return,  but  new  mortal  sin  is  committed  which  again  consigns  him  t< 
perdition.5  Thus  the  only  function  of  the  priest  is  to  assign  or  remi 
penance.  Aquinas  admits  that  the  priest  cannot  use  the  power  of  th 
keys  at  his  pleasure,  but  only  as  God  prescribes,  and  he  relies  01 
divine  inspiration  to  guide  the  confessor  aright,  but  the  futility  o 
this  was  apparent  when  an  objector  asked  him  how,  without  a  re  vela 
tion  from  God,  the  priest  can  know  that  the  penitent  is  absolved,  an< 
Aquinas  could  only  reply  that  any  judge  may  acquit  a  guilty  man  o: 
the  evidence  of  witnesses  and  to  the  confessor  the  penitent  is  th 
only  witness,  for  and  against  himself.6  Giovanni  Balbi  follow 


1  Eich.  a  S.  Victors  de  Potestate  Ligandi  c.  8,  9,  11,  12. 

2  Mag.  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  18. 

3  Guillel.  Parisians.  Opera  de  Fide;  Ejusd.  de  Sacramento  Poenitentiae  c.  6, 21 

4  S.  Eaymundi  Summae  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  $  5. 

5  Hostiens.  Aureae  Summae  Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Kemiss.  \  6 ;  De  Remission: 
bus  §  1. 

6  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  Supplem.  Q.  xviu.  Art.  4 ;  Ejusd.  Opusc.  XXD 
cap.  3. 


PRIESTL Y  JUDGMENT  NOT  FINAL.  159 

Aquinas  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  priestly  discretion  being  divinely 
guided  and  adds  that  the  priest,  in  using  the  power  of  the  keys,  acts 
only  as  the  instrument  and  minister  of  God  and  no  instrument  acts 
efficiently  save  as  it  is  moved  by  its  principal.1  Astesanus  admits 
that  the  priestly  judgment  is  not  final  but  requires  ratification  in 
heaven;  indeed,  he  quotes  approvingly  from  Peter  of  Tarantaise 
(Innocent  V.)  that  the  forum  of  God  and  the  forum  of  the  Church 
are  distinct  and  that  a  man  may  be  absolved  in  one  and  not  in  the 
other.2  William  of  Ware  disputes  this,  for  such  uncertainly  would 
drive  the  penitent  to  despair,  as  the  confessor  cannot  know  the  judg 
ment  of  God ;  there  is  a  certain  latitude  in  the  punishment  and  God 
increases  or  diminishes  it  in  accordance  with  the  sentence  of  the 
priest.3  Marsiglio  of  Padua,  in  his  bold  revolt  against  sacerdotalism, 
recurs  to  Peter  Lombard  and  Richard  of  S.  Victor  and  develops 
;their  theories  to  their  ultimate  results.  He  proves  from  them  that 
the  priest  only  makes  manifest  to  the  Church  the  binding  or  loosing 
by  God;  he  may  err  through  prejudice,  favor,  ignorance,  or  corrupt 
motives,  so  that  his  sentence  has  no  influence  on  the  judgment  of 
God,  and  the  pope  has  no  greater  power  than  any  other  priest.4 
Marsiglio  however  exercised  no  influence  on  the  current  of  thought ; 
it  was  running  too  strongly  towards  sacerdotal  development  and  it 
continued  to  flow.  Thus  Durand  de  S.  Pour^ain  boldly  claims  that 
the  priest  is  an  arbiter  between  God  and  man,  first  selected  by  God 
and  then  by  the  penitent ;  but  he  confesses  the  idleness  of  this  and 
the  vice  of  the  whole  system  when  he  says  that  in  the  forum  of  the 
Church  the  penitent  must  perform  the  penance  enjoined,  whether 
suitable  or  not,  while  in  the  forum  of  God  if  it  is  too  little  it  does 
not  suffice,  if  too  much  it  is  superfluous.5  Thomas  of  Walden  and 
!  Dr.  Weigel  revert  to  the  older  theory  :  the  power  of  the  keys  to  be 
effective  must  be  exercised  justly ;  the  sentence  of  the  priest  only 
binds  or  looses  when  it  conforms  to  the  sentence  of  God.6  Gabriel 
Biel  minimizes  the  power  of  the  keys ;  God  alone  removes  sin  and 

1  Joannis  de  Janua  Summa  quse  vocatur  Catholicon  s.  v.  Pcenitentia. 

2  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxi.  Q.  2. 
8  Vorrillong  super  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm. 

4  Marsilii  Defensoris  Pacis  P.  n.  cap.  6. 

5  Durand.  de  S.  Port,  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  ii.  §  7 ;  Dist.  xx.  Q.  1, 
\\  5,  6,  8. 

6  Thomae  Waldensis  de  Sacramentis  cap.  CXLIV.  n.  4. — Weigel  Claviculse 
Indulgentialis  cap.  7. — Thomas  of  Walden  moreover  (cap.  CLVIII.  n.  3)  makes 


THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

opens  the  gate  of  heaven ;  the  priest  merely  sentences ;  if  his  sen 
tence  is  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  God  it  is  confirmed,  if  not  it 
is  revoked.1  Prierias  naturally  returns  to  the  opinion  of  Aquinas ; 
the  priest  is  to  act  according  to  Divine  inspiration,  when  he  is  the 
instrument  of  God's  will ;  if  he  arbitrarily  varies  from  this  he  sins 
and  his  decision  is  void.2  To  this  Bartolommeo  Fumo  assents,  ex 
cept  as  to  the  invalidation  of  the  sentence,3  while  Domingo  Soto 
asserts  positively  that  the  sentence  of  the  priest  is  powerless  if  it  is 
erroneous.4  Since  the  council  of  Trent  discussion  on  this  subject 
seems  to  have  been  avoided.  The  council  strictly  withheld  any  in 
timation  that  the  priestly  sentence  is  subject  to  doubt,  except  as  to 
the  intention  of  the  ministraut ;  that  it  may  be  rejected  by  God  is 
not  hinted.5  Modern  theologians  accordingly  have  no  hesitation  in 
asserting  that  the  effect  of  absolution  is  certain  and  infallible  ;6  there 

the  admission  that  it  is  impossible  to  define  the  degree  of  innocence  conferred 
by  absolution,  as  this  is  known  only  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  practically  there  is  no  difference  between  Thomas 
of  Walden's  opinion  and  that  of  the  heresiarch  whom  he  is  controverting. 
Wickliffe  says — "  But  oure  bileve  techis  us  that  no  synne  is  forgiven  but  if 
God  hymself  forgif  furste  of  alle.  Ande  if  his  trewe  vicare  acorde  to  Gods  wille, 
he  may  assoyle  of  synne  as  vicary  of  his  God.  But  if  he  discorde  from  jugge- 
ment  of  his  God  he  assoyles  not,  boste  he  never  so  muche."  Jo.  Wickliffe's 
Septem  Hsereses,  Hseresis  V.  (Arnold's  Select  English  Works,  III.  444). 

1  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvur.  Q.  1,  Art.  1,  not.  2;  Dist.  xx.  Art.  3, 
Dub.  1. 

2  Sumnia  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Claves  $  6. 

3  Bart.  Fumi  Armilla  Aurea  s.  v.  Clavis  u.  6.     This  work  was  an  acknowl 
edged  authority  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century.     My  edition  is  of 
Medina  del  Campo,  1552 ;  there  was  one  of  Paris,  1561,  and  I  have  met  with 
Venitian  editions  of  1554,  1558,  1563,  1565,  1578,  1584  and  1588. 

*  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5  ad  5. 

5  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenitentia  cap.  6. 

6  Caramuelis  Theol.  Fundament,  n.  1120.— Palmieri  Tract,  de  Pomit.  p.  120. 
— The  summary  of  Father  de  Charmes  (Theol.  Universalis  Diss.  v.  cap.  vii.)  is 
that  the  sacrament  of  penitence  confers  infusion  of  sacramental  and  habitual 
grace,  the  remission  of  culpa,  and  release  from  eternal  torment,  but  not  always 
total  remission  of  temporal  punishment,  though  it  diminishes  this  in  accord 
ance  with  the  greater  or  less  disposition  of  the  penitent. 

There  is  another  question  which  need  not  detain  us  here  as  it  is  one  on  which 
the  wisest  doctors  differ — whether  sins  deleted  in  confession  will  be  made  mani 
fest  at  the  Day  of  Judgment.  It  is  agreed  however  that  if  they  are  they  will 
not  cause  humiliation,  because  the  glorified  penitent  will  have  performed  pen 
ance  for  them  during  life. — Clericati  de  Virt.  et  Sacr.  Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n. 


THE  KEY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  161 

is  of  course  theoretically  the  condition  precedent  that  the  penitent  is 
properly  disposed,  but  this  is  a  matter  for  the  priest  to  determine  at 
the  time.  This  question  of  the  disposition,  however,  has  been  the 
subject  of  interminable  and  intricate  debates  in  the  schools  and  will 
be  considered  hereafter. 

The  evil  lives  and  the  ignorance,  both  invincible  and  crass,  of 
those  to  whom  this  tremendous  power  was  committed  were  the  sub 
ject  of  denunciation  too  general  throughout  the  middle  ages  for  the 
schoolmen  not  to  seek  some  explanation  or  palliation  of  the  incon 
gruity.  Hardly  had  the  existence  of  the  power  of  the  keys  been 
denned  in  the  schools  when  its  abuse  led  Alain  de  Lille — perhaps 
the  most  learned  doctor  of  his  time — practically  to  deny  their  effi 
cacy;  they  should  rather,  he  says,  be  termed  keys  of  hell  than  of 
heaven,  for  they  betray  souls  to  eternal  death,  and  the  text  in  Matthew 
ought  to  read,  "  Whatsoever  you  shall  bind  upon  earth  shall  be  loosed 
in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  you  shall  loose  upon  earth  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven,"  while  priests  are  rather  vicars  of  Simon  Magus  than  of 
Simon  Peter.1 

The  fact  that  the  plural  word  "keys"  is  used  suggested  a  method 
of  partially  eluding  these  objections,  at  least  in  theory.  Already  in 
the  ninth  century  Rabanus  Maurus  had  said  that  Christ  designated 
as  keys  of  heaven  the  power  and  the  knowledge  of  discerning  be 
tween  those  fit  and  unfit  for  heaven.2  Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  to  whom 
the  keys  were  a  more  concrete  conception,  calls  them  respectively 


14. — I  shall  frequently  have  occasion  to  quote  this  work  which  appeared  in 
1702  and  was  dedicated  to  Clement  XI.  For  more  than  forty  years  the  author 
had  been  examiner  of  applicants  for  license  to  hear  confessions  in  the  diocese 
of  Padua  and  thus  had  ample  opportunity  to  test  his  learning  by  the  exigencies 
of  practice.  His  voluminous  writings  are  now  well-nigh  forgotten. 

1  Alani  de  Insulis  Sententt.  cap.  27. — "Sed  jam  istae  claves  mutatse  sunt  in 
adulterinas,  quia  non  jam  Dei  intuitu  et  rationis  ductu  ligant  aut  solvunt  sed 
amore  pecunise  non  ligandos  ligant,  ut  de  eis  posset  dici :  Quodcumque  ligaveris 
super  terram  erit  solutum  in  ccelis  et  quodcumque  solveris  super  terram  erit 
ligatum  in  ccelis.    Et  isti  clavigeri  sunt  non  a  clave  sed  a  clava :  claves  mutant 
in  clavas,  quia  non  eis  viam  aperiunt  sed  potius  seducendo  ad  mortem  seternam 
percutiunt.   Isti  potius  videntur  habere  claves  infernorum  quam  regni  ccelorum. 
Isti  miseri  non  sunt  vicarii  Simonis  Petri  sed  Simonis  Magi." 

2  Eabani  Mauri  Comment,  in  Matt.  Lib.  v.  cap.  xvi. 

I.— 11 


162  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

discrimination  and  power.1  Gratian,  in  his  incidental  reference  to 
the  keys,  alludes  to  one  as  giving  the  power  to  eject  from  or  retain 
in  the  Church,  and  to  the  other  as  conveying  the  knowledge  to  decide 
between  leprosy  and  leprosy.2  This  evidently  had  become  a  current 
idea  and  Peter  Lombard  adopted  it,  but  in  a  manner  highly  deroga 
tory  to  the  claims  of  sacerdotalism  and  of  apostolical  transmission. 
Deploring  the  unfitness,  both  as  to  learning  and  morals,  of  so  many 
of  those  who  obtained  orders,  he  says  that  011  them  the  key  of  knowl 
edge  is  not  bestowed ;  only  those  who  are  properly  trained  receive  it. 
There  are  some  authorities,  he  adds,  who  hold  that  only  worthy  suc 
cessors  of  St.  Peter  receive  the  keys,  but  he  is  obliged  to  assume  that 
all  priests  receive  the  key  of  power,  however  ignorantly  and  un 
worthily  they  may  use  it.3  The  belief  that  only  the  fit  representa 
tives  of  St.  Peter  receive  the  keys  was  not  ephemeral,  for  towards 
the  close  of  the  twelfth  century  we  find  it  still  enunciated  by  Master 
Bandinus.4  Peter  of  Poitiers  tells  us  that  the  ignorance  of  a  majority 
of  priests  precludes  them  from  receiving  the  key  of  knowledge,  but 
the  question  as  to  their  use  of  it,  he  confesses,  is  too  intricate  for 
him  to  decide.5 

This  theory  of  the  key  of  knowledge  continued  to  be  generally 
taught,  but  it  was  not  as  a  rule  pretended  that  knowledge  is  divinely 
conferred  in  ordination.  If  an  ignorant  man  took  orders  he  re 
mained  ignorant,  and  the  general  admission  was  that  as  he  used  the 
key  of  power  ignorantly  his  judgments  were  of  no  weight  for  they 
were  as  likely  to  be  unjust  as  just,6  nor  did  the  learned  doctors,  who 
made  this  concession  to  the  evidence  of  their  everyday  experience, 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  Summae  Sentt.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  14. 

2  Gratian.  P.  I.  Dist.  xx.  initio. 

3  P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xix.  \\  1,  2,  3. 

4  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xix. 

5  Pet.  Pictav.  Sentt.  Lib.  in.  cap.  16. 

6  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  Ligandi  cap.  13.— Adami  de  Persennia 
Epist.  xxi. — Alani  de  Insulis  Sententt.  cap.  27. — Bonaventurse  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xvin.  P.  1,  art.  3,  Q.  1.— Astesani  Summse  Lib.  V.  Tit.  xxxi.  Q.  2. 

The  utterances  of  a  few  of  the  schoolmen  on  the  subject  will  show  how 
diverse  were  the  conclusions  respecting  it. 

Alexander  Hales  (Summae  P.  IV.  Q.  xx.  Membr.  iii.  art.  1 ;  Membr.  vi.  art. 
3)  says — "  Et  intelligendum  quod  multi  habent  clavem  qui  non  habent  beati- 
tudinem  clavis,  et  ita  multi  habent  claves  qui  possunt  errare." 

Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  (Aureae  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Remissionibus  §  1) — 


THE  KEY  OF  KNOWLEDGE.  163 

pause  to  think  what  an  extraordinary  scheme  of  salvation  they  were 
attributing  to  God  in  their  efforts  to  reconcile  the  claims  of  the 
Church  to  common-sense.  This  definition  of  the  two  keys  continued 
to  be  received,  though  after  the  Reformation  theologians  were  more 
reticent  in  their  admissions  and  taught  that  the  ignorant  receive  the 
key  of  knowledge  though  they  remain  ignorant.1  Yet  all  agree 
that  the  keys  may  err,  in  which  case  they  are  powerless — a  fatal 
admission  for  a  system  based  upon  a  supernatural  power  specially 
granted  by  God  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.2  The  phrases  clave 


"Sed  sive  dicas  unam  clavem  vel  duas  haec  est  rei  veritas  quod  quicquid  ligatum 
est  in  terris  a  sacerdotibus  ligatum  est  et  in  coelis,  subaude  tu,  clave  non 
err  ante." 

William  of  Ware  (Super  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvni.).  "  Unde  potest  esse  aucto- 
ritas  cognoscendi  sine  scientia." 

Pietro  d'Aquila  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvni.  Q.  1)  denies  that  there  is  a  key  of 
knowledge ;  the  two  keys  are  one  of  discerning  and  the  other  of  deciding,  "  ita 
potestas  cognoscendi  non  est  scientia,  imo  est  sine  scientia,  sicut  de  facto  in 
multis  hodie  est  sacerdotibus." 

St.  Antonino  of  Florence  is  more  cautious  (Summae  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  16) — 
"  Scientia  autem  acquisita  non  est  clavis  sed  juvat  bene  uti  clavi." 

Gabriel  Biel  carries  out  the  definition  of  Pietro  d'Aquila  and  dispenses  with 
knowledge  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xx.  Q.  l,art  ii.  concl.  3) — "  Clavis  scientiae  non 
est  habitus  scientiae  neque  scientia  actualis,  sed  autoritas  discernendi  inter 
dignum  et  indignum  in  foro  prenitentise  quse  esse  potest  in  idiota,  et  ea  carere 
potest  eruditissimus." 

Dante  adopts  the  theory  of  the  two  keys  and  has  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
when  they  err  they  fail  in  their  effect : 

"  L'un  era  de  oro  e  1'altra  era  de  argento     .     .     . 
Quandunque  1'una  d'este  chiavi  falla, 
Che  non  si  volga  dritta  per  la  toppa, 
Diss'  egll  a  noi,  non  s'apre  questa  calla. 
Piu  cara  e  1'una,  ma  1'altra  vuol  troppa 
D'arte  e  d'ingegno,  avanti  che  disserri, 
Perch'  egli  e  quella  che  '1  nodo  disgroppa."— Purgatorio,  xx. 

1  Joh.  Eckii  Enchirid.  Locor.  commun.  cap.  viii.  De  Confessione. — Dom. 
Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvni.  Q.  1,  art.  1.— Estii  in  IV.  Sent.  Dist.  xvni.  §  1. 
"  Est  igitur  utraque  clavis  tarn  scientiae  quam  potestatis  penes  sacerdotes,  non 
tantum  doctos  et  bonos,  verumetiam  penes  indoctos  et  malos  "  (Ibid.  Dist. 
xix.  g  1). 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xx.  Membr.  vii.  art.  1. — Hostiens.  Aureae 
Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Eemiss.  §  1.— Joh.  Gersonis  de  Reform.  Eccles.  cap.  28.— 
Weigel  Clavic.  Indulgentialis  cap.  7.— Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvni. 
Q.  ii.  art.  5.— Estii  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  3  1. 


164  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

errante  and  clave  non  errante  are  a  confession  that  the  whole  fabric 
of  the  power  of  the  keys  rests  upon  a  delusion. 

Some  of  the  schoolmen  were  shrewd  enough  to  see  the  destructive 
character  of  admissions  such  as  these  and  that  the  supernatural  gift 
of  the  keys  must  be  supplemented  with  a  supernatural  gift  of 
wisdom.  Thus  William  of  Paris  piously  asserts  that,  in  the  case  of 
ignorant  and  inexperienced  confessors,  God  inspires  them  with  most 
wholesome  counsel  as  to  the  penance  which  they  are  to  impose.1 
We  have  seen  that  Aquinas  assents  to  this  theory  of  inspiration, 
though  when  he  treats  of  the  key  of  knowledge  he  loses  himself  in 
contradictory  speculations  which  he  reports  without  affirming.2  Du- 
rand  de  S.  Pour^ain  cuts  the  knot  resolutely ;  the  priest  ought  to 
have  knowledge,  but  its  absence  does  not  invalidate  his  power.3 
Thomas  of  Walden  can  only  meet  the  scoffing  Lollards  by  exhort 
ing  the  priest  not  to  be  disturbed  and  the  penitent  not  to  doubt  the 
validity  of  the  sacrament  but  to  have  faith  and  trust  in  Christ  who 
will  supply  all  defects  and  not  allow  the  keys  to  err.4  This  is  vir 
tually  a  return  to  the  theory  of  inspiration,  in  which  Cardinal 
Caietano  concurs  when  he  asserts  that  the  confessor  is  without  doubt 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  binding  or  loosing.5  However  neces 
sary  such  an  assumption  must  be  to  complete  the  theory  of  the 
power  of  the  keys,  in  practice  it  is  recognized  as  illusory.  Accord 
ing  to  Escobar  it  is  the  general  opinion  that  inability  to  distinguish 
between  mortal  and  venial  sins  renders  the  priest  incapable  of  con 
ferring  absolution,6  and  the  distinction  between  these  classes  of  sins 
is  so  tenuous  that,  as  we  shall  see,  the  wisest  doctors  are  frequently 


1  Guillel.  Paris,  de  Sacr.  Pcenitent.  cap.  20. 

*  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  Supplement.  Q.  xvu.  art.  3. 

3  Durand.  de  S.  Port,  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  1. 

4  Th.  Waldens.  De  Sacramentis  cap.  CL.  n.  1. 
6  Caietani  Tract,  xvm.  De  Confessione  Q.  5. 

6  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vil.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  36.  Authorities  are, 
however,  as  usual  divided  on  this  point.  Chiericato  (De  Poenitent.  Decis.  xxxi. 
n.  16,  17)  says  the  truer  opinion  is  that  the  bona  fides  of  the  penitent  supplies 
all  such  defects  if  the  confessor  knows  enough  to  repeat  the  formula  of  absolu 
tion,  which  reduces  the  priestly  function  to  that  of  a  conjuror.  When  he  cannot 
even  do  this  the  sacrament  of  course  is  void.  Marchant  (Trib.  Anirnar.  Tom. 
I.  Tract,  n.  Tit.  5,  Q.  3,  Dub.  8)  holds  that  the  absolution  of  an  ignorant  con 
fessor  is  valid,  but  it  does  not  release  from  obligations  which  he  may  have 
neglected  to  prescribe. 


VALIDITY  OF  ABSOLUTION.  165 

at  odds  over  it.  This  throws  an  unpleasant  shade  of  doubt  over 
almost  all  absolutions,  for  the  penitents  are  few  who  are  fitted  to 
gauge  the  learning  of  their  confessors  and  consequently  the  remedy 
prescribed  by  St.  Alphonso  Liguori  against  such  invalid  absolution 
is  for  the  most  part  inapplicable — that  is  to  seek  a  more  competent 
spiritual  judge.1  As  a  remedy,  confessors  are  sometimes  recom 
mended,  before  hearing  a  confession,  to  utter  a  fervent  prayer,  in 
view  of  the  great  danger  which  exists  of  their  making  mistakes  in 
granting  absolution  where  it  ought  to  be  refused  and  refusing  it 
where  it  ought  to  be  granted.2 

There  are  other  causes  besides  ignorance  which  throw  a  doubt 
over  the  validity  of  the  sentence  pronounced  in  the  confessional. 
The  priest  may  not  understand  the  confession  through  ignorance  of 
the  language  of  the  penitent,  or  through  deafness  or  drowsiness  or 
inattention,  and  yet  he  may  grant  absolution.  Whether  this  is  valid 
or  not  is  a  question  on  which  the  doctors  have  differed.  Some  hold 
the  negative,  but  St.  Antonino,  followed  by  Busenbaum  and  most 
of  the  moderns,  considers  it  more  probable  that  if  the  penitent  is 
not  aware  of  the  confessor's  condition  the  absolution  is  good  before 
God,  and  the  confession  need  not  be  repeated ;  if,  however,  he  finds 
that  some  of  his  sins  have  not  been  understood  he  must  repeat 
them,3  though,  oddly  enough,  we  are  told  that  this  need  not  be  done 
if  it  causes  sufficient  inconvenience  to  render  confession  odious.4 
Another  view  is  that  if  the  priest  hears  nothing  the  absolution  is 
invalid,  but  if  he  happens  to  catch  a  single  venial  sin  it  is  good  and 
covers  all  that  have  been  confessed5 — all  of  which  shows  how  little 


1  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  568.     "  Si  autem  ignorantia 
esset  tanta  ut  confessio  illi  facta  foret  invalida  aut  illicita  neque  esset  alius 
privilegiatus  aut  habens  jurisdictionem,  licere  alter!  confiteri  decent  Nav. 
Vasq.  etc." 

2  Synod.  Sutchuens.  ann.  1803  cap.  vi.  \  7  (Collect.  Concil.  Lacens.  Tom.  VI. 
p.  608). 

3  S.  Antonini  Suminae  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  15;  cap.  21,  §  3. — Summa  Diana 
s.  v.  Confessarius  n.  26. — Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7, 
n.  36.— Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  9,  n.  5.— Gobat  Alphab. 
Confessar.  n.  489-92.— Busenbaum  Medullse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  Tract,  iv. 
cap.  1,  Dub.  3,  art.  4. — Mig.  Sanchez,  Prontuario  de  la  Teologia  Moral.  Trat.  vi. 
Punto  5  §  8.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  499. 

*  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1210. 

5  Piselli  Theol.  Moral.  Summae  P.  n.  Tract.  5  cap.  4  (Romse,  1748). 


166  THE  POWER  OF  THE  KEYS. 

importance  is  really  attached  to  the  function  of  the  confessor  as  a 
judge.  There  is  also  a  source  of  error  when  a  priest  exceeds  his 
jurisdiction  and  grants  absolution  in  cases  reserved  to  the  bishop,  or 
wrongfully  absolves  the  subject  of  another  priest — complex  questions 
which  will  be  considered  more  fully  hereafter.1 

It  shows  how  slender  is  the  value  really  attributed  to  the  power 
of  the  keys  by  modern  theologians  that  when  an  absolution  is  in 
valid  through  mistakes  committed  by  the  priest  he  is  told,  on  the 
unimpeachable  authority  of  St.  Alphonso  Liguori,  that  he  must  seek 
to  induce  the  penitent  to  confess  again,  but  if  he  cannot  do  this 
without  scandal  or  loss  of  reputation  or  other  injury  to  himself,  he 
can  let  it  pass.2  A  similar  conclusion  is  deducible  from  the  advice 
of  the  moralists  in  the  case,  by  no  means  very  infrequent,  when  the 
priest  through  forgetfulness  omits  to  utter  the  formula  of  absolution. 
There  has  been  considerable  speculation  as  to  how  the  error  should 
be  repaired.  Absolution  has  to  be  granted  in  the  presence  of  the 
penitent,  though  the  exact  distance  at  which  it  is  effective  has  never 
been  positively  determined.  If  the  priest,  after  remembering  the 
omission,  meets  the  penitent  he  can  absolve  him,  provided  the  latter 
has  not  meanwhile  committed  a  mortal  sin  :  to  require  him  to  con 
fess  this  and  render  himself  capable  of  absolution  would  be  apt  to 
lead  to  scandal,  and  if  there  is  danger  of  this  the  pious  advice  of  the 
doctors  is  to  leave  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  God.3 

Thus  through  successive  steps  and  under  varying  conditions  the 
power  of  the  keys  gradually  established  itself  and  the  Church 
acquired  the  awful  and  mysterious  power  of  regulating  the  salvation 


1  Clericati  De  Pcenitent.  Decis.  xix.  n.  34.     His  definition  of  sources  of 
error  and  his  claims  of  infallibility  are   characteristic — "Utrum  autem  hi 
effectus  clavium  sint  infallibiles  ?     Eespondetur  affirmative  dummodo  clavis 
scientise  non  erret  circa  species  aut  circumstantias  mutantes  illas ;  vel  clavis 
potentise  pariter  non  erret  in  absolvendo  a  peccatis   reservatis  super  quibus 
sacerdos  non  habeat  jurisdictionem.     In  his  duobus  casibus  cessarent  praedicti 
effectus  quia  judicium  esset  invalidum  et  sacramentum  nullum.     At  ubi  valid- 
itas  sacramenti  et  absolutionis  est  salva  praedicti  effectus  sunt  infallibiles,  etsi 
sacerdos  in  aliquo  peccaret  circa  clavem  scientise  vel  potentise,  imponendo 
scilicet  vel  majorem  vel  minorem  poenitentiam,  vel  non  interrogando  exacte 
omnes  circumstantias." 

2  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  618. 

3  Gobat  Alphabetum  Cohfessarioruni  n.  283-90. 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  PRIEST.  167 

or  perdition  of  her  children.  Theologians  may  among  themselves 
admit  that  the  keys  can  err  and  that  the  judgments  passed  on  earth 
may  not  be  ratified  in  heaven,  but  the  plain  people  are  taught  that 
the  priest  holds  their  eternal  destiny  in  his  hands  and  that  to  them 
he  is  virtually  God,  for  he  has  the  power  to  convert  guilt  into 


innocence.1 


1  "  So  great  is  the  power  of  the  priest  that  the  judgments  of  heaven  itself 
are  subject  to  his  decision.  '  This  man/  says  God,  speaking  to  the 

priest,  '  this  man  is  a  sinner ;  he  has  offended  me  grievously ;  I  could  judge 
him  myself  but  I  leave  this  judgment  to  your  decision.  I  shall  forgive  him 
as  soon  as  you  grant  him  forgiveness.  He  is  my  enemy,  but  I  shall  admit  him 
to  my  friendship  as  soon  as  you  declare  him  worthy.  I  shall  open  the  gates 
of  heaven  to  him  as  soon  as  you  free  him  from  the  chains  of  sin  and  hell.' 
'  Yea,  Lord,'  the  priest  can  answer,  '  when  I  forgive  him  my  arm  is  strong  like 
thine,  for  I  break  the  chains  of  sin.  My  voice  thunders  like  thine  for  it  bursts 
the  fetters  of  hell ;  my  voice  changes  thine  enemy  into  thy  friend ;  it  trans 
forms  the  slave  of  hell  into  an  heir  of  heaven.'  The  power  of  forgiving  sins 
surpasses  that  of  any  created  being  either  in  heaven  or  on  earth.  An  earthly 
judge  has  great  power,  yet  he  can  only  declare  one  innocent  who  has  been 
falsely  accused ;  but  the  Catholic  priest  has  power  to  restore  to  innocence  even 
those  who  are  guilty." — Miiller's  Catholic  Priesthood,  I.  48,  50  (New  York, 
1885.) 

As  this  work  bears  the  imprimatur  of  Cardinal  McCloskey  and  of  the  Re- 
demptorist  General  Mauron,  I  presume  that  it  correctly  represents  the  current 
teaching  of  the  Church. 

In  this  Father  Miiller  only  amplifies  the  assertion  of  Peter  of  Palermo  in 
the  fourteenth  century  who  says  that  in  conferring  absolution  the  ordinary 
priest  is  superior  to  the  angels  and  even  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  for  they  cannot 
do  what  he  does. — Pet.  Hieremise  Quadragesimale,  Serm.  xx. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

CONFESSION. 

DURING  the  middle  ages  it  was  a  point  debated  between  theolo 
gians  whether  sacramental  confession  is  a  divine  law  or  merely  a 
precept  of  the  Church.    To  the  earlier  schoolmen,  indeed,  like  Hugh 
of  St.  Victor  and  Peter  Lombard,  the  idea  of  its  being  a  divine  law 
seems  to  have  been  unknown,  and  they  only  advance  human  reasons 
in  its  favor.1     S.  Eamon  de  Pefiafort  apparently  desires  to  imply  a 
divine  origin  when  he  says  that  confession,  like  contrition  and  satis 
faction,  are  all  comprised  in  the  command  of  Christ  "  Do  penance  " 
(Matt.  iv.  17).2     Alexander  Hales  explains  the  absence  of  divine 
command  by  God's  desiring  confession  to  be  voluntary  and  not  ex 
torted,  and  he  expounds  a  passage  of  St.  Ambrose  by  the  fact  that 
confession  had  not  been  as  yet  instituted  by  Christ.3     Bonaventura 
follows  him  in  saying  that  Christ  only  suggested  it  and  left  it  to 
be  instituted  by  the  apostles.4      The  Gloss  on  the  Decretum  con 
cludes  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Law,  but 
is  a  tradition  of  the  Church,  binding  on  the  Latins  but  not  on  the 
Greeks,  for  at  this  time  there  was  a  current  belief  that  confession 
was  not  practised  in  the  Eastern  Church.5     Apparently  Aquinas  was 
the  first  who  boldly  declared  confession  to  be  of  divine  law;  as  he 
has  no  gospel  text  to  quote  he  argues  that  it  cannot  be  of  human  law 
because  it  is  a  matter  of  faith ;  faith  and  the  sacraments  are  beyond 
human  reason  and  therefore  they  must  be  of  divine  law,6  which  is 

1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  n.  P.  xiv.  cap.  1.— P.  Lombard. 
Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xvii.  \  6. 

2  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  §  4  De  Confess,  ii. 

3  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xvm.  Membr.  iii.  Art.  2 ;  Membr.  ii.  Art.  1. 

4  S.  Bonavent.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  P.  ii.  Art   1,  Q.  3. 

5  Gloss,  sup.  Deer.  Caus.  xxxin.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  5.— As  this  gloss  was  in  uni 
versal  use,  Durand  de  S.  Pourgain  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  viii.  £  9)  is 
much  scandalized  by  the  perilous  errors  contained  in  this  passage— "et  mirum 
est  quod  in  tarn  solenni  libro  ecclesia  sustinuit  et  adhuc  sustinet  tarn  perni- 
ciosam  glosam." 

*  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  Supplem.  Q.  vi.  Art.  2.  Cf.  Art.  6. 


DEBATE  ON  ITS  ORIGIN.  169 

virtually  to  assume  that,  as  we  cannot  understand  it,  it  must  be  of 
divine  command  though  no  such  divine  command  is  recorded.  The 
authority,  if  not  the  reasoning,  of  Aquinas  gave  a  standing  in  the 
schools  to  this  view  and  we  find  it  accepted  by  many  succeeding 
writers.1  The  Scotists  reached  the  same  conclusion  by  a  somewhat 
different  line  of  argument :  the  Church,  they  said,  would  not  have 
imposed  so  heavy  a  burden  on  her  children  except  by  divine  com 
mand  and  that  as  there  is  no  trace  of  any  canon  prescribing  it,  prior 
to  the  Lateran  council  of  1216,  it  could  not  have  been  a  mere  human 
precept.2  Chancellor  Gerson  makes  no  pretence  that  it  is  of  divine 
origin  save  that  the  Decalogue  commands  us  to  honor  our  parents 
and  as  Mother  Church  has  commanded  it  we  must  honor  her  by 
obedience.3  Thomas  of  "Walden  can  answer  Wickliffe  only  by  say 
ing  that  everything  which  Christ  said  and  did  is  not  recorded  in 
Scripture.4  Cherubino  da  Spoleto  speaks  of  it  as  not  absolutely 
of  divine  or  natural  law  although  it  was  impliedly  commanded  by 
Christ.5  There  was  thus  ample  latitude  of  opinion,  and  on  the  eve 
of  the  Reformation  Baptista  de  Saulis  and  Prierias  both  inform  us 


1  Job.  Friburgens.  Summae  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  31. — Astesani 
Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  x.  Art.  2,  Q.  1.— Guill.  Vorillong  super  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
xvii.— Durand.  de  S.  Port,  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  viii.  \\  9,  11,  12. 

Astesanus  (loc.  cit.  Q.  2)  points  out  that  tbe  divine  origin  of  confession  ren 
ders  it  obligatory  on  all  mankind,  tbe  infidel  and  the  unbaptized  as  well  as  the 
faithful,  which  would  not  be  the  case  if  it  were  merely  a  precept  of  the  Church. 
Cf.  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  \  2.  This  point  seems  to  have  originated 
with  Eichard  Middleton  (Kob.  Episc.  Aquinat.  Opus  Quadragesimale  Serin, 
xxvu.  cap.  3). 

2  Job.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  unic.— Pet.  de  Aquila  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xvii.  Q.  ii.— Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  \  1.— Gab.  Biel  in  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  1,  Art.  1. — Domingo  Soto  repeats  this  argument  and 
claims  it  as  novel  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvni.  Q.  1,  Art.  1). 

I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  quote  the  Summa  Angelica,  of  which  the 
enduring  authority  throughout  the  sixteenth  century  is  shown  by  editions  of 
Chivasso  in  1486 ;  Speyer,  1488;  Niirnberg,  1488  and  1492;  Strassburg,  1495, 
1498,  and  1513;  Lyons,  1534;  Venice,  1487,  1489,  1492,  1495,  1499,  1504, 
1511,  1569,  1577,  1578  and  1593,  and  probably  numerous  others.  The  author, 
Angiolo  da  Chivasso  was  Cismontane  Vicar-general  of  the  Observantines,  who 
died  in  1485  with  the  highest  reputation  for  piety  and  learning  (Eodulphii  Hist. 
Seraph.  Kelig.  p.  307). 

3  Job.  Gersonis  Compend.  Theologise  (Ed.  1488,  xxvii.  F.). 

4  Thomas  Waldens.  de  Sacramentis  cap.  CXLVIII. 

5  Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Sermones  Quadragesimales  Serm.  LXII. 


170  CONFESSION. 

that  the  canonists  hold  that  confession  is  of  human  precept,  while 
the  theologians  declare  it  to  be  of  divine  law;1  but  when  Pedro  de 
Osma  taught  the  former  doctrine  at  Salamanca  it  was  condemned  as 
an  error  by  the  council  of  Alcala  in  1479  and  Sixtus  IV.  confirmed 
the  decree.2  In  the  Lutheran  controversy,  Caietano  speaks  of  it  only 
as  a  precept,  while  Dr.  Eck  argues  that  it  is  of  divine  origin  because 
the  practice  of  the  Church  is  the  best  interpreter  of  Scripture.  Cate- 
rino  reverts  to  the  view  of  St.  Ramon  de  Penafort,  escaping  the 
necessity  of  proof  by  treating  confession  as  inseparable  from  repent 
ance  which  was  commanded  by  Christ,  while  Fisher  of  Rochester 
argues  that  much  was  handed  down  orally  by  Christ  and  the  Apos 
tles  and  not  committed  to  writing.3  From  all  this  it  is  evident  that 
Erasmus  was  not  especially  culpable  in  assuming  that  confession  is 
a  human  institution,  and  his  doing  so  did  not  detract  from  his  repu 
tation  until  after  the  appearance  of  Luther,  when  the  altered  position 
of  the  Church  is  seen  by  the  inclusion  of  this  in  the  list  of  his  heresies 
drawn  up  for  the  Spanish  Inquisition  by  Dr.  Edward  Lee,  subse 
quently  Archbishop  of  York.4  Domingo  Soto  is  much  scandalized 
that  such  doctors  as  Hales,  Bonaventura  and  Duns  Scotus  should 
admit  that  confession  was  not  prescribed  by  Christ,  for  if  this  is 
granted  the  orthodox  would  have  nothing  wherewith  to  confute  the 
heretics.5  The  continued  assaults  of  the  latter  compelled  the  Church 
to  take  the  most  advanced  position,  and  it  was  perhaps  necessary  for 
the  council  of  Trent  to  declare  that  sacramental  confession  is  of 
divine  law  and  to  anathematize  all  who  should  deny  the  assertion.6 
As  this  belief  is  thus  de  fide,  discussion  on  the  subject  has  of  course 
ceased  within  the  Church,  for  the  Tridentine  canon  has  removed  all 


1  Summa  Rosella  s.  v.  Confessio  n. — Summa  Sylvestrinas.  v.  Confessio  Sacram. 
II.  §  4.     Baptista  de  Saulis,  the  author  of  the  Sitmma  Rosella,  is  also  known  as 
"de  Sails  "  and  "  Tornamala." 

2  Alfonsi  de  Castro  adv.  Hsereses  Lib.  iv.  s.  v.  Confessio. 

3  Caietani  Tract,  xvm.  De  Confessione  Q.  1.— Jo.  Eckii   Enchirid.  cap. 
vin.  De  Confessione. — Ambr.  Catherini  Apologia  pro  veritate  Lib.  I.  (Florent. 
1520,  fol.  78). — Jo.  Roffensis  Assertionis  Lutherans  Confutatio,  Art.  5. 

4  Erasmi    Colloq.   Confabulatio   Pia.  —  Menendez  y   Pelayo,   Heterodoxos 
Espanoles,  II.  90. 

5  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  1,  Art.  1. 

6  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  can.  6. — "  Si  quis  negaverit  confessionem 
sacramentalem  vel  institutam  vel  ad  salutem  necessariam  esse  jure  divino  .  .  . 
anathema  sit." 


ABSENCE  OF  EVIDENCE.  171 

cause  for  doubt,  being  the  infallible  assertion  of  an  oecumenical  coun 
cil  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See.1  Yet  still  there  were  the  unbelieving 
heretics  to  answer  and  this  has  forced  on  modern  theologians  the 
somewhat  onerous  task  of  proving  from  history  that  the  council  of 
Trent  is  right  and  that  so  many  of  the  brightest  lights  of  the  medieval 
Church  taught  heresy. 

To  accomplish  this  every  shred  of  patristic  literature  has  been 
searched  with  the  result  of  finding  a  few  scattered  and  irrelevant 
passages  which  at  best  are  but  indirect  allusions  or  exhortations. 
This  is  in  itself  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fruitlessness  of  the  effort. 
So  infinitely  important  a  priestly  function,  in  a  population  so  cor 
rupt  as  that  of  the  Empire,  would  necessarily  have  formed  the  sub 
ject  of  detailed  treatises  for  both  penitents  and  confessors.  The 
Apostolic  Constitutions  embody  the  customs  of  the  Church  towards 
the  end  of  the  third  century,  but  they  are  silent  as  to  this.  A  hun 
dred  years  later  St.  Augustin,  with  untiring  industry,  covered  the 
whole  ground  of  Christian  ethics  and  duties,  but  he  gives  no  counsel 
to  confessors  how  to  perform  their  most  delicate  and  responsible 
functions.  The  councils,  in  a  fragmentary  manner,  prescribe  pen 
ances  for  the  grosser  sins,  but  they  lay  down  no  commands  as  to 
confession.  A  few  more  or  less  imperfect  codes  of  penance  were 
drawn  up  by  individuals,  like  the  Gregories  and  Basil,  but  they  con 
tain  nothing  about  confession  save  a  bribe  for  it  in  a  diminution  of 
penalties.  No  formulas  have  reached  us  as  to  the  treatment  of  peni 
tents  by  confessors.  It  is  not  till  about  the  seventh  century  that  the 
Penitentials  begin  to  afford  indications  of  the  kind  and  these  are  of 
a  nature  to  show  how  rare  as  yet  was  confession.  It  would  be  idle 
to  argue  that  such  a  literature  existed  and  has  utterly  perished.  The 
proof  by  tradition  is  as  vague  as  that  by  Scripture — wholly  an  infer 
ence  to  justify  a  foregone  conclusion. 

To  estimate  the  full  force  of  this  negative  evidence  it  is  only  neces 
sary  to  compare  the  silence  of  the  early  centuries  with  the  clamor 
which  arose  as  soon  as  confession  was  made  habitual  by  the  Lateran 
council  in  1216.  Scarce  a  local  synod  was  held  for  a  century  which 
did  not  allude  in  some  manner  to  the  new  functions  thus  thrust  upon 

1  Qui  quidem  canon  tollit  omnem  dubitandi  ansam,  quia  reddit  hanc  veri- 
tatem  infallibilem,  cum  emanaverit  in  concilio  oecumenico  confirmato  a  Summo 
Pontifice,  ut  bene  decent  Fagnanus  etc."  —  Clericati  de  Poenitent.  Decis. 
xvn.  n.  1. 


172  CONFESSION. 

the  parish  priests.  Everywhere  we  see  the  Church  organizing  the 
new  system,  enforcing  it,  devising  methods  to  render  it  effective  and 
to  curb  the  abuses  that  followed  in  its  wake.  Bishop  after  bishop 
issued  instructions  to  guide  their  priests  in  their  unaccustomed  duties 
— instructions  which  presuppose  the  densest  pre-existing  ignorance. 
Systematic  writers  speedily  took  up  the  subject  and  compiled  huge 
volumes  of  the  complicated  details  which  it  involved,  and  from  that 
time  to  this  there  has  been  devoted  to  it  an  increasing  mass  of  litera 
ture  which  has  swollen  to  vast  proportions.  It  cannot  be  imagined 
that  men  like  the  Christian  Fathers  could  have  been  blind  to  what 
has  been  so  clearly  seen  since  the  thirteenth  century,  that  the  duties 
of  the  conscientious  confessor  are  the  most  arduous  and  exacting,  the 
most  intricate  and  complex,  that  can  be  imposed  on  the  fallibility  of 
human  nature,  and  that,  seeing  this,  should  not  have  left  on  record 
some  expression  of  their  own  experiences  for  the  benefit  of  their  less 
gifted  brethren.  Nor  would  there  have  been  left  open  the  number 
less  questions  which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  required  for  their 
settlement  the  discussion  of  the  acutest  intellects  of  medieval  and 
modern  times  during  six  centuries — questions  the  very  existence  of 
which  demonstrate  that  the  whole  theory  and  practice  of  the  confes 
sional  required  to  be  worked  out  after  it  had  been  rendered  obligatory 
in  1216.  Yet  the  custom  had  an  origin,  and  it  is  our  business  to  trace 
its  development  from  its  inconspicuous  beginnings  to  the  growth 
which  has  overshadowed  the  whole  of  Latin  Christianity. 

There  is  scriptural  warrant  for  the  confession  of  our  sins  in  various 
texts  duly  cited  by  the  theologians.1     There  is  also  the  direct  com- 


1  The  texts  generally  relied  upon  are — 

"  When  a  man  or  woman  shall  have  committed  any  of  the  sins  that  men  are 
wont  to  commit  .  .  .  they  shall  confess  their  sin  and  restore  the  principal 
itself  and  the  fifth  part  over  and  above." — Numbers,  v.  6,  7.  See  also  Eccles. 
IV.  31 :  Proverbs,  xxvui.  13. 

"  And  were  baptized  of  him  in  the  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  Matt, 
in.  6. 

"And  many  of  them  that  believed  came  confessing  and  declaring  their 
deeds."  Acts,  xix.  18. 

"If  we  confess  our  sins  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins  and  to 
cleanse  us  from  all  iniquity."  I.  John,  i.  9. 

Less  to  the  point  is  "  Go,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest "  (Luke,  v.  14 ;  xvn.  14) 
of  which  the  exegesis  is  very  like  that  of  the  Raising  of  Lazarus. 

For  an  abstract  of  the  various  futile  and  contradictory  efforts  of  the  theolo- 


THE  PRECEPT  OF  ST.  JAMES.  173 

mand  of  St.  James  in  his  Catholic  epistle,  of  which  the  theologians 
are  somewhat  chary.1  Evidently  among  the  primitive  Christians  the 
practice  of  acknowledging  sins  was  regarded  as  a  wholesome  exercise, 
contributory  to  their  pardon  and  leading  to  self-restraint.  The  term 


gians  to  find  scriptural  warrant  for  auricular  confession  see  Tournely,  De 
Sacramento  Pcenitent.  Q.  VI.  Art.  ii.  Guillois  (History  of  Confession,  translated 
by  Bishop  Goesbriand,  p.  12)  furnishes  an  accessible  compilation  of  all  that 
can  be  gathered  to  support  the  orthodox  view,  commencing  with  the  answers 
of  Adam  and  Eve  to  the  questions  of  God. 

1  "  Confess  therefore  your  sins  one  to  another  and  pray  one  for  another." — 
James,  v.  16. 

The  difficulty  about  this  text  is  its  precept  for  mutual  confession— alterutrum, 
in  the  Vulgate  and  a/U^Ao^  in  the  original.  It  was  freely  cited  before  confes 
sion  became  sacramental  and  confined  to  the  priesthood,  but  subsequently  it 
was  handled  discreetly.  Hugh  of  St.  Victor  (Summse  Sentt.  Tract,  n.  cap.  xi.) 
relies  wholly  upon  it,  and  Peter  Lombard  (Sentt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  xvii.  §  4)  argues 
that  alterutrum  means  to  the  priest.  The  Gloss  on  the  Decretum  (Caus.  xxxni. 
Q.  iii.  Dist.  5.  Cf.  c.  3  Dist.  xxv.)  says  that  some  attribute  confession  to  it,  but 
it  is  preferable  to  rely  on  tradition.  As  usual,  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans 
divided  on  the  question.  It  is  true  that  Bonaventura  accepts  it  (In  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  P.  ii.  Art.  1,  Q.  3)  but  Duns  Scotus  shows  clearly  that 
James  had  not  sacramental  confession  in  view  and  is  forced  to  rely  on  Matt, 
xvi.  and  John  xx.  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  ii.  Q.  1)  in  which  he  is  virtually  fol 
lowed  by  Francois  de  Mairone  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  1),  by  Astesanus 
(Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  viii.  Art.  2,  Q.  1)  and  William  of  Ware  (In  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xvii.).  On  the  other  hand  Aquinas  and  his  followers  hold  with  Peter 
Lombard  that  alterutrum  means  to  the  priest  (S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xvii.  Art.  2;  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  vi.  Art.  6;  Q.  vni.  Art.  1. — Jacopo 
Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza  Dist.  v.  cap.  2. — S.  Antonini 
Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19).  A  tract  of  uncertain  date,  long  attributed  to 
St.  Bernard  relies  exclusively  upon  it  (Ps.  Bernardi  Meditatio  de  Humano 
Conditione,  cap.  9).  Some  of  the  theologians,  as  Angiolo  da  Chivasso  and 
Domingo  Soto  prudently  avoid  reference  to  it.  Palmieri  (Tract,  de  Poenit.  p. 
167)  in  one  passage  doubts  whether  the  confession  thus  commanded  was  sacra 
mental  ;  he  suggests  that  certain  persons  were  selected  to  hear  confessions  and 
that  these  must  have  been  priests ;  besides,  the  tradition  from  other  sources 
forbids  the  interpretation  of  mutual  confession.  Subsequently,  however  (p. 
389)  he  takes  heart  of  grace  and  argues  that  aMfaois  means  to  priests. 

Luther  did  not  fail  to  quote  the  text  in  support  of  his  system  of  lay  confes 
sion  (Steitz,  Die  Privatbeichte  etc.  der  Lutherischen  Kirche,  p.  62),  while  the 
ardent  Catholic  controversialist  Martin  van  der  Beek  (De  Sacramentis,  Tract, 
in.  P.  ii.  cap.  38,  Q.  1.  n.  5)  is  obliged  to  argue  that  if  the  confession  alluded 
to  is  sacramental,  then  alterutrum  means  to  priests ;  if  it  is  not  sacramental 
then  it  may  be  to  any  one. 


174  CONFESSION. 

exomologesis,  by  which  confession  is  designated  in  the  New  Testament, 
came  to  signify  in  time  the  whole  act  of  confession  to  God,  with 
prostration  and  humiliation,  whereby  repentance  was  excited  through 
Avhich  his  wrath  might  be  appeased.1 

In  the  primitive  Church  this  confession  to  God  was  the  only  form 
enjoined.     According  to  St.  Clement  of   Rome  the  Lord  requires 
nothing  of  any  man  save  confession  to  Him.2     The  Didache  shows 
us  that  this  confession  was  public,  in  church,  and  that  each  believer 
was  expected  to  confess  his  transgressions  on  Sunday,  before  breaking 
bread  in  the  Eucharistic  feast,  for  no  one  was  to  come  to  prayer  with 
an  evil  conscience3 — a  precept  Avhich  is  repeated  in  Barnabas,  evi 
dently  copied  from  the  Didache.4     This  practice  of  public  confession 
is  also  shown  in  the  instances  given  by  Irenseus  of  the  disciples  of 
Marcus  who  returned  to  the  Church.5     That  the  custom  was  not 
universal  is  presumable  from  the  fact  that  in  the  detailed  instructions 
given  by  Polycarp  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians  there  is  no  allu 
sion  to  confession,  nor  does  Dionysius  of  Corinth  enjoin  it  in  his 
advice  to  the  Amastrians  concerning  the  reception  of  sinners.6    Where 
it  was  in  use,  however,  nothing  else  was  regarded  as  necessary.     The 
Shepherd  of  Hernias  seems  to  know  only  of  confession  to  God,  which, 
with  repentance,  prayer  and  faith,  procures  pardon.7   Tertullian  shows 
us  that  in  the  African  Church  the  precepts  of  the  Didache  were  still 
observed ;  that  this  confession  to  God  was  performed  publicly,  the 
penitent  casting  himself  at  the  feet  of  the  priests  and  of  the  people 
and  begging  them  to  aid  him  with  their  prayers.     Tertullian  bids 

1  Tertull.  de  Poenit.  cap.  9.— « Is  actus  qui  magis  Graco  vocabulo  exprimitur 
;  frequentatur,  exomologesis  est,  qua  delictum  Domino  nostro  confitemur; 
non  quidem  ut  ignaro,  sed  quatenus  satisfactio  confessione  disponitur  confes- 
sione  pcenitentia  nascitur,  poenitentia  Deus  mitigatur    .    .    .    Itaque  exomolo 
gesis  prosternendi  et  humilificandi  hominis  disciplina  est." 

Finally  exomologesis  was  understood  as  including  penance  ;  that  originally 

ie  confession  and  petition  were  addressed  to  God  is  seen  by  its  becomino-  in 

time  synonymous  with  litanice  or  litanies.-Con.  Magunt.  ann.  813  cap    32 

(Hartzheim  Concil.  German.  I.  411).-Kabani  Mauri  de  Universo  Lib.  v.  cap  15 

S.  Clement.  Epist.  I.  ad  Corinth.  52.— Owfo,  ridw&f  xp^et  A  ^  rb 


Didache,  iv.  xiv.— See  also  Hesychius  in  Levit  vi  22 
Barnaba  Epist.  xiv.  24.  5  Iren^  ^^  ^^  ^  ^ 

S.  Polycarpi  Epist.  ad  Philippens.-Eusebii  H.  E.  iv  23 
7  Pastor  Hermae  Vis.  in.  Mand.  ix. 


IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.  175 

him  feel  no  shame  in  this,  for  the  Church  and  Christ  are  in  each  of 
the  brethren,  and  he  is  humbling  himself  not  before  them  but  before 
Christ,1  That  up  to  the  early  portion  of  the  third  century,  hearing 
the  confessions  of  penitents  formed  no  recognized  part  of  sacerdotal 
functions  is  clearly  shown  by  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  in  which 
the  duties  of  all  orders  of  the  clergy  are  minutely  detailed  and  the 
only  allusion  to  confession  is  to  that  made  by  the  catechumen  to  the 
bishop  before  baptism.2 

It  is  not  until  we  reach  the  middle  of  the  third  century  that  we  find 
any  evidence  of  an  occasional  custom  of  sinners  unburthening  their 
souls  to  priests.  That  anxious  repentance  should  seek  counsel  at  the 
hands  of  the  holy  men  versed  in  Scripture  and  the  ways  of  God,  is 
perfectly  natural,  and  doubtless  it  was  practised  more  or  less  from  the 
beginning,  but  it  was  in  no  sense  enjoined  nor  did  it  form  part  of  the 
discipline  of  the  Church.  The  first  allusion  to  it  occurs  in  Origen, 
who,  in  the  seven  modes  of  pardon  (p.  81)  includes  the  remission  of 
sins  by  repentance,  when  the  sinner  washes  his  bed  with  tears  and 
does  not  feel  shame  in  revealing  his  sin  to  a  priest  and  in  seek 
ing  medicine  from  him,  and  the  terms  in  which  this  is  described  as 
hard  and  painful  show  that  it  was  by  no  means  a  usual  expedient.3 
We  have  already  seen  that  Origen  ridiculed  the  idea  that  the  power 
of  the  keys  had  been  transmitted  from  St.  Peter,  and  we  have  fur 
ther  evidence  that  this  private  consultation  with  a  physician  of  the 
soul  had  in  it  nothing  capable  of  remitting  sin  or  of  obtaining  abso 
lution,  but  that  it  was  merely  a  wholesome  practice  recommended 
by  preachers  and  that  the  only  confession  as  yet  recognized  by  the 
Church  was  in  public  before  the  congregation,  for  in  another  passage 
he  exhorts  the  sinner  to  select  carefully  some  competent  adviser  (ap 
parently  either  layman  or  cleric)  and,  if  he  counsels  public  confession, 
to  follow  the  advice,  whereby  the  spiritual  disease  may  be  cured  and 
the  faithful  be  edified.4  Evidently  public  confession,  with  its  conse- 


1  Tertull.  loc.  cit.     As  this  was  written  while  Tertullian  was  yet  orthodox,  it 
has  given  much  concern  to  modern  theologians,  who  vainly  endeavor  to  explain 
it  away.     See  Bellarmine,  De  Pcenitentia  Lib.  in.  cap.  6,  and  Juenin,  De 
Sacramentis,  Diss.  vi.  Q.  5,  cap.  1,  Art.  1,  \  I. 

2  Canon.  Hippolyti  xix.  103. 

3  Origenis  Homil.  n.  in  Levit.  cap.  4 — "  Est  adhuc  et  septima,  licet  dura  et 
laboriosa  etc." 

4  Origenis  Homil.  n.  cap.  6,  in  Ps.  xxxvn.— "  Probas  prium  medicum  cui 


176  CONFESSION. 

quences  of  public  penance,  was  not  a  matter  to  be  lightly  under 
taken,  and  we  have  already  seen  how  unusual  it  was  becoming  as  a 
voluntary  act.  A  passage  in  Cyprian  is  often  quoted  in  which  he 
urges  the  lapsed  in  the  Decian  persecution  to  confess  and  undergo 
penance  before  they  die,  but  such  confession  was  necessarily  public 
and  without  it  they  could  not  apply  for  penance.1  In  another  place 
he  says  that  pardon  is  to  be  had,  through  the  mediation  of  Christ, 
by  repentance  and  confession,  or  by  promising  amendment,  but  he 
does  not  specify  whether  this  confession  is  to  be  in  secret  to  God  or 
in  public.2  Early  in  the  fourth  century  Peter  of  Alexandria,  like 
Origen,  recommends  confession  to  a  priest  as  part  of  the  means  of 
securing  pardon,  though  it  is  the  penitent  then  who,  with  amend 
ment  and  almsgiving,  cures  himself  and  not  the  priest  that  cures 
him,  so  that  it  was  merely  a  wholesome  exercise.3  A  story  told  soon 
after  this  by  Eusebius  shows  that  public  and  notorious  sinners  were 
required  to  confess  publicly  and  undergo  penance  before  being  ad 
mitted  to  the  sacred  mysteries.  It  relates  that  the  Emperor  Philip 
(244-249)  was  a  Christian  and  that  on  entering  a  church  at  Easter 
he  was  stopped  by  the  bishop  (supposed  to  be  St.  Babylas  of  Anti- 


debeas  causam  languoris  exponere  .  .  .  ut  ita  demum  si  quid  ille  dixerit, 
qui  se  prius  et  eruditum  medicum  ostenderit  et  misericordem,  si  quid  consilii 
dederit,  facias  et  sequaris,  si  intellexerit  et  praeviderit  talem  esse  languorem 
tuum  qui  in  conventu  totius  ecclesise  exponi  debeat  et  curari,  ex  quo  fortassis 
et  cseteri  a3dificari  poterunt,  et  tu  ipse  facile  sanari,  multa  hoc  deliberatione  et 
satis  perito  medici  illius  consilio  procurandum  est." 

Another  passage  (Homil.  xvn.  in  Lucam)  has  evidently  in  view  this  public 
confession  before  the  Church— "Si  enim  hoc  fecerimus  et  revelaverimus  pec- 
cata  nostra  non  solum  Deo  sed  et  his  qui  possunt  mederi  vulneribus  nostris 
atque  peccatis,  delebuntur  peccata  nostra  ab  eo  qui  ait  Ecce  delebo  ut  nubem 
iniquitates  tuas  etc." 

All  these  are  stock  quotations,  relied  upon  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  sacra 
mental  confession. 

1  Cyprian,  de  Lapsis  n.  29.     "Confiteantur  singuli  qu*so  vos  fratres  dilec- 
ssimi  delictum  suum  dum  adhuc  qui  deliquet  in  saaculo  est,  dum  admitti 

confessio  ejus  potest,  dum  satisfactio  et  remissio  facta  per  sacerdotes  apud 
Dominum  grata  est." 

2  Cyprian.  Epist.  xi. 

3  Deinde  per  confessionem  peccatum  suum  sacerdoti  manifestans,  nitens  in 
contranum,  eleemosynas  scilicet  faciens,  curabit  infirmitatem."    I  give  this  on 
the  authority  of  Palmieri  (Tract,  de  Poenit.  p.  366)  who  quotes  Mai  Spicilegii 
Tom.  VII.  to  which  I  have  not  access. 


PUBLIC,  TO  THE  CONGREGATION.  177 

och)  and  made  to  confess,  after  which  he  took  his  place  among  the 
penitents.1  Apologists  cite  a  passage  in  Lactantius,  in  which  he 
distinguishes  the  true  Church  from  the  Nbvatians,  as  that  which 
cures  the  wounds  of  the  soul  through  confession  and  repentance,  but 
another  passage  shows  that  Lactantius  relied  on  confession  to  God.2 
St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  is  also  customarily  adduced  in  support  of  sacra 
mental  confession,  on  the  strength  of  a  passage  evidently  corrupt,3 
the  truth  being  that  he  knows  nothing  of  any  confession  save  to  God, 
the  sufficiency  and  necessity  of  which  for  the  pardon  of  sin  he  is  never 
tired  of  reiterating,  though  his  definition  of  this  confession  includes 
amendment.4  St.  Pacianus,  in  his  exhortation  to  repentance,  speaks  of 
confession  as  an  integral  part  of  it ;  he  does  not  specify  that  this  confes 
sion  is  to  God,  and  his  allusions  to  the  shame  connected  with  it  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  it  was  public,  in  the  congregation.5  In  fact  the 
stress  laid  by  the  Fathers  on  the  humiliation  of  confession  as  part  of 
the  expiation  of  sin  shows  that  it  must  have  been  public,  and  they  have 
a  somewhat  grotesque  effect  when  applied  by  modern  writers  to  the 
wholly  different  practice  of  auricular  confession.6  A  passage  or  two 
in  the  so-called  Rule  of  St.  Basil  the  Great  have  been  quoted  to  show 
the  existence  in  the  fourth  century  of  sacerdotal  confession,  but  the 
recensions  in  which  these  occur  are  evidently  of  a  date  considerably 


1  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  34.     An  immense  amount  of  discussion  has  been  pro 
voked  by  the  statement  that  Philip  was  the  first  Christian  emperor.     It  will 
be  found  exhaustively  summed  up  by  Le  Nain  de  Tillemont,  Hist,  des  Em- 
pereurs,  III.  494-499. 

2  Lactant.  Divin.  Institt.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  7,  30. 

3  In  describing  the  power  of  the  keys  granted  to  the  apostles  he  says  "  ut 
quos  ligaverint,  id  est  peccatorum  noclis  innexos  relinquerint,  et  quos  solverint 
confessione  [concessione]  videlicet  venise  receperint  in  salutem,  hi  apostolica 
conditione  sententise  in  ccelis  quoque  absoluti  sint  aut  ligati." — S.  Hilar.  Pictav. 
Comment,  in  Matt.  cap.  xvm.  n.  8.    Cf.  cap.  xvi.  n.  7. 

The  emendation  of  concessione  for  confessione  would  seem  to  be  self-evident. 
It  was  suggested  two  centuries  ago  by  the  Protestant  Daille,  but  is  rejected 
by  Catholic  scholars,  who  are  loath  to  abandon  even  so  trivial  a  piece  of  evi 
dence. 

"Iniquitati  enim  alia  nulla  medicina  est  nisi  confessio  ad  Deum." — S. 
Hilarii  Tract,  in  Ps.  xxxi.  n.  5.  Cf.  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxviu.  Litt.  iii.  n.  19 ;  Litt. 
iv.  n.  4;  Lit.  xviii.  n.  13.— Tract,  in  Ps.  cxix.  n.  4.— Tract,  in  Ps.  cxxxv.  n.  3. 

5  S.  Paciani  Parsenesis  ad  Poenit.  cap.  6,  8,  9. 

6  The  current  phrase  is  "  Erubescentia  quae  est  maxima  pars  satisfactionis." — 
S.  Antonini  Summae  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  \  9. 

I.— 12 


178  CONFESSION. 

posterior  and  consequently  prove  nothing.1  Moreover,  his  contem 
porary,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  lays  down  the  rule  that  voluntary 
confession  is  a  sign  of  amendment,  and  that  therefore  it  should  be 
rewarded  by  a  shorter  penance  than  when  the  offender  is  convicted 
of  his  sin,  thus  showing  that  he  regarded  such  confession  as  a  matter 
of  the  forum  externum.2 

About  this  period  we  meet  with  three  forms  of  voluntary  confes 
sion  in  more  or  less  frequent  use — confession  to  God,  to  the  congre 
gation  gathered  in  the  church,  and  to  a  priest  or  some  other  holy 
man.  St.  Ambrose  supplies  us  with  evidence  of  them  all.  In  some 
passages  he  speaks  of  confession  to  God  as  though  that  were  the 
ordinary  and  recognized  practice.3  In  another  he  seeks  to  remove 
the  shame  of  confession  in  the  church  and  soliciting  the  prayers  of 
the  brethren,  showing  that  this  public  confession  was  voluntary  and 
for  secret  sins ;  this  he  says  procures  admission  to  the  sacrament 
which  removes  the  sin,  showing  further  that  it  was  the  Eucharist 
that  secured  pardon.4  Concurrently  with  this  we  learn  from  his 
biographer  that  he  was  very  sympathetic  with  those  who  sought  him 
privately  to  confess  their  sins  to  him,  but  he  assumed  to  do  nothing 
more  than  to  intercede  for  them  with  God  and  to  prescribe  absten 
tion  from  sin  and  humiliation  before  God.5  This  passage  is  the 
main  reliance  of  modern  apologists,  but  there  is  in  it  evidently 
nothing  of  sacramental  confession  and  absolution ;  it  was  a  practice 

1  S.  Basilii  Eegulae  Interrog.  xxi.  cxcix.  cc.  (Migne  GUI.  508,  551-2).— S. 
Basil.  Regulse  Breviores  Q.  288.     In  S.  Basil.  Liber  Regularum  fusius  disputa- 
tarum,  Q.  46,  51,  52,  evidently  embodying  an  earlier  form  and  purporting  to 
be  the  utterance  of  the  saint  himself,  sin  is  treated  as  a  matter  of  the  forum 
externum,  as  in  the  monastic  Rules  of  the  West. 

2  S.  Gregor.  Nyssen.  Epist.  Canon,  cap.  4. 

"  Et  nos  ergo  non  erubescarnus  fateri  Domino  peccata  nostra  ?  "— S.  Ambros. 
de  P(Enit,  Lib.  n.  cap.  1.  Again,  "Novit  omnia  Dominus  sed  expectat  vocem 
tuam  non  ut  puniat  sed  ut  ignoscat— Ibid.  cap.  7.  This  is  an  essential  pre 
liminary  to  pardon— De  Paradiso  cap.  xiv.  n.  71. 

4  S.  Ambr.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  n.  cap.  3,  10.—"  Hoc  ergo  in  ecclesia  facere  fas- 
tidis  ut  Deo  supplices,  ut  patrocinium  tibi  ad  obsecrandum  sanctse  plebis 
requiras,  ubi  nihil  est  quod  pudori  esse  debeat  nisi  non  fateri,  cum  omnes 
simus  peccatores."  Alexander  Hales  (Summje  P.  IV.  Q.  xviii.  Membr,  iv. 
Art.  5,  §  8)  admits  with  the  early  Fathers  that  the  humiliation  of  public  con 
fession  is  the  chief  source  of  pardon  and  remission,  but  he  argues  that  the 
shame  is  too  great  and  that  the  consequences  may  be  serious. 

6  Paulini  Vit.  S.  Ambros.  cap.  39. 


PRIVA  TE  CONFESSION  INTR  OD  UCED.  179 

permitted  but  not  recognized  by  the  Church ;  it  might  aid  the  sinner 
in  winning  for  himself  reconciliation  to  God,  but  the  Church  took  no 
cognizance  of  the  matter  as  its  formulas  were  framed  only  for  public 
confession.  St.  Ambrose  himself  knows  only  of  public  penance  for 
grave  sins ;  the  venials  of  daily  occurrence  were  removed  by  repent 
ance,  and  there  is  no  class  intermediate  between  them.1  The  con 
fessor  had  no  power  to  do  anything  but  to  pray  and  advise,  as 
indicated  by  Origen.  If  reconciliation  with  the  Church  were  wanted 
the  sin  secretly  confessed  had  to  be  published  to  the  congregation  in 
order  that  public  penance  might  be  imposed,  but  this  rule  was  relaxed 
in  the  case  of  adulteresses,  lest  it  should  lead  to  their  death,  though 
they  were  suspended  from  communion  for  the  period  assigned  by  the 
canons.2 

With  the  development  of  sacerdotalism  the  custom  of  private  con 
fession  naturally  spread,  for  it  was  a  vast  relief  to  the  sinner  thus  to 
quiet  his  conscience  without  public  humiliation  and  the  hardships  of 
public  penance.  St.  Jerome  refers  to  it  several  times  and  a  canon 
of  the  first  council  of  Toledo  in  398  shows  that  in  Spain  it  was  be 
coming  a  recognized  function  of  the  priest,  at  least  for  virgins  under 
vows.3  In  the  East,  also,  the  custom  seems  to  have  been  established 
of  deputing  an  experienced  priest  in  each  cathedral  church  as  pceni- 
tentiarius  to  listen  to  all  Avho  desired  to  make  confession.  Socrates 
and  Sozomen  relate  that  Nectarius,  the  predecessor  of  Chrysostom  in 
the  see  of  Constantinople,  did  away  with  the  practice  in  consequence 
of  a  fair  penitent  being  seduced  by  a  deacon  and  that  his  example 
was  imitated  by  other  bishops.4  The  accuracy  of  this  story  has  been 


1  S.  Ambros.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  n.  cap.  95. 

2  S.  Basil.  Epist.  Canon  n.  34.     This  necessity  of  public  confession  as  a  pre 
liminary  to  admission  to  penance  is  naturally  an  obstacle  in  proving  the  an 
tiquity  of  auricular  confession.     To  evade  it  the  ingenious  assumption  is  made 
that  private  confession  always  preceded  public  and  that  the  latter  was  merely 
part  of  the  penance  imposed. — Guillois,  History  of  Confession,  pp.  121  sqq. 

3  S.  Hieron.  Epist.   XLI.   n.  3;   Comment,  in  Ecclesiastse  cap.  10. — Con. 
Toletan.  I.  ann.  398  cap.  6. 

*  Socrat.  H.  E.  v.  19. — Sozomen.  H.  E.  vn.  16.  Both  writers  say  the  custom 
originated  in  Eome.  Socrates  attributes  it  to  the  troubles  arising  in  the  mid 
dle  of  the  third  century  from  the  Novatian  controversy.  Sozomen  ascribes  it 
to  the  growing  distaste  for  public  confession,  for  which  it  was  a  substitute,  and 
proceeds  to  describe  the  existing  practice  of  the  Roman  Church,  which  exhibits 
the  form  of  public  penance,  the  penitents  being  grouped  together  in  church ; 


CONFESSION. 

questioned,  owing  to  certain  discrepancies  and  improbabilities  in  the 
narratives,  but  there  would  seem  little  doubt  that  by  this  time  in  the 
East  private  confession,  as  an  escape  from  public,  was  gaining  ground. 
That  this  was  regarded  by  the  Church  with  disfavor  as  an  irregu 
larity  is  shown  by  the  accusation  against  Chrysostom  in  the  synod 
ad  Quercum  referred  to  in  a  former  chapter  (p.  36).  Chrysostom 
himself,  as  might  be  expected,  is  by  no  means  consistent  in  his  treat 
ment  of  the  subject.  In  some  passages  he  speaks  of  confession  to 
God  as  all  sufficient  to  procure  pardon.1  In  another  he  suggests 
that  the  anxious  sinner  will  find  relief  in  unburdening  his  conscience 
to  an  expert  who  can  show  him  how  to  mend  his  ways,  and  again  he 
speaks  of  confession  as  though  it  were  open  and  public.2  Of  these 
three,  however,  confession  to  God  is  the  one  essential;  it  is  that 
which  secures  pardon,  the  others  may  be  performed  or  not.3  Evi 
dently  as  yet  in  the  East  there  was  no  formal  and  recognized  practice 
of  private  confession. 

In  the  African  Church  St.  Augustin  seems  to  set  little  store  on 
confession  when  he  omits  it  entirely  from  his  enumeration  of  what 
Js  requisite  to  obtain  pardon  for  sin.4  Yet  in  his  exposition  of  the 
Raising  of  Lazarus  he  assumes  that  by  confession  the  sinner  is  re 
vived,  after  which  his  bonds  are  loosed  by  the  Church.5  One  passage 
has  been  quoted  to  show  that  he  was  opposed  to  public  confession, 

after  mass,  in  which  they  are  not  allowed  to  take  communion,  they  prostrate 
themselves ;  the  bishop  comes  and  prostrates  himself  with  them,  and  they  per 
form  in  private  the  penance  assigned  to  them.  We  shall  see  that  in  the  Eoman 
Church  private  confession  was  not  recognized  till  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century. 

1  S.  Jo.  Chrysost.  de  Poanitent.  Homil.  n.  n.  1  ;  Homil.  in.  n.  1. 

2  S.  Jo.  Chrysost.  in  Genesim  Homil.  xx.  n.  3  ;  in  Johannem  Homil.  xxxiv. 
n.  3.    Cf.  De  Davide  et  Saule  Homil.  in.  n.  2 ;  in  Epist.  ad  Hebrseos  Homil. 
ix.  n.  4. 

3  In  Epist.  ad  Hebrseos  Homil.  xxxi.  n.  3.— "Non  tibi  dico  ut  ea  tanquam 
pompam  in  publicum  proferas,  neque  ut  apud  alios  te  accuses,  sed  ut  pareas 
prophetse  dicenti ;  Revela  Domino  mam  tuam.    Apud  Deum  ea  confitere,  apud 
judicem  confitere  peccata  tua,  orans,  si  non  lingua  saltern  memoria,  et  ita  roga 
ut  tui  misereatur." 

4  S.  Augustin.  Serm.  CCCLI.  cap.  5. 

5  Ejusd.  Serm.  LXVII.  cap.  1,  2 ;  Enarrat.  in  Ps.  ci.  Serm.  ii.  cap.  3.     It  is 
true  that  in  the  Enarrat.  in  Ps.  LXVI.  n.  6,  he  says  "  damnaberis  tacitus  qui 
posses  liberari  confessus,"  but  the  context  shows  that  this  alludes  to  confession 
to  God,  who  thus  becomes  both  advocate  and  judge. 


THE  AFRICAN  AND  LATIN  CHURCHES. 

but  it  is  only  an  argument  against  the  bishop's  public  reproof  of 
sins  of  which  he  has  obtained  cognizance,  as  this  may  lead,  in 
case  of  crime,  to  prosecution  before  the  secular  authorities.1  It  is 
in  the  same  line  of  thought  as  the  canon  referred  to  above  (p.  15) 
subscribed  to  by  him  in  the  African  council  of  419,  directing  all' 
bishops  to  withdraw  from  communion  with  any  bishop  who  should 
deprive  of  communion  any  one  on  account  of  a  sin  revealed  to  him 
in  confession,  if  the  sinner  chose  to  deny  it.  That  in  fact  he  con 
sidered  public  penance  to  be  essential  for  any  action  by  the  Church 
is  seen  by  his  urging  that  without  it  the  Church  could  not  make  use 
of  the  power  of  the  keys,2  and  the  canon  just  cited  shows  that  public 
penance  inferred  public  confession.  No  one,  he  says  elsewhere,  has 
true  repentance  who  is  deterred  from  penance  by  fear  of  the  humilia 
tion.3  Evidently  confession  to  priest  or  bishop  had  no  recognized 
place  in  the  discipline  of  the  African  Church,  nor  was  the  necessity 
for  it  apparent,  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  to  Victor  of 
Tunnone,  who  seems  to  regard  confession  to  God  as  the  one  thing 
needful,  for  the  very  act  of  confession  to  him  cures  the  soul.4  Man 
still  dealt  directly  with  his  God  and  required  no  intermediary. 

In  the  Latin  Church  of  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century  John 
Cassianus  seems  to  know  only  public  confession  and  confession  to 
God,  when  he  counsels  the  sinner  who  is  ashamed  to  reveal  his  lapses 
before  men  to  have  recourse  to  the  Lord  from  whom  nothing  is 
hidden.5  Confession  to  the  priest  as  an  alternative  seems  to  be 
unknown  to  him.  In  his  monastic  institutes,  indeed,  Cassianus  orders 
the  young  monk  to  reveal  to  some  older  one  all  the  evil  thoughts 
that  arise  in  his  mind  and  take  counsel  with  him  how  to  avoid  the 
snares  of  the  enemy,6  but  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  sacramental 
confession  and  is  akin  to  the  monastic  custom  of  daily  confession  of 
faults  in  the  chapter  or  assembly  of  the  convent.7 

Meanwhile  the  claims  of  the  Church  as  the  source  of  pardon 
through  the  power  of  the  keys  were  constantly  advancing,  and  sacer 
dotalism  was  gradually  interposing  itself  more  and  more  between 


1  Ejusd.  Serm.  LXXXII.  cap.  8. 

2  Ejusd.  Serm.  cccxcii.  cap.  3.     Cf.  Serm.  CCCLI.  n.  9. 

3  Ejusd.  Enarrat.  in  Ps.  xxxm.  Serm.  ii.  n.  11. 

4  Victor.  Tunenens.  de  Poenitent.  Lib.  I.  cap.  3. 

5  Jo.  Cassian.  Collat.  xx.  cap.  8.  6  Ejusd.  Institutt.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  9. 
7  S.  Eucherii  Lugdun.  Homil.  vin. 


182  CONFESSION. 

the  sinner  and  his  God.  We  have  seen  how  St.  Jerome  and  St. 
Isidor  of  Pelusium  rebuked  the  priests  and  bishops  who  assumed  to 
remit  sins  and  such  remission  was  manifestly  impossible  without  a 
preliminary  declaration  of  the  offences  to  be  forgiven.  Voluntary 
public  confession  had  long  been  irksome ;  it  required  a  vehemence 
of  contrition  not  predicable  of  the  average  Christian,  especially  after 
the  faith  had  become  dominant  and  had  spread  over  mixed  and 
motley  populations,  and  the  warning  of  St.  Augustin  shows  that 
incautious  revelations  of  crime  in  this  way  were  liable  to  lead  to 
public  prosecution.  That  private  confession  should  be  hailed  as  a 
relief  was  inevitable,  but  the  Church  resisted  it  long  and  endeavored 
to  stave  it  off  by  expedients.  The  biographer  of  St.  Hilary  of  Aries 
describes  for  us  a  system  bearing  some  analogy  to  that  ascribed  to 
the  Western  Church  about  this  time  by  Sozomen.  He  would  an 
nounce  that  on  Sunday  he  would  administer  penance  ;  crowds  would 
flock  to  hear  him  and  he  would  excite  their  fears  to  the  utmost  by 
powerful  descriptions  of  the  torments  of  hell  and  the  terrors  of  the 
Day  of  Judgment ;  with  tears  and  sobs  and  groans  they  would  beg 
for  pardon,  when  he  would  bestow  on  them  the  imposition  of  hands 
and  pray  earnestly  that  their  repentance  might  bear  the  proper  fruit.1 
Evidently  in  such  a  scene  as  this  there  could  be  no  confession  except 
the  general  one  of  being  in  sin,  and  St.  Hilary  relied  upon  the  im 
pression  produced  on  the  souls  of  the  penitents  to  win  pardon  from 
God.  Another  method  by  which  the  humiliation  of  public  confession 
was  evaded  was  by  writing  out  the  confession  of  the  penitent,  which 
was  then  read  in  the  congregation,  thus  sparing  him  the  personal 
mortification  of  uttering  it  himself.  It  is  probable  that  St.  Basil 
refers  to  this  when  he  orders  that  the  sin  of  adulteresses  shall  not  be 
published  lest  they  incur  risk  of  death. 

It  would  seem  that  the  pressure  for  relief  from  this  severity  in 
creased,  while  the  tendency  of  bishops  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the 
right  of  dealing  with  sinners  in  secret  developed  until  the  Church 
g;ave  way.  In  452  we  find  St.  Leo  I.  defining  a  wholesome  confes 
sion  as  a  condition  precedent  to  reconciliation,  without  specifying  the 
character  of  the  confession.2  When  in  459  he  forbade,  in  an  epistle 
to  the  bishops  of  Campania,  the  custom  of  reading  confessions  in 


1  Vit.  S.  Hilarii  Arelatens.  cap.  13. 

2  Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist,  cvur.  cap.  2,  ad  Theodomm. 


PRIVATE  CONFESSION  ACCEPTED.  183 

public  he  could  scarce  have  conceived  the  ultimate  importance  of  his 
act,  for  centuries  were  still  to  elapse  before  its  full  significance  was 
developed.  The  terms  in  which  he  proposed  this  momentous  change 
show  that  he  regarded  it  merely  as  a  matter  of  expediency.  The 
faith  is  laudable  which  leads  men  to  disregard  the  mortification  of 
having  their  transgressions  made  known,  but  it  prevents  many  sinners 
from  seeking  pardon,  either  through  shame  or  through  fear  of  letting 
their  enemies  learn  their  crimes  and  of  becoming  subject  to  the  laws. 
Having  thus  shown  that  public  confession,  either  personally  or  by 
writing,  was  the  only  form  as  yet  recognized,  he  proceeds  to  define 
that  it  suffices  to  confess  to  God  and  then  to  the  priest  (or  bishop) 
who  should  pray  for  the  sinner.  In  this  way,  he  adds,  more  sinners 
can  be  allured  to  repentance  when  they  know  that  their  sins  will  not 
be  published  to  the  people.1  Yet  sinners  do  not  seem  to  have  availed 
themselves  of  the  opportunity  as  eagerly  as  was  hoped,  and,  about 
470,  another  inducement  was  offered  when  the  pope,  St.  Simplicius, 
set  apart  a  week  in  each  of  the  three  churches,  St.  Peter's,  St.  Paul's 
and  St.  Lawrence's,  in  which  priests  should  remain  there  to  receive 
penitents  and  administer  baptism2 — the  first  authentic  evidence  we 
have  of  confessors  stationed  in  churches — and  this  slender  provision 
for  the  imperial  and  papal  city  indicates  how  rare  as  yet  was  con 
fession. 

The  practice  of  private  confession,  in  fact,  developed  but  slowly. 
If  we  would  look  for  it  anywhere  it  might  be  expected  to  occur  in 
the  monastic  rules  which  were  framed  in  order  that  earnest  seekers 
after  salvation  should  be  led  to  the  performance  of  all  things  salutary 


1  Ejusd.  Epist.  CLXVIII.  cap.  2.— C.  61,  Caus.  xxxiu.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1.  Yet  the 
custom  of  libelli  of  confession  long  continued.    In  892  Pope  Formosus  required 
them  when  he  received  to  reconciliation  the  clerics  who  had  been  ordained  by 
Photius.— Formosi  PP.  Epist.  n.  (Migne,  CXXIX.  840). 

It  required  a  notable  ignorance  of  church  history  for  the  Baltimore  council 
of  1866  to  declare  that  God  could  have  required  of  sinners  the  humiliation  of 
public  confession  but  that  "  tantum  a  nobis  postulavit  ut  sacerdoti  secreto  et 
sine  testibus  conscientise  arcana  panderemus  "  (Con.  Plen.  Baltim.  II.  ann.  1866, 
Tit.  v.  c.  5,  n.  276).  Thomas  of  Walden,  in  controverting  Wickliffe,  knew 
better  than  this  when  he  admitted  (De  Hseresibus  Antiquor.  Cap.  LXXI.  n.  1) 
that  in  the  early  Church  confession  was  public,  though  he  endeavors  to 
recover  himself  by  asserting  that  the  apostles  instituted  secret  confession, 
which  was  wrongfully  supplanted  by  public  and  was  restored  by  Leo. 

2  Anastas.  Biblioth.  in  Simplicio  PP. 


184  CONFESSION. 

to  their  souls  and  acceptable  to  God.    Yet  the  Rule  which  St.  Pacho- 
mius  is  said  to  have  received  from  an  angel  has  in  it  no  precept  oJ 
confession ;  trifling  infractions  are  punished  with  two  or  three  days' 
penance,  and  serious  offences  with  scourging  ;  it  is  wholly  an  affair  oi 
i\\Q  forum  externum.1     The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Rule  of  St.  Orse- 
sius  and  the  Regula  Orientalis  compiled  by  the  deacon  Vigilius  from 
the  Eastern  Rules,  and  also  of  those  which  passed  under  the  names 
of  St.  Antony,  the  Abbot  Isaiah,  St.  Serapion,  the  Holy  Fathers, 
and  St.  Macarius.2   In  that  of  St.  Caesarius  of  Aries  there  is  only  the 
provision  that  those  who  have  done  what  they  know  not  to  be  right 
shall  ask  pardon  of  each  other,  and  the  conception  of  earning  remis 
sion  of  sins  is  the  assiduous  daily  practice  of  good  works.3     In  the 
Rule  of  Benedict,  private  confession  is  not  a  matter  of  prescription 
but  is  recommended  as  a  sign  of  humility,  and  a  monk  who  is  con 
scious  that  there  is  lurking  in  his  soul  a  cause  of  sin  is  told  to  reveal 
it  to  the  abbot  or  to  one  of  the  elders  who  know  how  to  cure  wounds 
and  not  betray  them.4     As  the  abbots  of  the  period  were  rarely  priests 
there  was  nothing  sacramental  about  these  regulations.     The  Rule  of 
St.  Fructuosus  of  Braga  has  a  somewhat  similar  provision  as  a  method 
of  moral  discipline  and  not  as  a  means  of  obtaining  pardon  from  God.5 
Even  in  the  ninth  century  we  are  told  that  daily  confession  one  to 
another  was  a  monastic  custom,6  and  St.  Chrodegang  prescribed  that 
every  day  after  prime  each  member  of  the  house  should  confess  his 
faults  and  accept  punishment  according  to  his  station.7  Grimlaic,  in  his 
rules  for  monks,  about  the  year  900,  orders  them  to  meet  in  the  even 
ing  and  examine  their  consciences  for  all  sins  committed  during  the 


1  Eegul.  S.  Pachomii  cap.  119,  121,  128. 
S.  Benedict!  Ananiens.  Codex  Regularum  (Migne,  GUI.). 

3  Eegul.  S.  Tetradii  cap.  12,  20.     But  in  a  homily  attributed  to  St.  Casarius 
(Homil.  xix.)  death-bed  confession  to  God  and  to  the  priest  is  regarded  as 
essential. 

4  Regul.  S.  Benedict!  cap.  7,  45,  46. 

5  S.  Fnictuosi  Bracarens.  Reg.  Monachor.  cap.  13.     See  also  the  Regula  S. 
Aureln  Arelatens.  cap.  41  (Migne  LXVIIT.  392).-Reg.  SS.  Pauli  et  Stephani 
cap.  34  (Ib.  LXVI.  957).-Reg.  S.  Ferreoli  Uzetensis  (Ib.  LXVI.  959-76)  - 

9)--Keg-  Magistri  cap.  13,  14,  15  (Ib. 

'  Concord-  Eegularum  cap-  30' 


6  Jonae  Aurelian.  de  Instit.  Laicali  Lib.  i.  cap.  16. 

7  Reg.  S.  Chrodegangi  cap.  18. 


GRADUAL  GROWTH.  185 

iy ;  confession  leads  to  repentance  and  repentance  to  pardon,  but 
lothing  is  said  as  to  penance  or  absolution.  It  was  a  wholesome 
:ercise  and  nothing  more.1  In  829  an  expression  of  the  council  of 
Jaris  shows  that  the  confession  of  nuns  to  priests  was  a  wholly  volun 
tary  matter,  not  governed  by  any  precept.2  The  monks  thus  had 
adopted  the  custom  of  daily  chapters  or  assemblies  in  which  sinners 
were  expected  to  confess  their  faults  and  accept  punishment,  and 
where  accusations  could  be  brought  against  those  who  did  not  volun 
tarily  accuse  themselves,  even  as  in  the  congregations  the  faithful 
were  more  or  less  accustomed  to  do  the  same.  This  answered  all 
purposes  of  discipline  and  private  confession  would  have  been  a 
manifest  surplusage. 

Among  the  laity,  Julian  Pomerius,  about  the  year  500,  assumes 
that  the  penitent  can  either  confess  his  sins  or  keep  them  to  himself 
and  assume  penance  for  them,  through  which  he  will  secure  salva 
tion.3  St.  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe  teaches  that  confession  is  useless 
unless  the  sinner  by  good  works  overcomes  the  demerits  of  his  past 
transgressions,4  thus  denying  all  value  to  the  intermediation  of  the 
priest,  while  Gennadius  of  Marseilles  speaks  of  public  lamentation 
over  sin  as  the  mode  of  securing  pardon ;  he  stigmatizes  as  Nova- 
tians  those  who  deny  this  and  evidently  knows  nothing  of  private 
confession  to  the  priest  as  a  remedy.5 

Gregory  the  Great,  who  did  so  much  for  the  advancement  of 
sacerdotalism,  assumes  as  a  matter  of  course  that  confession  is  neces 
sary  for  the  remission  of  sin  and  that  the  process  is  in  sacerdotal 
hands,6  although  in  one  passage  he  speaks  of  the  public  confession  ot 
secret  sins  as  a  salutary  exercise  and  as  a  practice  still  followed.7  In 
the  East,  his  contemporary,  John  the  Faster  of  Constantinople,  seems 
to  recognize  no  other  form  than  private  confession  to  the  priest;8 

1  Grimlaici  Reg.  Solitarium  cap.  25,  29  (Migne  CIII.  606,  618). 

2  Con.  Paris,  ann.  829,  cap.  46  (Harduin.  IV.  1323). 

3  Julian!  Pomerii  de  Vita  contemplativa  Lib.  n.  cap.  7. 

4  S.  Fulgent.  Ruspens.  de  Remiss.  Peccator.  Lib.  n.  cap.  16. 

5  Gennadi!  Massiliens.  de  Eccl.  Dogmata  cap.  80. 

6  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Homil.  in  Evangel.  Lib.  n.  Homil.  26.— Moral.  Lib.  vm. 
cap.  21.  — Exposit.  in  I.  Regum  Lib.  vi.  cap.  ii.  n.  4,  33. 

7  Ejusd.  Moral.  Lib.  xxv.  cap.  13. 

8  Johann.  Jejunatoris  Libellus  Poanitentialis  (Morin.  de  Discipl.  Poenit.  App. 
p.  79.)     I  have  already  alluded  to  the  likelihood  of  modifications  in  a  code 
such  as  this  handed  down  through  the  centuries. 


186  CONFESSION. 

and  St.  Anastasius  of  Sinai  gives  formal  directions  for  it,  though  he 
admits  that  many  great  sinners  are  justified  without  it.1 

It  was  at  this  period  that  Gregory,  by  sending  forth  St.  Austin 
of  Canterbury  to  convert  the  Anglo-Saxons,  gave  impulse  to  the 
missionary  enterprises  which  were  destined  to  work  such  benefit  to 
the  Church  and  to  civilization,  subduing  to  Christianity  the  wild 
tribes  which  were  to  be  the  ancestors  of  so  many  European  common 
wealths.  In  this  the  Barbarian  and  his  teacher  exercised  a  mutual 
interaction,  each  influenced  the  other,  and  the  result  was  the  medieval 
Church.  To  the  new  and  ignorant  converts  the  priest  was  the  direct 
representative  of  God,  regarded  with  a  veneration  very  different  from 
that  which  he  excited  in  the  polished  citizens  of  Nimes  or  Rome  or 
Constantinople,  and  any  claim  which  he  might  put  forward  of  super 
natural  power  was  not  likely  to  be  gainsaid.2  I  have  already  alluded 
to  the  influence  of  this  movement  on  the  substitution  of  priest  for 
bishop  in  the  office  of  reconciling  penitents ;  it  could  have  no  less  in 
establishing  the  claim  of  the  priest  to  hear  confessions.  As  early  as 
the  seventh  century  the  fact  that  Pepin  of  Landen  condescended  to 
confess  to  Bishop  Wito  was  cited  as  a  conspicuous  proof  of  his  well- 
known  piety,3  and  though  this  would  show  that  confession  was  as 
yet  exceptional,  yet  the  simple  fact  that  Penitentials  were  beginning 
to  be  found  necessary,  that  in  time  they  multiplied  so  enormously 
and  were  in  such  universal  use,  indicates  how,  under  these  favoring 
influences,  the  practice  of  confession  spread  and  how  firmly  it  became 
lodged  in  priestly  hands.  Yet  among  the  more  southern  communi- 


1  S.  Anastas.  Sinaitse  Orat.  de  S.  Synaxi  (Canisii  et  Basnage  Thesaur.  I. 
470,  477)— "Confitere  Christo  per  sacerdotem  peccata  tua.  .  .  .  Nam  multi 

ebro  reperiuntur  qui  cum  palam  peccassent  magnam  in  occulto  poenitentiam 
egerunt  .  .  .  ac  anobis  quidem  judicantur  velut  peccatores,  apud  Deum  autem 
justificati  sunt." 

!  A  notable  instance  of  this  occurs  during  the  Carlovingian  reconstruction, 

rter  the  social  disorganization  in  France  under  the  Mayors  of  the  Palace. 

the  most  troublesome  opponents  of  St.  Boniface  in  this  work  was  a 

certain  Bishop  Adelbert,  who  pretended  to  be  inspired  and  who  was  regarded 

is  a  saint  by  his  numerous   followers.      When  the  people  would  assemble 

5  him  and  desire  to  confess  their  sins  he  would  say  "  I  know  all  your 

sins,  for  nothing  is  hidden  from  me.     It  is  not  necessary  for  you  to  confess  for 

1  your  sins  are  remitted  to  you,  so  you  can  go  home  in  the  peace  of  the 

hurch  and  safe  in  your  absolution."— S.  Bonifacii  Epist.  LVII 

3  Baron.  Annal.  ann.  631  n.  8. 


PERIODICAL  CONFESSION  PRESCRIBED.  187 

ties  and  races  of  older  civilization  the  progress  Avas  slower.  In 
Spain,  St.  Isidor  of  Seville,  early  in  the  seventh  century,  while 
treating  in  detail  of  the  duties  of  bishop  and  priest,  makes  no  men 
tion  of  their  hearing  confessions ;  he  knows  only  of  the  public  pen 
ance  of  sackcloth  and  ashes  and  is  evidently  altogether  unfamiliar 
with  auricular  confession  and  private  penance.1  In  the  East,  at  the 
same  period,  St.  Dorotheus  the  Abbot,  in  his  instructions  as  to 
securing  salvation,  speaks  of  repentance  and  amendment  and  prayer 
and  doing  good,  but  nothing  of  confession  and  priestly  ministrations.2 
Even  in  the  ninth  century,  St.  Theodore  Studites  holds  that  repent 
ance  suffices  for  pardon  ;  confession  is  only  a  wholesome  exercise, 
for  through  it  evil  thoughts  are  dissipated  in  place  of  infecting  the 
soul.3 

Throughout  the  greater  part  of  Europe,  however,  the  custom  was 
establishing  itself  permanently.  It  was  declared  to  be  indispensable 
to  the  awarding  of  penance  and  to  the  reconciliation  of  the  sinner, 
and  formed  a  necessary  portion  of  the  formalities  connected  with 
these  ceremonies.4  The  ardent  missionaries  who  were  spreading  the 
faith  among  the  barbarian  tribes,  eager  to  lead  and  keep  their  con 
verts  in  the  right  path,  could  imagine  no  more  effective  method  than 
to  inculcate  regular  and  habitual  confession,  and  it  was  easy  for  them 
to  prescribe  it  as  a  rule  among  their  neophytes  who  knew  nothing  to 
the  contrary.  The  earliest  attempt  at  inducing  periodical  confession 
would  seem  to  be  by  Egbert  of  York,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighth 
century,  who  says  that  Theodore  of  Canterbury  introduced  the  cus 
tom  that,  within  twelve  days  of  Christmas,  all,  both  clerics  and  lay 
men,  should  seek  their  confessors  as  a  preparation  for  the  communion 
of  the  Nativity.5  Early  in  the  ninth  century,  again,  there  was  a 


1  S.  Isidori  Hispalens.  de  Eccl.  Officiis  Lib.  n.  cap.  xviii.  n.  4-7. 

2  S.  Dorothei  Archimandr.  Doctrina  xii.  De  Timore  et  Poenis  Inferni. 

3  S.  Theodori  Studitse  Serm.  LXXXII.,  cxxxm. 

4  Con.  Cabillonens.  ann.  649,  cap.  8. — S.  Eligii  Noviomens.  Homil.  iv.  xi. 
XV. — Jonae  Aurelianens.  de  Instit.  Laicali  I.  15. 

The  Ordines  ad  dandam  Pcenitentiam  contained  in  so  many  of  the  Penitentials 
show  that  confession  to  the  priest  was  expected  of  all  penitents. 

5  Ecberti  Dialog.  Interrog.  xvi.  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  III.  413). 

Nearly  contemporary  with  this  was  the  Rule  framed  by  St.  Chrodegang  for 
the  order  of  canons  regular  which  he  instituted.  This  has  been  commonly 
quoted  in  proof  of  the  institution  of  periodical  confession,  but  it  is  of  no  au 
thority.  In  the  recension  printed  by  D'Achery  there  is  a  precept  that  the 


188  CONFESSION. 

decided  effort  to  introduce  annual  confession  on  Ash  Wednesday. 
A  ritual  of  the  period  orders  the  priest  to  call  upon  all  accustomed 
to  confess  to  him  to  renew  their  confessions  on  that  day,  and  another 
ritual  even  orders  three  confessions  a  year.1  In  821  Theodulf  of 
Orleans  prescribes  it  annually  on  Ash  Wednesday,2  and  in  822  the 
statutes  of  Corbie  order  a  holiday  on  that  day,  so  that  the  laboring 
folk  may  have  time  to  confess.3  The  Penitential  which  passes  under 
the  name  of  Egbert  speaks  of  it  as  a  custom  existing  beyond  seas  and 
urges  its  adoption,4  and  a  forged  decretal  attributed  to  Pope  Eutychi- 
anus  orders  the  priest  to  invite  his  flock  to  confess  on  that  day.5  Nor 

people  shall  confess  thrice  yearly  to  their  priests,  and  monks  every  Saturday 
to  the  bishop  or  to  their  prior  (Reg.  S.  Chrodegangi  cap.  32,  ap.  Migne 
LXXXIX.  1072).  In  another  recension,  which  is  evidently  older,  there  is 
nothing  concerning  the  laity,  and  the  canons  are  only  required  to  confess 
twice  a  year  to  the  bishop— once  early  in  Lent  and  again  between  Aug.  15 
and  Nov.  1  (Reg.  S.  Chrodeg.  cap.  14,  ap.  Harduin.  IV.  1196).  Even  this 
however  is  a  later  regulation,  for  the  Rule  evidently  was  revised  from  time  to 
time  to  adapt  it  to  the  evolution  of  the  Church.  In  816,  the  council  of  Aachen 
drew  up  a  minute  and  extended  series  of  regulations  for  the  canons,  in  which 
there  is  no  trace  of  secret  confession,  while  there  is  ample  provision  for  the 
punishment  of  offences.  A  man  might,  if  he  chose,  confess  a  crime  in  the 
chapter  and  accept  the  penalty  provided  for  it,  and  if  he  did  not  do  so  he  was 
carried  before  the  bishop  who  inflicted  public  penance  on  him.— Con.  Aquis- 
granens.  ann.  816  Lib.  I.  cap.  134  (Hartzheim  I.  509).  See  also  the  Hegula 
Canonicorum  ab  Amalrico  collecta  Lib.  I.  cap.  134  (Migne,  CV.  927).  In  the 
later  recension  the  clause  concerning  confession  by  the  laity  is  evidently  an 
interpolation  by  some  zealous  sacerdotalist,  for  it  has  no  relation  to  the  rest 
of  the  Rule. 

Hartzheim  (Concil.  German.  I.  32)  prints  a  canon  of  a  council  of  Liege  in 
710  prescribing  yearly  confession  to  the  parish  priest,  but  it  is  evidently  either 
a  forgery  or  an  erroneous  date.  If  genuine  it  cannot  be  earlier  than  the  Lateran 
canon  of  1216. 

1  Martene  de  antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ord.  4,  10.     Cf. 
Ord.  3. 

2  Theodulfi  Aurel.  Capit.  ad  Presbyt.  xxxvi. 

3  Statuta  antiqua  Abbatiae  Corbiens.  Lib.  I.  cap.  2  (DAchery  I.  587) 
Poenit.  Ps.  Ecberti  Lib.  I.  cap.  12  ;  Lib.  iv.  cap  65 

Eutychiani  Exhortatio  ad  Presbyteros  (Migne,  V.  65).    Another  forgery, 
scribed  to  Eutychianus,  which  passed  into  all  the  collections  of  canons  (Theo 
dulf.  Aurehan.  cap.  26 ;  Burchardi  Lib.  xn.  cap.  14 ;  Anselmi  Lucens.  Lib.  XI. 
Ivon.  Carnot.  Deer.  P.  xn.  cap.  71;  Gratian  cap.  17  Caus.  xxn.  Q. 
threatens  segregation  for  refusal  to  confess,  but  it  is  concerned  only  with 
ic  and  notorious  crime,  so  that  confession  is  used  to  signify  application  for 
penance  and  reconciliation. 


INDUCEMENTS  OFFERED.  189 

was  this  all :  the  reluctant  people  were  stimulated  by  assuring  them 
that  confession  was  all-important,  that  it  was  the  source  of  all  hope 
and  that  of  itself  it  secured  justification  and  the  pardon  of  sin.1  It 
was  even  asserted  to  be  the  means  of  securing  earthly  good  fortune. 
When  a  young  friend  was  setting  out  on  a  campaign  against  the 
Saxons,  Alcuin  advises  him  to  secure  himself  by  confession  against 
the  dangers  of  the  expedition  ;  with  this  and  the  protection  of  priestly 
prayers,  to  be  obtained  by  liberal  payments,  he  will  be  able  to  return 
in  safety.2  Charlemagne  gave  practical  realization  to  this  belief 
when,  in  his  eiforts  to  Christianize  his  Saxon  conquests,  he  enacted 
that  those  secretly  guilty  of  capital  crimes,  who  would  confess  them 
to  the  priest  and  accept  penance,  should  escape  other  punishment  on 
the  testimony  of  the  confessor.3  Yet  with  all  this  so  little  concep 
tion  was  there,  in  the  Church  of  the  period,  of  any  sacramental  char 
acter  attaching  to  auricular  confession  that  Theodulf  of  Orleans, 
whom  we  have  just  seen  prescribing  it  annually,  orders  daily  con 
fession  to  God  and  regards  that  to  the  priest  only  as  an  assistance 
whereby  to  obtain  wholesome  counsel  as  to  penance  and  mutual 
prayer,4  and  Benedict  the  Levite  speaks  of  it  as  placating  God  and 
merely  seeking  counsel  of  the  priest,5  while  Rabanus  Maurus  defines 
confession  as  confessing  to  God  and  seems  to  know  nothing  of  priestly. 
mediation.6 

In  spite  of  all  endeavor  the  custom  of  auricular  confession  made 
provokingly  slow  progress,  though  it  is  evident  that  some  people 
adopted  it,  for  Ghaerbald  Bishop  of  Liege  urges  diligence  on  his 
priests  in  listening  to  all  who  come  to  confess  and  in  assigning  them 


1  Ordo  ad  dandam  Pcenitentiam  (Fez,  Thesaur.  Anecd.  II.  n.  622).— "Con- 
fessio  sanat,  confessio  justificat,  confessio  peccati  veniam  donat ;  omnis  spes  in 
confessione  consistit,  in  confessions  locus  misericordias  est." — Cf.  Alcuin.  de 
Virtut.  et  Vitiis  cap.  12. 

Alcuini  Epist.  XLIV. 

Capit  Carol.  Mag.  de  Partibus  Saxonise  ann.  789,  cap.  14. 

Theodulf,  AureL  Capit.  ad  Presbyteros  cap.  xxx. 

Bened.  Levit.  Capitular.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  385.     Addit.  in.  cap.  19. 

Eabani  Mauri  de  Clericorum  Instit.  Lib.  n.  cap.  14. 

A  synodal  sermon  to  be  preached  at  all  synods  is  ascribed  to  Leo  IV.  about 
S50,  giving  minute  directions  as  to  the  duties  of  priests,  among  which  is  sum 
moning  all  their  parishioners  to  confession  on  Ash  Wednesday,  and  imposing 
on  them  due  penance  according  to  the  Penitentials,  but  its  date  and  authority 
are  equally  uncertain  (Harduin.  VI.  i.  786). 


CONFESSION. 

due  penance.1  Yet  over-curious  folk  asked  what  warrant  there  was 
for  it  in  the  New  Testament,  to  which  Jonas  of  Orleans  replies  by 
quoting  certain  texts,  wholly  irrelevant  so  far  as  the  priestly  func 
tion  is  concerned.3  In  747  the  council  of  Clovesho,  in  its  elaborate 
instructions  to  priests  as  to  their  duties,  says  nothing  about  hearing 
confessions  or  imposing  penance,  though  it  assumes  that  their  people 
will  come  to  them  to  consult  about  their  spiritual  welfare.3  Even 
the  Venerable  Bede  considers  that  only  heresy,  infidelity,  Judaism 
and  schism  are  to  be  brought  to  the  Church ;  other  sins  God  cures 
by  himself  in  the  mind  and  conscience,4  and  Smaragdus  echoes  him 
in  advising  that  grievous  sins  alone  be  revealed  to  the  priest,  and 
urging  confession  to  God  who  diminishes  sin.5  In  fact,  the  old 
belief  that  confession  to  God  suffices  had  been  too  deeply  implanted 
to  be  readily  eradicated.  It  is  still  indicated  in  the  formulas  of  the 
Gregorian  Sacramentary  and  of  a  Gallic  Sacramentary  of  the  seventh 
or  eighth  century.6  It  is  to  be  found  in  many  of  the  Penitentials — 
the  place  of  all  others  where  we  should  least  expect  to  meet  it— in 
case  of  the  absence  of  a  priest.7  Alcuin,  with  the  indecision  customary 
at  the  period,  wavers  between  confession  to  God  and  to  the  priest.8 
A  still  more  emphatic  testimony  to  the  complete  uncertainty  which 
.as  yet  reigned  on  the  subject,  and  to  the  resistance  of  inertia  offered 
to  the  introduction  of  auricular  confession,  is  found  in  the  proceed 
ings  of  the  council  of  Chalons  in  813.  Charlemagne  had  summoned 
the  prelates  of  his  vast  empire  to  meet  in  five  great  synods,  at  Aries, 
Chalons,  Tours,  Keims  and  Mainz,  to  consult  as  to  the  welfare  of  the 
Church  and  to  offer  him  suggestions  to  be  embodied  in  legislation. 
The  synods  of  Aries  and  Mainz  paid  no  attention  to  confession  and 

1  Ghaerbaldi  Instruct.  Pastoral.  (Martene  Ampliss.  Collect.  VII.  27). 

2  Joii£e  Aurelian.  de  Instit.  Laicali  I.  15. 

3  Con.  Cloveshoviens.  ann.  747  cap.  8-12  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  III.  365-66). 

4  Bedte  in  Lucae  Evang.  Exposit.  Lib.  v.  cap.  17. 

5  Smaragdi  Diadema  Monachorum  cap.  16. 

6  Sacrament.  Gregorian.  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  pp.  886-93).— Sacra 
ment.  Gallican.  (Ibid.  P.  in.  p.  873). 

7  Capitula  Dacheriana  cap.  58,  150.— Canones  Gregorii  cap.  38. — Theodori 
Prenitent.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xii.  \  7.— Cummeani  Poenitent.  xiv.  13.— Poenit.  Ps. 
Gregorii  III.  cap.  30  (Wasserschleben,  Bussordnungen,  pp,  150,  158,  164,  196, 
493, 545.) 

8  Alcuini  de  Psalmorum  Usu  P.  n.  cap.  3,  8,  9;  Ejusd.  Officia  per  Ferias, 
Feria  2,  4,  5;  Ejusd.  de  Confessione  Peccatorum  cap.  2,  7. 


RETROGRESSION.  191 

penance.  Those  of  Reims  and  Tours  complain  of  the  carelessness 
and  ignorance  of  priests  in  hearing  confessions  and  assigning  pen 
ance.1  That  of  Chalons,  however,  endeavored  to  define  the  ques 
tions  which  evidently  were  occasioning  debate  in  the  Church.  Some 
persons,  it  says,  hold  that  confession  is  to  be  made  only  to  God,  others 
think  that  it  should  be  made  to  the  priest ;  both  customs  are  followed 
in  the  Church  with  great  profit.  David  tells  us  to  confess  to  God, 
the  apostles  to  confess  to  each  other ;  confession  to  God  purges  sin ; 
confession  to  the  priest  shows  how  sins  are  to  be  purged  ;  God  often 
confers  salvation  by  his  invisible  power,  and  often  by  the  ministra 
tion  of  the  spiritual  physician.2  Evidently  the  good  fathers  of  the 
council  were  endeavoring  to  still  discussion  by  a  definition  which 
should  satisfy  both  parties. 

The  effort  to  extend  and  popularize  the  practice  of  auricular  con 
fession  evidently  was  meeting  with  scant  success.     Alcuin,  in  writing 


1  C.  Remens.  II.  ann.  813,  cap.  12,  16.— C.  Turon.  III.  aim.  813,  cap.  22. 

'2  C.  Cabillonens.  II.  ana.  813,  cap.  33  (Harduin  IV.  1037).— "  Quidam  Deo 
solummodo  confiteri  debere  dicunt  peccata,  quidam  vero  sacerdotibus  confi- 
tenda  esse  percensent :  quod  utrumque  non  sine  magno  fructu  intra  sanctam 
fit  ecclesiam.  Ita  dumtaxat  ut  et  Deo,  qui  remissor  est  peccatorum,  confitea- 
mur  peccata  nostra,  et  cum  David  dicamus  Dixi  ;  confitebor  adversus  me  injus- 
titias  meas,  et  tu  remisisti  impietatem  peccati  mei  (Ps.  XXXII.  5).  Et  secundum 
institutionem  Apostoli,  confiteamur  alterutrum  peccata  nostra  et  oremus  pro 
invicem  ut  salvemur.  Confessio  itaque  quae  Deo  fit  purgat  peccata ;  ea  vero 
quse  sacerdoti  fit  docet  qualiter  ipsa  purgentur  peccata,  Deus  namque  salutis  et 
sanitatis  auctor  et  largitor  plerumque  hanc  praebet  suse  potentise  invisibili 
administratione,  plerumque  medicorum  operatione." 

In  this  shape  the  canon  was  included  in  the  collections  of  Benedict  the 
Levite  (Capitul.  Add.  in.  cap.  57).  As  auricular  confession,  however,  became 
more  and  more  a  policy  to  be  enforced,  this  recognition  of  its  subsidiary 
character  could  not  be  permitted  and  zealous  churchmen  resorted  to  the 
customary  device  of  interpolation.  Burchard  prints  it  (Decreti  Lib.  xix. 
cap.  145),  crediting  it  to  the  Penitential  of  Theodore,  in  which  it  does  not 
exist,  and  inserting  after  the  first  "  peccata  "  the  words  ut  Greed  and  after 
"  percensent "  ut  tola  sancta  ecdesia,  thus  giving  it  a  totally  different  signifi 
cance.  In  this  shape  it  was  carried  into  Ivo  (Deer.  P.  xv.  cap.  155)  and 
Gratian  (cap.  90  Caus.  xxxni.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1).  To  this  falsification  is  attri 
butable  the  notion  which  prevailed  during  the  middle  ages  that  confession 
was  unknown  in  the  Eastern  Church,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  Gloss  on  the 
Decretum. 

For  futile  attempts  to  explain  away  the  plain  meaning  of  the  canon  see 
Estius  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  \  7  and  Palmieri  Tract,  de  Poenit.  p.  388. 


192  CONFESSION. 

to  the  brethren  in  Aquitaine  and  Languedoc,  praises  highly  their 
piety  and  reverence,  but  reproves  them  because  he  is  told  that  no 
layman  is  Avilling  to  confess  to  a  priest.1    In  spite  of  the  exhortations 
and  commands  to  confess  annually  it  is  apparent  from  the  formulas 
in  the  Penitentials  and  the  books  of  ritual  that  voluntary  confession 
was  an  extraordinary  incident  in  the  life  of  a  sinner  and  an  unusual 
one  in  that  of  a  priest.     The  long  recital  provided  for,  of  sins  from 
childhood  to  maturity,  shows  that  penitents  were  expected  to  come 
forward  only  when  in  fear  of  approaching  death  or  of  some  unusual 
danger,  and  that  the  misdeeds  of  a  lifetime  were  accumulated  to  be 
rehearsed  in  a  single  effort  to  quiet  the  conscience.     The  long  pro 
tracted  ceremonies,  moreover,  rendered  it  impossible  for  a  priest  to 
expedite  more  than  a  very  few  penitents,  and  could  only  have  been 
framed  at  a  time  when  a  confession  was  an  infrequent  occurrence. 
When  a  penitent  applies,  the  priest  is  instructed  to  retire  to  his  cubi- 
culum,  or  prayer-cell,  and  pray  to  God  as  a  preliminary,  after  which 
he  returns  to  the  sinner,  preaches  a  sermon  to  him,  or  perhaps  even 
says  mass  over  him  and  at  the  least  sings  several  psalms,  listens  to 
the  long  catalogue  of  crime,  consults  with  the  penitent  as  to  the 
amount  of  penance  that  he  can  endure,  enjoins  it,  and  the  perform 
ance  concludes  with  a  number  of  prayers.     Still  more  convincing  as 
to  the  rarity  of  the  occasion  is  the  fact  that,  in  many  of  the  Ordines, 
the  priest  is  directed  to  encourage  the  penitent  by  sharing  with  him 
a  portion  of  the  penance  and  fasting  with  him  for  two  or  three  weeks 
—an  amount  of  self-sacrifice  only  to  be  expected  when  penitents  were 
as  few  as  black  swans,  and  scarce  adapted  to  lead  the  priest  to  encour 
age  confession  among  his  flock  unless  some  notable  pecuniary  advan 
tage  was  anticipated  as  a  result.2     Many  of  these  Ordines  comprise 

1  Alcuini  Epist.  cxn.— "  Dicitur  vero  neminem  ex  laicis  suam  velle  confes- 
sionem  sacerdotibus  dare." 

2  For  the  inordinately  long  and  complicated  ceremonial  of  confession  see 
Pcemtentiale  Sangermanense,  Pseudo-Romanum,  Merseburgense,  Sangallense 

I  Valhcelhanum  II.  (Wasserschleben,  pp.  349,  361,  389,  437,  551).— Garo- 

feh,  Ordo  ad  dandam  Poenitentiam,  Romse,  1791,  p.   ll.-Ordo  ad  dandem 

Poemt.  (Pez  Thesauri  Anecd.  II.  n.  611).-Martene  de  antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus 

Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ord.  2,  6,  12.-Morini  de  Sacr.  Pcenit.  App.  p.  25. 

For  instructions  to  the  priest  to  share  the  penance  see  Poenitentiale  Pseudo- 

1»,  Sangermanense,  Pseudo-Eomanum,  Merseburgense,  and  the  Corrector 
Surchard!  (Wasserschleben,  pp.  250,  349,  361,  389,  676).-Garofali  loc.  cit.- 
Muraton  Antiq.  Ital.  Diss.  68  (T.  xiv.  pp.  27,  37)-Martene,  loc.  cit.  Ord.  2, 


DIVERGENT  CUSTOMS.  193 

formulas  of  confession  evidently  drawn  up  to  guard  against  lapses  of 
memory  in  penitents  confessing  the  crimes  of  a  whole  life.  They  are 
hideous  catalogues  of  vice  and  sin,  containing  all  that  the  dismal 
experience  of  the  confessional  could  mass  together  and  apparently 
were  repeated  by  the  penitent  whether  or  not  he  was  guilty  of  all 
the  wickedness  thus  detailed.1  How  different,  moreover,  was  all  this 
from  sacramental  confession  is  seen  in  the  rule  that  the  penitent  must 
also  reveal  whatever  he  knows  of  the  sins  of  other  persons,  with  a 
view  to  their  amendment,  and  failure  to  do  this  is  denounced  as  a 
fresh  sin.2 

The  popular  resistance  of  inertia  was  evidently  hard  to  overcome 
either  by  allurements  or  commands,  but  the  Church  persevered  with 
its  ordinary  persistence.  Every  diocese,  however,  was  a  law  unto 
itself.  In  889  Riculfus  of  Soissons,  in  his  very  minute  instructions 
to  his  priests,  makes  no  allusions  to  private  confession  and  penance ; 
they  are  instructed  to  look  after  the  public  penitents  and  in  due  time 
to  bring  them  in  for  reconciliation,  but  nothing  more.3  Yet  within 
a  few  years,  about  900,  Regino  of  Pruhm  shows  us  that,  in  some 
places,  annual  confession  was  assumed  to  be  the  rule,  for  in  episcopal 
visitations  one  of  the  points  to  be  inquired  into  is  whether  any  one 
does  not  come  to  confession  at  least  once  a  year  on  Ash  Wednesday,4 


10.— Pseudo-Alcuin.  Lib.  de  Divinis  Officiis  cap.  13. — Ivonis  Deer.  P.  xv. 
cap.  51. 

That  death-bed  confession  had  become  customary  is  inferable  from  cap.  29  of 
the  council  of  Paris  in  829. 

1  A  good  example  of  these  will  be  found  in  Martene,  loc.  tit.  Ord.  3.     This 
custom  probably  explains  the  curious  con  fession  of  Katherius  of  Verona,  in 
which  he  represents  himself  as  the  most  abandoned  wretch  on  earth — he  who 
was  the  sternest  moralist  of  the  age. — Eatherii  Veronens.  Dial.  Confessional. 
(Migne,  CXXXVI.  397). 

How  deeply  ingrained  and  almost  ineradicable  was  the  custom  of  deferring 
confession  till  the  death-bed  is  shown  by  the  repeated  exhortations  against  it 
in  many  of  the  sermons  which  pass  under  the  names  of  St.  Augustin  and  St. 
Csesarius  of  Aries.  See  S.  Augustini  Serm.  Append.  Serm.  255,  256,  257,  258, 
259. 

2  Bened.  Levit.  Capitul.  Lib.  vii.  cap.  386.— Ivon.  Deer.  P.  xvi.  cap.  360. 

3  Eiculfi  Suession.  Constitt.  cap.  ix.  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  416). 

4  Eeginon.  de  Eccles.  Discipl.  Lib.  n.  5,  n.  65.     Lib.  I.  cap.  288  (copied  into 
Burchard,  xix.  2)  orders  priests  to  invite  all  conscious  of  mortal  sin  to  come 
to  confession  on  Ash  Wednesday. 

Binterim  (Denkwiirdigkeiten,  V.  in.  267)  rather  recklessly  quotes  Eegino 

I.— 13 


194  CONFESSION. 

and  some  other  canons  of  nearly  the  same  period  indicate  the  same.1 
On  the  other  hand  the  council  of  Trosley,  in  909,  in  its  elaborate 
exhortations  to  sinners,  speaks  only  of  confession  to  God,  to  be  fol 
lowed  by  mortification  and  almsgiving.2  Under  the  powerful  influence 
of  St.  Dunstan,  King  Edgar  the  Pacific  was  led  about  967  to  recom 
mend  that  all  polluted  with  mortal  sin  should  confess  to  their  bishops 
on  Ash  Wednesday,  which  he  says  is  a  custom  observed  beyond  the 
seas,3  and  in  a  body  of  English  ecclesiastical  observance,  probably  of 
nearly  the  same  period,  daily  confession  to  God  and  yearly  to  the 
priest  is  enjoined ;  indeed,  when  any  evil  thoughts  arise  they  should 
at  once  be  confessed  to  the  ghostly  leech.4  In  1009  the  council  of 
Enham  orders  frequent  confession  without  specifying,  any  definite 
intervals.5  The  little  that  was  accomplished  by  all  this  is  visible  in 
the  pious  King  Cnut's  exhortations  to  confession  which  are  in  general 
terms,  make  no  allusion  to  periodicity,  and  are  hortatory,  not  manda 
tory,6  while  J^lfric's  Pastoral  Epistle,  minute  and  detailed  as  it  is, 
seems  to  know  of  no  confession  save  on  the  death-bed,  as  a  prepara 
tion  for  extreme  unction.7 

On  the  Continent,  about  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  St.  Ulric 
of  Augsburg  ordered  his  priests  to  invite  their  parishioners  to  con 
fess  yearly  on  Ash  Wednesday,8  and  doubtless  there  was  much  more 
legislation  of  the  kind  the  records  of  which  have  been  forgotten, 
but  it  was  useless.  Few  prelates  of  that  age  were  more  earnest  than 
Atto  of  Yercelli  in  enforcing  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  priesthood, 

Lib.  I.  cap.  195  to  prove  that  at  this  period  confession  and  communion  were 
required  thrice  a  year.  This  is  virtually  Cone.  Turon.  III.  ann.  813  cap.  50, 
carried  by  Ansegise  into  Capitul.  n.  45  ;  it  orders  communion  thrice  annually, 
but  not  confession,  for  confession,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  at  that  time  a  con 
dition  precedent  of  communion.  See  also  Reginon.  Lib.  n.  5,  n.  56,  where 
the  meaning  is  unmistakable. 

1  Statutu  Synodalia  Remens.  cap.  8  (Harduin.  III.  575).— Reginon.  Lib.  I. 
cap.  272.— Burchard.  Lib.  n.  cap.  62. 

2  Con.  Trosleian.  ad  calcem  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  764). 

3  Canons  under  King  Edgar  (Thorpe,  Ancient  Laws  of  England,  II.  267). 

4  Ecclesiastical  Institutes  §§  21,  30,  36  (Thorpe,  II.  417,  427,  435). 

5  Con.  .ZEnhamens.  ann.  1009,  cap.  20. 

•  Cnuti  Leges  Eccles.  Tit.  18.    This  passage  is  lacking  in  the  recension 
printed  by  Kolderup-Rosenvinge,  Havnise,  1826,  p.  28. 

^Ifric's  Pastoral  Epistle  n.  47  (Thorpe,  II.  385.)     Cf.  ^Elfric's   Quando 
dividis  Chrisma  (Ib.  p.  393). 

8  S.  Udalric.  Augustan.  Sermo  Synodalis  (Migne  CXXXV.  1072-4). 


THE  ELE VENTH  CENTUE  Y.  1 95 

yet  in  the  elaborate  instructions  which  he  framed  for  his  priests  there 
is  no  allusion  to  any  duty  incumbent  on  them  to  hear  confessions  or 
to  impose  private  penance.  The  only  form  he  recognizes  is  public 
penance  for  public  sins ;  if  a  priest  hears  of  a  sin  committed  he  is  to 
summon  the  offender  and  to  impose  penance  according  to  the  canons, 
but  is  not  to  reconcile  him  without  permission  of  the  bishop  ;  if  the 
sinner  refuses,  the  bishop  is  to  be  notified,  who  will  then  take  the 
requisite  action.  So,  in  the  admonitions  which  the  priest  is  to  give 
to  his  flock,  there  is  no  word  of  exhortation  to  auricular  confession, 
but  they  are  daily  to  confess  their  sins  to  God  with  sighs  and  tears.1 
All  the  efforts  of  the  Church  to  introduce  private  confession  are 
ignored  and  we  find  ourselves  transported  back  to  the  fourth  cen 
tury.  When,  in  the  year  1000,  the  council  of  Poitiers  allowed 
bishops  to  accept,  but  not  to  exact,  payment  for  receiving  to  penance 
and  conferring  confirmation  it  infers  that  both  were  strictly  episcopal 
functions  in  which  priests  could  not  participate.2  A  Norman  council 
of  about  1025  classes  confession  merely  as  an  alternative  when  it 
declares  that  any  mortal  sin  since  baptism  closes  the  portals  of 
heaven,  unless  it  is  washed  away  either  by  confession  or  contrition 
or  by  other  good  works.3  Thietmar  of  Merseburg  is  evidently  of 
the  same  opinion,  Avhen  he  relates  how  Archbishop  Walterdus  of 
Magdeburg  and  another  notoriously  licentious  man  redeemed  their 
lapses  of  the  flesh  by  contrition  and  liberal  almsgiving,  without  any 
allusion  to  confession  and  absolution.  Sometimes  an  intercessor 
aided  in  this,  like  the  holy  recluse  virgin  Sisu,  to  whom  sinners 
used  to  flock  with  gifts,  by  distributing  which  among  the  poor  she 
redeemed  the  sins  of  the  donors.  The  manner  in  which  Thietmar 
chronicles  occasionally  the  confessions  of  individuals,  especially  on 
the  death -bed,  shows  that  it  was  regarded  as  rather  a  noteworthy 
occurrence,  and  an  experience  of  his  own  is  highly  suggestive.  He 
tells  us  that  he  violated  a  sepulchre  to  bury  his  brother's  wife  and 
adds  that  he  confessed  the  sin  the  next  time  that  he  was  sick.4  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  related  of  the  pious  Emperor  Henry  III.  that 

1  Attonis  Vercellens.  Capitulare  cap.  90,  96. 

2  Con.  Pictaviens.  ann.  1000  cap.  2  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  764). 

3  Con.  Normanniae   incerto  anno   cap.  14  (Bessin,  Concil.  Rotomagensia, 
p.  37). 

4  Dithmari  Merseburgens.  Chron.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  14,  43 ;  Lib.  vi.  cap.  30,  31, 
46  ;  Lib.  vn.  cap.  52 ;  Lib.  vm.  cap.  6. 


196  CONFESSION. 

he  never  put  on  the  regal  insignia  without  having  first  confessed 
and  undergone  the  discipline  in  satisfaction  of  his  sins/  and  about 
1099  the  synod  of  Gran  enjoins  three  confessions  a  year — at  Easter, 
Pentecost,  and  Christmas.2 

On  the  whole  the  Church  during  this  period  was  rather  losing 
ground,  and  it  may  be  assumed  as  a  rule  that  confession  was  rarely 
made  save  on  the  death-bed  or  when  some  threatening  danger  warned 
the  sinner  to  set  his  house  in  order  and  prepare  to  meet  his  God. 
That  penitents  were  few  is  inferable  from  a  regulation  already 
alluded  to  of  a  council  of  Rouen,  about  this  time,  requiring  the  con 
fessor  to  report  all  confessions  to  his  bishop  who  will  then  determine 
the  penance.3  This  wras  not  encouraging  to  penitents  and  still  less 
so  was  a  persistent  effort  made  by  successive  popes  to  enforce  the 
rigor  of  the  ancient  penance,  including  the  abandonment  of  all 
occupations  in  court,  camp  or  trade  that  could  not  be  followed  with 
out  sin,  together  with  the  forgiveness  of  all  injuries  and  atonement 
to  those  injured.4  The  men  of  that  day  might  well  desire  to  post 
pone  until  life  was  spent  the  reconciliation  which  could  only  be  pur 
chased  by  surrendering  all  that  rendered  life  attractive  to  them. 
Accordingly  delayed  confessions  seem  to  be  the  rule.  St.  Peter 
Damiani  describes  the  dowager  Empress  Agnes,  widow  of  Henry  III., 
on  her  visit  to  Rome  about  1060,  confessing  to  him  all  her  sins  since 
she  was  five  years  old.5  About  1095  St.  Anselm  writes  to  his 


1  Eeginandi  Vit.  S.  Annonis  n.  6  (Migne,  CXLIII.  1521). 

2  Synod  Strigonens.  n.  (Batthyani  Legg.  Eccl.  Hung.  II.  120).     The  same 
synod  prohibits  abbots  from  administering  penance,  showing  how  strong  was 
the  jealousy  between  the  secular  clergy  and  the  regular. 

3  Post.  Concil.  Rotomagens.  ann.  1074  cap.  8  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1520). 

4  Synod.  Urbani  II.  ad  Melfiam  ann.  1089  cap.  16 ;  Concil.  Claromont.  ann. 
1095  cap.  5 ;  Concil  Lateran.  II.  ann.  1139  cap.  22  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1687, 
1736,  2212).— C.  8  Caus.  xxxm.  Q.  in.  Dist.  5. 

5  S.  Petri  Damiani  Opusc.  LVI.  cap.  5.    Yet  the  empress  grew  more  anxious 
as  to  her  soul  as  she  drew  near  her  end.    Her  latter  years  were  passed  in  the 
strictest  ascetic  observances,  confessing  daily  not  only  her  acts  but  her  thoughts 
and  even  her  dreams  and  performing  religiously  whatever  penance  was  assigned 
to  her. — Berthold.  Constant.  Annal.  ann.  1077. 

A  similar  assertion  is  made  of  Archbishop  Gerhard,  about  1105,  whose  body 
was  for  years  refused  Christian  sepulture  in  consequence  of  strife  with  St. 
Anselm.  It  is  said  of  him  that  whatever  soil  he  contracted  from  the  world  he 
washed  off  by  daily  confession  and  tears. — Quadripartitus  P.  n.  (Ed.  Lieber- 
mann,  Halle,  1892,  p.  163). 


INFREQUENCY  IN  TWELFTH  CENTURY.  197 

brother  Burgundius,  who  was  about  to  depart  on  a  pilgrimage  to  the 
Holy  Land,  neither  to  take  his  sins  with  him  nor  to  leave  them 
behind  him,  but  to  make  confession  of  them  all  since  infancy — and 
Burgundius  was  at  that  time  a  man  of  middle  age  Avith  a  son  in  holy 
orders.1  Similarly  when,  in  1125,  Archbishop  Gelmirez  of  Compos- 
tella  published  an  indulgence  for  a  foray  against  the  Moors,  he 
offered  absolution  for  all  sins  committed  since  baptism,  showing  that 
he  presumed  his  recruits  would  never  have  confessed.2  In  fact,  as 
yet  auricular  confession  does  not  seem  to  be  recognized  as  part  of 
the  regular  functions  of  the  priest.  In  the  rituals  of  ordination  at 
this  period,  not  only  is  there  no  allusion  to  any  power  of  absolution, 
but,  in  the  enumeration  of  duties,  hearing  confessions  and  imposing 
penance  are  not  mentioned.3  Up  to  this  time,  as  we  have  seen 
(p.  124)  when  priests  administered  penance  it  was  only  as  a  power 
delegated  by  the  bishop. 

Perhaps  the  most  convincing  evidence  of  the  slender  importance 
attached  to  auricular  confession  at  this  period  is  its  neglect  by 
the  monastic  orders,  and  their  adherence  to  the  customs  described 
above  (p.  183).  From  the  earliest  organization  of  monachism,  they 
adapted  to  themselves  the  existing  custom  of  public  confession  in  the 
congregation,  which  was  represented  by  daily  or  weekly  chapters  in 
which  the  brethren  assembled  and  were  expected  to  confess  their 
faults  or  to  be  accused,  when  immediate  punishment,  usually  scourg 
ing,  would  be  inflicted,4  consisting,  in  the  eleventh  century,  accord 
ing  to  St.  Peter  Damiani,  usually  of  from  twenty  to  forty  stripes  for 
each  fault  confessed.5  There  was  nothing  in  the  slightest  degree 
sacramental  about  this,  but  it  sufficed.  After  penitence,  as  we  shall 


1  S.  Anselmi  Epist.  Lib.  in.  Epist.  66.     Yet  St.  Anselm,  when  treating  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Cur  Deus  Homo  cap.  11-15,  19,  20,  25),  seems  to  know 
nothing  of  the  efficacy  of  confession.     The  soul  deals  directly  with  God  ;  for 
every  sin  there  must  be  punishment  or  satisfaction,  and  the  ordinary  means 
of  satisfaction  are  repentance,  a  contrite  and  humble  heart,  mortification  of 
the  flesh,  almsgiving,  forgiveness  of  sins  and  obedience,  but  all  these  are  use 
less  without  faith. 

2  Hist.  Compostell.  Lib.  n.  cap.  78  (Florez,  Hispana  Sagrada,  XX.  429). 

3  Martene  de  Antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  Art.  11,  Ord.  7,  13. — 
"  Qui  ordinandi  estis  presbyter!  offerre  vos  oportet  et  benedicere,  prseesse  et 
prsedicare,  baptizare  et  bonis  operibus  et  Deo  placitis  undique  redundare." 

4  S.  Eucherii  Lugdunens.  Homil.  vnr. — S.  Benedict!  Regulae  cap.  45,  46. 

5  S.  Petri  Damiani  Lib.  vi.  Epist.  27. 


198 


CONFESSION. 


see,  was  erected  into  a  sacrament,  there  naturally  arose  the  question 
as  to  the  sacramental  character  of  these  capitular  proceedings— that 
is,  whether  they  were  only  in  the  forum  externum  or  whether  they 
conferred  absolution  in  the  forum  internum,  which  by  that  time  was 
considered  to  be  the  exclusive  function  of  the  sacrament.  In  the 
early  thirteenth  century,  Csesarius  of  Heisterbach,  who,  though  not 
a  theologian,  represents  the  views  current  among  the  convents  of  the 
time,  has  no  hesitation  in  assuming  that  they  are  sacramental  and 
sufficient  in  both  forums.1  Soon  after  this,  \Yilliam  of  Paris  shows 
the  commencement  of  applying  to  them  the  new  theories  by  arguing 
that  they  are  wholly  judicial  and  complaining  that  they  are  generally 
regarded  as  sacramental,  so  that  those  who  had  undergone  punish 
ment  in  them  considered  themselves  absolved  and  that  no  further 
confession  or  penance  was  required.2  Aquinas  on  the  other  hand 
admits  that,  although  a  chapter  may  be  held  by  one  who  is  not  a 
priest,  yet  the  absolution  granted  is  good  in  the  forum  of  penitence, 
and  he  seems  disposed  to  attribute  to  them  a  quasi-sacramental  char 
acter,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Astesanus,3  but  later  theologians  had 
no  difficulty  in  deciding  that  they  were  not  sacramental.4  At  the 
period  under  consideration  these  questions  had  not  yet  arisen,  and  the 
public  confession  or  conviction  in  the  chapter,  with  its  resultant  pun 
ishment  and  pardon  by  the  abbot  or  other  presiding  officer,  was  held 
to  be  sufficient,  so  that  no  provision  was  considered  necessary  for 
auricular  confession — the  conservatism  of  monachism  handed  down 
the  traditions  and  customs  of  the  early  Church  undisturbed  by  the 
developments  and  changes  of  the  outside  world. 

In  the  old  Benedictine  Order,  Alcuin,  in  793,  writing  to  the  monks 
of  Tynemouth,  urges  them  to  adopt  private  confession,  and  towards 
the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  the  Blessed  Lanfranc  recommends  it 
as  a  wholesome  custom.5  A  century  later,  when  confession  had  become 
a  sacrament  and  was  insisted  upon  as  essential  to  salvation,  Peter  of 
Blois  complains  of  monks  being  compelled  to  confess  to  bishops  instead 


1  Caesar.  Heisterbac.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  49. 

2  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Sacram.  Pcenitentise  cap.  20. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xx.  Q.  iv.  ad  2;   Summse  Suppl.  Q. 
xxvui.  Art.  2  ad  2.— Astesani  Surnmae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  11. 

4  Summa  Bosella  s.  v.  Indulgentia  I  7.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Indulgentia 
\  21.— Caietani  Opusc.  Tract,  xvi.  cap.  2. 

5  Alcuini  Epist.  xiv.— B.  Lanfranci  Sermo  (D'Achery  Spicileg.  I.  443). 


THE  MONASTIC  ORDERS.  199 

of  to  their  own  abbots  ;l  but  in  1196  Matthew  Paris' s  account  of  the 
dying  confession  of  a  pious  monk  of  Evesham  shows  that  no  regular 
system  had  yet  been  instituted.2  The  abbey  of  St.  Victor  of  Paris 
was  the  focus  of  sacerdotalism  and  doubtless  one  of  the  first  to  set 
an  example,  and  here,  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  while  the 
custom  of  public  confession  and  accusation  in  the  daily  chapters  was 
still  maintained,  we  find  the  abbot  appointing  a  monk  as  confessor,  to 
whom  his  brethren  could  confess  and  be  absolved  when  they  felt  so 
inclined,3  but  the  vague  conceptions  still  prevailing  are  seen  in  the 
custom  of  some  monasteries,  as  described  by  Peter  Cantor,  in  which 
the  monks  confessed  to  each  other  and  were  absolved  by  the  abbot, 
thus  dividing  the  sacrament.4  The  adoption  of  regular  and  stated 
confession  was  of  later  introduction.  It  was  not  until  1312  that  the 
council  of  Vienne  required  the  Benedictines  to  confess  once  a  month, 
and  this  was  changed  to  once  a  week  in  1337  by  the  Constitutio  Bene- 
dictina  of  Benedict  XII. ;  but  we  are  told  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century  that  the  observance  of  this  was  irregular.5 

The  Cluniac  Order  was  a  rigid  reform  of  the  Benedictine.  We 
possess  a  very  complete  account  of  the  discipline  of  the  mother- 
house  of  Cluny,  about  the  year  1080,  including  details  as  to  the 
semi-annual  bathing  of  the  monks,  their  stated  times  of  blood-letting, 
and  how  the  novices  were  drilled  to  bend  their  necks  without  curving 
their  backs.  We  are  told  all  the  signs  that  were  used  to  replace  the 
voice,  so  that  the  holy  silence  of  the  monastery  might  not  be  broken 
even  to  express  the  wants  of  human  nature.6  The  daily  chapters 
for  confession  and  accusation  were  duly  held,  but  so  little  confidence 
was  felt  in  the  candor  of  the  brethren  that  discipline  and  morals 
were  maintained  by  officials  known  as  eircatores — spies  or  detectives, 
who  had  entrance  everywhere  and  who  were  always  moving  around 


1  Petri  Blesens.  de  Poenitentia  Liber. 

2  Matt.  Paris  Hist.  Angl.  ann.  1196. 

3  Antiquae   Consuett.  S.  Victoris   Parisiens.  c.   37,  39  (Martene  de  antiq. 
Eccles.  Ritibus  T.  III.  Append.). 

4  Morin.  de  Sacram.  Pcenit.  Lib.  vin.  cap.  ix.  n.  23.— Martene  de  antiq. 
Eccles.  Eitibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  6,  n.  5. 

5  Cap.  1  §  2  Clement.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  x.— Chron.  Cassinens.  Append,  p.  862 
(Ed.  Du  Brueil,  1603). — Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrogatorium  sive  Confessionale 
fol.  lOla  (Venetiis,  1480). 

6  Udalrici  Consuetudd.  Cluniacenses,  Lib.  n.  cap.  2,  4,  21 ;  Lib.  in.  cap.  17 
(Migne,  CXLIX.). 


200  CONFESSION. 

to  observe  and  report  offences.  Yet  the  only  prescription  of  auricular 
confession  was  that  the  novice  when  received  confessed  all  the  sins 
committed  in  secular  life,  and  the  monk  when  dying  confessed  again 
as  a  preparation  for  extreme  unction.1  Some  half  a  century  later, 
in  the  new  statutes  which  Peter  the  Venerable  introduced  in  the 
Cluniac  Rule  there  is  still  no  allusion  to  confession.2 

We  have  already  seen  (p.  188)  that  in  the  early  Rule  of  the  Canons 
Regular  there  was  no  precept  of  auricular  confession.  About  1115 
Peter  de  Honestis  drew  up  an  elaborate  account  of  their  discipline, 
including  baths  and  blood-letting,  but  the  only  provision  for  private 
confession  is  on  the  death-bed,  where  the  dying  brother  unburdens 
his  soul  to  the  prior,  or  to  priests  deputed  for  the  purpose,  after 
which  he  receives  absolution  from  the  whole  body  of  the  brethren.3 
The  rules  of  S.  Jacques  de  Montfort,  probably  about  the  close  of  the 
twelfth  century,  have  no  provision  for  auricular  confession,  but  the 
public  confession  and  accusation  in  the  daily  chapters  is  in  full 
force,  when  the  prior  grants  absolution  and  adjudges  the  penance  or 
punishment.4 

When,  in  1084,  St.  Bruno  founded  the  ascetic  Carthusian  Order 
he  framed  no  formal  Rule  or  statutes.  The  earliest  written  one  is 
by  Abbott  Guigo  about  1128.  It  is  very  full,  ordering  the  monks 
to  shave  six  times  a  year  and  let  blood  five  times,  but  its  only  allu 
sion  to  confession  is  on  the  death-bed,  when  the  dying  monk  is  ex 
pected  to  confess  to  a  priest  and  receive  absolution.5  In  the  Order 
of  Fontevraud,  the  founder,  Robert  d'Arbrissel,  shows  by  his  rule 
that  confession  was  purely  voluntary  and  could  be  postponed  to  the 
death-bed;6  for  the  nuns  of  the  Order  there  is  no  precept  as  to  con- 


1  Ibid.  Lib.  n.  cap.  26 ;  Lib.  in.  cap.  7,  27,  28. 

2  Statuta  Congr.  Cluniacens.  (Migne,  CLXXXIX.  1025).   The  Cluniac  death 
bed  confession  is  illustrated  by  Peter  the  Venerable,  who  relates  that  in  re 
turning  from  England  he  passed  a  night  in  a  priory  of  the  Order  of  which  the 
prior  was  mortally  sick.     Peter  at  once  urged  him  to  make  confession  of  his 
sins,  which  he  did,  but  as  he  wilfully  concealed  a  portion  he  had  a  warning 
vision  that  night  which  induced  him  to  perfect  the  confession  the  next  day.— 
Petri  Venerab.  de  Miraculis  Lib.  n.  cap.  32. 

3  Petri  de  Honestis  Regulae  Clericor.  Lib.  n.  cap.  22  (Migne,  CLXIII.). 

4  Antiquse  Consuetudd.  Canon.  Regular,  cap.  4-7  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV. 
1218-20). 

5  Guigonis  I.  Consuetudines  cap.  12,  §  2  (Migne,  CLIII.). 

6  R.  de  Arbrisello  Praecepta  recte  vivendi  n.  22  (Migne,  CLXII.). 


THE  MONASTIC  OEDEES.  201 

fession,  save  that  if  when  sick  they  desire  to  confess  they  must  be 
carried  to  the  chapel,  and  on  no  account  must  the  priest  be  admitted 
to  the  bed-side.1 

St.  Robert  of  Molesme,  the  founder  of  the  severe  Cistercian  Order, 
left  no  written  rules,  as  it  was  only  a  concourse  of  hermits  who 
placed  themselves  under  his  direction.  The  third  abbot,  St.  Stephen 
Harding,  between  1110  and  1120,  when  the  Order  began  to  spread, 
issued  the  Charta  Charitatis,  or  rules  concerning  the  intercourse  be 
tween  the  mother-house  of  Citeaux  and  its  daughters.  After  his 
death,  in  1134,  the  regulations  devised  by  him  were  collected  and 
are  known  as  the  Usus  Antiquiores,  though  in  the  shape  in  which 
they  have  reached  us  there  are  interpolations  as  late  as  1202.  They 
are  very  prolix  and  minute,  prescribing  every  detail  of  monastic 
life,  even  for  the  sudden  nose-bleeding  of  a  priest  while  celebrating 
mass.  Like  the  other  Rules  they  provide  for  accusation  and  self- 
accusation  in  the  chapters,  followed  by  punishment  and  absolution, 
but  there  is  no  injunction  of  private  confession,  though  the  abbot, 
prior  and  sub-prior  are  empowered  to  listen  to  those  who  desire  to 
confess  such  things  as  illusions  in  sleep.  Even  on  the  death-bed  no 
formal  or  detailed  confession  is  prescribed.  The  dying  man  merely 
said  "Confiteor"  or  "  Mea  culpa,  I  pray  you  to  pray  for  me  for 
all  my  sins"  and  the  absolution  was  equally  informal.2  The  school 
men  were  now  at  work,  however ;  the  sacramental  character  of 
penitence  was  taking  shape  and  passages  in  sermons  of  St.  Bernard 
not  long  after  this  justify  the  assumption  that  confession  and  com 
munion  at  Easter  were  becoming  customary.3  Early  in  the  thir 
teenth  century  a  story  told  by  Csesarius  of  Heisterbach  shows  that 
by  that  time  the  monks  made  sacramental  confession  to  the  abbot  in 
addition  to  the  capitular  confessions.4 

The  ascetic  Order  of  Grammont  was  founded  by  St.  Stephen  of 
Thiern  who  died  in  1124.  The  Rule  in  the  earliest  shape  in  which 
it  has  reached  us  was  confirmed  by  Adrian  IV.  in  1156  and  by  suc- 


1  Regula    Sanctimonialium    Fontis    Ebraldi. — Vetusta    Statuta    cap.    16 
(Ibidem). 

2  Usus  antiquiores  Ordinis  Cisterciensis,  cap.  70,  75,  94  (Migne,  CLXVI.). 

3  S.  Bernard!  Serin,  in  Die  Paschse  n.  15  ;  Serm.  ix.  in  Cantica  n.  3. 

4  Csesar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  23.     Other  stories  (Ibid.  cap.  25,  53) 
indicate  that  only  the  abbot,  or  sometimes  the  prior,  could  administer  sacra 
mental  absolution. 


202  CONFESSION. 

cessive  popes  till  Innocent  III.,  who  made  some  changes  in  it  in 
1202,  so  that  it  represents  a  period  during  which  the  sacramental 
character  of  penitence  was  acknowledged  and  confession  was  becom 
ing  increasingly  important.  Yet  in  it  the  discipline  of  the  daily 
chapters  is  strictly  enforced  and  the  only  allusion  to  confession  is  a 
prohibition  to  confess  to  any  one  outside  of  the  Order ;  the  brethren 
might,  if  they  so  chose,  confess  to  each  other,  and  as  many  of  them 
were  laymen  there  was  no  recognition  of  the  sacramental  nature  of 
such  practice.  Crimes  of  violence  and  theft,  lapses  of  the  flesh  and 
possession  of  private  property  could  only  be  confessed  to  the  Prior 
of  Grarnmont  himself  so  that  in  the  affiliated  houses  sinners  desirous 
of  doing  so  were  sent  from  one  priory  to  another  till  they  reached  the 
mother-house.1 

The  ancient  Rule  which  passes  under  the  name  of  St.  Augustin 
contains  no  allusion  whatever  to  confession.2  Of  the  Orders  based 
upon  it,  the  Premonstratensian  canons  were  founded  by  St.  Norbert 
about  1120,  and  the  earliest  description  that  we  have  of  their  Rule 
is  by  Adam  the  Scot,  about  1180.  In  this,  the  system  of  accusation 
and  self-accusation  in  the  chapters  is  fully  developed ;  the  punish 
ment  there  inflicted  is  held  to  secure  absolution  for  sins  and  there  is 
no  precept  of  sacramental  or  auricular  confession.  Circatores,  or 
official  spies,  are  freely  employed  and  there  is  an  elaborate  criminal 
code,  classifying  offenses  as  leves,  mediae,  graves,  graviores  and  gravis- 
simce,  for  which  the  penalties  range  from  a  penitential  psalm  through 
scourging  to  excommunication  and  expulsion — a  typical  illustration  of 
the  lack  of  distinction  between  the  forum  externum  and  internum  per 
vading  all  these  monastic  institutes.  In  a  somewhat  later  statement 
of  the  Rule  there  is  a  provision  that  any  one  desiring  to  do  so  may 
confess  to  a  priest.3  The  Rule  of  the  Augustinian  Canons  Regular 
was  virtually  the  same  as  this,  as  we  learn  from  a  collection  of  usages 
drawn  up  about  the  year  1200.  We  have  some  documents  concern- 


1  Regulae  S.  Stephani  Grandimont.  cap.  50  (Migne,  CCIV.  1155).— Ordinis 
Grandimont.  Statuta  Antiqua,  cap.  41,  42,  43,  52,  62  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.). 
— P.  Cantor.  Verb,  abbreviat.  cap.  79. 

2  Migne,  XXXII.  1447,  1449. 

3  Adami  Scoti  de  Ordine  et  Habitu  Canon.  Prsemonstrat.  Serm.  x.  cap.  8,  9  ; 
Serm.  xiv.  cap.  18  (Migne,  CXCVIIL)-Primaria  Institt.  Canon.  Pra^mon- 
strat.  Dist.  I.  cap.  3,  4;  Dist.  n.  cap.  4;  Dist.  m.  cap.  1-9  (Martene  de  antiq. 
Eccles.  Eitibus,  T.  III.  Append.). 


THE  MONASTIC  ORDERS.  203 

ing  the  house  at  Oignies,  founded  in  1192,  which  show  the  practical 
development  of  the  system  and  we  learn  further  that  when,  in  1250, 
Peter  Cardinal  of  Albano  reformed  the  house,  which  had  fallen  into 
a  shocking  state  of  indiscipline  (among  the  abuses  which  he  prohibits 
are  keeping  a  tavern  within  the  walls  for  the  sale  of  wine  and  beer, 
the  employment  of  women  as  nurses  in  the  infirmary  etc.)  he  said 
nothing  as  to  introducing  auricular  confession.  It  was  not  until 
John  of  Bavaria,  Bishop-elect  of  Lie"ge,  again  reformed  the  house 
iu  1404,  that  he  ordered  the  canons  and  even  the  novices  to  confess 
monthly.1 

I  have  dwelt  thus  in  detail  upon  the  monastic  regulations  con 
cerning  confession  during  the  critical  and  revolutionary  period  of 
the  twelfth  century  because  they  seem  to  me  to  throw  an  important 
light  upon  the  transition  from  the  ancient  custom  of  public  confes 
sion  in  the  congregation  to  the  innovation  of  auricular  confession. 
They  furnish  us  a  nearly  perfect  and  unbroken  chain  of  tradition 
preserving  that  ancient  custom  down  to  the  times  of  the  schoolmen 
and  the  development  of  penitence  as  a  sacrament.  In  this  survival 
the  only  significant  change  is  the  introduction,  in  the  later  period, 
of  absolution  in  a  manner  which  shows  that  the  distinction  between 
the  forum  internum  and  externum  was  as  yet  practically  unrecognized. 
To  the  monk  his  daily  or  weekly  chapter  represented  the  congrega 
tion  of  the  early  Church,  and  in  this  he  was  bound  to  make  public 
confession  of  his  sins ;  if  he  failed  to  do  so  he  could  be  accused  by 
any  one  cognizant  of  his  offence,  and  in  the  later  period  the  office  ot 
the  circatores  was  devised  to  aid  in  enforcing  the  discipline  of  the 
Rule.  In  the  Rule  of  Benedict,  and  presumably  in  the  rest,  there 
is  a  provision,  like  that  which  we  have  seen  of  old,  that  voluntary 
confession  entitles  the  sinner  to  a  mitigation  of  the  penalty.2  Anx 
ious  as  was  the  Church  to  introduce  auricular  confession  everywhere 
it  saw  nothing  to  object  to  in  all  this.  On  the  eve  of  the  Lateran 
council,  which  was  to  render  confession  obligatory  on  every  one,  the 
papal  legate,  Cardinal  Robert  de  Curzon,  in  1212,  held  a  great  coun- 


1  Consuetudd.  Canon.  Reg.  S.  Augustini,  cap.  20,  73,  74,  83  ;  Antiquae  Consue- 
tudd.  Oigniacens.  Monast.  cap.  19-29 ;  Statuta  ann.  1250  pro  Monast.  Oigni- 
acens ;  Statuta  Keformatoria  Oigniacens.  Monast.  ann.  1405,  cap.  3  (Martene  de 
antiq.  Eccles  Eitibus,  T.  III.  Append.). 

2  S.  Benedict!  Regula,  cap.  46. — Adami  Scoti  de  Ord.  et  Hab.  Canon.  Prae- 
monstratens.  Serm.  x.  cap.  8. 


204  CONFESSION. 

cil  in  Paris  for  the  reform  of  the  clergy.  It  ordered  the  seculars  to 
confess  to  their  superiors,  but  in  the  twenty-seven  canons  devoted 
especially  to  the  regulars  it  said  not  a  word  about  confession,  while 
a  command  to  the  abbots  to  deal  mercifully  with  penitents  shows  that 
the  existing  system  of  chapters  was  deemed  sufficient.1  It  was  not 
long  after  this  that,  in  rendering  confession  obligatory,  the  Lateran 
council  ordered  bishops  to  appoint  penitentiaries  in  all  conventual 
churches,  showing  that  the  regulars  were  no  longer  to  be  allowed  to 
consider  their  chapters  as  sufficient,2  and  in  time,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  case  of  the  Benedictines  and  Augustinian  canons,  they  were 
required  to  confess  oftener  than  once  a  year.  The  Cardinal  legate 
Ottoboni,  at  the  council  of  London  in  1268,  promulgated  a  rule 
inferring  that  monks  should  be  obliged  to  confess  monthly,3  but 
Aquinas  pronounces  this  improper,  for  monks  are  only  bound  to  do 
what  is  required  of  other  men,  except  in  performance  of  their  vows, 
which  do  not  include  confession.4 

Under  the  influence  of  the  new  system  the  capitular  proceedings 
gradually  became  merely  formal.  I  have  traced  this  elsewhere  some 
what  in  detail  in  the  case  of  the  Templars5  and  need  not  dwell  upon 
it  here  except  to  point  out  that  the  change  was  probably  hastened  by 
the  desire  of  the  monks  to  substitute  the  secret  confessional,  with  its 
rapidly  diminishing  penances,  for  the  humiliation  of  self-denuncia 
tion  and  scourging  at  the  discretion  of  the  presiding  prelate.  Among 
the  Templars  this  was  replaced  by  three  annual  confessions  to  the 
chaplain  and  was  one  of  the  causes  of  the  demoralization  of  the 
Order.  During  the  Templar  trials,  one  of  the  brethren,  Robert  le 


1  Cone.  Parisiens.  ann.  1212  P.  in.  cap.  16  (Harduin.  VI.  II.  2013).     In  the 
nunneries  confession  was  already  established,  doubtless  because  the  abbess  or 
prioress  presiding  over  the  chapters  could  not,  as  a  woman,  grant  the  absolu 
tion  which  by  this  time  was  accepted  as  sacramental.     The  council  prohibits 
nuns  from  confessing,  except  to  their  regular  chaplains,  and  orders  the  bishops 
to  provide  them  with  virtuous  and  discreet  confessors  (Ibid.  P.  ill.  cap.  7, 
p.  2012). 

2  Cone.  Lateran.  IV.  ann.  1216,  cap.  10. 

3  Cone.  Londiniens.  ann.  1268,  cap.  54  (Harduin.  VII.  644). 

4  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  VI.  Art.  5.   This  continued  an  open  ques 
tion  (Astesani  Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  11)  and  as  late  as  the  sixteenth  century 
Prierias  still  adheres  to  the  opinion  of  Aquinas  (Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Con- 
fessio  Sacram.  I.  $  3. 

6  Papers  of  the  American  Church  History  Society,  Vol.  V. 


STILL  INFREQUENT.  205 

Brioys,  related  how  Giraud  de  Villiers,  Visitor  of  France,  about 
1300,  reproached  the  priest  Jean  de  Calmota,  for  the  facility  with 
which  lie  and  the  other  Templar  chaplains  absolved  the  guilty  mem 
bers  of  the  Order.  If  the  custom  of  confession  and  penance  in  the 
chapters  had  been  preserved,  he  said,  the  brethren  would  be  more 
cautious  in  stealing  the  property  of  the  Order,  and  in  other  wick 
edness,  but  now  the  chaplains  absolved  them  for  money  and  shared 
with  them  the  stolen  goods  of  the  Temple.1 

While  the  monastic  Orders  thus  in  the  twelfth  century  preserved 
the  early  traditions  of  public  confession,  which  had  become  obsolete 
among  the  laity,  the  Church  persisted  in  its  efforts  to  popularize  the 
auricular  confession  which  was  the  only  practicable  substitute.  We 
have  seen  how  unavailing  had  been  these  efforts  to  overcome  the 
resistance  of  inertia,  nor,  as  the  twelfth  century  wore  on,  did  there 
seem  much  prospect  of  improvement.  Had  the  usage  of  regular 
confession  become  general,  with  the  elaborate  formula  in  use,  this 
function  alone  would  have  required  the  services  of  a  large  body  ot 
priests,  and  when  we  note  how  imperfectly  the  Church  was  manned, 
at  a  time  when  religious  fervor  was  almost  exclusively  directed  to 
the  extension  of  monachism,  we  can  estimate  how  infrequent  was  the 
resort  to  the  confessional.  Early  in  the  twelfth  century  we  are  told 
that  Antwerp  already  was  a  populous  city,  and  yet  it  had  but  one 
priest,  who  was  involved  in  an  incestuous  amour  and  paid  no  attention 
to  his  duties.2  In  1213,  just  before  confession  was  rendered  obliga 
tory  on  all  Christians,  the  city  of  Montpellier  had  but  one  church  in 
which  the  sacrament  of  penitence  could  be  administered,3  and  as  late 
as  1247,  when  Ypres  boasted  of  two  hundred  thousand  inhabitants, 
it  had  but  four  parish  churches.4  When  this  was  the  case  with  large 
and  opulent  towns  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  spiritual  needs 
of  the  rural  population  and  peasantry  were  even  more  scantly  pro 
vided  for. 

Yet  in  spite  of  these  deficiencies  there  was  no  relaxation  in  the 
urgency  with  which  auricular  confession  was  enjoined  to  fill  the  gap 


1  Michelet,  Proces  des  Templiers,  I.  448. 

2  Vit.  S.  Norberti  cap.  79  (Migne,  CLXX.  1311). 

3  Innoc.  PP.  III.  Kegest.  xv.  240. 

4  Berger,  Registres  d'lnnocent  IV.,  n.  2712. 


206  CONFESSION. 

left  by  the  disuse  of  public  confession.  A  curious  passage  in  Hono- 
rius  of  Autun,  about  1130,  throws  light  on  the  manner  in  which  the 
one  was  gradually  supplanting  the  other  and  the  confusion  still 
existing  between  the  old  and  the  new.  The  memory  of  the  former 
was  preserved  in  the  ritual  wherein  the  congregation  and  priest  made 
a  general  confession  of  sins.  As  yet  this  was  not  couched  in  vague 
and  unmeaning  phrase,  but  was  a  specific  admission  on  the  part  of 
all  joining  in  it  of  having  polluted  themselves  with  each  and  every 
mortal  sin  recited  in  it,  and  on  its  conclusion  the  priest  administered 
absolution  in  the  only  form  as  yet  known  to  the  Church  by  praying 
for  it.1  Although  this  survival  of  the  original  practice  had  become 
a  mere  formality,  doubtless  the  faithful  largely  regarded  it  as  a  suffi 
cient  expiation  for  their  sins,  and  to  remove  this  the  priest  is  directed 
to  follow  it  with  an  admonition  that  it  is  valueless  except  for  sins 
which  had  already  been  confessed  to  the  priest  and  for  which  penance 
had  been  performed,  or  for  those  committed  in  ignorance.2  Thus  as 
yet  both  public  and  private  confession  were  requisite  and  neither  was 
effective  without  the  other  and  without  satisfaction.  Yet  so  vague  as 
yet  were  the  current  notions  that  in  another  passage  Honorius  de 
scribes  confession  as  equal  to  baptism  in  remitting  sins,  without 
conditioning  it  on  contrition  and  satisfaction.3 

Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  who  laid  the  foundation  of  the  sacramental 
theory,  shows  us  that  at  this  period  there  were  two  opposite  errors  to 
be  combated  respecting  auricular  confession.  There  were  those  who 
boldly  denied  its  necessity,  asserting  that  confession  to  God  suffices 
and  demanding  in  vain  to  be  shown  scriptural  proof  that  priestly 
intervention  is  requisite.  On  the  other  hand,  the  assiduous  teaching 


1  Honorii  Augustod.  Speculum  Ecclesise;  De  Nativitate  Domini.    The  for 
mula  of  absolution  is  "  Indulgentiam  et  absolutionem  de  omnibus  peccatis 
vestris  per  intercessionem  omnium  Sanctorum  suorum  tribuat  vobis  Pater  et 
Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et  custodiat  vos  amodo  et  a  peccatis  et  ab  omnibus 
malis,  et  post  hanc  vitam  perducat  vos   in   consortium   omnium   sanctorum 
suorum.     Amen." 

2  Ibidem.— "Fratres  ista  confessio  tantum  valet  de  his  peccatis  quse  sacerdo- 
tibus  confessi  estis,  vel  quse  ignorantes  gessistis.     Cseterum  qui  gravia  crimina 
commiserint  et  poenitentiam  inde  non  egerunt,  quas  sunt  homicidia  et  adulteria, 
pro  quibus  instituta  est  carina,  nichil  valet  ista  confessio." 

3  Honorii  Augustod.  Elucidarii  Lib.  n.  cap.  20.— "D.  Quid  valet  confessio? 
M.  Quantum  baptismus,  sicut  etiam  in  baptismo  originalia,  ita  in  confessione 
remittuntur  peccata  actualia." 


GRADUAL  GROWTH.  207 

of  the  necessity  of  confession  and  the  exaggeration  of  its  effectiveness 
had  naturally  led  many  to  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  mere  routine  and 
that  forgiveness  of  sins  resulted  from  it  without  repentance  and  with 
out  fear  or  love  of  God.1  The  subject  was  evidently  one  which  was 
engaging  the  attention  of  the  schools  ;  opinions  were  as  yet  unsettled, 
but  the  practice  was  gaining  ground  and  was  becoming  a  matter  of 
habit  with  a  portion  of  the  community. 

Abelard  probably  reflects  the  average  views  of  the  schoolmen  of 
this  time  when  the  sacramental  quality  had  not  yet  been  assigned  to 
confession.  Its  object  is  the  inculcation  of  humility  in  revealing  sins 
to  and  accepting  penance  from  a  fellow  man  :  auricular  confession  is 
not  essential  to  salvation,  but  if  avoided  through  neglect  or  contempt 
perdition  ensues,  for  no  one  can  have  true  contrition  who  despises 
the  institutes  of  the  Church.  There  are  many  reasons,  however, 
which  justify  its  omission  ;  penitents  incur  great  risks  through  igno 
rant  and  indiscreet  priests,  and  there  are  many  who  omit  it  altogether 
without  sin  because  they  believe  it  rather  injures  than  benefits  them. 
There  are  many  prelates  neither  pious  nor  discreet ;  these  are  to  be 
avoided  and  there  is  no  offence  against  God  when  no  contempt  is  felt 
towards  him.2 

On  the  other  hand,  Abelard's  great  antagonist,  St.  Bernard,  who 
exercised  more  influence  than  any  other  man  on  the  current  of  thought 
of  his  generation,  is  never  weary  of  extolling  the  virtues  of  confession. 
Yet  it  is  not  sacramental  confession  that  he  urges,  for  this  had  not 
yet  been  formulated ;  we  hear  from  him  nothing  of  absolution  and 
little  of  penance.  Confession  itself  is  the  great  thing,  but  it  is  often 
doubtful  whether  he  means  confession  to  God  or  to  the  priest,  and  the 
prayers,  mortifications  and  almsgiving  which  render  it  effective  are 
self-imposed  and  not  enjoined  by  a  confessor.  Yet  his  conception  of 
confession  showrs  how  vague  and  indefinite  were  as  yet  the  ideas  con 
cerning  it :  in  one  passage  he  says  it  consists  first  in  knowledge  of 
oneself,  second  in  repentance,  third  in  grief,  fourth  in  oral  confession, 
fifth  in  mortification  of  the  flesh,  sixth  in  amendment  and  seventh  in 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victoie  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  II.  P.  xiv.  cap.  1.— "Isti  non- 
nunquam,  sine  aliquo  compunctionis  motu,  sine  aliquo  timoris  vel  amoris  Dei 
attractu,  pro  sola  consuetudine  explenda,  ad  dicenda  peccata  sua  se  ingerunt, 
existimantes   se  propter  solam  verborum   prolationem  a  debito  peccatorum 
suorum  absolvi." 

2  P.  Ab^lardi  Epit.  Theol.  Christiana  cap.  36;  Ethica,  cap.  19,  24,  25. 


208  CONFESSION. 

perseverance,  while  in  another  he  tells  us  that  true  confession  and 
true  repentance  are  when  a  man  so  repents  that  he  does  not  repeat 
the  sin.1  He  did  not  hesitate,  moreover,  to  attribute  a  magic  power 
to  confession  in  a  miracle  which  he  relates  of  St.  Malachi.  A  woman 
of  ungovernable  temper  was  brought  by  her  two  sons  to  the  saint,  who 
asked  her  whether  she  had  ever  confessed  ;  on  her  answering  in  the 
negative  he  ordered  her  to  do  so,  after  which  he  enjoined  penance  and 
prayed  over  her,  with  the  result  that  she  thereafter  was  the  most 
amiable  of  women.  Apparently  confession  had  previously  not  been 
practised  in  Ireland  for  St.  Bernard  includes  it  among  the  unknown 
rites  introduced  by  Malachi  when  he  Eomanized  the  Irish  Church.2 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  the  battle 
for  auricular  confession  was  fought  by  the  French  schoolmen.  Rome 
apparently  at  this  period  took  little  interest  in  it.  Allusion  has 
already  been  made  (p.  135)  to  the  non-committal  position  of 
Gratian  on  the  subject.  After  stating  that  opinions  are  divided, 
he  gives  a  long  series  of  authorities  to  show  that  oral  confession  is 
not  a  necessity,  for  the  sin  has  already  been  pardoned  through  con 
trition,  and  he  sums  them  up  emphatically  in  that  sense;3  then  he 
gives  a  series  on  the  other  side,  and  draws  the  opposite  conclusion/ 
finally  leaving  the  question  to  be  decided  by  the  judgment  of  the 
reader,  as  both  sides  have  the  support  of  wise  and  pious  men.5 
Even  more  significant  of  the  indifference  with  which  these  questions 
were  regarded  by  the  Roman  canonists,  absorbed  in  the  effort  to 


1  S.  Bernard!  Serm.  de  Diversis  Serm.  XL.  n.  2,  3,  9.— Tract,  de  interiore 
Domo  n.  61.— Of.  Lib.  ad  Milites  Templi  cap.  12;  Epist.  cxm.  n.  4;  Serm.  in 
Nat.  Dom.  Serm.  n.  n.  1;   Serm.  in  Tempore  Eesurrect.  n.  10;    Serm.  in 
Assumpt.  B.  M.  Virg.  n.  4 ;  Serm.  n.  in  Festo  Omn.  Sanctt.  n.  13 ;  Serm.  de 
Diversis  Serm.  xci.  n.  1,  2  ;  Serm.  evil. 

The  eloquent  formula  of  private  confession  attributed  to  St.  Bernard  is 
addressed  to  God.— S.  Bernardi  Confessionis  Private  Formula. 

2  S.  Bernardi  Vit.  S.  Malachise  cap.  3,  25. 

3  Post  cap.  30  Caus.  xxxin.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1.— "Luce  clarius  constat  cordis 
contritione  non  oris  confessione  peccata  dimitti." 

"Non  ergo  in  confessione  peccatum  remittitur,  quod  jam  remissum  esse 
probatur.  Fit  itaque  confessio  ad  ostensionem  peccati,  non  ad  impetrationem 
veniae."— Post  cap.  37,  loc.  cit. 

4  Post  cap.  60,  loc.  cit. — "Ex  his  itaque  appareat  quod  sine  confessione  oris 
et  satisfactione  operis  peccatum  non  remittitur." 

5  Post  cap.  89  loc.  cit. 


THE  PSEUDO-AUGUSTIN.  209 

extend  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  the  forum  externum,  is  the  care 
less  manner  in  which  Master  Roland  (afterwards  Alexander  III.) 
dismisses  the  subject  in  his  summary  of  the  Decretum ;  he  passes  it 
over,  he  says,  on  account  of  its  prolixity  and  practical  inutility,  but 
promises  to  treat  it  elsewhere.1  Evidently  at  Rome  no  one  as  yet 
dreamed  of  the  divine  origin  of  confession  or  of  its  being  an  indis 
pensable  part  of  a  sacrament.  Paris,  however,  took  a  truer  view  of 
its  importance  to  the  new  theology  which  was  evolving  itself  in  the 
schools,  and  Peter  Lombard  boldly  reconciled  the  conflicting  views 
which  Gratian  abandoned  in  despair ;  the  sinner  must  confess  first 
to  God  and  then  to  the  priest,  without  which  he  cannot  hope  for 
paradise.2 

In  proving  this  the  most  conclusive  authority  on  which  he  relied 
was  a  spurious  tract,  bearing  the  revered  name  of  St.  Augustin, 
which  mysteriously  came  into  circulation  about  this  time,  when  such 
aid  was  so  much  needed  by  the  sacerdotal  school.  Gratian  had 
drawn  from  it  the  strongest  evidence  which  he  Avas  able  to  produce 
in  favor  of  confession,  but  admitted  that  it  could  not  overcome  the 
array  on  the  other  side.  The  Paris  schoolmen  felt  no  such  mis 
givings  ;  they  found  in  it  exactly  what  they  required  in  teaching 
authoritatively  the  power  of  the  keys  and  the  indispensable  func 
tions  of  the  priest  in  their  ministration.  It  is  through  the  priest 
that  God  must  be  approached  ;  the  penitent  must  submit  himself  to 
him  in  blind  obedience  and  must  be  prepared  to  follow  his  commands 
in  order  to  obtain  salvation,  as  though  he  were  seeking  to  escape 
from  bodily  death.3  The  extent  of  the  citations  from  the  tract  in 


1  Summa  Eolandi  caus.  xxxm.  Q.  3  (Innsbruck,  1874,  p.  193). 

2  P.  Lombard  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xvii.  \\  3,  4. 

3  Ps.  Augustin.  Lib.  de  Vera  et  Falsa  Pcenitentia  cap.  xv.  n.  30. — "  Ponat 
se  omnino  in  potestate  judicis,  in  judicio  sacerdotis,  nihil  sibi  reservans  sui  ut 
omnia  eo  jubente  paratus  sit  facere  pro  recipienda  vita  animae  quse  faceret  pro 
vitanda  corporis  morte." 

The  date  and  sources  of  this  forgery  have  naturally  been  the  subject  of  some 
discussion.  To  me  it  seems  unquestionably  to  be  the  work  of  two  writers  at 
widely  different  periods.  The  earlier  portion,  up  to  the  end  of  chap.  IX. 
bears  the  mark  of  the  teaching  of  the  fifth  century ;  through  true  repentance 
the  penitent  reconciles  himself  to  God  and  washes  away  his  sins  with  his 
tears.  With  the  exception  of  chapters  xin.,  xvi.  and  xvii.  the  latter  half 
of  the  tract  is  in  direct  opposition  to  this  and  is  undoubtedly  a  work  of  the 
middle  of  the  twelfth  century.  Some  schoolman  of  the  period  probably  met 

I.— 14 


210  CONFESSION. 

the  works  of  the  schoolmen  shows  the  inestimable  service  which  it 
rendered  in  furnishing  ancient  authority  for  the  new  theories,  and 


with  an  anonymous  and  forgotten  exhortation  to  repentance  and  after  inter 
polating  and  adding  to  it  the  new  theories  in  their  most  absolute  expression 
launched  it  on  the  schools  as  a  book  of  St.  Augustin's,  to  whom  it  was  the 
fashion  to  attribute  a  vast  variety  of  spurious  writings. 

As  early  as  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  authenticity  of  the  tract 
was  questioned  by  Abbot  Trithemius,  who  recognized  that  the  style  is  not  St. 
Augustin's  and  that  the  saint  himself  is  quoted  in  chapter  xvn.  The  truth 
of  this  was  soon  generally  conceded,  but  the  work  was  not  on  that  account 
abandoned.  In  1525  Latomus  quotes  it  as  St.  Augustin's  and  argues  that  its 
genuineness  is  of  no  importance  for  it  represents  the  period  and  having  been 
inserted  in  the  canons  it  has  the  full  force  of  law  (Jac.  Latomus  de  Confessione 
secreta,  Antverpise,  1525).  The  Catechism  of  the  council  of  Trent  (De  Pcenit. 
cap.  6, 12,  etc.)  cites  it  without  an  intimation  of  its  unauthenticity.  Azpilcueta 
(Comment,  de  Poenit.  Dist.  I.  pp.  1-2,  Romae,  1581)  says  that  in  his  first  and 
second  editions  of  1542  and  1569  he  did  not  wholly  dissent  from  its  spurious- 
ness,  but  now  he  does,  for  the  reference  to  St.  Augustin  may  have  been  a  gloss 
inserted  by  a  copyist  and  the  style  is  no  criterion  ;  moreover,  tradition  should 
not  be  set  aside  and  the  book  is  a  most  useful  one.  Even  after  its  genuineness 
ceased  to  be  defended  it  continued  to  be  quoted  as  St.  Augustin's  at  least  until 
the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  (Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xvm.  n.  2. — 
P.  Segneri  Instructio  Confessariorum,  Dilinga3,  1699,  p.  31),  and  subsequently 
with  more  or  less  admission  of  the  fraud  (Amort  de  Indulgentiis,  II.  183). 

Another  spurious  tract  circulated  under  the  name  of  St.  Augustin  (De 
Visitatione  Infirmorum  Lib.  n.  cap.  4,  5)  continued  to  be  quoted  until  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  in  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  confession. 
See  Marchant,  Tribunal  Animarum  Tom.  I.  Tract.  I.  Tit.  1,  Q.  14,  concl.  1 
(Gandavi,  1642). 

A  grosser  forgery,  with  the  object  of  popularizing  confession,  was  perpetrated 
in  the  thirteenth  century  by  the  manufacture  of  the  Sermones  ad  Fratres  in 
Eremo  under  the  name  of  St.  Augustin.  There  was  safe  presumption  on  the 
ignorance  of  the  age  when  he  was  represented  as  relating  his  disputes  with 
Arius  and  Fortunatus  and  his  adventures  in  Ethiopia  (Serai,  xxxvi.  xxxvii.). 
The  people  are  told  not  to  hesitate  to  confess  their  sins  for  they  are  at  once  oblit 
erated  from  the  memory  of  the  confessor,  and  the  supreme  virtues  of  the  act 
are  set  forth  with  eloquent  exaggeration— "  Hsec  est  enim  salus  animarum, 
dissipatrix  vitiorum,  restauratrix  virtutum,  oppugnatrix  dsemonum,  pavor  in- 
ferni,  lumen  et  spes  omnium  fidelium.  0  sancta  et  admirabilis  confessio !  tu 
obstruis  os  inferni  et  aperis  paradisi  portus!"  (Sermo  xxx.).  No  fraud  was 
too  clumsy  if  it  contributed  to  advance  sacerdotalism.  So  uncritical  was  the 
age  that  these  sermons  were  accepted  and  quoted  as  St.  Augustin's  (Astesani 
Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxii.  Q.  4),  and  despite  the  exposure  of  the  imposture  by 
Erasmus,  they  continued  to  be  so  till  the  seventeenth  century  (Alonso  Perez 
de  Lara,  Compendio  de  las  Tres  Gracias,  p.  18). 


THE  IMPLIED  VOW  TO  CONFESS.  211 

the  eagerness  with  which  they  availed  themselves  of  the  unexpected 
reinforcement.  Few  forgeries  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  which 
owes  so  much  to  such  means,  have  been  so  successful  or  have  left  a 
deeper  impress  on  its  dogmas.  It  was  virtually  the  foundation  on 
which  the  new  superstructure  was  reared. 

The  great  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the  power  of  the  keys 
and  the  necessity  of  confession  lay  in  the  belief,  to  which  the  Church 
was  fully  committed,  that  the  sinner  could  be  justified  by  contrition 
and  faith.  So  long  as  man  could  deal  directly  with  God  the  inter 
position  of  the  priest  was  not  essential ;  if  sacerdotal  ministration 
was  necessary,  confession  followed  as  a  matter  of  course,  for  the 
priest  must  know  the  sins  before  he  could  absolve  the  sinner  and 
assign  to  him  the  performance  of  due  satisfaction.  To  render  con 
fession  obligatory  it  was  thus  only  requisite  to  prove  that  the  peni 
tent  must  approach  God  through  his  minister,  and  to  accomplish 
this  some  means  must  be  found  of  evading  the  established  doctrine 
of  justification  by  contrition  and  faith.  To  this  Hugh  of  St.  Victor 
pointed  the  way  when  he  asserted  that  the  sinner  who  had  a  contrite 
heart  must  want  to  confess.1  The  hint  however  was  not  immediately 
taken,  for  Cardinal  Pull  us  endeavors  to  answer  the  question  why,  if 
contrition  and  faith  secure  pardon,  confession  and  satisfaction  should 
be  required  in  surplusage,  and  he  admits  his  inability  to  answer  it 
when  he  can  only  urge  the  statutes  of  the  Church  as  a  reason  and 
boldly  affirms  that  without  confession  repentance  is  valueless.2 
Stephen  of  Tournay  dismisses  the  question  of  the  necessity  of  con 
fession  after  contrition  as  one  on  which  opinions  are  divided,3  and 
the  theologians  long  continued  to  admit,  as  a  matter  of  theory,  that 
contrition  may  be  so  perfect  as  to  render  priestly  intervention  unne 
cessary  and  even  to  obtain  exemption  from  purgatory.4  Yet  Peter 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  Summse  Sentt.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  11. 

2  K.  Pulli  Sentt.  Lib.  v.  cap.  51,  59.     He  recurs  to  it,  Lib.  vi.  cap.  51  and 
endeavors  to  argue  away  as  exceptional  the  cases  of  St.  Peter  and  Mary  Mag 
dalen,  the  penitent  thief  and  the  woman  taken  in  adultery. 

3  Steph.  Tornacensis  Summa  Deer.  Gratiani  Cans,  xxxiii.  Q.  3  (Ed.  Schulte, 
Giessen,  1891,  p.  246). 

The  contemptuous  indifference  with  which  Stephen  treats  the  whole  subject 
shows  that,  like  the  Roman  canonists,  he  regarded  it  as  a  profitless  scholastic 
dispute  and  that  he  failed  completely  to  recognize  the  importance  of  its 
consequences. 

4  P.  Lombard  Sentt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  xx.  \\  1,  2. — R.  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate 


212  CONFESSION. 

Lombard  hit  upon  a  method  to  reconcile  this  with  the  necessity  of 
confession,  when,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Pseudo-Augustin,  he 
suggested  that  contrition  to  be  sufficing  must  contain  a  vow  to  con 
fess  to  a  priest  if  there  is  opportunity  to  do  so.1  It  is  true  that  he 
puts  forward  this  definition  rather  hesitatingly  and  inferentially  than 
directly,  but  it  was  too  ready  a  solution  of  the  vexed  problem  to  be 
allowed  to  remain  doubtful.  Kichard  of  St.  Victor  seized  upon  it 
and  asserted  it  positively — true  repentance  is  the  detestation  of  sin 
with  a  vow  of  amendment,  of  confession  and  of  satisfaction;  it 
needs  therefore  the  intervention  of  the  priest  when  one  can  be  had.2 
He  has  no  authorities  to  cite  for  this,  he  starts  with  it  as  a  postulate 
based  on  authentic  doctrine  and  does  not  trouble  himself  to  prove  it, 
though  he  condescends  to  meet  the  argument  that  no  one  who  is  in 
charity  can  be  damned  by  pointing  out  that  the  patriarchs  and 

Ligandi  cap.  25.— S.  Kaymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  §  4. — Alex,  de 
Ales  Summae  P.  IV.  Q.  xxi.  Membr.  ii.  Art.  1.— Hostiens.  Aurea?  Summa3 
Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Remiss.  $  51,  61.— S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixxxiv. 
Art.  1 ;  Q.  Ixxxvi.  Art.  1 ;  Suppl.  Q.  iv.  Art.  1 ;  SummaB  contra  Gentiles  Lib. 
IV.  cap.  73. 

The  effort  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  theories  is  seen  in  various  stories  cur 
rent  during  the  succeeding  centuries.  Thus  Guido  de  Monteroquer  tells  us 
(Manipulus  Curatorum  P.  n.  Tract,  iv.  cap.  5)  that  once  when  Clement  IV. 
(Gui  Foucoix,  the  most  eminent  lawyer  of  his  day)  was  riding  through  the 
streets  of  Rome  he  was  approached  by  a  woman  with  a  baby  in  her  arms, 
crying  for  penance  and  saying  that  she  had  borne  the  child  to  her  son.  The 
pope  prescribed  for  her  Friday  fasting  during  a  year.  Reflecting  on  the  in 
adequacy  of  this  for  her  grievous  sin  she  sought  him  the  next  day  and  re 
peated  her  confession,  when  he  reduced  the  penance  to  three  Paternosters. 
Still  more  perplexed  she  came  a  third  time  and  he  cut  the  penance  down  to  a 
single  Pater,  and  when  his  courtiers  asked  him  the  reason  of  this  leniency  he 
replied  that  the  woman's  contrition  and  the  humiliation  of  her  public  con 
fession  were  more  effective  than  life-long  fasting  on  bread  and  water.  Some 
what  similar  is  a  story  told  of  St.  Vincent  Ferrer,  when,  after  imposing  a  sharp 
penance  for  three  years  the  sinner  told  him  it  was  not  enough,  whereupon  the 
saint  promptly  reduced  it  to  three  days ;  the  penitent  expostulated  at  this  and 
asked  for  more,  when  St.  Vincent  diminished  it  to  three  Paters  and  Aves  and 
his  judgment  was  confirmed,  for  at  the  sinner's  death  his  soul  was  seen  to  soar 
to  heaven  without  stopping  in  purgatory.— S.  Leonardo  da  Porto  Maurizio, 
Discorso  Mistico  e  Morale,  \  xxix. 

P.  Lombardi  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xvii.  \\  1,  2;  xviii.  \\  1,  4. 

2  R.  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  Ligandi  cap.  5— "Vera  pcenitentia  est  abomi- 
natio  peccati  cum  voto  cavendi,  confitendi  et  satisfaciendi  .  .  .  Eget  ergo 
sacerdotis  absolutione  quandiu  datur  hoc  posse." 


NECESSITY  OF  CONFESSION.  213 

prophets  were  in  charity,  yet  were  they  damned  in  hell  and  would 
have  remained  there  through  eternity,  had  not  Christ  liberated  them.1 
Thus  the  priest  was  permanently  interposed  between  God  and  man 
and  confession,  unless  prevented  by  insuperable  obstacles,  was  proved 
to  be  indispensable  for  the  pardon  of  sin. 

Of  course  so  arbitrary  a  solution,  based  simply  upon  a  definition, 
did  not  meet  with  immediate  and  universal  acceptance,  and  the  ques 
tion  continued  for  some  time  to  be  debated.  Peter  of  Blois  earn 
estly  exhorts  sinners  to  confess,  but  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
intervention  of  priestly  absolution.2  Peter  of  Poitiers  takes  the 
position  that,  although  contrition  remits  sins,  the  penitent  who  does 
not  confess  commits  a  mortal  sin  through  which  the  previous  ones 
return.3  Adam  of  Perseigne  can  assign  no  reason  for  the  obligation 
to  confess  save  the  precept  of  the  Church  and  says  it  is  presumptuous 
to  ask  more.4  Master  Bandinus  makes  no  allusion  to  the  definition 
of  Richard  of  St.  Victor  and  strives  to  solve  the  difficulty  by  some 
unintelligible  talk  about  the  sacrament  and  the  unity  of  Christ  with 
the  Church.5  Yet  Richard's  view  gradually  prevailed.  St.  Ramon 
de  Peflafort  adopts  it,  but  describes  other  opinions  as  still  main 
tained.6  William  of  Paris  does  not  include  the  vow  to  confess  in 
his  definition  of  the  requisites  for  the  remission  of  sin ;  contrition  in 
itself  is  sometimes  sufficient  satisfaction  and  God  asks  nothing  more, 
and  he  only  argues  that  the  Church  would  be  deceiving  the  faithful 
if  confession  and  absolution  did  not  augment  grace.7  Alexander 
Hales  adopts  unconditionally  the  definition  of  Richard  of  St.  Vic 
tor,8  but  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  admits  that  the  confession  and  satis 
faction  may  be  internal :  he  reaches  the  same  result  however  by 
adding  that  oral  confession  and  open  satisfaction  are  due  to  the 
Church  which  has  been  oifended,  and  this  he  says  is  the  prevailing 


1  Ibidem  cap.  19. 

2  Petri  Blesensis  Lib.  de  Confessione  Sacramentali  (Migne  CCVII.  1077-92). 
It  is  highly  probable  that  the  word  "  sacramentali "  in  the  title  of  this  is  a 
later  interpolation. 

3  Petri  Pictaviens.  Sententt.  Lib.  in.  cap.  12. 

4  Adami  de  Persennia  Epist.  xx.  (Martene  Thesaur.  I.  751). 

5  M.  Bandini  Sententt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  19. 

6  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  \  4. 

7  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Sacram.  Penitent,  c.  4,  19. 

8  Alex,  de  Ales  Summee  P.  IV.  Q.  xvii.  Membr.  1,  Art.  3  ;  Q.  xvni.  Membr. 
2,  Art.  1 ;  Q.  xxi.  Membr.  2,  Art.  2. 


214  CONFESSION. 

opinion  and  is  to  be  held.  He  further  quotes  Cardinal  Hugo  of  S. 
Claro  to  the  effect  that  if  the  vow  to  confess  and  satisfy  is  not  ful 
filled  when  occasion  offers  the  old  sins  do  not  return  but  a  new 
mortal  sin  is  committed — a  view  which  has  been  generally  adopted.1 
Aquinas  is  not  entirely  consistent  in  his  treatment  of  the  question. 
He  adopts  Richard's  definition,  but  he  admits  that  contrition  alone 
can  efface  both  culpa  and  pcena,  and  argues  that  confession  and  satis 
faction  are  required  to  obtain  certainty  and  to  obey  the  precepts  of 
the  Church ;  moreover,  he  uses  the  vow  to  confess  in  order  to  prove 
that  the  keys  remove  culpa  as  well  as  pcena.2  It  would  be  super 
fluous  to  continue  further  the  examination  of  the  progress  of  the 
definition  of  sufficing  contrition  as  including  the  vow  to  confess  and 
satisfy,  which  became  accepted  as  a  commonplace  of  the  schools.  It 
was  inferred  by  Martin  V.  in  1418,  at  the  council  of  Constance, 
when  he  assumed  that  contrition  does  not  suffice  and  that  confession 
is  necessary  if  a  fitting  priest  can  be  found.3  Thomas  of  Walden 
yielded  the  position  when,  in  answering  the  Wickliffites,  he  admitted 
that  repentance  and  amendment  secure  pardon  and  added  that  con 
fession  and  satisfaction  can  do  no  harm  and  must  do  good,4  and  on 
the  eve  of  the  Reformation  Geiler  von  Keysersberg  bases  the  claim 
of  confession  only  on  the  necessity  of  reconciliation  to  the  Church 
as  well  as  to  God  before  taking  the  Eucharist  from  the  hand  of  an 
ecclesiastic,  otherwise  contrition  would  suffice.5  Finally  the  council 
of  Trent  put  the  question  at  rest  by  adopting  Richard  of  St.  Victor's 
definition  of  contrition6  and  since  then  it  has  been  de  fide  that  a 


1  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  §  6.— Petri  Hieremiae 
Quadragesimale    Serm.    xxi.  —  Zerola,   Praxis    Sacr.    Pcenit.    cap.    vn.    Q. 
xxx.  xxxi. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquin.  SummsB  Suppl.  Q.  I.  Art.  1 ;  Q.  ix.  Art.  1 ;  Q.  xvm.  Art. 
1. — Opusc.  xxn.  cap.  2. 

8  Martini  PP.  V.  Bull.  Inter  cunctas,  22  Feb.  1418  (Harduin.  VIII.  915).  Yet 
Astesanus  (Summee  Lib.  v.  Tit.  x.  Art.  2,  Q.  1)  admits  an  exception.  A  man 
can  be  saved  without  confession  if  his  contrition  is  so  intense  as  to  cause  him 
to  forget  the  precept,  but  if  the  omission  is  caused  by  contempt  or  by  absorp 
tion  in  worldly  affairs  the  contrition  does  not  suffice. 

4  Thomas  de  Walden  de  Sacramentis  cap.  CL.  n.  1. 

5  Jo.  Keysersperg.  Navicula  PcenitentiaB  (Aug.  Vindel.  1511,  fol.  xxiii.  col.  1). 

6  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenitentia  cap.  4 ;  can.  4,  7.     Of.  Sess.  vi.  De 
Justificatione  cap.  14. 

According  to  Melchor  Cano  the  vow  to  confess  must  be  explicit  and  not  im- 


BECOMES  POP  ULARIZED.  215 

mortal  sinner  cannot  be  pardoned  without  auricular  confession  if  a 
priest  is  accessible. 

When  Peter  Lombard  and  Richard  of  St.  Victor  had  thus  proved 
the  necessity  of  confession  to  secure  pardon  for  sin  the  use  of  the 
confessional  naturally  became  more  common.  It  was  encouraged  in 
every  way,  and  the  path  of  the  sinner  was  made  wide  and  easy. 
Theologians  might  amuse  themselves  with  defining  the  prevenient 
grace  and  the  detestation  of  sin,  the  change  of  heart  and  the  firm 
resolution  of  amendment  which  were  requisite  along  with  the  vow 
of  confession,  but  in  practice  these  were  disregarded  in  reliance  on 
the  power  of  the  keys.  When  the  Bishop  of  Beauvais  enquired  of 
Alexander  III.  what  should  be  done  with  penitents  who  came  to 
confess  and  declared  that  they  could  not  abstain  from  crime  the 
pope  who,  as  Master  Roland,  had  recorded  his  contemptuous  in 
difference  to  the  subject,  benignantly  replied  that,  although  this  was 
not  true  penitence,  yet  they  should  be  received  to  confession  and 
penance  be  duly  imposed  with  wholesome  exhortations.1  Although 
this  was  placing  a  very  low  estimate  on  the  newly  discovered  sacra 
ment  of  penitence,  it  was  not  a  mere  temporary  expression  of  papal 
opinion,  but  was  included  in  the  Decretals  of  Gregory  IX.  and  thus 
became  part  of  the  permanent  law  of  the  Church.  The  natural  con 
sequence  of  the  tendency  thus  displayed  was  the  popularization  of 
the  confessional  by  converting  it  into  an  avenue  to  sin,  giving  rise  to 
active  protests  from  the  stricter  members  of  the  clergy.  John  of 
Salisbury  complains  bitterly  of  the  horde  of  monks  who  promptly 
commenced  to  wield  the  keys  and  make  market  of  the  mercy  of  God, 
teaching  that  despair  was  the  only  unpardonable  offence,  encourag 
ing  sin  by  promising  pardon  in  advance  for  money  and  absolving 
with  special  ease  the  rich  and  powerful.2  We  can  readily  under 
stand  how  the  resistance  of  inertia,  which  had  so  long  arrested  the 


plicit  (Relectio  de  Poenitentia  P.  v.).  Cf.  Clericati  De  Poenit.  Decis.  ii.  n.  4, 
5 ;  Palmier!  Tract,  de  Poenit.  pp.  103,  108. 

The  doctors  continued  to  amuse  themselves  with  debates  as  to  the  degree 
and  intensity  of  the  contrition  which  justifies  without  the  sacrament,  but  it  is 
a  purely  speculative  question  of  no  practical  importance.  The  curious  in  such 
matters  will  find  the  various  opinions  set  forth  by  La  Croix,  Theol.  Moral.  Lib. 
VI.  P.  ii.  n.  761  sqq. 

1  C.  5  Extra  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxviii.          2  Jo.  Salisburiens.  Polycrat.  vii.  21. 


216  CONFESSION. 

extension  of  auricular  confession,  melted  away  under  the  combined 
influence  of  the  increased  value  of  absolution  derived  from  the  estab 
lishment  of  the  power  of  the  keys  and  of  the  increased  facility  for 
obtaining  it.  We  have  already  seen  how  Alain  de  Lille  re-echoed 
these  complaints  soon  afterwards,  and  in  his  instructions  to  con 
fessors  we  can  realize  how  different  were  the  conditions  now  imposed 
on  the  penitent  from  those  prescribed  in  the  older  canons  and  in  the 
Penitentials  :  he  was  allured  to  confession  and  no  longer  rejected  if 
he  refused  in  advance  to  declare  that  he  forgave  all  his  enemies.1 
Yet  even  at  this  time  periodical  confession  was  as  yet  infrequent,  for 
Alain  admonishes  the  penitent  when  going  to  the  confessional  to 
scrutinize  all  the  recesses  of  his  conscience  and  recall  all  his  offences 
against  God  since  childhood.2 

The  popularization  and  extension  of  auricular  confession,  which 
thus  was  at  length  secured,  is  proved  by  the  council  of  Paris,  about 
1198,  in  which  we  find  the  earliest  synodical  code  of  instructions  for 
confessors.     That  such  a  code  was  needed  shows  that  confession  was 
spreading,  and  the  character  of  the  instructions  infers  that  priests 
were  as  yet  wholly  unversed  in  its  duties.     From  one  clause  we  see 
that  the  shocking  laxity  of  Alexander  III.  was  not  yet  accepted,  for 
after  confession  the  priest  is  told  to  ask  the  penitent  whether  he  will 
abstain  for  the  future  and  if  he  will  not  promise  he  is  to  be  refused 
penance  and  absolution  lest  he  rely  upon  them.    Another  clause  infers 
that  periodical  confession  was  yet  infrequent,  for  all  priests  are  ordered 
earnestly  to  enjoin  confession  on  their  flocks,  especially  at  the  begin 
ning  of  Lent.3     Briefer  and  less  elaborate  instructions,  issued  by  the 
council  of  London  in  1200,  indicate  that  across  the  Channel  the 
attention  of  prelates  was  attracted  by  the  increasing  prevalence  of 
the  custom  and  the  necessity  of  regulating   it.4     In  Italy  it  does 
not  seem  to  have  spread  as  fast  as  it  was  doing  within  the  sphere  of 
influence  of  the  University  of  Paris,  for  Sicardo  of  Cremona,  in 

1  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Pcenitentialis  (Migne  CCX  286) 

sh'  ^^  29f9)'  •  ™S  ^  f°UOWed  by  a  P^P*  'that  *™y  one  at  Easter 
should  go  to  confession  whether  conscious  of  sin  or  not,  in  obedience  to  the 
mandate  of  the  church.  This  is  evidently  an  interpolation  as  it  conflicts  with 
the  preceding  and  as  no  such  mandate  had  yet  been  issued 


4  Concil.  Londiniens.  ann.  1200,  cap.  4  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1958). 


GENERALL  Y  RECOGNIZED.  217 

enumerating  the  functions  of  priests,  says  nothing  about  the  duty  of 
hearing  confessions,  though  he  alludes  to  binding  and  loosing  peni 
tents.1 

Thus  after  an  apparently  hopeless  struggle  for  centuries,  auricular 
confession  finally  won  its  way  to  recognition  as  an  incident  in  the 
revolution  of  thought  in  the  twelfth  century,  whereby  the  schoolmen 
established  the  power  of  the  keys  and  the  sacrament  of  penitence, 
with  the  contingent  result  of  facilitating  in  every  way  the  pardon  of 
sin.  That  it  should  prove  an  instrument  of  such  incalculable  power 
can  hardly  have  occurred  to  any  one  concerned  in  the  movement,  for 
it  was  reserved  for  Innocent  III.,  at  the  great  Lateran  council  of 
1215-16,  to  effect  the  momentous  change  in  its  character  from  volun 
tary  to  obligatory.  That  change  of  supreme  importance  opens  a  new 
epoch  in  its  history,  involving  many  complicated  considerations,  the 
discussion  of  which  must  be  treated  individually.  Before  doing  so, 
however,  it  is  necessary  to  trace  the  gradual  absorption  by  the  priest 
hood  of  the  exclusive  function  of  hearing  confessions — a  point  not 
without  importance  in  its  bearing  on  the  development  of  sacerdotalism. 

We  have  seen  that  the  only  apostolic  command  of  confession— that 
by  St.  James — simply  prescribes  it  as  mutual  and  does  not  recognize 
the  priestly  class  as  specially  fitted  for  it.  We  have  also  seen  that 
during  the  early  centuries  the  only  confession  recognized  by  the 
Church  was  in  conformity  with  this  precept  and  was  made  by  the 
sinner  in  the  congregation  of  the  faithful,  unless,  indeed,  he  might 
be  on  trial  before  his  bishop  and  then  it  was  public  in  the  episcopal 
court — customs  which  were  faithfully  handed  down  in  the  monastic 
chapters,  long  after  they  had  been  abandoned  elsewhere.  Also,  that 
when  the  sinner  had  recourse  to  confession  to  a  priest  or  other  holy 
man,  the  latter  determined  whether  the  case  required  public  confes 
sion,  and  that  the  penitent's  susceptibilities  might  be  spared  by  com 
mitting  the  confession  to  writing  and  reading  it  in  public.  As  private 
or  auricular  confession  gradually  supplanted  public,  it  naturally  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  priestly  class,  who  were  regarded  as  experts  in 
the  matter  of  repentance  and  penance  and  who,  in  the  Penitentials, 
had  standards  by  which  to  apportion  the  penalty  to  the  sin.  They 
had  however  no  prescriptive  or  exclusive  right  to  this.  It  is  true 


Sicardi  Cremonens.  Mitrale,  n.  2  (Migne  CCXIII.  66). 


218  CONFESSION. 

that  the  Penitential  of  Theodore  claims  it  for  them,  but  the  claim 
shows  that  the  people  were  accustomed  to  apply  even  to  women  for 
penance,  and  that  an  exclusive  sacerdotal  privilege  was  a  matter 
which  required  to  be  asserted.1  A  passage  from  the  Venerable  Bede 
has  been  largely  quoted  in  support  of  this  claim,  in  which  he  says 
that  the  lighter  and  daily  sins  can  be  confessed  to  one  another  and 
be  redeemed  by  prayers,  while  the  graver  ones  should  be  revealed  to 
the  priest,  but  we  have  already  seen  that  by  these  graver  sins  he 
means  only  heresy,  Judaism,  infidelity  and  schism,  leaving  a  large 
field  for  mutual  confession  between  laymen.2  Even  confession  to 
women  was  by  no  means  unknown.  In  the  seventh  century, 
St.  Donatus  of  BesanQon  drew  up  a  Rule  for  the  nuns  of  Joussan  in 
which  he  prescribed  confession  to  the  abbess  several  times  daily,3  but 
after  the  establishment  of  the  sacrament  of  penitence  this  was  consid 
ered  irregular,  and  when  Innocent  III.  learned  that  in  Spain  Cistercian 
abbesses  were  in  the  habit  of  hearing  confessions  of  the  sisters  he 
promptly  forbade  it.4  Still  later  than  this,  however,  Cardinal  Henry 
of  Susa  still  quotes  St.  Augustin  to  the  eifect  that  in  case  of  necessity 
confession  may  be  made  to  laymen  and  even  to  women,5  and  Count 
Louis  of  Liege,  when  on  his  death-bed,  sent  for  a  holy  virgin  named 
Christiana,  to  whom  he  confessed  all  his  sins,  not  to  obtain  absolution, 
which  by  that  time  was  a  priestly  function,  but  in  order  that  her 
prayers  might  intercede  for  him.  She  undertook  to  bear  half  of  his 
purgatorial  pains,  and  thenceforth  for  some  hours  a  day  she  suffered 
alternations  of  burning  agony  and  chilling  rigors,  till  he  appeared  to 
her  and  announced  his  release  from  purgatory.6  Even  as  late  as  the 
fourteenth  century  the  synod  of  Cahors  approves  of  death -bed  con 
fession  to  laymen  and  women,  not  that  they  can  absolve,  but  that  the 
reverence  thus  shown  for  the  sacrament  enables  the  priest  to  absolve 


1  Theodori  Pcenit.  n.  vii.  §  2 ;  Canones  Gregorii  cap.  41  (Wasserschleben,  pp. 
165,  209). 

2  Bedse  Exposit.  super  Epist.  Jacob!  cap.  5 ;  in  Lucae  Evang.  Exposit.  Lib. 
V.  cap.  17.— In  fact,  a  large  portion  of  the  sins  subsequently  classed  as  mortal 
were  at  this  period  reckoned  as  venial.     See  S.  August.  Serm.  Append.  Serm. 
CCLVII.  n.  4  (Migne,  XXIX.  2220). 

3  S.  Donati  Vesont.  Regulse  cap.  23  (Migne,  LXXXVII.  282). 
*  Cap.  10  Extra  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxviii. 

5  Hostiens.  Aureae  Suinmae  Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  $  14. 

6  Thomae  Cantimpratens.  Bonurn  Universale,  Lib.  II.  cap.  52. 


CONFESSION  TO  LAYMEN.  219 

the  sinner  after  his  death1 — a  highly  irregular  way  of  reconciling  to 
existing  tenets  what  was  evidently  a  prevailing  custom.  Even  after 
this  Bishop  Alvaro  Pelayo  complains  that  women  fulminate  excom 
munications  and  hear  confessions.2 

In  the  absence  of  a  priest,  death-bed  confession  to  a  layman  was 
long  held  to  be  sufficient.  In  1015  Thietmar  of  Merseburg  relates 
as  an  example  for  all  men  to  follow  the  case  of  Ernest  Duke  of 
Suabia  who  was  killed  while  hunting :  summoning  his  followers 
around  him  he  confessed  aloud  to  one  of  his  knights  so  that  all  might 
hear,  and  Thietmar  seems  to  thinks  that  remission  of  sins  cannot  fail 
to  be  thus  secured.3  In  1085  Richer  de  PAigle,  when  mortally 
wounded,  confessed  his  sins  to  his  comrades.4  Cases  of  this  kind 
were  not  apt  to  find  their  way  into  the  chronicles  except  when  con 
spicuous  personages  were  concerned,  but  Dom  Martene  has  collected 
quite  a  number  of  them,5  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  a 
common  practice.  A  well-known  example  is  that  of  the  Sire  de 
Joinville  in  1250,  when,  after  St.  Louis  and  his  army  had  been  cap 
tured,  Joinville  and  those  with  him  were  in  momentary  expectation 
of  death.  Joinville  admits  that  he  could  not  recall  any  of  his  sins, 
but  Messire  Gui  dMbelin,  Constable  of  Cyprus,  knelt  down  beside 
him  and  made  confession,  when  "je  luy  donnay  telle  absolucion 
com  me  Dieu  m'en  donnoit  le  povoir."8 

But  confession  to  laymen  was  not  restricted  to  such  cases  of  ex 
tremity.  Lanfranc,  as  we  have  seen,  says  that  for  secret  sins  it  can 


1  Epist.  Synod.   Guillel.   Episc.  Cadurcens.  circa    1325,   cap.  8   (Martene 
Thesaur.  IV.  688). 

2  Alv.  Pelag.  de  Planctu  Ecclesise  Lib.  v.  Art.  xiv.  n.  61,  72. 

The  extreme  jealousy  of  the  modern  Church  as  regards  confessions  to  women 
is  seen  in  a  decision  of  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Kegulars, 
March  10,  1860,  respecting  the  constitution  of  the  Sisters  of  Christian  Charity 
which  requires  the  members  at  stated  intervals  to  open  their  consciences  to  the 
Mother  Superior.  The  Congregation  strictly  forbids  this,  so  far  as  sins  are 
concerned,  which  are  to  be  reserved  for  the  confessor,  while  only  defects  in  the 
observance  of  the  Rule  and  progress  in  virtue  can  be  communicated  to  the 
Superior.  This  is  prescribed  for  all  female  communities,  where  the  Superior  is 
never  to  be  consulted  as  to  matters  of  conscience. — Miiller,  Catholic  Priest 
hood,  III.  223,  226. 

3  Dithmari  Merseburg.  Chron.  Lib.  vil.  cap.  10. 

4  Orderic.  Vital.  Hist.  Eccles.  P.  in.  Lib.  vii.  cap.  8. 

5  Martene  de  antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  6,  n.  8. 

6  MSmoires  du  Sire  de  Joinville,  Ed.  1785,  Torn.  II.  p.  20. 


220  CONFESSION. 

be  made  to  any  cleric,  from  priest  to  ostiarius,  and  in  their  default  to 
any  righteous  man.1  We  have  also  seen  that  in  the  monastic  orders 
confession  was  made  in  the  chapters  and  reconciliation  or  absolution 
was  granted  by  the  presiding  officer,  who  was  by  no  means  neces 
sarily  a  priest — indeed,  in  the  Military  Orders  he  never  was  until  the 
Hospitallers  adopted  a  rule  that  their  priors  should  be  in  priest's 
orders,  and  this  absolution  by  laymen  was  one  of  the  accusations 
brought  against  the  Templars  at  their  downfall.2  Hugh  of  St.  Victor 
will  only  admit  that  venial  sins  can  be  confessed  to  laymen,3  but  the 
Pseudo-Augustin,  in  extolling  the  value  of  confession,  asserts  that  its 
power  is  so  great  that  if  a  priest  is  absent  it  suffices  to  confess  to 
one's  neighbor,  and  this  statement  was  long  quoted  as  authoritative 
by  the  schoolmen.4  Peter  Lombard,  in  commenting  on  it,  says  that 
opinions  are  divided ;  for  himself  he  holds  that  both  venial  and 
mortal  sins  should  be  confessed  first  to  God  and  then  to  a  priest,  and 
the  penitent  should  endeavor  to  find  an  experienced  one  who  can 
select  an  appropriate  remedy,  but  if  a  priest  is  lacking  then  confes 
sion  should  be  made  to  a  neighbor  or  comrade.5  A  story  attributed 
to  St.  Augustin  was  freely  quoted  by  canonists  in  the  first  half  of 
the  twelfth  century,  relating  how  in  a  ship  threatened  with  wreck 
the  only  Christian  was  a  penitent ;  a  pagan  asked  him  for  baptism, 
which  he  gave  and  then  obtained  reconciliation  from  the  neophyte.6 
Cardinal  Pullus  asserts  that  it  suffices  to  confess  minor  sins  to  a  com 
rade,  but  the  graver  ones  should  be  confessed  to  a  priest,  except  in 
extreme  necessity,  and  this  is  the  view  taken  by  Alain  de  Lille  and 
Master  Bandinus  towards  the  close  of  the  century — the  desire  for  a 
priest  renders  the  penitent  worthy  of  pardon,  in  default  of  the  power 
of  the  keys.7 

1  Lanfranci  Lib.  de  Celanda  Confessions. 

2  See  Papers  of  the  American  Church  History  Society,  Vol.  V. 

3  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  de  Sacram.  Lib.  n.  P.  xiv.  cap.  1. 

4  Tanta  vis  itaque  confessionis  est  ut  si  deest  sacerdos  confiteatur  proximo. 
— Ps.  August,  de  vera  et  falsa  Prenit.  cap.  x.  n.  25.     Gratian  even  inserts  it 
twice,  cap.  89  §  2,  Caus.  xxxm.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1,  and  cap.  1,  Caus.  xxxm.  Q. 
iii.  Dist.  6. 

6  P.  Lombardi  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xvii.  |g  1,  5,  6. 

6  Ivon.  Carnol.  Deer.  P.  I.  cap.  191 ;    Panorm.  Lib.  I.  cap.  26.— Gratian, 
Deer.  De  Consecratione  Dist.  iv.  cap.  21,  36. 

7  Eob.  Pulli  Sententt.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  51.— Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  de  Pcenit; 
Contra  Hsereticos  Lib.  ir.  cap.  10.— Mag.  Bandini  Sententt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  18. 


CONFESSION  TO  LAYMEN.  221 

Though  the  theologians  thus  endeavored  to  restrict  the  old  customs 
in  accordance  with  the  new  dogmas,  the  belief  continued  that  the 
virtue  of  confession  lay  in  the  act  itself,  irrespective  of  the  person  to 
whom  it  Avas  made.  Csesarius,  the  Cistercian  of  Heisterbach,  was 
fairly  versed  in  the  doctrines  of  his  day,  yet,  in  some  of  the  stories 
which  he  tells,  he  shows  that  laymen  could  hear  confessions  and  grant 
absolution  as  effectively  as  priests,  even  when  there  was  no  excuse 
such  as  that  of  the  death -bed.  One  of  the  current  superstitions  was 
that  a  demoniac — or  rather  the  possessing  demon — was  familiar  with 
the  sins  of  those  present  and  took  a  malicious  pleasure  in  exposing 
them,  but  as  soon  as  sins  were  confessed  and  remitted  they  vanished 
from  his  memory.  In  illustration  of  this  Csesarius  tells  us  that  a 
certain  priest  was  guilty  of  adultery  with  the  wife  of  a  knight,  who 
suspecting  it  induced  him,  as  though  casually,  to  visit  with  him  a 
demoniac  whose  demon  reproached  all  comers  with  their  sins.  As 
they  neared  the  place  the  priest  suspected  the  object  of  his  companion 
and  made  a  pretext  to  go  to  a  stable,  where  he  found  the  knight's 
servant,  forced  him  to  hear  his  confession  and  demanded  penance, 
when  the  man  enjoined  on  him  whatever  he  would  enjoin  on  another 
priest  guilty  of  the  same  sin.  With  full  confidence  he  allowed  him 
self  to  be  confronted  with  the  demon,  who  could  only  say  "  I  know 
nothing  about  him ;  he  was  justified  in  the  stable."  In  another 
similar  case  the  adulterer  justifies  himself  by  confessing  to  a  peasant 
in  a  wood  while  on  his  way  to  a  demoniac.1  Even  later  in  the  thir 
teenth  century  we  hear  of  a  miller,  a  lay-brother  of  the  Abbey  of 
Viller  in  Brabant,  whose  reputation  for  holiness  was  such  that  sinners 
flocked  to  him  to  lay  bare  their  consciences,  and  though  we  are  only 
told  that  he  gave  them  wholesome  advice,  it  is  evident  that  those  who 
thus  preferred  him  to  their  parish  priests  must  have  believed  that 
they  were  obtaining  absolution.2 

Meanwhile  the  theologians  continued  to  admit  the  efficacy  of  con 
fession  to  laymen  in  the  absence  of  a  priest.  St.  Ramon  de  Penafort 
does  not  limit  it  to  the  approach  of  death  but  mentions  embarking 
in  a  just  war  as  a  sufficient  reason,  and  he  even  discusses  the  ques 
tion  whether  confession  can  be  made  to  a  heretic,  without  positively 


1  Caesar.  Heisterbacens.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  2.     Even  so  enlightened  a  man 
as  Peter  Cantor  tells  similar  stories  as  to  the  efficacy  of  confession  in  prevent 
ing  revelations  by  demoniacs. — Verb.  Abbrev.  cap.  144. 

2  Hist.  Monast.  Villariens.  Lib.  in.  cap.  4  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  1364). 


222  CONFESSION. 

deciding  it,  except  to  advise  against  it,  for  such  a  confession  may 
lead  a  penitent  into  error  or  despair.1  William  of  Paris,  it  is  true, 
will  only  admit  that  some  hold  that  in  case  of  necessity  a  layman 
can  absolve  for  venial  sins,2  but  Alexander  Hales,  without  specifying 
the  condition  of  necessity,  says  that  confession  to  laymen  may  some 
times  be  highly  meritorious  and  expedient;  it  is  not  sacramental, 
but  if  the  layman  is  holy  his  intercession  procures  absolution.3 
Albertus  Magnus  takes  nearly  the  same  view  —  confession  to  lay 
men  is  valid,  if  it  is  not  motived  by  contempt  of  religion,  and  in 
case  of  necessity  laymen  and  even  women  have  authority  from  God 
to  grant  absolution.4  The  Gloss  on  the  Decretum  considers  confes 
sion  to  laymen  sufficient  for  venial  sins,  but  for  mortal  ones  it  suffices 
only  in  the  absence  of  a  priest.5  Aquinas  treats  the  question  more 
thoroughly.  He  does  not  limit  necessity  to  cases  of  shipwreck  or 
sudden  death  ;  if  a  man  or  woman  knows  the  parish  priest  to  be  a 
solicitor  to  evil  or  a  revealer  of  confessions,  and  cannot  get  his 
licence  to  confess  to  another  priest,  he  can  confess  to  a  layman ; 
such  confession  is  only  quasi  -  sacramental,  but  God  supplies  the 
place  of  a  priest ;  still,  absolution  thus  obtained,  while  it  reconciles 
to  God,  does  not  reconcile  to  the  Church,  and  the  penitent  cannot  be 
admitted  to  the  sacraments  until  he  has  confessed  to  a  priest,  and  if 
he  dies  without  doing  so  he  incurs  greater  purgatorial  punishment 
than  if  he  had  had  the  benefit  of  the  keys6 — all  of  which  shows  how 
impossible  even  Aquinas  found  it  to  frame  a  working  hypothesis  for 
so  purely  artificial  a  system ;  no  sooner  had  the  priest  become  indis 
pensable  to  pardon  than  it  was  necessary  to  find  reasons  for  dispens 
ing  with  him.  Bonaventura  takes  a  different  view;  he  will  not 
admit  that  there  is  any  benefit  from  confession  to  laymen,  even  in 
the  extremest  necessity,  except  as  a  sign  of  contrition  and  as  a  proof 


1  S.  Raynmndi  Summae  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  §  4.  Cf.  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse 
Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Kemiss.  §  7. 

2  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Sacr.  Poenit.  cap.  19. 

3  Alex,  de  Ales  Sumrnse  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  1,  Art.  1. 

4  Alberti  Magni  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Art.  Iviii.  (Juenin  de  Sacramentis 
Diss.  vi.  Q.  5,  cap.  4,  Art.  2). 

5  Gloss  in  cap.  3  Dist.  xxv. 

6  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  vin.  Art.  2 ;  Art.  6  ad  3  ;  Q.  ix.  Art.  4; 
In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  iii.  Art.  4  ad  3.— Cf.  Joannis  de  Janua  Summa 
quse  vocatur  Catholicon  s.  v.  Confessio. 


CONFESSION  TO  LAYMEN.  223 

that,  if  a  priest  could  be  had,  confession  would  be  made  to  him.1  The 
question  thus  became  a  debatable  one  and,  at  the  end  of  the  thir 
teenth  century,  John  of  Freiburg  reflects  the  uncertainty  of  the 
period  by  vaguely  reporting  the  contradictory  opinions  of  the  dif 
ferent  authorities.2  Bonaventura's  position  seems  to  have  become 
traditional  in  the  Franciscan  school.  Duns  Scotus  will  only  admit 
that  confession  to  a  layman,  which  he  says  is  habitual  among  con 
demned  prisoners,  can  be  made  without  committing  sin  and  is  ex 
cusable  through  the  simplicity  of  those  who  do  so  ;  it  is  useless  save 
as  an  expression  of  humility.3  In  1317  Astesanus  discusses  the 
question  with  a  minuteness  that  suggests  that  fresh  attention  had 
been  called  to  it  by  the  case  of  the  Templars ;  he  rejects  the  views 
of  Aquinas,  condemns  those  who  say  that  laymen  can  absolve 
and  adheres  to  Bonaventura  and  Duns  Scotus.4  William  of  Ware 
takes  the  same  view  and  finds  a  new  argument  in  the  indicative 
formula  of  absolution  which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  had  by  this 
time  become  universal.5  A  more  cogent  reason  may  be  sought  in  the 
demoralization  of  the  time,  when  benefices  with  cure  of  souls  were 
frequently  given  to  those  not  in  holy  orders.  The  Franciscan  opin 
ion  gained  ground,  and  even  the  Dominican  Durand  de  S.  Pour^ain 
denies  that  confession  to  a  layman  can  be  sacramental  or  obtain 
absolution ;  at  the  most,  in  cases  of  necessity,  it  is  a  praiseworthy 
humiliation.15  Yet  the  old  custom  died  hard ;  in  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries  no  two  works  had  wider  circulation  as  practical 
manuals  than  Guido  de  Monteroquer's  Manipulus  Curatorum,  written 
in  1333  and  Bartolommeo  de  S.  Concordio's  Summa  Pisanella,  writ 
ten  in  1338 ;  of  these  the  former  tells  us  that  death-bed  confession 
to  a  layman,  in  the  absence  of  a  priest,  though  not  sacramental, 
secures  absolution,  while  the  latter  follows  Aquinas  in  holding  it  to 
be  quasi-sacramental.7  So  when,  in  1418,  at  the  council  of  Constance, 


1  S.  Bonaventurse  Tract.  Quia  Fratres  Minor es  Prcedicent. 

2  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxv.  Q.  39,  43,  76. 

3  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  4;  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  unica.— Franc,  de 
Mayronis  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  1 . 

4  Astesani  Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xiii.  Q.  2, 

5  Guill.  Vorrilong  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.,  xvin. 

6  Durand.  de  S.  Port,  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  xi. 

7  Manipulus  Curatorum,  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4. — Summa  Pisanella  s.  v. 
Confessio  in.  in  princip.  et  n.  8. 


224  CONFESSION. 

Martin  V.  issued  instructions  for  the  detection  and  punishment  of 
Wickliffites  and  Hussites,  he  was  careful  to  infer  that  confessing 
to  laymen  was  only  a  heresy  when  a  proper  priest  was  accessible.1 
Still,  the  Franciscan  view  continued  to  prevail  in  the  schools  and 
Dominicans  like  John  Nider  and  St.  Antonino  of  Florence  aban 
doned  the  teachings  of  their  master  Aquinas.2  Angiolo  da  Chivasso 
asserts  that  the  opinion  of  Duns  Scotus  is  followed  by  theologians  in 
general,  in  opposition  to  Peter  Lombard  and  Aquinas,3  while  Gabriel 
Biel  argues  that  a  layman  can  no  more  grant  absolution  than  he  can 
consecrate  a  host,  but  he  finds  it  difficult  to  set  aside  the  Pseudo- 
Augu stin  and  Peter  Lombard,  and  admits  that  it  is  beneficial  as  a 
counsel  but  not  a  precept.4  While  in  the  schools  the  Franciscan 
view  was  thus  prevailing  it  seemed  impossible  to  eradicate  the  old 
belief  that  a  layman  could  absolve  in  case  of  necessity.  This  is  posi 
tively  asserted  in  a  little  anonymous  manual  for  confessors  at  this 
period,  which  probably  reflects  more  truly  the  popular  practice 


1  Harduin.  Concil.  VIII.  915.—  Nauclerus  (Chron.  Ed.  Colon.   1544,  fol. 
930b )  asserts,  on  the  authority  of  ^Eneas  Sylvius  (which  I  have  failed  to  iden 
tify),  that,  on  the  eve  of  the  desperate  battle  of  Agincourt,  Henry  V.  ordered 
his  soldiers  to  confess  mutually  and  to  administer  to  each  other  a  pinch  of 
earth  as  a  symbol  of  the  Eucharist.     The  story  retained  its  currency  through 
the  moralists— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessor,  s.  v.  Confessarius  quid  cas.  1;  Cleri- 
cati  De  Poenit.  Decis.  xviu. — but  John  Capgrave  is  much  more  likely  to  be 
accurate  in  saying  (Lib.  de  Illustribus  Henricis,  ann.  1415)  that  Henry  com 
manded  his  men  to  confess  and  that,  owing  to  the  scarcity  of  priests,  the 
process  was  slow. 

2  Jo.  Nider  Prseceptorium  Divinae  Legis,  Prsecept.  in.  cap.  9.— S.  Antonini 
Confessionale  fol.  70 ;  Summa?  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  1,  4,  22  §  2.    Yet  he  admits 
(P.  i.  Tit.  x.  cap.  3  §  5)  that  a  man  who  holds  a  plenary  death-bed  indulgence 
can  gain  it  in  articulo  mortis  by  confessing  to  a  layman  if  no  priest  is  accessible. 

St.  Antonino  was  the  leading  theologian  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  his 
works  are  still  quoted  as  authority  by  modern  writers.  His  Confessionale  and 
Instructio  de  Audientia  Confessionum  had  an  enduring  circulation.  My  edition 
is  without  date  or  place,  but  the  work  was  printed  in  Cologne,  1469-70 ;  Erlan- 
gen,  about  1474;  Memmingen,  1483;  Strassburg,  1492  and  1499;  Lyons,  1564; 
Florence,  about  1480 ;  Ancona,  1533  and  Venice,  1473,  1474,  1480,  1483,  1495, 
1511,  1536,  1539,  1566,  1584,  and  1592— and  doubtless  there  were  numerous 
other  editions. 

3  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  §  1.     Cf.  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interroga- 
torium  sive  Confessionaie,  Venet.  1480,  fol.  lb  ,  12b . 

*•  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  not.  1 ;  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  ii. 
Dub.  7. 


CONFESSION  TO  LAYMEN.  225 

than  the  more  formidable  treatises  of  the  theologians.1  Soon  after 
this  we  find  Sylvester  Prierias  returning  to  the  full  doctrine  of 
Aquinas ;  confession  can  be  made  to  a  layman  in  the  absence  of 
one's  own  parish  priest :  the  act  is  more  important  than  the  person 
to  whom  it  is  made ;  though  the  layman  cannot  absolve,  the  defect  is 
supplied  by  God,  and  the  lay  confessor  does  not,  as  some  assert, 
become  "irregular/7  as  though  he  celebrated  mass.2  On  the  other 
hand,  in  1528,  Frias  declares  that  as  the  layman  cannot  absolve 
confession  to  him  is  worse  than  useless.3  In  1551  the  council  of 
Trent,  while  condemning  the  heresy  of  asserting  that  the  power  of 
the  keys  was  bestowed  on  all  Christians  and  not  on  bishops  and 
priests  exclusively,  is  careful  to  avoid  a  definition  as  to  lay  confes 
sion,  and  the  question  was  thus  left  open.4  About  this  time  Domingo 
Soto  speaks  of  it  as  a  custom  formerly  prevailing  in  the  Church,  but 
he  denounces  it  as  useless,5  while  Azpilcueta  discusses  it  at  a  length 
which  shows  that  it  was  still  a  matter  of  living  interest.  He  says 
that  many  believe  that  death-bed  confession  to  and  absolution  from 
a  layman  are  valid,  and  he  considers  that  in  such  act  there  is  no  sin, 
or  at  most  a  venial  one.6  Bartolommeo  Furno's  remarks  show  that 
at  this  period  it  was  still  customary  in  Italy.7  In  1584  Bishop 
Angles  speaks  of  it  as  laudable  but  unnecessary.8  The  savage  bulls 
of  Paul  IV.,  Sixtus  V.,  Clement  VIII.  and  Benedict  XIV.,  under 
which  all  who,  without  being  in  priests'  orders,  administered  the 


1  Casus  papales  Confessorum,  sine  nota  (Hain,  4675).    "  Decimo,  laicus  potest 
absolvere  poenitentem  in  articulo  mortis,  cum  non  possit  haberi  sacerdos." 

2  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  vv.  Confessio  Sacram.  i.  §  16  ;   Confessor  !.§§!,  2. 
Luther  practically  did  not  go  much  beyond  this  when,  in  1518,  he  asserted 

that,  in  the  absence  of  a  priest,  confession  to  a  layman  and  absolution  by  him 
were  as  effective  as  to  a  priest.  In  theory  however  he  had  already  advanced 
further,  for  he  argued  that  the  keys  had  been  granted  to  all  Christians  and 
could  be  used  by  any  one,  irrespective  of  ordination. — Steitz,  Die  Privatbeichte 
etc.  der  Lutheranischen  Kirche,  I.  $  11. 

3  Martini  de  Frias  de  Arte  et  Modo  audiendi  Confessiones,  fol.  64  (Burgos, 
1528).     The  approbation  of  this  work  bears  the  distinguished  signatures  of 
Francisco  de  Vitoria  and  Domingo  Soto.   The  author  was  professor  of  theology 
at  Salamanca. 

4  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Pcenit.  cap.  6,  can.  10. 

5  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  iv.  Art.  1,  5. 

6  Azpilcueta  Comment,  in  VII.  Distt.  de  Poenit.  Dist.  vi.  cap.  1,  n.  81,  83. 

7  Fumi  Aurea  Armilla,  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  8. 

8  Angles,  Flores  Theol.  Qusestionum  P.  i.  fol.  145  (Venet.  1584). 

I.— 15 


226  CONFESSION. 

sacraments  of  penitence  and  the  Eucharist  were  subjected  to  the 
Inquisition  and  were  to  be  "relaxed"  to  the  secular  arm  for  burning1 
are  evidently  intended  primarily  for  impostors  and  not  for  laymen 
who  might  honestly  in  extremity  perform  the  function  which  de  Join- 
ville  did  for  Guy  d'Ibelin,  yet  they  may  have  exercised  some  restraint 
011  the  custom  and  we  hear  little  of  it  after  the  sixteenth  century, 
though  the  question  whether  a  layman  administering  absolution  was 
thereby  rendered  "  irregular  "  long  continued  to  be  disputed  among 
the  canonists.2  Diana  merely  speaks  of  it  as  a  useless  and  abusive 
practice  which  sailors  adopt  in  danger  of  shipwreck3  and  Yalere 
Renaud  only  quotes  and  follows  Azpilcueta.4  Liguori  emphatically 
declares  that  in  no  case,  and  with  no  matter  what  dispensation,  can 
the  sacrament  be  administered  except  by  a  priest,5  and  Palmieri 
alludes  to  it  as  a  pious  custom  of  the  middle  ages  which  fell  into 
disuse  in  the  fourteenth  century  and  was  finally  abolished.6  The 
Church  appears  never  to  have  taken  any  formal  action  on  the  ques 
tion,  either  of  approbation  or  condemnation,  other  than  the  papal 
decrees  just  mentioned  :  as  a  mute  protest  against  the  exclusive 
sacerdotal  control  of  the  keys  the  custom  died  a  natural  death  con 
sequent  upon  the  full  recognition  of  that  control,  yet  its  persistence 
until  the  seventeenth  century  shows  how  strong  a  hold  the  ancient 
tradition  held  on  the  popular  mind,  and  it  is  not  without  interest  to 
observe  that,  in  spite  of  the  denial  of  the  sacramental  character  of 
lay  confession,  a  quasi-sacramental  character  has  still  been  accorded 
to  it  in  the  rule  that  the  seal  of  the  confessional  extends  over  all 
such  confessions  made  to  laymen." 


1  Bullar.  Roman.  Ed.  Luxemb.  III.  142.— Bullar.  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Tom.  I. 
p.  152. 

2  Thesauri  de  Prenis  Ecclesiastlcis  P.  u.  s.  v.  Absolutio  cap.  1. 

3  Summa  Diana  s.  vv.  Confessarius  n.  2  ;   Confessionis  necessitas  n.  13,  14. 

4  Keginaldi  Praxis  Fori  Poenitent.  Lib.  I.  n.  8,  9. 

5  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  540. 

6  Palmieri  Tract,  de  Poenitent.  p.  168. 

7  S.  Antonini  Summa?  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  22  \  2. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v. 
Confessio  in.  g  4. — Aurea  Armilla  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  8. — Clericati  de  Po3nit.  Decis. 
xvni.  n.  15. 

Diana  however  says  (Summa,  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  3)  that  this  is  a  dis 
puted  point  among  theologians. 


CHAPTEK    IX. 

ENFORCED    CONFESSION. 

THUS  far  auricular  confession  had  been  the  spontaneous  act  of  the 
sinner,  anxious  for  reconciliation  with  God.  The  Church,  with  in 
different  success,  had  long  sought  to  popularize  it,  until  the  labors  of 
the  schoolmen  constructed  a  theory  under  which  the  power  of  the 
keys,  in  the  sacrament  of  penitence,  promised  absolution,  and  no  con 
trition  was  held  to  be  sufficing  that  did  not  comprise  the  vow  to  con 
fess  and  to  perform  the  penance  to  be  imposed  by  the  confessor.  As 
that  theory  became  accepted,  the  necessity  of  confession  was  apparent 
to  all  pious  souls  and  to  all  who  dreaded  the  judgment  of  God,  and 
the  practice  increased  in  frequency.  Yet  how  vague  and  crude  were 
still  the  conceptions  of  the  sacrament  is  seen  in  Peter  Cantor's  advice 
that  the  more  priests  the  sinner  confesses  to  the  sooner  will  he  obtain 
absolution  for  his  sins.1 

The  logical  development  of  the  scholastic  movement  was  to  render 
confession  obligatory  on  all  Christians.  Bishops,  as  we  have  seen, 
had  occasionally,  with  scant  success,  attempted  to  reduce  this  to 
practice  in  their  own  dioceses,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  felt  that  so 
profound  a  change  in  the  functions  and  discipline  of  the  Church 
could  only  be  wrought  through  the  authority  of  an  (Ecumenic 
Council — a  parliament  of  all  nations,  empowered  to  make  laws  for 
Christendom.  The  council  of  Avignon,  held  in  1209,  by  the  papal 
legates  Hugo  of  Reggio  and  Master  Theodisius,  and  that  of  Mont- 
pellier,  held  in  1215  by  the  legate  Cardinal  Stephen,  were  both 
silent  on  the  subject;2  that  of  Paris,  in  1212,  held  by  the  legate 
Robert  de  Courzon,  while  it  shows  a  desire  to  promote  confession, 
only  ventures  to  address  itself  to  ecclesiastics.  These  are  told  to 
confess  only  to  their  superiors,  while  bishops  and  archbishops  are 
ordered  to  attend  personally  to  the  duties  of  the  confessional  and  to 
confess  frequently  to  discreet  confessors.3  The  opportunity  for  gen- 


1  P.  Cantor.  Verb,  abbrev.  cap.  143.  2  Harduin.  VI.  n.  1985,  2045. 

3  C.  Parisiens.  ann.  1212,  P.  I.  cap.  5;  P.  iv.  cap.  6  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  2002, 
2016). 


228  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

eral  legislation  came  with  the  great  Lateran  council  of  1215-16. 
Probably  Guido  de  Monteroquer  may  be  correct  in  stating  that  one 
of  the  objects  of  the  measure  was  the  detection  of  heresy,  with 
which  the  Church  of  the  period  was  engaged  in  doubtful  and  inter 
necine  conflict.1  It  certainly  was  utilized  for  that  purpose,  but  we 
can  scarce  believe  that  Innocent  III.,  who  has  the  credit  of  the 
initiative  in  devising  and  carrying  it  through,  was  blind  to  its  far- 
reaching  effects  in  other  and  more  important  directions.  It  was  a 
move  worthy  of  his  far-seeing  statesmanship  and  unbending  purpose 
to  establish  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  yet  even  he  can  scarce  have 
conceived  what  a  mighty  instrument  he  was  fashioning  for  giving 
to  the  Church  control  over  the  conscience  of  every  man  and  estab 
lishing  its  authority  on  an  impregnable  basis.  Through  this  the 
scholastic  theories  of  the  power  of  the  keys  and  the  virtue  of  the 
sacraments  were  no  longer  the  barren  speculations  of  the  closet,  but 
became  efficient  levers  in  the  hands  of  every  parish  priest  to  mould 
not  only  the  internal  but  the  external  life  of  each  member  of  his 
flock,  and  on  this,  transmitted  through  a  skilfully  organized  hier 
archy  to  the  head  of  the  Church,  was  founded  a  spiritual  domination 
without  example  in  the  history  of  mankind.  The  dreams  of  the 
forgers  of  the  False  Decretals  were  realized  at  last.  Aquinas  recog 
nized  the  full  import  of  the  Lateran  canon  in  his  argument  to  prove 
that  it  is  heresy  to  deny  the  necessity  to  salvation  of  confession. 
With  Gratian's  admission  of  its  being  an  open  question  staring  him 
in  the  face,  he  acknowledges  that  this  was  not  formerly  the  case, 
but  since  the  decision  of  the  Church  under  Innocent  III.,  as  recorded 
in  the  canon  Onmis  utrimque  sexus,  it  is  now  to  be  considered  as 
heresy.  It  thus  became  a  new  article  of  faith,  and  the  assertion  of 
Aquinas  was  duly  accepted  in  the  schools.2 


1  Manipulus  Curatorum,  P.  n.  Tract,  ii.  cap.  2. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  iii.  Art.  5  ad  4.— S.  Antonini 
Summse  P.  III.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19  \  1.  —  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacram. 
n.  I  2. 

Duns  Scotus  admits  that  prior  to  the  Lateran  canon  there  was  no  obligation 
to  confess  except  at  any  time  prior  to  death  (Guillel.  Vorrillong  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xvii.).  Thomas  of  Walden,  in  refuting  the  Lollards,  is  more  reckless, 
and  boldly  cites  the  dictum  of  Innocent  I.  (Epist.  xxv.  cap.  7)  that  in  the 
Eoman  Church  it  was  the  custom  to  receive  back  on  Holy  Thursday  the  peni 
tents  who  had  performed  their  penance  (Th.  Waldens.  de  Sacramentis  cap. 
CXLVIII.  n.  6).  Latomus,  in  his  controversy  with  CEcolampadius,  in  endeavor- 


THE  LATERAN  CANON.  229 

This  momentous  canon  is  drawn  in  a  fashion  which  shows  that  it 
was  imposing  not  only  new  obligations  on  the  laity  but  new  duties 
on  the  priesthood,  who  required  instructions  for  their  discharge.  It 
orders  all  the  faithful  of  both  sexes,  after  reaching  years  of  discre 
tion,  to  confess  privately  all  their  sins  at  least  once  a  year  to  their 
own  priests,  and  to  endeavor,  as  far  as  their  strength  shall  permit, 
to  perform  the  penance  imposed ;  also  reverently  to  take  communion, 
at  least  at  Easter,  unless  for  reasonable  cause  the  priest  advises  post 
ponement  :  otherwise  ingress  to  the  church  is  to  be  refused  to  the 
living  and  Christian  sepulture  to  the  dead.  This  salutary  statute, 
it  proceeds,  is  to  be  published  frequently  in  the  churches,  so  that  no 
one  shall  be  able  to  plead  ignorance  of  it.  If  any  one  has  just 
cause  to  desire  to  confess  to  another  priest,  he  must  obtain  licence 
from  his  own,  as  otherwise  no  one  else  has  power  to  bind  or  to 
loose.  The  priest  must  be  discreet  and  prudent,  so  that  like  a  skilful 
leech  he  may  bathe  with  wine  and  oil  the  wounds  of  the  wounded, 
diligently  enquiring  into  the  circumstances  of  the  sinner  and  of  the 
sin,  whereby  he  may  understand  what  counsel  to  give  and  what 
remedy  to  exhibit,  using  various  experiments  to  cure  the  sick.  But 
he  must  be  specially  careful  not  by  word  or  sign  in  any  way  to 
betray  the  sinner,  and  if  he  is  in  need  of  wiser  counsel  he  shall 
cautiously  seek  it  without  mentioning  the  sinner,  for  we  decree  that 
he  who  shall  venture  to  reveal  a  sin  known  to  him  in  the  penitential 
judgment  shall  not  only  be  deposed  from  the  priestly  office  but  shall 
be  thrust  into  a  rigid  monastery  to  perform  perpetual  penance.1 

ing  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  enforced  confession  is  obliged  to  rely  exclusively 
on  the  Forged  Decretals  and  Pseudo-Augustin.— Jo.  Latomus  de  Confessione 
Secreta,  Antverpiae,  1525. 

1  Omnis  utriusque  sexus  fidelis,  postquam  ad  annos  discretionis  pervenerit, 
omnia  sua  solus  peccata  saltern  semel  in  anno  fideliter  confiteatur  proprio 
sacerdoti ;  et  injuctam  sibi  pcenitentiam  pro  viribus  studeat  adimplere,  suscip- 
iens  reverenter  ad  minus  in  Pascha  Eucharistiae  sacramentum ;  nisi  forte  de 
proprii  sacerdotis  consilio  ob  aliquam  rationabilem  causam,  ad  tempus  ab 
hujusmodi  perceptione  duxerit  abstinendum ;  alioquin  et  vivus  ab  ingressu 
ecclesise  arceatur  et  moriens  Christiana  careat  sepultura.  Unde  hoc  salutare 
statutum  frequenter  in  ecclesiis  publicetur,  ne  quisquain  ignorantise  csecitate 
velamen  excusationis  assumat  Si  quis  autem  alieno  sacerdoti  voluerit  justa 
de  causa  sua  confiteri  peccata  licentiam  prius  postulet  et  obtineat  a  proprio 
sacerdote,  cum  aliter  ipse  ilium  non  possit  absolvere  vel  ligare.  Sacerdos 
autem  sit  discretus  et  cautus  ut  more  periti  medici  superinfundat  vinum  et 
oleum  vulneribus  sauciati,  diligenter  inquirens  et  peccatoris  circumstantias  et 


230 


ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 


This  is  the  substance  of  what  is  perhaps  the  most  important  legis 
lative  act  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  How  little  prepared  was 
its  organization  for  the  stupendous  duties  thus  assumed  is  seen  in 
another  canon  of  the  council  which  orders  all  bishops  to  appoint 
penitentiaries  in  their  cathedral  cities  and  in  all  conventual  churches.1 
It  was  evidently  necessary  that  there  should  be  provided  every 
where  skilled  experts  to  whom  penitents  could  be  sent  or  whom  the 
new  confessors  could  consult  in  doubtful  cases.  Some  bishops  re 
sponded  promptly  to  the  requirements  of  the  council.  In  1217,  a 
constitution  of  Richard  Poore  of  Salisbury  alludes  to  such  officials 
as  already  existing.2  In  1219,  Everard  Bishop  of  Amiens  appointed 
a  penitentiary  in  his  church  with  a  stipend  of  twenty-five  livres  per 
annum ;  he  was  to  hear  confessions  from  every  part  of  the  see,  ex 
cept  those  of  priests,  magnates  and  barons,  which  the  bishop  reserved 
to  himself,  and  he  was  clothed  with  discretionary  appellate  power  in 
all  cases  of  doubt  arising  in  the  confessional.3  Other  prelates  were 
more  dilatory,  and  the  custom  established  itself  but  slowly,4  till  at 

peccati,  quibus  prudenter  intelligat  quale  debeat  ei  prsebere  consiliurn  et  cujus- 
modi  remedium  adhibere  diversis  experimentis  utendo  ad  salvandum  segrotum. 
Caveat  autem  omnino  ne  verbo  aut  signo  aut  alio  quovis  modo  aliquatenus 
prodat  peccatorem,  sed  si  prudentiori  consilio  indiguerit  illud  absque  ulla 
expressione  person*  caute  requirat ;  quoniam  qui  peccatum  in  pcenitentiali 
judicio  sibi  detectum  prasumpserit  revelare  non  solum  a  sacerdotali  officio 
deponendum  decernimus,  verumetiam  ad  agendum  perpetuam  pcenitentiam  in 
arctum  monasterium  detrudendum.— C.  Lateran.  IV.  ann.  1216,  cap.  21.— Cap. 
12  Extra,  v.  xxxviii. 

The  ponderous  jocularity  of  the  schoolmen  explained  that  the  phrase  omnis 
utriusque  sexus  was  not  intended  to  mean  hermaphrodites  exclusively  and  was 
to  be  construed  distributively,  not  conjunctively.  — Guillel.  Vorrillong  in  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xvn. 

1  C.  Lateran.  IV.  cap.  10. 

2  Constitt.  R.  Poore  Episc.  Sarum  cap.  30  (Harduin.  VII.  98). 

3  D'Achery,  Spicileg.  III.  589. 

4  In  1233  one  of  the  questions  in  an  inquisition  of  the  see  of  Lincoln  is 
whether  there  are  sufficient  episcopal  penitentiaries  in  each  archidiaconate 
(Inquis.  Lincoln,  ann.  1233  cap.  44.— Harduin.  VII.  235).     In  1237  the  council 
of  London,  held  by  the  legate  Otto,  orders  the  bishops  to  appoint  in  each 
deanery  prudent  men  to  whom  clerics  can  confess ;  also  general  confessors  in 
all  cathedrals  (C.  Londiniens.  ann.  1237  cap.  5.— Ibid.  VII.  294).     In  1261 
the  council  of  Mainz  commands  all  bishops  to  appoint  penitentiaries  in  their 
cathedrals  and  to  have  another  always  with  them  (C.  Mogunt.  ann.  1261  cap. 
33.— Hartzheim  III.  604). 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  CANON.  231 

last  the  council  of  Trent  was  obliged  to  repeat  the  injunction,  which 
met  with  only  partial  obedience.1 

Evidently  the  enforcement  of  the  Lateran  canon  was  to  be  a  work 
of  time.  The  first  prelate  to  make  the  attempt  seems  to  have  been 
the  zealous  Bishop  of  Salisbury  who,  in  1217,  showed  his  earnestness 
by  ordering  three  confessions  and  three  communions  a  year,  at  Easter, 
Pentecost  and  Christmas,  and  by  threatening  exclusion  from  the  church 
and  deprivation  of  Christian  burial  for  all  who  shall  not  at  least  con 
fess  and  commune  yearly.2  In  1223  the  council  of  Rouen  ordered  the 
Lateran  canon  to  be  diligently  executed.3  About  the  same  time  the 
constitutions  of  the  Bishop  of  Paris  indicate  that  the  progress  making 
in  its  enforcement  was  not  encouraging  and  that  its  rigor  had  to  be 
modified,  for  parish  priests  were  ordered  frequently  to  notify  their 
flocks  that  all,  or  at  least  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  families,  should 
come  to  confession  before  Palm  Sunday,  under  penalty  of  keeping 
their  Lenten  fast  until  after  the  octave  of  Easter,  when  they  should 
have  another  chance  of  being  heard.  Lists  of  all  penitents  moreover 
were  ordered  to  be  kept  and  brought  to  the  annual  synod.  Another 
regulation  shows  the  progress  of  the  rule  that  confession  must  precede 
all  sacraments,  for  priests  were  told  to  enjoin  on  their  people  to  con 
fess  before  contracting  marriage.4  In  1227  the  council  of  Xarbonne 
ordered  the  Lateran  canon  enforced  on  all  over  fourteen  years  of 
age,  and  lists  of  those  who  obeyed  were  to  be  kept  as  evidence  in 
their  favor.5  This  has  a  decided  appearance  of  using  the  confessional 
as  a  means  of  discovering  the  heretics  of  which  Languedoc  was  full, 
and  the  object  comes  forward  still  more  clearly  in  the  council  of  Tou 
louse  held,  in  1229,  to  organize  a  system  of  persecution  after  the  Peace 


1  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxiv.  De  Eeform.  cap.  8.     This  was  not  without  effect. 
About  1700,  Chiericato  (De  Pcenit.  Decis.  XLVIII.  n.  18)  speaks  of  episcopal 
penitentiaries  as  existing  in  all  dioceses,  but  in  1725  Benedict  XIII.  issued  a 
constitution  ordering  the  rule  to  be  observed  wherever  it  had  not  been,  and  he 
caused  a  decree  to  the  same  purport  to  be  adopted  by  the  council  of  Koine  of 
the  same  year.— C.  Koman.  ann.  1725,  Tit.  xxxiii.  cap.  4  (Romse,  1725,  p.  139; 
Append,  p.  175). 

2  Constitt.  R.  Poore  Episc.  Sarurn.  ann.  1217  cap.  25  (Harduin.  VII.  96). 

3  C.  Rotomagens.  ann.  1223  cap.  9  (Ibid.  VII.  128). 

4  Additiones  Willelmi  Paris,  ad  Constitt.  Gallonis  cap.  7,  8,  16  (Ibid.  VII. 
II.  1798-9).     This  William  may  be  either  Guillaume  de  Seignelai  (1220-3)  or 
Guillaume  d'Auvergne  (1228-49)  but  presumably  is  the  former. 

5  C.  Narbonnens.  ann.  1227,  cap.  7  (Ibid.  VII.  146). 


232  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

of  Paris,  for  three  confessions  and  communions  were  ordered  yearly 
and  priests  were  instructed  to  watch  keenly  for  absentees  who  were 
to  be  held  suspect  of  heresy.1  In  1236  Edmund  of  Canterbury 
adopted  the  regulations  of  Richard  Poore,2  and  in  1240  they  were 
repeated  by  the  council  of  Worcester,  though  without  the  penalty.3 
In  1237  the  Bishop  of  Coventry  urged  three  confessions  and  com 
munions  a  year,  but  if  this  could  not  be  had  the  people  were  to  be 
warned  to  confess  and  fast  in  Advent.4  It  was  not  till  1250  that 
Berenguer,  Bishop  of  Gerona,  instructed  his  priests  to  tell  their  people 
that  they  must  confess  once  a  year  and  that  if  they  died  without 
repentance  they  would  be  denied  Christian  burial.5  Soon  after  this 
Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  recommends  that  the  precept  be  frequently 
published  in  the  churches  so  that  no  one  could  plead  ignorance,6  and 
in  1268  we  find  the  council  of  Clermont  ordering  all  priests  to  teach 
the  rule  to  their  flocks.7  It  is  scarce  worth  while  to  enumerate  fur 
ther  the  efforts  to  introduce  the  Lateran  canon  which  continued  until 
the  end  of  the  century  and  beyond.  How  slow  was  its  acceptance  is 
seen  in  the  council  of  Ravenna,  in  1311,  which  ordered  all  priests  to 
publish  it  in  the  services  of  the  mass  during  Advent  and  Lent  and 
to  explain  it  to  the  people  in  the  vernacular,  so  that  no  one  might  be 
able  to  plead  ignorance.8  So  little,  indeed,  as  yet  was  the  whole 
scholastic  theory  of  the  sacrament  and  the  keys  understood  that  in 
1280  the  synod  of  Poitiers  was  obliged  to  prohibit,  under  pain  of 
excommunication,  the  hearing  of  confessions  and  granting  of  absolu 
tions  by  deacons,  an  error,  it  said,  of  old  standing,  arising  from 
ignorance,  which  must  be  eradicated.9  How  slowly,  too,  the  priests 


1  C.  Tolosan.  arm.  1229,  cap.  13  (Ibid.  VII.  178). 

2  Constitt.  S.  Edmundi  Cantuar.  ann.  1236,  cap.  18  (Ibid.  VII.  270). 

3  C.  Wigorn.  ann.  1240,  cap.  16  (Ibid.  VII.  336).     In  spite  of  these  repeated 
regulations  the  idea  of  confessors  appears  still  to  be  a  novelty,  for  not  long 
afterwards  Matthew  Paris  (Hist.  Angl.  ann.  1196)  seems  to  feel  it  necessary  to 
explain  "  quos  religiosi  confessores  vocant." 

4  Constitt.  Coventriens.  ann.  1237  (Harduin.  VII.  277). 

5  Florez,  Espana  Sagrada,  XLIV.  20. 

6  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summae  Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Remiss,  g  45. 

7  C.  Claromont.  ann.  1268,  cap.  7  (Harduin.  VII.  594). 

8  C.  Eavennat.  ann.  1311  Rubr.  xv.  (Ibid.  VII.  1367).     Somewhat  similar 
are  C.  Senonens.  ann.  1269  cap.  4  (Ibid.  VII.  650)  and  C.  Treverens.  ann.  1310, 
cap.  90  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  260). 

9  Synod.  Pictaviens.  ann.  1280,  cap.  5  (Harduin.  VII.  851). 


COERCIVE  MEASURES.  233 

learned  their  unfamiliar  duties  is  visible  in  the  instructions  issued  by 
synod  after  synod  for  more  than  a  century — instructions  of  greater 
or  less  detail  which  presuppose  complete  ignorance  of  the  subject  on 
the  part  of  the  priesthood.1  As  the  duties  of  the  confessional  came 
to  be  more  thoroughly  understood,  and  it  was  recognized  that  they 
could  be  made  to  control  nearly  every  act  of  external  as  well  as  of 
internal  life  and  all  the  relations  of  man  to  his  fellows,  manuals  of 
all  kinds  were  prepared  for  the  guidance  of  priests  in  their  perplexing 
functions,  from  the  humble  fly-sheet  to  the  stately  folio,  thus  creating 
a  literature  which  has  in  time  swollen  to  vast  proportions.2 

That  the  people  did  not  take  kindly  to  the  burden  thus  imposed 
upon  them  is  evident  from  the  devices  which  at  once  became  neces 
sary  to  coerce  them,  though  it  was  admitted  that  confession  must  be 
voluntary  and  that  if  induced  by  the  fear  of  expulsion  from  church 
it  is  worthless  for  the  remission  of  sins.3  Lists  were  ordered  to  be 
made  out,  sometimes  of  those  who  confessed  and  sometimes  of  those 
who  neglected  or  refused.  In  the  latter  case  the  list  is  generally 
ordered  to  be  sent  to  the  bishop  in  order  that  the  backsliders  may  be 
punished.4  This  shows  that  the  exclusion  from  church  and  denial  of 
funeral  rites  was  speedily  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  priests,  for 
the  canonists  decided  that  the  punishment  was  not  ipso  facto  but 
could  only  be  inflicted  after  due  conviction,5  which  doubtless  greatly 


1  Constitt.  Eichardi  Poore,  cap.  22  (Harduin.  VII.  96).— Constitt.  Coven- 
triens.  ann.  1237  (Ibid.  VII.  279-86).— C.  Mogunt.  ann.  1261,  cap.  8;   aim. 
1281,  cap.  8  (Hartzheim  III.  664-6).— C.  Coloniens.  ann.  1280,  cap.  8  (Harduin. 
VII.   826-9).— C.   Nemausens.   ann.   1284  (Harduin.  VII.   907-11).- Statute 
Synodal.  Leodiens.  ann.  1287,  cap.  14  (Hartzheim  III.  686-9).— Statuta  Synod. 
Camerac.  ann.  1300-10  (Hartzheim  IV.  68-9).— Statuta  Synod.  Kemensia  circa 
1330,  Secundus  locus,  Prsecept.  4  (Gousset,  Actes  de  la  Prov.  eccle"s.  de  Reims, 
II.  540).— C.  Suessionens.  ann.  1403,  cap.  35-45  (Ibid.  II.  630-1). 

2  Probably  the  earliest  compilation  for  the  special  benefit  of  confessors  was 
the  Summa  de  Canbus  Conscientice  of  Burchard  or  Brocardus  of  Strassburg,  who 
nourished  about  1230.     Casimir  Oudin  describes  it  as  existing  in  several  MSS. 
but  I  believe  it  has  never  been  printed  (Canisii  et  Basnage,  Thesaur.  IV.  7). 

3  Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessio  sacram.  $  29. 

4  C.  Arelatens.  ann.  1275,  cap.  19  (Harduin.  VII.  731)  — C.  Coloniens.  ann. 
1280,  cap.  8  (Ibid.  VII.  829).— C.  Nemausens.  ann.  1284  (Ibid.  VII.  912).— 
Statuta  Synod.  Leodiens.  ann.  1287,  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  III.  689).— Statuta  Synod. 
Camerac.  ann.  1300-1310  (Ibid.  IV.  70).— C.  Ambianens.  ann.  1454,  cap.  5  |  3 
(Gousset,  op.  cit.  II.  709).— C.  Tornacens.  ann.  1484,  cap.  4  (Ibid.  IF.  753). 

5  Tournely  de  Sacr.  Poenitent.  Q.  vi.  Art.  iii.      In  Spain  however  it  was 


234  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

diminished  its  efficacy.  Yet  the  process  described,  about  1 300,  by  John 
of  Freiburg  is  that  if  a  parishioner  is  known  to  be  a  sinner  and  refuses 
to  confess  and  repent  the  priest  should  excommunicate  him  or  report 
him  to  the  superior ;  he  is  to  be  forced  to  perform  penance  and  if  he 
continues  disobedient  he  is  to  be  ejected  from  the  church  not  to  be 
readily  readmitted.1 

The  people,  thus  coerced,  resorted  to  any  available  means  to  elude 
the  precept.  The  council  of  Aries,  in  1265,  relates  how,  when  epis 
copal  penitentiaries  were  sent  through  the  parishes  during  Lent  in 
order  to  enable  the  poor  to  obtain  absolution  for  reserved  cases,  the 
people  fraudulently  pretended  that  they  confessed  fully  to  them, 
refused  to  confess  to  their  priests  and  rejoiced  in  the  deceit,  wherefore 
the  penitentiaries  are  instructed  in  future  to  hear  no  general  confes 
sions.  Ten  years  later  a  subsequent  council  complains  that  the  same 
trick  was  played  by  pretending  that  confession  was  made  to  the 
Mendicant  friars,  and,  to  check  this,  lists  are  ordered  to  be  kept  by 
both  priests  and  friars  which  are  to  be  compared  in  order  that  none 
may  escape.2  Yet  in  spite  of  the  difficulty  of  enforcing  annual  con 
fession  there  were  earnest  churchmen  who  consielered  it  insufficient 
in  view  of  the  difficulty  of  remembering  sins  during  so  long  ar 
interval.  Thus,  in  1429,  the  council  of  Paris  orders  all  priests  t< 
induce  if  possible  their  parishioners  to  confess  on  the  five  other  grea 
solemnities  of  the  year — Pentecost,  Assumption,  All-Saints,  Christ 
mas  and  Ash  Wednesday.3 

To  overcome  this  general  popular  repugnance  no  effort  was  sparee 
to  exalt  the  virtues  and  benefits  of  confession  in  the  estimation  o 
the  people.  Csesarius  of  Hiesterbach  eleclares  emphatically  that  it  ii 
so  potent  that  the  mere  desire  to  perform  it,  if  the  act  is  prevente( 
by  necessity,  suffices  to  remit  all  sins.  He  pours  forth  a  wealth  o 
marvellous  stories  to  prove  the  advantages,  both  spiritual  and  ma 

rendered  ipso  facto.  In  1528  Martin  de  Frias  (De  Arte  et  Modo  Audiendi  Con 
fess.  fol.  viia)  includes  among  the  preliminary  inquiries  to  be  made  of  th 
penitent  the  question  whether  he  had  confessed  the  previous  year.  If  answere* 
in  the  negative  and  if  there  is  a  diocesan  decree  excommunicating  all  wh 
neglect  the  annual  precept  he  is  at  once  to  be  sent  to  the  Ordinary  for  abso 
lution. 

1  Jo.  Friburgens.  Sumnise  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  84. 

2  C.  Arelatens.  ann.  1260  (1265)  cap.  16;  ann.  1275,  cap.  19  (Harduin.  VII 
516,  731). 

3  C.  Parisiens.  ann.  1429,  cap.  28  (Ibid.  VIII.  1048). 


EFFORTS  TO  POPULARIZE  II.  235 

terial,  flowing  from  it,  showing  how  industriously  these  pious  frauds 
were  invented  and  circulated  from  mouth  to  mouth.  A  demon  in 
the  shape  of  a  youth  watches  the  stream  of  penitents  coming  to  con 
fession  ;  he  sees  them  enter  as  sinners  and  depart  justified  with  the 
assurance  of  eternal  glory,  and  is  so  impressed  that  he  presents  him 
self  as  a  penitent  and  pours  forth  a  long  catalogue  of  iniquities  till 
the  astonished  confessor  inquires  who  he  is ;  on  being  told  the  priest 
assures  him  of  redemption  if  he  will  thrice  a  day  prostrate  himself 
before  God  and  sue  for  pardon,  but  demonic  pride  rejects  the  penance 
as  too  hard.  The  impression  sought  to  be  produced  is  especially 
manifest  in  the  frequent  miracles  through  which  those  who  repent 
and  confess  escape  the  secular  punishment  due  to  their  crimes.  A 
more  immoral  lesson  it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive,  and  Csesarius 
admits  this  when  in  answer  to  his  interlocutor's  question,  Avhy  all 
criminals  do  not  thus  escape,  he  replies  that  this  would  lead  many  to 
commit  sin.1 

The  same  effort  led  to  the  forgery,  about  this  time,  of  the  absurd 
sermons  attributed  to  St.  Augustin  to  which  reference  has  already 
been  made  (p.  210).  The  preacher  complains  that  men  are  wont  to 
say  that  God  knows  everything  and  therefore  does  not  need  our  con 
fession,  whereupon  he  proceeds  to  extol  in  the  most  extravagant  lan 
guage  the  importance  and  advantages  of  auricular  confession.  He 
warns  his  hearers  not  to  come  to  it  laughing  and  gossiping  and 
assures  them  that  they  need  not  fear  to  reveal  their  sins  "for  what 
I  know  through  confession  I  know  less  than  what  I  do  not  know."2 
William  of  Paris  declares  that  confession  is  most  sweet  to  the  ears  of 


1  Caesar.  Hiesterb.  Dial.   Dist.  II.  in.     One  noteworthy  peculiarity  is  the 
slender  attention  paid  to  absolution  and  satisfaction.     The  former  is  alluded 
to  but  once  (Dist.  in.  cap.  53).   As  yet  contrition  and  confession  were  the  main 
things ;  the  sacrament  seems  scarce  to  be  thought  of. 

The  stories  related  by  Csesarius  formed  part  of  the  stock  in  trade  of  the 
medieval  preachers.  See  Fra  Jacopo  Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera 
Penitenza,  Dist.  v.  cap.  iii. 

2  Ps.  August.  Serm.  ad  Fratres  in  Eremo,  Serin,  xxx.     Wherever  this  ex 
pression  may  have  originated,  it  seems  to  have  become  proverbial.     It  is  used 
by  St.  Leonardo  da  Porto  Maurizio,  Discorso  Mistico  e  Morale,  $  30.     Even  in 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  whole  passage  in  which  it  occurs  is 
quoted,  with  a  few  verbal  changes  as  St.  Augustin's  by  Bishop  Zenner,  Vicar 
General  of  Vienna,  in  his  lustructio  Practica  Confessarii  $  73  ad  4.     There  are 
some  phrases  in  it  which  the  forger  borrowed  from  St.  Augustin's  Enarrat.  in 
Ps.  LXVI.  n.  6,  7. 


236  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

God  and  of  the  heavenly  hosts,  while  it  is  most  horrible  and  terrify 
ing  to  the  demons  and  drives  them  in  dismay  from  those  who  truly 
and  piously  confess.1  Aquinas  argues  that  the  shame  experienced  in 
the  act  of  confession  diminishes  the  punishment  left  after  the  remis 
sion  of  the  culpa,  and  the  oftener  the  same  sins  are  confessed  the 
more  the  pcena  is  reduced.2  That  such  stories  as  we  find  in  Cgesarius 
produced  a  profound  impression  on  the  popular  mind  is  seen  in  the 
fact  that  persons  in  sickness  and  trouble  sometimes  confessed  in  hope 
of  obtaining  material  relief,  and  St.  Antonino  feels  obliged  to  explain 
that  when  the  act  is  performed  with  this  object  it  does  no  good;  con 
fession  must  be  made  to  placate  God,  though  as  a  secondary  effect 
there  is  no  objection  to  the  penitent  hoping  for  worldly  benefit.3  A 
more  legitimate  means  of  removing  popular  distaste  for  it  was  the 
injunction  of  the  council  of  Ximes,  in  1284,  to  the  parish  priests  to 
treat  their  people  kindly  so  as  to  render  them  more  willing  to  come 
to  the  confessional.4  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  temper  of  the 
masses,  by  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  there  was  no  question 
that  confession  was  indispensable  to  salvation.  In  Dante's  meta 
phorical  theology  the  three  steps  by  which  admission  is  secured  to 
purgatory  are  confession,  contrition  and  satisfaction,  among  which 
confession  occupies  the  first  place.5 

The  enforcement  of  confession  as  a  part  of  church  discipline 
worked  a  change  so  profound,  not  only  in  practice  but  in  the  theory 
of  the  sacrament,  that  necessarily  a  cloud  of  questions  arose  which 
were  discussed  with  the  untiring  acumen  characteristic  of  this  period 
of  theological  construction.  Many  of  these  will  necessarily  be  dis- 


1  Guillel.  Paris.  Opera  de  Fide  etc.  (Nuremburgi,  1496,  fol.  180,  col.  3). 

2  St.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  x.  Art.  2. 

3  S.  Antonini  Summa  Confessionum  fol.  13a;  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap. 
19  |  8. 

4  Synod.  Nemausens.  aim.  1284  (Harduin.  VII.  939). 

e  lo  scaglion  primajo 

Bianco  marmo  era,  si  pulito  e  terso 

Ch'i'mi  specchiava  in  esso,  quale  i'pajo. 
Era'l  secondo  tinto  piu  che  perso, 

D'una  petrina  ruvida  e  arsiccia, 

Crepato  per  lo  longo  e  per  traverso. 
Lo  terzo  che  di  sopra  s'ammassiccia 

Porfido  mi  parea  si  fiammegiante, 

Come  sangue  che  fuor  di  vena  spiccia. — Purgatorio,  IX. 


QUESTIONS  DEBATED.  237 

cussed  hereafter,  and  I  Deed  here  allude  only  to  a  few  of  a  more 
general  character.  Bishop  William  of  Paris  still  considers  it  incum 
bent  on  him  to  argue  at  great  length  against  the  belief  that  confession 
to  God  suffices,  which  he  stigmatizes  as  a  Jewish  error;  his  instruc 
tions  to  penitents  seem  to  take  for  granted  that  the  sins  of  a  lifetime 
are  to  be  confessed,  as  though  the  annual  prescription  was  still  an 
innovation,  but  he  stoutly  declares  that  if  the  precept  to  confess  at 
Easter  is  not  obeyed  the  negligent  sinner  must  be  coerced.  He  de 
bates  various  questions,  which  he  says  caused  much  perturbation 
among  the  faithful,  and  does  not  always  resolve  them  in  the  manner 
finally  accepted  by  the  Church  ;  he  asserts  that  confession  can  be 
made  to  one  person  and  absolution  be  obtained  from  another,  and 
that  after  each  relapse  into  sin  it  is  advisable  to  confess  in  full,  de 
novo,  from  the  beginning.1 

Alexander  Hales  treats  the  subject  with  greater  thoroughness,  and 
in  a  manner  to  show  that  the  new  rule  had  not  as  yet  by  any  means 
been  accepted  and  digested.  Men  still  asked  why,  if  contrition 
brought  justification,  a  justified  penitent  had  to  confess,  wherefore 
they  held  that  the  sole  obligation  to  confess  arose  from  the  duty  of 
obedience,  to  which  Hales  can  only  reply  that  the  object  of  con 
fession  is  not  remission  of  culpa  and  pce.na,  but  obedience  to  the 
Church,  and  that  neglect  or  contempt  of  the  sacrament  is  a  new 
mortal  sin  which  destroys  the  justification — apparently  not  recog 
nizing  that  thus  the  sacrament  becomes  an  impediment  and  not  an 
aid  to  salvation.  The  phrase  omnia  peccata  sua  in  the  Lateran  canon 
had  led  to  the  belief  that  every  year  the  sinner  had  to  make  a  gen 
eral  confession  of  all  his  sins  and  Hales  is  obliged  to  explain  that 
the  opinion  of  the  masters  is  that  only  those  committed  since  the 
last  confession  are  to  be  included,  unless  indeed  satisfaction  had  been 
neglected,  in  which  case  the  enumeration  of  the  former  ones  must  be 
repeated.  It  is  true  that  confession  to  be  satisfactory  must  be  per 
formed  in  charity,  but  that  which  is  made  only  in  obedience  to  the 
precept  need  not  be  so,  and  it  is  not  a  mortal  sin  to  confess  in  mortal 
sin.  Obligatory  confession,  in  fact,  was  so  totally  different  from 
voluntary  that  what  applied  to  one  had  no  bearing  on  the  other,  and 
already  the  doctors  were  disputing  with  the  subtlest  dialectics  over 
the  question,  which  was  not  settled  till  the  seventeenth  century  by 


Guillel.  Paris,  de  Sacr.  Pcenitentiae,  cap.  2,  12,  19. 


238  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

Alexander  VII.,  whether  the  impenitent,  who  were  resolved  not  to 
abandon  their  sins,  were  required  to  make  a  pretended  confession 
that  was  only  in  derision  of  God  and  of  the  sacrament,  and  the 
theologians  sought  to  evade  it  by  drawing  the  nicest  distinctions 
between  those  on  whom  it  was  and  those  on  whom  it  was  not  in 
cumbent.  Almost  equally  puzzling  was  the  question  as  to  the 
obligation  resting  on  those  who  had  no  mortal  sins  to  confess,  to 
which  Hales  replies  that,  if  a  man  has  no  mortals,  he  must  confess 
venials;  if  he  has  no  venials  he  must  in  general  terms  confess 
himself  a  sinner;  even  the  perfect  are  not  exempt  from  the  rule 
any  more  than  from  Lenten  fasting.  It  requires,  indeed,  an  elabo 
rate  argument  to  prove  that  original  sin  need  not  be  included  in  the 
confession.1 

St.  Bona ventura  admits  that  there  can  be  justification  without  con 
fession,  but  the  contrition  requisite  for  this  includes  the  vow  of  con 
fession,  and  this  is  held  to  be  the  same  as  confession — but  then,  even 
after  justification,  confession  is  necessary  to  avert  falling  from  right 
eousness.  So  little  even  yet  was  understood  as  to  the  practice  of  the 
confessional  that  he  wrote  his  Confessionale  for  the  purpose  of  in 
structing  priests,  the  ignorance  of  many  of  whom  he  says  is  horrible, 
and  is  equalled  by  that  which  is  almost  universal  among  penitents, 
at  least  among  country  folk.2 

Aquinas  holds  of  course  that  the  Lateran  canon  is  obligatory  on 
all,  though  as  venial  sins  are  not  required  to  be  confessed,  it  suffices, 
if  a  man  has  no  mortals,  to  present  himself  to  the  priest  and  say  so, 
when  this  is  reputed  as  confession ;  if  he  is  doubtful  whether  a  sin 
is  mortal  or  venial  he  should  confess  it.  Some  authorities,  he  says, 
argue  that  one  should  confess  as  soon  as  he  feels  contrition,  and  it 
this  were  the  precept  of  the  Church  he  would  sin  mortally  in  not 
doing  so,  but  as  the  precept  is  annual  he  is  bound  to  nothing  more, 
unless,  indeed,  he  is  obliged  to  take  communion.  As  confession  is 
of  divine  law,  even  the  pope  cannot  dispense  for  it  any  more  than 
he  can  dispense  for  baptism  in  an  unbaptized  person  who  desires  to 
be  saved,  but  he  can  dispense  for  the  annual  precept,  which  is  merely 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Summae  P.  IV.  Q.  xvm.  Membr.  iv.   Art.  1 ;  Art.  2^1; 
Art.  5  gg  I,  3,  4,  7. 

2  S.  Bonaventura  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  P.  1,  Art.  1,  Q.  2 ;  Art.  2,  Q.  4.— 
Oonfessionale,  Cap.  1  Partic.  1 ;  Cap.  2  Partic.  1. 


Q  UESTIONS  DEB  A  TED.  239 

a  regulation  of  the  Church.1  All  the  schoolmen,  however,  did  not 
accept  the  Lateran  canon  with  this  saintly  zeal.  Those  who  assumed 
to  be  philosophers  and  not  theologians  looked  down  with  contempt 
on  confession,  and,  while  they  might,  for  the  sake  of  comfort,  comply 
with  the  precept,  had  no  scruple  in  asserting  that  it  need  only  be 
performed  in  appearance — an  error  which  was  duly  condemned  in 
1276  by  Stephen  Tempier,  Bishop  of  Paris.2 

Although,  as  we  shall  see,  the  council  of  Trent  made  the  Lateran 
canon  defide  it  did  not  define  its  exact  meaning.  It  did  not  even  settle 
the  question  discussed  by  Alexander  Hales  whether  the  precept  is  satis 
fied  by  a  confession  without  repentance  or  intention  to  sin  no  more 
— whether  it  requires  spiritual  or  only  formal  obedience.  Curiously 
enough,  the  Lateran  canon  prescribed  confession  and  the  performance 
of  penance  but  said  nothing  about  the  sacrament  or  obtaining  absolu 
tion.  The  schoolmen  were  prompt  to  see  this  and  two  schools  arose, 
one  of  which  held  that  the  canon  must  be  construed  to  cover  the 
whole  sacrament  of  penitence,  the  other  that  a  mere  formal  confession 
suffices — a  confession  theologically  fictitious  through  the  absence  of  all 
desire  to  placate  God,  to  obtain  valid  absolution  and  to  abstain  from 
sin.  Great  names  are  ranged  on  either  side  and  the  most  that  Lay- 
mann  can  say  is  that  the  former  opinion  is  the  more  common.3  The 
latter  reduced  the  precept  to  a  mere  barren  formality,  rendering  the 
sacrament  an  object  rather  of  contempt  than  of  reverence,  and  divest 
ing  the  confessional  of  all  spiritual  significance  and  moral  efficiency, 
yet  it  was  not  until  1665  that  it  was  condemned  by  Alexander  VII.4 
The  exact  construction  and  application  of  the  expression  "  at  least 
once  a  year"  have  been  the  subject  of  a  good  deal  of  debate  which 


1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  Suppl.  Q.  vi.  Art.  3,  4,  5,  6. 

Domingo  Soto  says  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  1,  Art.  5)  that  only  the 
pope  or  a  council  can  dispense  for  annual  confession,  as  for  instance  to  a 
hermit  to  confess  once  in  two  or  three  years.  Billuart  (Comment,  in  Aquin. 
loc.  cit.)  informs  us  that  a  papal  dispensation  ought  not  to  extend  beyond  eight 
or  ten  years. 

2  D'Argentre,  Collect.  Judic.  de  novis  Error.  I.  I.  182,  199. 

3  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  iii.  Art.  3.— Henriquez  Summa 
Theol.  Moral.   Lib.  v.  cap.  15,  n.  1.— Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract, 
vi.  cap.  5,  n.  10,  11. 

4  Alexand.  PP.  VII.  Const.  7  Sept.  1665,  Prop.  xiv.     For  the  controversy 
over  the  question  see  Trotta  a  Veteri  Expos,  et  Impugn.  Propp.  Damnatar. 
Neapoli,  1707,  p.  15.     Also,  Viva,  Trutina  Theologica  in  Prop.  xiv.  Alex.  VII. 


24Q  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

need  not  detain  us  here,  except  to  mention  an  ingenious  device,  com 
monly  accepted  by  theologians,  by  which  the  burden  is  sensibly 
diminished.  This  is  to  confess  and  take  communion  twice  during 
the  fortnight  between  Palm  Sunday  and  Low  Sunday,  when  one 
may  count  for  the  past  and  the  other  for  the  coming  year,  thus  vir 
tually  enabling  the  sinner  to  escape  with  a  biennial  ceremony.1 

Another  question  which  has  excited  considerable  discussion  is 
whether  the  precept  is  binding  on  a  man  who  has  committed  no 
mortal  sin  since  his  last  confession.  The  canon  makes  no  exceptions : 
it  commands  that  every  one  shall  confess  all  his  sins  once  a  year, 
but  the  doctors  discovered  that  venial  sins  are  not  necessary  matter 
for  the  sacrament  and  need  not  be  confessed.  This  question  will  be 
considered  more  in  detail  hereafter  and  it  suffices  to  say  here  that 
it  is  not  yet  fully  settled  whether  this  vacates  the  precept  of  annual 
confession  in  the  absence  of  mortal  sin.  The  suggestion  of  Aquinas 
(p.  238),  that  in  such  case  a  man  should  present  himself  to  his 
priest  and  declare  the  fact,  is  generally  recommended,  but  the  corol 
lary  from  this,  that  he  can  take  his  Paschal  communion  without 
previous  confession,  though  admitted  by  some  theologians  is  regarded 
by  others  as  hazardous.2  The  pope,  also,  is  not  bound  by  the  pre 
cept,  though  we  are  told  that  he  ought  to  observe  it  for  the  avoid 
ance  of  scandal.  If  he  is  in  mortal  sin  he  is  subject,  like  other 
men,  to  the  divine  law  of  confession,  especially  if  he  desires  to  re 
ceive  or  administer  the  sacraments.3 

It  need  cause  no  surprise  if  the  enforcement  of  the  Lateran  canon 
encountered  obstacles  and  if  it  met  with  tardy  obedience.  The 
Church  in  adopting  it  had  somewhat  recklessly  ventured  on  a  tre- 


1  Caramuelis  Theol.  Fundament,  n.  751.     There  is  an  unsettled  question 
whether  the  year  runs  from  January  to  December  or  from  Easter  to  Easter,  or 
from  the  date  of  the  last  confession ;  also  whether,  if  omitted  one  year  there 
must  be  two  confessions  in  the  next. — Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  L.  n.  9. — 
Gousset,  Theol.  Morale,  II.  n.  409. 

2  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  L.  n.  3.— Casus  Conscientise  Bened.  PP.  XIV. 
Apr.  1740,  cas.  1.— Gousset,  Theol.  Morale,  II.  407-8. 

Chiericato  informs  us  (loc.  cit.)  that  as  the  Virgin  never  committed  sin,  either 
mortal  or  venial,  she  never  confessed  and  never  received  the  sacrament  of  peni 
tence,  though  she  did  that  of  baptism,  which  in  view  of  the  Immaculate  Con 
ception  would  appear  to  have  been  a  work  of  supererogation. 

3  Clericati  loc.  cit.  n.  8. 


FITNESS  OF  THE  CLERGY.  241 

mendous  experiment,  for  which  its  organization  was  wholly  unfitted 
and  unprepared.  We  have  seen  (p.  205)  how  imperfectly  the  increase 
in  parish  churches  and  priests  had  responded  to  the  growth  of  popu 
lation  and  the  ever  enlarging  development  of  the  sacred  functions ; 
the  larger  the  parish  the  greater  the  revenues  of  the  incumbent,  who 
naturally  resisted  any  division  of  its  boundaries,  however  inadequate 
he  might  be  to  the  proper  discharge  of  his  accumulating  duties,  and 
consequently,  while  the  nations  were  burdened  with  a  constantly 
multiplying  crowd  of  ecclesiastics  the  number  entitled  to  administer 
the  sacraments  was  insufficient  to  meet  the  new  demand  upon  it. 
To  some  extent,  as  we  shall  see,  this  deficiency  was  supplied  by  the 
rise  of  the  Mendicant  Orders  and  their  invasion  of  the  province  of 
the  beneficed  priests,  but  while  this  remedied  partially  the  lack  of 
numbers  it  did  not  remove  a  more  serious  source  of  trouble,  for  the 
character  of  the  majority  of  those  in  holy  orders  rendered  them  in 
every  way  unfit  to  win  the  confidence  of  their  flocks  or  to  discharge 
adequately  the  supremely  delicate  responsibilities  of  the  confessional. 
Allusion  has  been  made  above  to  the  descriptions  by  Peter  Lombard 
and  Alain  de  Lille  of  the  clergy  of  the  twelfth  century,  who  guided 
penitents  to  hell  rather  than  to  heaven,  and  Henry  Archbishop  of 
Salzburg  shows  us  that  Germany  was  infected  equally  with  France.1 
As  years  passed  on  the  unvarying  reiteration  of  these  complaints,  by 
those  best  able  to  judge,  unfortunately  leaves  no  room  for  doubting 
that  the  ministers  of  God,  to  whom  was  now  entrusted  the  awful 
power  of  the  keys,  were  as  a  class  too  ignorant  and  too  corrupt  to 
employ  it  for  the  welfare  of  their  subjects  or  to  reconcile  the  people 
to  the  new  and  onerous  burden. 

Innocent  III.,  at  the  very  time  when  he  was  imposing  on  the 
priests  of  Christendom  this  most  difficult  duty,  had  no  illusions  as 
to  their  unfitness  and  unworthiness  for,  in  a  sermon  at  the  Lateran 
council,  he  declared  that  they  were  the  chief  source  of  corruption  to 
1he  people  whom  he  was  thus  subjecting  to  them.2  As  he  could 

1  Henrici  Salzburg,  de  Calamitatibus  Ecclesiae  cap.  9  (Migne,  CXCVI.  1551). 
"  Clericus  etenim     ...     a  fornicationibus  et  adulteriis  laicum  publico  poeni- 
tentia  compescit.     Clericus  nulla  timore  frenatur.     Quia  etsi  turpissimse  vitae 
fuerit,  decanum  contemnit  atque  archidiaconum  nisi  accusatus  fuerit,  nullus- 
que  accusator  sit,  omnibus   idipsum   facientibus  et  crimina  propria  in  aliis 
faventibus." 

2  Innoc.  PP.  III.  Sermo  vi.  in  Concil.  Lateran. — "  Nam  omnis  in  populo 
corruptela  principaliter  procedit  a  clero." 

I.— 1G 


242  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

thus  expect  only  increased  corruption  from  the  new  rule  it  is  not 
uncharitable  to  assume  that  its  object  was  ecclesiastical  aggrandize 
ment  and  increased  facilities  for  the  detection  of  heresy.  Innocent's 
assertion  is  confirmed,  in  1219,  by  his  successor  Honorius  III.1  and 
by  Bishop  Grosseteste  in  his  memorial  presented  to  Innocent  IV. 
in  1250.  The  priests,  he  says,  are  slayers  of  the  souls  committed  to 
their  charge ;  they  not  only  flay  their  sheep,  but  strip  the  flesh  from  the 
bones  and  grind  the  bones ;  they  are  universally  given  over  to  forni 
cation  and  adultery  and  incest  and  gluttony,  and  are  an  abomination 
to  God.  Besides,  the  churches  are  for  the  most  part  abandoned  to 
mercenaries  on  stipends  barely  enabling  them  to  live,  generally  too 
ignorant  to  punish  sins  and  not  daring  to  do  so  when  they  know 
their  duty.  In  a  sermon  addressed  to  his  clergy,  he  tells  them  that 
many  of  them  do  not  know  a  single  article  of  faith  nor  are  able  to 
explain  a  single  law  of  the  decalogue.2  The  key  of  science  evidently 
was  not  conferred  in  ordination,  nor  did  the  council  of  Worcester,  in 
1240,  define  it  rigidly  when  it  told  the  priests  that  they  must  at 
least  know  what  are  the  seven  deadly  sins  and  the  seven  sacraments 
so  that  they  may  be  able  to  teach  their  flocks  and  exhort  them  to 
confession.3  Alexander  Hales  describes  in  vigorous  terms  the  pre 
valence  of  sin  among  the  people,  while  as  for  the  clergy,  who  should 
convert  them,  the  world  is  full  of  priests,  but  it  is  rare  to  find  a 
laborer  in  the  harvest  of  the  Lord ;  we  are  all  ready  to  assume  the 
sacerdotal  office  but  not  to  perform  its  duties,  and  the  universal 
negligence  is  best  passed  over  in  silence.4  William  of  Paris  com- 


1  Honorii  PP.  III.  Epist.  ad  Archiep.  Bituricens.  (Martene  Ampl.  Collect 
I.  1149). 

2  K.  Grosseteste  Sermo  (Fascic.  Rer.  Expetendarum,  Ed.  1690,  II.  251-3); 
Sermo  ad  Clerum  (Ibid.  p.  265). 

It  is  perhaps  to  this  conviction  of  the  unfitness  of  the  clergy  that  is  attribut 
able  the  slender  importance  that  Grosseteste  seems  to  attach  to  confession,  in 
his  tireless  efforts  to  elevate  the  morals  of  his  great  diocese.  In  his  numerous 
sermons  to  his  clergy,  while  reproving  their  vices  and  urging  them  to  their 
duties,  he  only  once  alludes  to  confession,  and  then  it  is  rather  as  a  means  by 
which  a  pastor  learns  to  know  his  sheep  (Ibid.  pp.  262-306).  In  a  letter  to 
his  archdeacons,  requiring  them  to  see  that  the  priests  do  their  duty,  there  is 
no  allusion  to  the  confessional  (Ib.  p.  315).  In  scolding  H.  de  Pateshul  (after 
wards  Bishop  of  Coventry)  for  his  neglect  of  pastoral  duties,  there  is  no  word 
about  confession  (Ib.  p.  324). 

3  C.  Wigorn.  ann.  1240,  cap.  18  (Harduin.  VII.  337). 

4  Alex,  de  Ales  Summa3  P.  IV.  Q.  xxxn.  Membr.  iv.  Art.  3. 


FITNESS  OF  THE  CLERGY.  243 

plains  of  the  thousands  of  souls  lost  through  the  wickedness  and 
neglect  of  a  single  prelate  and  the  impossibility  of  obtaining  the 
removal  of  such  unfaithful  pastors.1  When,  in  1247,  Johannes  de 
Deo  framed  his  Liber  Poenitentialis  for  the  guidance  of  confessors, 
the  list  which  he  gives  of  fifty-one  sins  committed  by  bishops  in  the 
exercise  of  their  functions  is  a  terrible  arraignment  of  the  prelates 
of  the  period,  while  as  for  the  clergy,  especially  the  priests,  he  de 
clares  that  their  wickedness  is  so  great  as  almost  to  baffle  computa 
tion.2  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  tells  us  that  the  common  vice  of  the 
clergy  is  that  for  which  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  and  Segor  were  de 
stroyed,  but  he  adds  that  they  ought  not  to  boast  publicly  of  their 
sins  for  in  that  case  they  incur  suspension  on  account  of  the  scandal 
and  infamy.3  Alexander  IV.  was  therefore  probably  correct  when, 
in  1259,  he  ascribed  the  increasing  corruption  of  the  people  to  the 
infection  proceeding  from  the  clergy.4  Aquinas  contents  himself 
with  denouncing  their  ignorance,  which  renders  them  most  danger 
ous  in  the  confessional  ;  many  of  them  do  not  even  know  Latin  and 
very  few  have  ever  looked  into  the  Scriptures ;  besides,  the  size  of 
the  parishes  is  often  such  that  if  the  priest  devoted  his  whole  life  to 
it  he  could  scarce  shrive  all  the  penitents.5  Bonaventura  is  quite  as 
emphatic  in  his  description  of  the  prevailing  ignorance  of  the  priests, 
rendering  them  utterly  unfit  to  guide  the  souls  committed  to  their 
charge ;  besides,  the  incumbents,  in  nearly  all  the  parishes,  took  no 
thought  of  their  cures  but  abandoned  them  to  vicars  hired  at  the 
lowest  possible  price,  and  these  were  mostly  not  only  ignorant  but 
so  vicious  that  decent  people  fear  to  confess  to  them  and  an  honest 
woman  would  risk  her  reputation  if  one  of  them  whispered  to  her ; 
they  are  vagabonds,  wandering  from  cure  to  cure  in  search  of  a  liv 
ing  and  when  employed  always  liable  to  be  turned  out  by  an  under- 
bidder.  If  the  Mendicants,  he  says,  arraign  the  secular  priests  in 
their  sermons,  it  is  because  the  crimes  of  the  latter  are  so  open  and 
notorious  that,  if  passed  over  in  silence,  the  laity  would  argue  that 


1  Guillel.  Paris,  de  Sacr.  Poenitent.  cap.  20. 

2  Jo.  de  Deo  Poenitentialis  cap.  2-6,  20. 

3  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  de  Excess.  Prselat.  §  2.    The  ecclesiastical 
definition  of  scandal  is  that  which  gives  occasion  to  sin  in  others.— S.  Th. 
Aquin.  Summse  II.  n.  Q.  xliii.  Art.  1.— La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  I.  n.  189. 

4  Chron.  Augustens.  ann.  1260  (Freher  et  Struv.  I.  546). 

5  S.  Th.  Aquin.  contra  Impugnantes  Keligiosos  P.  n.  cap.  iv.  \  10. 


244  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

such  enormous  offences  are  not  hateful  to  God  and  women  would  be 
lieve  what  some  priests  tell  them  that  sin  with  a  cleric  is  no  sin.1  Of 
course  St.  Bonaventura  excepts  the  Mendicant  friars  from  his  cen 
sure,  but,  in  his  little  work  directing  them  how  to  confess  their  sins 
and  repent,  the  large  space  devoted  to  sensual  offences  shows  what 
was  their  besetting  weakness,  how  little  the  vows  and  habit  influ 
enced  the  carnal  nature  and  how  prohibition  only  concentrated  the 
thoughts  on  the  forbidden  fruit.2  It  is  no  wonder  that  he  should 
halt  deplorably  in  his  endeavor  to  prove  the  necessity  that  wicked 
priests  should  enjoy  the  power  of  the  keys.3 

The  vicars  or  chaplains  whom  St.  Bonaventura  criticizes  so  sharply 
were  a  recognized  and  standing  evil  ;4  as  a  rule  no  supervision  was 
exercised  over  them  ;  their  installation  by  the  parish  priest  was  suffi 
cient  and  they  required  no  episcopal  licence  or  approbation.  Occa 
sionally,  it  is  true,  some  diocesan  synod  would  endeavor  to  curb  the 
abuse  by  insisting  that  no  one  should  hear  confessions  unless  he  were 
either  beneficed  or  licensed,  but  these  efforts  were  local  and  tempo 
rary,  and,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  Chancellor  Gerson  tells  us  that 
although  some  rigid  doctors  held  that  no  assistant  of  a  parish  priest 
could  hear  confessions  unless  he  had  been  accepted  by  the  bishop 
others  insisted  that  ordination  and  employment  in  the  parish  sufficed, 
and  this  was  the  rule  in  practice  for  that  everywhere  parsons  em 
ployed  deputies  who  held  no  licence.5  It  is  easy  to  imagine  how 


1  S.  Bonaventurae  Libellus  Apologeticus ;  Quare  Fratres  Minores  prsedicent 
et  Confessiones  audiant;  In  Lib.  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  P.  ii.  Art.  1,  Q.  2. 

It  is  true  that  Bonaventura  excepts  the  clergy  of  France  and  England  from 
these  denunciations,  but  we  have  seen  from  Bishop  Grosseteste  how  little  the 
latter  deserved  the  exception,  and  Guillaume  Le  Maire,  Bishop  of  Angers,  in 
1293,  shows  that  the  French  clergy  was  no  less  corrupt;  nor,  if  he  is  to  be 
believed,  were  the  regulars  better  fitted  for  the  confessional  than  the  secular 
priests. — Guill.  Majoris  Episc.  Andegav.  Synod  iv.  cap.  1  (D'Achery,  I.  735). 

The  "  Formulary  of  the  Papal  Penitentiary  "  compiled  by  Cardinal  Thomasius 
(Philadelphia,  1892),  which  is  for  the  most  part  devoted  to  dispensations  rein 
stating  sinful  clerics,  explains  to  some  extent  the  all-pervading  vices  of  the 
clergy  who  were  not  amenable  to  secular  justice  and  who,  by  application  to  the 
curia,  could  obtain  immunity  from  the  operation  of  the  spiritual  law. 

2  S.  Bonaventura  de  Puritate  Conscientise. 

3  S.  Bonaventurae  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  P.  1,  Art.  1. 

4  Hiring  vicars  at  small  stipends  was  an  old  abuse,  complained  of  more  than 
a  century  earlier  by  Geroch  of  Keichersberg,  Exposit  in  Ps.  Ixiv.  n.  156. 

5  Van  Espen  Jur.  Eccles.  P.  n.  Tit.  vi.  cap.  6,  n.  11.— C.  Wigorn.  ann.  1240, 


FITNESS  OF  THE  CLERGY.  245 

useless  was  the  complaint  of  Humbert  de  Romanis  at  the  general 
council  of  Lyons,  in  1274,  that  one  of  the  evils  most  urgently  requir 
ing  correction  was  the  granting  of  the  keys  to  those  too  ignorant  to 
know  how  to  bind  or  to  loose.1  At  the  next  general  council,  that  of 
Vienne,  in  1312,  the  memorial  for  the  reformation  of  the  Church 
presented  by  Guillaume  le  Maire,  Bishop  of  Angers,  is  almost  wholly 
occupied  with  deploring  the  ignorance  and  the  execrable  lives  of  the 
clergy  of  all  ranks.2 

It  would  be  surplusage  to  accumulate  further  this  consensus  of 
opinion  as  to  the  moral  and  intellectual  character  of  the  medieval 
clergy  on  whom  was  thus  thrust  the  responsibility  of  the  salvation  of 
souls  through  enforced  confession.  The  evidence  continues  through 
out  the  fourteenth  century — indeed  the  description  of  the  all-per 
vading  wickedness  of  ecclesiastics,  by  such  unexceptionable  witnesses 
as  Bishop  Pelayo,  St.  Catherine  of  Siena  and  St.  Birgitta  of  Sweden, 
grows  stronger  and  more  outspoken.3  That  a  progressive  deteriora 
tion,  indeed,  should  occur  would  seem  inevitable  when  the  Holy  See, 


cap.  39  (Harduin.  VII.  343).— Statut.  Eccles.  ^Eduens.  ann.  1299,  cap.  13 
(Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  487).— Statut.  Eccles,  Avenionens.  ann.  1449,  cap.  6 ; 
ann.  1509,  cap.  31  (Ibid.  pp.  392,  591).— Statut.  Eccles.  Biterrens.  ann.  1368, 
cap.  4  (Ibid.  p.  627).— Jo.  Gersonis  Compend.  Theologise  (Ed.  1488,  xxvu.  G.). 

1  H.  de  Romanis  de  Tractandis  in  Concilio  P.  III.  cap.  9  (Martene  Ampl. 
Collect.  VII.  197). 

2  "  Innumerose  persone  contemptibiles  et  abjecte,  vita,  scientia  et  moribus 
omnino  indigne,  ad  sacras  ordines  et  maxime  ad  sacerdotium  promoventur.   Ex 
quo  fit  quod  totus  ordo  ecclesiasticus  dehonestatur,  ministerium  ecclesiasticum 
vituperatur,  Ecclesia  scandalizatur,  dum  effrenata  multitudo  sacerdotum  maxime 
indignorum  in  Ecclesia  a  laicis  populis  consideratur ;  ex  quorum  execrabili  vita 
et  perniciosa  ignorantia  infinita  scandala  oriuntur,  sacramenta  ecclesiastica  a 
laicis  contempnuntur ;  unde  in  plerisque  partibus  apud  laicos  sacerdotes  Judeis 
viliores  et  contemptibilior.es  habentur."   Much  of  the  blame  for  this  he  ascribes 
to  the  Holy  See—"  Quia  multi  vita  et  moribus  detestabiles,  de  diversis  mundi 
partibus  ad  sedem  apostolicam  concurrentes,  tarn  in  forma  pauperuin  quam 
alias  beneficia  cum  cura  vel  sine  cura  cotidie  impetrare  noscuntur,  maxime  in 
locis  quibus  de  vita  eorum  et  moribus  noticia  non  habetur,  et  a  prelatis  tanquam 
filiis  obediencie,  mandato  sedis  apostolice  obtemperantibus,  reverenter  instituti 
vel  admissi,  ita  detestabilem  et  deformem  vitam  ducunt  quod  ob  hoc  ecclesie 
destruuntur,  populi  scandalizantur,  Dei  ecclesia  blasphematur,  prelati  hodie 
non  possunt  bonis  personis  de  beneficiis  nee  beneficiis  de  bonis  personis,  ob- 
stante  numerosa  multitudine   talium   impetrancium,  providere."  —  Melanges 
Historiques,  II.  pp.  478,  481. 

3  Alvar.  Pelagii  de  Planctu  Ecclesiae  Lib.  II.  Art.  7.— S.  Caterina  da  Siena 


246 


ENFORCED  CONFESSION 


in  the  fourteenth  century,  grasped  almost  the  whole  disposable 
patronage  of  the  Church  throughout  Europe  and  openly  offered  it 
for  sale.  In  this  market  for  spiritualities  it  is  significant  to  observe 
that  benefices  with  cure  of  souls  were  held  at  a  higher  price  than 
those  without  cure,  as  though  there  was  a  speculative  value  in  the 
altar  and  the  confessional :  thus  in  Italy  the  price  cum  cum  was  sixty 
florins  and  sine  cum  forty,  in  Germany  and  England  twenty-five  and 
eighteen  marks  respectively.1  In  addition  to  this  source  of  demorali 
zation  there  was  the  shameless  issue  of  dispensations  to  hold  plurali 
ties  which  had  long  been  the  cause  of  untold  injury  to  the  Church 
and  which  ever  grew  more  reckless,  and  there  was  moreover  the 
showering  of  numberless  benefices  on  the  creatures  of  the  curia,  the 
cardinals  and  their  dependents,  with  dispensations  for  non-residence. 
After  forcing  confession  upon  the  people,  the  Holy  See  busied  itself 
in  selling  the  office  of  confessor  to  the  first  comer  who  could  pay  its 
price,  irrespective  of  his  fitness  for  the  responsibilities  of  the  position, 
and  it  even  turned  into  a  source  of  profit  the  infringement  of  the 
very  slender  rules  to  guard  against  unfitness,  for  it  openly  sold  dis 
pensations  as  to  age  :  a  clerk  at  twenty-two  could  buy  for  sixteen 

Epistole,  Lett.  9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18,  21,  35,  38  etc.— S.  Brigittae  Revelationes  Lib. 
iv.  cap.  33,  37,  142. 

The  frate  Jacopo  Passavanti  tells  us  (Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza, 
Dist.  v.  cap.  5)  that  great  numbers  of  penitents  sought  out  purposely  ignorant 
and  stupid  confessors,  the  result  of  which  was  that  both  priest  and  sinner  were 
damned.  Doctor  Peter  of  Palermo  complains  (Quadragesimale,  Serin,  xx.) 
that  while  the  vilest  mechanical  art  is  considered  to  require  training,  the  art 
of  directing  souls  is  carried  on  without  it. 

1  That  a  fixed  tariff  was  set  on  benefices  first  appears  in  the  Rules  of  the 
Chancery  of  Benedict  XII.,  issued  about  1335,  but  no  figures  are  mentioned — 
only  the  summa  consueta  is  alluded  to,  showing  that  regular  prices  had  been 
adopted  under  his  predecessor,  John  XXII.  (Regulae  Cancellariae  Benedicti  PP. 
XII.  n.  2,  3,  ap.  Ottenthal,  Regulae  Cancellariae  Apostolicse,  p.  19).  Under  sub 
sequent  popes  figures  are  given  (Regulae  Urbani  PP.  V.  n.  4,  p.  14. — Regulae 
Gregor.  PP.  XL  n.  14,  p.  27.— Regulae  Johann.  PP.  XXIII.  n.  14,  p.  175). 
During  the  Great  Schism  the  antipopes,  Clement  VII.  and  Benedict  XIII., 
made  exceptions  in  favor  of  masters  of  theology  and  doctors  of  civil  and  canon 
law,  who  were  not  to  be  taxed  (Regulse  Clement.  VII.  n.  24,  p.  95.— Regulae 
Bened.  XIII.  n.  70,  p.  135),  probably  in  order  to  win  the  support  of  the  learned 
class  and  the  universities. 

These  "taxes"  were  in  addition  to  the  fees  for  the  letters,  which  were  not 
light.  See  Tangl,  Mittheilungen  des  Instituts  fur  osterreichische  Geschichts- 
forschung,  XIII.  1. 


FITNESS  OF  THE  CLERGY.  247 

gros  a  letter  enabling  him  to  receive  priest's  orders,  while  additional 
years  of  deficiency  were  taxed  at  two  gros  each,  and  similar  letters 
could  be  had  enabling  him  to  hold  benefices  with  cure  of  souls.1 
Under  these  adverse  influences  it  is  easy  to  see  why  the  spiritual 
needs  of  the  faithful  throughout  Europe  were  more  and  more  ne 
glected,  and  how  they  were  abandoned  to  the  guidance  of  pastors 
steadily  depreciating  in  character.  The  reformatory  efforts  of  the 
councils  of  Constance  and  Bale  came  to  naught,  and  the  complaints  of 
the  ignorance  and  corruption  of  the  clergy  in  general  and  of  confes 
sors  in  particular  continue  to  the  Reformation.2  Even  among  the 
Mendicants  the  standard  for  the  confessional  was  not  high.  The 
Dominican  Prierias  instructs  the  superiors  of  the  Orders  with  regard 
to  the  selection  of  friars  for  presentation  to  bishops  as  fit  to  receive 
licenses  to  hear  confessions,  and  says  that  if  a  candidate  knows 
enough  grammar  to  understand  Latin  when  read  and  has  read  the 
Defecerunt  or  other  similar  book  and  is  not  so  stolid  but  that  he  can 
doubt  when  doubt  is  required  and  is  not  rash  or  presumptuous  he 
can  be  presented  with  entire  safety.3  In  1538  the  commission  of 
cardinals,  appointed  by  Paul  III.  to  consider  the  reforms  necessary 
to  check  the  progress  of  heresy,  reported  as  the  first  thing  to  be  rerne- 


1  Tangl,  ubi  sup.—kt  a  later  period,  towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  cen 
tury,  the  tariff  of  the  Papal  Penitentiary  for  favors  to  minors  was — 
Absolutio  pro  eo  qui  minor  xxv.  annis  existens  se  fecit  ad  omnes 

sacros  ordines  promoveri  et  non  est  in  etate  legitima  .  gros.  vii. 

Absolutio  pro  eo  qui  nondum  venit  ad  etatem  legitimam  et  petit 

secum  dispensari  ut  possit  ministrare  ...  .  gros.  xviii. 

Dispensatio  pro  eo  qui  dum  xx  sue  etatis  annum  attigerit  petit 

quod  ad  omnes  sacros  ordines  promoveri  possit  .  .  .  gros.  xxxiii. 

Absolutio  pro  presbytero  quia  minorennis  parrochialem  ecclesiam 

obtinuit  et  se  fecit  promoveri       .....  •       gros.  vm. 

Libellus  Taxarum  super  quibusdam  in  Cancellaria  Apostolica  impetrandis 
(White  Historical  Library,  Cornell  University,  A.  6124). 

2  Martene  Thesaur.  1. 1612-16.— Jo.  Gersonis  Sermo  in  Concil.  Remens.  ann. 
1608  (Gousset,  Actes  de  la  Province  de  Reims,  II.  656-8).— Nic.  de  Clemangis 
de  Ruina  Ecclesise  cap.  19-36.— Jo.  de  Ragusio  Init.  et  Prosec.  Concil.  Basil. 
(Acta  et  Monumenta  Concil.  S^c.  XV.,  I.  32).— Weigel  Clavicula  Indulgen- 
tialis   cap.   45,   76.— Jo.  Nideri   Formicar.   Lib.   I.  cap.  7.— S.  Antonini   de 
Audientia  Confessionum,  fol.  3a.— (Enese  Sylvii  Opp.  inedd.  (Atti  della  Accad. 
dei  Lincei,  1883,  pp.  558-9).—  Cherubmi  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimale,  Serm. 
LXIV. — God.  Rosemondi  Confessionale,  Antverpise,  1519,  fol.  1136. 

3  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  in.  \  3. 


248  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

died  the  deplorable  character  of  the  priesthood  which  had  brought 
the  Church  and  its  functions  into  universal  contempt.1  Even  after 
the  counter-Reformation  was  fairly  under  way  there  seems  to  have 
been  little  improvement.  About  1575  a  memorial  of  matters  requir 
ing  reform,  presented  to  a  cardinal,  includes  the  ignorance  prevailing 
among  those  who  preach  and  confess,  adding  that  prelates  and  princes 
usually  desire  to  have  such  confessors.2  Bartolom6  de  Medina  com 
plains  bitterly  that  confession  is  abandoned  to  the  more  ignorant 
priests,  who,  destitute  of  knowledge  of  scripture,  undertake  the  cure 
of  souls,  while  learned  theologians  and  canonists  despise  the  function 
and  think  it  a  disgrace  to  listen  to  penitents  ;  this  he  characterizes  as 
an  intolerable  perversity  and  terrible  disease  of  these  miserable  times, 
leading  to  the  perdition  of  the  people  of  God.3  Cardinal  Bellarmine 
is  unsparing  in  his  denunciation  of  the  vices  of  the  clergy ;  he  de 
plores  the  perversity  of  the  times  when  priests,  who  of  old  were  not 
even  subject  to  public  penance,  are  now  condemned  in  numbers  to  the 
galleys  ;  the  secular  clergy  corrupt  by  their  example  the  people  whom 
they  should  edify,  while  the  regulars  scandalize  not  only  the  faithful 
but  even  the  heretics  and  the  Turks.4 

Some  of  the  stories  related  by  Ca?sarius  of  Heisterbach  show  how 
these  pastors  fulfilled  the  duties  thus  thrust  upon  them.  He  tells  us 
of  one  priest  saying  to  those  coming  in  Lent  for  confession  and  abso 
lution  that  he  prescribed  for  them  the  same  penance  as  his  predecessor 
had  done,  or  the  same  penance  as  he  had  imposed  on  them  the  previ 
ous  year.  There  was  another  who,  when  his  parishioners  flocked  to  him 
at  Easter,  would  call  them  up  to  the  altar  in  groups  of  six  or  eight, 
wind  his  stole  around  them  as  though  for  exorcism,  and  then  repeat 
to  them  in  the  vernacular  a  general  confession,  in  the  recital  of  which 
they  followed  him,  after  which  he  would  prescribe  a  general  penance 
for  them  all  and  dismiss  them.  When  he  died,  his  successor  was 


1  Quod  passim,  quicunque  sint,  imperitissimi  sint,  vilissimo  genere  orti,  sint 
mails  moribus  ornati,  sint  adolescentes,  admittantur  ad  ordines  sacros,  maxime 
ad  presbyteratum     .     .     .     Hinc  innumera  scandala,  hinc  contemptus  ordinis 
ecclesiastici,  hinc  divini  cultus  veneratio  non  tantum  diminuta  sed  etiam  prope 
jam  extincta. — Le  Plat,  Monum.  Cone.  Trident.  II.  598. 

2  Bibl.  Ambros.  MS.  G.  22  (Dollinger,  Beitriige  zur  politischen,  kirchlichen 
und  Cultur-Geschichte,  III.  241.) 

3  Bart,  a  Medina  Instruct.  Confessor.  Prologus  (Colonise,  1601). 

4  Rob.  Bellarmini  de  Gemitu  Columbse  Lib.  n.  cap.  5 ;  Lib.  in.  cap.  5,  6. 


CONFESSION  TO  SINFUL  PEIESTS.  249 

called  to  the  death-bed  of  an  old  parishioner  who  could  not  be  per 
suaded  to  confess  otherwise  than  in  the  accustomed  routine — "  I 
confess  to  have  sinned  in  adultery,  theft,  rapine,  homicide,  perjury 
etc.,"  though  he  emphatically  denied  having  committed  any  of  these 
sins.1 

The  Church  of  course  could  not  admit  that  the  validity  of  the 
sacrament  was  impaired  by  the  ignorance  or  wickedness  of  the  min- 
istrant,  but  the  people,  whose  salvation  was  at  stake,  were  not  firm 
in  this  conviction,  though  to  doubt  it  was  to  revive  the  old  Donatist 
heresy.  The  schoolmen  labored  to  remove  this  error,  and  Aquinas 
triumphantly  points  out  that  no  one  can  know  whether  another  is  in 
a  state  of  grace  and  therefore  that  no  one  could  feel  sure  of  his  abso 
lution  if  it  depended  on  the  fitness  of  the  ministrant.  He  admits 
that  evil  priests  make  evil  use  of  the  keys,  but  he  casts  the  responsi 
bility  on  God  to  evoke  good  out  of  this  evil,  forgetful  that  he  is  thus 
practically  denying  the  priestly  power.2  He  further  admits  that 
many  penitents  are  so  weak  that  they  would  rather  die  unhouselled 
than  confess  to  such  priests,  wherefore  those  who  refuse  to  their 
parishioners  license  to  confess  to  others  consign  many  souls  to  hell, 
and  in  such  case  confession  to  a  layman  is  the  best  course.3  Guido 
de  Monteroquer  advises  confession  to  God  if,  under  such  circum 
stances,  the  licence  is  refused.4  John  Gerson  says  that  parishioners 
not  infrequently,  and  with  good  reason,  suppress  some  of  their  sins 
when  confessing  to  their  priests,  which  is  highly  significant,5  and 


1  Caesar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  44,  45.     This  routine  confession  of  all 
possible  sins  was  long  continued.     There  is  a  xylographic  Beichtspiegel  nach 
den  zehn  Geboten  which  has  been  reproduced  in  fac-simile,  consisting  of  a  for 
mula  in  which  the  penitent  confesses  himself  guilty  of  every  possible  offence 
arranged  according  to  the  Decalogue.     Being  in  German,  and  having  no  for 
mulas  for  absolution  or  penance,  it  was  evidently  intended  for  popular  use, 
showing  how  the  indolence  of  priest  and  sinner  was  consulted  in  its  recital, 
covering  everything  of  which  the  penitent  could  possibly  be  guilty. — Haltrop, 
Confessionale,  La  Haye,  1861. 

2  S.  Raymundi  SummaB  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  \  5.— Hostiensis  Aurese  Summae 
Lib.  v.  De  Remiss.  §  3.— S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  Suppl.  Q.  xix.  Art.  5  ad  2. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  iii.  ad  5.     The  confirmation  of 
this  dictum  of  Aquinas  by  subsequent  writers  shows  that  the  trouble  continued. 
See  Astesani  Summaj  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xiv.  Q.  3 ;  Summa  Pisanella  s.  v.  Confessio 
III.  n.  4;  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  ill.  $  31. 

*  Manip.  Curator.  P.  II.  Tract,  ii.  cap.  4. 

5  Jo.  Gersonis  Orat.  in  C.  Remens.  ann.  1408  (Gousset,  Actes,  II.  659). 


250  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

hardly  less  so  is  the  advice  of  Roberto  da  Lecci  to  penitents  to  shut 
their  eyes  to  the  sins  of  their  confessors ;  it  should  suffice  if  their 
lives  are  not  conspicuously  evil.1  The  penitent,  in  fact,  seems  to 
have  had  only  a  choice  of  evils,  for  Angiolo  da  Chivasso,  himself  an 
Observantine  Franciscan,  advises  penitents  to  adhere  to  their  own 
priests,  in  view  of  the  ignorance  and  deceit  which  abound  among 
others  who  are  licensed  to  hear  confessions.2 

It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  wayward  human  nature  continued 
to  require  to  be  coerced  to  avail  itself  of  the  easy  means  of  salvation 
provided  by  God  and  offered  by  the  Church.  Among  the  regular 
questions  to  be  put  to  a  priest  who  is  confessing  is  whether  he  has 
made  all  his  subjects  confess  and  has  compelled  the  unwilling,  or  has 
denounced  them  to  the  bishop  as  he  is  bound  to  do  under  pain  of  mortal 
sin.3  Yet  with  all  these  means  of  coercion  at  hand  the  success  of  com 
pelling  annual  confession  was  very  partial.  After  two  centuries  and  a 
half  of  effort,  Roberto  da  Lecci  complains  that  we  see  multitudes  who 
have  not  confessed  for  twenty  or  thirty  years  and  who  constitute  a 
venomous  synagogue  of  hell.  He  tells  us,  indeed,  that  there  was 
growing  up  an  opinion  that  confession  is  useless  and  superfluous,  and 
he  devotes  a  whole  sermon  to  its  confutation.4  Even  in  orthodox 
Spain,  the  council  of  Seville,  in  1512,  was  forced  to  adopt  measures  of 
a  radical  character  to  overcome  popular  indifference.  Seeing  that  so 
many  neglect  the  precept  and  care  nothing  for  the  consequent  ex 
communication,  it  directs  that  each  priest  shall  divide  his  parish  into 
districts  and  assign  to  each  district  a  day  on  which  the  inhabitants 
shall  come  to  confession.  Those  who  fail  to  do  so  are  to  be  denounced 
from  the  pulpit  as  excommunicates,  while  not  only  is  the  ordinary 
list  to  be  sent  to  the  provisory  but  a  second  list  of  the  persistently 
contumacious  is  to  be  furnished  by  the  octave  of  Corpus  Christi,  and 
against  these  the  provisors  are  commanded  to  proceed  by  censures 
and  punishment,  invoking  if  necessary  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm. 

1  Eoberti  Episc.  Aquinat.  Opus  Quadragesimale,  Sermo  xxvm.  cap.  2. 

2  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  \  33.     It  is  safe  to  assume  from  this 
that  the  rule  was  a  dead  letter  which  hf>  elsewhere  records  (s.  v.  Clericus  vin. 
n.  1,  2),  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  receive  any  sacrament  save  baptism  from  a 
notorious  sinner. 

3  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrogatorium,  fol.  926.— Somma  Pacifica,  composta  dal 
P.  Pacifico  da  Novara,  cap.  xxii. 

4  Eob.  Aquinat.  Episc.  Opus  Quadragesimale  Serm.  xxvn. 


COERCION.  251 

Those  who  remain  for  a  year  tinder  excommunication,  if  clerics,  are 
to  be  imprisoned  until  they  repent  and  submit ;  if  laymen  they  incur 
a  fine  of  a  hundred  maravedises  a  month,  and  after  another  year  con 
fiscation  of  half  their  property.1  It  is  evident  that  those  who  would 
not  voluntarily  go  to  heaven  were  to  be  driven  there,  nor  apparently 
did  the  Church  pause  to  weigh  the  worth  of  confession  and  absolu 
tion  under  such  stress  of  punishment.  Charles  V.  was  not  quite  so 
emphatic  when,  in  his  Reformation  Formula  of  1548,  he  described 
confession  as  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  public  morals  and 
contented  himself  with  ejecting  from  the  Church  those  who  did  not 
obey  the  precept  to  perform  it  annually.2 

The  Lutheran  revolt  only  rendered  the  Church  more  eager  to 
define  its  position  with  greater  precision,  and  the  council  of  Trent 
actually  elevated  the  Lateran  canon  into  an  article  of  faith.3  The 
Tridentine  Catechism  therefore  naturally  lays  especial  stress  on  the 
obligation  incumbent  on  all  pastors  to  inculcate  on  their  flocks  the 
duty  of  obedience  to  the  canon,  explaining  its  institution  by  Christ 
and  its  necessity  for  the  salvation  of  sinners,  for  whatever  of  sanctity, 
piety  and  religion  has  been  conserved  to  the  Church  is  in  great 
measure  due  to  the  practice  of  confession.4  Still  the  faithful  seem 
not  to  have  been  duly  impressed  and  various  devices  were  employed 
to  stimulate  them.  The  old  plan  of  keeping  lists  and  issuing  cer 
tificates  was  revived.  At  Rouen,  in  1584,  the  bishops,  in  their 
annual  visitations,  were  directed  to  enquire  particularly  as  to  those 
who  did  not  annually  confess  and  take  communion ;  at  Breslau,  in 
1592,  all  parish  priests  were  ordered  before  Easter  to  make  a  house 
to  house  inspection,  taking  the  names  of  all  who  ought  to  come  to 
confession  and  subsequently  checking  off  those  who  complied.  In 
1604  the  council  of  Brixen  imposed  a  fine  of  a  florin  on  all  priests 
who  did  not,  after  Easter,  furnish  the  bishop  with  a  list  of  all  re 
cusants,  but  in  all  this  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any  thought 
of  inflicting  penalties  other  than  those  prescribed  by  the  Lateran 


1  C.  Hispalens.  ami.  1512,  cap.  7,  8  (Aguirre,  V.  365). 

2  Formulae  Keformationis  cap.  13  (Le  Plat,  Monument.  C.  Trident.  IV.  88). 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  can.  8.—  "Si  quis  dixerit    ...    ad  earn 
[sc.  confessionem]  non  teneri  omnes  et  singulos  utriusque  sexus  Christifideles, 
juxta  magni  concilii  Lateranensis  constitutionem  semel  in  anno     ...     an 
athema  sit." 

4  Cat.  Trident.  De  Pcenitentia,  cap.  7,  8. 


252  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

canon.1  Even  these  seem  to  have  fallen  into  desuetude,  for,  in  1587, 
the  Congregation  of  the  Council  of  Trent  felt  called  upon  to  decide 
that  a  bishop  can  excommunicate  those  who  neglect  the  precept  of 
Easter  confession  and  can  then  remove  the  excommunication  in  return 
for  "  almsgiving." ' 

In  the  Spanish  colonies,  however,  the  new  converts  were  treated 
with  less  indulgence,  and  the  flagging  zeal  of  the  Indians  was 
encouraged  by  St.  Toribio,  Archbishop  of  Lima,  with  the  gentle 
stimulus  of  thirty  stripes  for  the  omission  of  Easter  confession — a 
provision,  it  is  true,  from  which  the  women  and  caciques  were  ex 
empted,  who  were  to  be  coerced  in  some  other  manner  not  specified. 
It  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  there  was  little  fervor  among  the 
converts,  for  the  Indies  were  a  sort  of  ecclesiastical  penal  colony  to 
which  were  sent  troublesome  clerics  who  could  not  be  endured  at 
home,  and,  in  a  council  shortly  before,  St.  Toribio  had  deplored  the 
degradation  to  which  the  sacrament  of  penitence  had  been  allowed 
to  sink.  Many,  through  fear  or  shame  or  hatred  of  their  parish 
priests,  concealed  their  gravest  sins,  wherefore  he  proposed  to  appoint 
extraordinary  confessors  to  whom  the  Indians  might  confess  without 
apprehension ;  he  also  rebuked  the  numerous  priests  who  through 
ignorance  of  the  language,  or  negligence,  or  impatience  of  the  tedium 
of  listening,  perfunctorily  granted  absolution  after  hearing  one  or 
two  sins,  and  he  ordered  the  bishops  to  exercise  greater  care  and  dis 
crimination  in  the  examining  and  licensing  of  confessors,  even  of 
members  of  religious  orders.3 


1  C.  Aquens.  ann.  1585,  De  Pcenit.  (Harduin.  X.  1531).— S.  Caroli  Borromei 
Instructiones  (Brixiae,  1676,  p.  71).— C.  Rotomagens.  ann.  1584,  De  Episc.  Offic. 
n.  29  (Harduin.  X.  1232).— C.  Tolosan.  ann.  1590,  P.  II.  cap.  4,  n.  5  (Ibid.  p. 
1800).— C.  Wratislaviens.  ann.  1592,  cap.  8  (Hartzheim  VIII.  392).— C.  Torna- 
cens.  ann.  1600,  Tit.  vin.  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  VIII.  483).— C.  Brixiens.  ann. 
1603,  De  Confessione  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  VIII.  545). 

In  Brixen  the  custom  seems  to  have  been  kept  up.  In  the  program  pre 
pared  for  the  visitation  of  his  diocese  by  the  Bishop  Giovanni  Molino,  about 
1758,  one  article  requires  the  priest  of  each  town  to  give  him  a  written  list  of 
all  inconfessi  with  the  dates  of  their  last  confessions.  In  Padua  the  same  in 
structions  were  given;  the  Bishop  Minotto  Otthoboni  threatens  recusants 
repeatedly  with  punishment  while  living  and  deprivation  of  sepulture  when 
dead  (From  a  collection  of  Italian  episcopal  letters  in  my  possession). 

2  Pittoni  Constitutiones  Pontificise  T.  VIII.  n.  390. 

3  Concil.  Provin.  Liman.  ann.  1583,  Act.  n.  cap.  14,  15,  16.— Synod.  Diseces. 
Liman.  III.  cap.  87  (Haroldus,  Lima  Limata,  Romte,  1672,  pp.  10,  250). 


EXEMPTION  OF  PROSTITUTES.  253 

In  the  zeal  of  the  counter-Reformation  for  the  confessional  there 
was  one  noteworthy  exception.  Prostitutes  enjoyed  the  favor  of 
exemption  from  excommunication  for  omitting  confession — an  ex 
emption  necessary  if  they  were  allowed,  as  they  were,  to  ply  their 
trade  without  ecclesiastical  interference.1  Viva,  it  is  true,  looks  a 
little  askance  at  this  ;  he  argues  that  they  are  not  released  from  the 
annual  precept,  but  he  regards  as  probable  the  opinion  of  those 
doctors  who  hold  that  they  do  not  incur  the  penalties  decreed  against 
transgressors  of  the  canon,  for  they  never  are  denounced,  no  matter 
how  many  years  they  pass  without  confession.2  Aquinas,  in  fact, 
had  shown,  on  the  authority  of  St.  Augustin,  that  prostitutes  are  to 
be  tolerated  for  the  avoidance  of  greater  evils,3  and  this  was  the 
accepted  doctrine  of  the  Church.4  Rulers,  therefore,  are  justified  in 
allowing  them  to  practise  their  industry,  and  there  is  no  sin  in  rent 
ing  houses  for  the  purpose,  provided  they  are  in  the  proper  quarter 
and  the  owner  secretly  detests  the  sin.  The  harlot  is  entitled  to  her 
pay  and  can  sue  for  it  and  give  alms  with  it ;  if  she  abandons  her 
calling  she  can  confess  and  be  absolved,  when  'the  confessor  can 
interrogate  her  closely,  for  which  most  suggestive  instructions  are 
given.5 

With  the  diminution  of  penance,  which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter, 
has  become  in  modern  times  scarce  more  than  nominal,  the  confes 
sional  must  naturally  have  lost  much  of  its  old-time  terror,  yet  the 
Church  has  apparently  never  been  able  to  secure  satisfactory  obedience 


1  Em.  Sa  Aphorism!  Confessariomm  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  42. — "  Meretrices  non 
comprehenduntur  statutis  synodalibus  excommunicantibus  non  confitentes  in 
Pascha,  itaque  tales  nunquam  denunciantur." 

This  little  book  of  Manuel  Sa's  is  of  peculiar  authority,  as  it  underwent  a 
minute  censorship  in  Eome.  Printed  in  1595,  it  had  a  wide  circulation  and 
was  one  of  the  works  revised  in  the  Index  Brasichellensis  in  1607,  the  only 
expurgatory  Index  that  has  been  issued  by  the  Holy  See.  Many  passages  of 
the  Aphorismi  were  stricken  out  or  altered  to  suit  the  views  current  in  Kome, 
so  that  subsequent  editions  may  be  regarded  as  authoritative.  I  quote  from 
that  of  Venice,  1617,  which  has  the  corrections  of  Brisighelli. 

2  Viva  Cursus  Theol.  Moral.  De  Poenit.  P.  n.  Q.  iv.  Art.  3,  n.  7. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  Sec.  Sec.  Q.  x.  Art.  11. 

4  Liguori  (Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  in.  n.  434)  thinks  the  doctrine  of  Aquinas 
probable,  but  the  contrary  more  probable,  which,  under  the  rules  of  probabil- 
ism,  allows  either  opinion  to  be  followed. 

5  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Meretrix  n.  4,  5,  9,  10,  13,  14. 


254  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

to  the  precept  of  annual  confession,  although  its  omission  is  a  mortal 
sin.     The  penalties  provided  in  the  Lateran  canon  are  still  legally 
in  force,  but  prudence  counsels  their  tacit  suppression  in  view  of  the 
multitude  of  offenders.1     Van  Espen,  about  the  year  1700,  says  that 
in  several  of  the  Belgian  Dioceses  the  precept  was  wholly  neglected 
and  that  it  could  not  be  revived  without  vigorous  episcopal  action.2 
In  Italy,  about  the  same  time,  Chiericato  speaks  of  the  numbers  who 
allow  not  one  but  many  lustres  to  pass  without  visiting  the  confes 
sional.3      In   our  own  day  the  injunctions  of  almost  all  the  local 
councils  on  the  parish  priests  to  exhort  their  flocks  to  yearly  confes 
sion  is  evidence  that  neglect  is  common  and  that  constant  stimulus  is 
needed  to  secure  observance,  while  occasionally  there  is  an  admission 
that  a  large  portion  of  the  faithful  abstain  from  confession  during 
nearly  their  whole  lives.4     We  may  readily  believe  this  if  there,  is 
truth  in  the  current  statement  of  the  journals  of  the  day  that  of  the 
thirty- eight  millions  of  so-called  Catholics  in  France,  not  more  than 
eight  millions  obey  the  precept  of  Paschal  communion.     All  this,  of 
course,  does  not  apply  to  the  fervently  religious,  who  require  no 
coercion,  and  with  whom  the  sacrament  of  penitence  is  voluntary, 
not  enforced.     Those  of  the  laity,  who  are  accustomed  to  daily  com 
munion,  usually,  I  am  told,  make  a  practice  of  weekly  confession. 
It  is  to  a  standard  like  this  that  the  parish  priest  is  told  that  he 
ought  to  strive  to  bring  his  flock.     To  confess  once,  twice,  or  thrice 
a  year  may  be  allowable  for  rustics  living  in  a  sparsely  settled  region, 
but  for  those  in  thickly  populated  districts,  with  easy  access  to  con 
fessors,  it  is  virtually  certain  that  almost  all  such  confessions  are 
imperfect  and  sacrilegious.5     Daily  confession,  we  are  informed,  was 

1  Casus  Conscientise  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Apr.  1737,  cas.  2;  Sept.  1738,  cas.  3. 
— Gousset,  The"ol.  Morale,  II.  n.  413-14.— In  Naples,  recusants  fall  under  an 
interdict  removable  only  by  the  archbishop  (Manzo,  Epit.  Theol.  Moral.  P.  I. 
De  Prenit.  Append,  n.  14)  and  there  may  be  similar  diocesan  regulations  else 
where. 

2  Van  Espen,  Jur.  Eccles.  P.  n.  Tit.  vi.  cap.  5,  n.  24. 

3  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xvur.  n.  13. 

4  C.  Avenionens.  arm.  1849,  Tit.  iv.  cap.  5  §  1  (Collect.  Lacens.  T.  IV.  p. 
339)— "  Plurimos  Christianorum  esse  qui  a  salutari   Poanitentise  lavacro  per 
totum  fere  vitse  curriculum  abstineant  nemini  ignotum  est."— Cf.  C.  Albiens. 
ann.  1850,  Tit.  v.  Deer.  1  (Ibid.  p.  428-9) ;  C.  Senonens.  ann.  1850,  Tit.  in. 
cap.  5  (Ib.  p.  891) ;  C.  Quebecensis  ann.  1854,  Deer.  ix.  \  iv.  n.  2  (Ibid.  III.  638). 

5  Salvatori,  Istruzione  per  i  confessori  novelli,  P.  I.  \  3. 


TRAINING  OF  CONFESSORS.  255 

the  practice  of  St.  Catharine  of  Siena,  St.  Birgitta  of  Sweden,  St. 
Carlo  Borromeo  and  St.  Ignatius  de  Loyola,  while  St.  Francisco  de 
Borja  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  habit  of  making  two  confessions  a 
day.1  This,  however,  is  not  considered  a  practice  to  be  encouraged. 
Frassinnetti  says  "those  persons — invariably  women — who  would 
wish  to  go  to  confession  every  day  are  generally  ninnies,  and  the 
more  frequently  they  confess  the  more  silly  do  they  become"2 — an 
incautious  utterance,  for  it  reveals  how  little  real  confidence  is  felt  in 
the  sanctifying  grace  of  the  sacrament.  Benedict  XIV.  would  seern 
to  regard  monthly  confession  as  the  maximum,  for  he  says  that  a 
parish  priest  fulfils  his  duty  if  he  is  ready  to  hear  confessions  on  the 
first  Sunday  of  every  month  ;3  and  Cardinal  Gousset  appears  to  be 
quite  satisfied  if  the  precept  of  annual  confession  can  be  enforced.4 

If  it  is  difficult  to  enforce  the  Lateran  canon  at  the  present  day,  the 
character  of  the  average  modern  confessor  offers  less  excuse  for  re 
pugnance  than  did  that  of  the  middle  ages.  The  rivalry  of  Prote£- 
tantism  and  the  necessities  of  the  counter-Reformation  have  rendered 
it  incumbent  on  the  Church  to  shake  off  its  old-time  indolence  and 
self-indulgence.  The  council  of  Trent  rendered  no  greater  service 
to  the  cause  than  when,  in  1563,  it  ordered  seminaries  to  be  founded 
in  every  diocese,  where  aspirants  for  the  priesthood  were  to  be  trained 
from  early  youth  in  its  duties,  and  the  special  importance  of  those 
of  the  confessional  was  recognized  in  requiring  the  studies  to  be  par 
ticularly  directed  to  fitting  them  for  it.5  To  the  competent  develop 
ment  of  this  plan  the  successful  labors  of  the  Jesuits  as  educators 
powerfully  contributed,  and  with  its  general  introduction  the  com 
plaints  of  the  ignorance  of  confessors  diminish.  Another  method 
aided  efficiently.  In  1594,  the  council  of  Avignon  deplores  the 
ignorance  of  confessors  and  orders  the  bishops  to  institute  lectures 
on  cases  of  conscience  to  be  attended  by  confessors,  or  to  have  con- 


1  Miiller's  Catholic  Priesthood,  IV.  218. 

2  Frassinnetti,  The  New  Parish  Priest's  Practical  Manual,  p.  386  (London, 
1893). 

3  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Casus  Conscientia?,  Dec.  1734  cas.  2.— In  the  fourteenth 
century  Astesanus  says  (Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xiv.  Q.  8)  that  the  parish  priest  is 
only  under  obligation  to  hear  yearly  confessions,  though  he  ought  to  listen  to 
his  parishioners  whenever  they  wish  to  confess. 

4  Gousset,  Theol.  Morale,  II.  n.  409-10,  413. 

5  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxm.  De  Reform,  cap.  18. 


ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

ferences  of  confessors  to  be  held  twice  a  week,  presided  over  by  some 
learned  man.1  Clement  VIII.  took  the  hint  and,  in  1599,  ordered 
all  members  of  religious  orders  to  assemble  twice  a  week  for  the  pur 
pose  of  reading  the  Scriptures  or  discussing  cases  of  conscience,  a 
command  which  was  repeated  by  Urban  VIII.  in  1624.2  These 
conferences  and  discussions  on  cases  of  conscience  were  widely  intro 
duced  and  could  not  fail  to  familiarize  confessors  with  the  intricacies 
of  their  duties  and  the  boundless  resources  of  casuistry.3  Father 
Gobat,  however,  sets  little  store  by  such  training,  for  he  says  that 
any  priest  of  sound  mind  has  knowledge  sufficient,  and  though  it  is 
a  mortal  sin  intentionally  to  seek  an  ignorant  confessor,  his  absolu 
tion  is  valid  if  obtained  in  good  faith.4  Liguori  does  not  assent  to 
this  and  considers  it  necessary  to  quote  the  older  doctors  as  to  ignor 
ance  rendering  confessions  invalid  and  justifying  the  penitent  in 
seeking  another  confessor,5  which  shows  that  the  race  of  ignorant 

1  C.  Avenionens.  ann.  1594,  cap.  18  (Harduin.  X.  1846). 

2  Bullar.  Ed.  Luxemb.  IV.  65. 

3  In  1703  Chiericato  tells  us  (De  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxvm.  n.  28-9)  that  it  was 
customary  for  all  the  confessors  of  a  city  or  district  to  assemble  twice  a  month 
and  discuss  cases  of  conscience,  the  parish  priest  of  the  place  when  the  meet 
ing  was  held  acting  as  host  and  furnishing  a  collation.     In  Padua  this  led  to 
excesses  in  eating  and  drinking,  which  induced  Cardinal  Barbadico,  when 
bishop,  to  prohibit  the  banquet,  whereupon  the  attendance  notably  decreased. 
The  custom,  however,  was  long  kept  up  in  Padua.    In  December,  lists  of  cases 
for  discussion  during  the  ensuing  year  were  sent  to  all  confessors  that  they 
might  prepare  themselves.     Minotto  Otthoboni,  who  was  bishop  from  1730  to 
1743,  was  especially  assiduous  in  the  matter ;  he  ordered  all  the  vicari  foranei 
to  be  present  to  see  that  the  collation  was  modest  and  to  report  the  results  to 
the  Visitor  General.   His  successor,  Cardinal  Kezzonico,  in  1746,  expresses  the 
strongest  dissatisfaction  at  the  neglect  into  which  the  custom  was  falling  and 
orders  the  vicars  to  revive  it  energetically.     Prospero  Lambertini,  when  arch 
bishop  of  Bologna,  was  sedulous  in  his  personal  attention  to  these  monthly  dis 
cussions  and  continued  it  after  his  elevation  to  the  papacy  as  Benedict  XIV., 
resulting  in  a  well-known  collection  of  cases  of  conscience  to  which  I  frequently 
have  occasion  to  refer.     This  training  is  still  kept  up.     The  Baltimore  plenary 
council  of  1 884  orders  an  assembly  of  the  confessors  of  every  diocese  to  be  held 
twice  or  four  times  a  year  and  among  the  prescribed  exercises  is  the  discus 
sion  of  cases  of  conscience  (Concil.  Plenar.  Baltim.  III.  ann.  1884,  Tit.  v.  cap. 
5,  n.  191-2). 

4  Gobat  Alphab.   Confessar.   n.   188-93.     Cf.   Clericati   De   Poenit.    Decis. 
xxxvi.  n.  4  and  Marchant.  Trib.  Animarum  Tom.  I.  Tract,  n.  Tit.  5,  Q.  3. 

5  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  568. 


LICENCES  TO  HEAR  CONFESSIONS.  257 

confessors  is  by  no  means  extinct;  indeed,  in  1736,  Cardinal  Vero 
nese,  then  vicar-general  of  Padna,  declares  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  evils  of  the  people  are  the  result  of  the  ignorance  of  the  clergy.1 
From  these  facts  we  may  gauge  the  extent  of  the  hallucination  which 
leads  Father  Gury  to  repeat  the  assertion  of  Aquinas  that  the  con 
fessor  is  specially  illuminated  by  God  in  the  direction  of  con 
sciences.2 

The  council  of  Trent  took  another  important  step  for  the  improve 
ment  of  the  confessional  by  abolishing  all  privileges  and  ordaining 
that  no  one  should  be  entitled  to  hear  confessions  unless  he  either 
held  a  parochial  benefice  or  obtained  an  approbation  from  the  bishop, 
who  was  empowered  to  require  the  applicant  to  submit  to  an  exam 
ination  before  granting  the  licence.3  While  this,  as  we  shall  see, 
was  more  especially  directed  against  the  regular  clergy,  it  put  a 
check  on  the  old  abuse  of  the  parochial  chaplains,  who  were  thus 
obliged  to  procure  an  episcopal  approbation  before  they  could  be 
employed,  although  the  council  was  powerless  to  reform  the  abuse 
of  patronage,  whereby  unfit  persons  were  presented  to  benefices  with 
cure  of  souls,  and  any  priest  who,  at  the  age  of  twenty-four,  could 
obtain  such  preferment  was  empowered  to  hear  the  confessions  of 
both  men  and  women.  It  was  even  disputed  whether  the  salutary 
Tridentine  decree  could  prevent  incumbents  from  employing  priests 
who  did  not  possess  the  episcopal  approbation,  and  when  the  crowd 
of  penitents  was  greatest  about  the  Easter  tide  they  were  apt  to  be 
hired  without  scanning  their  credentials,  throwing  grave  doubt  upon 
the  validity  of  their  absolutions.4  The  efficiency  of  the  Tridentine 
reform  depended  on  the  bishops ;  under  careless  prelates  there  was 
no  improvement,  but  many  were  scrupulous  and  required  careful 
examination  into  the  fitness  of  all  applicants  for  licenses.  These 
licenses  customarily  were  limited  to  a  twelvemonth,  at  the  expiration 
of  which  they  had  to  be  renewed,  thus  exerting  a  wholesome  restrain- 


1  Padova,  nella  Stamperia  del  Seminario,  1736,  p.  1. 
8  Gury,  Casus  Conscientias  I.  53. 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxm.  De  Reform,  cap.  15. 

4  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  38.— Surnma  Diana 
s.  v.  Parochus,  n.  13, 14.     In  1581  the  council  of  Rouen  declared  that  the  vicars 
of  parish  priests  only  deceive  the  people  when  they  hear  confessions  without  an 
episcopal  licence  (C.  Rotomag.  ann.  1581,  De  Curatorum  Officiis  cap.  l—ap. 
Harduin.  X.  1235). 

I.— 17 


258  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

ing  influence  on  the  holder.1  It  is  true  that  when,  in  1650,  the  assem 
bly  of  the  French  clergy  adopted  this  limitation,  as  a  general  rule 
the  Mendicant  Orders  recalcitrated  and  claimed  that  it  was  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Tridentine  prescription;  the  issue  was  raised 
with  the  Bishop  of  Angers  and  carried  to  Alexander  VII.  who  de 
cided  against  the  Mendicants.2  These  approbations  always  except  the 
confession  of  nuns,  and  in  some  dioceses,  such  as  that  of  Antwerp, 
even  of  Beguines.3 


1  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxvu.  n.  9-12,  14-16,  25. 

2  Van  Espen  Jur.  Eccles.  P.  n.  Tit.  vi.  cap.  5,  n.  17.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  552. 

3  Van  Espen  loc.  cit.  n.  23. — Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ.  Dissert,  v.  De 
Poenit.  cap.  vii.  Q.  3. 

The  spiritual  direction  of  nunneries  was  rightly  regarded  by  the  council  of 
Trent  as  deserving  of  special  attention.  It  required  nuns  to  confess  monthly 
and  bishops  were  instructed  to  appoint  extraordinary  confessors  who  should  in 
addition  hear  the  confessions  of  all  the  nuns  twice  or  thrice  a  year  (Sess.  xxv. 
De  Eeg.  et  Mon.  cap.  10).  In  1615,  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Eegulars 
decided  that  neither  parish  priests  and  their  chaplains  nor  regulars  could  be  so 
deputed  (Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLI.  n.  2-10.  Cf.  Bizzari  Collect.  Sacr. 
Cong.  Episc.  et  Eeg.  pp.  346,  357,  368,  378,  437).  In  1622,  Gregory  XV.  sub 
jected  the  confessors  of  all  nunneries  and  all  regular  confessors  to  episcopal 
approbation  (Gregor.  PP.  XV.  Const.  Iwcrutabili  $$  4,  5,  ap.  Bullar.  III.  452), 
and,  in  1670,  Clement  X.  decreed  that  each  nunnery  must  have  its  own  special 
confessor,  who  must  have  the  approval  of  the  bishop  and  can  serve  no  other 
house ;  he  can  serve  only  three  years  (Bizzari,  op.  cit.  pp.  13,  14),  but  is  again 
eligible  after  three  years'  interval,  while  the  extraordinary  confessor  requires 
a  fresh  episcopal  faculty  every  time  he  makes  a  visitation  (Clement.  PP.  X. 
Bull.  Superna  $  4,  ap.  Bullar.  VI.  306).  Confessors  of  nunneries  must  be  at 
least  forty  years  old  (Bizzari  op.  cit.  p.  383).  In  spite  of  all  these  careful  pro 
visions  to  guard  the  purity  of  the  spouses  of  Christ,  the  investigation  made  by 
the  Grand-duke  Leopold  into  the  morality  of  the  Tuscan  nunneries  and  their 
confessors,  about  1785,  revealed  a  most  shocking  state  of  affairs  (De  Potter, 
Memoires  de  Scipion  de'  Eicci,  I.  284  sqq.). 

In  the  perpetual  friction  between  the  secular  clergy  and  the  Mendicants  on 
the  subject  of  confessions,  the  papal  decisions  were  construed  very  differently 
by  the  rivals.  The  Mendicants  claimed  that  their  confessors  had  a  right  to 
shrive  all  nuns  and  Tertiaries  subject  to  their  respective  Orders,  even  in  all 
reserved  cases,  including  those  of  the  Ocena  Domini.  They  held  it  to  be 
unquestionable  that  these  privileges  could  not,  as  pretended  by  the  other  side, 
be  withdrawn  by  the  revocatory  bulls  In  tanta  of  Gregory  XIII.,  Qucecumque  of 
Clement  VIII.,  In  specula  militantis  of  Urban  VIII.  and  Superna  of  Clement  X. 
(Bernard!  a  Bononia  Manuale  Confessar.  Capuccin.  cap.  in.  §  2).  Possibly  it 


FITNESS  OF  CONFESSORS.  259 

Another  and  perhaps  still  more  efficacious  influence  on  the  improve 
ment  of  the  priesthood  has  been  the  secularization  of  ecclesiastical 
property  which  the  Church  has  resisted  so  bitterly.  Deprived  of 
the  enormous  revenues  which  it  once  enjoyed,  it  offers  less  attraction 
for  the  indolent  and  sensual,  and  patronage  no  longer  places  the 
cure  of  souls  in  the  hands  of  the  most  unfit.  What  it  has  lost  on  the 
temporal  side  it  has  more  than  gained  on  the  spiritual,  and  its  influ 
ence  on  the  souls  of  men  was  perhaps  never  stronger  than  it  is  to-day. 

Although  these  movements  within  and  without  the  Church  have 
thus  elevated  the  average  character  of  the  confessor,  the  function  is 
one  requiring  so  rare  a  combination  of  qualities  that  complaints  of 
unfitness  naturally  continue.  About  1700,  Corella  ascribes  the  gen 
eral  incapacity  of  the  confessors  of  his  time  to  the  fact  that  those 
really  suited  to  the  duty  refuse  to  undertake  it  and  it  is  confided  to 
those  wholly  unfit ;  the  cure  of  souls  is  committed  to  men  who 
would  not  be  trusted  with  the  care  of  bodies ;  churches  are  bestowed 
on  those  incapable  of  the  government  of  a  house.1  The  testimony 
of  Per£  Habert  may  perhaps  be  questioned  on  account  of  his  rigor 
ism,  when  he  describes  the  prevailing  carelessness  and  negligence  of 
the  confessors  of  his  time  who  say  that  it  is  impossible  to  observe  in 
the  confessional  the  prescriptions  of  the  canons,  and  who,  therefore, 
abandon  them  wholly,2  but  it  is  authoritatively  re-echoed  by  St. 
Alphonso  Liguori3  and  by  the  council  of  Suchuen  in  1803,  which 


was  this  and  similar  pretensions  that  led  to  Fra  Bernardo's  book  being  placed 
on  the  Index. 

In  so  artificial  and  complex  a  system,  presenting  so  many  debatable  points, 
the  validity  of  absolutions  granted  must  often  be  questionable. 

1  Corella,  Praxis  Confession alis  P.  n.  Perorat.  n.  7,  8. 

2  Habert,  Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Prsefatio  (Venetiis,  1744). 

This  work  was  prepared  by  order  of  Hippolyte  de  Bethune,  Bishop  of  Ver 
dun,  for  the  use  of  his  clergy.  It  was  known  as  La  Pratique  de  Verdun  and 
was  stigmatized  by  the  Anti-Jansenists  as  La  Pratique  impraticable.  That  it 
is  not  Jansenist,  however,  is  sufficiently  shown  by  its  condemnation  of  those 
who  insist  on  the  ancient  rule  of  deferring  absolution  until  after  the  perform 
ance  of  penance  (Tract,  v.  p.  345).  It  is  full  of  admirable  moral  teachings 
and,  if  its  prescriptions  could  be  carried  out  by  men  fitted  for  the  office,  the 
confessional  might  become  an  instrument  of  good. 

3  S.  Alphons.  de  Ligorio  Praxis  Confessar.  cap.  1  §  2,  n.  6.    Many  confessors, 
he  says,  "  si  po3nitentem  dispositum  vident  statim  eum  absolvunt ;  sin  minus, 
quin  unum  verbum  impendant  illico  dimittunt,  oculo  retorto  dicentes :  Discede 
a  me  quia  te  absolvere  non  possum." 


260  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

describes  how  the  teachings  of  the  seminary  are  speedily  forgotten 
and  how  confessors  seek  only  to  despatch  their  penitents  as  speedily 
as  possible,  casting  some  into  despair  by  uncalled-for  severity  and 
leading  others  to  license  by  injudicious  laxity.1  The  council  of 
Bordeaux,  in  1859,  reiterates  these  complaints  and  deplores  the 
reaction  against  excessive  rigor  which  leads  confessors  through 
mental  imbecility  to  a  blind  and  excessive  laxity  by  which  the 
gravest  sins  are  treated  as  trivial  and  are  dismissed  without  appro 
priate  remedies.2 

Far  more  serious  is  the  indictment  brought  against  the  confessors 
of  the  present  day  by  the  good  Redeniptorist,  Father  Michael  Miiller. 
Unlike  the  council  of  Bordeaux,  he  especially  condemns  the  rigorists 
who  cast  the  sinner  into  despair  and  brutally  abuse  the  awful  power 
which  the  confessional  gives  them  over  sensitive  souls — "  Confessors 
who  are  cold,  stiff  and  heartless,  who  instead  of  encouraging  the 
poor  sinner  only  repel  and  embitter  him,  are  a  terrible  scourge  to 
the  Church.'73  But  this  is  perhaps  the  least  of  his  accusations.  The 
motive  which  frequently  impels  men  to  embrace  the  clerical  pro 
fession  is  tersely  described  by  modifying  the  lament  of  the  Prodigal 
Son — "  Fodere  non  valeo,  mendicare  erubesco,  ergo  sacerdos  ero." 
The  terrible  temptations  of  the  sacerdotal  career,  moreover,  lead 
many  astray  who  as  students  were  good  and  pious,  and  we  are  led 
to  infer  that  drinking,  gambling,  licentiousness  and  the  accumulation 
of  ill-gotten  gains  are  by  no  means  uncommon,  while  "  the  majority 


1  C.  Sutchuens.  aim.  1803  cap.  vi.  \\  3,  8,  9  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  607-9). 

2  C.  Burdigalens.  ann.  1859,  Tit.  in.  cap.  5,  \  2  (Coll.  Lacens.  IV.  760). 

3  Miiller,  The  Catholic  Priesthood,  III.  135.     This  is  emphasized  with  an 
account  of  a  dying  girl  who  refused  to  confess  and  on  being  pressed  for  the 
reason  burst  into  tears  and  exclaimed  "  God  knows  I  was  a  virtuous  girl.     I 
never  missed  my  communion.     Three  years  ago  I  went  to  confession  to  a  cer 
tain  priest.     I  tried  honestly  to  make  a  good  confession,  but  the  priest  spoke 
roughly  and  called  me  an  infamous  name.     That  morning  I  did  not  go  to  com 
munion.     ...     I  have  never  confessed  since  and  now  that  I  stand  on  the 
brink  of  eternity  I  do  not  intend  to  confess.     May  God  have  mercy  on  my 
soul !" 

If  such  scenes  are  frequent  in  the  confessional  Father  Miiller  is  justified  in 
exclaiming  "  Oh !  how  many  souls  have  been  ruined  by  harsh  and  imprudent 
confessors."  Whether  they  are  frequent  or  not  is  not  likely  to  be  known  as 
the  penitent  is  virtually,  though  not  positively,  subject  to  the  "seal"  except 
in  cases  of  solicitation  to  evil. 


FITNESS  OF  CONFESSORS.  261 

of  priests  lead  a  life  more  or  less  lukewarm." l  This  is  encouraged 
by  the  dread  of  "  scandal/7  which  grants  virtual  immunity  to  those 
who  do  not  by  some  public  and  notorious  offence  render  action  in 
dispensable  ;  as  long  as  their  vices  can  be  prudently  concealed  they 
are  sure  of  toleration,2  so  that  we  may  believe  Father  Miiller  when 
he  says  "  You  will  find  indeed  many  an  unworthy  priest  who  will 
assure  you  that  he  gives  no  scandal/7  and  further  that  "  If  God  did 
not  so  often  cast  a  veil  over  the  sins  of  so  many  unworthy  priests, 
what  horrible  scandals  we  would  witness,  how  many  souls  would  be 
ruined !" 3  This  may  be  so,  but  it  is  not  easy  for  the  non-clerical 
intellect  to  grasp  the  reasoning  which  concludes  that  souls  would  be 
ruined  by  unmasking  these  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing  rather  than 
by  allowing  them  to  ravage  their  flocks  undisturbed.  There  may 
be  exaggeration  in  Father  Mutter's  statements,  and  I  do  not  venture 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  Catholic  priesthood  of  to-day,  but  at  least 
it  is  apparent  that,  in  constructing  the  system  of  compulsory  con 
fession  and  absolution,  the  Church  has  undertaken  a  task  beyond  the 
capacity  of  human  strength  and  virtue.  Laxity  and  rigor,  as  we 
have  seen,  are  the  Scylla  and  Charybdis  between  which  only  Divine 
wisdom  could  hope  to  escape  shipwreck. 


1  Ibid.  pp.  78-127, 140,  222,  258.— Lochon  (Traite  du  Secret  de  la  Confession, 
p.  277,  Brusselle,  1708)  shows  us  that  these  complaints  of  the  deteriorating 
influence  of  the  priesthood  are  by  no  means  of  modern  origin,  for  he  tells  us 
that  many  young  confessors  are  better  than  the  old  ones  "  que  1'habitude  et 
1'usage  du  confessionel  a  amolis  et  relachez  extraordinairement." 

2  "The  good  bishop,  perhaps,  knew  his  crimes,  at  least  in  part.    .  .  .  What 
was  the  good  bishop  to  do?     Tear  the  mask  from  the  brow  of  the  hypocrite? 
Expel  him  from  the  altar  he  had  profaned,  from  the  parish  he  had  scandalized? 
His  crimes  were  known  to  but  a  few.     Was  the  bishop  to  publish  them  to  the 
whole  world  ?     What  a  scandal  to  the  weak !     What  a  triumph  for  the  heretic 
and  the  scoffing  infidel !     The  good  bishop  prayed  and  waited  and  hoped."- 
Miiller,  loc.  tit.  p.  139. 

Good  bishops  in  this  only  follow  the  decision  rendered  in  September,  1707, 
by  the  Sorbonne  and  the  Faculty  of  Douay  on  a  case  where  a  parish  priest  in 
good  repute  was  accused  of  seducing  his  female  penitents—"  La  Sainte  Ecri- 
ture,  les  Conciles,  les  Loix  et  grand  nombre  d'habiles  et  de  sages  ThSologiens 
sont  d'avis  qu'il  est  plus  apropos  dans  ces  circonstances  de  tolerer  le  mal  que 
de  scandaliser  et  perdre  cet  Ecclesiastique  ou  Religieux  dans  1'esprit  des 
Fidelles,  et  ne  point  exposer  a  la  risee  des  libertins  un  Ministre  du  Seigneur 
qui  est  en  reputation  d'honnete  homme."— Lochon,  ubi  sup. 

3  Miiller,  op.  tit.  pp.  68,  71. 


262 


ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 


In  one  respect  the  Church,  in  its  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls, 
overstepped  the  boundaries  of  humanity.  Confession  on  the  death 
bed  is  regarded  as  highly  important,  but  not  indispensable,  for,  as  we 
shall  see  hereafter,  absolution  and  the  viaticum  can  be  administered 
without  it  if  the  moribund  has  asked  for  a  confessor  and  is  speech 
less  when  the  priest  arrives.  Yet,  in  its  anxiety  to  render  confession 
universal,  and  possibly  with  an  eye  to  legacies  for  pious  uses,  the 
Lateran  council  ordered  that  all  physicians  when  called  in  should 
commence  by  inducing  the  patient  to  confess  and  after  the  cure  of 
the  soul  had  been  secured  that  of  the  body  might  claim  attention. 
Two  reasons  were  assigned  for  this — that  sickness  is  often  the  punish 
ment  of  sin  and  will  disappear  when  the  sin  is  removed,  and  that 
the  warning  to  seek  the  consolations  of  religion,  if  postponed  till  the 
patient  is  seriously  ill,  is  likely  to  plunge  him  in  despair.  The  rule 
was  enforced  by  denying  admission  to  church  to  the  physician  dis 
obeying  it,  and  the  whole  precept  was  duly  embodied  in  the  canon 
law.1  In  1244  a  council  of  Barcelona  enforced  the  rule  by  absolutely 
prohibiting  physicians  from  taking  charge  of  a  case  until  after  the 
patient  had  confessed  and  had  been  duly  absolved2 — sinners  might 
neglect  the  duty  of  confession  while  in  health,  but  sickness  gave  the 
Church  a  hold  on  them  which  it  was  resolved  to  utilize.  All  this 
was  so  repugnant  to  the  instincts  of  humanity  that  its  general  en 
forcement  was  impossible,  and  already,  in  1317,  Astesanus  informs  us 
that  the  Lateran  precept  was  a  dead  letter.3  Yet  where  the  Church 
had  control,  as  in  hospitals,  it  was  observed,  for  Gerson,  in  1408,  tells 
us  that  in  those  of  Paris  all  patients  admitted  were  obliged  to  confess 
and  receive  absolution  before  they  were  allowed  to  enter,4  and  the 
general  neglect  of  the  rule  was  deplored,  in  1429,  by  the  council  of 
Paris,  which  commanded  physicians  to  obey  it  strictly  in  future.5 

Notwithstanding  the  neglect  into  which  the  Lateran  precept  had 
fallen,  the  physician  who  did  not  obey  it  was  held  guilty  of  mortal 
sin,  and  among  the  interrogatories  to  be  put  to  all  medical  men  in  the 
confessional  was  a  question  as  to  whether  they  had  obeyed  it,  although 
in  trivial  cases  it  was  held  to  be  only  good  counsel,  and  in  emergen- 


1  C.  Lateran.  IV.  ann.  1216,  cap.  22.— Cap.  13  Extra  v.  xxxviii. 

2  Villanueva,  Viage  Literario,  T.  XVII.  p.  343. 

3  Astesani  Sumrnae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xvi. 

4  Jo.  Gersonis  Orat.  in  C.  Eemens.  ann.  1408  (Gousset,  Actes,  II.  651). 

5  C.  Parisiens.  ann.  1429,  cap.  29  (Harduin.  VIII.  1048). 


DUTY  OF  PHYSICIANS.  263 

cies,  when  delay  was  dangerous,  it  might  be  pretermitted,  nor  was  the 
patient  obliged  to  follow  the  advice.1  Early  in  the  sixteenth  century 
Cardinal  Caietano  feels  obliged  to  concur  in  the  established  view 
that  inobservance  of  the  precept  is  mortal  sin,  but  he  evidently 
is  expressing  his  own  feelings  when  he  adds  that  it  is  abrogated 
through  non-user ;  it  has  never,  he  says,  been  accurately  observed, 
nor  has  it  been  accepted  by  those  concerned,  for  they  have  constantly 
opposed  it  as  contrary  to  their  duties,  which  they  hold  to  be  to  inspire 
their  patients  with  hope ;  where  there  is  danger,  observance  of  the 
precept  increases  it ;  where  there  is  none,  it  exposes  the  sacrament 
to  contempt.2 

Thus  by  common  consent  the  Lateran  precept,  almost  from  the 
date  of  its  passage,  had  been  treated  as  non-existent  till  it  was  ad 
mitted  to  have  become  obsolete,  and,  with  the  progress  of  enlighten 
ment,  it  might  have  been  expected  to  be  allowed  to  rest  in  oblivion, 
if  not  formally  revoked.  The  revival  of  zeal,  however,  caused  by 
the  counter-Reformation  resuscitated  it  in  a  peculiarly  objectionable 
form,  and  to  Spain  apparently  belongs  the  credit.  In  1565,  the 
council  of  Valencia  directs  the  physician,  when  first  called  in,  to 
warn  the  patient  to  send  for  a  confessor;  if  on  his  second  visit  he 
finds  that  this  has  not  been  done  he  is  to  cease  his  attendance  and 
withdraw  from  the  case.3  This  found  a  prompt  response  from  St. 
Pius  V.,  who  was  so  implacably  remoulding  the  Church  according  to 
his  own  standard.  In  1566,  he  issued  a  decree  reviving  and  confirm 
ing  the  Lateran  precept  which  had  become  obsolete  through  proscrip 
tion,  and  to  insure  its  observance  he  added  that  if,  by  the  third  day, 
the  patient  had  not  confessed  and  did  not  furnish  a  written  certificate 
to  that  effect,  the  physician  must  abandon  him ;  all  physicians 
neglecting  this  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  doctorate,  declared  infam 
ous  and  fined  at  the  discretion  of  the  Ordinary,  and  all,  moreover,  at 
graduation,  must  take  an  oath  before  a  notary  to  observe  the  rule.4 

To  what  extent  this  inhuman  law  was  enforced  at  the  time  it  would 
be  impossible  now  to  determine,  but  at  least  some  zealous  prelates 


1  Summa  Pisanella  s.  v.  Medmis  n.  1.— Somma  Pacifica,  cap.  xv.— Summa 
Tabiena  s.  v.  Medicus  n.  10,  11. 

2  Caietani  Summula  s.  v.  Medicus. 

3  C.  Valent.  ann.  1565  Sess.  n.  cap.  8  (Aguirre  V.  415).     Cf.  C.  Tarraconens. 
aim.  1591  Lib.  vi.  Tit.  xvi.  cap.  6  (Ibid.  VI.  324). 

4  Pii  PP.  V.  Const.  Supra  gregem,  1566  (cap.  1  in  Septimo  Lib.  in.  Tit.  vi.). 


264  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

attempted  it.  S.  Carlo  Borromeo,  at  his  first  Milanese  provincial 
council,  caused  the  requisite  statutes  to  be  passed,  and  he  furnished 
his  priests  with  printed  blanks  on  which  to  give  the  necessary  certifi 
cates  to  physicians,  but  he  evidently  found  an  unsatisfactory  response, 
for  he  ordered  priests  frequently  to  ask  from  the  altar  whether  there 
were  any  sick  in  the  parish,  and  to  appoint  two  or  four  infermieri, 
from  the  membership  of  some  confraternity,  whose  duty  it  should  be 
to  report  all  cases  of  sickness,  when  the  priest  was  to  visit  them  and 
urge  the  patient  to  confess.1  In  1583,  St.  Toribio  of  Lima  ordered 
the  penalties  prescribed  by  St.  Pius  V.  to  be  rigidly  inflicted  on  all 
physicians  and  surgeons  disregarding  the  precept,2  and  in  1616  Marcus 
Sittacus,  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  did  the  same,  in  the  instructions 
drawn  up  for  the  visitation  of  his  province.3  Yet  the  ingenuity  of 
the  casuists  found  no  difficulty  in  explaining  away  the  papal  decree 
and  in  proving  that  the  physician  was  not  obliged  to  abandon  a 
patient  who,  after  due  warning,  neglected  to  send  for  a  confessor.4 
This  was  not  acceptable  to  Eome,  and  in  1682  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars  complained  that  in  some  dioceses  the  rule  was 
not  observed,  wherefore  a  circular  letter  was  issued  ordering  the  con 
stitution  of  Pius  V.  to  be  publicly  read  on  every  second  Sunday  in 
Lent.5  This  official  utterance  seems  to  have  met  with  little  more 
success  than  its  predecessors.  Physicians  cared  more  to  cure  their 
patients  or  to  prolong  their  attendance  than  to  obey,  and  it  is  prob 
able  that  the  penalties  were  not  enforced.  The  light,  indeed,  in  which 
a  conscientious  physician  would  be  apt  to  regard  priestly  interference 
with  his  patients  may  be  guessed  from  a  case  related  with  great  self- 
gratulation  by  Chiericato  as  an  example  to  all  his  brethren.  He  was 
called  in  the  evening  to  a  young  man  aged  22,  whom  he  found  in  a 
high  fever;  when  the  paroxysm  had  passed  the  patient  agreed  to 
confess,  which  he  had  not  done  for  two  years,  and  Chiericato  searched 


1  S.  Carol!  Borromei  Instructiones  (Brixiae,  1676,  pp.  51,  76). 

2  C.  Provin.  Liman.  I.  ann.  1583,  Act.  in.  cap.  39  (Harold.  Lima  Limata,  p. 
32). 

3  Dalham  Concilia  Salzburgens.  p.  603. 

4  Summa  Diana  s.  v.   Confessionis  necessitas  n.  15.      Yet  Graffio  (Practica 
Casuum  Eeservator.  Lib.  n.  cap.  xxvi.)  is  inclined  to  construe  strictly  the  de 
cree  of  Pius  V.  and  Caramuel  (Theol.  Fundam.  n.  1565)  asserts  absolutely  the 
duty  of  the  physician  to  abandon  the  obstinate  patient. 

5  Lettera  del  S.  C.  de'  Vescovi  e  Regolari,  30  Sett.  1682. 


DUTY  OF  PHYSICIANS.  265 

his  conscience  thoroughly — an  exercise  which  occupied  a  couple  of 
hours — and  absolved  him.  Summoned  again  at  midnight  he  found 
the  youth  delirious,  in  which  condition  he  died  next  morning.1  The 
shrift  may  have  saved  the  soul,  but  it  certainly  hastened  its  separa 
tion  from  the  body. 

It  was  probably  the  desire  to  prevent  final  backsliding,  on  the  part 
of  forcibly  converted  Huguenots,  which  led  to  a  strenuous  eifort  in 
France,  supported  by  the  secular  power,  to  enforce  the  papal  decrees. 
Cardinal  de  Noailles,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  in  1707,  issued  an  ordon- 
nance  to  this  effect,  which  received  so  little  obedience  that  it  was 
published  again,  in  1712,  accompanied  by  a  royal  declaration  to  the 
effect  that  all  physicians  in  cases  of  fever  or  other  disease  that  may 
prove  mortal  must,  on  the  second  day,  notify  the  patient  or  his  family 
to  send  for  a  confessor ;  if  indisposition  to  do  this  is  manifested,  the 
physician  must  summon  the  parish  priest  himself  and  take  a  certifi 
cate  of  having  done  so  ;  no  visit  is  to  be  paid  on  the  third  day  unless 
evidence  is  produced  of  a  confessor  having  been  sent  for,  but  after 
this  the  visits  may  be  resumed.  All  this  is  enforced  under  penalties 
of  300  livres  for  a  first  offence,  three  months'  suspension  of  practice 
for  a  second,  and  absolute  exclusion  from  practice  during  life  for  a 
third.  These  rules  seem  to  have  remained  unrepealed  until  the 
Revolution.2 

Elsewhere,  about  this  period,  Viva  shows  us  how  in  practice  the 
papal  precept  was  shorn  of  its  most  abhorent  features.  He  treats  it 
as  in  force  and  says  that,  in  the  diocese  of  Naples,  the  violation  of  the 
physician's  oath  is  a  reserved  case,  without  excommunication.  At 
the  same  time  the  physician  is  not  bound  to  warn  the  patient  per 
sonally  but  can  do  so  through  his  friends,  and  this  only  when  the  case 
is  grave  or  there  is  danger  of  its  becoming  grave,  nor  is  he  bound 
either  to  warn  or  to  desert  his  patient  if  there  is  no  hope  of  inducing 
him  to  confess  and  probable  danger  of  death  if  abandoned.  A  written 
certificate  of  confession  is  unnecessary,  but  credible  testimony  suffices. 
Moreover,  it  is  understood  that  the  oath  is  taken  with  these  reserva 
tions.3 

1  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xxi.  n.  10 

2  Isambert,  Anciennes  Loix  Francaises,  XXI.  574.— -Hericourt,  Loix  eccl&ias- 
tiques  de  France,  II.  15. 

3  Viva  Cursus  Theol.  Moral.  De  Poenit.  P.  n.  Q.  iv.  Art.  2,  n.  4.— Laymann 
(Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  5,  n.  5)  simply  quotes  the  Lateran  canon 


2QQ  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

The  wishes  of  the  Holy  See  evidently  received  slender  attention, 
and  the  curious  contest  between  it  and  the  theologians  was  resolutely 
fought  out.  In  1725  the  council  of  Rome  ordered  the  strict  enforce 
ment  of  the  rule  that  the  physician  should  abandon  the  patient  after 
the  third  visit  if  a  confessor  had  not  been  summoned.1  The  resultant 
confusion  of  thought  is  reflected  in  the  cases  of  conscience  of  Bene 
dict  XIV.  He  treats  the  precept  as  in  force,  and  says  that  all 
physicians  at  graduation  are  obliged  to  swear  to  its  observance ;  the 
physician  who  merely  warns  the  relatives  and  does  not  see  to  their 
acting  commits  a  mortal  sin ;  he  does  wrong  when  he  only  gives  the 
warning  in  mortal  cases  and  neglects  it  in  light  ones,  and  yet  he 
does  well  in  not  abandoning  the  patient  who  is  obstinate,  for  if  he 
cures  the  hardened  sinner  there  is  a  future  opportunity  of  his  re 
pentance  and  conversion.2  Liguori  coolly  copies  the  Salamanca 
theologians  in  holding  that  pontifical  decrees  only  obligate  in  so  far 
as  they  are  currently  observed ;  these  are  disregarded  in  Spain  and 
Naples,  and  consequently  are  abrogated  there.  Elsewhere  the  com 
mon  opinion  of  the  moralists,  followed  in  practice,  is  that  the  rule 
only  applies  in  cases  of  serious  disease,  when,  if  the  patient  obsti 
nately  refuses  and  if  it  would  imperil  his  life  to  abandon  him,  the 
physician  is  under  no  obligation  to  do  so.3  One  might  imagine  that, 
in  view  of  these  successive  rebuffs,  the  hopeless  effort  to  overcome 
the  common  instincts  of  humanity  would  be  abandoned,  yet  in  1855 
the  council  of  Ravenna  ordered  the  punishment  provided  by  the 
canons,  together  with  an  arbitrary  penalty  at  the  discretion  of  the 
bishop,  for  any  physician  disobeying  the  precept  of  St.  Pius  V. — 
yet  with  the  saving  clause  that,  if  an  obstinate  patient  utterly  refuses 
and  life  be  endangered  by  abandonment,  an  exception  may  be  made.4 


and  adds  that  it  applies  only  to  grave  cases  where  there  is  peril  of  death ;  the 
decree  of  St.  Pius  V.  is  not  even  alluded  to.  Of.  Mattheucci,  Cautela  Confes- 
sarii  Lib.  I.  cap.  x.  n.  6. 

1  C.  Koman.  ann.  1725,  Tit.  xxxii.  cap.  1. 

2  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Casus  Conscientise,  Jun.,  1738,  cas.  3;  Jan.,  1740,  cas.  2; 
Apr.,  1743,  cas.  1. 

3  Salmanticens.  Cursus  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvn.  cap.  ii.  n.  89-92.— S.  Alph. 
de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  in.  n.  181-2 ;  Lib.  VI.  n.  664.— Pittoni  Constitt. 
Pontificia?,  T.  VII.  n.  239. 

Tournely,  however,  as  a  Frenchman  (De  Sacr.  Poenitentise  Q.  VI.  Ait.  ii.) 
quotes  the  pontifical  decrees  as  being  literally  in  force. 

4  C.  Eavennat.  ann.  1855,  cap.  5  §12  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  161). 


CONFESSION  BY  PRIESTS.  267 

In  Naples,  a  modern  theologian  informs  us  that  the  papal  decrees 
are  still  in  force  and  that  by  disobedience  a  physician  incurs  a  papal 
reserved  case,  though  in  practice  he  is  not  obliged  to  expose  a  patient 
to  the  risk  of  death  by  abandoning  him.1  In  1869  the  journals  re 
ported  the  issue  by  Pius  IX.  of  a  confirmation  of  the  older  decrees 
requiring  the  abandonment  of  all  patients  who  should  not,  within 
three  days  after  warning,  confess  their  sins  and  express  their  willing 
ness  to  receive  extreme  unction.  I  have  not  been  able  to  verify  this, 
but  the  Roman  Ritual  still  continues  to  instruct  the  priest  that  he 
must  warn  his  sick  parishioner  and  family  that  the  physician  must 
cease  attendance  after  the  third  visit  if  confession  is  not  made, 
and  the  most  recent  theologian  asserts  that  the  Lateran  canon  and 
the  decree  of  St.  Pius  V.  are  still  in  force  where  they  have  been 
received  and  have  not  lapsed  by  disuse ;  he  adds,  however,  from 
Liguori,  that  the  physician  is  not  bound  to  desert  a  patient  if  there 
are  graver  reasons  for  remaining  and  there  is  no  hope  of  benefitting 
his  soul.2 

The  application  of  enforced  confession  to  ecclesiastics  introduced 
some  special  factors  which  require  consideration.  We  have  seen 
(p.  48)  how  the  old  rule  prohibiting  a  cleric  from  performing 
penance  gradually  disappeared  and  was  revived  as  a  privilege  ex 
empting  him  from  public  penance.  Yet  as  regards  auricular  con 
fession,  when  that  came  into  vogue,  he  was  precisely  in  the  same 
position  as  the  layman ;  the  old  rule  that  a  priest  guilty  of  mortal 
sin  must  abandon  his  sacerdotal  functions  had  faded  out,  and  the 
new  rule  prescribing  confession  and  absolution  prior  to  administering 
the  sacraments  had  not  as  yet  been  evolved.  His  confession,  like  the 
layman's,  before  the  Lateran  canon,  was  wholly  voluntary.  An  Ordo> 
probably  of  the  eleventh  century  (see  p.  132),  prescribes  that  when 
a  cleric  comes  for  confession  the  priest  shall  take  him  to  the  altar, 
declare  himself  unworthy  to  receive  his  repentance  and  ask  whether 
he  wishes  to  confess  his  sins  "to  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  and  all 
his  saints  and  to  me  an  unworthy  priest,"3  which  would  seem  to 


1  Manzo  Epit.  Theol.  Moral.  P.  m.  Append.  1,  n.  98-101  (Neapoli,  1836). 

2  Eitualis  Roman.  Tit.  V.  cap.  4  (Aug.  Taurin.  1891).— Marc  Institt.  Moral. 
Alphonsianse,  n.  2332  (Romse,  1893).— Cf.  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract. 
V.  cap.  vi.  Art.  10. 

3  Garofali  Ordo  ad  dandam  Poanitentiam,  Romre,  1791,  p.  18. 


ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

indicate  that  as  yet  priestly  confession  was  by  no  means  a  usual  per 
formance.  About  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  Cardinal  Pullus 
alludes  incidentally  to  priests  confessing  their  venial  sins  daily  to  the 
bystanders,  whether  lay  or  clerical,  and  says  nothing  to  show  that 
they  were  bound  by  any  special  rules  of  auricular  confession.1  As 
for  monks,  their  capitular  confession  at  this  period  has  been  suffi 
ciently  described  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

Yet  the  utterance  of  St.  Paul—"  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh 
unworthily  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  to  himself,  not  discerning 
the  body  of  the  Lord  "  (I.  Cor.  xi.  29)— could  not  but  be  held  espe 
cially  applicable  to  the  priesthood  engaged  in  the  sacred  functions  of 
the  altar,  however  necessary  it  might  be  to  assume  that  the  validity 
of  their  ministrations  was  not  aifected  by  their  being  in  mortal  sin. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  that  the  importance  of  their  purifying 
themselves  from  sin  before  performing  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist 
was  emphasized  by  the  customary  device  of  miraculous  stories.  As 
early  as  the  eleventh  century  we  hear  of  an  unchaste  priest  who, 
on  swallowing  the  wafer,  was  terrified  at  seeing  it  slip  out  unaltered 
at  his  navel,  disdaining  further  lodgment  in  his  polluted  body,  and 
of  another  who  found  the  wine  changed  to  a  black  and  bitter  draught.2 
Peter  Cantor,  towards  tfce  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  insists  that 
no  layman  can  take  communion  until  not  only  he  has  confessed  but 
has  performed  the  penance  enjoined  on  him,  and  no  priest  can  cele 
brate  mass  save  under  the  same  conditions,  unless,  indeed,  there  is 
unavoidable  necessity  for  his  so  doing  and  he  has  no  substitute  to 
take  his  place.3  The  celebration  of  mass,  moreover,  is  not  the  only 
question  involved,  for  it  is  a  mortal  sin  for  a  priest  to  administer  any 
sacrament  except  in  a  state  of  grace,  though  some  authorities  hold 
that  he  is  excusable  if  suddenly  summoned  to  perform  baptism  or 
shrive  the  dying.4 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Church  found  itself  in  a  dilemma  with 
priests  who,  for  the  most  part,  were  continuously  in  mortal  sin  and 
at  the  same  time  were  under  obligations  not  to  allow  interruption  in 

1  R.  Pulli  Sentt.  Lib.  v.  cap.  51. 

2  Rod.  Glabri  Histor.  Lib.  v.  cap.  1.— Rogeri  de  Wendover  Chron.  ann.  1051. 

3  P.  Cantor  de  Sacram.  (Morin.  de  Poenitent.  Lib.  x.  cap.  24). 

4  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  32,  33.— S.  Carlo  Borromeo 
(Instruct.  Confessor.  Ed.  1676,  pp.  49-50)  strictly  forbids  priests  to  hear  con 
fessions  while  in  mortal  sin. 


CONFESSION  SY  PRIESTS.  269 

the  daily  services  or  to  refuse  their  ministrations  to  the  penitent. 
The  incompatible  conditions  were  sought  to  be  reconciled  in  a  series 
of  halting  compromises  which  in  reality  satisfied  neither  requisite. 
The  question,  moreover,  was  complicated  by  the  indisposition  of  the 
priests  themselves  to  submit  to  enforced  confession,  and  when  it  was 
attempted  to  subject  them  to  the  Lateran  canon  a  difficulty  arose  as 
to  the  persons  to  whom  they  should  confess.  Bishop  Poore  of  Salis 
bury,  in  1221,  tried  the  expedient  of  appointing  two  special  deputies 
in  each  chapter  to  whom  priests  and  clerks  should  confess,  but  he 
recognized  his  inability  to  enforce  this  by  providing  that  recal 
citrants  should  go  to  the  episcopal  penitentiaries,  or,  if  they  refused 
to  do  this,  to  the  bishop  himself.1  About  the  same  time  William, 
Bishop  of  Paris,  ordered  priests  to  confess  twice  yearly,  in  Advent 
and  Lent,  to  persons  duly  appointed  in  each  deanery.2  The  experi 
ment  was  tried  in  England  of  making  them  confess  to  the  deans,  but 
this  aroused  opposition,  as,  notwithstanding  the  seal  of  the  confes 
sional,  they  feared  to  reveal  their  lapses  to  their  immediate  superiors, 
and,  in  1237,  the  Legate  Otto,  at  the  council  of  London,  ordered  the 
bishops  to  appoint  suitable  persons  in  each  deanery  to  receive  the 
confessions  of  priests  and  clerics.3  So  far  was  this  from  satisfying 
them  that  their  resistance  to  it  caused  its  abandonment,  until,  in  1281, 
the  council  of  Lambeth  ordered  it  to  be  revived  and  observed  in 
violably  in  future.4  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  lays  down  the  general 
rule  that  priests  are  to  confess  to  their  superiors  and  never  to  each 
other,  except  by  special  licence,  which  should  be  sparingly  granted, 
as  they  are  apt  to  favor  each  other,  to  the  great  relaxation  of  dis 
cipline.5  Yet  such  licenses  in  time  came  to  be  generally  employed, 
for  Guido  de  Monteroquer  advises  all  priests  on  ordination  to  procure 
one  from  the  bishop  empowering  them  to  select  their  own  confessors, 
and  he  adds  that,  though  in  strictness  this  did  not  allow  them  to 
choose  a  priest  not  licensed  to  hear  confessions,  yet  it  may  be  con 
sidered  as  tacitly  permitted  if  the  bishop  does  not  object.6 

Thus  far  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  much  effort  to  compel 


1  Constitt.  R.  Poore  Episc.  Sarum  ann.  1221  cap.  30  (Harcluin.  VII.  98). 

2  Additiones  Wilhelmi  Paris,  cap.  6  (Ibid.  VI.  n.  1978). 

3  C.  Londiniens.  ann.  1237,  cap.  5  (Ibid.  VII.  294). 

4  C.  Lambethens.  ann.  1281,  cap.  9  (Ibid.  VII.  865). 

5  Hostiens.  Aureae  Summae  Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Kemiss.  \  34. 

6  Manip.  Curator.  P.  u.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4. 


27Q  ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 

more  frequent  confession  from  ecclesiastics  than  the  annual  one  pre 
scribed  by  the  Lateran  canon.  If  this  could  be  enforced  the  authori 
ties  were  satisfied.  In  1284,  the  council  of  Nimes  orders  all  clerics 
to  confess  yearly  to  the  priest  of  the  parish  in  which  they  reside, 
and,  in  1287,  that  of  Liege  requires  priests  to  do  the  same  to  their 
deans,  who  are  to  report  the  names  of  recusants  to  the  bishop  for 
punishment.1  In  1454  the  council  of  Amiens  ordered  confession 
and  communion  twice  a  year  for  priests,  with  reports  of  those  who 
refused  compliance,2  but  the  example  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
followed.  In  1574,  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  ordered  that  all  ecclesiastics 
should  confess  to  confessors  selected  by  himself,  on  which  Van  Espen 
remarks  that  if  all  bishops  would  do  the  same  the  clergy  Avould  be 
vastly  improved.3  This  is  quite  likely,  for  the  manuals  for  con 
fessors  contain  long  chapters  on  the  priestly  duties  and  failings  to  be 
inquired  into — that  they  do  not  perform  their  sacred  function  in  a 
state  of  mortal  sin,  that  they  celebrate  mass  decently  with  clean  ves 
sels  and  napery,  that  they  do  not  take  two  "alms"  for  one  mass,  or 
create  scandal  by  excessive  fees  for  sepulture,  or  publish  fraudulent 
indulgences,  or  cause  scandal  by  their  conduct  in  the  confessional, 
or  commit  simony  with  respect  to  their  benefices,  or  frequent  sus 
pected  company,  or  make  improper  use  of  their  revenues,  or  pay 
anything  for  justice  from  the  Holy  See,  etc.4  Gradually  more  fre 
quent  confession  came  to  be  required.  In  1600,  the  council  of 
Tournay  earnestly  exhorted  all  priests  to  confess  Aveekly,  and,  in 
1604,  that  of  Cambrai  ordered  them  to  do  so.5  Not  long  afterwards 
the  Bishop  of  Freisingen  required  monthly  confession  of  all  clerics, 
who  were  obliged  to  furnish  him  with  written  certificates  from  their 
confessors.6  In  modern  times  weekly  confession  by  priests  is  deemed 
desirable,  but  it  is  not  a  matter  of  general  precept.  To  encourage  it, 
Clement  XIII.,  by  a  constitution  of  December  9,  1763,  granted  to 

1  Synod.  Nemausens.  ana.  1284  (Harduin.  VII.  907).-Statuta  Synod.  Leo- 
diens.  ann.  1287,  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  III.  689). 

2  C.  Ambianens.  ann.  1454,  cap.  5  g  3  (Gousset,  Actes,  II.  709). 

3  Synod.  DioBcesan.  Mediolan.  IV.  ann.  1574,  Deer.  24.— Van  Espen  Jur. 
Eccles.  P.  II.  Tit.  vi.  cap.  5,  n.  24. 

4  Mart.   Fornarii   Institut.   Confessar.   Tract.   II.  cap.  3. — Bart,  a   Medina 
Instruct.  Confessar.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xvi.  §  2. 

5  C.  Tornacens.  ann.  1600,  Tit.  vin.  cap.  1 ;  C.  Cameracens.  ann.  1601,  Tit. 
vm.  cap.  13  (Hartzheim  VIII.  483,  595). 

6  Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  5,  n.  13. 


CONFESSION  B  Y  PRIESTS.  271 

those  who  would  practise  it  all  indulgences,  except  the  Jubilee, 
which  are  conditioned  on  confession — a  goodly  number — and  that 
this  inducement  is  still  required  is  evident  from  the  decree  being 
quoted  as  still  in  force  by  an  assembly  of  bishops  at  Loreto  in  1850.1 
In  the  practice  of  to-day  a  priest  who  believes  himself  to  be  in  a 
state  of  grace  may  go  without  confession  for  any  length  of  time,  and 
this,  in  scattered  communities  or  in  mission-work,  may  be  necessary, 
but  the  general  custom  is  to  confess  weekly. 

"With  regard  to  the  religious  Orders,  each  one  has  its  own  rules,  a 
detailed  examination  of  which  would  teach  us  little.  We  have  seen 
in  the  previous  chapter  (p.  204)  that  Aquinas  held  that  monks  are  not 
bound  to  more  frequent  confession  than  laymen,  but  this  has  been 
changed,  and  the  rules  for  the  most  part  now  prescribe  frequent  con 
fession.  In  the  seventeenth  century,  Juan  Sanchez  remarks  that  two 
or  three  confessions  weekly  are  the  utmost  required.2  In  the  more 
rigid  Orders,  like  the  Oratory  of  St.  Philip  Neri,  three  confessions  a 
week  are  prescribed,  but  this  is  not  binding  under  mortal  sin.  Nuns, 
as  stated  above  (p.  258),  were  ordered  by  the  council  of  Trent  to 
confess  monthly,  with  two  or  three  special  confessions  annually  in 
addition,  but  in  practice  they  generally  confess  once  a  week. 

In  the  case  of  priests  engaged  in  their  sacred  functions  the  case  is 
complicated  by  the  principle  that  a  state  of  grace  is  necessary  for  the 
worthy  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  anxiety  to  avoid 
"  scandal "  by  letting  it  be  known  that  the  ministrant  is  not  in  fit  con 
dition.  Aquinas  tells  us  that  a  priest  in  mortal  sin  about  to  celebrate 
should  confess,  if  another  priest  is  accessible  ;  if  not  he  can  evade  the 
difficulty  by  making  a  vow  to  confess3 — which  was  an  easy,  if  discred 
itable,  solution  of  the  dilemma.  This  was  not  accepted  at  Cambrai, 
where  it  seems  to  be  assumed  that  priests  are  always  in  mortal  sin,  for 
in  order  to  prevent  interruption  of  the  mass  they  were  ordered  to  con 
fess  daily  to  the  episcopal  penitentiaries,  or,  if  these  were  not  accessible, 
to  some  other  priest,  in  which  case  they  were  required  to  repeat  the 
confession  to  the  penitentiary  ;4  showing  the  suspicion  felt  as  to 
mutual  priestly  confession  and  that  what  was  good  enough  for  the 
altar  was  insufficient  as  a  sacrament.  This  was  extreme  rigorism, 


1  Conventus  Lauretanus  ann.  1850,  Sect.  iv.  n.  25  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  785). 

2  Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  xxxi.  n.  4. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  vi.  Art.  5. 

4  Statuta  Synod.  Cameracens.  ann.  1300-1310  (Hartzheim  IV.  68). 


272 


ENFORCED  CONFESSION. 


unsuited  to  the  prevailing  laxity,  and  John  of  Freiburg,  about  the 
same  time,  tells  us  that  although  a  priest  in  mortal  sin  ought  to 
confess  before  celebrating,  still  he  can  celebrate  without  it  if  necessary 
to  avert  scandal,  and  there  is  no  sin  in  so  doing  if  he  has  an  inten 
tion  to  confess.1  Astesanus  indicates  that  priests  were  not  held  to  be 
bound  to  more  than  annual  confession  and  that,  if  in  mortal  sin  with 
no  confessor  at  hand,  an  aact  of  contrition  "  with  an  intention  to  con 
fess  sufficed  to  enable  them  to  celebrate.  He  agrees  however  with 
Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  in  condemning  the  device  through  which 
they  sought  to  evade  the  necessity  of  confession  by  adding  the  words 
de  pollutione  to  the  general  confession  in  the  ritual  and  by  holding 
that  this  exempted  them  from  the  requirement  of  confession  for 
lapses  of  the  flesh.2  The  council  of  Lambeth,  in  1330,  takes  note  ot 
this  device ;  it  denounces  the  error  of  those  who  believe  that  this 
general  confession  suffices  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  orders  all 
sinful  priests  to  confess  before  celebrating.3  Guido  de  Monteroquer 
makes  no  allusion  to  any  methods  of  evasion;  he  simply  quotes 
Aquinas  that  priests  in  sin  should  confess  before  celebrating.4 

Various  reasons  were  found  for  relieving  priests  from  the  neces 
sity  of  confession  before  celebration.  "Scandal"  was  always 
especially  deprecated,  and  if  the  celebrant  during  the  office  should 
suddenly  recall  a  forgotten  sin  his  cessation  of  functions  would  be 
a  scandal  of  the  most  pronounced  character.  The  doctors,  therefore, 
necessarily  agreed  that  he  should  proceed,  repenting  internally  and 
determining  to  confess  at  the  first  opportunity.  It  was  easy  to  ex 
tend  this  to  sins  remembered  in  advance  of  celebration,  which  was 
accordingly  done.  In  addition  there  was  the  secrecy  involving  every 
thing  connected  with  confession,  and  it  was  argued  that  anything 
that  might  lead  to  a  suspicion  of  the  pastor's  sin  would  be  an  infrac 
tion  of  this.  Then  also  there  was  the  question  of  "jurisdiction," 
a  subject  to  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter,  under  which  one 
parish  priest  had  no  power  to  confess  and  absolve  another,  and  this 
in  many  cases  threw  an  impediment  in  the  way  of  prompt  confession 
by  a  priest.5  Reserved  cases,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  introduced  a 

1  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxiv.  Q.  70 ;  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  69. 

2  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xi. ;  Tit.  xii.  Q.  4. 

3  C.  Lambethens.  ann.  1330  cap.  3  (Harduin.  VII.  1552). 

4  Manip.  Curator.  P.  II.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  3. 

5  Summa  Pisanella  s.  vv.  Missa  n.  7 ;   Confessio  in.  n.  7.— Sumina  Tabiena 
s.  v.  Communicare  n.  30. 


COXFESS1  ON  BY  PRIESTS.  273 

further  complication.  Thus,  although  confession  by  a  sinful  priest 
before  celebrating  was  assumed  as  a  wholesome  rule,  it  was  not  abso 
lutely  insisted  on,  and  St.  Antonino  says  that  he  can  find  no  clear 
assertion  of  it.1  The  council  of  Trent  only  requires  confession  if  a 
confessor  is  accessible ;  if  not,  confession  as  soon  as  possible  there 
after,  and  it  says  nothing  as  to  eliciting  an  act  of  contrition.2 

Thus  in  practice  it  may  be  assumed  that  for  the  most  part  sinners 
about  to  celebrate  content  themselves  with  a  more  or  less  genuine 
act  of  contrition  and  intention  to  confess,  unless  there  is  a  fellow 
priest  on  the  spot  through  whom  a  form  of  confession  can  be  made. 
It  would  at  least  seem  to  be  so  in  the  case  of  concubiuary  priests 
whom  the  council  of  Trent  ordered  to  be  suspended  from  their  func 
tions.3  This  led  to  the  question  whether  those  who  attended  the 
masses  of  notorious  concubinarians  could  do  so  without  mortal  sin,  to 
which  Henriquez  replies  in  the  affirmative,  as  custom  seems  to  have 
abrogated  the  prohibition,  and  Laymann  agrees  with  him.4  Corella 
describes  for  us  the  manner  in  which  such  a  priest  prepares  himself 
for  his  sacred  functions  by  a  hasty  confession  in  the  sacristy,  a  thing 
which  he  says  is  of  no  little  frequency,  nor  does  he  appear  to  be 
scandalized  by  such  a  prostitution  of  the  sacraments  of  the  altar  and 
confessional.5 

1  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrogatorium  fol.  206,  866. — S.  Antonini  Summae  P. 
in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19  \  3. 

A  Spanish  Confessional  of  the  early  sixteenth  century  infers  that  for  a  priest 
to  celebrate  in  mortal  sin  is  only  a  sin  if  the  offence  was  public. — Confession- 
ario  breve  y  muy  provechoso,  cap.  xxiii. 

On  the  other  hand  de  Chaimis  holds  (fol.  986)  that  even  preaching  in  mortal 
sin  is  a  mortal  sin. 

'2  C.  Trident.  Sess.  XTII.  De  Eucharistia  cap.  7. 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxv.  De  Eeform.  cap.  14. 

4  Henriquez  Summse  Theol.    Moral.  Lib.  IX.   cap.  xxv.   n.    13.— Layman 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  IV.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  4,  n.  4. 

5  Corella  Praxis  Confessionalis  P.  n.  Tract,  xii.  cap.  1,  n.  11. 
Gottschalk  Roseinund  (Confessionale  cap.  v.  P.  ii .\  De  Concubinariis)  gives 

us  a  formula  for  the  confession  of  such  sinners — "  Item  in  hac  vita  fornicaria 
subditos  et  populum  scandalizavi  et  toto  illo  tempore  irreverenter  pollutis 
labiis  et  manibus  et  corde  contaminato  ad  sancta  sanctorum  accessi  et  abso- 
lutionis  sacramentum  indigne  suscepi." 

How  little  was  thought  of  such  lapses  of  the  flesh  in  priests  is  seen  in  the 
regulations  forbidding  bishops  to  make  them  reserved  cases  unless  they  are 
complicated  with  adultery.— Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLII.  n.  13. 

I.— 18 


CHAPTER    X. 

JURISDICTION. 

IF  the  power  of  the  keys  is  divinely  conferred  in  ordination  on 
every  priest,  it  would  seem  futile  for  man  to  endeavor  to  limit  it  by 
human  ordinances  and  to  define  conditions  under  which  its  exercise 
is  invalid.  Yet  when  human  weakness  seeks  to  control  the  infinite 
it  can  frame  no  system  of  universal  application.  Thus,  as  the  theory 
of  the  sacrament  of  penitence  established  itself,  there  grew  up  the 
principle  that,  while  the  power  to  confer  it  is  obtained  in  ordination, 
this  is  only  a  faculty  in  posse,  and  that  to  administer  it  validly  re 
quires  the  addition  of  what  is  known  as  "  jurisdiction/'  and  this 
again  was  found  to  be  incompatible  with  certain  necessities  and  had 
to  be  in  turn  limited  and  subjected  to  exceptions.  The  whole  sub 
ject  thus  bristles  with  doubtful  questions  on  which  the  authorities 
have  been  by  no  means  in  accord,  until  it  forms  one  of  the  most  in 
tricate  and  involved  branches  of  canon  law.  In  its  simplest  ex 
pression  it  means  that  no  one  but  the  parish  priest  can  administer 
validly  the  sacrament  of  penitence  to  his  parishioners. 

We"  have  seen  how,  up  to  the  twelfth  century,  the  power  of  recon 
ciliation  was  claimed  exclusively  by  the  bishops  and  that  whatever 
function  of  the  kind  was  permitted  to  the  priests  was  merely  as  a 
delegation ;  also,  that,  as  the  power  of  the  keys  came  to  be  more 
definitely  asserted,  the  priests  succeeded  in  establishing  a  claim  to  it 
until  finally  in  the  twelfth  century  it  was  formally  conferred  upor 
them  in  ordination.  During  this  prolonged  and  obscure  struggle 
there  is  no  trace  of  the  existence  of  jurisdiction  as  a  recognizec 
principle.  When,  about  the  year  900,  Regino  assumes  that  even- 
priest  should  possess  a  copy  of  a  Penitential  it  would  indicate  thai 
all  could  hear  confessions  and  prescribe  penance;1  yet  we  have  seer 
(p.  124)  that  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  no  priest  could  d( 
so  without  possessing  a  special  licence  from  his  bishop  or  from  the 

1  Reginon.  de  Discip.  Eccl.  Lib.  r.  Inquis.  95. 


EIGHTS  OF  PARISH  PRIESTS.  275 

pope.  This  latter  fact  would  indicate  that  as  yet  the  possession  of  a 
parish  did  not  confer  spiritual  jurisdiction,  though  we  may  assume 
as  probable  that,  when  the  episcopal  licence  had  been  granted, 
parishioners  would,  for  the  most  part,  on  the  occasions  when  they 
desired  to  confess,  apply  to  their  pastor  as  the  natural  and  most 
convenient  person  accessible.  Yet  the  penitent  still  had  full  liberty 
in  the  selection  of  a  confessor.  In  the  ninth  century  we  find  Jonas 
of  Orleans  reproving  those  who  seek  laxer  confessors  and  avoid  the 
more  rigid,  and  deploring  the  course  of  priests  who  know  better  and 
who  yet  attract  penitents  by  imposing  inadequate  penance.1  Early 
in  the  twelfth  century  we  are  told  that  St.  Gerald,  founder  of  the 
abbey  of  Grandselve,  drew  crowds  of  sinners  by  his  sanctity  and 
the  mildness  of  his  injunctions.2  The  holy  virgin  Sisu,  chronicled 
by  Thietmar  of  Merseburg  (p.  195),  shows  that  penitents  sought  relief 
in  any  quarter  at  their  choice. 

Yet,  from  an  early  period,  there  had  been  a  sort  of  property  claimed 
by  the  pastor  in  his  flock.  His  support  was  to  some  extent  derived 
from  them,  and  he  was  naturally  jealous  of  any  interference  with  the 
oblations  and  other  sources  of  revenue  on  which  he  depended  to  make 
up  deficiencies  in  his  tithes.  There  had  long  been  standing  quarrels 
over  burial  fees  between  the  churches  and  the  monasteries,  when  the 
faithful  elected  sepulture  in  the  latter — quarrels  which  Leo  I.  in  the 
fifth  century  and  Leo  III.  in  the  ninth  vainly  sought  to  pacify  by 
assigning  to  the  parish  church  a  half  or  a  third  of  whatever  pious 
legacies  might  be  left  by  a  decedent  who  chose  to  be  buried  in  a 
convent 3  The  forgers  of  the  False  Decretals  had  proclaimed  the 
property  of  the  priest  in  all  the  rights  and  emoluments  of  his 
parish,4  and  the  confessional,  like  all  other  ministrations,  was  a  source 
of  profit  as  well  as  power  to  be  battled  for.5  The  council  of  Nantes, 


1  Jonae  Aurelianens.  de  Instit.  Laicali  Lib.  I.  cap.  10. 

2  Vit.  S.  Geraldi  Silvan  Majoris  cap.  24  (Migne  CXLVII.  1040). 

3  Cap.  1,  2,  Extra,  in.  xxviii.  4  Gratian,  cap.  1  Caus.  xnr.  Q.  1. 

5  At  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  when  the  question  had  virtually  been 
determined  in  favor  of  the  parish  priest,  a  canonist  enumerating  his  rights 
says  "  Sacerdos  habet  in  populo  suo  pcenitentias  vivorum  et  morientium,  visita- 
tiones  infirmorum,  primitias,  oblationes,  benedictiones  sponsarum,  missas 
surgentium  a  partu  et  multa  alia  quse  ei  turn  canonica  constitutio  turn  con- 
suetudo  confirmavit;  solemnes  tamen  poenitentise  sive  publics  cathedrali 
ecclesiae  reservantur." — Bernardi  Papiensis  Sumrnse  Decretalium  Lib.  in.  Tit. 
xxv.  \  2  (Ed.  Laspeyres,  Ratisbonae,  1861,  p.  104). 


276  JURISDICTION. 

towards  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  had  recognized  the  closeness 
of  the  tie  binding  the  parishioner  to  his  church  by  a  canon,  carried 
through  the  collections  of  Burchard  and  Ivo,  which  directed  the 
priest  on  Sundays  and  feasts  to  ask  from  the  altar  whether  there 
were  any  present  belonging  to  another  parish,  and  if  such  were  found 
they  were  to  be  expelled.1  Towards  the  close  of  the  eleventh  cen 
tury,  the  question  as  to  penitents  came  to  the  surface  owing  to  the 
intrusion  of  the  monks  on  the  parochial  functions,  which  was  sharply 
resented.  Gregory  VII.,  in  a  Roman  council  held  about  1075, 
sought  not  only  to  repress  this  but  to  define  the  rights  of  the  parish 
priest  by  forbidding  anyone  to  receive  to  baptism  or  absolution  the 
parishioners  of  another,  except  in  cases  of  necessity,  when  all  fees 
paid  to  him  were  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  regular  incumbent.2 
Yet  that  this  was  not  held  to  bind  the  parishioner  absolutely  to  his 
priest  is  shown  by  a  decree  of  Urban  II.  at  the  council  of  Mines,  in 
1096,  prohibiting  interference  with  the  bestowal  of  absolution  by 
monks,  and  by  another  utterance  of  the  same  pope,  which  found  its 
way  into  the  canon  law,  inferring  the  free  choice  of  a  confessor, 
after  which  he  is  not  to  be  interfered  with  unless  his  ignorance  ren 
ders  him  unfit  for  his  duties.8  The  profits  connected  with  sacerdotal 
ministrations,  however,  rendered  it  inevitable  that,  with  the  develop 
ment  of  the  sacramental  theory,  the  parish  priest  should  claim  the 
exclusive  right  to  exercise  such  functions  over  his  "subjects,"  as  they 
came  to  be  technically  known. 

Abelard  alludes  to  the  effort  in  a  manner  which  shows  that  as  yet 
the  right  was  but  partially  recognized.     Those,  he  says,  who  have 


1  0.  Nannetens.  circa  ann.  890,  cap.  1  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  457). 

2  C.  Kornan.  circa  1075,  cap.  7  (Pflugk-Harttung,  Acta  Pontiff.  Roman,  ined. 
II   n.  161). — "Nullus  presbyter  parochianum  alterius  recipiat,  nisi  per  neces- 
sitatem,  in  baptismo  et  in  absolutione,  et  si  quid  caritative  sibi  oblatum  fuerit 
ex  consensu  illius  cujus  parochianus  fuerat,  habeat  vel  reddat." 

3  C.  Nemausens.  ann.  1096,  cap.  2,  3  (Harduin.  VI.  II.  1750).— Cap.  3,  Caus. 
xxxiii.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  6. 

There  is  a  canon  attributed  to  a  council  of  Reims  in  the  seventh  century 
which  says  "nemo  tempore  Quadragesimse  poenitentium  confe^siones  audiat 
praeter  pastorem"  (Harduin.  III.  575),  but  it  evidently  belongs  to  a  period 
considerably  later.  The  same  may  be  said  of  a  canon  quoted  by  the  learned 
Noel  Alexandre  (Summse  Alexandrinse  P.  I.  n  548),  as  occurring  in  a  council 
of  Langres  in  1084,  which  is  not  in  the  collections  and  which  evidently  reflects 
the  practice  of  the  thirteenth  century. 


DEVELOPMENT.  277 

reason  to  distrust  their  priest  are  not  to  be  blamed  but  to  be  praised 
for  leaving  him.  It  is  well  to  consult  him  first  and  see  if  he  can 
igive  good  counsel  and  to  ask  his  permission,  but  if  he  refuses  through 
pride  or  because  he  imagines  himself  to  be  master  he  should  be 
abandoned.1  Yet  the  Pseudo-Augustin,  copied  by  both  Gratian  and 
Peter  Lombard,  recognizes  no  such  obligation  and  directs  the  sinner 
to  seek  out  a  priest  who  knows  how  to  bind  and  to  loose,  for  such 
must  he  be  who  sits  in  judgment  on  the  sins  of  others.2  They  both 
vainly  endeavor  to  reconcile  this  with  the  decree  of  Urban  II.  which 
they  interpret  as  establishing  the  jurisdiction  of  the  parish  priest, 
and  Lombard  vaguely  speaks  of  the  canons  prohibiting  anyone  to 
judge  the  parishioner  of  another,  but  he  cites  none,  which  he  would 
assuredly  have  done  had  such  existed.3  It  all  reveals  the  effort 
making  at  the  time  to  establish  jurisdiction.  Cardinal  Pullus  indi 
cates  the  unsettled  state  of  the  question  when  he  blames  those  who 
leave  their  own  priests  for  others  who  will  treat  them  more  leniently, 
but  he  adds  that  it  is  praiseworthy,  when  one's  own  priest  is  of  slender 
discretion,  to  seek  a  wiser  one,  either  getting  permission  or  accepting 
penance  and  then  subjecting  it  to  revision  by  another.4 

By  this  time  the  power  of  the  keys  was  formally  bestowed  on  the 
priest  in  ordination,  but  the  rule  still  existed  that  confessions  could 
only  be  heard  by  those  who  held  a  licence  from  the  bishop.  There 
was  an  incongruity  in  this,  for  if  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  came 
from  God,  it  was  granted  with  the  priestly  character ;  if  a  delegation 
from  the  bishop,  he  certainly  bestowed  it  in  the  ordination  rite.  Peter 
of  Poitiers  seems  to  be  the  first  who  endeavored  to  explain  it  by 
asserting  that  all  priests  possess  the  power,  but  those  only  can  exercise 
it  to  whom  the  bishop  concedes  the  faculty5 — a  sort  of  compromise 
between  the  old  exclusive  episcopal  prerogative  and  the  newly  en 
larged  functions  of  the  priests,  clumsy  enough,  but  still  the  only  one 
available  to  systematize  the  conflicting  claims  arising  from  the  develop 
ment  of  the  sacramental  theory.  Thus  the  distinction  was  drawn 
between  the  potential  and  the  actual  power  of  the  keys,  and  the  way 


1  P.  Abaelardi  Ethica,  cap.  xxv. 

2  Ps.  Augustin.  de  vera  et  falsa  Poenit.  cap.  10.— Cap.  1  Caus.  xxxin.  Q.  iii. 
Dist.  6,    Cf.  c.  88  Dist.  1.— P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xvii.  n.  5. 

3  Gratian.  post  cap.  2,  loc.  cit. — P.  Lombard,  loc.  cit.  n.  7. 

4  R.  Pulli  Sentt.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  52. 

5  P.  Pictaviens.  Sentt.  Lib.  in.  cap.  16. 


278  JURISDICTION. 

was  open  to  discover  that  its  exercise  was,  or  could  be,  limited.  In 
the  confessional,  it  was  argued,  the  priest  sat  as  judge,  but  a  judge 
can  only  act  where  he  has  jurisdiction.  Alexander  III.,  who  was 
familiar  with  the  principles  of  the  civil  law  and  who  did  so  much  to 
engraft  them  on  the  canon  law,  had  no  hesitation  in  applying  this 
limitation  to  the  power  of  the  keys.1  Thus  the  only  question  could 
be  as  to  the  extent  of  jurisdiction  and  the  person  to  exercise  it,  and 
the  answer  was  inevitable — the  priest  in  his  parish,  the  bishop  in  his 
diocese  and  the  pope  throughout  Christendom — and  this  had  the 
ulterior  advantage  of  establishing  the  supremacy  of  the  papal  juris 
diction  everywhere,  so  that  when  the  Treasure  of  the  Church  came 
to  be  discovered,  with  the  pope  as  its  dispenser,  it  was  easy  to  assume 
that  the  power  of  the  keys  was  a  delegation  from  the  Holy  See.  In 
practice,  however,  as  yet  there  was  still  hesitation  in  construing 
strictly  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  parish  priest.  Alain  de 
Lille,  in  one  passage,  says  that  if  a  parishioner  goes  to  confession  to 
another  than  his  own  priest  he  is  not  to  be  listened  to  unless  he  has 
already  confessed  to  the  latter ;  but  elsewhere  he  contradicts  this  by 
observing  that  if  a  priest  rightfully  accuses  a  parishioner  of  a  sin  it 
is  better  for  the  latter  to  confess  it  to  some  one  else,  and  again  he  speaks 
of  obtaining  a  licence  from  an  unfit  parish  priest  as  a  preliminary  to 
seeking  another  confessor.2 

With  the  progressive  development  of  sacerdotalism  the  lines  were 
constantly  drawn  closer.  The  Cardinal-legate,  Robert  de  Curzon,  at 
the  council  of  Paris  in  1212,  threatened  suspension  for  any  priest  who, 
without  a  mandate  from  the  bishop  or  parish  priest,  should  receive 
the  confession  of  a  parishioner  except  in  cases  of  immediate  necessity.3 
Finally  the  Lateran  canon,  in  1216,  which  introduced  compulsory 
annual  confession,  required  it  to  be  performed  "  proprio  sacerdoti " — 
to  the  priest  of  the  penitent.  This  could  only  be  construed  as 
designating  the  parish  priest,  and  it  further  defined  that  he  alone  had 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose ;  if  the  penitent  desired  to  confess  to 
another  he  could  do  so  only  by  obtaining  permission  from  his  own 
priest.4  Thus  to  the  parish  priest  was  given  exclusive  control  over 


1  Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  xxxv.  cap.  4  (cap.  4  Extra  v.  38).— "  Cum  a  non 
suo  judice  nullus  ligari  valeat  nee  absolvi." 

2  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  de  Poenit.  (Migne  OCX.  299,  304). 

3  C.  Paris,  ann.  1212,  P.  i.  cap.  12  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  2003). 

4  C.  Lateran.  IV.  cap.  21. 


ENFORCEMENT.  279 

the  salvation  of  his  subjects,  and  it  was  assumed  that  God  would 
Disregard  the  remission  of  sins  by  any  one  else.  As  we  have  seen 
this  was  only  the  formulation  of  a  principle  which  had  been  gradu 
ally  taking  shape  in  the  schools,  but  it  was  regarded  throughout  the 
middle  ages  as  the  source  and  origin  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  parish 
priest.1  Of  course  the  councils,  which  during  the  following  years 
enforced  the  obligation  of  the  Lateran  canon,  were  careful  to  specify 
that  the  annual  confession  must  he  made  to  the  priest  of  the  penitent, 
and  deacons  were  prohibited  from  administering  the  sacrament  in 
future.2 

Apparently  the  only  resistance  to  this  came  from  the  nunneries. 
Monks  had  their  own  priests  to  whom  they  confessed  when  capitular 
confession  gradually  died  out,  but  nuns  had  not  this  resource  and,  in 
the  notorious  unfitness  of  the  secular  clergy,  they  not  unnaturally 
objected  to  being  subjected  to  them  in  the  confessional.  A  large 
portion  of  the  religious  houses  had  obtained  exemptions  which  re 
leased  them  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  and  subjected  them 
immediately  to  the  Holy  See  ;  they  claimed  therefore  that  they  should 
have  confessors  specially  appointed  for  them  by  papal  authority, 
and  the  papacy,  nothing  loath  to  extend  its  influence  in  local  affairs, 
encouraged  these  claims  by  granting  such  requests.  Even  the  non- 
exempt  sought  privileges  of  the  same  kind.  Thus  a  nun  of  Limoges 
applies  to  the  pope  to  have  a  proper  confessor  selected  for  her,  where 
upon  the  Penitentiary  writes  to  the  Dean  of  Limoges  (the  see  being 
vacant)  ordering  him  to  select  a  fitting  priest  for  her  until  the  future 
bishop  can  provide  better.3 

Yet,  even  as  the  precept  of  annual  confession  was  accepted  but 
slowly,  so  that  of  applying  only  to  the  parish  priest  was  not  easily 
enforced.  Alexander  Hales  disregards  it  when  he  argues  that  a  man 
who  is  seeking  a  fit  confessor  can  lawfully  delay  confession  till  he 
finds  one,  and  St.  Bonaventura  informs  us  that  the  precept  was  vio- 


1  Thus  St.  Antonino  relies  on  the  Lateran  canon  and  admits  (Summse  P.  in. 
Tit.  xvii.  cap.  2)  that  "  a  principle  quilibet  poterat  quemlibet  volentem  se  sibi 
subjicere  absolvere,"  and  Prierias  does   the   same  (Sumina  Sylvestrina  s.  v. 
Confessor  I.  §  3). 

2  Constitt.  R  Poore  aim.  1217  cap.  25.— C.  Rotomagens.  ann.  1223,  cap.  10  ; 
ann.  1231,  cap.  36.— Constitt.  S.  Edmundi  Cantuar.  ann.  1236,  cap.  12  (Harduin. 
VII.  96,  128,  189,  269). 

3  Formulary  of  the  Papal  Penitentiary,  Philadelphia,  1892,  pp.  160-161. 


280 


JURISDICTION. 


lated  every  day,  which  he  regards  as  a  heinous  sin.1  In  fact  the 
long  arguments,  which  the  theologians  found  necessary  to  justify  the 
rule  against  the  ancient  practice  of  free  choice,  show  that  there  was 
some  difficulty  even  for  these  keen  intellects  in  finding  reasons  to 
justify  it,  though  it  afforded  the  advantage  of  easily  proving  that 
heretic,  schismatic,  excommunicated  and  degraded  priests  lost  the 
power  of  absolution  by  losing  jurisdiction  while  retaining  the  char 
acter  impressed  in  ordination  and  the  power  of  the  keys  in  essence.2 
Nor  could  the  theory  be  settled  at  once.  St.  Eamon  de  Pefiafort 
sought  to  explain  it  by  asserting  that  the  power  to  bind  or  to  loose 
conferred  in  ordination  is  so  limited  that  it  cannot  be  exercised 
without  special  authority  from  the  diocesan  or  pope,  and  his  Postil- 
lator  sees  nothing  to  object  to  in  this.3  Here  we  can  recognize  a 
remnant  of  the  old  theory  which  confined  the  power  of  reconciliation 
to  bishops,  but  it  soon  disappeared  and  the  current  theory  was 
adopted  that  as  soon  as  a  priest  receives  a  cure  of  souls  he  acquires 
ipso  facto  the  jurisdiction  requisite  for  the  exercise  of  the  power 
without  further  authorization.4  Aquinas  put  the  theory  into  definite 
shape  by  arguing  that  all  power  requires  appropriate  material  for 
its  exercise  and  the  penitent  becomes  appropriate  material  for  the 
power  of  the  keys  through  jurisdiction,  without  which  it  cannot  be 
exercised  on  him ;  or,  as  he  puts  it  in  another  shape,  to  absolve 
requires  a  duplicate  power,  that  of  orders  and  of  jurisdiction  ;  those 
who  have  general  jurisdiction  can  apply  the  keys  to  all  men  ;  those 
who  have  limited  jurisdiction,  only  on  their  subjects.5  St.  Antouino, 
therefore,  was  only  logical  when  to  the  two  keys  of  St.  Peter  he  added 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xvm.  Memb.  4,  Art.  5,  §  1.— S.  Bonavent. 
Confessionale  cap.  iv.  Partic.  1. 

Yet  Hales  subsequently  (loc.  cit.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  1,  Art.  2)  argues  laboriously 
to  show  that  confession  must  be  made  to  the  parish  priest,  except  by  women 
when  the  priest  is  notoriously  a  solicitor  to  evil. 

2  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summae  Lib.  v.  De  Poan.  et  Remiss.  1 14.— S.  Th.  Aquinat. 
Summae  Suppl.  Q.  viu.  Art.  4;  Q.  xix.  Art.  6.— S.  Bonaventurae  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xix.  Art.  ii.  Q.  2.— Jo.  Friburgens.  Summae  Confessor.  Lib,  in.  Tit.  xxxiv. 
Q.  176._p.  de  Aquila  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  1. 

3  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  $  4. 

4  Hostiens.  loc.  cit.— Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xiv.  Q.  1. 

5  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  1,  Art.  3 ;  Summae  Suppl.  Q. 
xx.  Art.  1.— Of.  P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  iii.  Art.  1. 


THEORY  ACCEPTED.  281 

a  third  one — the  key  of  jurisdiction,1  although  this  was  an  admission 
that  there  was  no  warrant  for  it  in  the  apostolic  deposit. 

In  practice  the  new  regulation  did  not  work  without  some  friction. 
In  1272,  the  synod  of  Angers  deplores  that  many  of  the  faithful  die 
without  the  sacraments,  though  anxious  to  confess,  through  the 
absence  of  their  own  priests  and  the  refusal  of  others  to  come. 
Already  it  was  apparent  that  a  breach  had  to  be  made  in  the  pre 
cept  and  in  the  elaborate  theories  as  to  jurisdiction,  and  the  council, 
to  prevent  such  unfortunate  occurrences,  felt  obliged  to  threaten  with 
deprivation  all  priests  who  should  decline  to  respond  to  a  call  of 
this  kind.2  There  was  also  trouble  on  the  part  of  penitents  who 
objected  to  being  tied  to  their  parish  priests,  and  in  1298  Boni 
face  VIII.  was  obliged  to  decree  that  no  custom  should  confer  on 
any  one  the  right  to  select  a  confessor  without  special  licence  to  that 
effect  from  the  superior  prelate.3 

Thus  the  theory  of  jurisdiction  as  requisite  to  the  exercise  of  the 
power  of  the  keys  wras  definitely  accepted  by  the  Church.  In  1439, 
the  council  of  Florence,  in  its  definition  of  the  sacrament  of  peni 
tence,  was  careful  to  explain  that  its  minister  must  have  power, 
either  ordinary  or  delegated,  in  order  to  be  able  to  absolve,4  whence 
Caietano  draws  the  somewhat  extreme  conclusion  that  mere  ordina 
tion  does  not  render  the  priest  a  minister  of  the  sacrament  of  peni 
tence.5  As  time  wore  on  and  jurisdiction  ceased  to  be  a  novelty  it  came, 
like  all  other  innovations,  to  be  regarded  as  having  existed  from  the 
beginning.  The  earlier  schoolmen,  as  we  have  seen,  had  no  scruple 
in  admitting  that  freedom  of  choice  had  existed  prior  to  the  Lateran 
council,  but  Domingo  Soto  rejects  this  view  indignantly,  and  the 
inference  that  jurisdiction  is  a  human  precept ;  it  is,  he  says,  a 
divine  law  and  has  always  been  in  force.6  The  same  development  is 
visible  with  regard  to  its  strict  construction.  Many  theologians  held 


1  S.  Antonini  Summaj  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  21.     For  the  endless  refinements 
which  the  schoolmen  brought  into  the  question  and  the  disputes  over  the  exact 
sense  of  proprius  sacerdos  see  Gabriel  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  ii. 

2  Nich.  Gelant  Episc.  Andegav.  Synod.  XII.  ann.  1272,  cap.  5  (D'Achery, 
I.  731). 

3  Cap.  2  in  Sexto  Lib.  v.  Tit,  ix. 

*  C.  Florent.  ann.  1439  Deer.  Unionis  (Harduin.  IX.  440). 

5  Caietani  Opusc.  Tract,  vu. 

6  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvin.  Q.  iv.  Art.  2. 


282  JURISDICTION. 

that  a  priest  without  jurisdiction — a  heretic  or  excommunicate  or 
one  degraded — though  he  could  not  lawfully  absolve  yet  his  absolu 
tion  when  granted  was  valid.1  The  council  of  Trent  settled  this 
definitely  in  the  negative,  by  declaring  that  absolution  is  worthless 
when  granted  to  one  over  whom  the  priest  has  not  ordinary  or 
delegated  jurisdiction.2  No  allusion  was  vouchsafed  to  the  original 
contrary  custom  as  shown  in  the  compilation  of  Gratian,  no  con 
sideration  was  shown  for  the  unlucky  souls  which,  prior  to  the 
Laterau  canon,  may  have  sought  more  holy  confessors  than  their 
own  priests ;  the  council  assumed  to  know  the  ways  of  God  and 
defined  what  he  would  accept  and  what  reject  as  a  valid  remission 
of  sin,  and  this  Palmieri  admits  to  be  the  first  authoritative  declara 
tion  of  the  doctrine.3  Ordination  thus  does  nothing  more  than  confer 
the  capacity  of  obtaining  jurisdiction,4  and  the  Holy  Ghost  bestowed 
in  it  is  powerless  to  act  without  an  episcopal  licence  or  a  benefice 
with  cure  of  souls. 

As  this  was  not  merely  a  regulation  of  discipline,  but  a  definition 
of  a  point  of  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament,  there  could  be  no 
further  discussion  as  to  the  power  bestowed  in  ordination  being  merely 
potential  and  inchoate,  and  when  the  synod  of  Pistoia,  in  1786,  spoke 
of  its  being  "convenient"  that,  under  the  division  of  dioceses  and 
parishes,  each  priest  should  confess  his  own  parishioners,  Pius  "VI. 
condemned  this  expression  as  false,  audacious,  pernicious,  insulting 
and  antagonistic  to  the  council  of  Trent  and  erroneous.5  Thus  so 
completely  does  the  power  of  the  keys  depend  upon  jurisdiction  that 
a  priest  who  resigns  his  benefice  loses  its  exercise.6  Of  course  no 
parish  priest  can  grant  valid  absolution  to  the  subjects  of  another, 
but  this  point  of  faith  rests  on  conditions  so  tenuous  that  he  can 
do  so  with  the  licence  of  the  bishop,  expressed,  or  implied,  and  this 


1  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  2. 

2  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  cap.  7. — "  Nullius  moment!  absolutionem 
earn  esse  debere  quam  sacerdos  in  eum  profert  in  quern  ordinariam  aut  sub- 
delegatam  non  habet  jurisdictionem."    For  the  discussion  over  this  see  Summa 
Diana  s.  v.  Sacerdos  n.  10. 

3  Palmeri  Tract,  de  Pcenit.  p.  173.  4  Ibid.  p.  175. 

5  Pius  PP.  VI.  Bull.  Auctorem  Fidei  n.  37.     Guarceno  (Comp.  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  xvin.  cap.  vi.,  art.  2)  speaks  of  the  Tridentine  definition  as  proxima 
fidei. 

6  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  542. 


LIMITATIONS.  283 

is  presumed  when  a  custom  to  do  so  exists  of  which  the  bishop  is 
cognizant  and  does  not  prohibit.1 

Thus  human  ordinances,  however  much  they  may  be  assumed  to 
reflect  the  divine  will,  require  to  be  modified  or  suspended  to  meet 
the  infinitely  varying  exigencies  of  human  imperfection.  Scarcely, 
in  fact,  had  the  Lateran  canon  been  promulgated  than  the  truth  was 
recognized  that  it  could  not  be  invariably  obeyed,  and  a  cloud  of 
perplexing  questions  arose  which  have  continued  to  exercise  the  in 
genuity  of  the  casuists  down  to  the  present  day.  Exceptions  to  the 
rule  at  once  began  to  be  discovered.  Of  these  the  most  immediately 
apparent  was  its  conflict  with  the  humane  prescription  of  the  Church 
that  absolution  is  never  to  be  refused  to  the  dying  sinner  who  seeks 
it.  We  have  seen  the  solution  which  the  council  of  Angers  gave  to 
this  in  1272,  and  it  became  generally  accepted  that  if  in  such  cases 
the  parish  priest  is  not  accessible  another  can  act.  This  was  con 
firmed  by  the  council  of  Trent,  which,  in  the  decree  just  cited,  admits 
that  in  articulo  mortis  any  priest  can  confess  and  absolve  any  peni 
tent.2  Even  this  however  gives  rise  to  a  disputed  question  as  to 
whether  in  such  cases  excommunicated  or  degraded  or  suspended 
priests  can  act.3 

This  exception  comes  under  the  broader  one  of  cases  of  necessity, 
in  which  the  doctors  agree  that  the  limitation  arising  from  jurisdic 
tion  is  suspended,  for,  as  Aquinas  reminds  us  in  this  connection, 
necessity  knows  no  law.4  This  throws  us  back  on  the  definition  of 
necessity,  on  the  rightful  interpretation  of  which,  in  any  given  case, 


1  Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univers.  Diss.  v.  De  Poenit.  cap.  vi.  Q.  2. 

2  C.  Trident,  loc.  cit.     The  phrase  in  articulo  mortis  is  not  construed  only  as 
applicable  to  mortal  disease,  but  extends  to  everything  that  may  threaten 
death,  as  embarking  on  a  long  voyage,  being  in  a  beleaguered  town  or  in  an 
army  on  the  eve  of  battle  or,  to  pregnancy,  or,  what  illustrates  Italian  civiliza 
tion  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  "castrandis." — Clericati  De 
Prenit.  Decis.  XLV.  n.  1. 

3  The  Somma  Pacifica,  cap.  1,  asserts  that  no  excommunicate,  degraded  or 
suspended  priest  can  absolve  in  artieulo,  and  much  less  a  schismatic  or  heretic, 
and  Chiericato  (loc.  cit.  n.  9)  states  that  the  Congregation  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  has  so  decided.    Subsequently,  however,  the  authorities  seem  to  take  the 
opposite  view.     See  Bern,  da  Bologna  Man.  Confessor.  Ord.  Capuccin.  cap.  1, 
\  4;  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolutio  I.  n.  48-50;  Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvni.  cap.  vi.,  art.  2,  $  1. 

4  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  vm.  art.  6. 


284  JURISDICTION. 

the  salvation  of  a  soul  may  depend,  but  necessity  is  not  always  easily 
recognizable,  and  the  vague  attempts  to  define  it  afford  ample  material 
for  debate.  Another  knotty  question  is  whether  the  parochial  juris 
diction  is  territorial  or  personal — whether  a  man  who  commits  sin 
in  another  parish  is  justiciable  in  his  own  parish  or  in  that  where  the 
act  was  performed.  The  latter  is  an  infraction  of  the  rule  that  a 
priest  has  jurisdiction  only  over  his  own  subjects,  but  it  is  upheld 
by  St.  Ramon  de  Penafort,  Aquinas,  Bonaventura  and  others,  while 
Angiolo  da  Chivasso  decides  against  it  on  the  ground  that  the  offence  is 
against  God  and  that  the  parish  priest  stands  in  the  place  of  God  to  his 
subjects,  while  Prierias  adds  the  unanswerable  argument  that  it  entails 
divided  confession  and  partial  absolution  which  are  not  recognized.1 
This  question  again  branches  out  into  innumerable  intricate  problems 
arising  from  change  of  domicile,  as  with  travellers,  pilgrims,  tramps, 
soldiers,  students  in  universities,  merchants,  peasants  who  labor  in 
summer  in  one  place  and  in  winter  in  another,  nobles  who  hold 
possessions  in  different  parishes  and  inhabit  them  alternately,  etc. 
All  these  present  difficulties  of  a  somewhat  intricate  character  wrhich 
are  discussed  by  the  theologians  at  great  length  and  with  abundant 
subtilty,  showing  the  inherent  impossibility  of  reducing  the  dogma 
of  jurisdiction  to  any  practical  general  principle.2  So  troublesome 
is  it  that  some  authorities  have  thought  it  necessary  that  any  one 
about  to  undertake  a  journey  must  provide  himself  with  a  licence 
from  his  bishop.3 

In  addition  to  these  exceptions  arising  from  the  penitent  there 


1  S.  Raymundi  Summae  Lib.  nr.  Tit.  xxxiv.  $  4. — S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  art.  3  ad  calcem.—S.  Bonavent.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  art. 
iii.  Q.  1. — Epist.  Synod.  Guillel.  Episc.  Cadurcens.  cap.  xiv.  (Martene  Thesaur. 
IV.  693-4). — Jo.  de  Janua  Summa  quse  vocatur  Catholicon  s.  v.  Confessio. — 
Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  v.  $  11.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  i. 

111. 

2  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  \  4. — Hostiens.  Aurese  Summae 
Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  \  44.— Synod.  Nemausens.  ann.  1284  (Harduin. 
VII.  907).— Jo.  Friburgens.  Summae  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  38-42, 
45-49,  59.— Epist.  Synod.  Guillel.  Cadurcens.  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  693-4). 
— S.  Antonini  de  Audientia  Confess,  fol.  5a ;  Ejusd.  Summae  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii. 
cap.  4. — Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  iv.  §|  9-14. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v. 
Confessor  i.  §  10. 

3  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  12a — "Imo  non  licet  clericis  vel  laycis 
profiscisci  sine  licentia  episcopi." 


CAUSES  OF  FORFEITURE.  285 

were  others  originating  in  the  priest.  We  have  seen  what  was  the 
general  character  of  the  medieval  clergy  ;  how  for  the  most  part  bene 
fices  were  held  or  administered  by  men  utterly  unfit  for  the  delicate 
and  responsible  duties  of  the  confessional  and  that  even  to  day  the 
priesthood  is  not  wholly  impeccable.  It,  therefore,  need  not  surprise 
us  that  theologians,  with  virtual  unanimity,  admit  that  incompetent 
priests  forfeit  their  jurisdiction  and  justify  their  subjects  in  seeking 
shrift  at  other  hands.  The  usual  causes  assigned  for  thus  leaving 
the  parish  priest  are  three — his  ignorance,  his  disregard  of  the  seal 
of  the  confessional,  and  his  being  a  solicitor  to  evil.  Ignorance  in 
the  confessor  is  generally,  though  not  universally,  held  to  render  a 
confession  invalid,  but  its  exact  amount  is  not  readily  defined ; 
inability  to  distinguish  between  mortal  and  venial  sins  is  usually 
suggested  as  the  test,  but  the  difference  between  these  classes  of  sin 
is  often  so  nebulous  that  the  wisest  doctors  are  at  issue,  so  that 
really  no  one  can  know  whether  his  confessor  is  sufficiently  learned 
to  administer  valid  absolution  and  whether  he  ought  to  be  abandoned 
for  another  who  may  be  no  better.  Revealers  of  confession  forfeit 
their  jurisdiction  ;  no  one  is  bound  to  confess  to  them,  and  the  con 
stant  reference  to  this  in  the  manuals  of  practice  show  that  it  is  a 
recognized  source  of  trouble.  Solicitation,  or  the  seduction  of  peni 
tents  in  the  confessional,  is  likewise  a  danger  to  which  all,  and 
especially  women,  are  exposed,  though  less  so  at  present  than  formerly, 
and  those  who  have  reason  to  dread  it  are  justified  in  seeking  some 
safer  confessor.  Any  risk,  in  fact,  of  exciting  the  evil  passions  of 
the  confessor,  whether  lustful  or  vengeful,  relieves  the  subject  from 
his  jurisdiction.  It  is  easy  to  lay  down  general  rules  of  this  kind, 
but  the  difficulty  lies  in  their  application,  and  the  long  and  intricate 
discussions  over  them  show  the  impossibility  of  framing  them  to  suit 
all  cases  or  of  furnishing  the  penitent  with  any  sure  guide  of  conduct.1 


1  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit,  xxxiv.  \  4.— Alex,  de  Ales  Summae  P.  IV. 
Q.  xix.  Membr.  1,  Art.  2.— S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  Suppleni.  Q.  vui.  Art.  4. 
— Astesani  Suinmse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xiii.  Q.  2.— Manip.  Curatoruin  P.  n.  Tit. 
iii.  cap.  4.— S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  4.— Gab.  Biel  in  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  ii.  Art.  3,  Dub.  4.— Bart,  de  Chaiinis  Interrog.  fol.  106.- 
Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  I.  \\  10-11.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confess! o 
Sacram.  n.  22.— Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Ex.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  30.- 
Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  568. 

Besides  these  three  leading  causes  for  avoiding  the  parish  priest  some  author!- 


286  JURISDICTION. 

When  the  penitent  has  thus  just  cause  to  regard  his  parish  priest 
as  unfit,  his  duty  is  to  ask  him  for  a  licence  to  confess  elsewhere.  If 
this  is  refused,  the  doctors  differ.  Some  hold  that  the  penitent  should 
apply  to  the  superior  for  a  licence  ;  others  that  he  is  then  released  from 
jurisdiction  and  can  select  another  confessor ;  others  that  he  is  in  the 
position  of  one  unable  to  get  a  confessor,  which  means  that  confession 
to  God  suffices  ;  others  again  that  lie  is  still  bound  and  that  any  other 
absolution  which  he  may  obtain  is  invalid.  The  question  is  evidently 
a  difficult  one,  on  Avhich  the  authorities  are  at  issue.1  Priests,  as  a 
rule,  are  urged  to  grant  such  licences  readily :  Aquinas  indeed  says 
that  it  is  a  sin  for  them  to  refuse  :  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  instructs  them 
to  make  the  offer  spontaneously  when  they  have  a  quarrel  or  a  law 
suit  with  a  parishioner,  and  adds  that  if  difficulty  is  made  the  vieario 
foraneo  has  authority  to  issue  them,  but  they  are  not  to  be  in  blank 
and  must  specify  the  confessor  to  be  substituted.2  It  is  easy  to  pre 
scribe  liberality  in  such  matters  to  priests,  but  it  is  impossible  not  to 
recognize  that  a  timid  parishioner,  or  a  woman  dreading  solicitation, 
might  hesitate  long  before  risking  the  ill-will  of  the  priest  by  making 
a  request  which  in  itself  is  a  direct  and  severe  imputation  on  his 
fitness  for  his  office. 

Nor  are  these  the  only  questions  to  which  the  introduction  of  juris 
diction  has  given  rise.  As  without  it  there  is  no  power  to  administer 
validly  the  sacrament  of  penitence,  if  it  is  improperly  assumed,  or  is 

ties  specify  others.     Thus  John  Myrc's  "  Instructions  to  Parish  Priests "  (v. 
829-54)- 

Or  gef  hym  selfe  had  done  a  synne 

By  the  prestes  sybbe  kynne, 

Moder  or  suster  or  his  lemmon 

Or  by  his  doghter  gef  he  had  on  ... 

Or  gef  his  preste,  as  doctorus  sayn 

By  any  of  his  paresch  have  layn  .  .  . 

And  of  mon  that  schal  go  fyghte 

In  a  bateyl  for  hys  ryghte, 

Hys  schryfte  also  thou  myghte  here 

Thogh  he  thy  pareschen  neuer  were. 

1  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Suminae  Suppl.  Q.  vin.  Art.  4. — Astesani  Summae  Lib.  v. 
Tit.  xii.  Q.  2 ;  Tit.  xiv.  Q.  3,  4.— Manip.  Curatorum  P.  n.  Tit.  iii.  cap.  4.-  S. 
Antonini  de  Audientia  Confessionum  fol.  5a.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confes 
sor  i.  $  13. — Em.  Sa  Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  35. — Gobat  Alphab. 
Confessar.  n.  76-8.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  568. 

2  S.  Carol.  Borrom.  Instruct.  (Ed.  Brixise,  1676,  pp.  73-5). 


INTRICATE  QUESTIONS.  287 

vitiated  by  simony,  or  is  doubtful  or  erroneous,  or  only  probably 
legal,  all  absolutions  granted  by  the  priest  may  be  invalid  or  at 
best  doubtful.  The  priest  may  be  an  intruder,  he  may  be  under 
excommunication,  he  may  have  obtained  his  position  by  simony,  he 
may  hold  no  benefice  or  licence,  he  may  perhaps  never  have  been 
validly  baptized.  The  practical  problems  thus  raised  are  numerous 
and  have  exercised  the  theologians  for  centuries  without  giving 
assurance  to  the  penitent  unknowingly  exposed  to  these  risks,  other 
than  by  the  pious  hope  that  God  or  the  Church  may  supply  deficiencies 
and  take  the  bona  fides  of  the  sinner  as  a  substitute  for  the  sacra 
ment  l  How  nice  are  the  distinctions,  and  how  perilous  to  the 
unsuspecting  penitent,  may  be  estimated  from  some  of  the  rules 
reported  by  Father  Gobat.  Custom,  he  says,  confers  jurisdiction 
when  bishop  or  priest  tacitly  consents,  but  if  a  parish  priest  internally 
dissents  when  his  subjects  confess  to  another,  yet  forbears  to  interfere 
because  he  dreads  quarrels  or  wrongly  imagines  the  other  to  have 
authority,  then  the  absolutions  so  granted  are  invalid.  If  the  parish 
priest  is  ignorant  of  the  invasion  of  his  jurisdiction,  and,  on  being 
informed  of  it,  says  that  he  is  content,  it  is  almost  certain  that  the 
absolutions  are  invalid,  for  the  sacrament  cannot  be  dependent  on  a 
subsequent  contingency.  Tacit  consent  requires  external  manifesta 
tion  ;  if  a  custom  springs  up  of  subjects  of  one  parish  confessing  to 
a  priest  of  another,  and  if  it  is  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  pastor 
of  the  former  and  he  assents,  this  validates  subsequent  but  not  prior 
absolutions ;  but  if  the  custom  is  notorious  and  no  objection  is  made, 
this  silence  is  the  requisite  external  manifestation.  Common  popular 
error  confers  jurisdiction  even  where  none  exists,  but  this  does  not 
extend  to  the  ministrations  of  a  deacon  who  is  thought  to  be  a  priest. 
All  theologians,  however,  were  not  as  liberal  as  Father  Gobat,  who 
mentions  a  case  in  which  a  parish  priest  absented  himself  and  the 
magistrates  of  the  town  elected  another,  who  officiated  for  two  years. 
The  questions  which  arose  were  referred  to  the  learned  Doctor  Sanchez, 


1  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19  \  18.— Sum  ma  Angelica  s.  v. 
Confessio  iv.  I  12.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s  v.  Confessor  I.  g  15.— Marchant  Tri 
bunal  Animarum  Tom.  I.  Tract.  II.  Tit.  iii.-S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral. 
Lib.  vi.  n.  571-3.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  6,  Art.  2, 
tt  2,  4. 

For  unsettled  questions  concerning  jurisdiction  see  Cat  us  Conscientue  Bene- 
dicti  XIV.  Dec.,  1743  c.  3;  Mali,  1744  c.  2,  etc. 


JURISDICTION. 

who  decided  that  all  the  sacraments  of  penitence  and  marriage  admin 
istered  by  the  intruder  were  void.  Gobat  says  that  in  view  of  the 
troubles  caused  by  such  a  judgment  he  would  have  decided  the  other 
way.1  One  cannot  help  wondering  whether  either  of  these  distin 
guished  theologians  imagined  that  his  opinion  affected  the  eternal 
destiny  of  the  penitents  who  had  departed  with  the  valid  or  invalid 
absolutions.  Some  authorities  indeed  hold  that,  when  it  is  the  prob 
able  opinion  of  the  doctors  that  a  priest  has  jurisdiction,  then  his 
absolutions  are  valid,  but  unfortunately  there  are  others  of  equal 
standing  who  deny  it.2 

Another  puzzling  question  arises  respecting  the  chaplains  of  armies 
on  the  march— must  they  obtain  approbations  from  the  bishops  of 
every  diocese  through  which  they  pass  ?  La  Croix  ventures  to  ex 
press  no  opinion  himself  as  to  this,  but  says  that  he  consulted  two 
doctors  who  held  that  the  regiment  is  the  parish  of  the  chaplain  and 
that  he  carries  his  jurisdiction  with  him  ;  also  that  he  can  shrive  the 
members  of  any  other  regiment  who  may  apply  to  him,  for  they  are 
all  wanderers.  But  when  troops  are  permanently  quartered  anywhere, 
a  decision  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  1645,  and 
again  in  1694,  requires  the  chaplain  to  procure  an  episcopal  appro 
bation.3 

A  natural  result  of  the  establishment  of  jurisdiction  was  the 
necessity  of  determining  who  were  the  authorized  confessors  of  the 
higher  classes,  whose  rank  seemed  to  remove  them  from  the  position 
of  subjects  of  a  parish  priest.  In  the  earlier  period  they  had  exer 
cised  the  power  of  selection  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  were  in  the 
habit  of  having  their  own  private  confessors.  St.  Agobard  com 
plains  that  all  who  pretended  to  temporal  rank  had  their  own 
domestic  chaplains,  from  whom  they  exacted  not  only  spiritual  but 
secular  services ;  these  were  often  men  of  neither  character  nor  train- 


1  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  81,  82,  85,  86,  95,  96, 106, 110,  111.  Yet  Sanchez 
was  right ;  see  Pet.  de  Aragon  de  Justitia  et  Jure  Q.  LX.  Art.  vi.  and  C.  A.  The 
sauri  de  Poems   Eccles.  s.  v.  Absolutio  cap.  2.     Still  there  are  doctors  who 
hold  that  to  prevent  the  peril  of  souls  the  Church  supplies  the  defect  of  juris 
diction. 

2  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  112,  114. 

3  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1518.— Summae  Alexandrine  P.  I. 
n.  529.— Pittoni  Constitutions  Pontificiae  T.  VII.  n.  870. 


EARLY  FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE.  289 

ing — frequently  serfs  or  retainers  whose  ordination  was  procured  for 
the  purpose.1  This  was  an  abuse  against  which  Nicholas  I.  angrily 
protested,  and  the  synod  of  Pavia,  in  850,  endeavored  to  limit  it  by 
requiring  all  such  priests  to  be  examined  by  the  bishops  and  to  be  fur 
nished  with  commendatitious  letters2 — a  rule  repeated  by  Urban  II., 
in  1089,  who  forbade  the  residence  of  priests  in  courts,  where  they 
were  kept  in  subjection  to  laymen  and  women  ;  nobles  desiring  such 
chaplains  must  apply  to  bishops,  who  can  grant  temporary  licences 
for  the  purpose.3  Royal  personages  seem  to  have  had  private  con 
fessors  as  a  matter  of  course.  A  certain  Humbert,  afterwards  Bishop 
of  Litchfield,  is  spoken  of  as  the  confessor  of  Offa  II.  of  Mercia ; 
Louis  le  DSbonnaire  selected  the  pious  Aldric  as  his  confessor,  and 
then  in  four  months  gave  him  the  bishopric  of  Le  Mans ;  in  909  a 
charter  of  Ordoflo  II.  of  Leon  is  subscribed  by  Diego  Hernando  as  con- 
fessarius  regis  ;  before  the  battle  of  Lechfeld,  in  955,  Otho  the  Great 
received  the  sacrament  from  his  confessor  Othelric ;  when,  in  1017, 
the  Cathari  were  burnt  at  Orleans,  Queen  Constance,  standing  at  the 
church-door  as  they  Avere  led  out  to  the  stake,  struck  out  with  a  stick 
the  eye  of  the  heretic  Stephen  who  had  been  her  confessor.  The  pious 
emperor  Henry  III.  would  seem  to  have  had  no  regular  confessor,  for 
it  is  related  of  him  that  he  never  assumed  the  regalia  without  con 
fessing  to  some  priest,  accepting  penance  and  asking  permission.4 
With  the  establishment  of  jurisdiction,  this  freedom  of  choice  and 
the  privilege  of  private  chaplains  was  necessarily  regarded  as  an 
interference  with  ecclesiastical  organization.  Accordingly,  in  the 
compilations  for  the  guidance  of  confessors,  we  find  elaborate  enum 
erations  of  all  the  grades  of  society,  with  designations  as  to  whom 
they  are  to  seek  for  their  shrift,  and  long  lists  of  their  habitual  sins 
which  are  to  be  enquired  for.5  Thus  we  are  told  that  dukes  con- 


1  S.  Agobardi  de  Privilegiis  et  Jure  Sacerdotum  cap.  11. 

2  Hugon.  Floriacens.  Chron.  Lib.  i.  circa  ann.  855.— Synod.  Ticinens.  aim. 
850  cap.  18  (Harduin.  V.  30). 

3  C.  Melphitan.  ann.  1089,  cap.  9  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1686). 

4  Vita  Offse  II.   (Matt.  Paris  Hist.  Angi.  Ed.  1644,  App.  p.  14).— Gesta 
Domini  Aldrici  (Baluz.  et  Mansi  Miscell.  I.  80).— Du  Cange  s.  v.  Cbnfessarius 
Regis. — Dithmari  Merseburg.  Chron.  Lib.  n.  ann.  955  —  D'Achery  Spicileg.  T. 
I.  p.  606.— Eeginandi  Vit.  S.  Annonis  n.  6  (Migne,  CXLIII.  1521).-See  also 
Mabillon,  Prsefat.  i.  n.  86  in  Sasc.  III.  Ord.  S.  Benedicti. 

5  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Remiss.  \\  15-43.— Jo.  Fri- 
burgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  57-8.— Astesani  Suminse 

I.— 19 


290  JURISDICTION. 

fess  to  the  bishops  of  their  capitals ;  there  are  various  directions 
as  to  marquises  and  counts,  whose  rank  and  possessions  were  by  no 
means  uniform ;  a  baron  confesses  to  the  parish  priest  of  his  chief 
town,  while  knights,  merchants,  peasants  and  children  confess  to  the 
priests  of  their  parishes.  All  this  is  simple  enough,  but  crowned 
heads  presented  a  more  troublesome  problem.  As  to  the  emperor, 
Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa,  who  is  copied  by  succeeding  authorities, 
tells  us  that  there  were  various  opinions ;  some  held  that  the  pope 
was  his  confessor,  others  the  Bishop  of  Lie>e  in  whose  diocese  is  situ 
ated  Aachen  where  he  is  crowned,  others  again  that  he  can  select  his 
own  confessor  as  he  is  subject  to  no  law,  but  the  truth  is  that  by 
immemorial  custom  the  emperor  and  empress  have  master  chaplains 
and  under  them  daily  chaplains,  to  whom  they  confess  at  will,  and 
this  is  approved  by  the  pope,  who  could  prohibit  it  if  he  chose.  As 
for  kings,  Cardinal  Henry  says  that  some  consider  that  they  must 
confess  to  the  pope,  others  to  whom  they  please,  but  the  truth  is  that 
they  are  subjects  of  the  bishops  of  their  capitals,  unless  by  custom  or 
by  ancient  licence  they  can  exercise  free  choice.  Astesanus  declares 
that  no  custom  can  authorize  kings  to  select  their  confessors,  for  this 
would  be  detrimental  to  church  discipline.  St.  Antonino  and  Gabriel 
Biel  say  that  the  confessor  of  a  king  is  the  bishop  or  archbishop  of 
the  city  in  which  he  is  crowned.1  The  probability  is  that,  as  a  rule, 
they  obtained  from  the  popes  permission  to  choose  their  confessors. 
Thus,  in  1272,  Philippe  le  Hardi  procured  such  a  privilege  from 
Gregory  X.,  and,  in  1278,  from  Nicholas  III.  In  1281,  Martin  IV. 
granted  one  to  Magnus  of  Sweden,  and,  in  1301,  Boniface  VIII.  to 
Edward  I.  of  England.  Finally,  in  1351,  Clement.  VI.  granted  in 
perpetuity  to  King  John  and  his  queen  and  their  successors  on  the 
throne  of  France  the  right  to  select  their  confessors  with  the  added 
privilege  of  absolution  for  papal  reserved  cases.2  The  struggles  of 
the  Reformation  and  the  religious  wars  which  followed  emancipated 


Lib.  v.  Tit.  xv.  Q.  15-16.— S.  Antonini  Summae  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  2,  3. — 
Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  ii.  Art,  3,  Dub.  2. 

1  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  $$  35  sqq.— Astesani 
Summge  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xv.  Q.  15,  16.— P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q. 
iii.  Art.  2.— S.  Antonini  Summaa  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  2,  3.— Gab.  Biel  in  IV 
Sentt.  Dist.  xvii.  Q.  ii.  Art.  3,  Dub.  2. 

2  Kaynald.  Annal.  ami.  1272,  n.  59;  ami.  1278,  n.  37;  ann.  1281,  n.  23;  aim. 
1301,  n.  23.— D'Achery  Spicileg.  III.  724. 


CONFESSOES  OF  ECCLESIASTICS.  291 

royalty,  and  the  principle  became  established  that  all  great  princes 
have  the  privilege  of  selecting  their  own  confessors  from  among 
authorized  priests.1 

As  regards  ecclesiastics,  the  first  question  naturally  is  with  regard 
to  the  pope,  who,  as  Cardinal  Henry  says,  not  only  can  sin  but  sins 
more  grievously  than  others  on  account  of  his  exalted  rank.  It 
seems  that  at  first  there  was  doubt,  and  some  affirmed,  like  the 
Greeks,  that  it  sufficed  for  him  to  confess  to  God ;  others  suggested 
that  it  should  be  to  the  Cardinal  of  Ostia  or  to  some  other  cardinal 
bishop  or  to  a  monk,  but  the  correct  decision  is  that  he  can  select 
whom  he  pleases.2  As  for  the  cardinals,  according  to  Cardinal 
Henry  and  Bishop  Pelayo,  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries, 
some  held  that  they  must  confess  to  the  pope ;  others  that  the  car 
dinal  deacons  confess  to  the  priest-bishops,  the  bishops  to  the  first 
bishop  (Ostia)  and  he  to  the  pope,  but  the  real  practice  is  that  the 
cardinal  bishops  are  privileged  to  select  their  own  confessors,  the  rest 
confess  their  private  sins  to  the  papal  Penitentiary  and  their  public 
ones  to  the  pope,  but  it  is  safer  for  each  one  to  get  a  papal  licence  to 
choose  a  confessor.3  In  modern  times  all  cardinals  can  make  their 
own  selection.4  Archbishops,  as  Cardinal  Henry  tells  us,  if  in  Italy 
and  subject  immediately  to  the  Holy  See,  must  confess  to  the  pope 
once  a  year,  as  they  are  required  to  come  annually  to  the  curia ; 
outside  of  Italy,  if  the  sin  be  public  and  enormous,  it  must  be  con 
fessed  to  the  pope,  in  all  else  they  have  freedom  of  election.  Bishops, 
if  exempt,  have  the  same  privileges  as  archbishops ;  if  not  exempt, 
they  must  confess  to  their  archbishops  at  least  once  a  year.  Privi- 


1  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Ex.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  30.— Gobat  Alphab. 
Confessar.  n.  98. — S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  565.— Varceno 
Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  vi.  art.  2,  \  1. 

2  Hostiensis  loc.  cit.    Johannes  de  Deo  reaches  the  same  conclusion,  after 
saying  (Penitential  is  Lib.  v.  cap.  1)  "Et  forsan  videtur  quibusdam  quod  non 
peccaret  papa     .     .     .     unde  videtur  se  licere  quidquid  facere  vellet.     Ego 
autem  Johannes  de  Deo  cum  aliis  doctoribus  contrarium  teneo  et  dico  quod  si 
papa  peccat  magis  offendit  quam  alius  homo."— Cf.  Alvari  Pelagii  de  Planctu 
Ecclesise  Lib.  n.  Art.  xix. 

In  modern  times  the  Apostolic  Sacristan  seems  frequently  selected  as  the 
papal  confessor. — Gregoire,  Histoire  des  Confesseurs  des  Einpereurs  etc.  p.  188 
(Paris,  1824). 

3  Hostiens.  foe.  cit. — Alv.  Pelag.  he.  cit. 

4  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  565. 


292  JURISDICTION. 

leges,  however,  to  choose  a  confessor  were  readily  obtained,  and  in 
time  bishops,  both  active  and  titular,  gained  the  power  to  do  so  as  a 
prerogative  of  their  station.  Elaborate  rules  at  one  time  prevailed 
with  regard  to  all  other  grades  of  the  clergy,  both  regular  and 
secular,  but  it  is  scarce  worth  while  to  enter  into  these  details,  espe 
cially  as  the  tendency  has  been  constant  to  relax  the  strictness  of  the 
old  regulations,  and  already,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  Escobar  tells 
us  that  custom  allows  all  priests  to  select  their  own  confessors,  and 
Martin  van  der  Beek  enumerates  seven  classes  so  privileged — popes, 
bishops  and  prelates,  secular  priests,  emperors  and  kings,  scholars, 
vagabonds  and  pilgrims.1 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that  everywhere  there  was  a  desire  to 
shake  off  the  subjection  to  the  parish  priest  and  to  exercise  free 
choice  in  the  selection  of  the  person  who  should  occupy  the  supremely 
delicate  position  of  confessor.  The  motive  might  be  laudable,  to 
escape  from  the  control  of  a  licentious,  ignorant  or  tyrannical  pastor, 
or  it  might  be  evil,  to  seek  some  complaisant  priest  who,  for  a  con 
sideration,  would  confer  absolution  without  due  penance  or  requiring 
restitution  of  ill-gotten,  gains  or  abandonment  of  sin.  Whatever 
the  object,  it  was  a  privilege  generally  and  eagerly  sought.  As  the 
"  superior"  assumed  to  have  power  to  grant  it,  the  issuing  of  licences 
to  choose  a  confessor  became  a  recognized  custom,  nor,  when  the 
manners  of  the  middle  ages  are  considered,  need  it  surprise  us  that 
they  should  be  granted  for  a  price.  Hardly  had  the  decree  of 
Boniface  VIII.  been  promulgated,  forbidding  the  choice  of  a  con 
fessor  without  a  licence,  than  we  find  the  synod  of  Autun,  in  1299, 
quoting  it  and  requiring  every  one  who  desired  the  privilege  to  pro 
cure  an  episcopal  Kcence,  and,  in  1335,  a  syiiddical  epistle  of  William 
of  Cahors  reminds  the  possessors  of  such  documents  that  they  do 
not  include  power  to  absolve  for  reserved  cases.2  While  this  shows 
that  episcopal  licences  were  customary,  the  papal  chancery  seems  to 
have  been  the  most  active  agency  in  issuing  them.  We  have  seen 
that  sovereigns  sought  them,  and  private  individuals  were  no  less 
welcome.  As  early  as  1252,  we  find  one  granted  to  Siger,  sieur 


1  Escobar,  Liguori,  Varceno,  ubi  sup.— Becani  de  Sacranientis  Tract,  n.  P. 
in.  cap.  38,  Q.  8,  n.  1. 

2  Stat.  Synod.  Eccles.  CEduens.  ami.  1299,  cap.  14;  Epist.  Synod.  Guillel. 
Episc.  Cadurcens.  circa  1335,  cap.  8  (Martene,  Thesaur.  IV.  487,  688). 


CONFESSIONAL  LETTERS.  293 


d'Aingen,  in  the  diocese  of  Cambrai,  empowering  him  to  confess  to 
any  discreet  priest,  who  shall  have  power  to  absolve  even  for  papal 
reserved  cases1 — a  clause  which  perhaps  explains  the  preference  felt 
for  papal  rather  than  for  episcopal  licenses.  Doubtless  the  decree  of 
Boniface  VIII.,  in  1298,  was  intended  to  emphasize  the  necessity  of 
procuring  such  letters,  for  their  issue  was  becoming  one  of  the  recog 
nized  functions  of  the  papal  chancery.2  In  the  tax  list  of  John  XXII. 
the  price  of  a  confessional  letter  for  an  individual  was  fixed  at  ten  gros 
tournois;  if  it  contained  the  additional  clause  of  absolution  in  articulo 
mortis  the  charge  was  fourteen  ;  if  for  a  husband  and  wife,  sixteen ; 
other  persons  could  be  included  at  two  gros  apiece,  if  they  were  not 
individually  named,  but  a  letter  for  a  college  or  other  body  in  mass 
was  taxed  at  fifty.3  These  were  nominally  the  scrivener's  fees,  but 
the  varying  prices,  without  corresponding  difference  in  the  length  of 
the  document,  show  that  there  was  a  profit  to  the  curia  beyond  the 
mere  cost  of  production,  and  as  there  were  further  charges  for  en 
grossing,  sealing,  registering,  etc.,  the  total  cost  to  the  recipient  was 


1  Berger,  Registres  d'Innocent  IV.  n.  6012.    Possibly  this  may  be  the  doctor 
of  philosophy,  Siger  of  Brabant,  immortalized  by  Dante — 

Essa  e"  la  luce  eterna  di  Sigieri 
Che  leggendo  nel  vico  degli  strami 
Sillogizzd  invidiosi  veri. — Paradiso,  X. 

2  For  various  letters  of  this  nature  issued  by  Boniface  VIII.,  see  Digard, 
Registres  de  Boniface  VIII.  n.  2687,  2692,  2730,  2943,  2968,  3103  etc. 

3  Tangl,  Das  Taxwesen  der  pabstlichen  Kanzlei,  pp.  91-2  (Mittheilungen 
des  Instituts  fiir  6'sterreichische  Geschichtsforschung,  Bd.  XII.). 

Herr  Tangl  enumerates  various  documents  of  the  kind  which  he  has  met ; 
one  costing  fourteen  gros,  as  above ;  another  of  1353  cost  twenty-two ;  others 
to  married  couples,  sixteen  and  fourteen ;  one  to  seventy-two  named  con 
ventuals  of  S.  Maria  della  Scala  of  Siena,  in  1318,  is  taxed  at  127  gros.  Other 
cases  show  great  irregularity  in  price ;  sometimes  to  convents  they  are  issued 
gratuitously  or  partly  so,  as  under  Gregory  XII.,  in  1407,  two  to  S.  Maria  della 
Scala  are  taxed  at  four  hundred  and  five  hundred  gros  respectively,  but  are 
marked  to  be  registered  without  charge  (Ibid.  p.  34).  There  seems  to  have 
been  no  additional  fee  for  magnates,  for  only  ten  gros  are  charged  to  Leo 
pold  III.,  Duke  of  Austria,  for  one  issued  by  Gregory  XL  in  1373  (p.  40). 

In  a  printed  copy  of  the  Taxes  of  the  Chancery,  of  about  1500,  the  price  of 
a  licence  to  choose  a  confessor  who  can  absolve  once  for  papal  cases  and  as 
often  as  wanted  for  others,  including  censures,  is  twenty  gros;  for  simply 
choosing  a  confessor  it  is  ten.— White  Hist,  Library,  Cornell  University,  A. 
6124. 

The  gros  tournois  was  in  value  one-tenth  of  a  florin. 


294  JURISDICTION. 

four-  or  five-fold  the  amount  in  the  tax  table.1  When,  about  1536, 
Paul  III.,  in  the  threatening  aspect  of  the  Lutheran  revolt  and  the 
demands  for  a  general  council  to  reform  the  Church  in  its  head  and 
its  members,  was  considering  plans  for  the  reformation  of  the  curia, 
a  consultation  submitted  to  him  alludes  to  these  confessional  letters 
and  argues  that  no  one  should  be  scandalized  by  them,  for  they  were 
sold  at  the  simple  scrivener's  fee ;  if  the  recipients  abused  them  by 
committing  enormous  crimes  in  expectation  of  easy  absolution,  the 
Holy  See  was  not  responsible  and  the  sinners  only  deceived  them 
selves.2 

All  this  made  a  serious  inroad  on  the  exclusive  pretensions  of 
jurisdiction,  which  were  still  further  invaded  by  the  development  of 
the  system  of  indulgences.  Many  of  these  carried  with  them  the 
right  to  choose  the  confessor  who  should  administer  the  sacrament 
on  which  the  indulgence  was  conditioned,  and  although  this  was  for 
once  only,  the  purchase  of  an  indulgence  a  year  liberated  the  penitent 
wholly  from  his  parish  priest.  These  indulgences  were  of  various 
kinds— jubilees,  crusade  indulgences,  those  for  St.  Peter's,  and  indi 
vidual  letters  issued  to  applicants  for  a  trifling  sum.  The  most 
conspicuous  is  the  Cruzada,  granted  to  the  Spanish  dominions,  where 
the  habit  of  taking  it  annually  was  so  universal  that  Escobar  gravely 
remarks  that  the  only  laymen  who  can  choose  their  confessors  are 
kings,  princes  and  Spaniards  and  Sicilians  under  the  Cruzada.3 
Whether  the  freedom  of  choice  under  licences  and  indulgences 
enables  the  penitent  to  select  any  simple  priest,  or  whether  he  is 
restricted  to  those  having  cures  or  episcopal  approbations,  is  a  dis 
puted  point.  Domingo  Soto  asserts  that  any  priest,  not  excommu 
nicated  or  suspended,  can  be  chosen,  that  the,  papal  rescript  confers 


1  By  a  regulation  of  Martin  V.,  the  papal  secretaries  had  the  emoluments  of 
certain  minuta  (the  rough  drafts  for  which  the  charge  was  separate  from  the 
engrossed  copies),  viz.,  those  of  "  tabellionatus  officii,  altarium  portatilium, 
celebrandi  in  locis  interdictis  et  ante  diem,  confessionalis  perpetui  et  indulgenti- 
arum  in  mortis  articulo  et  in  vita."     When,  in  1487,  Innocent  VIII.  raised  the 
number  of  his  secretaries  from  six  to  twenty-four  and  made  them  all  purchase 
the  office  at  2600  florins  apiece,  to  redeem  his  mitre  and  jewels  which  he  had 
pawned,  he  confirmed  this  regulation  and  added  other  sources  of  profit— Innoc. 
PP.  VIII.  Bull.  Non  debet,  %  15  (Bullar.  I.  442). 

2  Dollinger,  Beitrage  zur  politischen   kirchlichen  und   Cultur-Geschichte> 
III.  232. 

3  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn.  Ex.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  30. 


MODERN  RELAXATION.  295 

the  jurisdiction,  and  that  such  is  the  practice  under  the  Cruzada.1 
Similar  construction  was  placed  on  grants  made  by  Sixtus  IV.  and 
Innocent  VIII.  empowering  superiors  of  the  Religious  Orders  to 
authorize  their  members  to  select  confessors,  which  Chiericato,  about 
the  year  1700,  considers  a  grave  abuse.2  More  modern  authorities, 
however,  assume  that  the  selection  is  restricted  to  approved  con 
fessors.3 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  parish  priest  over  his  subjects  was  thus  so 
largely  encroached  upon  that  respect  for  it  was  considerably  shaken, 
and  Charles  V.,  in  the  Formula  of  Reformation  adopted  by  the  Reichs 
tag  of  Augsburg,  in  1548,  proposed,  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging 
confession,  that  penitents  should  have  free  choice  among  fit  confessors, 
who  should  moreover  have  power  to  absolve  for  reserved  cases  at  the 
discretion  of  the  bishop.4  Two  years  after  this  the  council  of  Trent 
uttered  the  decree  declaring  invalid  all  absolutions  granted  without 
jurisdiction,  thus  reaffirming  its  necessity  in  the  most  authoritative 
manner.  This  seems  to  have  received  slack  obedience,  for,  in  1583, 
the  council  of  Reims  felt  obliged  to  announce  that  no  one  must 
imagine  that  he  is  at  liberty  to  confess  to  whom  he  pleases,  and  in  the 
same  year  the  council  of  Bordeaux  asserted  that  absolution  without 
jurisdiction  is  worthless  ;5  moreover,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  the 
custom  was  growing  of  appealing  to  another  confessor  when  a  pen 
ance  deemed  unreasonable  was  imposed,  and  all  confessors  were 
recognized  as  authorized  to  commute  or  mitigate  a  penance  imposed 
by  another — a  practice  encroaching  most  seriously  on  the  preroga 
tive  of  jurisdiction.  With  the  constantly  increasing  relaxation  of 


1  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvin.  Q.  iv.  Art.  3. 

2  Clericati  De  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxix.  n.  5-14. 

:i  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  545.— Varceno  Cornp.  Theol. 
Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  vi.,  art.  2,  $  1. 

4  Formula  Reformations,  cap.  13  (Le  Plat,  Monum.  Concil.  Trident.  IV.  88). 
In  1562  a  similar   project  was   adopted  in   Bavaria,   but  meanwhile  the 

council  of  Trent  had  spoken,  and  this  clause  was  limited  by  requiring  the 
consent  of  the  parish  priests:  heresy,  homicide  and  excommunication  were 
also  excepted  from  among  the  reserved  cases.— Forrniil.  Reform.  Salzburgens. 
cap.  11  (Knopfler,  Die  Kelchbewegung  in  Bayern,  Actenstiicke,  p.  50). 

5  C.  Remens.  ann.  1583,  De  Poenit.  cap.  5 ;  C.  Burdegalens.  ann.  1583,  cap. 
12  (Harduin.  X.  1282,  1347).     Although  the  council  of  Trent  has  never  been 
officially  published  in  France  the  churches  were  at  liberty  to  accept  its  dis 
cipline  for  their  governance. 


296  JURISDICTION. 

modern  times  the  control  of  parish  priests  over  the  confessions  of 
their  subjects  would  seem  to  be  disappearing  and  the  right  of  free 
choice  of  confessors  to  be  admitted.  In  1736  we  find  Benedict  XIV. 
assuming  as  a  matter  of  course  that  a  penitent  who  finds  his  con 
fessor  too  rigid  can  go  to  another  for  absolution.1  In  1768  the 
Bishop  of  Gerona  alludes  to  the  efforts  of  the  Jesuits  in  endeavoring 
to  induce  their  penitents  to  confess  only  to  them,  and  he  threatens 
that  if  any  one  shall  seek  to  do  this  by  persuasion  or  compulsion  he 
shall,  if  a  parish  priest,  be  suspended,  and  all  others  shall  have  their 
licences  withdrawn.2  From  1835  to  1850  a  number  of  diocesan  and 
provincial  councils  in  France  declared  that  all  penitents  should  enjoy 
the  utmost  liberty  in  the  selection  of  their  confessors,  even  for  the 
annual  confession  of  precept,  the  only  restriction  being  that  the  con 
fessor  must  possess  the  episcopal  approbation  or  licence :  all  parish 
priests  were  instructed  to  give  notice  to  this  effect  during  Lent,  and 
their  opposition  to  the  measure  was  assumed  in  the  prohibition  of  their 
interfering  directly  or  indirectly  with  this  privilege.3  This  is  evi 
dently  regarded  as  a  matter  of  local  discipline,  to  be  settled  in  each 
province  or  diocese  for  itself,  and  it  would  probably  not  be  easy  to 
determine  exactly  how  far  this  liberality  extends,  though  expressions 
employed  by  recent  Spanish,  German  and  American  writers  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  in  these  countries  it  prevails  generally.4  This 


1  Benedict!  PP.  XIV.  Casus  Conscientise,  Jan.,  1736,  cas.  1. 

2  Carta  de  Edicto  de  Don  Manuel  Palmero  y  Eallo,  Obispo  de  Gerona,  8  Feb., 
1768,  p.  xxxiii. 

"  Maximam  libertatem  habeant  fideles  in  confessariis  eligendis,  etiam  pro 
confessione  sacramentali  annua  facienda  de  prsecepto,  cui  satisfieri  pro  nostra 
provincia  declaramus  per  confessionem  factam  cuilibet  sacerdoti  de  approbatis 
ab  Ordinario.  Universi  parochi  moneant  parochiahos  prsesertim  in  quadrage- 
sima  de  ejusmodi  facultate  ipsis  concessa,  et  null  us  erga  quascumque  personas 
hanc  libertatem  directe  vel  indirecte  laedere  praesumat."— C.  Turonens.  ann. 
1849,  Deer.  xvn.  \  4  (Collect.  Lacensis  IV.  176).— C.  Avenionens.  ann.  1849, 
cap.  v.  g  3  (Ibid.  p.  340).— C.  Albiens.  ann.  1850,  Deer.  VI.  (p.  433).— C. 
Bothomagens.  ann.  1850,  Deer.  xvn.  §  4  (p.  530).— C.  Burdegalens.  ann.  1850, 
cap.  v.  |  2  (p.  571). 

These  were  provincial  councils.  Similar  regulations  had  been  adopted  in  the 
diocese  of  La  Rochelle  in  1835,  in  that  of  Meaux  in  1838,  of  Paris  in  1839,  of 
Aix  in  1840,  of  Verdun  in  1844.— Gousset,  Theologie  Morale,  II.  412. 

4  Mig.  Sanchez,  Prontuario  de  la  Teologia  Moral,  Trat.  vi.  Punto  ii.  §  4 ; 
Punto  v.  I  8.— Grone,  Der  Ablass,  p.  144.— Muller's  Catholic  Priesthood, 
III.  172. 


INTERFERENCE  BY  THE  REGULAR   CLERGY.  297 

would  seem  to  be  in  direct  conflict  with  the  Tridentine  definition 
that  absolution  without  jurisdiction  is  worthless,  but  the  difficulty  is 
presumably  met  by  an  elastic  construction  of  the  term  jurisdiction, 
which  may  be  held  to  be  indirectly  conferred  on  the  confessor  whom  a 
penitent  may  select1 — a  typical  illustration  of  the  ease  with  which 
the  most  solemn  definitions  of  the  Church  can  be  modified  to  suit  the 
exigencies  of  changing  customs,  in  the  confident  expectation  that  God 
will  follow  and  conform  his  decisions  to  those  of  his  ministers.  There 
is  a  further  discussion  as  to  whether  a  bishop  can  forbid  his  subjects 
from  going  to  confession  outside  of  his  diocese :  the  doctors  assert 
that  he  cannot  do  so  if  the  confession  is  made  to  a  Regular,  because 
the  Regulars  hold  privileges  to  shrive  sinners  from  every  quarter, 
but  if  to  a  secular  priest  opinions  are  divided,  with  the  weight  pre 
ponderating  in  the  affirmative,  and  this,  we  are  told,  is  to  be  followed 
in  practice.2 

The  most  serious  interference  with  the  jurisdiction  established  by 
the  Lateran  council  in  favor  of  the  parish  priests  was  that  which 
arose  shortly  afterwards  from  the  privileges  accorded  to  the  Mendi 
cant  Orders.  Hardly,  indeed,  had  the  canon  been  promulgated  and 
efforts  had  commenced  for  its  enforcement,  when  it  was  to  a  great 
extent  neutralized  by  the  unexpected  and  enormous  development  of 
the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  followed  by  the  Carmelites  and 
Augustinians,  in  whom  the  Holy  See  recognized  its  most  useful  in 
struments  and  whose  influence  it  stimulated  by  delegating  to  them 
power  everywhere  to  preach,  to  hear  confessions  and  to  administer 
the  sacraments.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  relief  thus  afforded 
to  the  oppressive  character  of  the  new  parochial  jurisdiction  greatly 
weakened  the  opposition  to  the  enforcement  of  confession.  In  view 
of  the  deplorable  character,  intellectual  and  moral,  of  the  medieval 
clergy  it  may  perhaps  be  questioned  whether  enforced  confession 
could  have  been  permanently  established  but  for  the  intervention 
of  these  new  volunteers.  The  secular  clergy  naturally  resented 
the  intrusion;  the  struggle  was  long  and  bitter  and  intricate;  it 
cost  the  lives  of  two  popes,  Innocent  IV.  and  Honorius  IV.,  and 


1  This  question  does  not  seem  to  be  treated  by  recent  theologians,  but  the 
conclusion  in  the  text  is   inferable   from  Marc,  Institt.  Moral.  Alphomiance, 
n.  1751. 

2  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  vi.,  art.  2. 


298  JURISDICTION. 

possibly  also  that  of  John  XXI. ;  it  continued  for  centuries,  and  the 
jealousies  which  it  aroused  can  scarce  be  said  even  yet  to  have  faded 
away. 

This  was  only  an  intensified  renewal  of  an  old  contest,  for  hardly 
had  the  power  of  the  keys  begun  to  take  shape  when  a  contest 
arose  between  the  secular  and  the  monastic  clergy  over  its  exercise. 
At  first  the  Holy  See  sided  with  the  secular  clergy,  for  a  council 
held  by  Gregory  VII.  at  Rome,  about  1075,  forbade  monks  from 
usurping  the  functions  of  parish  priests  except  in  case  of  necessity, 
and,  in  1094,  the  council  of  Autun,  held  by  the  legate,  Hugh  of 
Lyons,  repeated  the  prohibition.1  Urban  II.  suddenly  changed  his 
policy,  for,  as  we  have  seen  above  (p.  276),  in  1096,  at  the  council  of 
Mmes  he  sharply  reproved  those  who  sought  to  deny  to  monks  the 
faculty  of  confession.  This  produced  little  effect,  for,  in  1100,  the 
council  of  Poitiers  and,  in  1102,  that  of  London  took  decided  action 
against  their  pretensions.2  At  the  Lateran  council  of  1123  the  secu 
lars  won  a  still  more  substantial  victory  in  a  canon  forbidding  abbots 
and  monks  to  impose  public  penance,  to  visit  the  sick  and  to  admin 
ister  extreme  unction — the  latter  doubtless  to  prevent  their  securing 
the  bequests  which  were  the  customary  penances  of  the  death-bed.3 
As  voluntary  confession  during  health  was  as  yet  unusual,  this,  if 
enforced,  reduced  their  activity  in  the  confessional  to  a  minimum, 
but  they  were  irrepressible  and,  towards  the  end  of  the  century,  John 
of  Salisbury  complains  bitterly  of  their  surreptitiously  exercising  the 
power  of  the  keys,  swinging  their  sickles  in  the  harvests  of  others 
and  rewarding  the  liberality  of  the  rich  and  powerful  by  exaggerating 
the  mercy  of  God.4  As  the  idea  of  jurisdiction  gained  ground,  this 
interference  was  admitted  to  be  irregular.  Alain  de  Lille,  who  was 
himself  a  Cistercian,  lays  down  the  rule  that  monks  are  not  to 
hear  the  confessions  of  parishioners  unless  invited  by  the  priest  or 
deputed  by  the  superior  prelate,  and  about  the  same  time  the  Cister 
cian  chapter  forbade  the  abbot  of  Aigue-belle  from  in  future  preaching 


1  Pflugk-Harttung,  Acta  Pontiff.  Roman,  inedd.  II.  n.  161.— Bernold  Con 
stant.  Chron.  ann.  1094. 

2  C.  Pictaviens.  ann.  1100,  cap.  10,  11 ;  C.  Londiniens.  ann.  1102,  cap.  18 
(Harduin.  VI.  I.  1860,  1865). 

3  C.  Lateran.  I.  ann.  1123,  cap.  17  (Ibid.  VI.  II.  1113).— Cap.  10  Caus.  xvi. 

Q.  1. 

4  Jo.-  Salisburiens.  Polycrat.  vn.  xxi. 


INTRUSION  OF  THE  MENDICANT  ORDERS.  299 

in  secular  churches  or  enjoining  penance  on  laymen  without  the  order 
of  his  bishop.1 

Thus  when  the  Lateran  canon  established  jurisdiction  as  an  ac 
knowledged  feature  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  the  parish  priests 
might  congratulate  themselves  that  their  rights  were  too  conclusively 
recognized  to  be  trespassed  upon  in  future.  Scarce  more  than  ten 
years  elapsed,  however,  before  they  saw  the  swarms  of  the  new 
mendicant  friars  pushing  themselves  everywhere,  trained  to  the 
duties  of  the  pulpit  and  confessional,  eager  for  the  salvation  of 
souls  and  winning  the  confidence  of  the  people  by  their  self-deny 
ing  zeal.  On  his  accession,  in  1227,  Gregory  IX.  granted  to  the 
Dominicans,  and  not  long  afterwards  to  the  Franciscans,  the  right  to 
preach,  hear  confessions,  and  grant  absolutions  everywhere,  and  this 
without  requiring  consent  from  the  diocesans,2  and  the  long  contest 
began.  It  would  be  interesting  to  follow  its  vicissitudes,  which 
shook  the  Church  from  centre  to  circumference — even  in  the  re 
motest  corner  of  distant  Spain  the  Hermandad  of  the  bishops  and 
abbots  of  Leon  and  Galicia,  formed  in  1283,  specifies  as  one  of  the 
objects  of  the  association  resistance  to  the  usurpations  of  the  Mendi 
cants3 — but  this  would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  theme,  and  I  can 
find  space  only  for  one  or  two  points  bearing  directly  upon  our 
subject. 

At  first  there  seems  to  have  been  naturally  some  question  as  to  the 
papal  power  to  confer  these  faculties  on  the  mendicant  friars,  as  it- 
presupposed  that  the  Holy  See  was  the  sole  source  of  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  that  the  episcopal  prerogative  was  a  mere  delegation 
from  it — a  proposition  which  had  not  yet  been  accepted.  Alexander 
Hales,  though  himself  a  Franciscan,  argues  the  matter  in  favor  of 
the  Mendicants  doubtfully  and  hesitatingly.  He  thinks  the  pope 
has  power  to  grant  such  privileges,  whereby  the  "  proprius  sacerdos  " 
of  the  Lateran  canon  may  be  anyone  who  has  delegated  power  to 
hear  confessions,  especially  in  vieAV  of  the  ignorance  and  negligence 
and  other  defects  of  the  parish  priests.4  Whatever  doubts  existed, 


1  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Pcenit.  (Migne  COX.  299).— Statuta  Antiqua  Ord. 
Cistercens.  ann.  1191,  cap.  8  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  1270). 

2  Ripoll.  Bullar.  Ord.  Prajdic.  I.  18,  19.— Sbaralea  Bullar.  Franciscan.  I. 
215. 

3  Memorial  Historico  Espaiiol,  T.  II.  p.  96. 

*  Alex,  de  Ales  $umma>  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  1,  Art.  1. 


300  JURISDICTION. 

however,  were  speedily  dispelled,  and  subsequent  schoolmen  had  no 
trouble  in  demonstrating  that  either  bishop  or  pope  had  full  authority 
to  deputize  priests  for  the  purpose  within  the  circumscriptions  of 
their  respective  jurisdictions.1  Whatever  may  have  been  the  ques 
tions  agitated  in  the  schools,  the  people  at  large  were  vexed  with  no 
such  scruples ;  they  eagerly  sought  the  mendicant  confessionals,  and 
St.  Bouaveutura  tells  us  that  the  only  difficulty  lay  in  supplying  the 
demand  for  confessors.2 

Yet  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  was  of  so  old  a  standing  that  it  fur 
nished  a  strong  line  of  defence  in  the  contest  which  raged  between 
the  regulars  and  seculars,  and  the  assumption  was  made  that  not  only 
was  a  general  permission  from  the  diocesan  requisite  to  enable  the 
Mendicants  to  administer  the  sacrament  of  penitence,  but  that  each 
friar  must  be  able  to  show  a  special  and  personal  episcopal  licence. 
Thus,  in  1279,  the  council  of  Avignon  required  this  and  instructed 
all  who  had  none  to  apply  for  them  to  the  bishop.3  It  is  easy  to 
see  how  great  an  obstruction  could  thus  be  presented  to  the  activity 
of  the  intruders,  for  a  bishop,  who  would  not  venture  to  refuse  a 
general  permission  to  function  in  his  diocese,  could  greatly  limit  it 
by  declining  to  license  individual  friars.  The  struggle  thus  became 
hot  around  this  key  of  the  position.  About  the  year  1300,  Boni 
face  VIII.  endeavored  to  effect  a  settlement  by  requiring  the  prelates 
of  the  Mendicant  Orders  to  select  proper  candidates  and  present  them 
to  the  bishops  for  licensing ;  that  the  bishops  were  expected  to  abuse 
the  power  thus  admitted  to  exist  is  seen  by  a  further  clause  pro 
viding  that,  if  they  indiscriminately  refuse  to  license  any,  then  all 
can  act  under  delegation  from  the  pope.  The  Mendicants  chafed 
under  this ;  quarrels  became  fiercer  than  ever,  and  a  few  years  later 
the  Dominican  Pope  Benedict  XI.  virtually  released  them  from  all 
episcopal  supervision.  This  aroused  a  still  more  threatening  clamor, 
and  Clement  V.,  at  the  council  of  Vienne  in  1312,  restored  the 
regulation  of  Boniface.4  This  continued  to  be  the  rule,  but  the 


1  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summae  Suppl.  Q.  vnr.  Art.  5  ;  In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn. 
Q.  iii.  Art.  3.— Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvil.  Q.  xii.  n.  8. 

2  S.  Bonavent.  Libell.  Apologet.  (Opuscula,  Ed.  Venet.  1684,  II.  428). 

3  C.  Avenion.  ann.  1279,  De  Religiosis  (Harduin.  VII.  780). 

4  Bonif.  PP.  VIII.  Bull.  Super  cathedram  (cap.  2  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  in. 
Tit.  vi.). — Benedict.  PP.  XL  Bull.  Inter  cunctas  (Cap.  1  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib. 
v.Tit.  vii.)  —Clement.  PP.  V.  Bull.  Dudum  (cap.  2  Clement.  Lib.  III.  Tit.  vii.). 


INTRUSION  OF  THE  MENDICANT  ORDERS.  301 

Mendicants  were  dissatisfied  and  had  no  difficulty  in  procuring  from 
the  papal  chancery  special  letters,  in  which  they  were  authorized, 
against  the  will  of  the  parish  priests,  to  preach  and  hear  confessions 
in  the  parish  churches.  In  1402,  Boniface  IX.  speaks  of  these  letters 
as  being  extorted  from  the  Holy  See  ;  they  had  been  shockingly 
abused  and  had  given  rise  to  many  scandals,  wherefore  he  revoked 
them  all.1 

Under  the  bulls  of  Boniface  VIII.  and  Clement  V.  the  practice 
was  for  the  local  superiors  of  the  Mendicants  to  select  such  friars  as 
they  deemed  competent  and  present  them  to  the  bishop,  who  could 
reject  those  whom  he  considered  unfit,  but  if  he  rejected  all  they  could 
all  act  under  papal  authority ;  the  presentation  under  the  bull  Dudum 
was  required  to  be  personal,  but  in  time  this  was  omitted  and  the 
application  was  made  by  letter,  which  rendered  it  merely  a  formal 
acknowledgment  of  the  episcopal  authority.2  Clement  V.  had  further 
ordered  that  the  number  presented  should  be  restricted  and  propor 
tioned  to  the  population,  but  this  received  little  respect,  and,  in  1455, 
the  council  of  Reims  complains  that  their  multitude  is  so  great  as 
virtually  to  give  to  all  penitents  freedom  of  choice  of  confessors,  ren 
dering  the  people  reckless  as  to  the  commission  of  grievous  sins, 
wherefore  the  bishops  are  counselled  to  restrict  the  number  of  licences.3 
In  1481,  the  council  of  Tournay  went  further,  and  with  the  view  of 
preventing  the  fraudulent  use  of  licences,  which  was  a  subject  of 
complaint,  it  required  them  to  be  limited  to  a  year  and  to  be  renewed 
annually.4  Still  more  emphatic  was  the  utterance  of  the  great  na 
tional  council  of  Seville  in  1478.  It  complained  bitterly  of  the  papal 


1  Regulse  Cancellariaj  Bonif.  PP.  IX.  n.  73  (Ottenthal.  op.  cit.  p.  76). 

The  immense  success  of  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  naturally  led  to 
a  host  of  imitators,  whose  unauthorized  beggary  became  an  intolerable  nui 
sance.  At  the  council  of  Lyons,  in  1274,  these  surreptitious  orders  were  for 
bidden  to  receive  more  members,  in  hopes  that  they  would  soon  die  out,  and 
meanwhile  were  prohibited  to  preach,  hear  confessions,  or  perform  burial 
service.  There  was  a  special  declaration  that  the  decree  did  not  apply  to  the 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  while  the  unauthorized  Carmelites  and  Augus- 
tinians  were  allowed  to  exist  on  sufferance  "  donee  de  ipsis  fuerit  aliter  ordi- 
natum."— C.  Lugdun.  ami.  1274,  cap.  23  (Harduin.  VII.  716). 

2  Summa  Pisanella  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  n.  11.—  S.  Antonini  de  Audientia  Con- 
fessionum  fol.  Qa. — Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  \  16. 

3  C.  Remens.  ann.  1455  (Gousset,  Actes  etc.  II.  736). 

4  C.  Tornacens.  ann.  1481,  cap.  4  (Ibid.  II.  754). 


302  JURISDICTION. 

privileges  granted  to  the  Mendicants  as  a  disservice  to  God  and  a 
damage  to  the  local  churches,  a  derogation  of  the  rights  of  the 
prelates  and  the  cause  of  continual  scandals,  wherefore  it  prayed 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella  to  intervene  with  the  pope  and  have  these 
privileges  reduced  to  the  common  law.1  What  representations  the 
Catholic  Kings  made  to  Sixtus  IV.  we  do  not  know  ;  possibly  they 
were  forestalled,  for,  about  the  same  time,  the  Archbishops  of  Mainz 
and  Trier  with  other  German  prelates,  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  and  the 
Count  Palatine  of  the  Rhine  had  addressed  to  him  an  earnest  peti 
tion  to  frame  some  accord  that  should  put  an  end  to  the  strife.  He 
referred  the  matter  to  a  commission  of  five  cardinals  who,  after  hear 
ing  both  sides,  presented  a  report  which  was  accepted  but  which  was 
little  more  than  an  exhortation  to  peace  and  charity  with  some  con 
cessions  to  the  secular  priests.2  The  fifth  Lateran  council,  in  1515, 
wrestled  with  the  problem,  and  under  severe  papal  pressure  made 
important  concessions  to  the  Regulars,3  and  a  manual  compiled  in 
1518  shows  how  liberally  the  latter  construed  the  Clementine  bull 
Dadum  in  their  own  favor,  reduciug  the  episcopal  function  to  the 
merest  ministerial  act,  denying  the  right  of  the  bishop  to  limit  the 
licences  either  in  number  or  duration  and  that  of  the  parish  priest  to 
have  his  consent  asked.4 

The  foundation  and  rapid  development  of  the  Company  of  Jesus, 
and  the  extensive  privileges  in  the  confessional  promptly  granted  to 
its  members  by  the  Holy  See,  were  not  calculated  to  soothe  the  per 
manent  exasperation  of  the  secular  ecclesiastics;  in  1549  Paul  III. 
authorized  all  Jesuits  to  hear  confessions  of  all  Christians,  without 


1  Concilio  nacional  de  Sevilla,  aiio  1478  (Fidel  Fita,  Boletin  dela  Real  Acad. 
de  la  Historia,  1893,  T.  XIII.  p.  229). 

2  Sixti  PP.  IV.  Bull.  Vices  illius  (cap.  2,  Extrav.  Commun.  I.  ix.). 

3  C.  Lateran.  V.  Seas.  xi.  (Harduin.  IX.  1832).— Paridis  de  Grassis  Diariuin, 
Koime,  1874,  pp.  21,  22,  34-5,  38. 

4  Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Absolutio  i.  \\  24-34.— The  curia  made  its  profit  out 
of  the  eagerness  of  the  Mendicants  to  hear  confessions,  for  in  the  Taxes  of  the 
Chancery  a  letter  authorizing  a  friar  to  do  so,  with  the  consent  of  the  parish 
priest,  is  priced  at  twenty  gros. — White  Hist.  Library,  A.  6124. 

The  perpetual  strife  over  death-bed  alms  and  legacies  finds  expression  in  the 
opinions  of  some  doctors  that  a  friar  administering  the  viaticum  to  a  dying 
man  incurs  excommunication  removable  only  by  the  pope. — Bart  de  Chaimis 
Interrog.  fol.  1066. 


INTRUSION  OF  THE  REGULAR   ORDERS.  303 

specifying  the  necessity  of  obtaining  episcopal  licences.1  It  was  time 
for  the  episcopate  to  assert  itself,  and,  at  the  council  of  Trent,  the 
bishops  vindicated  their  claims  by  a  decree  to  the  effect  that  no 
regular  priest  should  hear  confessions  of  the  laity,  unless  he  held  a 
parochial  benefice  or  obtained  the  approbation  of  the  bishop,  who 
was  authorized  to  examine  him  if  he  saw  fit,  and  all  privileges, 
even  immemorial,  to  the  contrary,  were  declared  inoperative.2  This 
became,  therefore,  the  law  of  the  Church,  and,  in  1565,  Pius  IV. 
confirmed  it  by  a  bull  in  which  all  privileges  and  faculties  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Tridentine  decree  were  revoked.  St.  Pius  V. 
was  induced  to  grant  letters  in  derogation  of  this,  but  he  recalled 
them  by  a  formal  decree  in  1571,  in  which  he  confirmed  absolutely 
the  Tridentine  action,  but  the  Regulars  were  untiring  in  their  efforts 
to  evade  it,  and  the  declaration  had  to  be  repeated,  in  1628,  by  Urban 
VIII.3  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  had  promptly  availed  himself  of  the 
Tridentine  decree  and  required  all  Regulars  applying  for  approbations 
to  be  strictly  examined  as  to  fitness,  while,  as  their  moral  characters 
could  not  thus  be  ascertained,  he  instructed  their  superiors  to  send 
him  none  without  a  written  certificate  of  virtue,  for  he  would  otherwise 
refuse  the  licence.4  Chafing  under  these  restraints,  the  Regulars 
endeavored  to  argue  away  or  ignore  the  Tridentine  decree,  and,  in 
1666,  Alexander  VII.  was  obliged  formally  to  condemn  the  propo 
sition  that  they  could  exercise  the  privileges  expressly  revoked  by 
the  council.5 

The  Jesuits  were  naturally  the  foremost  in  the  struggle.  They 
had  devoted  themselves  especially  to  the  confessional  and  the  school 
as  offering  the  greatest  means  of  usefulness  and  the  surest  avenues  to 
the  world-wide  influence  which  was  the  object  of  their  ambition  ;  they 


1  Pauli  PP.  III.  Bull.  Licet  debitum  (Litt.  Apostol.  Soc.  Jesu,  Antverpise, 
1635,  p.  48). 

2  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxin.  De  Reform,  cap.  15.     For  the  discussion  over  this 
subject  see  Pallavicini  Hist.  Concil.  Trident.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  4. 

3  Pii  PP.  IV.  Bull.  In  principis  Apostolorum  (Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ. 
Diss.  v.  cap.  vi.  Q.  3).— S.  Pii  PP.  V.  Bull.  Romani  Pontificis  (Benzi  Praxis 
Trib.  Conscient.  p.  278).— Urbani  PP.  VIII.  Bull.  Cum  sicut  accepimus  (Bullar. 
V.  173). 

4  S.  Caroli  Borrom.  Instructiones  (Ed.  Brixise,  1676,  p.  50). 

5  Em.  Sa  Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  4.— Escobar  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  vii.  Ex.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  30.— Alex.  PP.  VII.  Deer.  1666,  Prop.  36. 


304  JURISDICTION. 

felt  secure  in  papal  favor,  and  were  in  some  degree  intoxicated  with 
their  extraordinary  success.  It  is  true  that  in  their  instructions  each 
member  is  ordered,  when  sent  to  a  new  diocese,  to  apply  immediately 
to  the  bishop,  personally  or  by  letter,  for  a  faculty  to  officiate,1  yet, 
when  they  deemed  it  safe,  they  arrogantly  asserted  complete  inde 
pendence  of  episcopal  supervision.  This  was  abundantly  mani 
fested  in  their  quarrel  with  Juan  de  Palafox,  Bishop  of  Puebla  de 
los  Angeles  in  Mexico.  He  offered  to  licence  any  fathers  whom  they 
might  present  to  him,  but  they  refused  to  go  through  the  formality, 
alleging  that  they  had  privileges  releasing  them  from  the  obligation. 
Supported  by  the  inquisitors  they  raised  such  a  storm  that  Palafox 
was  obliged  to  fly  and  lie  hid  among  the  mountains,  until  orders 
came  from  Spain  in  his  favor ;  even  then  they  did  not  obey,  and  the 
question  was  carried  to  Rome,  where,  after  prolonged  wrangling,  they 
were  defeated.3  Even  more  significant  of  their  independent  spirit 
was  the  action  of  the  Jesuits  of  Silesia  and  Russia  after  the  suppres 
sion  of  the  Society  by  Clement  XIV.  in  1773.  Assured  of  the 
protection  of  Frederic  the  Great  and  of  Catherine  II.,  they  refused 
obedience  and  continued  the  functions  of  which  they  had  been  de- 


1  Compend.  Privilegior.  s.  v.  Confessarius,  §  2  (Antverpise,  1635,  pp.  49-50). 
At  the  same  time  they  are  given  clearly  to  understand  (Ibid,  g  1)  that  they  are 
not  obliged  to  ask  the  consent  of  the  parish  priests. 

The  Jesuits,  rightly  regarding  as  supremely  important  their  reputation  as 
confessors,  were  comrnendably  careful  in  the  selection  of  those  to  whom  that 
function  was  confided.  As  in  the  other  Orders,  no  one  was  allowed  to  act 
unless  deputed  by  his  superior,  and  the  utmost  discrimination  was  ordered  to 
be  exercised  in  selecting  them.  They  were  required  to  regard  the  confessional 
as  a  duty  of  the  highest  moment,  to  be  discharged  with  the  greatest  zeal  and 
alacrity.  Curiously  enough,  no  one  was  allowed  to  become  the  spiritual  di 
rector  of  any  penitent  or  to  require  obedience  from  him. — S.  J.  Regulse  Sacer- 
dotum,  n.  8-19  (Antverpiae,  1635,  pp.  192-4).  In  the  earlier  period  St.  Francis 
Xavier  (Avvisi  ai  Confessori)  is  particularly  emphatic  in  instructing  the  con 
fessor  to  manifest  submission  to  the  prelate  and  to  cultivate  good  relations 
with  the  clergy. 

2  Obras  de  Juan  de  Palafox,  Tom.  XII.     To  hide  their  discomfiture  the 
Jesuits  caused  interpolated  bulls  of  Innocent  X.  to  be  inserted  in  a  Bullarium 
then  printing  in  Lyons,  with  the  remarkable  result  that  the  volume  containing 
them  was  placed  in  the  Index,  donee  corrigatur,  by  decrees  of  August  3,  1656, 
July  27,  1657,  and  June  10,  1658.— Index  Alex.  PP.  VII.  Romse,  1664,  pp. 
372,  375. 


INTRUSION  OF  THE  REGULAR  ORDERS.  305 

prived  by  the  Holy  See,  although  the  sacraments  which  they  admin 
istered  were  held  in  Rome  to  be  invalid.1 

As  the  Tridentine  decree  could  not  be  got  rid  of,  the  Regulars 
naturally  sought  to  reduce  it  to  a  nullity,  as  had  been  successfully 
done  with  previous  antagonistic  precepts.  They  argued  that,  as  the 
council  had  not  specifically  revoked  the  Clementine  canon  Dudum, 
it  was  still  in  force  and  that  bishops  had  no  power  to  revoke  licences 
or  to  restrict  their  duration.  In  France  especially,  they  held  that,  as 
the  council  had  never  been  formally  published  there,  its  decrees  were 
not  in  force,  although  the  crown,  in  steadily  refusing  to  receive  the 
council,  had  permitted  the  Church  to  accept  its  decrees  in  so  far  as 
they  related  to  internal  discipline,  and  this  had  been  done  by  assem 
blies  of  the  clergy  in  1625,  1635  and  1645.  It  was  in  vain  that 
the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars,  by  decisions  in 
1615,  1619,  1625,  1629  and  1630  confirmed  the  right  of  the  bishops 
to  grant  approbations  revocable  at  will  and  to  revoke  unlimited  ap 
probations  when  the  confessor  should  give  any  reasonable  cause.2  In 
spite  of  all  this  the  Archbishop  of  Sens,  in  1650,  was  involved  in  a 
long  quarrel  with  the  Jesuits  who  disputed  his  authority,  and,  in 
1653,  he  published  a  decree  excommunicating  all  who  should  confess 
to  them.3  The  Jesuits  of  Anjou,  as  we  have  already  seen,  supported 
by  the  other  Orders,  raised  a  similar  issue  with  the  Bishop  of  Angers, 
but  were  emphatically  defeated  by  the  decision  of  Alexander  VII.  in 
1659,  who  denounced  the  proposition  that  bishops  cannot  limit  and 
restrict  the  licences  granted  to  Regulars  as  false,  audacious,  scandal 
ous,  leading  to  heresy  and  schism,  and  insulting  to  the  council  of 
Trent  and  the  Holy  See,  which  was  followed  up  by  the  assembly  of 
the  Gallican  Church  pronouncing  it  hypocritical  and  mendacious.4 
Defeated  in  this,  the  next  attempt  was  to  revive  and  extend  the  bull 
Dudum  by  asserting  that,  if  a  bishop  unjustly  refused  a  licence,  the 
rejected  applicant  could  still  hear  confessions  and  that  those  made  to 
him  satisfy  the  precept  of  the  Church — a  proposition  which  was  duly 
condemned  by  Alexander  VII.  in  1665.5 


1  Theiner,  Histoire  du  Pontificat  de  Clement  XIV.  T.  II.  p.  501 

2  Barbosa,  Summa  Apostol.  Decisionum  s.  v.  Approbatio,  n.  7,  16-18. 

3  Ant.  Arnauld,  Theologie  Morale  des  JSsuites,  Cologne,  1667,  pp.  237-71. 

4  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  vi.  Q.  vii.  cap.  3,  art.  3,  §  1.— S.  Alph.  de 
Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  552. 

5  Alexand.  PP.  VII.  Const,  1665,  Prop.  13. 

I.— 20 


306 


JURISDICTION. 


There  was  another  question  involved  of  considerable  importance 
for  the  Regulars  argued  that  their  delegation  of  power  was  from  th< 
pope,  not  the  bishop,  and  thus,  when  a  licence  had  been  given,  it  was 
good  in  any  diocese  to  which  the  recipient  might  be  sent,  which  en 
abled  them  to  secure  multitudinous  approbations  from  some  favoring 
bishop  and  then  send  their  men  everywhere.1  In  1607,  the  Congre 
gation  of  the  Council  of  Trent  formally  decided  against  this  preten 
sion,  but  to  no  purpose.2  Clement  X.,  in  1670,  sought  to  settle  this 
and  all  other  questions  by  a  comprehensive  decree  in  which,  afte] 
deploring  the  constant  disturbances  and  quarrels,  he  emphatically 
required  the  episcopal  approbation  for  all  regular  confessors,  he  con 
firmed  the  episcopal  right  of  examination  and  defined  that  the  licenc< 
was  good  only  for  the  diocese  of  the  grantor.3  If  he  imagined  tha 
this  would  put  an  end  to  the  bickerings  and  mutual  jealousy  of  th< 
seculars  and  regulars  he  undervalued  the  persistency  of  human  pas 
sions,  for  the  seculars  accused  their  rivals  of  purchasing  favor  bj 
relaxing  penance,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  and  Alexander  VIII 
felt  obliged  to  condemn  their  assertions  in  1690.4  It  was  in  vaii 


1  For  a  long  list  of  distinguished  doctors  teaching  this  opinion  see  Juai 
Sanchez,  Selecta  de  Sacramentis,  Disp.  XLIV.  n.  1.     Manuel  Sa  was  one  of  thesi 
(Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessor,  n.  4,  5),  but  when  his  book  passed  unde 
the  Roman  censorship  these  passages  were  stricken  out  and  others  substitute< 
affirming  positively  the  opposite — "sed  opus  est  approbatione  episcopi  eju 
dioecesis  in  qua  deget"   (Index  Brasichellens.  I.  350).      In  1643   Marchan 
(Trib.  Animar.  Tom.  I.  Tract,  n.  Tit.  vi.  Q.  4,  Dub.  2)  discusses  the  questioi 
at  length  in  a  manner  to  show  that  it  was  still  hotly  disputed. 

2  Barbosa,  Summa  Apostol.  Decis.  s.  v.  Approbatio,  n.  12. 

3  Clement.  PP.  X.  Const.  Superna  §§  1,  4  (Bullar.  VI.  305). 

It  appears  to  have  been  the  custom  of  each  new  bishop  to  subject  to  exam 
ination  all  holding  licences  from  his  predecessor.  In  a  collection  of  episcopa 
letters  of  Padua  I  find  Cardinal  Eezzonico  doing  this  when  appointed  bisho] 
in  1743.  His  successor  Santi  Veronese  (afterwards  Cardinal),  in  1758,  ordere< 
all  confessors,  who  were  not  parish  priests,  to  present  themselves  with  thei 
licences  at  the  episcopal  palace  on  certain  days  and  undergo  a  personal  exam 
ination  by  him  as  to  their  fitness,  and  he  warned  them  that  those  would  no 
be  easily  confirmed  who  absented  themselves  from  the  monthly  discussions  o 
cases  of  conscience  over  which  he  presided. 

4  Alexand.  PP.  VIII.  Constit.  1690,  Prop.  21,  22.     A  century  earlier  S.  CarL 
Borromeo  seems  to  justify  this  accusation  by  exhorting  the  Regulars  not  to  ab 
solve  those  whom  the  priests  refuse  on  account  of  living  in  sin,  or  of  not  paying 
pious  legacies,  or  of  not  satisfying  public  penance  and  the  like. — S.  Caroli  Bor 
rom.  Instructt.  pp.  53-4. 


INTRUSION  OF  THE  REGULAR  ORDERS.  307 

lat  successive  popes  thus  endeavored  to  keep  the  peace ;  each  side 
construed  the  papal  utterances  after  its  own  fashion,  and  the  debates 
have  continued  endlessly.1 

Yet  the  bitterest  source  of  quarrel  between  the  rival  parties  was 
one  which  went  to  the  very  root  of  the  jurisdiction  created  by  the 
Lateran  canon.  If  the  penitent  was  obliged  to  obey  it  by  annual 
confession  to  his  parish  priest,  the  latter  need  not  care  much  for  the 
voluntary  intercalary  confessions  made  to  the  intruding  friars.  His 
control  over  his  subjects  was  maintained  and  he  was  relieved  from  an 
onerous  task  in  listening  to  the  scruples  of  conscience  of  the  timorous. 
At  first  this  was  all  that  the  Mendicants  claimed.  Alexander  Hales 
thinks  that  those  who  confess  to  the  friars  are  also  bound  to  confess 
to  their  parish  priests  at  least  once  a  year  if  required ;  at  the  same 
time  he  adds  that  if  the  superior  power  decides  otherwise  the  obliga 
tion  will  cease.2  St.  Bonaventura,  who  was  so  energetic  a  defender 
of  the  privileges  of  the  Mendicants,  was  careful  to  respect  the  rights 
of  the  parochial  clergy,  and  repeatedly  insists  on  the  necessity  of 
annual  confession  to  them,  but  he  manifests  some  uncertainty,  for  in 
one  passage  he  alludes  to  repeating  confession  and  in  another  he 
says  that  sins  which  have  been  remitted  by  the  friars  need  not  be 
repeated.3  The  Church,  in  fact,  was  in  a  somewhat  awkward  posi 
tion  between  the  Lateran  precept  and  the  powers  granted  to  the 
Mendicants,  for  the  annual  confession  to  the  pastor  could  not  be 
insisted  on  without  denying  the  validity  of  the  absolution  conferred 
by  the  friar.  Aquinas  takes  full  advantage  of  this ;  he  argues  that 
no  one  is  bound  to  confess  sins  that  he  has  not  got,  therefore  it  is 
unnecessary  to  repeat  proprio  sacerdoti  what  he  has  confessed  to 
another  duly  authorized  to  remit  them,  but  he  adds  that  the  oftener 
a  sin  is  confessed  the  less  is  the  pcena,  so  a  second  confession  is  not 
lost ;  it  is  well  for  the  friar  to  induce  a  penitent  to  confess  again  to 


1  Clericati  De  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxvm.  n.  10-31.— La  Croix  Theol.  Moral. 
Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1505,  1545.— Bern,  a  Bononia  Man.  Confessar.  Ord.  Capuccin. 
cap.  1,  \  3. 

For  the  numerous  nice  questions  involved  and  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
resolved  see  Guarceno,  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  vi.  art.  2,  $  1-3. 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  1,  Art.  3. 

3  S.  Bonavent.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  P.  ii.  Art.  1,  Q.  2;  Confessionale 
cap.  iv.  Partic.  1. 


308  JURISDICTION. 

his  own  priest,  but  if  he  refuses  he  is  none  the  less  to  be  absolved. 
Moreover,  in  penitence  a  man  is  to  be  believed  both  for  and  against 
himself;  therefore,  if  he  asserts  that  he  has  already  confessed,  the 
parish  priest  must  accept  his  assertion.1  Aquinas  had  the  logic  of 
the  situation,  but  in  spite  of  this  Martin  IV.,  in  1282,  decreed  abso 
lutely  that  under  the  Lateran  canon  annual  confession  must  be  made 
to  the  parish  priest  no  matter  what  other  confession  might  have  been 
made  to  the  friars.2  This  would  seem  to  settle  the  question,  but  in 
1304  the  Dominican  pope,  Benedict  XI.,  in  his  zeal  for  his  Order, 
reversed  the  decision  in  his  bull  Inter  cunctas,  when  he  adopted  the 
views  of  Aquinas  and  declared  that  sins  confessed  to  the  friars  need 
not  be  repeated  to  the  parson,  in  spite  of  the  Lateran  canon.  This 
bull,  as  we  have  seen,  was  revoked  by  Clement  V.  in  the  council 
of  Vienne  and  the  bull  Super  cathedram  of  Boniface  VIII.  was 
revived.3  The  latter  had  made  no  allusion  to  this  question,  so  the 
decree  of  Martin  IV.  was  again  in  force,  but  the  matter  seems  to 
have  been  considered  sub  judice  and  was  variously  argued  in  the 
schools.  The  Franciscan  Astesanus  and  the  Dominican  Pierre  de  la 
Palu  seek  at  much  length  to  prove  that  confession  to  the  friars  suffices 
and  need  not  be  repeated  to  the  parson,  while  the  Dominican  Durand 
de  S.  Pourgain  is  rigid  in  upholding  the  rights  of  the  parochial  clergy  ; 
the  penitent  must  again  confess  and  again  be  absolved  by  his  priest, 
for  the  Church  has  reasonably  ordered  that  pastors  should  have  juris 
diction  over  their  subjects ;  by  going  to  another  the  penitent  has 
committed  the  sin  of  disobedience  and  while  thus  in  mortal  sin  his 
confession  is  invalid.4 

Matters  might  perhaps  have  remained  in  this  uncertain  condition 
but  for  the  indiscretion  of  Jean  de  Poilly,  a  doctor  of  the  University 
of  Paris,  where  hatred  of  the  Mendicants  was  traditional.  Not 
content  with  teaching  that  sins  confessed  to  the  friars  must  be  re- 


1  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  iii.  Art.  2. 

2  Martini  PP.  IV.  Bull.  Adfructus  uberes,  1282  (Martene  Thesaur.  1. 1172).— 
Sbaralea  Bullar.  Francisc.  III.  480). 

The  council  of  Mainz,  in  1281,  had  ordered  the  yearly  confession  to  the  parish 
priest  of  those  who  had  confessed  to  the  friars  (Hartzheim  III.  666)  showing 
that  there  was  an  endeavor  to  escape  it. 

3  Cap.  1  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  vii. — Cap.  2  Clement.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  vii. 
*  Astesani  Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xiv.  Q.  9.— P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 

xvil.  Q.  iv.  Art.  3.— Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  ii.  \  11. 


HERESY  OF  JEAN  DE  POILLY.  309 


eated  to  the  pastor,  he  added  that,  so  long  as  the  Lateral!  canon 
stood,  neither  God  nor  the  pope  had  power  to  decree  otherw.se. 
John  XXII.,  who  was  then  pope,  was  not  especially  tender  in  his 
dealines  with  the  Mendicant  Orders,  and  he  would  doubtless  not 
have  troubled  himself  to  espouse  their  cause,  but  the  Paris  doctor 
had  incautiously  involved  the  papal  prerogative  m  the  matter  a 
this  was  a  point  on  which  Pope  John  was  inflexible,  .for  a   the  time 
he  was  burning  Franciscan  Spirituals  by  the  score  for  holding  that 
the  pope  could   not   dispense   for   vows  of  chastity  and   poverty 
There  could  not  have  been  lacking  Mendicants  connected  with  1m 
court  to  call  his  attention  to  the  insubordination  threatened  m  Je 
de  Polity's  teaching,  and,  in  1321,  the  overzealous  theolog.an  was 
Honed  to  Avignon  ;  his  theses  were  discussed  m  full  consistory 
and  pronounced  erroneous  ;  he  was  forced  to  recantation,  and  a  buU 
was  Led  declaring  that  it  suffices  to  confess  to  the  friars,  and  that 
sins  so  confessed  need  not  be  repeated  to  the  parish  pr, 

The  question  was  settled  in  so  far  as  the  most  authoritative  utter 
ance  of  the  Holy  See  could  accomplish  it,  but  the  secular  c  ergy  and 
the  University  of  Paris  were  not  prepared  to  submit.  It  is 

at  in  Spain,  Guido  de  Monteroquer,  who  was  himself  parish  pret 
Seruel  acc'epted  it  as  final,  and  even  argued  that  it  ^as  ra  e 

of  Boniface  VIII,    but  e 


from  the  bull 


Eegnans  in  ccelis,  threatening  punishment  a,  .hereto  on  .D  who 
upheld  them,  the  University  of  Pans  refused 

Johann.  PP.  XXII.  Bui  Vas  election*  (Cap.  2  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  V. 


Tit.  ili.). 

-  Manip.  Curatorum  P.  II.  Tit.  in.  cap.  4 


.  . 

•  Cosentino^rcWvioStoricoSicihano  1886  ^33^  ors  wag  re. 

In  Italy  doubtless  the  decision  of  Johr,  L  XXII    ana 

spected.    St.  Antonino  tells  us  (Summse  P  m    -it  xv  .cap.    )  ^ 

priest  cannot  refuse  communion  to  a  subject  ***•*•** 
the  friars,  unless  he  is  excommunicate  or  a  notono 


310  JURISDICTION. 

and  expelled  all  the  friars  who  would  not  agree  to  renounce  it. 
The  struggle  continued  throughout  the  fifteenth  century ;  Euge- 
nius  IV.  and  Nicholas  V.  directed  the  Ordinaries  to  prosecute  for 
heresy  all  who  should  maintain  the  doctrines  of  Jean  de  Poilly,  and 
the  University  responded  by  denouncing  the  bulls  as  surreptitious 
and  not  to  be  respected.1  When,  in  1474,  Sixtus  IV.  took  a  more 
advanced  step  and  empowered  the  Inquisition  to  suppress  by  perse 
cution  these  new  heretics  his  action  was  equally  fruitless,  and  he  was 
finally  obliged  to  yield  the  point.  In  the  compromise  arranged  by 
him,  about  1478,  the  friars  were  forbidden  to  teach  that  confession  to 
them  superseded  the  annual  confession  to  the  priest,  for  such  con 
fession  was  required  by  law.2  It  shows  how  little  the  papal  authority 
was  respected  at  this  period  that  Gabriel  JBiel  argues  at  great  length 
to  prove  that  confession  to  the  friars  need  not  be  repeated,  but  does 
so  without  any  allusion  to  papal  decisions,  and  that,  in  1493,  the 
Archbishop  of  Mainz  prohibited  absolutely  the  Mendicants  from 
exercising  the  function  of  confession.3 

The  papal  acceptance  of  the  whilom  heresy  as  orthodoxy  settled 
the  dispute  for  but  a  short  space,  for,  in  1515,  the  fifth  Lateran  council 
decreed  that  confession  to  a  friar  satisfies  the  precept  of  annual  con 
fession  to  the  parish  priest.4  The  question  became  still  more  press 
ing  with  the  appearance  of  the  Jesuits.  When,  in  1549,  Paul  III. 
granted  to  them  the  right  to  hear  confessions  without  the  permission 
of  the  parish  priests,  he  expressly  stated  that  sins  remitted  by  them 
need  not  be  again  confessed  to  the  pastor.5  Yet  S.  Carlo  Borromeo 
was  emphatic  in  requiring  annual  confession  to  the  parish  priest,  and? 
in  1592,  a  quarrel  on  the  subject  at  Douai  required  for  its  pacification 
a  brief  from  Clement  VIII.  and  pastoral  letters  from  the  Bishop  of 


1  D'Argentre,  Collect.  Judic.  de  novis  Erroribus  I.  n.  184,  242,  251,  340, 
347,  352,  354,  356.— Eeligieux  de  S.  Denis,  Hist,  de  Charles  VI.  Liv.  xxix- 
chap.  10. 

2  Sixti  PP.  IV.  Bull  Begimini  $  15  (Bullar.  I.  394) ;  Ejusd.  Bull.  Vices  illius 
(Cap.  2  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  I.  Tit.  ix.). 

3  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  not.  5;  Art.  2.— Gudeni 
Cod.  Diplom.  III.  603. 

4  C.  Lateran.  V.  Sess.  xi.  (Harduin.  IX.  1832).     Father  Tournely  tells  us 
(De  Sacr.  Poenit.  Q.  vi.  Art.  3)  that  the  fifth  Lateran  council  is  not  received  in 
France  as  oecumenic. 

5  Pauli  PP.  IV.  Bull.  Licet  debitum,  1549  (Litt.  Apostol.  S.  J.,  Antverpise, 
1635,  p.  48). 


CONFESSION  TO  PARISH  PRIEST  SUPERSEDED.  %\\ 

Arras  and  the  Archbishop  of  Cambrai.  Willem  Van  Est  asserts 
positively  that  the  Lateran  canon  requires  annual  confession  to  the 
pastor  irrespective  of  what  other  confessions  may  have  been  made, 
and,  about  1700,  Van  Espen  dwells  upon  it  with  an  insistance,  and 
cites  canons  prescribing  it  from  French  and  Netherlandish  councils 
with  a  profusion,  which  show  how  active  still  was  the  controversy 
and  how  stubbornly,  at  least  in  the  Gallican  Church,  the  secular 
clergy  maintained  what  they  claimed  to  be  their  rights.  It  made 
little  difference  to  them  that,  in  1645,  Innocent  X.  settled  adversely 
to  them  a  quarrel  between  the  Archbishop  of  Bordeaux  and  the 
Kegulars,  and  that,  in  1670,  Clement  X.  finally  decided  the  matter  in 
favor  of  the  latter  by  defining  that  confession  to  an  approved  friar 
superseded  that  to  a  parish  priest  and  need  not  be  repeated.  In 
France  the  bull  was  denounced  as  surreptitious,  its  publication  was 
prohibited  and  those  who  ventured  to  explain  its  purport  to  the 
people  were  prosecuted.1  This  position  was  consistently  maintained 
by  the  Gallican  Church,  but  elsewhere  the  papal  policy  prevailed  at 
last,  aided  by  the  constantly  increasing  tendency  to  aiford  free  choice 
of  confessors  to  the  penitent,  and  St.  Alphonso  Liguori  declares 
without  reserve  that  a  parishioner  showing  to  his  priest  a  certificate 
of  confession  from  any  approved  confessor  is  free  from  the  annual 
precept,  and  further,  that  any  episcopal  decree  in  derogation  of  this 
is  void.2  This  leaves  the  friars  with  one  manifest  advantage  over 
the  secular  priests,  that,  whereas  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pastor  is 
confined  to  the  boundaries  of  his  own  parish,  the  regular  who  holds 
an  episcopal  approbation  can  hear  penitents  from  all  parts  of  the 
diocese,  even  if  he  knows  that  their  object  in  coming  to  him  is  to 
avoid  their  own  priest.3 

1  Estius  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvir.  I  13.— Van  Espcn  Jur.  Eccles.  P.  n.  Tit. 
vi.  cap.  5,  n.  20.— Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Dissert,  vi.  Q.  5,  cap.  4,  art.  3,  $  2. 
— Tournely  de  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Q.  vi.  art.  3.— Clement.  PP.  X.  Bull.  Superna,  $  5 
(Bullar.  VI.  306). 

2  He"ricourt,  Loix  eccl&dastiques  de  France,  Tom.  II.  p.  13  (Neufchatel,  1774). 
— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  564. 

3  Cabrini  Elucidarium  Casuuin  Reservator.  P.  I.  Resol.  xxvi. 


CHAPTEE     XI. 

EESEEVED  CASES. 

THE  power  of  the  keys  in  the  hands  of  the  parish  priest  was  still 
further  limited  by  what  are  known  as  reserved  cases.  These  are  sins 
for  which  he  is  unable  to  grant  absolution,  and  are  either  episcopal 
cases,  as  reserved  to  the  bishop,  or  papal,  as  reserved  to  the  Holy 
See.  They  form  an  intricate  and  perplexing  portion  of  the  canon 
law,  giving  rise  to  a  multitude  of  questions  on  which  the  authorities 
are  by  no  means  in  accord  and  merit  a  more  detailed  enquiry  than 
space  will  here  permit. 

We  have  seen  (pp.  121  sq.)  how  the  priest,  in  acquiring  the  power 
of  the  keys,  gradually  divested  the  bishop  of  his  sole  control  over 
penance  and  reconciliation.  In  yielding,  after  a  prolonged  struggle, 
however,  the  bishop  did  not  relinquish  his  claim  of  dominant  au 
thority  and  retained  jurisdiction  over  such  cases  as  he  might,  in  his 
discretion,  designate,  and  these  became  known  as  reserved.  The 
process  was  confused  and  irregular,  depending  largely  on  the  temper 
and  policy  of  the  individual  prelates,  and  the  practice  in  the  different 
dioceses  varied  accordingly.  In  the  Penitentials,  we  see  no  distinc 
tions  drawn  between  the  lesser  sins  and  those  which  subsequently 
came  in  general  to  be  classed  as  reserved.  A  careless  bishop  might 
leave  all  penitents  in  the  hands  of  the  local  priests ;  an  active  one 
might  require  them  all  to  be  brought  before  him,  though  the  size  of 
the  northern  dioceses,  the  insecurity  of  travel,  and  regard  for  the  sus 
ceptibilities  of  newly  converted  barbarians  naturally  tended  to  local 
ize  jurisdiction.  The  earliest  allusion  to  any  distinction  is  of  interest 
only  as  showing  how  vague  as  yet  were  the  delimitations  between 
spiritual  and  secular  authority,  between  penance  and  punishment. 
It  provides  that  the  homicide  of  a  monk  or  cleric  shall  be  judged  by 
the  bishop,  and  assigns  to  it  seven  years'  penance  or  abandoning  the 
use  of  arms,  while,  if  the  victim  be  a  priest  or  bishop,  the  slayer  shall 
be  judged  by  the  king.1  One  of  the  later  compilations,  it  is  true, 


1  Theodori  Canones  Gregorii  cap.  108;  Theodori  Poenit.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  g  5; 
Ps.  Ecberti  Confessionale,  cap.  23  ;  Poenit.  XXXV.  Capitular,  cap.  1 ,  g  2 ;  Poenit. 


DEVELOPMENT. 

seems  to  indicate  a  tendency  to  differentiate  between  episcopal  and 
priestly  functions  by  directing  that  grave  cases  shall  be  sent  to  the 
bishop,  but  at  the  same  time  it  recognizes  that  the  bishop  is  the 
fountain  of  jurisdiction  in  the  assignment  of  penance.1  The  earliest 
definite  prescription  reserving  a  case  to  the  bishop,  that  I  have  met, 
occurs  in  the  council  of  London,  in  1102,  where  it  is  decreed  that 
none  but  he  shall  absolve  for  unnatural  crime.2  The  work  of  the 
schoolmen  was  now  commencing,  which  was  eventually  to  reduce  to 
a  system  the  indefinite  claims  and  uncertain  practice  of  the  Church 
and  to  specify,  with  some  approach  to  accuracy,  the  functions  of  the 
various  ranks  of  the  hierarchy.  Public  or  solemn  penance  was  rapidly 
being  superseded  by  private — a  process  which  will  be  considered 
hereafter — and,  as  a  general  rule,  the  latter  was  abandoned  to  the 
priests  while  the  former  was  retained  by  the  bishops  ;  crimes  of  pecu 
liar  atrocity  were  still  held  to  be  subject  to  public  penance,  and  in 
this  way  the  doctors  came  to  explain  why  the  priests,  who  had  the 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  could  only  exercise  it  on  the  less  impor 
tant  offences ;  besides,  as  they  said,  the  prelates  were  more  experi 
enced,  so  the  greater  sins  were  naturally  reserved  for  them.3  It 
was  soon  after  this  that,  in  1195,  the  council  of  York  ordered  per 
jurers  to  be  sent  to  the  archbishop  or  bishop  for  penance,  and  Adam 
de  Perseigne  says  that  cases  of  homicide  and  arson  are  reserved  for 
the  diocesan.4  The  growth  of  the  custom  of  thus  reserving  sins  is 
seen,  about  the  same  period,  in  the  instructions  of  Eudes  of  Paris 
that  the  greater  sins,  such  as  homicide,  sacrilege,  unnatural  crime, 
incest,  seduction  of  virgins,  violence  to  clerics,  broken  vows  and  the 
like  are  to  be  sent  to  the  prelates.5  The  matter  was  wholly  at  the 
discretion  of  the  bishop,  and  an  entirely  different  list  is  given  in  an 
undated  document  of  the  Paris  church,  probably  not  much  later  than 
this;  it  enumerates  abortion,  perjury  in  the  episcopal  court,  volun- 


Ps.  Gregorii  cap.  3 ;  Pcenit.  Vallicellian.  II.  cap.  7  (Wasserschleben,  pp.  172, 
188,  310,  506,  538,  557). 

1  Ps.  Ecberti  Pcenit.  Lib.  I.  cap.  11,  12  (Ibid.  pp.  321-22). 

2  C.  Londiniens.  ann.  1102,  cap.  28  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  1866). 

3  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Pcenitent.  Migne,  OCX.  295). 

4  C.  Eboracens.  ann.  1195,  cap.  11  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1932).— Adaini  Per- 
senniae  Abbatis  Epist.  xxvi.  (Migne,  CCXL). 

5  Constitt.  Synodal.  Odonis  Episc.  Paris,  circa  1198,  cap.  vi.  \  5  (Harduin. 
VI.  ii.  1940). 


314  RESERVED  CASES. 

tary  homicide,  counterfeiting  the  episcopal  seal,  redemption  and 
commutation  of  vows,  restitutions  of  more  than  twenty  sous,  sorcery 
committed  with  the  Host  or  chrism,  carrying  arms  and  errors  con 
demned  by  pope  or  bishop.1  How  completely  the  bishops  retained 
control  over  the  sacrament  and  assumed  that  the  priests  exercised 
only  delegated  power  is  manifest  in  the  regulations  of  Everard  of 
Amiens  (p.  230),  in  1219,  after  the  Lateran  council  had  conferred 
exclusive  jurisdiction  011  the  parish  priests  with  no  exceptions  in 
favor  of  the  bishops. 

It  thus  was  recognized  that,  in  spite  of  the  Lateran  canon,  the 
bishop  in  each  diocese,  acting  individually  or  in  his  synod,  should 
designate  the  sins  which  he  reserved  to  his  own  jurisdiction,  and  that 
the  priest  should  have  cognizance  only  of  the  remainder.  In  view 
of  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  conferred  in  ordination,  this  was 
an  arbitrary  limitation  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  but  the  incompati 
bility  between  the  old  episcopal  function  of  reconciliation  and  the 
new  sacramental  theories  had  to  be  reconciled  in  some  way,  and  as 
usual  the  doctrine  of  jurisdiction  was  invoked  to  accomplish  this. 
Aquinas  thus  explains  that  the  power  of  the  keys  conferred  on 
priests  extends  to  all  sins,  but  for  its  exercise  jurisdiction  is  required, 
and  the  bishop,  in  granting  jurisdiction,  can  subject  it  to  such  limita 
tions  as  he  sees  fit.  Aquinas  proceeds  to  enumerate  five  cases  which 
must  be  referred  to  the  superior  prelate,  an  enumeration  showing 
how  confused  was  as  yet  the  distinction  between  the  forum  internum 
and  extemum.  These  are,  I.  when  solemn  penance  is  to  be  imposed  ; 
II.  excommunication  pronounced  by  a  superior ;  III.  irregularity 
requiring  dispensation  by  a  superior ;  IV.  arson ;  V.  when  in  any 
diocese  it  is  the  custom  to  refer  enormous  crimes  to  the  bishop.2 
Thus  every  see  was  a  law  unto  itself,  and  the  variations  were  infinite. 
The  council  of  Mainz,  in  1261,  reserves  no  episcopal  cases  and  leaves 
everything  to  the  priest  save  what  was  assigned  to  the  pope,  while 


1  Cartulariurn  Ecclesise  Parisiensis,  Tom.  I.  p.  3.     The  expression  "Istos 
casus  reservat  sibi  episcopus  in  confessionibus "  shows  that  the  reservation 
concerns  the  forum  internum. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  1,  Art.  3;  Summse  Suppl.  Q. 
XX.  Art.  2. 

St.  Bonaventura  (Confessionale,  Cap.  iv.  Partic.  2)  only  specifies  arson  as  a 
reserved  episcopal  case,  but  adds  that  each  diocese  has  its  own  customs.  Cf. 
Hostiens.  Aureae  Summae  Lib.  v.  De  Po3n.  et  Kemiss.  ?  14. 


MULTIPLICATION.  315 

those  of  Aries,  in  1275,  of  Cologne,  in  1280,  and  of  Nimes,  in  1284, 
give  long  lists  of  reserved  cases.1  The  tendency  evidently  was  to 
their  multiplication,  which  Benedict  XL,  in  1304,  apparently  en 
deavored  to  check,  in  his  bull  Inter  cunctas,  by  declaring  that  the 
episcopal  cases  were  arson,  voluntary  homicide,  forgery,  violation  of 
ecclesiastical  liberties  and  immunities,  and  sorcery,  but  this  bull  was 
revoked  in  the  Council  of  Vienne,  in  1312,  and  received  little  respect, 
though  it  served,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  as  a  basis  for  claims  by 
the  Mendicant  friars  to  disregard  the  episcopal  prerogative.2  In 
1324,  the  council  of  Toledo  complains  of  the  indiscretion  of  priests 
who  absolve  indiscriminately  for  perjury,  leading  to  great  injustice 
to  individuals  and  loss  of  the  rights  of  churches,  wherefore  this  is 
declared  to  be  a  reserved  case.3  In  fact,  with  the  strongly  marked 
tendency  to  laxity  in  the  confessional,  this  seemed  to  be  the  only 
method  by  which  rigorist  bishops  could  exercise  a  -control  over  the 
sacrament,  and  they  were  disposed  to  make  the  most  of  it,  as  did 
Bishop  William  of  Cahors  about  this  period,  leaving  little  for  his 
parish  priests  to  absolve.4 


1  C.  Mogunt.  aim.  1261,  cap.  8  (Hartzheim  III.  548).— C.  Arelatens.  ann. 
1275,  cap.  12,  13  (Harduin.  VII.  729-30).— C.  Colon,  ann.  1280  cap.  8  (Ibid.  p. 
829).— C.  Nemausens.  ann.  1284  (Ibid.  pp.  913-14). 

*  Cap.  1  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  vii.— Cap.  2  Clement.  Lib.  in.  Tit. 
vii. 

3  C.  Toletan.  ann.  1324,  cap.  18  (Aguirre  V.  257). 

4  Epist.  Synod.  Guillel.  Episc.  Cadurcens.  circa   1325,  cap.  14   (Martene 
Thesaur.  IV.  692-3).     His  list  includes  all  notorious  sins  which  scandalize  the 
people,  also  heresy,  simony,  irregularity,  arson,  enormous  public  blasphemy, 
commutation  and  breaking  of  vows,  together  with  such  cases  as  the  bishops 
are  accustomed  to  reserve,  as  in  Kodez,  namely,  homicide,  overlying  children, 
sacrilege,  forging  and  falsifying  episcopal  or  papal  letters,  church-breaking, 
violation  of  ecclesiastical  liberties,  sorcery  if  grave  (especially  if  with  the 
Eucharist,  the  chrism  and  the  like),  unnatural  crimes,  bestiality,  fornication 
with  Jewess  or  Saracen,  incest,  defloration,  seduction  of  nuns,  perjury,  clan 
destine  marriage,  promotion  per  saltum  in  orders,  ordination  by  a  bishop  other 
than  one's  own,  fornication  in  a  church,  palming  adulterine  children  on  a 
husband  by  his  wife,  abortion,   false   witness,   marriage  after  betrothal  to 
another,  disturbance  of  divine  service  by  excommunicates,  burying  excommu 
nicates   in   consecrated  ground,  seduction  by  confessors,  violence  offered  to 
parents,  schism,  carelessness  leading  to  accidents  at  the  altar,  restitution  or 
distribution  of  unclaimed  ill-acquired  gains   amounting  to  more  than  forty 
sous  caourcim,  and  all  doubtful  questions,  especially  respecting  marriage. 

Dr.  Eck,  in  the  Leipzig   Disputation,  admitted  the  abuse  of  reservation, 


316  RESERVED  CASES. 

There  was  one  limit  to  the  exercise  of  this  arbitrary  discretion  by 
the  bishop,  for  as  usual  the  Roman  chancery  turned  to  profitable 
account  the  supreme  jurisdiction  claimed  by  the  Holy  See.  Plenary 
indulgences,  with  choice  of  confessors,  of  course  overrode  all  epis 
copal  reservations,  and  if  these  could  be  issued  by  the  pope  there 
was  no  reason  why  faculties  enabling  priests  to  set  episcopal  regula 
tions  at  defiance  should  not  be  granted  to  those  willing  to  pay  for 
them.  Accordingly  letters  of  this  kind  were  for  sale  to  all  appli 
cants,  empowering  them  for  ten  years  to  absolve  for  all  cases  save 
those  reserved  to  the  pope.  For  these,  in  1338,  the  scrivener's  fee 
was  ten  gros  tournois,  or  one  gold  florin,  besides  two  gros  to  the 
procurator  for  drawing  up  the  petition,  and  whatever  other  charges 
might  be  made  for  engrossing,  bullation,  registering,  etc.1  It  is  not 
likely  that  these  letters  were  issued  in  large  numbers,  for  there  can 
scarce  have  been  motive  on  the  part  of  many  priests  to  procure 
them,  unless  some  rich  parishioner  desired  to  escape  his  bishop,  but 
there  was  at  least  occasional  demand  for  them  up  to  the  sixteenth 
century.2  It  was  probably  through  speculative  motives  only  that 
Boniface  IX.,  in  1402,  revoked  all  which  he  had  issued,  on  the 
ground  of  their  abuse  and  of  the  scandal  which  they  occasioned.3 
That  priests  occasionally  emancipated  themselves  from  the  limitations 
imposed  on  them,  without  taking  the  trouble  to  procure  these  papal 
letters,  is  indicated  by  the  severe  penalty  of  suspension,  leading  in 
six  days  to  excommunication,  denounced  for  such  offences,  in  1389, 


especially  when  it  was  dictated  by  avarice,  in  having  pecuniary  mulcts  attached. 
— M.  Lutheri  Opp.  Jense,  1564,  T.  I.  fol.  2766. 

1  P.  Denifle,  Die  alteste  Taxrolle  der  Apost.  Ponitentiarie  (Archiv  fur  Litt. 
und  Kirchengeschichte,  IV.  232,  235,  237). 

By  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  price  was  raised  to  twenty-five  gros. 
—White  Hist.  Library,  Cornell  Univ.  A.  6124. 

The  form  of  application  was  "Supplicatur  Sanctitati  Vestrse  a  rectore 
parochiali  etc.  quatenus  omnes  homines  utriusque  sexus  parochise  suse  ab 
omnibus  peccatis  nisi  talia  sint  de  quibus  merito  sedes  apostolica  sit  consulenda, 
valeat  absolvere  hinc  ad  decennium  de  gratia  Vestra  speciali." — Denifle, 
loc.  cit. 

2  Jan.  16,  1514,  one  is  issued  to  the  Augustinian  friar  Geronimo,  which  ex- 
cepts  only  the  papal  cases  enumerated  in  the  bull  in  Ccena  Domini. — Hergen- 
rother,  Regesta  Leonis  X.  n.  6303. 

3  Regulae  Cancellariae  Bonif.  PP.  IX.  n.  73  (Ottenthal,  p.  76). 


MULTIPLICATION. 

by  John,  Bishop  of  Nantes,  whose  list  of  reserved  cases  was  nearly 
as  long  as  that  of  his  brother  of  Cahors.1 

In  1408,  at  the  council  of  Keims,  John  Gerson  pleaded  earnestly 
against  the  extension  of  the  system  of  reserved  cases  and  pointed 
out  not  only  the  hardships  which  it  inflicted  on  all  penitents,  but 
the  infamy  to  which  it  exposed  them,  especially  women,  whose  hus 
bands  and  kindred  were  naturally  led  to  suspect  their  virtue  when 
they  were  often  thus  sent  from  a  distance  to  procure  episcopal  abso 
lution.  Under  this  impulsion  the  council  ordered  visitors  to  be  dis 
patched  to  all  parishes  with  powers  to  absolve  for  reserved  cases ;  if 
the  parish  priest  was  competent  they  were  to  give  him  a  faculty  for 
the  purpose ;  if  not,  some  fitting  priest  in  the  vicinage  was  to  be 
selected  as  a  local  penitentiary.2  The  impression  made  by  Gerson 
passed  away,  and,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  century,  the  councils  of 
Amiens  and  Tournay  show  the  catalogue  of  episcopal  cases  to  be 
enormously  overgrown.  In  the  former  a  list  under  forty  heads  em 
braces  almost  all  offences,  besides  which  all  doubtful  cases  are  to  be 
sent  to  the  bishop  ;  in  the  latter,  after  a  schedule  of  episcopal  cases 
comes  one  of  those  reserved  to  the  rural  deans,  and  then  follows  an 
enumeration  of  the  few  that  are  left  to  the  priest,  while  at  the  same 
time  the  bishop,  Cardinal  Ferry  de  Cluny,  revoked  all  the  faculties 
granted  to  deans  and  others  to  absolve  for  the  episcopal  cases.3  In 
this,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  the  bishops  had  a  motive  arising  from 
their  sempiternal  conflict  with  the  hated  Mendicants,  but  none  the 
less  was  it  a  severe  hardship  on  the  faithful.  St.  Antonino  com 
plains  loudly  of  the  result,  and  gives  a  list  of  thirty-six  papal 
reserved  cases  followed  by  fifty-seven  episcopal,  which  shows  how 
narrow  a  field  was  left  almost  everywhere  for  the  parish  priest;  nor 
was  this  all,  for  it  surrounded  the  confessor  with  pitfalls  from  which 
the  greatest  care  could  scarce  preserve  him.4  In  1528,  Martin  de 


1  Statut.  Job.  Episc.  Nannetens.  ann.  1389,  cap.  13  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV. 
985). 

2  C.  Remens.  ann.  1408  (Gousset,  Actes  etc.  II.  658,  661,  664).    As  early  as 
1260  a  somewhat  similar  expedient  was  in  force  in  Aries,  as  we  have  seen 
(p.  234). 

3  C.  Ambianens.  ann.  1454,  cap.  5,  1  4;  C.  Tornacens.  ann.  1481,  cap.  4 
(Gousset,  II.  709-11,  752-4). 

4  S.  Antonini  Confessionale,  fol.  5-6,  14-15.— Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog. 
fol.  5,  6,  10a. 


318  RESERVED  CASES. 

Frias  quotes  approvingly  John  Gerson's  assertion  that  the  bishops 
by  these  reservations  plunged  innumerable  souls  into  hell ;  it  was 
difficult  enough  for  the  confessor  to  extract  confessions,  especially 
from  bashful  women  and  girls,  and  when  they  had  to  be  sent  a 
distance  for  a  second  confession  and  episcopal  absolution  they  mostly 
refused  to  go.1 

It  is  small  wonder  that  Charles  V.,  in  his  Formula  of  Reforma 
tion  in  1548,  desired  to  simplify  the  confessional,  for  both  the  con 
fessor  and  the  penitent,  by  abolishing  all  reserved  cases,2  but  the 
bishops  at  the  council  of  Trent  were  disposed  to  strengthen  rather 
than  to  abandon  a  power  of  so  much  importance  to  them  in  their 
struggle  with  the  Regulars.  They  therefore  denned  that  bishops 
have  authority,  each  in  his  own  diocese,  to  reserve  such  sins  as  they 
see  fit,  that  their  action  in  this  is  good  before  God,  the  only  excep 
tion  being  that  in  peril  of  death  any  priest  can  absolve  for  any  sin.3 
The  matter  was  thus  placed  beyond  further  discussion,  and  it  rested 
with  each  bishop  to  use  his  prerogative  wisely.  Since  then  the  only 
interference  with  it  occurred  in  the  proposed  reforms  of  Leopold  of 
Tuscany,  in  1785,  when,  after  pointing  out  the  hardships  to  which 
penitents  were  exposed,  he  invited  his  bishops  to  grant  faculties  to 
all  their  parish  priests  to  absolve  for  reserved  cases,  and  Ricci, 
Bishop  of  Pistoia,  promptly  did  so.  The  latter,  in  his  synod  of 
1786,  took  no  systematic  action,  but  reservation  Avas  described  as 
an  improvident  limitation  of  sacerdotal  authority,  and  a  hope  was 
expressed  that  by  a  reformation  of  penitential  processes  it  would 
become  no  longer  necessary — criticisms  which  Pius  VI.  emphatically 
condemned  as  false,  audacious,  injurious  to  hierarchical  power  and 
derogatory  to  the  authority  of  the  council  of  Trent  and  of  the  Holy 
See.4  Liguori  is,  therefore,  safe  in  asserting  that  there  is  no  limit  to 
the  exercise  of  this  episcopal  authority,  although  some  doctors  hold 


1  Martini  de  Frias  de  Arte  et  Modo  audiendi  Confessiones,  fol.  Ixa.   Martin 
proceeds  to  give  a  list  of  forty-seven  cases  regularly  reserved  to  bishops  by 
law  and  custom,  which  might  be  increased  indefinitely,  at  the  whim  of  the 
prelate. 

2  Formulae  Reformationis,  cap.  13  (Le  Plat,  Monum.  Cone.  Trident.  IV.  88). 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poanit.  cap.  7. 

4  Atti  e  Decreti  del  Consiglio  di  Pistoja,  p.  154;  Append.  No.  xi.  xn.— Pii 
PP.  VI.  Bull.  Auctorem  Fidei,  1794,  Prop.  44,  45. 


VARIATIONS.  319 


that  it  cannot  be  carried  to  the  point  of  morally  incapacitating  priests 
from  the  performance  of  their  duty.1 

The  arbitrary  exercise  of  this  episcopal  prerogative  in  each 
necessarily  introduces  an  element  of  uncertainty  in  the  confessional 
which  has  its  perplexities.     Saulius,  writing  in  1578,  instructs  con 
fessors  to  send  every  year  to  the  Ordinary  of  the  diocese  to  ascerl 
what  changes  have  been  made.2     In  1579,  S.  Carlo  Borromco  ordered 
his  bishops  to  print  lists  annually  and  distribute  them  among  then 
priest*'  and  in  1581  St.  Toribio  of  Lima  threatened  with  prosecu 
tion  all  priests  who  did  not  possess  one.*     In  1855  the  council  of 
Ravenna  ordered  that  in  every  confessional  there  should  be  posted  a 
copv  of  the  bull  in  Cce.na  Domini,  together  with  a  list  of  the  episcopal 
ca  es  of  the  diocese/  and  this,  as  a  convenient  mode  of  supplementing 
the  memory  of  the  confessor,  may  presumably  be  assumed  to  be 
c  mmon  practice.     Where  every  bishop  follows  his  own  discretion, 
of  course  there  can  be  no  uniformity,  and  how  slender  was  the  d« 
cretion  with  which  this  arbitrary  power  was  sometimes  exercised 
mlifest  when,  in  1614,  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  •***£• 
felt  obliged  to  decree  that  dancing  in  Lent  ought  not  to  be  mac 
Served  case*     Usually,  however,  bishops  have  in  modern  times  not 
pushed  their  authority  so  unreasonably      Father  Gobat    in 
savs  that  there  are  usually  seven  or  eight  cases-murdei    ai. 
sacrilege    penury  and   false   witness,  forgery,   sorcery,   basphemv, 


a  C.  Pro™.  Mediolan.  V.  ann.  1579  (Acta  Eccles.  Medto^J'       %}      In 
.  Synod  Liman.  I.  ann.  1581    cap.  10  (Haro  Ut  .Urna  L,ma  a   p         ^  ^ 
consideration,  however,  of  the  "poverty  and  ™bec,l.ty     ol 
Toribio  empowered  their  confessor,  ,»  absolve   ^M*^  ^  had 

for  the  papal  Cltses 


contained  in  the  bull  in  Ocena  Domivi  (Harold,  p     12). 

•  C.  Ravennat.  ann.  1855  cap.  5  «  *£*£%£   iiore  significant  in  the 

•  Pittoni  Constitutions  Pontificiffi  1  fnrnication  by  secular  prieste. 
same  decree  is  the  prohibition  to  reserve  simple  t 

'  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  364-5. 


320  RESERVED  CASES. 

were  three — voluntary  homicide,  rape  and  arson — to  Liege,  where 
there  were  twenty.1  Caramuel,  in  1656,  says,  as  a  Spaniard,  that  he 
he  had  lived  in  Spain  for  many  years  and  had  never  heard  of  a 
reserved  case,  and  therefore  he  regarded  it  merely  as  a  speculative 
matter,2  but  Corella,  about  1700,  tells  us  that  he  had  taken  infinite 
pains  to  gather  correct  information  from  all  the  Spanish  sees,  and 
gives,  with  appropriate  comments,  the  reserved  cases  in  all  that  he 
could  obtain  ;  they  show  for  Pampeluna  31,  Burgos  32,  Calahorra  30, 
Tarazona  12,  Toledo  10,  Saragossa  9,  Valencia  9,  Sigiienza  13, 
Seville  8,  Segovia  14,  Salamanca  27,  Yalladolid  7,  Palencia  13, 
Tarragona  19,  Barcelona  14,  Gerona  5,  Vich  15,  Tortosa  11,  Le~rida 
12,  Solsona  12  and  Urgel  10.3  In  view  of  the  assertion  of  the  coun 
cil  of  Trent  that  these  somewhat  eccentric  proceedings  of  the  bishops 
are  ratified  by  God,  one  is  somewhat  puzzled  by  the  assertion  of 
Father  Gobat  that  when  a  sin  becomes  especially  prevalent  it  ceases 
ipso  facto  to  be  reserved ;  thus  in  Germany  the  reading  of  heretic 
books  is  so  universal  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  send  all  the 
offenders  to  Korne  for  absolution,  and  therefore  in  practice  it  is 
treated  as  not  reserved — with  what  result  to  the  salvation  of  the 
sinners  he  does  not  tell  us.4  When  such  laxity  was  recognized  we 
need  scarce  wonder  at  the  complaint  of  the  council  of  Bordeaux 
in  1583  that  some  priests,  disregarding  the  risk  to  themselves 
and  their  penitents,  recklessly  granted  absolution  for  the  gravest 
offences  without  caring  whether  they  were  reserved  to  pope  or 
bishop.5 

There  are  two  classes  of  episcopal  reserved  cases — those  which  the 
bishop  reserves  of  his  own  authority  and  those  which  he  causes  to  be 
proclaimed  in  a  diocesan  synod.  The  doctors  draw  a  distinction  be 
tween  them,  the  reservation  of  the  former  expiring  with  the  death 
of  the  bishop,  while  the  latter  are  perpetual  until  revoked.  They 
argue  that  the  synodal  reservation  is  by  Christ,  who  does  not  die ; 


1  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  P.  ii.  n.  1636-44. 

2  Caramuelis  Theol.  Fundament,  n.  631. 

3  Corella  Praxis  Confession.  P.  I.  Tract,  xi.  §§  2-22.     In  the  list  of  Seville 
there  is  a  sin  entitled  Renuevos,  which  seems  to  be  of  doubtful  significance,  as 
it  is  explained  by  some  to  be  stealing  the  shoots  of  mulberry  trees  and  by  others 
to  be  giving  old  wheat  for  new — a  species  of  usury. 

*  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  355. 

5  C.  Burdegalens.  ann.  1583,  cap.  12  (Harduin.  X.  1347). 


PAPAL  CASES.  321 

it  is  he  who  reserves  the  cases  to  the  bishop,  not  the  bishop  to 
himself.1 

The  matter  is  additionally  complicated  by  the  existence  of  an 
other  class  of  cases  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  for  absolution,  though 
these,  with  scarce  an  exception,  are  offences  carrying  with  them  ipso 
facto  excommunication,  the  removal  of  which  can  only  be  effected  by 
the  pope  or  through  powers  delegated  by  him,  after  which  absolution 
for  the  sin  can  be  granted  by  any  confessor.2  The  origin  of  the 
custom  has  been  the  subject  of  a  good  deal  of  discussion,  more  or  less 
superfluous,  for  excommunication  can  only  be  removed  by  the  power 
which  imposes  it,  or  by  a  superior  one,  and  when  censures  are  inflicted 
by  the  Holy  See  it  alone  can  delegate  authority  to  absolve  for  them.3 
It  is  true  that,  before  the  sacramental  system  and  the  power  of  the 
keys  were  thoroughly  elaborated,  cases  of  peculiar  difficulty  or  atro 
city,  especially  when  ecclesiastics  were  the  victims,  were  frequently 
referred  to  the  pope  for  assessment  of  penance.  Thus  in  one  of  the 
Penitentials  there  is  a  provision  that  the  murderer  of  a  cleric  or  of 
a  near  kinsman  must  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome  and  perform  what 
ever  penance  may  be  prescribed  by  the  pope,4  though  elsewhere  there 
are  innumerable  other  regulations  setting  forth  the  precise  penance 
for  every  grade  of  such  offences,  and  in  some  of  them,  as  we  have 
just  seen  (p.  312),  in  many  places  the  murderer  of  a  priest  or  bishop 
was  sent  to  the  king  for  judgment.  There  is  ample  store  of  examples 
in  the  papal  letters  of  the  decisions  of  the  popes  in  cases  thus  sent  to 
them,  and  the  matter  was  regulated  by  the  council  of  Limoges,  in 
1032,  which  provided  that  when,  as  often  happened,  bishops  in 


1  Viva,  Trutina  Theolog.  in  Prop.  xii.  Alex.  PP.  VII.  n.  14. 

2  Cabrini  Elucidar.  Casuum  Reservator.  P.  I.  Eesol.  5.     Simony  in  ordina 
tion  was  made  an  exception  to  this  by  Sixtus  V.  in  1588  (Ibid.).     Liguori 
states  (Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  580)  that  there  are  only  two  papal  cases  with 
out  censures  attached — accusing  of  solicitation  an  innocent  confessor  and 
accepting  gifts  of  over  ten  Roman  crowns  from  Regulars  of  either  sex  without 
making  restitution. 

3  Ferraris  (Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolutio  Art.  1,  n.  1)  sees  this,  for  he 
cites  as  authority  for  papal  reservation  only  a  decretal  of  Gregory  IX.,  about 
1229,  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  beyond  an  incidental  assertion 
that  the  superior  can  bind  and  loose  the  inferior,  not  the  latter  the  former  (Cap. 
16  Extra  Lib.  I.  Tit.  xxxiv.). 

4  Poenit.  Ps.  Ecberti  Lib.  iv.  cap.  6  (Wasserschleben,  p.  333). 

I.— 21 


322  RESERVED  CASES. 

doubt  sent  penitents  to  Rome,  the  judgment  of  the  pope  should  be 
respected,  while  it  resolutely  declared  that  no  one  should  go  to  Rome 
for  penance  without  the  knowledge  of  his  bishop.1  Evidently  as  yet 
there  were  no  special  papal  cases ;  the  bishops  considered  the  whole 
subject  to  be  under  their  exclusive  control,  though  they  were  fre 
quently  glad  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  superior  wisdom  and  learning 
of  the  Holy  See  in  matters  which  puzzled  them  or  when  dealing 
with  troublesome  penitents.2  In  addition  to  this  were  cases  in  which 
popes  themselves  had  intervened  with  excommunications,  as  when 
Philippe  I.  of  France  and  the  Countess  Bertrade  of  Anjou,  bare 
footed  and  humble,  in  the  guise  of  penitents,  appeared  before  Lam 
bert  of  Artois,  swore  to  renounce  each  other  and  were  relieved  from 
excommunication  and  reincorporated  in  the  Church  by  him  under 
commission  from  Paschal  II.  ;3  or  when  the  Emperor  Henry  IV., 
in  1105,  applied  for  release  from  excommunication  to  the  Legate 
Richard  of  Albano,  who  refused  on  the  ground  that  he  had  no  power 
and  that  the  pope  alone  could  do  it.4 

All  these  were  sporadic  individual  cases.  The  earliest  general 
legislation  creating  a  papal  reserved  case  would  appear  to  be  that  of 
the  second  Lateran  council,  in  1139,  which  decreed  that  whoever,  at 
the  instigation  of  the  devil,  should  lay  violent  hands  on  a  cleric  or 
monk,  incurred  excommunication  removable  by  no  bishop,  but  must 
present  himself  to  the  pope  and  receive  his  sentence — a  decree  which 
was  duly  carried  into  the  canon  law.5  Yet,  when,  in  1170,  Thomas 
Becket  was  assassinated,  and  Bartholomew,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  applied 
to  Alexander  III.  for  instructions  as  to  the  punishment  of  those  im 
plicated,  although  the  pope  replied  asserting  his  right  to  decide 
difficult  cases,  it  was  in  a  manner  to  show  that  he  was  glad  to  exer 
cise  a  power  that  was  by  no  means  recognized  as  a  matter  of  course.6 


1  C.  Lemovicens.  aim.  1032  Sess.  n.  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  890-1). 

2  See,  for  instance,  Alex.  PP.  II.  Epistt.  64,  115,  116,  117,  141  etc. 

3  Harduin.  VI.  I.  1799,  1877. 

4  Conr.  Urspergens.  Chron.  ann.  1106. — Annal.  Hildesheim.  ann.  1105. — 
Annalista  Saxo,  ann.  1106. 

5  Cap.  29  Caus.  xvn.  Q.  iv. — Quarrels  in  monastic  life  were  frequent,  lead 
ing  to  mutual  violence,  and  it  was  found  undesirable  to  send  the  culprits  from 
their  cloisters  to  Kome,  wherefore  Alexander  III.  (Post  Concil.  Lateran  P.  xiv. 
cap.  8)  empowered  the  abbots  to  settle  such  matters  at  home,  a  regulation  which 
continued  in  force. 

6  Alex.  PP.  III.  Epist.  1014  (Migne,  CO.  894).— Post.  Concil.  Lateran.  P. 
xxxv.  cap.  1. 


PAPAL  CASES. 


323 


The  whole  matter  remained  in  the  vaguest  and  most  uncertain 
condition.  During  the  remainder  of  the  twelfth  century  the  popes 
claimed  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  arson,  spoliation  of  churches  and 
entering  a  nunnery  with  evil  intent/  while,  in  1189,  the  council  of 
Rouen  added  perjury  to  the  list,  and  that  of  Paris,  about  1198,  in 
cluded  simony,2  yet  the  latter  in  one  clause  specifies  three  papal  cases 
and  in  another  gives  a  current  verse  enumerating  six,  while,  in  1217, 
Richard  Poore,  of  Salisbury,  only  specifies  two,  violence  to  clerics 
and  church-burning.3  Still  there  seems  as  yet  to  have  been  no  direct 
jurisdiction  recognized ;  the  culprit  was  sent  to  the  bishop,  and  by 
him  transmitted  to  Rome  with  letters,4  and  as  late  as  1235  St.  Ramon 
de  Pefiafort  merely  mentions  five  episcopal  cases,  and  adds  that  some 
of  these  are  sent  by  the  bishops  to  the  Holy  See.5  Evidently  thus 
far  the  papacy  had  not  asserted  any  general  claims,  and  each  diocese 
followed  its  own  customs.  Even  in  1252,  Innocent  IV.,  in  granting 
a  commission  to  the  Bishop  of  Avignon  to  preach  the  crusade  and 
absolve  for  papal  cases  only  specifies  two — violence  to  clerics  and 
church-burning.6  Soon  after  this  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  contents 
himself  with  repeating  the  statement  of  St.  Ramon  de  Pefiafort,7 
but  about  the  same  period  the  council  of  Mainz,  in  1261,  specifies 
violence  to  clerics,  church-burning  and  simony  committed  in  orders 
as  cases  ^reserved  to  the  pope.8  Aquinas  gives  a  list  of  six  papal 
reserved  cases,  omitting  simony  and  adding  church-breaking,  falsify- 


1  Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  xiv.  cap.  2.— Cap.  1,  4,  5,  6,  9,  19,  22,  24  Extra 
Lib.  vi.  Tit.  xxxix. 

2  C.  Rotomagens.  ann.  1189,  cap.  26;  Constitt.  Synod.  Odonis  Paris,  cap.  vi. 
\  6  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1908,  1940). 

3  Constitt.  Odonis  cap.  vi.  §  4;  Constitt.  Kichardi  Episc.  Sarum  ann.  1217, 
cap.  28  (Ibid.  VI.  u.  1940,  VII.  97).     The  verse  alluded  to  thus  distinguishes 
episcopal  and  papal  cases — 

Incestum  faciens,  deflorans  aut  homicida 
Pontificein  quseras  :  Papam  si  miseris  ignem, 
Sacrilegus,  patris  percussor,  vel  Sodomita, 
Si  percussisti  clericum,  Simonve  fuisti. 

4  C.  Aquileiens.  ann.  1184  (Harduin.  VI.  II.  1883).— C.  Rothomagens.  he. 
cit.—Post.  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  xiv.  cap.  5.— Constitt.  Odonis  Paris,  he.  cit. 

5  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  §  4. 

6  Eaynald  Annal.  ann.  1252,  n.  26. 

7  Hostiens.  Aurese  Sunimse  Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  I  14. 

8  C.  Mogunt.  ann.  1261,  cap.  8  (Hartzheim  III.  598). 


324  RESERVED  CASES. 

ing  papal  letters,  communicating  with  those  excommunicated  by 
name  by  the  pope,  and  participating  with  excommunicates  in  their 
crimes.1  About  1300  Boniface  VIII.  added  a  somewhat  peculiar 
offence — disembowelling  a  corpse  and  boiling  the  bones,  when  those 
who  died  abroad  desired  to  be  buried  at  home.2  Yet,  almost  imme 
diately  after  this,  an  elaborate  collection  of  the  statutes  of  Cambrai 
makes  no  allusion  to  papal  cases,  but  includes  them  all  among  epis 
copal  ;  apparently,  as  St.  Ramon  had  stated,  it  was  still  a  matter 
wholly  within  the  discretion  of  the  bishop,  and  the  same  conclusion 
may  be  drawn  from  the  silence  of  other  councils  of  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  centuries  when  treating  of  reserved  cases.3  Indeed, 
Astesanus,  after  enumerating  the  episcopal  cases,  gives  no  list  of 
papal  ones,  but  says  that  the  bishops  send  some  of  their  own  to 
Home,  when  they  are  especially  grave,  in  order  to  strike  terror,  but 
this  is  discretional  and  not  a  matter  of  law,4  and  Durand  of  S.  Pour- 
£ain  explains  that  Rome  never  reserved  the  direct  absolution  of  any 
sins,  but  only  the  removal  of  certain  excommunications  and  the 
granting  of  certain  dispensations,  commutations  of  vows  and  the 
like.5  Meanwhile,  in  1312,  the  council  of  Vienne  had  decreed  three 
new  papal  reserved  cases  when  committed  by  friars — administering 
sacraments,  other  than  penitence,  without  the  consent  of  the  parish 
priest,  illegally  absolving  excommunicates,  and  undertaking  to  ab 
solve  a  cidpa  et  a  pcena.6  Presumably  the  fact  that  all  papal  cases 
are  "censures"7 — that  is,  excommunications,  absolution  from  which 


1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5. 

2  Cap.  1  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  vi.     This  seems  to  be  still  in  force 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  for  Manuel  Sa  (Aphor.  Confessar.  s.  v.  Excom.  reser. 
$  11)  explains  that  it  does  not  apply  to  kings,  nor  to  those  dying  among  the 
infidels,  nor  to  anatomical  pursuits. 

3  Statut.  Eccles.  Camerac.  ann.  1300-1310  (Hartzheim  IV.  68).— Epist.  Synod 
Guillel.  Cadurcens.  circa  1325,  cap.  14  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  693).— Statut. 
Johann.  Nannetens.  ann.  1389,  cap.  13  (Ibid.  pp.  985-6). — C.  Ambianens.  ann. 
1454,  cap.  5  H  (Gousset,  Actes,  etc.  II.  709-11).— C.  Tornacens.  ann.   1481, 
cap.  4  (Ibid.  pp.  752-3). 

Yet,  in  1409,  we  find  Henry,  Bishop  of  Nantes,  ordering  all  parish  priests  to 
have  written  lists  of  both  papal  and  episcopal  cases  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  994). 

4  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxix.  Q  3. 

5  Durand.  de  S.  Porcian.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  15. 

6  Cap.  1,  Clement.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  vii. 

7  B.  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  110&. — Henriquez  Sumnise  Theol.  Moral.  Lib. 
VI.  cap.  xiv.  n.  1. — Jacobi  a  Graffiis  Practica  Casuum  Eeserv.  Lib.  I,  cap.  iv. 


, 


PAPAL  CASES.  325 


a  condition  precedent  to  sacramental  absolution — i  .ay  partly  ex 
plain  this  confusion,  but  evidently  the  whole  subj  .ot  was  as  yet 
imperfectly  systematized. 

It  came  up  for  consideration  at  the  council  of  Constance,  in  1414, 
where  a  Collegium  Reformatorium  was  appointed  to  draft  a  project  of 
reform.  In  this  body  it  was  proposed  to  commit  these  cases  to  the 
bishops  or  other  official  in  the  dioceses,  but,  after  some  debate  as  to 
secret  sins,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  public  cases  should  be  left 
to  the  Holy  See.1  The  list  of  papal  cases  was  growing  through  the 
operation  of  the  bull  in  Coena  Domini,  or  the  anathema  launched  by 
the  pope  on  certain  solemnities  at  sinners  of  sundry  kinds.  The 
custom  had  commenced  in  the  thirteenth  century  under  Gregory  IX. 
for  the  destruction  of  heresy,  and  had  gradually  grown  and  become 
an  annual  ceremony,  embracing  a  considerable  variety  of  offences 
specially  obnoxious  to  the  Holy  See.  Although,  in  the  earlier  for 
mulas,  there  is  no  special  reservation  of  absolution  to  the  pope,  this 
was  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course,  and,  in  1364,  Urban  V.,  referring 
to  the  earlier  bulls,  places  the  offences  therein  enumerated  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  his  chamberlain.2  When  thus,  about  1450,  St. 
Antonino  enumerates  thirty-six  papal  cases,  they  are  nearly  all  sins 
comprised  in  these  bulls.3  There  was  a  speculative  value  in  this, 
which  the  curia  was  not  slow  in  improving,  for  the  crusading  and 
Jubilee  indulgences  contained  a  clause  empowering  the  purchaser  to 
select  a  confessor  who  could  absolve  him  for  these  cases,  and  in  addi 
tion  confessional  letters  or  Beiehtbriefe  were  issued,  granting  special 
faculties  for  them.  In  1466  Paul  II.  made  a  rule  in  his  chancery, 
which,  in  1469,  was  published  in  his  bull  Etsi  Dominici  Gregis, 
wherein,  to  diminish  the  facility  of  pardon  that  renders  the  faithful 
more  prone  to  sin,  he  declares  that  no  faculties  heretofore  granted 
shall  avail  to  absolve  for  sins  reserved  to  the  Holy  See,  namely,  in 
fringements  on  ecclesiastical  liberties,  violation  of  papal  interdict, 
heresy,  conspiracy,  rebellion  or  other  offence  against  the  person  or 


Reg.  5.— Corella,  Praxis  Confess.  P.  i.  Tract,  xi.  §  1,  n.  1.— Th.  ex  Charmes 
Theol.  Univ.  Dissert,  v.  cap.  vi.  Q.  4. 

1  Reformatorii  Protocollum,  cap.  30  (Von  der  Hardt,  I.  x.  631). 

2  Raynaldi  Annal.  ann.  1220  n.  23;  ann.  1229  n.  37-41.— Nich.  PP.  HI. 
Bull.  Noverit  universitas,  1280  (Bullaritim,  I.  156).— Urban!  PP.  V.  Bull.  Apos- 
tolatus,  1364  (Ibid.  p.  261). 

3  S.  Antonini  Sumnia  Confessionum,  fol.  14-15. 


326  RESERVED  CASES. 

state  of  the  L  ope,  presbytericide,  personal  offence  of  a  bishop  or 
other  prelate,  .'uvasion  or  plunder  of  any  State  subject  directly  or 
indirectly  to  the  Holy  See,  assault  on  pilgrims  coming  to  Rome, 
prohibition  of  appeals  to  the  curia,  conveying  arms  or  prohibited 
wares  to  the  infidel,  the  imposition  of  new  burdens  on  churches  or 
clerics,  simony  in  obtaining  orders  or  benefices,  and  generally  all 
the  cases  contained  in  the  bull  in  Ccena  Domini.  Special  licence  was 
in  future  to  be  required  in  all  these  cases,  and  all  general  commissions 
were  declared  not  to  cover  them.1  Having  thus  cleared  the  market, 
there  must  have  sprung  up  a  lively  demand  for  these  special  licences, 
for,  in  1478,  Sixtus  IV.  tried  another  similar  stroke  of  trade.  He 
deplored  the  stimulus  to  evil  and  the  contempt  for  the  power  of  the 
keys  which  he  had  caused  by  the  reckless  issue  of  indulgences, 
enabling  the  purchaser  to  select  a  confessor  who  could  absolve  him 
from  reserved  sins  once  in  life  and  once  in  articulo  mortis,  and  from 
other  sins  as  often  as  required,  thus  exposing  him  to  no  little  danger 
of  perdition.  To  remedy  this  he  repeats  the  enumeration  of  re 
served  sins  made  by  Paul  II.,  and  declares  that  all  absolution  of 
them  by  virtue  of  his  letters  shall  be  invalid,  and  any  confessor 
granting  it  shall  be  excommunicated,  nor  shall  any  future  letters  be 
held  to  convey  such  power  unless  they  contain  a  clause  derogatory 
of  the  present  constitution.2  Thus  the  market  was  cleared  a  second 
time,  and  the  derogatory  clause  was  easily  inserted  in  the  subsequent 
issue.  These  Beichtbriefe,  authorizing  absolution  for  all  papal  re 
served  cases,  were  sold  in  Germany  for  a  quarter  of  a  gulden  apiece,3 
and  it  is  no  wonder  that  Dr.  Eck,  at  the  Leipzig  disputation  of 
1519,  admitted  that  he  agreed  with  Gerson  at  the  council  of  Con 
stance  in  desiring  a  limitation  put  on  the  reservation  of  cases  to  the 
Holy  See.4 

1  Cap.  3  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  ix.    The  reservation  of  heresy  to  the 
pope  shows  the  progress  of  the  triumph  of  the  Holy  See  over  the  episcopate, 
for  this  had,  from  time  immemorial,  been  specially  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  bishops. 

2  Cap.  5  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  V.  Tit.  ix. 

3  Grone,  Tetzel  und  Luther,  p.  196. 

4  Lutheri  Opp.  Jense,  1564,  I.  256a. 

As  the  progress  of  the  Lutheran  heresy  grew  alarming,  Clement  VII.,  in 
1526,  granted  a  faculty  to  all  provincials  and  ministers  of  the  Observantine 
Franciscans  empowering  them  to  absolve  all  Lutherans  seeking  to  return  to 
the  Church,  notwithstanding  all  previous  constitutions  and  especially  those  of 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  TRENT  AND  THE  PAPACY.  327 

At  the  council  of  Trent,  in  1563,  the  bishops  made  an  effort  to 
withstand  these  papal  encroachments  by  defining  that  the  reservation 
should  be  limited  to  public  offences,  and  that  in  all  secret  sins,  even 
in  those  reserved  to  the  pope,  the  bishop  should  have  power  to 
absolve  his  subjects  in  the  forum  of  conscience,  either  personally  or 
by  deputy,  except  that  in  cases  of  heresy  he  must  act  personally.1 
Though  the  council  was  under  the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  its  decrees  were  promptly  confirmed  in  January,  1564,  by 
Pius  IV.,  his  imperious  successor,  St.  Pius  V.,  was  not  disposed  to 
submit  to  this  invasion  of  the  papal  prerogative,  and  in  publishing 
the  bull  in  Cosna  Domini  he  not  only  retained  the  clause  reserving 
to  the  pope  the  exclusive  right  of  absolution,  but  added  to  it  the 
defiant  phrase  "  nor  under  pretext  of  any  faculties  conferred  by  the 
decrees  of  any  council,  by  word,  by  letter,  or  by  other  writing,"  a 
formula  which  was  rigidly  maintained  by  his  successors.  As  the 
council  of  Trent  was  the  only  one  which  had  conceded  to  bishops 
this  faculty  of  absolution,  this  clause  was  understood  to  be  in  direct 
derogation  of  it,  and  was  so  declared  by  Pius  V.,  Gregory  XIII.,  and 
Clement  VIII.,  and  repeatedly  by  the  Congregation  of  the  Council, 
August  21,  1609,  July  7,  1617,  and  November  5,  1644.2  The  issue 
thus  raised  as  to  the  supremacy  of  pope  or  council  was  a  knotty 


Leo  X.— Bulario  del  Orden  de  Santiago,  I.  97  (Archivo  Historico  National  de 
Espana). 

1  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xxiv.  De  Reform,  cap.  6.     Of  course  a  debate  arose  as 
to  the  definition  of  casus  occultus.    Some  held  that  the  test  was  whether  it 
could  be  proved  or  not  in  a  court  of  justice;  others  that  it  was  occult  if  it 
was  not  notorious  to  the  whole  community,  though  it  might  be  known  to  three 
or  four  or  seven  or  eight  persons,  and  could  be  judicially  proved.     The  Con 
gregation  of  the  Council  of  Trent  decided  rather  vaguely  that  when  the  sin  is 
known  to  two  persons  the  penitent's  conscience  is  not  rendered  safe  by  the 
episcopal  absolution,  because  a  crime   can  be  proved  by  two  witnesses. — 
Cabrini  Elucidarium  Casuum  Reservator.  P.  I.  Resol.  cxi.— C.  A.  Thesauri  de 
Poenis  Ecclesiast.  P.  I.  cap.  xxi  — Barbosa  Summa  Apostol.  Decis  s.  v.  Abso- 
lutio  n.  10. 

There  was  also  a  fine  distinction  drawn  between  the  forum  of  conscience  and 
forum  of  penitence. — Cabrini,  Resol.  cxii. 

2  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  Art.  1.— Barbosa  Summa  Apost. 
Decis.  s.  v.  Absolvere  n.  3,  4.— C.  A.  Thesauri  de  Poenis  Ecclesiast.  p.  335.     In 
1601  and  1602  Clement  VIII.  also  forbade  all  priests  to  absolve  for  the  Oena 
Domini  cases.— Jac.  a  Graffiis   Practica   Casuum   Reservat.  Lib.   I.   cap.  4, 
Reg.  18. 


328  RESERVED  CASES. 

point  concerning  which  the  doctors  differed,  some  inclining  to  one 
side  and  some  to  the  other,  and  some  discreetly  avoiding  committal.1 
Finally  an  assertion  became  current  that  the  cardinals  in  consistory, 
on  July  18,  1619,  had  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  council  of  Trent 
and  the  episcopal  power,  an  assertion  which  Alexander  VII.  con 
demned  in  1665.2  The  condemnation  was  cleverly  drawn  so  as  only 
by  implication  to  condemn  the  episcopal  claim,  and  the  controversy 
continued,  the  episcopal  partisans  asserting  that  it  did  not  affect  the 
main  question,  and  the  papalists  arguing  that  if  it  did  not  do  so 
there  would  have  been  no  use  in  uttering  it ;  that  treated  by  the 
rules  of  probabilism  it  showed  that  the  probability  of  the  episcopal 
claims  had  been  diminished  by  it  and  were  consequently  less  worthy 
of  respect  in  practice.3  Thus  the  wrangle  went  on.  In  1705 
Wigandt  asserts  absolutely  the  validity  of  the  Tridentine  decree 
and  makes  no  allusion  to  the  papal  attempts  to  override  it.4  Yet  the 
popes  continued  to  publish  the  bull  in  Coena  Domini  with  the  de 
rogatory  clause,  and  Ferraris  assumes  that  it  is  effective.5  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Gallican  Church  asserted  the  power  of  the  bishops 
to  define  and  limit  the  number  of  papal  reserved  cases ;  this  varied 
in  the'different  dioceses,  and  in  that  of  Paris  only  eight  were  recog 
nized.6  With  the  discontinuance  of  the  annual  publication  of  the 
Coena  Domini  bull,  in  1773,  by  Clement  XIV.,  the  immediate  ques 
tion  ceased  to  be  discussed,  but  that  the  papacy,  with  the  disappear 
ance  of  the  Gallican  pretensions,  has  been  able  to  assert  its  supremacy 
is  seen  by  the  revision  of  the  whole  subject  of  censures  latae,  sententice 
made  by  Pius  IX.  in  1869,  wherein  he  specifies  thirteen  offences, 
the  absolution  of  which  is  specially  reserved  to  the  Holy  See,  seven 
others  simply  so  reserved,  three  reserved  to  bishops,  and  four  (to 
gether  with  nine  prescribed  by  the  council  of  Trent)  which  are  not 

1  Em.  Sa  Aphorism!   Confessar.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  4.— Summa   Diana  s.  v. 
Absolutio  a  reservatis  n.  3. — Henriquez  Surnmae  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv. 
n.  7. — Jacobi  a  Graffiis  Practica  Casuurn  Keservat.  Lib.  I.  cap.  1,  n.   15. — 
Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  37.— Gobat  Alphab- 
Confessar.  n.  370. 

2  Alex.  PP.  vii.  Decret.  1665,  Prop.  3. 

Corella  Praxis  Confessionalis  P.  I.  Tract.  1,  cap.  1.— Viva  Trutina  Theol. 
in  Prop.  3  Alexandri  PP.  VII. 

4  Wigandt  Tribunal  Confessar.  Tract,  xiv.  Exam.  ii.  n.  71. 

5  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere,  Art.  I.  n.  4. 

6  Hericourt,  Loix  ecclesiastiques  de  France,  T.  II.  p.  14. 


INCONGRUITIES.  329 

subject  to  -any  reservation.  Not  only  is  every  one  prohibited  from 
absolving  for  those  specially  reserved,  but  any  one  attempting  it 
under  any  pretext  whatever  thereby  falls  under  excommunication 
reserved  to  the  pope,  and  no  distinction  is  recognized  between  public 
and  secret  sins.1 

A  system  so  artificial  and  so  complicated  inevitably  gave  rise  to  a 
large  number  of  doubtful  and  puzzling  questions,  especially  in  the 
treatment  of  episcopal  cases  involving  sacramental  absolution.  In 
genious  as  were  the  intellects  which  evolved  the  sacramental  theory 
they  were  unable  to  make  it  fit  at  all  points  with  the  customs  that 
had  become  traditional,  and  especially  with  the  control  which  the 
bishops  had  always  exercised  over  the  reconciliation  of  sinners,  a 
control  which  they  wTere  not  willing  to  abandon.  The  doctrine  ot 
jurisdiction,  however  astutely  thought  out  and  applied,  removed 
some  of  the  incongruities  but  not  all.  It  was  self-evident  that  there 
could  be  no  partial  absolution ;  a  man  must  be  in  a  state  of  grace  or 
of  sin  ;  he  cannot  be  pardoned  for  one  sin  and  not  for  all ;  he  cannot 
at  the  same  time  be  a  friend  and  an  enemy  of  God.  It  was,  more 
over,  a  corollary  from  this  and  an  accepted  rule  that  a  confession  to 
be  valid  must  be  complete ;  the  confessio  dimidiata,  or  imperfect  con 
fession,  is  invalid.  It  was  also  a  rule  that  no  man  is  to  be  obliged 


1  Pii  PP.  IX.  Bull.  Apostolicce  Sedis,  12  Oct.  1869. 

There  is  no  penalty  for  absolving  knowingly  for  cases  simply  reserved  to  the 
Holy  See  or  for  those  reserved  to  bishops.— Varceno  Compend.  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  xvni.  cap.  vi.  art.  4. 

The  bull  of  Pius  IX.  shows  a  great  reduction  and  simplification  of  censures. 
In  1578,  Saulius  enumerates  seventy-seven  reserved  papal  cases;  thirty-six 
from  the  Oorpm  Juris  and  forty-one  from  the  bull  in  Ccena  Domini  (Saulii 
Comment,  in  Savonarolse  Confessionale,  fol.  9-13).  In  1692,  Cabrino  gives  a 
list  of  twenty  from  the  Ccena  Domini  and  eighty-two  from  the  Corpus  Juris 
and  papal  decrees  (Elucidar.  Casuum  Keservat.  pp.  175-9),  and  not  long  after 
wards  Noel  Alexandre  catalogues  216  papal  cases,  besides  thirty-four  some 
times  reserved  to  the  pope  and  sometimes  to  bishops  (Summae  Alexandrinse 
P.  II.  n.  51-300). 

Yet  the  theologians  had  little  scruple  in  arguing  away  the  papal  reservations 
under  the  convenient  plea  of  ignorance  more  or  less  invincible.  This  is  espe 
cially  manifested  in  the  matter  of  duels,  any  participation  in  which  was  re 
served  by  Clement  VIII.,  in  1592,  by  the  bull  Illius  vices,  yet  for  which  no  one 
had  any  trouble  in  obtaining  absolution  from  the  local  clergy.— Stadler,  S.  J. 
Tract,  de  Duello,  cap.  vm.  art.  ii.  \  6  (Ingolstadtii,  1751). 


330  RESERVED  CASES. 

to  confess  the  same  sin  twice,  while  sacramental  confession  must  be 
made  to  the  absolver,  as  otherwise  the  sacrament  is  incomplete,  and 
it  cannot  be  divided.1  Now  all  these  inviolable  principles  were  in 
compatible  with  the  practical  treatment  of  a  penitent  guilty  of  both 
reserved  and  unreserved  sins.  At  first  the  somewhat  crude  expe 
dient  was  adopted  of  requiring  the  priest  to  whom  the  confession  was 
made  to  bring  the  sinner  to  the  bishop,  or  send  him  with  letters 
detailing  his  sins  and  all  their  circumstances.2  The  former  expedient 
entailed  a  labor  on  the  priest  which  he  was  not  likely  to  submit  to ; 
the  latter  was  a  violation  of  the  seal  of  the  confessional,  which  was 
beginning  to  be  enforced,  and  yet  it  remained  in  use  for  centuries. 
Thus  the  solution,  however  illogical,  generally  adopted  of  the  diffi 
culty,  lay  in  requiring  the  penitent  to  confess  in  full  to  his  parish 
priest,  receive  absolution  for  such  sins  as  were  not  reserved,  and 
then  be  dispatched  to  the  bishop  to  be  absolved  for  the  rest,  with 
a  letter,  if  he  was  too  simple  to  explain  the  matter.3  Yet  this  was 
not  satisfactory  in  principle  or  wholly  settled  in  practice,  and  Aste- 
sanus  discusses  at  much  length  whether  the  first  confession  should 
be  made  to  the  priest  and  the  second  to  the  bishop,  or  vice  versa, 
whether  both  confessions  should  be  full  or  partial,  whether  both 
bishop  and  priest  should  impose  penance  and  both  absolve,  in  a 
manner  to  show  how  difficult  and  doubtful  were  the  questions  in 
volved.4  Pierre  de  la  Palu  describes  four  methods ;  he  tells  us  that 


1  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5 ;  Q.  iii.  Art.  3.— 
P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xv.  I  3.— Deer.  Unionis  in  Concil.  Florent. 
ann.  1439. 

2  Constitt.  K.  Poore  Episc.  Sarum  ann.  1217,  cap.  29;  Constitt.  S.  Edmund. 
Cantuarens.  ann.  1236,  cap.  20;   Concil.  Anglican,  sine  data  (Harduin.  VII. 
97,  271,  308). 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in.  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  iii.  Art.  4  ad  4. — Jo.  Friburgens. 
Summse  Confessar.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  73  — Summa  Pisanella.  s.  v.  Con 
fessor  i.  I  2.— S.   Antonini    Confessionale    fol.   36,   686.— Bart,   de   Ghaimis 
Interrog.  fol.  1076. — Savonarolse  Confessionale  fol.  63a. 

The  formula  of  letter  as  given  by  St.  Antonino  and  Bart,  de  Chaimis  shows 
us  what  was  currently  used  towards  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century — "  Latorem 
vel  latricem  pro  homicidio  vel  incestu  in  tali  grado  et  hujusmodi  commisso 
absolvendum  vestrse  paternitati  transmitto  ut  absolutionis  beneficio  imponendo 
et  ei  poenitentiam  salutarem  injungendo  ipsum  sanctse  ecclesise  reconcilietis." 

It  will  be  seen  how  complete  in  this  was  the  disregard  of  the  seal  of  con 
fession. 

4  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xviii. 


INCONGRUITIES. 


331 


the  one  detailed  above  was  that  commonly  practised,  and  he  labors 
exhaustively  to  prove  that  the  two  absolutions  are  in  fact  only  one.1 
Difficult  as  it  was  to  devise  a  method  of  procedure,  it  was  still  more 
difficult  to  frame  a  line  of  argument  that  would  reconcile  any  of 
them  to  the  sacramental  theory.  Durand  de  St.  Pour^ain  freely 
admits  the  impossibility  of  this ;  he  presents  and  discusses  four  dif 
ferent  solutions  and  then  abandons  the  attempt  in  despair,  saying 
that  he  is  unable  to  explain  it,  for  confession  and  absolution  cannot 
be  divided  and  parcelled  out.2  One  solution  that  found  consider 
able  favor  was  rather  damaging  to  the  power  of  the  keys ;  it  was 
that  all  the  sins  were  remitted  by  God  through  the  preceding  con 
trition,  and  that  the  successive  absolutions  of  priest  and  bishop  were 
merely  reconciliations  to  the  Church,  which  could  be  divided.3 
Angiolo  da  Chivasso  in  his  discussion  of  the  question  only  shows 
how  incapable  of  resolution  it  was,  and  how  its  debate  by  the  doctors 
only  tangled  it  up  more  inextricably.4  Prierias  quotes  approvingly 
the  suggestion  of  Henry  of  Ghent  that  the  superior,  if  first  confessed 
to,  does  not  absolve  but  only  releases  from  the  obligation  of  confess 
ing  to  him;  if  the  inferior  is  first  confessed  to,  he  absolves  from  all, 
but  not  from  the  obligation  of  confessing  to  the  superior.5 

The  perplexity  did  not  diminish  with  time.  Domingo  Soto  dwells 
on  the  impropriety  of  dividing  the  confession  and  alludes  to  the 
diversity  of  opinion  among  the  doctors  as  to  the  proper  method  to 
be  pursued.  The  usual  course,  he  says,  is  to  make  a  full  confession 
to  the  priest,  who  absolves  for  what  he  can  and  sends  the  penitent  to 
the  bishop  for  the  rest,  but  whether  he  is  then  to  make  a  second  full 
confession  is  doubtful.  Yet  a  better  course  is  first  to  confess  the 
reserved  sins  to  the  bishop,  accept  penance,  and  then  make  full  con 
fession  to  the  priest  and  obtain  absolution  for  all.6  The  council  ot 
Trent  cautiously  abstained  from  settling  any  of  the  doctrinal  points 
involved  and  contented  itself  with  telling  priests  that,  as  they  can  do 


1  P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  5,  Art.  1.     He  states  that  this 
was  the  custom  of  the  Papal  Penitentiary,  to  absolve  for  the  graver  mortal 
sins  and  send  the  penitent  home  for  absolution  from  the  rest. 

2  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  15. 

3  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  1,  Art.  3,  Dub.  2. 
*  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  v.  \\  9,  10. 

5  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  I.  §  20. 

6  Dom.  Soto  Comment,  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5. 


332  RESERVED  CASES. 

nothing  with  reserved  cases,  they  must  labor  to  send  penitents  to  their 
superiors  for  absolution,  but  it  did  not  even  say  whether  the  whole 
confession  is  to  be  repeated  or  not  to  the  latter.1  Bartolome"  de 
Medina  recommends  that  either  the  sinner  or  the  priest  should  apply 
to  the  bishop  for  a  faculty ;  if  the  bishop  refuses,  then  the  sinner 
should  confess  the  reserved  case  to  him  and  accept  penance,  getting 
a  faculty  for  the  priest  to  whom  he  then  makes  full  confession  and 
receives  full  absolution.2  This  preliminary  recourse  to  the  bishop 
seems  to  have  been  the  ruling  custom  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  as  it  is  recommended  by  both  Saulius  and  Manuel  Sa,  though 
the  latter  asserts  unqualifiedly  that  the  sinner  can  divide  his  confes 
sion  and  receive  absolution  for  each  portion  separately,  in  which  he 
is  supported  by  Escobar.3  On  the  other  hand,  Chiericato  and  Viva 
declare  with  equal  positiveness  that  if  confession  is  made  to  the 
bishop  he  must  give  complete  absolution  ;  he  cannot  absolve  for  part 
and  send  the  sinner  to  his  confessor  for  the  rest,  nor  can  the  confessor 
absolve  him  for  the  unreserved  sins  and  send  him  to  the  bishop  for 
the  reserved  ones.  Tournely  only  states  the  conflicting  opinions,  and 
does  not  venture  to  decide  the  question.  Noel  Alexandre  says  that 
most  theologians  hold  that  the  two  absolutions  are  morally  one,  but 
he  does  not  see  how  a  man  can  be  at  the  same  time  a  friend  and  an 
enemy  of  God.  Habert  advises  the  priest  not  to  absolve,  but  to  send 
the  penitent  to  the  bishop  for  absolution  for  all  his  sins.4 

In  fact,  how  absolutely  impossible  it  has  proved  to  arrive  at  any 
certainty  in  a  matter  where  man  seeks  arbitrarily  to  prescribe  laws 
for  the  infinite,  is  seen  in  Liguori's  discussion  of  it  He  tells  us 
that  if  a  man  has  mortal  sins,  both  reserved  and  unreserved,  it  is  a 
disputed  point  whether  he  must  confess  before  receiving  the  Eucharist. 


1  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  cap.  vii. 

2  Bart,  a  Medina  Instruct.  Confessar.  Lib.  II.  cap.  1. 

3  Saulii  Comment,  in  Savonarolse  Confessionale  fol.  846.— Em.  Sa  Aphor. 
Confessar.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  24,  25.— Escobar.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Exam, 
iv.  cap.  5,  n.  31. 

4  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xxm.  n.  15,  16;  XLV.  n.  14.  — Viva  Cursus 
Theol.  Moral.  P.  VI.  Q.  5,  Art.  7,  n.  6.— Tournely  de  Sacr.  Poenit.  Q.  vi.  Art. 
iv.— Summa3  Alexandrinse  P.  I.  n.  463.— Habert  Praxis  Sacr.  Poanit.  Tract  I. 
cap.  1,  n.  12. 

For  further  questions  and  details  concerning  these  points  see  Henriquez 
Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  xv.  n.  4,  5. — Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib. 
V.  Tract,  vi.  c.  12,  n.  7,  8. 


INDIRECT  ABSOLUTION.  333 

A  host  of  great  authorities  hold  that  he  Deed  not,  if  he  has  contri 
tion,  because  the  confession  to  a  priest  must  be  invalid,  for  as  absolu 
tion  cannot  be  divided,  neither  can  confession.  The  other  opinion, 
that  he  must  confess,  is  more  common  and  more  probable,  because  as 
there  is  a  divine  precept  that  confession  must  precede  communion, 
there  should  be  confession  formaliter  Integra  if  it  cannot  be  materia- 
liter  Integra.  But  there  is  also  a  disputed  question  whether,  in  such 
confession,  the  reserved  sins  should  be  included  as  well  as  the  unre 
served  ones.  The  common  opinion  is  in  the  affirmative,  but  the 
negative  is  equally  and  even  more  probable,  as  otherwise  he  would 
have  to  confess  the  same  sins  twice,  which  no  one  is  required  to  do, 
nor  is  any  one  required  to  confess  sins  to  one  who  has  not  jurisdic 
tion  over  them.1  Thus,  after  struggling  with  the  problem  for  six 
hundred  years  the  Church  is  still  in  the  Serbonian  bog  of  insoluble 
doubt. 

These  remarks  of  Liguori  point  to  one  of  the  most  perplexing 
aspects  of  the  question,  for  though  reserved  cases  may  give  abundant 
annoyance  to  a  layman  he  can  generally  afford  to  wait,  while  a  priest 
obliged  to  celebrate  mass  must  act  at  once  or  create  "  scandal "  by 
admitting  his  unfitness.  Anything  is  preferable  to  this,  and  an 
ingenious  evasion  of  the  difficulty  has  been  devised  by  the  discovery 
of  what  is  known  as  indirect  absolution.  Thus,  if  the  bishop  hears 
the  sinner  first,  he  absolves  directly  for  the  reserved  sins  and  indirectly 
for  the  unreserved ;  if  the  first  confession  is  made  to  the  priest  he 
absolves  directly  for  what  is  under  his  jurisdiction  and  indirectly  for 
the  rest.  It  is  true  that  in  the  latter  case  the  sinner  is  required  sub 
sequently  to  procure  full  absolution  from  one  having  authority,  but 
it  answers  for  the  moment  and  serves  the  purpose  of  a  guilty  priest 
who  has  a  confessor  at  hand  in  the  sacristy.  Liguori  explains  that 
the  sinner  must  confess  other  mortal  sins  not  reserved,  or  if  he  has 
none,  then  some  venial  sins  or  else  some  old  mortal  ones  previously 
remitted,  when,  in  receiving  absolution  for  them,  the  reserved  sin  is 
indirectly  absolved,  though  he  must  subsequently  confess  it  to  one 
having  jurisdiction,  nor  do  the  moralists  in  recommending  this  course 
seem  to  recognize  the  incongruity  of  thus  creating  an  artificial  state 
of  grace,  sufficient  for  receiving  and  administering  the  sacraments, 
while  yet  there  is  a  mortal  sin  awaiting  absolution.  It  is  not  easy  to 


1  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  265. 


334  RESERVED  CASES. 

conceive  how  men  who  devise  and  suggest  such  practices  can  have 
any  real  belief  in  the  sacredness  and  efficiency  of  the  sacraments,  and 
yet  this  course  is  approved  by  Benedict  XIV.1  One  is  tempted  to 
inquire  whether  they  believe  that  it  was  for  such  ends  that  Christ 
bestowed  on  the  apostles  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell. 

While  thus  the  question  of  reserved  sins  is  of  moment  to  priests 
compelled  to  celebrate,  it  has  lost  much  of  its  importance  in  modern 
times  as  regards  the  laity.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  bishop 
cannot  absolve  for  a  part  and  send  the  penitent  to  his  confessor  for 
the  rest,  and  it  is  held  that  the  confessor  should  absolve  for  what  he 
can  and  send  him  for  reserved  sins  to  one  having  a  faculty  or  apply 
for  one  himself.2  It  is  true  that  this  does  not  solve  the  doctrinal 
difficulties  involved,  but  as  they  have  proved  themselves  insoluble 
they  are  best  passed  over  in  silence.  The  easiest  mode  of  cutting  the 
Gordian  knot  is  for  the  bishop  to  grant  faculties  for  the  absolution  of 
reserved  cases,  and  the  only  objection  to  it  is  that  it  is  practically  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  impracticability  of  the  time-honored  system 
which  grew  up  as  a  compromise  in  the  struggle  of  bishop  and  priest 
for  control  over  the  confessional.  Thus  the  general  recommendation 
to  confessors  called  upon  to  deal  with  a  reserved  case  is  to  apply  to 
the  bishop  for  a  faculty  to  absolve  for  it,  which  bishops  are  advised 
to  grant  with  facility  and  gratuitously — in  fact,  the  bishop  commits 
sin  who  refuses,  especially  if  he  knows  that  the  penitent  cannot  be 
induced  to  come  to  him.3  We  have  seen  that  during  the  middle  ages 


1  Eisengrein   Confessionale   Cap.   iii.   Q.  36    (Ingolstadii,   1577).— Layman 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  12,  n.  7,  8.— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessor,  n. 
120,  369.— Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuum  Reservat.  P.  i.  Eesol.  xv.— Benzi  Praxis 
Trib.  Conscientia?  Disput.  I.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  Par.  2,  n.  12.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  585.— Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  vi. 
Q.  4.— Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Cas.  Conscient.  Oct.  1736,  cas.  3. 

Similar  in  spirit  is  the  trick  recommended  to  a  confessor  who  has  a  reserved 
sin  and  desires  to  avoid  the  shame  of  appearing  before  the  bishop.  He  is  told 
to  apply  for  a  faculty  in  blank  to  absolve  for  a  reserved  case,  and  then,  if  his 
name  does  not  appear  in  it,  he  can  get  himself  absolved  by  any  other  confessor. 
— Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLV.  n.  15.— Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuum  Eeservat.  P. 
i.  Resol.  xx. 

2  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvui.  cap.  vi.  Art.  4. 

3  S.  Antonini  Confessionale,  fol.  36.- Savonarola  Confessionale  fol.  63a.— 
Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist,  xvin.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5.— Escobar  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  vir.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  31.— Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuum  Eeservat.  P.  i. 


DELEGATES  AND  FACULTIES.  335 

it  was  customary  in  some  dioceses  for  the  bishop  to  constitute  dele 
gates  in  many  places,  so  that  penitents  could  have  easy  access  to 
them,  and  this  practice  has  been  continued.  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  thus 
empowered  all  his  vicarj  foranei,  who  were  further  authorized  to 
subdelegate  their  powers  to  proper  persons,  and  when  it  was  incon 
venient  to  send  penitents  to  them,  the  confessors  were  invited  to 
apply  for  special  faculties.1  In  1601  the  Sacred  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars  instructed  bishops  thus  to  provide  for  the  con 
venience  of  their  people.2  That  this  was  largely  obeyed  may  be 
assumed  from  the  complaint  of  the  Jansenist  Van  Espen,  about 
1700,  that  the  salutary  influence  of  reserved  cases  in  repressing 
serious  sin  is  so  largely  neutralized  in  many  places  by  the  careless 
ness  of  bishops  in  granting  faculties  to  improper  persons.3  While 
thus  reducing  the  hardships  attendant  on  the  reservation  of  cases  in  a 
manner  which  demonstrates  its  conviction  of  the  uselessness  of  the 
system,  the  Church  has  maintained  the  principle,  as  it  is  bound  to  do 
under  the  Tridentine  decree,  and  we  have  seen  how  decisively  Pius 
VI.,  in  the  constitution  Audorem  fidei,  condemned  its  proposed 
abandonment  in  the  Tuscan  reforms  of  the  Grand  Duke  Leopold. 


Resol.  xxxvi.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  586.— Kenrick 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  n.  166. 

The  modern  form  of  application  for  a  faculty  is — 

"  Illustrissime  ac  Reverendissime  Domine, 

Titius  (vel  Titia)  incidit  in  casum  reservatum  in  Tabella  Dioscesana  sub  N. 
Facti  ipsum  (vel  ipsam)  poenitet  et  humiliter  petit  absolvi. 

Faveat  rescriptum  dirigere  ad  me  confessarium, 

Humilissimum  Servum  N.N." 

The  confessor  signs  his  name  and  gives  a  fictitious  one  for  the  penitent.  The 
sin  is  not  described,  but  is  designated  by  the  number  which  it  bears  in  the  table 
of  cases  for  the  diocese.  The  correspondence  is  to  be  burnt. — Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  vi.  Art.  4. 

1  S.  Carol.  Borrom.  Instructio  (Ed.  1676,  p.  57). 

2  Jac.  a  Graffiis  Pract.  Casuuin  Reservat.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iii.  n.  5.— Clericati  de 
Poenitent.  Decis.  XLV.  n.  13.     Superiors  of  religious  orders  are  likewise  required 
to  make  similar  provision  for  the  local  absolution  of  sins  reserved  within  the 
Order  (Bizzarri  Collectanea  Sacr.  Cong.  Episc.  et  Regular,  pp.  275,  916).     In 
1761  the  General  Minister  of  the  Capuchins  ordered  that  in  each  province  or 
convent  there  shall  be  at  least  two  penitentiaries  with  faculties  for  reserved 
cases  (Bern,  a  Bononia  Man.  Confessar.  Ord.  Capuccin.  cap.  vi.  \  3). 

3  Van  Espen  Jur.  Eccles.  P.  n.  Tit.  vi.  cap.  7,  n.  25. 


336  RESERVED  CASES. 

A  further  alleviation  of  the  rigor  of  the  system  was  granted  in  the 
admission  of  lawful  impediments  which  may  prevent  the  sinner  from 
seeking  absolution  at  the  hands  of  the  pope.  This  commenced  almost 
as  soon  as  papal  reservation  was  established.  It  was  manifestly  im 
possible  in  many  cases  for  the  sinner  to  make  the  pilgrimage  to  Rome, 
and,  from  the  time  of  Alexander  III.  onward,  disabilities  of  many 
kinds  were  admitted  to  release  him  from  its  performance  and  to 
authorize  his  transfer  to  the  bishop.  Sickness,  penury,  age,  youth, 
sex,  danger,  any  impediment  in  fact,  was  thus  allowed  to  justify  the 
local  absolution  of  those  unable  to  apply  in  person  to  the  pope,  though 
they  were  obliged  to  promise  or  to  give  security  to  do  so  as  soon  as 
the  impediment,  if  a  temporary  one,  should  disappear — except  in  the 
case  of  youth — under  penalty  of  the  revival  of  the  censure.1  Whether, 
under  the  circumstances,  priests  can  absolve  as  well  as  bishops  is  a 
question  which  has  excited  much  debate.  Aquinas  holds  that  they 
can,  and  so  does  Liguori,  but  Viva  seems  to  incline  to  the  negative.2 
The  cases  embraced  in  the  bull  in  Coena  Domini  have  also  given  rise 
to  prolonged  discussion,  as  the  only  exception  admitted  in  the  bull 
itself  is  in  articulo  mortis,  but  the  majority  of  authors  seem  to  be  of 
the  opinion  that  impediments  justify  bishops  in  absolving  for  them 
also.3  The  thirteen  cases  specially  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  by  the 
constitution  Apostolicce  Sedis  of  1869  replace  those  of  the  obsolete 
bull  in  Coena  Domini.  A  decision  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Inqui 
sition  in  1886,  approved  by  Leo  XIII.,  prohibits  the  absolution  of 


1  Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  xiv.  cap.  12,  13.— Cap.  3,  6,  11,  13,  33,  58  Extra 
Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxix.— Cap.  22  in  Sexto  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xi.— Constitt.  Coventriens. 
ann.  1237  (Harduin.  VII.  286).— Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Absolvere  a  censuris  n.  42. 
— Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  Art.  I.  n.  5-8. 

Ferraris  gives  this  metrical  enumeration  of  legitimate  impediments — 

Eegula,  mors,  sexus,  hostis,  puer,  Officialis, 
Delitiosus,  inops,  segerque,  senexque,  sodalis, 
Janitor,  adstrictus,  dubius,  causae,  levis  ictus, 
Debilis,  absolvi  sine  summa  sede  merentur. 

For  clericide,  however,  women  and  monks  were  required  to  make  the  journey 
to  Rome.— Libellus  Taxarum,  fol.  180  (White  Hist.  Library,  A.  6124). 

2  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5.— Summa  Diana  s.  v. 
Absolvere  a  reservatis  n.  3. — S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  585. — 
Viva  Trutina  Theolog.  in  Prop.  3  Alex.  PP.  VII. 

3  Viva  loc.  cit.     Ferraris  loc.  cit. — Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLV.  n.  4,  5,  8. — 
Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuuui  Eeservat.  P.  i.  Resol.  xcix. 


IMPEDIMENTS.  337 

these  by  either  bishop  or  priest,  but  in  cases  of  risking  grave  scandal 
or  infamy  the  local  confessor  can  remove  the  censure  under  pain  of 
reincidence  if  the  culprit  does  not  within  a  month  appeal  to  the  Holy 
See  by  letter  through  his  confessor.1 

The  question  whether,  in  episcopal  reserved  cases,  impediments 
enable  the  sinner  to  be  absolved  by  his  confessor  is  one  on  which 
opinions  differ.  The  council  of  Trent  specified  that  in  them  the 
only  exception  should  be  in  articulo  mortis,  but  priests  assumed  the 
power  to  absolve  in  such  cases  where  there  was  an  impediment. 
Clement  VIII.,  in  1601  and  1602,  strictly  forbade  this  for  the 
future,  and  Ferraris,  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
positively  asserts  that  there  is  no  rule  permitting  it.2  On  the  other 
hand,  practical  writers  of  authority  assume  as  a  matter  of  course  that 
if  the  penitent  cannot  go  to  the  bishop  without  peril  of  life  or  repu 
tation  or  the  danger  of  creating  "  scandal "  he  can  be  absolved  by  a 
simple  confessor;  how  this  is  accomplished  however  is  not  unani 
mously  explained,  for  the  moralists  generally  assert  that  it  is  done 
indirectly,  while  some  hold  that  it  is  God  who  does  it.  Whether, 
after  the  impediment  ceases,  the  penitent  must  present  himself  to  one 
having  authority  and  obtain  absolution  is  a  matter  hotly  disputed  by 
the  doctors.3  In  this  shape,  as  we  have  seen,  it  affords  a  convenient 
outlet  for  a  priest  obliged  to  celebrate,  in  spite  of  the  decrees  of 
Clement  VIII.,  for  the  pressure  of  necessity  in  such  cases  is  uni 
versally  recognized  as  justifying  absolution  on  the  spot.4 

The  question  whether  inculpable  or  invincible  ignorance  on  the 
part  of  a  penitent  relieves  him  of  the  reservation  of  his  sin  has  been 
variously  argued.  To  admit  it,  as  some  authorities  do,  as  a  general 
principle,  is  putting  a  premium  on  avoiding  knowledge  of  the  list 
of  reservations  in  a  diocese,  and  the  weight  of  opinion  seems  to  be  in 
favor  of  the  distinction  that,  in  reserved  sins  which  are  evils  of  them 
selves,  ignorance  grants  no  exemption,  while  it  does  in  those  which 
are  merely  statutory.  Yet  Roncaglia  tells  the  confessor,  to  whom  a 
reserved  sin  is  confessed,  to  ask  the  penitent  not  only  whether  he 


1  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvni.  cap.  vi.  Art.  4. 

2  Jac.  a  Graffiis  Pract.  Casuum  Reservat.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  Reg.  18. 
Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  Art.  1,  n.  27-8. 

3  Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Decis.  XLV.  n.  12.— Bernard,  a  Bononia  Man.  Con- 
fessar.  Ord.  Capuccin.  cap.  vi.  \  5. 

4  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  vi.  Art.  4. 

I.— 22 


338  RESERVED  CASES. 

knew  the  fact  of  the  reservation,  but  also  whether  he  thought  of  it 
at  the  time  of  commission,  for,  if  he  did  not,  what  the  moralists  call 
"  inculpable  inadvertence  "  relieves  him  from  the  reservation  and  he 
can  be  absolved.1 

Of  course  the  death-bed  is  an  insurmountable  impediment,  and  the 
general  rule  that  absolution  is  never  to  be  refused  to  a  repentant  and 
dying  sinner  applies  to  reserved  cases.  This,  however,  was  not  ad 
mitted  at  first,  for  a  bull  of  Clement  III.  to  the  dean  of  S.  Pierre  de 
Lille,  about  1190,  grants  as  a  special  privilege  that  he  shall  absolve 
in  articulo  mortis  those  of  his  clergy  who  have  committed  sins  involv 
ing  their  applying  to  the  Holy  See  for  penance.2  Absolution  in 
peril  of  death,  however,  raises  a  question  on  which  there  has  not 
been  unanimity  of  opinion,  for  the  penitent  may  survive,  and  in 
such  case  his  condition  has  been  the  subject  of  debate.  In  1304 
Benedict  XI.  in  his  bull  Inter  cunctas  decides  that  in  such  case  the 
penitent  must  present  himself  to  his  bishop  and  obey  his  mandates 
both  as  to  the  sin  and  any  excommunication  involved.3  As  we  have 
seen,  this  bull  was  revoked  by  the  council  of  Vienne,  but  towards 
the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  Bartholommeo  de  Chaimis  repeats  its 
prescription,  and  a  century  later  Bartolome"  de  Medina  holds  that  the 
sin  is  not  remitted  and  absolution  for  it  must  be  had  of  the  bishop.4 
Later  authorities  however  seem  to  be  in  accord  that  the  penitent  is 
fully  absolved  from  his  sin,  but  not  from  any  excommunication  in 
curred  ;  for  the  latter  he  must  apply  to  the  bishop,  unless  indeed 
he  has  obtained  a  death-bed  indulgence,  in  which  case  he  is  relieved 
from  all.5 

A  more  puzzling  question  is  when  a  confessor,  through  design, 
inadvertence  or  ignorance  grants  absolution  for  a  reserved  case. 


1  Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuum  Reservat.  P.  I.  Resol.  xxxi. — Roncaglia  Univ. 
Moral.  Theol.  Tract,  i.  Q.  ii.  cap.  3,  Q.  3. — Liguori  at  first  taught  that  invin 
cible  ignorance  of  the  reservation  relieves  the  sinner  from  it,  but  he  subse 
quently  changed  his  opinion. — Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  581.     Cf.  Elenchus 
Qusestionum  Q.  83. 

2  Pflugk-Harttung,  Acta  Pontiff.  Eom.  inedd.  I.  n.  437. 

3  Cap.  2  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  vii. 

4  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  12.— Bart,  a  Medina  Instruct.  Confessar. 
Lib.  i.  cap.  10. 

5  S.  Antonini  Confessionale,  fol  70.— Corella  Praxis  Confession.  P.  I.  Tract, 
xi.  \  1,  n.  4.— Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  vi.  Q.  4.— Kenrick 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  n.  161. 


ERRONEO  US  ABSOL  UTION.  339 

The  earlier  doctors  were  divided  as  to  whether  the  absolution  was 
valid ;  Aquinas  only  expresses  himself  doubtfully  in  favor  of  its 
nullity,  while,  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  Angiolo  da  Chi- 
vasso  thinks  that  the  penitent  may  be  absolved  in  virtue  of  his  good 
faith.1  The  opinion  of  its  invalidity  finally  prevailed,  and  since  the 
council  of  Trent  it  is  considered  to  be  settled  in  view  of  the  decree 
that  God  ratifies  the  act  of  the  bishop.2  Such  being  the  case  the 
priest  who  has  committed  the  mistake  is  placed  in  an  awkward  posi 
tion.  Bartholommeo  de  Chaimis  advises  him  honestly  to  notify  the 
penitent  so  that  he  may  obtain  valid  absolution,3  but  the  reputation 
of  the  confessor  is  too  important  to  be  exposed  to  such  risk,  and 
various  deceits  and  evasions  are  recommended  to  avoid  the  damag 
ing  admission.  St.  Antonino,  Baptista  Tornamala  and  Angiolo  da 
Chivasso  suggest,  in  accordance  with  a  discussion  on  the  subject  that 
took  place  at  the  council  of  Bale,  that,  if  it  can  be  done  without 
causing  scandal,  the  confessor  should  quietly  procure  a  faculty  and 
then  send  for  the  penitent,  pretend  that  he  has  not  understood  him, 
make  him  repeat  his  confession  and  absolve  him ;  or,  if  this  is  likely 
to  cause  scandal,  he  may  be  absolved  in  absentia  without  knowing  it, 
though  others  hold  that  he  may  be  left  to  Christ,  the  high  priest.4 
Azpilcueta  and  Zerola  would  prefer  procuring  a  faculty  and  absolv 
ing  the  penitent  personally,  but,  if  there  is  danger  of  scandal  or 
trouble,  the  absolution  can  be  secretly  given  in  absentia,  nor  need  the 
penitent  then  be  in  a  state  of  grace.5  When  Clement  VIII.  forbade 
absolution  in  absentia  this  became  impracticable,  and  about  1620 
Martin  van  der  Beek  recommends  the  method  which  has  been  con 
tinued  in  modern  practice,  namely,  to  procure  a  faculty  and  absolve 
if  it  can  be  done  without  risk  of  scandal ;  if  not,  to  leave  the  peni 
tent  to  the  mercy  of  God,6  which  would  seem  to  be  an  admission  that, 

1  Jo.  Friburgens.  Suinmas  Confessor.  Lib.  ill.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  74.— Summa 
Pisanella  s.  v.  Confessor  i.  §  2.— Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  v.  \  13. 

2  Astesani  Sumime  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxix.  Q.  3.— Weigel  Clavis  Indulgentialis 
cap.  vii.— Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  92a,—  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Con 
fessio  mcr.  I.  \  20.— Palmier!  Tract,  de  Panit.  p.  180. 

3  B.  de  Chaimis,  loo.  cit. 

4  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit,  xvii.  cap.  12.— Summa  Rosella  s.  v.  Con 
fessor  i.  §  7. — Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  V.  |  13. 

5  Azpilcueta  Manuale  Confessar.  cap.  xxvi.  n.  14.— Zerola  Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit. 
cap.  xxiv,  Q.  16. 

6  Becani  de  Sacramentis  Tract,  n.  P.  iii.  cap.  38,  Q.  13.— Th.  ex  Charnies 


340  RESERVED  CASES. 

after  all,  absolution  is  of  less  importance  to  the  penitent  than  is  his 
reputation  to  the  priest.  A  still  more  perplexing  question  is  when  a 
nun  confesses  a  reserved  case  and  refuses  to  let  the  priest  apply  for 
a  faculty  to  absolve  her  lest  she  or  the  convent  should  be  exposed  to 
loss  of  reputation ;  this,  as  Chiericato  assures  us,  makes  the  confessor 
sweat  and  shiver,  and  the  moralists  are  much  at  a  loss  to  advise  what 
should  be  done.1 

When  absolution  for  a  reserved  case  has  been  given  in  ignorance 
there  is  diversity  of  opinion  among  the  authorities,  some  holding 
that  it  is  good,  others  that  it  is  invalid,  while  others  draw  a  dis 
tinction  between  crass  and  invincible  ignorance  and  argue  that  in  the 
former  it  is  invalid  and  in  the  latter  good.  Since  the  development 
of  probabilism  the  ruling  school  of  moralists  consider  that,  if  the 
confessor  has  a  probable  belief  that  the  case  is  not  reserved,  whether 
it  be  so  in  reality  or  not,  the  absolution  is  good,  for  under  such 
circumstances  the  Church  is  conveniently  held  to  supply  the  de 
ficiency  of  jurisdiction.  Moreover,  if  the  penitent  has  a  probable 
opinion  that  the  case  is  not  reserved  and  the  confessor  a  more 
probable  opinion  that  it  is  reserved,  the  penitent's  opinion  must  be 
followed  and  the  confessor  must  absolve  him.  In  cases  of  doubt  the 
confessor  can  absolve  if  the  doubt  is  positive ;  if  it  is  negative, 
opinions  are  divided — positive  doubt  in  these  matters  being  whether 
the  penitent  has  committed  the  sin,  negative  being  whether  the  sin  is 
reserved.2 

Another  doubtful  question  is  whether  internal  sins  are  included  in 
the  reservation ;  that  is,  sins  mentally  conceived  but  not  carried  into 
effect  by  any  external  act.  Thus,  according  to  some  authorities,  if  a 


Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  vi.  Q.  4.— Varcenb  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract, 
xvin.  cap.  vi.  Art.  4.— The  rule  is  now  absolute  that  absolution  must  be  given 
in  the  presence  of  the  penitent,  though  there  are  nice  questions  as  to  the  inter 
vening  distance  allowable. — Varceno,  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  Art.  5. 

1  Clericato  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLI.  n.  11-18. 

2  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Absolvere  a  reservatis  n.  21,  33.— Alph.  de  Leone  de 
Off.  et  Potest.  Confessar.  Eecoll.  ir.  n.  120. — Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuum  Eeservat. 
P.  i.  Eesol.  xv. — Bernard,  a  Bononia  Man.  Confessar.  Capuccin.  cap.  iv.  $  2. — 
S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  581,  596,  600. — Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  vi.  Art.  3,  $  4. 

If,  in  a  doubtful  case,  a  penitent  is  absolved  by  a  simple  confessor  and  after 
wards  learns  that  the  case  is  reserved  beyond  doubt  the  absolution  holds  good. 
— Cabrini  loo.  cit.  Resol.  xi. 


INTERNAL  SINS.  341 


man  thinks  to  himself,  "  There  is  no  hell,"  or  "  Catholicism  is  no 
better  than  Calvinism,"  he  can  be  absolved  for  the  heresy  by  any 
confessor,  but  if  he  utters  it  aloud,  even  in  solitude,  it  is  reserved.1 
Others,  however,  say  that  the  sin  must  be  fully  consummated  to  fall 
under  the  reservation,  and  that  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  commit  it 
is  not  reserved  unless  the  bishop  has  expressly  so  defined  it  in  his 
decree.  Whether,  in  fact,  it  is  possible  to  reserve  internal  sins  : 
disputed  question,  some  moralists  holding  that  it  is  not,  others  that 
it  is,  but  that  to  do  so  is  not  in  accordance  with  custom.2 

Another  point  of  some  practical  importance  that  has  caused  con 
siderable  debate  arises  out  of  the  difference  in  reservation  in  the 
various  dioceses  and  the  movement  of  penitents  from  one 
other      The  sinner  may  have  committed  in  one  diocese  a  sin  which 
is  reserved  there,  and  may  confess  it  in  another  where  it  is  not  re 
served   or  vice  versa,  and  the  doctors  are  by  no  means  in  accord  as 
which  'jurisdiction  should  be  considered  as  controlling  the  matter 
the  time  of  confession,  though  the  general  practice  is  to  absolve 
refuse  absolution  according  to  the  reservation  of  the  place  of 
fe^sion,  provided  the  change  of  residence  has  been  bona  fide  and  not 
to  escape  severer  regulations  of  the  first  domicile.3     Even  when  the 
sin  is  reserved  in  both  dioceses,  the  simpler  question  of  what  : 
done  with  strangers  and  travellers  is  not  without  its 

and  difficulties.4  ,. 

When  a  bishop  commits  a  sin  which  he  has  reserved  in  Ins  du 
he  can  confess  to  any  confessor,  nor  is  it  necessary  for  him  t 
through  the  form  of  granting  a  faculty  for  the  purpose,  although 
is  authorized  to  do  so  by  a  decision  of  the  Congregate  of  Bfchops 
and  Regulars.     An  episcopal  vicar-general,  however,  who 

i  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  351.  Afghani  Tribunal 


Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn.  Exam. 


Moral.  Tract,  xvili.  cap.  vi.  art.  4. 
'  S.  Alph.  cle  Ligorio  loc.  cit.  n.  590-3.-Varceno  lor.  , 


342  RESERVED  CASES. 

such  a  sin  must  first  grant  the  faculty  and  then  make  confession. 
Whether  a  parish  priest  who  holds  a  general  faculty  for  reserved 
cases  can  delegate  this  when  he  requires  absolution  for  himself  is  a 
disputed  question,  with  the  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  affirmative.1 
These  are  by  no  means  the  only  doubtful  and  debatable  points  con 
nected  with  the  reservation  of  cases,  but  they  will  probably  suffice 
to  justify  Rosemond's  remark  that  reserved  cases  are  snares  for  men 
which  he  declines  to  discuss  and  sends  his  readers  to  St.  Antonino.2 
He  could  scarce  have  anticipated  that  these  snares  would  be  pro 
nounced  by  the  council  of  Trent  to  be  a  divine  device. 

In  the  prolonged  struggle  over  the  confessional  between  the  secular 
and  the  regular  clergy,  reserved  cases  played  a  conspicuous  part. 
The  first  allusion  I  have  met  concerning  it  occurs  in  1289,  when 
Nicholas  IV.,  in  permitting  the  Benedictine  nuns  of  S.  Paolo  of 
Orvieto  to  confess  to  Dominicans,  empowered  the  latter  to  absolve 
for  episcopal  cases.3  There  must  have  been  a  general  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  Mendicants  to  exercise  such  power,  for,  when  Boni 
face  VIII.  endeavored  to  settle  the  quarrel  by  promising  papal 
faculties  to  Mendicants  whom  the  bishops  refused  to  license,  he 
added  that  they  could  only  perform  the  functions  of  parish  priests.4 
This  denied  them  jurisdiction  over  episcopal  cases,  and  when,  in 
1304,  Benedict  XI.  enlarged  their  privileges,  he  maintained  this 
restriction,  but  alluded  to  episcopal  cases  as  consisting  of  arson, 
voluntary  homicide,  forgery,  violation  of  the  liberties  and  immuni 
ties  of  the  Church,  and  sorcery.5  Though  Benedict's  bull  was  re 
voked,  in  1312,  by  the  council  of  Vienne,  the  Mendicants  claimed 
that  his  enumeration  of  the  reserved  cases  was  simply  declaratory 
of  existing  law  and  was  not  affected  by  the  revocation ;  they  quoted 
him  as  defining  four  cases  to  be  reserved  de  jure,  viz.,  clerical  sins 
involving  irregularity,  arson,  sins  requiring  solemn  penance  and 
major  excommunication,  and  also  five  de  consuetudine,  being  the  six 
enumerated  above,  excepting  arson.6  For  these  they  admitted  that 


1  Cabrini  op.  cit.  P.  I.  Resol.  xvi.  xix.  xxxiv. 

2  Godescalci  Rosemondi  Confessionale  cap.  xx.  §|  23,  24. 

3  Eipoll  Bullar.  Ord.  Prsedicator.  II.  25. 

4  Cap.  2  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  vi. 

5  Cap.  1  Extrav.  Commun.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  vii. 

6  This  is  the  enumeration  given  by  St.  Antonino  (Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii. 


CONTEST  WITH  THE  REGULARS.  343 

the  friars  could  not  grant  absolution ;  what  else  the  bishops  might 
reserve  by  decree  or  through  their  synods  was  binding  on  the  parish 
priests,  but  not  on  the  friars  who  were  exempt  from  all  episcopal 
control,  who  did  not  attend  the  diocesan  synods  and  could  not  be 
expected  to  be  familiar  with  the  variations  in  the  reserved  cases. 
Besides,  they  added,  the  bishops  were  increasing  enormously  their 
lists  of  reservations,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  functions 
of  the  friars,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  truth,  and  they  were 
not  and  would  not  be  bound  by  such  action.1  Thus  the  quarrel  went 
on,  the  Mendicants  having  the  enormous  advantage  that  nearly  all 
the  writers  of  authority  were  members  of  their  Orders  and  asserted 
their  claims,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  bishops  made  what  use 
they  could  of  the  power  of  reservation,  at  the  expense  of  their  own 
priests  and  people.  The  friars  gained  a  decisive  advantage  when,  in 
several  bulls  between  1545  and  1549,  Paul  III.  granted  to  the 
Jesuits  power  to  hear  the  confessions  of  all  the  laity  and  to  absolve 
for  all  sins,  even  in  papal  cases,  except  those  of  the  Ccena  Domini— 
privileges  of  which  the  Mendicants  speedily  claimed  the  benefit.2 
The  bishops  had  their  turn  at  the  council  of  Trent,  where  the  terms 
of  the  decree  respecting  the  episcopal  reservation  of  cases  were  evi 
dently  framed  to  suppress  this  interference,  but  in  spite  of  this  the 
Mendicants  and  Jesuits  continued  to  claim  and  exercise  the  right  of 
disregarding  their  authority.  At  length  the  bishops  obtained  from 
Gregory  XIII.  a  declaration  of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and 
Regulars  that  the  privileges  of  the  Regulars  did  not  extend  to  epis 
copal  cases,  but,  in  1583,  the  Jesuits  had  sufficient  influence  to  procure 
from  him  a  definition,  vivce  vocis  oraculo,  that  it  was  not  his  intention 
to  derogate  from  the  privileges  of  the  Society,  which  he  confirmed 


cap.  11),  who  mingles  Aquinas's  list  (supra  p.  314)  with  that  of  Benedict.  He 
probably  only  reflects  the  current  views  of  the  Mendicants,  for  he  is  followed 
by  the  other  Summists. 

1  S.  Antoninus  loc.  cit. ;  Ejusd.  Confessionale  fol.  5,  6.— Summa  Pisanella 
s.  v.  Confessor  I.  $  1.— Somma  Pacifica  cap.  xxix.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Dis- 
pensatio  \  15.— Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrogator,  fol.  5,  6.— Summa  Angelica  s.  v. 

Confessio  in.  g  28. — Summa  Rosella  s.  v.  Confessor  II.  in  corp. 

A  statute  of  Soissons,  about  1350,  indicates  the  friction  arising  from  the 
absolution  of  episcopal  cases  by  the  Mendicants.— Gousset,  Actes  etc.  II. 
578. 

2  Pauli  PP.  III.  Bull.  DilecH  filil ;  Ejusd.  Bull.  Licet  debitum  (Litt.  Apostol. 
Soc.  Jesu,  Antverpise,  1635,  pp.  25,  48). 


344  RESERVED  CASES 

anew.1  The  struggle  continued,  and,  in  1601  and  1602,  Clement  VIII. 
prohibited  all  Regulars  in  Italy,  outside  of  Rome,  from  absolving 
for  episcopal  cases,  together  with  those  of  the  Coena  Domini  and  six 
others,  viz.,  infraction  of  ecclesiastical  immunity,  violation  of  the 
cloisters  of  nuns,  duelling,  real  simony,  and  confidentia  beneficialis, 
which  signifies  procuring  a  benefice  for  a  person,  with  an  agreement 
that  he  will  transfer  it  to  the  party  procuring  it,  or  will  pay  over  the 
revenues  or  burden  it  with  a  pension.  The  Regulars  were  irrepress 
ible,  however,  forcing  at  last  Paul  V.,  in  1617,  to  declare  that,  in 
spite  of  all  prohibitions,  many  of  them  persisted  in  absolving  for 
reserved  cases,  leading  men  to  sin  by  the  facility  of  absolution, 
wherefore  he  ordered  the  decrees  of  Clement  VIII.  to  be  inviolably 
observed.  Yet,  in  spite  of  this,  about  1620,  the  Jesuit  Van  der 
Beek  asserts  positively  that  his  brethren  have  power  to  absolve  for 
all  sins  save  those  of  the  Coena  Domini,  and  the  practical  use  of  these 
claims  obliged  Urban  VIII.,  in  1629,  to  prohibit  it  again  and  de 
clare  that  the  Tridentine  decree  must  be  observed.  Undaunted  by 
this  rebuff,  they  argued  it  away,  by  an  ingenious  series  of  technical 
reasoning,  principally  on  the  ground  that  it  was  only  a  decree  of  the 
Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars,  and  had  not  the  force  of  law, 
but  only  of  a  probable  opinion  ;  in  France  especially  they  asserted 
that  these  decrees  had  never  been  received,  and  therefore  were  not 
binding.  In  1647,  the  Congregation  repeated  the  prohibition,  but 
the  Archbishop  of  Mechlin,  in  1654,  was  obliged  to  complain  to  the 
Inquisition  that  the  Regulars  in  his  province  paid  no  attention  to  it. 
Finally,  in  1665,  Alexander  VII.  formally  condemned  the  proposi 
tion  that  the  Mendicants  can  absolve  for  episcopal  cases  without  a 
faculty  from  the  bishop.2  Yet  a  decision  £>f  the  Congregation  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  that  the  Jesuits  could  not  absolve  for  episcopal 

1  The  Mendicants  made  much  use  of  oracula  vivce  vocis — privileges  which 
they  claimed  had  been  granted  to  them  verbally  by  successive  popes.     Of 
course  there  could  be  no  gainsaying  such  claims,  and  no  limit  to  them  until 
Urban  VIII.  was  obliged  to  abolish  all  privileges  based  on  this  foundation. — 
Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  667-8. 

2  Jac.  a  Graffiis  Pract.  Casuum  Keservat.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  Reg.  18. — Becani 
de  Sacramentis  Tract,  ir.  P.  iii.  cap.   38,  Q.  9,  n.  3. — Compend.  Privilegior. 
Soc.  Jesu  s.  v.  Absolutio  §  1. — Ant.  Arnauld,  La  Theologie  Morale  des  Jesuites, 
pp.  193,  219.— Corella,  Praxis  Confession.  P.  I.  Tract,  xi.  $  1,  n.  6.— Viva 
Trutina  Theol.  in  Prop.  12  Alex.  PP.  VII.— Clericati  de  Posnit.  Decis.  XLV. 
n.  17. — Benzi  Tribunal.  Conscient.  Disp.  n.  Q.  5  ad  calcem. 


CONTEST  WITH  THE  REGULARS.  345 

cases  except  in  virtue  of  privileges  granted  or  confirmed  subsequently 
to  the  council/  would  indicate  that  they  were  quietly  obtaining  such 
privileges,  and,  in  1670,  Clement  X.  felt  it  necessary  to  declare  in 
the  most  authoritative  way  that  the  concessions  to  the  Mendicants 
and  Jesuits  did  not  include  the  power  to  absolve  for  episcopal  cases, 
that  the  confirmations  obtained  subsequent  to  the  council  of  Trent 
did  not  revive  them,  and  that  the  faculties  granted  for  papal  cases 
did  not  include  episcopal  ones.2  So  bitterly  had  this  contest  been 
carried  on  that  the  Regulars  of  Agen  lodged  with  the  Parliament  of 
Bordeaux  an  appel  comme  d'abus  against  the  bishop,  and  had  influ 
ence  enough  to  obtain  an  arret  in  their  favor  in  1666,  but  the  case 
was  appealed  to  the  royal  council,  and  Louis  XIV.  set  the  decision 
aside.3  In  spite  of  these  repeated  defeats,  the  Regulars  still  endeav 
ored  to  maintain  their  ground,  arguing  that  the  old  privileges  of 
Pius  III.  were  unaffected  by  the  multitudinous  subsequent  legisla 
tion.4  Curiously  enough,  Liguori  reverses  the  view  of  the  old 
Summists,  and  asserts  the  more  probable  opinion  to  be  that  Regulars 
can  absolve  for  cases  reserved  to  bishops  dejure,  though  not  for  those 
which  the  bishops  or  synods  reserve.5 

As  a  whole,  in  the  long  struggle,  the  Regulars  would  seem  to  have 
been  worsted  by  the  bishops,  although  they  still  retained  over  the 
parish  priests  the  advantage  of  being  able  to  absolve  for  papal  cases, 
except  those  of  the  Ccena  Domini  and  the  six  reserved  ones.  This 
advantage,  however,  was  taken  away  by  Pius  IX.,  in  1869,  when  he 
revised  all  the  papal  censures ;  in  doing  so  he  revoked  the  privileges 
and  faculties  of  all  religious  Orders  to  absolve  for  any  of  the  papal 
cases  still  retained  in  vigor,  and  decreed  that  in  future  any  concession 
granted  must  specifically  state  every  case  included  in  it.6 

A  considerable  further  inroad  on  episcopal  reservation  is  made  by 
the  Jubilee  indulgences,  which  commonly  confer  on  those  who  obtain 
them  the  right  to  select  a  confessor,  who,  ipso  facto,  has  faculty  to 
absolve  for  all  cases,  however  grave,  and  this  has  been  decided  by 
the  Congregation  of  the  Council  of  Trent  to  include  all  cases  re- 


1  Barbosa,  Summa  Apostol.  Decisionum  s.  v.  Absohdio  n.  6. 

2  Clement.  PP.  X.  Constit.  Superna  $  6,  7  (Bullar.  VI.  305). 

3  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Dist.  vi.  Q.  vii.  cap.  3,  art.  3,  \  4. 

4  Bernard!  a  Bononia  Man.  Confessar.  Ord.  Capuccin.  cap.  IV.  \\  2,  5. 

5  St.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  599. 

6  Pii  PP.  IX.  Bull.  Apostolicce  Sedis,  12  Oct.  1869. 


346  RESERVED  CASES. 

served  by  bishops.1  In  a  country  like  Spain,  where  the  Cruzada 
indulgence  is  issued  annually,  and  is  largely  taken  by  the  pious,  this 
must  naturally  neutralize  to  a  great  extent  the  episcopal  power  of 
reservation.2 

1  Barbosa,  Sumrna  Apost.  Decis.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  5. 

2  Pii  PP.  IX.  Bull.   Carissime  §  6,  4  Dec.  1877  (Salces,  Explicacion  de  la 
Bula  de  la  Santa  Cruzada,  p.  391). 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE   CONFESSIONAL. 

X  the  Church  had  succeeded  in  establishing  the  necessity  of 
sacramental  confession,  numerous  questions  of  detail  sprang  up  which 
required  for  their  settlement  long  discussion  by  the  theologians. 
Space  will  not  here  permit  an  exhaustive  investigation  of  them  all, 
but  a  cursory  examination  of  some  of  the  more  important  will  show 
how  the  existing  rules  have  been  reached  which  govern  the  conduct 
of  the  confessional. 

The  schoolmen  were  not  remiss  in  defining  what  are  the  requi 
sites  of  a  confession  that  shall  entitle  the  penitent  to  absolution. 
Alain  de  Lille  had  contented  himself  with  the  three  rudimentary 
conditions— contrition,  confession,  and  the  intention  to  sin  no  more.1 
S.  Ramon  de  Penafort  advanced  a  step  when  he  described  valid 
confession  as  "amara,  festina,  integra  et  frequens" — bitter,  speedy, 
complete  and  frequent.2  When  we  reach  Aquinas  we  find  these 
qualifications  expanded  into  a  quatrain,  which  for  centuries  re 
mained  current  among  the  theologians,  all  the  points  of  which  he 
tells  us  are  requisite  to  the  perfection  of  confession,  though  all  are 
not  essential  to  its  validity — 

Sit  simplex,  humilis  confessio,  pura,  fidelis, 
Atque  frequens,  nuda,  discreta,  libens,  verecunda, 
Integra,  secreta,  lacrymabilis,  accelerata, 
Fortis  et  accusans,  et  sit  parere  parata.3 

These  attributes  divide  themselves  into  the  internal  disposition  of 
the  penitent — the  dispositio  congrua — and  his  utterances  to  the  con 
fessor.  The  former  group  will  be  considered  more  conveniently 
hereafter,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  absolution.  At  present  we  are 
more  immediately  concerned  with  the  latter. 


1  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  de  Pcenit.  (Migne  OCX.  300). 

2  S.  Raymundi  Summae  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  $  4. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Sunimae  Suppl.  Q.  ix.  Art.  4. 


348  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

The  confessio  Integra,  the  full  and  faithful  confession  of  all  mortal 
sins  committed  and  not  as  yet  remitted,  is  the  most  essential  requisite, 
though  full  allowance  is  made  for  the  imperfections  of  human  memory, 
as  we  shall  see  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  Only  what  is  confessed,  or 
what  is  inculpably  forgotten,  can  be  the  matter  subjected  to  the  keys, 
and  no  pardon  can  be  granted  for  a  portion  of  sins  unless  all  are 
pardoned.  There  can  be  no  partial  reconciliation  to  God,  and  the 
wilful  omission  of  a  single  mortal  sin,  constituting  the  confessio  in- 
formis  or  dimidiaia,  renders  the  whole  confession  invalid  and  unsacra- 
mental ;  in  fact,  receiving  the  sacrament  thus  irreverently  is  a  new 
sin.1  No  amount  of  contrition  and  of  life-long  penance  self-imposed 
can  wash  away  a  sin  thus  concealed  ;  every  confession  and  communion 
is  a  fresh  sin,  and  it  were  better  for  the  penitent  to  live  and  die  wholly 
without  the  sacraments.2  As  the  council  of  Trent  says,  those  who 
withhold  anything  knowingly  submit  nothing  to  God  for  pardon 
through  the  priest.3  Even  if  a  sin,  withheld  through  shame,  is 
drawn  out  by  the  questioning  of  the  confessor,  there  have  been  rigid 
moralists  who  hold  that  the  confession  is  fictitious  and  invalid.4 


1  Caietani  Tract,  v.  De  Confessione  cap.  5. — There  are  plenty  of  marvellous 
stories  illustrating  this.     Father  Passavanti  (Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza 
Dist.  v.  cap.  iii.)  tells  us  of  a  woman  who  kept  back  one  sin  in  confession,  and 
was  condemned  in  consequence  after  death  ;  at  the  intercession  of  St.  Francis 
her  soul  was  allowed  to  return  to  the  corpse  at  her  obsequies,  when  she  con 
fessed  the  omitted  sin  and  was  admitted  to  purgatory.     Del  Rio  (Disquis. 
Magicar.  Lib.  ir.  Q.  xxvi.  $  5)  is  authority  for  a  tale,  which  was  largely  quoted 
by  subsequent  writers,  of  a  baptized  Peruvian  slave-girl  of  dissolute  life,  who, 
on  her  death-bed,  refused  to  confess  her  carnal  sins,  though  she  freely  talked 
of  them  to  others.     She  said  that,  when  the  priest  came  repeatedly  and  urged 
her  to  confess,  a  black  dwarf  appeared  on  one  side  of  her  bed  and  prevented 
her  from  making  a  full  confession,  though  St.  Mary  Magdalen,  on  the  other 
side,  adjured  her  to  do  so.     Her  death  was  followed  by  the  most  terrifying  evi 
dences  of  her  damnation.     Chiericato  (De  Poenit.  Decis.  xxm.  n.  5,  6)  asserts 
that  no  holiness  of  life  can  save  from  perdition  any  one  who  consciously  violates 
the  sacrament  by  omitting  a  single  mortal  sin,  and  he  adds  that  it  was  revealed 
to  a  holy  hermit  that  there  are  three  demons,  one  named  Claudens  corda,  who 
closes  the  hearts  of  those  listening  to  pious  homilies ;  one  named  Claudens 
crumena,  who  leads  penitents  to  evade  making  restitution;    and  one  named 
Claudens  ora,  who  induces  them  to  make  imperfect  confessions,  and  each  of 
these  demons  causes  the  ruin  of  multitudes  of  souls. 

2  Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimale  Serin.  LXII. 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  XTV.  De  Poenit.  cap.  5. 

4  God.  Rosemondi  Confessionale,  fol.  114. 


EXCEPTIONS  TO  COMPLETENESS.  ;}49 

Moreover,  if  the  confessor  knows  that  the  penitent  is  guilty  of  a  sin 
not  included  in  the  confession  he  sins  in  granting  absolution,  for  he 
knows  the  sacrament  to  be  invalid  j1  to  this,  however,  an  exception  is 
made  when  the  confessor's  knowledge  comes  from  another  confession, 
for  then  the  seal  prevents  his  making  use  of  the  knowledge,  and  he 
is  perforce  required  to  grant  a  sacrilegious  absolution.2 

In  fact,  the  rule  of  completeness,  like  all  other  rules  connected 
with  the  functions  of  the  keys,  was  subject  to  exceptions  rendered 
indispensable  by  human  weakness,  nor  does  the  incongruity  between 
this  and  the  assumption  that  omissions  are  fatal  to  the  sacrament 
appear  to  be  recognized.  Thus  we  are  told  that,  if  there  is  any  dan 
ger  to  be  anticipated  from  confessing  a  sin  to  the  parish  priest,  either 
because  he  is  known  to  be  a  solicitor  to  evil  and  the  sin  may  excite 
his  lust,  or  if  it  be  a  wrong  committed  against  him  or  any  of  his 
kindred  that  may  prompt  him  to  vengeance,  or  if  he  be  known  as  a 
revealer  of  confessions,  or  if  it  be  feared  that  he  may  make  a  bad  use 
of  the  knowledge  to  the  injury  of  others,  and  if  no  other  licensed 
priest  is  accessible,  the  penitent  may  prudently  suppress  the  portion 
exposing  himself  or  the  priest  or  a  third  party  to  risk,  and  trust  to 
God  or  to  finding  subsequently  one  to  whom  he  may  safely  confide 
it.3  Even  shame,  we  are  told,  justifies  suppression,  especially  on  the 
part  of  women,  and  the  confessor  in  such  case  may  boldly  absolve 
her,  confiding  in  the  mercy  of  God.4  In  fact,  as  Domingo  Soto 
piously  sums  it  up,  a  prudent  and  clement  God  does  not  require  con 
fession  wheu  it  would  involve  grave  peril,  and  therefore  when  there 


1  Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  vm.  n.  6. 

2  Em.  Sa  Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  14. 

3  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  106.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacr.  n. 
14.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacr.  I.  \\  4-6.— Mart.  Eisengrein  Confes- 
sionale,  cap.  iii.  Q.  28-30.— Azpilcueta  Man.  Confessar.  cap.  viii.  n.  5-6.— Em.  Sa 
Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  10.— Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn. 
Exam.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  27.— Busenbaum  Medullse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi  Tract,  iv. 
cap.  1,  Dub.  3,  Art.  2.— Marchant  Tribunal.  Animar.  Tom.  I.  Tract,  n.  Tit.  vii. 
Q.  2.  concl.  2 ;  Tract,  iv.  Tit.  vi.  Q.  6.— Viva  Trutina  Theol.  in  Prop.  59  Innoc. 
PP.  XL— Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  8  -Arsdekin  Theol. 
Tripart.  P.  in.  Tract.  1,  cap.  1,  Princip.  14.— Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis 

n.  11,  14.-S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  479-87—  Manzo  Epit. 
Theol.  Moral.  P.  I.  De  Poenit.  n.  35.— Gousset.  Theol.  Morale  II.  n.  - 
Varceno  Cornp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  Art.  5. 

4  Henriquez  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  xxiv.  n.  5. 


350  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

is  reason  to  dread  risk  to  life  or  honor  the  sinner  is  not  bound  to 
confess.1 

There  are  other  causes  of  imperfect  confession  external  to  the  peni 
tent.  Drowsiness  or  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  confessor  gives  rise 
to  perplexing  questions,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  Ignorance  of  the 
language  is  likewise  a  recognized  bar  to  perfect  confession,  but  when 
the  penitent  does  the  best  he  can  it  is  probable  that  the  absolution  is 
valid.2  In  a  case  of  contagious  disease  the  confessor  can  listen  to  a 
single  sin  and  then  hurriedly  absolve  the  dying  penitent.3  The  lead 
ing  cause,  however,  of  imperfect  confession  is  when  there  are  numbers 
to  be  heard  and  lack  of  time  to  give  due  attention  to.  each.  In  case 
of  battle  or  shipwreck  this  is  inevitable,  and  the  necessity  of  the  cir 
cumstances  is  held  to  serve  as  a  justification.  A  more  frequent  occa 
sion,  however,  is  the  enormous  afflux  of  penitents  eager  to  gain  some 
attractive  indulgence  to  which  confession  is  a  condition  precedent. 
When  we  read  of  the  surging  crowds  flocking  to  the  Roman  Jubilees 
or  to  the  Portiuncula  indulgence  of  Assisi,  we  realize  hoAV  impossible 
could  have  been  any  complete  confession  of  the  individual  penitents. 
Father  Gobat  tells  us  that,  at  the  Portiuncula,  the  Franciscans  had 
the  privilege  of  employing  secular  priests  as  temporary  assistants, 
but  this  could  only  have  been  a  partial  remedy  :  he  wishes  that  the 
Jesuits  had  the  same  advantage,  for,  on  the  three  annual  solemnities 
when  their  churches  had  an  indulgence,  the  pressure  was  enormous. 
In  the  year  in  which  he  writes  (1666),  at  Swiss  Freiburg,  on  Quin- 
quagesima  Sunday,  which  was  one  of  the  indulgential  days,  they 
administered  communion  to  over  9000  persons.  In  such  case  the 
confession  could  have  been  merely  nominal,  and  his  various  allusions 
to  the  omissions  necessary  when  there  is  a  crowd  of  penitents  show 
that  it  rendered  the  performance  purely  perfunctory.4  From  this 

1  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5.— Summa  Diana  s.  v. 
Confessionis  necessitas  n.  1-4.     We  shall  see  hereafter  that  modern  theologians 
insist  much  more  strongly  on  the  necessity  of  complete  confession,  irrespective 
of  the  consequences  to  others. 

2  Em.  Sa  Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  9. 

8  Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  13,  n.  3. 

4  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  105,  183,  325,  332.  He  tells  us  (n.  918)  that 
he  had  heard  much  more  (longe  plus)  than  a  hundred  thousand  confessions. 
He  was  then  about  sixty-five  years  old,  and,  assuming  that  he  had  been  a 
priest  for  forty  years,  this  would  show  an  average  of  fifty  confessions  a  week 
during  a  busy  life-time.  He  further  relates  (n.  266)  that  the  pious  Father 


EXCEPTIONS  TO  COMPLETENESS  351 

necessity  there  naturally  arose  the  general  assertion  that  on  such 
occasions  imperfect  confession  suffices,  but  this  was  formally  con 
demned  by  Innocent  XI.  in  1669.1  Subsequent  writers  have  ac 
cepted  this  as  final,  but  it  is  presumable  that  the  practice  continues.2 
What  is  to  be  done  under  the  circumstances  is  a  point  on  which  the 
authorities  are  by  no  means  agreed.3  Bishop  Zenner,  after  insisting 
that  each  confession  must  be  complete,  no  matter  what  may  be  the 
multitude  waiting,  adds  that,  after  hearing  some  of  the  weightier  sins, 
absolution  can  be  given  with  the  condition  that  the  rest  shall  be  con 
fessed  at  another  time,4  which  would  seein  to  be  an  infraction  of  the 
rules  condemning  both  partial  and  conditional  absolutions,  and 
indicates  that  in  practice  there  is  little  respect  for  the  elaborate 
theories  on  which  rests  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  of 
penitence. 

Yet  it  would  in  fact  appear  that  confession  must  be  complete,  for  the 
only  reason  given  for  its  institution  by  Christ  is  the  necessity  that 
the  priest  should  know  all  the  sins  on  which  he  sits  in  judgment, 
specially  and  not  merely  in  general,  in  order  duly  to  apportion  the 
penance.5  Still,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  told  that  it  is  altogether 
unnecesary  for  the  confessor  to  recall  all  the  sins  confessed,  for  in 
most  cases  this  is  morally  impossible,  and  it  suffices  for  him  to  bear 
in  mind  the  general  state  of  the  penitent.6  In  spite  therefore  of  the 
rigid  doctrines  of  the  theologians,  doctrines  inevitable  under  the 


Bernardo  Colnaghi,  of  Ancona,  in  a  sermon  on  confession,  invited  any  one 
who  had  not  confessed  for  twenty  years  to  come  to  him  and  be  released  of 
his  sins.  Two  men  presented  themselves,  of  whom  one  had  not  confessed  for 
twenty-five  years  and  the  other  for  forty,  and  the  good  father  dispatched  them 
duly  absolved  in  a  little  over  an  hour  apiece. 
^Innoc.  PP.  xi.  Deer.  1669,  Prop.  59. 

2  Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Decis.  xxm.  n.  20.— Habert  Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Tract, 
n.  cap.  1,  n.  1.— C.  Eavennat.  ann.  1855,  cap.  v.  §  10  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  160). 

Cardinal  Eezzonico,  Bishop  of  Padua,  in  a  visitation  of  his  diocese,  was 
scandalized  at  the  tumultuous  crowds  on  feast  days  struggling  to  get  to  the 
confessional,  not  only  rendering  them  unfit  for  the  solemn  duty,  but  obliging 
them  to  hurry  through  it.  He  learned  that  the  priests  heard  confessions  only 
on  such  days,  and  he  ordered  that  in  future  they  should  also  sit  in  the  confes 
sional  on  the  day  previous. — Litt.  Pastorale,  16  Die.  1746. 

3  Cabrini  Elucid.  Casuum  Reservat.  P.  I.  Kesol.  cxlviii. 

4  Zenner  Instructio  Practica  Confessar.,  I  76  (Viennse,  1857). 

5  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit,  cap.  5. 

6  Manzo  Epit.  Theol.  Moral.  P.  i.  De  Poenit.  n.  53  (Ed.  II.  Neapoli,  1! 


352  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

theory  of  absolution,  we  may  reasonably  assume  that  imperfect  con 
fessions  are  by  no  means  exceptional.  Not  only  does  this  arise  from 
the  extraneous  circumstances  referred  to,  but  the  penitents  themselves 
are  to  blame.  Cherubino  da  Spoleto  declares  that  many  deceive  them 
selves  in  thinking  that  they  have  made  perfect  confessions  when  they 
have  not,  and  will  find  themselves  plunged  into  hell  while  expecting 
to  go  to  heaven.1  Chiericato  tells  us  that  from  long  experience  he 
knows  that  concealment  of  sins  through  shame  is  frequent  ;2  Liguori 
admits  that  women  who  are  acquainted  with  the  confessor  are  apt 
not  to  make  full  confessions,3  and  a  recent  author  assures  us  that 
perfect  confession  is  the  keenest  torture  that  can  be  inflicted  on  the 
average  man,  and  that  there  are  very  few  who  perform  it  thor 
oughly.4  It  is  worthy  of  consideration  whether  the  strain  on  the 
consciences  of  sinners,  forced  to  make  confession,  with  the  consequent 
evasions  and  mendacity,  do  not,  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  outweigh 
the  possible  benefit  claimed  for  the  practice. 

We  may  fairly  conjecture,  indeed,  that  there  must  be  a  good  deal 
of  untruthf illness  in  the  confessional,  and  the  moralists  condescend  to 
human  nature  in  admitting  that  a  certain  amount  is  permissible.  It 
is  only  a  venial  sin  to  lie  about  venial  sins,  and  even  about  mortal 
sins,  provided  they  do  not  affect  the  present  confession,  and  even  this 
venial  sin  can  be  avoided  by  a  skilful  use  of  equivocation  and  mental 
reservation.  The  questions  involved  are  delicate,  however,  and  the 
exact  degree  and  conditions  of  allowable  mendacity  afford  ample 
field  for  nice  distinctions  by  the  casuists.5  A  sin  that  has  been 

1  Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimal e  Serm.  LXIII. 

2  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xxix.  n.  12. 

3  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Praxis  Confessar.  n.  119. 

1  Miiller,  The  Catholic  Priesthood,  IV.  147.— Yet  Latomus  (De  Confes- 
sione  secreta,  Antverpise,  1525)  in  controverting  the  Lutheran  assertion  that 
confession  is  oppressive,  assures  us  that  it  is  only  so  to  the  impenitent :  to  say 
that  it  is  so  to  the  sinner  desirous  of  salvation  is  too  foolish  to  require  refuta 
tion.  In  this  he  is  oblivious  of  the  older  doctrine  that  so  great  is  the  suffering 
entailed  by  confession  that  its  repetition  can  take  the  place  of  purgatory  and 
enable  the  sinner  to  ascend  directly  to  heaven. — Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della 
vera  Penitenza,  Dist.  v.  cap.  iii. 

It  is  a  habit  of  long  standing,  reproved  by  Aquinas  (Opusc.  Ixiv.),  for  peni 
tents  to  exonerate  themselves  by  pleading  that  the  devil  tempted  them  beyond 
their  strength,  or  that  others  led  them  into  sin. 

5  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  I.  §  7.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessio  II. 
n.  10.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacr.  I.  §  9.— Summa  Rosella  s.  v. 


SCR  UP  UL  0  US  PENITENTS.  353 

confessed  and  pardoned  can  be  denied  because  it  is  no  longer  ex 
istent,  yet  it  exists  sufficiently  to  form  material  for  the  sacrament  in 
case  the  sinner  chooses  to  confess  it  again,1  as  we  have  seen  (p.  333) 
in  the  devices  to  obtain  indirect  absolution  for  reserved  cases.  All 
this  is  scarce  in  accordance  with  the  theory  that  the  confessional  is 
the  tribunal  of  God,  to  which  the  sinner  resorts  with  an  earnest  long 
ing  to  win  pardon,  and  even  more  inconsequent  is  the  deceit  author 
ized  by  Benedict  XIV.  in  deciding  that  a  priest  stained  with  impurity, 
who  in  confession  represents  himself  as  a  layman  bound  by  a  vow  of 
chastity,  commits  only  a  venial  sin  and  makes  a  valid  confession.2 

Yet  confessions  may  be  too  perfect  and  minute,  and  the  terror  of 
the  confessional  is  the  overscrupulous  penitent,  who  is  constantly 
tormenting  himself  with  the  dread  that  he  has  not  secured  pardon 
for  the  sins  which  he  has  confessed  ;  that  he  has  not  confessed  them 
properly  and  must  repeat  them  again  and  again ;  that  things  are  sins 
which  are  no  sins.  It  suggests  what  an  infinite  amount  of  misery 
the  system  has  caused  to  timid  and  conscientious  souls,  surrounded 
by  multitudinous  observances  on  which  they  rely  for  salvation,  ever 
afraid  of  failing  in  some  minute  particular  and  seeing  hell  yawning 
before  them  as  the  penalty  for  some  trifling  omission.  If  they  bore 
the  confessor,  it  is  only  a  slight  return  for  the  anguish  of  which  he 
is  the  instrument,  but  he  is  not  taught  to  sympathize  with  and  com 
passionate  them.  Father  Gury  tells  us  that  the  way  to  treat  them 
is  to  cut  them  short  and  dispense  them  from  saying  anything  more 
—a  power  which  the  priest  possesses -and  then  absolve  them  in 
spite  of  their  entreaties  to  be  heard.3  Scarcely  less  severe  as  a  tria 

Confessio  Sacr.  n.  §  15.-Em.  Sa.  Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessio  n  12 1 - 
Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  V.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  8,  n.  15.-Busenbaum  Medi 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VII.  Tract,  iv.  cap.  1,  Dub.  3,  Art  3  -Tamburim  Method 
Confess.  Lib.  n.  cap.  10,  \  2,  n.  36-45. -Zuccherii  Decis.  Patevm*  Jan    1707, 
n  30-L-Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  ix.  n.7.-La  Croi 
Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1177-87-Gousset,  Theol.  Moral. 
Casus  Conscient.  II.  441-5. 

1  Herzig  Manuale  Confessarii,  P.  n.  n.  52. 

2  Benedict!  PP.  XIV.  Casus  Conscientiae,  Apr.  1738,  cas.  1. 

^  Alph.  de  Leone  de  Offic.  et  Potest.  Confessar.  Recoil,  xxi       n.  9- 
Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  493-503.-Habert  Praxis  Sacr.  I 
cap.  7.— Gury  Casus  Conscient.  I.  n.  48-55. 

The  learned  Carthusian,  Joseph  Eossell,  wrote  a  book  on  the  method 
dealing  with  over-scrupulous  penitents,  based  to  a  large  extent  , 

I.-23 


354  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

to  the  patience  of  the  confessor  is  the  habit  of  many  penitents  of 
expatiating  on  the  sins  of  others,  and  the  grave  moralists  repeat  with 
glee  the  story  of  a  parish  priest,  wearied  with  the  persistent  recital  by 
a  woman  of  her  husband's  failings,  who  gave  her  as  penance  three 
Paters  and  Aves  for  her  own  sins  and  three  days7  fasting  on  bread 
and  water  for  her  husband's,  and  on  her  expostulating  told  her  that 
it  was  to  teach  her  to  confine  herself  in  future  to  her  own.1 

In  treating  of  reserved  cases  we  have  seen  the  question  which 
naturally  arose  in  them  as  to  the  practicability  of  dividing  a  confes 
sion making  part  of  it  to  one  confessor  and  part  of  it  to  another. 

This  is  a  point  on  which  there  has  been  considerable  diversity  of 
opinion  and  practice.     Before  the  rise  of  the  sacramental  theory  it 
was  a  matter  of  indifference,  and  there  seems  to  have  been  no  objec 
tion  to  it,  or  to  confessing  to  several  confessors  at  once.     The  latter 
custom  of  plural  confession,  indeed,  continued  to  a  comparatively 
late  period.     When,  in  835,  Ebbo  was  compelled  to  resign  the  arch 
bishopric  of  Reims  he  made  confession  of  his  sins  to  Archbishop 
Ajulf  and  Bishops  Badarad  and  Modoin  and  accepted  penance  from 
them  for  the  salvation  of  his  soul,2  and  when,  in  991,  Arnoul  was 
obliged  to  vacate  the  same  see  he  confessed  to  two  archbishops  and 
eleven  bishops.3     It  shows  how  long  was  confession  in  reaching  its 
final  shape  that  this  was  considered  to  lend  especial  efficacy  to  the 
process.     Peter  Cantor  asserts,  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century, 
that  the  more  the  priests  to  whom  confession  is  made  the  speedier  is 
the  pardon,4  and  from  the  number  of  instances  in  which  the  chron 
icles  happen  to  report  it  at  the  death-bed  of  princes,  it  must  have  been 
a  not  uncommon  proceeding.     It  is  related  at  the  death  of  Otho  II., 
in  978,  who  confessed  to   Pope  Benedict  VII.  and  a  number  of 
bishops  and  priests;    in   1089,  William   Rufus  summoned  several 
priests  to  hear  his  dying  confession  ;  in  1135,  Henry  I.  confessed  to 

cation  of  the  theories  of  probablism  to  their  troubles.  It  is  entitled  Praxis 
deponendi  Conscientiam  (Bruxellae,  1661)  and  found  its  way  into  the  Roman 
Index. 

1  Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Decis.  xv.  n.  20.— This  is  a  common  complaint  oi 
confessors— "la  plupart  des  confessions  sont  pleines  des  pechez  d'autrui,  ce 
qui  est  assez  difficile  d'empecher."— Lochon,  Traite"  du  Secret  de  la  Confession, 
p.  181  (Brusselle,  1708). 

2  D'Achery  Spicileg.  III.  336.  3  Harduin.  Concil.  VI.  I.  723. 
4  P.  Cantor  Verb,  abbreviat.  cap.  143. 


PLURAL  CONFESSION.  055 

his  chaplains  and  then  to  Archbishop  Hugo;  in  1199,  Richard  I., 
dying  before  the  castle  of  Chains,  had  three  Cistercian  abbots  to 
take  his  confession ;  while,  in  1212,  Philip  of  Namur  had  four  Cis 
tercian  abbots,  and  in  the  same  year  Otho  IV.  confessed  to  an  abbot 
and  a  number  of  priests.1  In  fact,  among  some  orders  of  monks,  this 
appears  to  have  been  the  established  custom,2  and  although  Duns 
Scotus  pronounces  it  nnsacramental,3  his  disciple  Astesanus  thinks 
that  the  penitent  thus  receives  sacramental  absolution,  though  the 
priests  commit  sin  in  doing  what  is  contrary  to  the  customs  and 
statutes  of  the  Church.4  His  contemporary,  the  Dominican  Pierre 
de  la  Palu,  seems  to  know  of  no  such  statutes,  for  he  says  positively 
that  confession  can  be  made  to  a  number  of  priests,  either  together 
or  in  succession,  and  absolution  be  received  from  each,  and  from  his 
manner  of  allusion  it  would  seem  to  have  been  at  the  time  a  not 
uncommon  custom.5  Prierias  speaks  doubtingly,  saying  that  some 
doctors  argue  that  such  confession  is  not  sacramental,  but  that  Joan 
Andreas  holds  that  if  a  sinner  desires  to  confess  publicly  he  can  do 
so,  though  Aquinas  says  that  public  confession  is  allowable  only  for 
public  crimes.6  Latomus,  Eisengrein  and  Martin  van  der  Beek  say 
unhesitatingly  that  it  is  permissible  to  confess  to  a  number  of  priests 
and  in  the  presence  of  auditors,7  but  the  council  of  Trent  only  admits 
that  Christ  has  not  forbidden  public  confession  as  a  means  ofUmmilia- 
tion  and  edification.8  Chiericato,  after  weighing  the  opposing  opin 
ions,  concludes  that  confession  to  a  number  of  priests  is  sacramental, 
but  it  should  only  be  done  from  necessity  or  from  some  sufficient 


1  Dithmari  Merseburg.  Chron.  Lib.  in.— Orderic.  Vital.  Hist.  Eccles.  P.  in. 
Lib.  viii.  cap.  8 ;  Lib.  xiii.  cap.  8.— Nic.  Trivetti  Chron.  ann.  1199.— Caesar. 
Heisterb.  Dial.   Dist.  n.  cap.  17.— Narrat.  de  Morte  Othon.  IV.   (Martene 
Thesaur.  III.  1374). 

2  P.  de  Honestis  Eeg.  Clericor.  Lib.  n.  cap.  xxii.— Matt.  Paris  Hist.  Angl. 
ann.  1196. 

3  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvu.  Q.  unic. 
*  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xviii. 

5  P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1. 

6  Suinma  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  sacr.  I.  |  23.     Of.  Sumina  Tabiena  s.  v. 
Confessio  II.  $  37. 

7  Jac.  Latomus  de  Confessione  secreta,  Antverpise,  1515.— Mart.  Eisengrein 
Confessionale,  cap.  iii.  Q.  56.— Becani  de  Sacramentis  Tract,  n.  P.  in.  cap. 
37,  Q.  4. 

8  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poanit.  cap.  5. 


356  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

motive.1    Liguori  adopts  Busenbaum's  assertion  that  secret  confession 
to  a  priest  is  not  of  necessity,  but  is  a  usage  of  the  Church.2 

The  sacramental  theory  was  only  developed  by  degrees  and  consid 
erable  time  was  required  to  reduce  it  to  a  uniform  system.  Towards 
the  close  of  the  twelfth  century  Peter  Cantor  mentions  the  custom  in 
some  convents  of  confessing  to  one  of  the  monks  and  receiving  abso 
lution  from  the  abbot,  and  that  there  was  nothing  irregular  in  this  is 
manifest  by  the  recommendation,  towards  the  middle  of  the  thir 
teenth  century,  by  William  of  Paris,  that,  when  the  priest  is  ignorant, 
a  learned  deacon  can  hear  the  confession  and  determine  the  penance, 
after  which  the  priest  is  to  enjoin  the  penance  and  confer  absolution.3 
Even  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  Baptista  Tornamala  alludes 
to  the  foolish  monks  who  heard  confessions  and  then  sent  the  peni 
tents  to  their  priests  for  absolution.4  In  this  uncertainty  of  practice 
it  is  no  wonder  that  a  custom  arose  of  dividing  a  confession  among 
several  priests  and  relating  a  part  to  each — a  custom  reproved  by 
the  pseudo-Augustin  and  in  a  tract  which  passed  current  under  the 
name  of  St.  Bernard,  as  well  as  by  Master  Bandinus,  who  speaks 
of  it  as  caused  by  shame.5  It  was  difficult  to  repress,  for  Alexander 
Hales  feels  it  necessary  to  explain  that,  except  in  reserved  cases,  con 
fession  must  be  made  wholly  to  one  priest,  and  Aquinas  reiterates 
the  assertion  in  a  manner  to  show  that  he  was  combating  a  not 
infrequent  custom  on  the  part  of  those  who  feared  human  shame 


1  Clerical!  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xvi.  n.  15. 

2  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  494. 

3  Morin.  de  Poenit.  Lib.  x.  cap.  15.— Guillel.  Paris,  de  Sacr.  Poenit.  cap.  19. 

4  Summa  Eosella  s.  v.  Confessor  I.  $  11. — It  is  related  of  the  distinguished 
theologian  Suarez  that,  in  travelling  near  Coimbra,  he  confessed  to  a  curate, 
who  proceeded  to  absolve  him  by  repeating  the  Ave  Maria,  when  Suarez,  find 
ing  him  wholly  ignorant  of  the  absolution  formula,  was  obliged  to  dictate  it 
and  have  him  follow  it  word  by  word.      He  sought  the  parish  priest  and 
pointed  out  to  him  the  ruin  of  souls  resulting  from  the  ignorance  of  his  vicar, 
when  the  good  padre  replied  that  he  knew  it  and  had  ordered  him  only  to 
hear  confessions  and  then  send  the  penitents  to  himself  for  absolution.     This 
staggered  Suarez  still  more,  and  he  vainly  endeavored  to  make  the  priest 
understand  the  nullity  of  the  sacrament  thus  divided. — Clericati  de  Poenit. 
Decis.  xxxi.  n.  17. 

5  Ps.  Augustin.  de  vera  et  falsa  Poenit.  cap.  xv.  n.  21. — Ps.  Bernardi  Meditatio 
de  Conditione  Humana  cap.  9  (Migne,  CLXXXIV.  500).— Bandini  Sententt. 
P.  iv.  Dist.  xvi. 


DIVIDED  CONFESSION.  357 

more  than  offending  God.1     Of  course  such  a  practice  was  destruc 
tive  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  parish  priest  and  incompatible  with 
the  sacramental  theory,  yet  its  use  in  reserved  cases  tended  to  keep 
alive  the  idea  that  it  was  admissible,  in  spite  of  the  animadversions 
of  the  doctors.     Passavanti  declares  that  not  only  is  such  confession 
invalid,  but  that  it  is  a  fresh  mortal  sin.2     Gerson  draws  the  distinc 
tion  that,  while  it  impedes  the  virtue  of  the  sacrament  if  done  through 
shame  or  hypocrisy,  it  does  not  if  through  ignorance,  or  in  reserved 
cases,  or  when  there  is  reasonable  dread  of  scandal  to  arise  from  the 
confession  of  some  special  sin  to  the  ordinary  confessor.3     Robert  of 
Aquino  is  more  rigid  and  explains  that  when  a  confession  is  divided 
between  two  priests  the  penitent  is  absolved  by  neither  and  must 
make  a  full  confession  to  one.4     Yet  not  long  afterwards  we  are  told 
by  Prierias  that  these  divided  confessions  were  common,  especially 
among  loose  women,  who  would  confess  their  carnal  sins  to  some 
priestly  companion  and  then  their  lighter  transgressions  to  one  in 
good  standing,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  fair  repute  thence  accruing — a 
species  of  hypocrisy  which  some  doctors  considered  to  be  a  mortal 
sin,  while  others  classed  it  as  venial.5     At  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  Manuel  Sa  shows  how  vague  were  still  the  conceptions  on 
the  subject  when  he  tells  us  that  to  have  two  confessors  and  to  con 
fess  grave  sins  to  one  and  light  ones  to  the  other  is  a  mortal  sin, 
according  to  some  doctors,  because  one  of  the  confessors  is  deceived ; 
others  hold  that  it  is  not  if  done  once  or  twice  out  of  shame  or  mod 
esty;  others  again  define  it  to  be  a  mortal  sin  if  done  for  a  sinful 
purpose,  but  not  if  it  is  done  for  a  good  purpose,  such  as  to  retain 
the  favorable  opinion  of  one  of  the  confessors.6     Half  a  century  later 
Diana  asserts  that  a  man  who  desires  to  stand  well  with  his  ordinary 
confessor  can  reveal  to  him  only  his  venial  sins  and  then  his  mortals 
to  another.7      This  divided   confession  had   a  quasi-recognition  in 
the  Jubilee  indulgences,  carrying  with  them  the  faculty  of  selecting 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xvm.  Meinbr.  iv.  Art.  5  g  2.— S.  Th. 
Aquin.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  IX.  Art.  3;  Ejusd.  Opusc.  LXIV. 

2  Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza,  Dist.  v.  cap.  5. 

3  Jo.  Gersoni  Regulse  Morales  (Opp.  Ed.  1488,  xxi.  G.). 

4  Rob.  Episc.  Aquinat.  Opus  Quadrages.  Serra.  xxix.  cap.  3. 
6  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  sacr.  I.  $  8. 

6  Em.  Sa.  Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  16. 

7  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Confessionis  requisita  n.  54. 


358  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

one  or  more  confessors  to  whom  sins  could  be  confessed  as  they  were 
successively  remembered,  though  it  was  recommended  that  the  same 
confessor  should  be  applied  to  if  he  could  be  had.1  The  more  rigor 
ous  theologians,  however,  discountenanced  the  practice :  Noel  Alex- 
andre,  like  Kobert  of  Aquino,  pronounces  such  confessions  null  and 
that  they  must  be  repeated,2  and,  in  1658,  the  priests  of  Paris  included 
this  device  among  the  errors  of  the  casuists.3 

In  modern  practice  we  are  told  that  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  a 
penitent  from  confessing  his  mortal  sins  to  a  strange  priest  and 
getting  absolution,  and  then  his  venials  (which  are  not  necessary 
matter  for  confession  and  absolution)  to  his  ordinary  confessor, 
unless  he  does  so  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  reproof  and  gaining 
fresh  opportunity  for  sinning.4  It  is  a  mortal  sin,  however,  pur 
posely  to  seek  out  an  unknown  and  ignorant  confessor  to  whom  to 
confess  the  graver  delinquencies,  and  dividing  mortal  sins  between 
two  confessors  renders  the  confessions  invalid  unless  there  are  suffi 
cient  reasons  why  some  sins  should  not  be  revealed  to  the  ordinary 
confessor.  In  such  case  even  the  severer  moralists  see  no  objection 
to  this,  though  they  do  not  inform  us  how  the  difficulty  as  to  partial 
absolution  is  evaded.5 

The  converse  of  this  divided  confession  is  gregarious  confession, 
when  the  priest  hears  a  multitude  of  penitents  and  absolves  them  in 
block.  In  battle  or  shipwreck  or  similar  emergency  this  may  be 
unavoidable ;  the  Church  accepts  it  as  valid  and  assumes  that  the 
formula  "  I  absolve  you  from  your  sins"  grants  a  separate  absolution 
to  each  one  of  those  confessing.6  In  the  old  formulas  for  Holy 
Thursday  reconciliation  the  use  of  the  plural  number  shows  that  the 
penitents  to  be  reconciled  were  thus  restored  to  the  Church  in  mass,7 


1  Marc.  Pauli  Leonis  Praxis  ad  Litt.  Magni  Pcenitentiar.  p.  16  (Mediolani, 
1665). 

2  Summa  Alexandrina  P.  i.  n.  454. 

3  Ant.  Arnauld,  Theol.  Morale  des  Je"suites,  p.  377. 

4  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  art.  4. 

5  Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  8,  n.  14. — Gury  Comp.  Theol. 
Moral.  II.  475.— Gousset,  Theol.  Morale  II.  n.  440.— Zenner  Instructio  Pract. 
Confessar.  §  78.— Summa  Alexandrina  P.  I.  n.  459-60. 

6  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  in.  n.  15,  16. 

7  Martene  de  antiq.  Eccles.  Eitibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ordo  1 — "  Ab- 
solvemus  vobis  vice  beati  Petri  apostolorum  principis,  cui  Dominus  potestatem 


GREGARIOUS  CONFESSION. 


359 


and,  though  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of  auricular  con 
fession,  it  survived  the  introduction  of  the  sacramental  theory,  much 
to  the  disgust  of  the  stricter  sacerdotalists  when  it  was  applied  to 
the  ordinary  parochial  routine  by  ignorant  or  indolent  pastors.  A 
case  of  the  kind,  recorded  by  Caesar ius  of  Hiesterbach,  is  alluded  to 
above  (p.  248),  and  that  it  was  by  no  means  uncommon  in  the  thir 
teenth  century  appears  from  the  remonstrance  of  a  layman  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Cologne,  written  probably  about  1235,  describing 
certain  priests,  learned  and  worthy  enough,  who,  after  divine  service, 
were  accustomed  to  orde.r  the  congregation  to  raise  their  hands  and 
confess  their  sins,  after  which  absolution  was  granted  with  greater 
facility  than  they  would  forgive  a  debt  of  three  farthings  apiece. 
This  he  describes  as  a  devilish  snare  for  the  ignorant  multitude,  who 
think  no  further  confession  necessary,  deeming  themselves  as  free 
from  sin  as  when  newly  baptized,  and  in  this  deadly  security  they 
have  no  hesitation  in  sinning  afresh.1  Such  a  mockery  of  the  sacra 
ment  could  find  no  defenders,  but  Astesanus,  in  1317,  does  not  say 
that  it  is  either  unlawful  or  invalid,  and  he  only  condemns  it  as  an 
infraction  of  the  secrecy  that  should  be  observed  in  the  confessional,2 
and  two  centuries  later  Giovanni  da  Taggia  merely  remarks  that 
those  who  do  it  without  necessity  cause  the  penitents  to  disregard  a 
precept  of  the  Church.3  The  custom  seems  to  have  been  an  invet 
erate  one,  at  least  in  Germany,  for  towards  the  close  of  the  sixteenth 
century  Sixtus  V.  ordered  the  Archbishops  of  Trier  and  Mainz  to 
suppress  it.4  We  do  not  hear  of  it  elsewhere,  except  in  the  case  of 
children,  in  dealing  with  whom  this  expeditious  method  seems  to 
have  continued  in  use,  even  to  the  present  day,  by  careless  pastors, 
reckless  of  the  contempt  for  the  sacrament  thus  induced  in  the 
plastic  mind  of  youth.  The  moralists,  of  course,  condemn  it  and 
generally  assert  that  it  is  a  mortal  sin.5 

ligandi  atque  solvendi  dedit,  sed  quantum  ad  vos  pertinet  accusatio  et  ad  nos 
pertinet  remissio,  sit  Deus  omnipotens  vita  et  salus  omnibus  peccatis  vestris 
indultor." 

This  is  a  transitional  formula  of  probably  the  late  eleventh  century,  and  in 
dicates  how  the  old  reconciliation  merged  into  the  scholastic  absolution. 

1  Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  I.  357.  2  Astesani  Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xviii. 

3  Sumnia  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessio  II.  \  37. 

4  Maffei  Hist,  ab  excessu  Gregorii  XIII.  p.  16  (Bergomi,  1747). 

5  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  I.  §  29.—  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio 
Sacr.  I.  \  23.-Synod.  Verdunens.  ami.  1598,  cap.  51  (Harduin.  VIII.  470).- 


360  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

No  penitent  can  be  required  to  repeat  a  valid  confession  once 
made ;  if  ordered  to  do  so  he  can  refuse,  and  indeed  some  doctors  go 
so  far  as  to  say  that  even  the  pope  cannot  issue  a  precept  to  render 
it  obligatory.1  Yet  before  the  details  of  the  sacrament  were  under 
stood,  up  to  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  there  was  one  occa 
sion  on  which  it  was  required.  When  a  man  confessed  in  peril  of 
death  the  formula  of  the  absolution  administered  to  him  contained 
a  clause  enjoining  him,  in  case  he  escaped,  to  confess  over  again  and 
accept  penance,2  which  manifests  a  very  vague  conception  as  yet  of 
the  functions  and  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  and  is  a  conditional  abso 
lution,  which  subsequent  theologians  held  to  be  invalid.  Even  as 
late  as  1317  Astesanus  alludes  to  this,  though  in  a  manner  to  show 
that  it  was  then  falling  out  of  use.3 

The  same  nebulous  conception  as  to  the  value  of  the  sacrament  is 
seen  in  the  strenuous  recommendations  of  repeated  confession,  as  in 
the  highest  degree  beneficial,  though  not  obligatory.  According  to 
theory,  confession,  absolution  and  satisfaction,  if  valid,  relieve  the 
penitent  from  both  culpa  and  poena — his  sins  are  remitted,  the  tem 
poral  punishment  is  atoned  for,  he  is  fully  in  a  state  of  grace,  and  if 
he  dies  he  is  assured  of  direct  ascent  to  heaven.  In  spite  of  this  he 
was  told  that  the  oftener  he  should  repeat  a  confession,  the  quicker 
would  be  the  remission  and  the  less  the  pcena*  St.  Antonino  even 
assures  us  that,  if  repeated  often  enough,  it  may  finally  obtain  exemp 
tion  from  the  poena  when  there  is  no  contrition.5 

A  repetition  of  confession  is  requisite,  however,  when,  from  any 
cause,  the  original  confession  is  invalid.  This  may  arise  either  from 
defects  in  the  penitent  or  in  the  priest,  and  leads  to  a  considerable 
number  of  perplexing  questions  in  which  it  would  be  vain  to  expect 
unanimity  among  the  theologians.  If  the  confession  is  made  from 


La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  P.  ii.  n.  1189. — Frassinetti's  New  Parish 
Priest's  Practical  Manual,  pp.  366-7  (London,  1893). 

1  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  $  4. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v. 
Confessio  sacr.  I.  g  4. 

2  Johann.  de  Deo  Pcenitentialis  Lib.  I.  cap.  2. — Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse 
Lib.  V.  De  Pcenit.  et  Eemiss.  $  45. 

3  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xvi. 

4  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Po3nit.  et  Remiss.  $  56. — S.  Th. 
Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  iii.  Art.  3. 

5  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  g  4. 


REPEATED  CONFESSION. 

any  other  motive  than  that  of  obtaining  absolution,  if,  for  instance, 
to  gain  a  good  reputation,  enabling  one  to  cheat  or  to  steal,  it  is  in 
valid,  and  this  motive  may  be  either  mortal  or  venial,  affording  to 
the  moralists  a  wide  field  for  debate.     It  is  invalid,  also,  if  the  peni 
tent  has  not  sufficing  attrition,  though  whether  or  not  the  absolution 
revives  on  his  subsequently  experiencing  attrition  is  a  question  on 
which  the  authorities  differ.     Also,  if  there  is  not  at  least  a  formal 
or  virtual  resolve  of  amendment  and  of  avoiding  occasions  of  sin, 
which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  is  an  equally  fruitful  source  of  dis 
cussion.     Also,  if  the  confession  is  incomplete  through  the  omission 
of  a  mortal  sin,  and  this  may  be  intentional  or  through  ignorance, 
with  varying  results.     Also,  if  the  penitent  be  under  excommunica 
tion  and  does  not  mention  it,  though,  if  he  is  ignorant  of  it,  it  does 
not  invalidate  the  absolution,  even  if  the  clause  removing  excom 
munication  is  omitted  from  the  formula  of  absolution,  as  Gobat  says 
is  customary  in  Germany.     Also,  if  the  penitent  forgets  or  neglects 
to  perform  the  penance,  some  authorities  require  a  repetition  of  the 
confession,  while  others  hold  it  to  be  unnecessary.     Also,  if  the  con 
fessor  withholds   his   intention,   or  omits  a  necessary  part  of  the 
formula  of  absolution,  or  is  under  excommunication,  or  is  an  in 
truder,  or  has  not  a  licence  from  the  bishop ;  but  if  this  latter  is 
not  generally  known  and  he  is  commonly  reputed  to  be  a  confessor, 
some  doctors  hold  that  the  absolution  is  good,  while  others,  with 
customary  lack  of  logic,  say  that  the  penitent  is  pardoned  before 
God,  but  that  if  he  finds  out  the  truth  he  must  repeat  the  confes 
sion.     Also,  if  the  confessor  is  sleepy,  or  inattentive,  or  deaf,  some 
moralists  require  the  confession  to  be  repeated,  or  at  least  in  so  far  as 
it  was  not  heard,  while  others  assert  that  the  bona  fides  of  the  peni 
tent  supplies  the  defect  in  the  confessor,  and  the  same  difference  of 
opinion  exists  when  the  priest  is  too  ignorant  to  be  able  to  distinguish 
between  sins.1    For  five  hundred  years  and  more  these  question*  have 


1  Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza,  Dist.  v.  cap.  5. — Weigel 
Claviculae  Indulgentialis  cap.  xv.  —  Somma  Pacifica,  cap.  1. —  S.  Antonini 
Confessionale  fol.  456  ;  Ejusd.  Summa9  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  %  4,  5.— Sumraa 
Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  I.  \\  13,  14,  18,  20,  22.— B.  de  Ohaimis  Interrog.  fol- 
12-15. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  I.  §|  9,  15.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v. 
Confessio  n.  §§  13-17,  22-25,  39.— Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  iii. 
Art.  3. — Clericati  de  Poenit.  Dist.  xxxi.— Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Conscient.  Disp. 
I.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  Par.  2,  n.  4.—  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  Cap. 
iv.  Art.  6. 


362  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

been  agitated  without  the  possibility  of  reaching  absolute  conclusions, 
and,  indeed,  a  large  portion  of  them  depend  upon  shades  of  feeling 
so  elusive  and  indefinable  that  certainty  is  unattainable.  All  that 
the  theologians  can  do  is  to  comfort  themselves  with  the  maxim  In 
dubio  standum  est  pro  valore  adus — in  doubt,  the  validity  of  the  act 
is  to  be  assumed — but  whether  God  is  bound  by  this  principle  it 
might  be  hardy  to  affirm. 

The  question  whether  written  confessions  are  allowable  is  one  in 
which  the  custom  of  the  Church  has  varied.  A  penitent,  if  there  is 
sufficient  cause,  can  write  out  the  confession,  in  whole  or  in  part,  and 
hand  it  to  the  priest  in  the  confessional,  saying  "  I  accuse  myself  of 
all  the  sins  which  you  read  here/7  and  this  apparently  is  sometimes 
done  by  women  through  sense  of  shame,  when  it  is  accepted  as  oral 
and  she  is  of  course  subject  to  the  usual  interrogation,1  but  whether 
such  writing  can  be  sent  to  a  confessor  and  absolution  be  returned  by 
messenger  has  been  the  subject  of  some  debate.  We  have  seen  (p. 
182)  that,  in  the  early  Church,  libelli,  or  written  confessions  of  sins, 
were  read  to  the  congregation ;  and  before  the  development  of  the 
power  of  the  keys  and  the  sacramental  system  there  was  no  hesita 
tion  in  sending  a  written  confession  and  receiving  such  aids  to  for 
giveness  as  were  then  held  to  be  within  the  functions  of  the  bishop. 
Thus  in  the  ninth  century  Robert,  Bishop  of  Le  Mans,  when  sick 
unto  death,  sent  a  written  statement  of  his  sins  to  the  bishops  who 
were  with  King  Charles  besieging  the  Normans  in  Angers,  and  they 
sent  to  him  from  camp  a  quasi  absolution  which  was  wholly  preca 
tory  in  character.2  In  the  eleventh  century,  Gregory  VII.  had  no 
hesitation  in  sending  absolutions  to  persons  at  a  distance,  even  without 
their  confessing,  and  Paschal  II.  continued  the  practice  in  the  next 
century.3  As  the  scholastic  theology  began  to  take  shape  this  came 


1  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  5,.n.  36.— Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvui.  cap.  iv.  Art.  5.      Father  de   Charmes,  however 
(Theol.  Univers.  Diss.  v.  cap.  iv.  Art.  2),  says  this  is  unlawful  though  valid. 

2  Martene  de  antiq.  Eitibus  Ecclesise  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ord.  14. 

3  Gregor.  PP.  VII.  Eegest  Lib.  I.  Ep.  34;  Lib.  II.  Ep.  61 ;  Lib.  vi.  Ep.  2. 

The  deprecatory  absolution  sent  by  Paschal  II.  to  Lambert  of  Arras  is  note 
worthy — "Per  merita  beatse  Mariae  semper  virginis  et  orationes  sanctorum 
angelorum  et  beatorum  apostolorum  omniumque  sanctorum,  ornnipotens 
Dominus  te,  carrissime  frater  Lamberte  episcope,  ab  omnibus  peccatis  absolvat 


WRITTEN  CONFESSIONS. 

be  regarded  as  irregular,  and  the  pseudo-Augustiu,  copied    by 
Gratian,  laid  down  the  rule  that  confession  must  be  auricular  and 
not  in  writing  or  by  messenger.1      The  uncertainty  in  which  the 
matter  rested  is  seen,  about  1225,  in  Ca?sarius  of  Heisterbach,  who 
argues  that  written  confessions  are   insufficient,  although  there  are 
occasional  instances  of  their  sufficiency.2     S.  Ramon  de  Penafort 
asserts  positively  that  confession  must  be  oral  and  not  by  messenger 
or  letter,3  and  Alexander   Hales  soon  afterwards  takes  the  same 
position  :  when  a  priest  is  inaccessible,  as  with  captives  among  the 
Saracens,  it  suffices  to  confess  to  God,  with  intention  to  confess  to 
a  priest.4     Aquinas  pointed  out  that  the  penitent  must  contribute  to 
the  sacrament ;  the  spoken  Avords  are  a  portion  of  it  and  are  indis 
pensable,  except  in  case  of   insurmountable  physical   impediment.5 
This  view  became  widely  accepted  ;  as  Peter  of  Tarantaise  (Innocent 
V.)  says,  the  act  of  confession  is  the  material  of  the  sacrament  which 
without  it  is  imperfect,  therefore  the  confession  must  be  oral  and 
personal.6     There  were  dissidents,  however,  and  it  was   not   until 
modern  times  that  auricular  confession  became  authoritatively  recog 
nized  as  essential  to  the  sacrament  and  as  a  condition  precedent  to 


et  secundum  fidem  tuam  gratise  suse  tibi  munus  accumulet."— Lowenfeld.  Epist. 
Pontiff.  Eoman.  p.  73. 

1  Cap.  88  Caus.  xxxm.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1. 

The  schoolmen  were  in  the  habit  of  quoting  the  case  of  Thomas  Becket,  who 
was  said  to  have  confessed  by  letter  to  Alexander  III.  and  to  have  received 
absolution  in  return,  but  the  facts  do  not  substantiate  this.  After  Becket  had 
accepted  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  he  repented  and  abstained  from  his 
functions  till  he  should  be  absolved  by  God  and  the  pope.  He  therefore  sent 
a  messenger  to  Alexander,  who  replied  in  terms  of  consolation,  telling  him  that 
God  looked  to  the  intention  and  not  to  the  act.  If  he  feels  remorse  he  should 
confess  in  penitence  to  a  priest,  when  God  will  dismiss  the  sin.  Moreover, 
relying  on  the  merits  of  Peter  and  Paul  "  te  ab  eo  quod  commissum  est  absolve- 
mus  et  id  ipsum  fraternitati  tuae  auctoritate  apostolica  relaxamus  "  and  ordered 
him  to  resume  his  functions.— Baron.  Annal.  ann.  1164  n.  5,  6. 

Thus  confession  was  to  be  made  to  a  priest,  pardon  was  to  come  from  God, 
and  what  Alexander  did  was  virtually  to  absolve  him  from  the  oath  taken  at 
Clarendon. 

2  Caesar.  Heisterbach.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  27. 

3  S.  Raymundi  Summae  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  |  4. 

4  Alex,  de  Ales  Surnma3  P.  IV.  Q.  xvm.  Membr.  iv.  Art.  5,  |  9. 

5  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  Suppl.  Q.  IX.  Art.  3. 

6  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summae  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  65,  76. 


364  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

absolution.  Duns  Scotus  does  not  say  that  confession  and  absolu 
tion  by  writing  are  unsacramental,  and  only  deems  them  contrary  to 
the  secrecy  characteristic  of  the  confessional  and  dangerous  through 
liability  to  publicity.1  The  Thomists  and  Scotists,  however,  did  not 
divide  upon  the  question.  William  of  Ware,  though  a  Franciscan, 
pronounces  confession  other  than  auricular  to  be  unlawful,  while 
Astesanus,  Frangois  de  Mairone,  Pierre  de  la  Palu  and  St.  An- 
tonino  hold  that  it  is  allowable  though  inadvisable — if  a  penitent 
is  lame  and  cannot  walk,  and  the  priest  is  sick  and  cannot  come  to 
him,  confession  and  absolution  can  be  exchanged  by  letter.2  Cheru- 
bino  da  Spoleto  advances  only  reasons  of  inexpediency  against  it  and 
does  not  question  its  validity.3  That  it  was  not  infrequently  practised 
is  apparent  from  a  decree  of  the  council  of  Strassburg,  in  1435,  which 
says  that  it  was  habitual  with  some  priests  when  they  were  busy  and 
that  it  is  only  permissible  when  there  is  legitimate  cause,  for  sins  are 
only  remitted  in  oral  confession.4  Early  in  the  sixteenth  century 
Prierias  seems  to  consider  the  question  open,  though  personally  he 
decides  in  the  negative.5  So  Caietano  says  that  if  a  confession  is 
written  it  must  be  handed  to  the  confessor,  and  that  absolution  can 
only  be  given  verbally,6  while  Fumo  holds  that  in  case  of  necessity 
letters  and  messengers  are  allowable,7  and  Domingo  Soto,  on  the  other 
hand,  follows  Aquinas.8  The  council  of  Trent  was  silent  on  the  sub 
ject,  and  the  Tridentine  Catechism  objects  to  writing  only  on  account 
of  its  interference  with  secrecy.9  Several  Spanish  theologians  of  the 
highest  character,  such  as  Pedro  Soto,  Azpilcueta  and  Francisco 
Suarez  pronounced  in  its  favor,  but  when,  in  1594,  the  Jesuit  Juan 
Geronimo  preached  two  sermons  in  support  of  the  sacramental  charac 
ter  of  written  confession  and  absolution,  the  Inquisition  of  Toledo 
prosecuted  him,  sentenced  him  to  a  severe  reprimand  and  made  him 


1  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  unic. 

2  Guill.  Vorrillong  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn. — Astesani  Sumrnse  Lib.  V.  Tit. 
xviii. — F.  de  Mayronis  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  i.— P.  de  Palude  in  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1. — S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  \  9. 

3  Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimale  Serm.  LXII. 

4  Statut.  Ecclesv  Argentinens.  ann.  1435,  cap.  11  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  552). 

5  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  vv.  Confessio  Sacr.  i.  \  16  ;   Confessor  iv.  |  7. 

6  Caietani  Summula,  s.  v.  Confessio. 

1  Fund  Aurea  Armilla  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  23. 

8  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xviii.  Q.  ii.  Art.  6. 

9  Cat.  Trident.  De  Poenit.  cap.  9. 


A  VRICULAR  CONFESSION  PRESCRIBED.  365 

sign  an  acknowledgment  of  his  error  and  a  pledge  to  teach  the  oppo 
site  thereafter.1  Manuel  Sa  taught  the  validity  of  written  confession 
and  absolution,  but,  after  the  question  had  been  adversely  decided  by 
Clement  VIII.,  the  Congregation  of  the  Index  ordered  this  passage 
struck  out  and  a  contrary  one  inserted.2  Henriquez  adopted  a  modi 
fied  doctrine,  that  confession  can  be  made  by  letter  but  absolution 
must  be  oral,  and  he  too  fell  under  the  ban  of  the  Index,  his  work 
being  prohibited,  donee  corrigatur,  by  decree  of  August  7,  1603.3 

^The  influence  of  Spanish  theology  at  this  period  was ' preponder 
ating  and  some  emphatic  decision  was  requisite  to  check  the  develop 
ment  of  a  doctrine  so  threatening  to  auricular  confession.  Accord 
ingly,  in  1602,  Clement  VIII.  denounced  the  proposition  as  false, 
audacious  and  scandalous,  and  prohibited  its  being  defended  even  as 
probable,  under  pain  of  excommunication  removable  only  by  the 
pope,  as  well  as  of  other  arbitrary  punishment.4  Still  there  were 
those  who  adhered  to  the  position  of  Heuriquez,  that  confession  may 
be  made  by  letter,  though  absolution  requires  personal  presence,  and 
they  argued  that  the  use  of  the  particle  et  in  place  of  vel  in  the 
papal  decree  allowed  this  doctrine  to  be  taught.  To  put  an  end  to 
this  Paul  V.,  in  1605,  made  a  formal  declaration  in  the  Congrega 
tion  of  the  Holy  Office  prohibiting  it  likewise.5  Still  the  question 
refused  to  be  settled  and,  in  1634,  Urban  VIII.  was  obliged  to  issue 
a  decree  forbidding  the  absolution,  even  by  the  Papal  Penitentiary, 
of  those  who  should  teach  or  practise  the  doctrine  of  sacramental 
confession  by  letter.6  Even  this  did  not  suffice,  and  a  lively  contro 
versy  on  the  subject  continued  throughout  the  seventeenth  century, 

1  MSS.  Universitats  Bibliothek  of  Halle,  Yc,  20,  Tom.  I. 

2  Em.  Sa  Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  8. — Index  Brasichellensis, 
I.  347. 

3  Henriquez  Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  n.  5 ;  Lib.  v.  cap.  ii.  n. 
7.— Index  Brasichellensis  I.  601. 

4  Clement  PP.  VIII.   Deer.   20   June,   1602   (Bullar.  III.    150).— Ferraris 
Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  Art.  in.  n.  14. 

This  gave  rise  to  a  question  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  death-bed  absolution 
when,  on  the  arrival  of  the  priest,  the  penitent  is  speechless  or  senseless. 
Suarez  wrote  a  tract  on  the  subject  in  1605  or  1606. — Ddllinger  u.  Reusch, 
Moralstreitigkeiten  in  der  romisch-katholischen  Kirche,  II.  266. 

5  Jac.  Bayi  Institt.  Eelig.  Christ.  Lib.  n.  cap.  91.— Viva  Trutina  Theol. 
Append.  §  10. 

6  Pittoni  Constitutions  Pontificiae,  T.  VII.  n.  786. 


THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

chiefly  between  the  Dominicans  and  the  Jesuits.1  A  case  was  cited 
as  having  occurred  in  England,  during  the  persecution  of  the  Cath 
olics,  in  which  one  executed  for  his  religion  managed  to  transmit 
from  prison  a  written  confession  to  a  priest,  with  a  request  to  him 
to  be  present  in  disguise  near  the  scaffold ;  he  complied,  their  eyes 
met  and  he  murmured  the  formula  of  absolution2 — a  somewhat 
superfluous  ceremony,  since  the  baptism  of  blood  is  as  efficacious  as 
that  of  water.  Of  course,  the  resistance  of  captious  theologians  was 
unsuccessful  and  the  necessity  of  auricular  confession  and  of  presence 
in  absolution  is  no  longer  disputed,  though  it  rests  only  on  the  utter 
ance  of  Clement  VIII.3  The  definition  as  to  absolution  led  to  many 
nice  speculations  as  to  the  distance  which  can  intervene  between 
priest  and  penitent  without  rendering  the  sacrament  invalid,  some 
doctors  holding  that  twenty  paces  are  allowable,  while  others  contend 
for  less ;  also,  whether  one  must  be  able  to  see  the  other,  or  whether 
hearing  suffices ;  also,  when,  from  any  cause,  absolution  is  not  given 
at  the  time  of  confession,  how  many  days  may  elapse  without  affect 
ing  its  validity4 — speculations  which  are  chiefly  of  interest  as  illus 
trating  the  difficulty  of  accommodating  divine  laws  to  the  imper 
fections  and  accidents  of  human  life.  Modern  science,  moreover, 
has  recently  raised  a  new  question,  for  the  introduction  of  the 


1  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1195.— Morin  de  Poenit.  Lib.  vm. 
cap.  25. 

In  1617  the  Benedictine  Pierre  Milliard  taught  that  both  confession  and 
absolution  could  be  conveyed  by  messenger,  a  proposition  which  was  promptly 
condemned  by  the  Sorbonne  (D'Argentre  Coll.  Judic.  de  novis  Error.  II.  ir. 
116).— In  1643  the  Franciscan  Marchant  (Trib.  Animar.  Tom.  I.  Tract,  vi. 
Tit.  ii.  Q.  4,  Concl.  2)  maintained  the  theory  of  Henriquez,  and  after  1690  the 
Jesuit  Arsdekin  still  taught  the  forbidden  doctrine  (Theol.  Tripart.  P.  in. 
Tract,  iii.  cap.  3,  §  6,  Q.  3). 

3  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxv.  n.  16. 

3  Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univers.  Diss.  v.  cap.  ii.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1.— Varceno 
Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm  cap.  iv.  art.  5. 

Tournely  argues  (De  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Q.  vi.  Art.  iv.)  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  sacrament  to  prevent  epistolary  confession  and  absolution,  but  that  the 
decree  of  Clement  VIII.  is  final.  La  Croix  (Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  P.  ii.  n. 
1199)  adopts  the  very  conclusive  reasoning  that  if  absolution  could  be  given  in 
absentia,  Clement  VIII.  could  not  have  forbidden  it. 

*  Marchant  Trib.  Animar.  Tom.  I.  Tract,  vi.  Tit.  ii.  Q.  5.— Clericati  de 
Poenit.  Decis.  xxxv.  n.  17-18.— Zenner  Instruct.  Pract.  Confessar.  \  80.— Mig. 
Sanchez,  Prontuario  de  la  Teologia  Moral,  Trat.  vi.  Punto  vii.  n.  6. 


INTERROGATION. 

telephone  renders  verbal  communication  possible  at  a  distance,  but 
it  has  been  decided  that,  though  telephonic  confession  may  be  oral, 
the  absolution  would  be  given  in  absentia  and  therefore  would  be 
invalid.1 

Apart  from  the  dogmatic  questions  respecting  the  integrity  of  the 
sacrament,  it  was  impossible  that  the  Church  could  consent  to  epis 
tolary  confession.     Its  theory  is  that  the  priest  sits  as  a  judge  in  the 
tribunal  of  conscience.     The  penitent  is  instructed,  before  coming  to 
confession,  to  make  diligent  scrutiny  of  his  memory  and  the  council 
of  Trent  has  rendered  this  defide,  but  it  is  impossible  to  define  the 
exact  limits  to  which  this  self-examination  should  be  pushed.2     He 
is  the  only  witness  for  and  against  himself,  and  in  most  cases,  as  the 
books  tell  us,  an   unwilling  witness.     To  weigh  the  case  properly, 
not  only  must  every  sin  be  revealed,  but  the  circumstances  connected 
with  each  one,  and  this  can  only  be  accomplished  by  a  searching 
examination  in  which   the  confessor  probes  the  conscience  of  the 
sinner  to  the  bottom  and  ascertains  all  the  facts  requisite  to  enable 
him  to  reach  an  accurate  judgment.     We  shall  see,  when  we  come  to 
consider  the  subject  of  satisfaction,  of  how  little  real  import  all  this 
is,  but  such  is  the  basis  on  which  the  rule  of  confession  is  founded, 
and  to  abandon  it  would  be  to  deprive  the  system  of  its  raison  d'etre. 
It  is  true  that  in  this,  as  in  all  other  attempts  to  prescribe  regulations 
in  these  matters,  the  doctors  are  by  no  means  in  accord  as  to  the 
degree  to  which  examination  should  be  made  into  the  modifying 
characteristics  of  a  sin,  some  contenting  themselves  with  generalities, 
while  others  insist  on  the  minutest  details.     As  a  means  of  reducing 
to  some  kind  of  system  the  infinite  variety  of  human  actions  and 
motives,  circumstances  have  been  classified  as  intrinsic  or  extrinsic, 
as  modifying  species  or  adding  species,  as  aggravating  or  extenuating, 
and  in  conformity  with  this  classification  the  council  of  Trent  made 
it  defide  that  circumstances  modifying  species  should  be  confessed,3 
as,  for  instance,  theft  may  be  either  simple  or  sacrilegious, Chough  in 
manv   cases  the  authorities  admit  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing 


1  Marc  Xnstitt.  Moral.  Alphonsianae  n.  1663. 

*  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  can.  7.-Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Consc 
Disp.  i.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  Par.  2,  n.  8. 
3  C.  Trident,  loc.  tit. 


368  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

between  the  classes.1  As  to  the  necessity  of  detailing  merely  aggra 
vating  circumstances,  opinions  appear  to  be  about  equally  divided, 
with  great  names  on  either  side.  Liguori  investigates  the  subject 
elaborately,  states  three  opinions  as  current  and  pronounces  that 
which  denies  the  necessity  to  be  the  more  probable.2  As  a  general 
rule,  the  circumstances  requiring  to  be  investigated  are  recapitulated 
in  the  distich — 

Quid,  quis,  ubi,  per  quos,  quoties,  cur,  quomodo,  quando, 
Quilibet  observet  animae  medicamina  dando  — 

but  the  practical  application  of  this  has  been,  from  an  early  period, 
the  subject  of  interminable  and  most  intricate  discussion.  The 
questions  involved  show  how  completely  the  confessional  has  been 
transformed,  from  its  original  theory  of  a  repentant  sinner  eager  to 
cast  the  whole  burden  of  his  sins  at  the  feet  of  the  Saviour,  into  a 
criminal  court  in  which  the  accused  is  expected  to  conceal  his  trans 
gressions,  and  the  truth  has  to  be  extorted  from  him  by  a  series  of 
carefully  prearranged  cross-questions.  This  was  the  inevitable  re 
sult  of  enforced  confession,  and  the  theologians,  accustomed  to  the 
established  routine,  appear  utterly  unable  to  appreciate  the  incon 
gruity  between  the  means  and  the  ostensible  end. 

There  was  excuse  for  this  in  the  older  time  when  confession  was 
voluntary  and  was  scarce  expected  of  a  layman  more  than  once  or 
twice  in  a  life-time.  The  accumulated  sins  of  years  might  well  re 
quire  prompting  of  the  memory  to  assist  in  their  recollection,  and  in  the 


1  Viva  Cursus  Theol.  Moral.  P.  vi.  Q.  5,  Art.  2,  n.  4.— Benzi  Praxis  Trib. 
Conscient.  Disp.  I.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  Par.  2,  n.  2. 

2  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  458. 

As  an  example  of  aggravating  circumstances,  Clericato  (De  Poanit.  Decis. 
xxvill.  n.  10)  alludes  to  "Keligiosis  qui  non  verentur  ingredi  domus  publi- 
carium  meretricum,  et  exire  ex  ipsis  sine  rubore,  quamvis  videantur  ac  obser- 
ventur  a  transeuntibus  et  ab  aliis  in  eodem  vico  habitantibus,  qui  omnes 
gravissimum  scandalum  ultra  peccatum  carnis  committuntet  deturpant  bonum 
nomen  sui  Ordinis."  Creating  this  scandal  would  seem  superfluous,  for  Escobar 
tells  us  (Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vi.  n.  66)  that  the  excommunication  decreed  for 
religious  who  lay  aside  the  habit  is  not  incurred  when  this  is  done  tempo 
rarily  for  the  purpose  of  secretly  stealing  or  fornicating.  Pascal  (Provinciales, 
Lett.  vie.)  alludes  to  this  with  his  customary  caustic  sarcasm,  and  Pere  Daniel 
(Entretiens  d'Eudoxe  et  de  Cleandre,  Ed.  1828,  P.  n.  pp.  68-71)  vainly  en 
deavors  to  explain  it  away.  Apparently,  according  to  Escobar,  the  motive  for 
laying  aside  the  habit  in  such  cases  is  an  extenuating  circumstance. 


IN  TERR  0  OA  TION. 


369 


Penitentials  and  compilations  of  canons  we  find  rudimentary  formulas 
to  aid  the  priest  in  exploring  the  conscience  of  the  penitent.1  In  813, 
the  council  of  Chalons  complains  that  some  penitents  do  not  make 
full  confessions  and  orders  the  confessor  to  push  his  enquiries  through 
all  the  eight  mortal  sins,2  while  Benedict  the  Levite  directs  the  priest 
to  investigate  all  the  details  which  may  aggravate  or  extenuate  the 
sin.3  In  the  eleventh  century,  the  indescribable  nastiness  of  the  ques 
tions  which  Bishop  Burchard  directs  the  confessor  to  put  shows  the 
custom  completely  established,  and  the  contamination  which  it  could 
not  fail  to  bring  on  those  who  perchance  were  innocent  and  pure.4 
In  the  twelfth  century,  the  pseudo-Augustin  directs  the  confessor  to 
extract  both  what  the  penitent  conceals  and  what  perhaps  he  is 
ignorant  of,  and  then  to  push  his  investigations  into  all  the  circum 
stances,  and  this  acquired  the  force  of  law  when  it  was  carried  into 
Gratiau.5  As  the  system  of  the  Penitentials  passed  away  and  the 
priest  became  clothed  with  the  power  of  the  keys  and  with  discretion 
in  the  administration  of  penance,  it  grew  still  more  important  for 
him  to  ascertain  all  the  details  which  might  aggravate  or  mitigate  the 
penalty  to  be  imposed,  and  the  instructions  for  his  guidance  assumed 
a  more  elaborate  form.  That  which  is  alone  possible  to  omniscience 
was  sought  for  in  framing  rules  for  investigation  and  for  weighing 
the  information  thus  obtained.  Alain  de  Lille,  in  his  minute  direc 
tions  to  the  confessor,  even  endeavors  to  instruct  him  as  to  the  con 
clusions  to  be  drawn  from  the  face  of  his  penitent.0  Yet  already  the 
dangerous  suggestiveness  of  the  process  was  recognized,  and  Eudes 
of  Paris,  about  1198,  ordered  priests  to  use  the  utmost  caution— to 
inquire  only  about  the  customary  sins  and  not  about  others  unless 
some  circumstances  suggested  the  likelihood  of  their  existence.7 

When  annual  confession  was  enforced  there  was  less  to  be  appre 
hended  from  lapse  of  memory,  but  more  from  conscious  suppression 


1  Ps.  Bedse  Ordo  ad  dandam  Pcenitentiam  (Wasserschleben,  p.  253).— Regi- 
non.  Discipl.  Eccles.  I.  300.— Garofali  Ordines  ad  dandam  Pcenitentiam,  pp. 
33-4.— Morin.  de  Pcenitentia  Append,  p.  23. 

2  C.  Cabillonens.  ann.  813,  cap.  32  (Harduin.  IV.  1037). 

3  Bened.  Levit.  Capitular.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  379.— Isaac  Lingonens.  I.  39. 

4  Burchardi  Decreti  Lib.  xix. 

6  Cap.  1,  |  3  Caus.  xxxm.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  7. 

6  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Pcenit.  (Migne,  CCX.  287). 

7  Constitt.  Odonis  Paris,  cap.  vi.  I  1  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1490). 

I.-24 


370  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

by  unwilling  penitents,  and  the  Lateran  canon  of  1216  is  careful 
to  prescribe  diligent  investigation  into  all  circumstances  of  sin  as 
part  of  the  duty  of  the  confessor.  As  enforced  confession  was  grad 
ually  reduced  to  a  system,  the  priest  was  accordingly  instructed  to 
interrogate  the  sinner  seriatim  on  each  of  the  precepts  of  the  Deca 
logue,  the  seven  deadly  sins,  the  abuses  of  the  five  senses  and  the 
thoughts  and  lusts  of  the  heart.1  No  loophole  was  to  be  left  through 
which  the  penitent  could  escape  the  searching  inquisition.  Minute  and 
suggestive  lists  were  drawn  up,  hideous  catechisms  of  sin,  and  though 
occasional  caution  was  uttered,  recommending  reticence,  especially  as 
to  lapses  of  the  flesh,  virginal  purity  and  innocence  could  be  no  safe 
guard  against  foul  and  indecent  questions.  Women  evidently  were 
not  expected  to  confess  such  matters  willingly,  so  that  inquiries  had 
to  be  made  to  all,  young  and  old ;  the  usual  instruction  is  to  com 
mence  by  asking  about  impure  thoughts  and  whether  they  give 
pleasure,  and  if  this  is  admitted  the  interrogations  can  be  pushed 
from  one  step  to  another.  Under  such  a  method  contamination  can 
scarce  be  avoided  at  the  hands  of  the  most  discreet  of  confessors, 
and  if  he  chance  to  be  brutal  or  coarse-minded  the  confessional 
becomes  a  source  of  demoralization.  As  the  system  developed  under 
the  busy  hands  of  the  scholastic  theologians,  the  interrogations  grew 
more  elaborate.  All  sins  were  investigated  in  their  minutest  particu 
lars  to  determine  the  exact  amount  of  guilt  involved  in  every  sup- 
posable  case — about  which,  however,  the  doctors  were  not  by  any 
means  always  in  accord — and  in  order  to  perform  his  functions 
properly  the  confessor  was  required  to  push  his  inquiries  into  every 
detail.  It  was  a  mortal  sin  for  him  to  omit  this  duty,  and  no  more 
appalling  summary  of  human  wickedness  and  perversity  is  to  be 
found  than  in  the  instructions  drawn  up  for  him  in  its  performance.2 


1  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Poenit.  cap.  24,  26. 

2  Constitt.  Coventriens.  arm.  1237  (Harduin.  VII.  279  sqq).— C.  Claromon- 
tens.  aim.  1268,  cap.  7  (Ibid.  VII.  595).— Statut.  Johann.  Episc.  Leodiens.  ann. 
1287,  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  III.  686  sqq). — Epist.  Synod.  Guillel.  Episc.  Cadur- 
cens.  cap.  14  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  694  sqq).— S.  Bonaventura?  Confessionale 
Cap.  II.  Partic.  1. — Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Interrogationes. 

Among  the  questions  to  be  asked  of  children  of  both  sexes,  from  the  age  of 
seven  to  that  of  puberty,  is  "Si  quoquomodo  carnaliter  peccavit  per  seipsum 
aut  cum  aliis  maribus  vel  feminis  et  quomodo.  Nam  in  hoc  setas  anticipat. 
In  hujusmodi  tamen  et  in  sequentibus  confessor  prudenter  se  habeat  ne  innocens 
quod  ignorat  addiscat,  nee  tamen  oculis  clausis  pertranseat,  cum  in  his  hsec 


INTERROGATION.  371 

These  labors  necessarily  broadened  the  scope  of  the  confessional ;  all 
possible  lapses  from  rectitude  in  every  sphere  of  human  activity  were 
investigated  and  estimated  and  catalogued  and  defined  with  a  minute 
ness  that  had  never  before  been  attempted  by  moralists,  and  huge 
books  were  compiled  to  afford  the  priest  the  necessary  aid  in  pushing 
his  inquiries.  The  Ten  Commandments,  the  seven  deadly  sins,  the 
five  senses,  the  twelve  articles  of  faith,  the  seven  sacraments,  the 
seven  works  of  temporal  mercy  and  the  seven  spiritual,  were  ran 
sacked  to  find  objects  of  inquiry,  and  then  all  classes  and  callings  of 
men  were  successively  reviewed  and  lists  of  questions  were  drawn 
up  fitted  for  their  several  temptations  and  habitual  transgressions. 
Angiolo  da  Chivasso  prints  a  series  of  about  seven  hundred  inquiries 
as  suggestions,  and  assures  us  that  they  are  condensed  as  far  as  pos 
sible,  and,  in  1528,  Martin  de  Frias  cites  it  as  a  model,  avoiding  the 
extremes  both  of  brevity  and  prolixity.  Bartholommeo  de  Chaimis, 
after  exhausting  all  the  generalities  of  sins,  gives  instructions  for  the 
examination  of  children  and  married  folk,  princes  and  magistrates, 
lawyers,  physicians,  surgeons,  courtiers,  citizens,  merchants,  traders, 
bankers,  partners,  brokers,  artizans,  druggists,  goldsmiths,  tavern- 
keepers,  butchers,  tailors,  shoemakers,  lenders  and  borrowers,  bakers, 
actors,  musicians,  farmers,  peasants,  tax-  and  toll-gatherers,  rectors 
and  administrators  of  hospitals  and  religious  houses,  clerics,  simple 
priests,  canons  and  incumbents  of  benefices,  bishops  and  secular  pre 
lates,  abbots  and  regular  prelates,  and  finally  monks  and  friars. 
These  are  only  types  of  a  class  of  works  whose  multiplication  shows 
the  demand  existing  for  them,  and  the  details  into  which  they  enter 
leave  the  impression  that  any  penitent  after  undergoing  such  an 
examination  as  they  suggest  would  have  little  to  learn  as  to  the  sins 
which  he  might  commit  or  the  frauds  and  iniquities  which  he  might 
perpetrate.1 

setas  soleat  multipliciter  involvi,"  and  then  the  author  proceeds  with  a  series 
of  most  suggestive  questions  for  both  sexes.  These  are  decent,  however,  in 
comparison  with  the  interrogatories  prescribed  for  married  folk. — Bart,  de 
Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  51-55,  61-62. 

The  caution  to  begin  the  inquiry  as  to  carnal  sins  with  women  by  asking 
about  impure  thoughts,  and  then  proceeding  gradually  has  remained  the 
established  formula.— Alph.  de  Leone  de  Off.  et  Potest.  Confessar.  Recoil, 
xvi.  n.  27. 

1  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summ*  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxv.  Q.  82-4.— Manipulus 
Curatorum  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  9.  — John  Myrc's  Instructions  for  Parish 


372 


THE  CONFESSIONAL. 


Penitents  thus  were  expected  to  conceal  their  sins  as  far  as  they 
could,  and  it  was  assumed  that  confessions  were  rarely  complete 
without  this  searching  course  of  examination,  for  few  penitents,  we 
are  told,  are  found  who  use  due  diligence  in  revealing  their  trans 
gressions.1  At  the  same  time  there  was  no  little  complaint  of  the 
negligence  and  carelessness  of  so  many  priests,  whom  Pacifico  da 
Novara  calls  confusers  rather  than  confessors,  those  who  simply 
listen  to  the  penitent,  grant  invalid  absolutions  and  plunge  both 
themselves  and  their  penitents  into  hell,  whither  the  majority  are 
hastening.  This  he  attributes  to  their  ignorance,  for  they  scarce 
know  how  to  read  and  have  never  looked  into  a  book  on  confession, 
while  Caietano  says  that  the  great  mass  of  confessors  defend  their 
negligence  by  the  time  which  attention  to  these  details  would  con 
sume,  rendering  them  unable  to  attend  to  the  number  of  penitents 
requiring  their  services,  though  it  is  a  mortal  sin  to  omit  the  neces 
sary  interrogation.2 

Thus  far  the  tendency  had  been  to  a  constantly  increasing  demand 

Priests,  vv.  961-1414.— Casus  Papales  Confessomm  (s.  1.  e.  a.  Ham  4675).— 
Somma  Pacifica.— Confessionale  Raynaldi  (s.  1.  e.  a.  sed  circa  1476).— S.  An- 
tonini  Confessionale.— Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Interrogationes.—K&rt.  de  Chaimis 
Interrogat.— Martini  de  Frias  de  Arte  et  Modo  audiendi  Confessiones  fol.  xvia. 
John  of  Freiburg,  among  the  instructions  for  the  examination  of  secular 
priests,  includes  (foe.  cit.  Q.  83-4)  "  Item  de  luxuria  et  venatione  et  de  irregu- 
laritate  ac  de  incontinentia  si  est  in  sacris  ordinibus.  Item  de  advocatione  el 
ludo  alearum  et  similibus  in  quibus  saepius  solent  offendere  Deum  "—and  this 
is  moderate  in  comparison  with  the  fearful  list  of  inquiries  given  by  St  Anto- 
nino  as  necessary  to  be  made  of  the  clergy,  suggesting  the  deplorable  condition 
of  the  Church  at  the  period.  One  significant  point  is  the  frequency  with  which 
matters  are  rated  as  mortal  sins  "  nisi  habet  licentiam  papae,"  "  nisi  habet  dis- 
pensationem  papae."— S.  Antonini  Confessionale,  fol.  54-65. 

It  is  observable  that  in  rehearsing  the  ten  commandments  the  second  is  rur 
in  with  the  first,  and  no  questions  are  asked  as  to  image-worship.  The  numbei 
of  ten  is  made  up  by  Bart,  de  Chaimis  (Interrog.  fol.  23,  43)  by  splitting  th< 
tenth  into  two.  Father  Habert  (Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Tract,  n.)  even  reduces 
the  commandments  to  eight,  omitting  the  second  and  running  together  th< 
seventh  and  tenth.  For  the  various  divisions  of  the  Decalogue  see  Sayri  Clavii 
Eegia  Sacerd.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  ii.  n.  6.  Cf.  Catech.  Trident.  De  I.  Praecept.  Deca 
logi  cap.  4. 

1  S.  Antonini  Confessionale,  fol.  206. -Somma  Pacifica  cap.  2.  —Bart,  de  Chai 

mis  Interrog.  fol.  16a. 

2  B.  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  16a.— Somma  Pacifica  cap.  2.— Caietani  Opusc 
Tract,  v.  De  Confessione  Q.  3;  Ejusd.  Summula  s.  v.  Interrogatio. 


INTERROGATION. 


373 


for  thoroughness  of  examination,  accompanied  by  an  enormous  de 
velopment  in  the  enumeration  of  all  possible  sins  and  in  the  differ 
entiation  of  their  grades  and  varieties.  The  latter  continued,  but  a 
reaction  as  to  the  former  seems  to  have  set  in  with  the  sixteenth 
century.  Prierias  discourages  indiscriminate  inquisitiveness.  There 
are  various  opinions,  he  says,  as  to  the  duty  of  interrogation,  but  the 
safest  seems  to  be  that  it  should  be  let  alone  unless  there  is  cause  to 
suspect  that  the  penitent  is  withholding  sins  through  ignorance  or 
forgetfulness  or  perversity,  or  when  there  are  circumstances  to  be 
ascertained  controlling  the  degree  of  guilt.1  Domingo  Soto  even 
goes  further,  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Fernando  Kebello :  Con 
fession  is  voluntary  and  the  truth  is  not  to  be  extorted ;  all  that  the 
confessor  should  do  is  to  assist  the  ignorant,  and  he  warmly  depre 
cates  the  manuals  of  confession  in  general  circulation  with  a  wealth 
of  questions  teaching  the  penitent  much  of  which  he  had  better  be 
ignorant,  especially  as  some  priests  deem  it  necessary  to  show  their 
skill  by  omitting  none  of  them.2 

These  protests  had  little  effect.  Warnings,  of  course,  continued 
to  be  given  as  to  prudence  with  youths  and  women,  but  they  were 
accompanied  with  instructions  that  rendered  them  inoperative.  S. 
Carlo  Borromeo  directs  the  confessor,  after  the  penitent  has  fin 
ished,  to  interrogate  on  the  basis  of  the  Decalogue,  and  with  those 
who  rarely  come  to  confession  he  is  to  go  on  with  the  seven  deadly 
sins,  the  five  senses,  the  precepts  of  the  Church  and  the  works  of 
mercy ;  moreover  he  is  to  enquire  closely  into  details  and  to  address 
himself  specially  to  the  sins  common  in  the  class  to  which  the  peni- 


1  Sum  ma  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  in.  $  17. 

2  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvur.  Q.  ii.  Art.  4.— Rebelli  de  Obligation- 
ibus  Justitise  P.  n.  Lib.  XVII.  De  Officiis  Confessarii. 

In  one  of  these  vernacular  confessionals  now  before  me  (Cotifessiouario  breve 
y  muy  provechoso,  without  date)  the  penitent  is  required  to  go  through  the 
Decalogue  seriatim;  with  each  commandment  he  makes  a  general  confession 
of  its  inobservance,  followed  by  a  special  enumeration  of  all  infractions  ;  then 
the  seven  mortal  sins  are  treated  individually  in  the  same  duplicate  manner ; 
then  the  works  of  mercy  and  their  neglect ;  then  the  sins  of  the  five  senses ; 
then  the  three  faculties  of  the  soul ;  then  the  three  theological  and  five  car 
dinal  virtues ;  then  the  sins  against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  then  the  seven  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  seven  sacraments.  Finally  each  state  and  occupation 
of  life  is  treated,  with  the  sins  to  which  it  is  likely  to  give  occasion. 


374  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

tent  belongs.1  Fornari  gives  virtually  the  same  instructions  and 
follows  them  with  a  long  enumeration  of  the  vices  and  failings  of 
the  several  classes  which  are  to  be  inquired  into  specially.2  Hen- 
riquez  commences  by  warning  the  confessor  not  to  be  too  minute  in 
sexual  matters  and  to  avoid  indecent  expressions,  and  then  proceeds 
with  a  shocking  catalogue  of  questions  covering  every  possible 
species  of  impurity.3  It  was  shortly  after  this  that  Paul  V.  issued 
the  Eoman  Kitual  still  in  use.  This  recognizes  the  use  of  interro 
gation,  but  gives  a  wholesome  warning  not  to  waste  time  in  useless 
and  curious  inquiries,  nor  by  imprudence  to  teach  sin  to  the  innocent, 
and  especially  to  the  young  of  either  sex.4  It  is  well  to  issue  such 
warnings,  but  practically  they  can  amount  to  little ;  the  confessor 
must  judge  for  himself,  and  his  judgment  will  depend  upon  his 
temperament ;  he  may  spare  the  hardened  and  persistent  sinner  or 
he  may  leave  an  indelible  stain  on  the  soul  of  virginal  innocence. 
Diana  is  profuse  in  his  cautions  not  to  enquire  too  minutely  into 
the  details  of  salacity,  but  it  would  not  be  easy  to  frame  a  series  of 
more  searching  investigations  into  all  the  shades  and  complications 
of  such  sins  than  those  which  he  compiles  for  the  guidance  of  con 
fessors.5  Azpilcueta  says  that  it  is  sufficient  for  a  prostitute  to  con 
fess  that  for  so  many  years  she  admitted  all  comers,  but  Manuel  Sa 
declares  that  he  would  not  be  content  with  so  general  a  statement, 
though  he  prudently  omits  to  specify  what  details  he  would  enquire 
into.6  Father  Gobat  reiterates  the  old  prescriptions  as  to  carrying 
the  penitent  through  the  Decalogue  and  the  seven  mortal  sins  and 
the  precepts  of  the  Church,  but  he  cautions  the  priest  not  to  render 
the  confession  too  onerous  and  unpleasant  to  the  penitent,  and  he 
virtually  admits  the  superfluousness  of  it  all  when  he  concedes  that 
an  African  slave  in  Brazil  can  be  absolved  if  he  makes  known  in- 


1  S.  Carol!  Borrorn.  Instructiones  (Ed.  1678,  p.  59). 

2  Fornarii  Institt.  Confessar.  Tract.  I.  cap.  2 ;  Tract,  n.  cap.  1-13,  19. 

3  Henriquez  Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  29. 

4  Kitualis  Eoman.  Tit.  in.  cap..l.     uSed  caveat  ne  curiosis  aut  inutilibus 
interrogationibus  quemquam  detineat,  praesertim  juniores  utriusque  sexus,  vel 
alios  de  eo  quod  ignorant  imprudenter  interrogans,  ne  scandalum  patiantur 
indeque  peccare  discant." 

5  Summa  Diana  s.  vv.  Co?ifessarius  n  30,  36;   Circumstantia. 

6  Azpilcueta  Comment,  de  Pcenit.  Dist.  v.  cap.  1,  n.  43.— Em.  Sa  Aphorismi 
Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  43. 


INTERROGATION. 


375 


e.          a  single  mortal  sin,  and  that  the  deaf  and  dumb  or  those 
nf  -fforeio-n  tongue  can  be  similarly  shriven.1 

As  Father  Gobat  indieates,  the  principal  restraint  on  excessive  m- 
,   U  the  fear  of  rendering  confession  odious,  which  con- 
Sot  a         s  ttted  aUvays  to  bear  in  mind.     This  is  apparent  in 
the  instructions  of  the  shrewd  Jesuit,  Father  Segneri  wbich  go  f 
"  the  success  of  the  brethren  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  m   he 


There  is  nothing    uite  so  brutal  .m  »  B  u 


cess  which  the  work  enjoyed  throughout 
half  of  the   eighteenth   century 
languages  show  that  it  ™ 
The  average  confessor  cannot 


~         a  n      OQ£      Q| 

1  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  -aw,  o 

2  P.  Segneri  Instructio  Confessarii 

3  Corella  Praxis  Confessionalis  P.  I. 


guide. 

tle  cool  dexterity 
ffiugt  bc  a 


.  20.33, 


376  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

to  accuse  himself,  is  altogether  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  ordinary 
sinner.  La  Croix  occupies  sixty-three  paragraphs  in  considering 
sexual  offences  alone,  and  this  is  simply  to  determine  whether  the 
confession  is  Integra  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  puzzling  ques 
tions  as  to  mortals  and  venials  or  the  simpler  subject  of  the  due 
amount  of  satisfaction.1 

We  may  reasonably  hope  that  this  plainness  and  directness  are  not 
habitual  in  the  confessional  of  to-day,  but  it  rests  entirely  with  the 
conscience  and  habits  of  the  confessor.  The  tendency  has  undoubt 
edly  been  to  a  relaxation  of  the  duty  of  interrogation,  perhaps  partly 
because  of  the  increase  in  modern  refinement  and  delicacy  and  partly 
in  view  of  the  steadily  diminishing  importance  of  penance.  Chieri- 
cato,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Corella,  urges  brevity  and  discre 
tion,  especially  with  regard  to  carnal  sins,  and  tells  the  confessor  that 
his  penitents  are  not  to  be  taken  through  all  that  is  set  down  in  the 
Moral  Theologies.2  The  council  of  Rome,  in  1725,  in  adopting  a 
system  of  instruction  for  children  at  their  first  confession,  is  careful 
to  warn  priests  not  to  teach  them  sins  of  which  they  may  be  igno 
rant.3  Herzig  passes  over  the  subject  briefly  and  cautiously,  warning 
the  confessor  that  it  is  as  pitch  which  defiles  whosoever  touches  it.4 
Liguori  assumes  that  there  is  no  need  of  interrogating  those  who  are 
well  instructed  and  ready  to  confess  all  details  and  circumstances ; 
the  confessor  should  not  be  over-zealous  or  render  confession  too 
onerous ;  ignorance,  if  conscientious,  is  to  be  respected,  especially 
when  enlightenment  may  do  harm  rather  than  good,  and  duties  that 
would  be  burdensome  are  not  to  be  officiously  forced  upon  the  peni 
tent.5  Guarceno  in  brief  gives  the  same  counsel.6  The  council  of 
Ravenna,  in  1855,  orders  the  confessor  to  interrogate,  but  to  abstain 
from  trifling  and  irrelevant  questions,  and  especially  from  dangerous 
ones  which  may  teach  the  young  sins  of  which  they  are  ignorant.7 
Cardinal  Gousset  warns  the  confessor  to  be  especially  guarded  in 


1  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1021-88. 

2  Clericati  De  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxvi.  n.  6. 

3  Acta  Concil.  Eoman.  Komse,  1725,  p.  139. 

4  Herzig  Manuale  Confessar.  P.  n.  n.  51,  Praecept.  vi.,  ix.  (Aug.  Vindel. 
1757). 

5  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  607,  610. 

6  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  iv.  art.  5,  Append. 

7  C.  Eavennat.  ann.  1855,  cap.  5  §  6  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  159). 


INTERROGATION.  377 


inquiries  concerning  carnal  sins.1  Bishop  Healy  quotes  De  Lugo 
and  Liguori  to  show  that  the  priest  must  interrogate  only  to  supply 
deficiencies  in  the  penitent's  confession.2  Father  Miiller  enjoins  the 
greatest  caution  in  inquiring  into  sins  against  chastity,  and  instructs 
the  confessor  to  be  "  very  careful  never  to  destroy,  by  any  imprudent 
questions,  the  penitent's  happy  innocence  of  crime  or  the  exalted 
idea  the  faithful  usually  have  of  priestly  modesty  and  holiness."' 

These  utterances  .express  the  views  of  the  laxist  school,  which, 
since  Liguori  and  the  bull  Auctorem  Fidei,  has  been  the  prevailing 
one.     Rigorism,  however,  takes  a  stricter  view  of  the  duties  of  the 
confessor.     What  these  are  may  be  found  conscientiously  expressed, 
about  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  by  Father  Habert.     He  directs 
that  the  penitent  be  first  examined  as  to  his  knowledge  of  the  faith; 
then  the  inquiry  takes  the  widest  possible  range  through  the  pre 
cepts  of  the  Decalogue,  which,  as  usual,  are  extended  to  cover  all  pos 
sible  delinquencies,  and  every  detail  that  may  bear  upon  the  character 
of  a  sin  is  to  be  minutely  investigated.     He  does  not  conceal  the  diffi 
culty  of  the  delicate  subject  of  lapses  of  the  flesh.     These  are  matters 
which  penitents  do  not  willingly  reveal,  and  unless  the  confessor 
helps  them  with  his  inquiries  they  do  not  explain,  and  thus  are  left 
to  putrefy  in  their  filth  from  a  mistaken  sense  of  delicacy  on  the 
part  of  the  priest.     On  the  other  hand,  the  utmost  prudence  : 
quired  to  avoid  teaching  sin,  for  cases  are  not  lacking  in  which  the 
penitent  leaves  the  feet  of  the  confessor  with  the  intention  of  ex 
periencing  what  has  been  taught  there.     In  this  dilemma  he  can 
only  suggest  the  old  method  of  first  inquiring  about  impure  though 
and  whether  they  give  pleasure,  and  on  this  being  admitted  he  can 
push  his  inquiries  further.     The  series  of  interrogations  which 
low  are  no  more  than  the  necessities  of  the  confessional  require,  b 
to  a  layman  they  seem  sufficiently  shocking  when  address 
woman.4     Alasia  is  somewhat  more  cautious  in  his  directi 

1  Gousset,  Theol.  Morale,  II.  n.  454. 

2  Frassinetti's  New  Parish  Priest's  Manual,  Append,  p.  5, 

3  Mailer's  Catholic  Priesthood,  III.  142. 

4  Habert,  Praxis  Sacr.  Poenit.  Tract,  n.  cap.  xv. 

So  an  official  manual  for  the  confessors  of  the  diocese  of  Strassburg- 
sim  a  cogitationibus  simplicibus  ad  morosas,  a  morosis  ad  desi 
levibus  ad  consensum,  a  consensu  ad  actus  minus  peccamm 
fatentur  ad  magis  criminosos  ascendendo.»-Monita  Generaha  deC 
fessarii  ad  Usum  Dicecesis  Argentin.  cap.  ii.  §  3  (Argentn 


378  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

inquiries  in  these  matters.1  Bishop  Zenner,  a  very  moderate  rigor- 
ist,  assumes  that,  with  many  penitents,  the  effort  is  to  conceal  rather 
than  to  confess  their  sins,  and  he  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  inter 
rogations,  though  they  should  be  prudently  conducted.2  Father 
Gury  is  a  decided  laxist,  but  he  tells  us  that  the  confessor  does  not 
do  his  duty  who  grants  absolution  for  a  confession  which  gives  only 
the  species  and  number  of  each  sin  ;  it  is  his  business  to  interrogate 
and  to  learn  all  the  details  requisite  to  establish  the  grade  of  every 
sin;  at  the  same  time  he  shows  the  difficulty  of  formulating  any 
definite  rule  for  practice  and  the  impossibility  of  expecting  uni 
formity  among  confessors.3 

There  is  thus  the  widest  latitude  allowed  to  the  discretion  of  the 
priest,  who  can  adopt  whatever  practice  his  conscience  may  lead  him 
to  prefer.  What  the  customary  method  may  be  no  one  can  pretend  to 
say ;  the  confessor  is  responsible  only  to  God ;  there  is  no  appeal 
from  him  and  no  one  to  call  him  to  account.  The  penitent  is  bound 
to  silence  by  the  "  natural  seal"  as  is  the  confessor  by  the  " sacra 
mental  seal,"  and,  save  in  cases  of  direct  solicitation  to  evil,  the 
secrets  of  the  confessional  must  be  revealed  by  neither.  What  occurs 
there  is  to  be  known  only  to  the  parties  concerned  and  to  God.  The 
degree  to  which  interrogations  are  to  be  pushed  is  a  matter  obviously 
surrounded  by  difficulties,  if  confession  is  to  be  more  than  a  mere 
formality,  and  only  the  keenest  knowledge  of  human  nature  com 
bined  with  the  loftiest  spiritual  gifts  can  guide  aright  the  confessor 
in  his  arduous  and  responsible  duty. 

It  has  not  been  left  to  modern  times  to  recognize  the  dangers 
attendant  on  interrogating  the  penitent.  Hardly  had  enforced  con 
fession  been  introduced  when  Bishop  Poore  of  Salisbury  cautioned 
his  priests  to  so  make  their  inquiries  that  the  innocent  should  not  be 
led  into  sin,4  and  Csesarius  of  Heisterbach  emphasizes  this  with  the 
case  of  a  nun  who  was  led  into  sin  by  the  beastly  interrogation  of 
her  confessor  and  was  saved  only  by  the  intercession  of  the  Virgin.5 


1  Alasia  Theol.  Moral.  T.  II.  p.  334  (Taurini,  1834). 

2  Zenner  Instruct.  Pract.  Confessar.  §§  85,  96. 

3  Gury  Casus  Conscientise  I.  n.  31-2 ;  II.  448-62. 

4  Constitt.  E.  Poore  ann.  1217,  cap.  27  (Harduin.  VII.  97). 

5  Caesar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  47.— Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della 
vera  Penitenza,  Dist.  v.  cap.  4. 


DANGER  TO  THE  PENITENT.  379 

A  century  later  Guido  de  Monteroquer,  in  warning  against  too 
curious  an  investigation  into  carnal  sins,  speaks  of  the  frequent 
instances  in  which  both  men  and  women  have  been  led  by  it  into 
guilt  of  which  they  had  previously  known  nothing.1  The  teachers 
of  the  period  admit  that  there  were  authorities  who  objected  wholly  to 
interrogation  on  this  account ;  but,  as  perfect  confession  could  be  had 
in  no  other  way,  it  had  to  be  allowed,  and  they  can  only  urge  the 
greatest  caution  not  to  convert  it  into  a  source  of  infection  for  the 
innocent.2  In  the  debased  morality  which  we  have  seen  prevailing 
among  the  medieval  priesthood  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that 
these  warnings  would  receive  much  attention.  Angiolo  da  Chivasso 
inveighs  against  those  who  are  contaminators  rather  than  confessors, 
who  take  delight  in  the  opportunity  afforded  by  the  confessional  of 
questioning  women  indecently,  and  he  even  hints  that  young  men 
are  not  safe  with  them.3  Savonarola's  utterances  indicate  that  sala 
cious  priests  made  use  of  the  confessional  to  grope  after  the  most 
prurient  details.4  Prierias  warns  the  confessor  that  such  curiosity 
injures  himself  as  well  as  the  penitent,  and  Rosemond  asserts  that 
numerous  souls  are  daily  imperilled  through  the  lack  of  discretion 
of  many  priests.5  Martin  de  Frias  speaks  of  the  frequency  with 
which  mortal  sins  are  committed  by  the  contaminators,  who  push 
their  indecent  inquiries  on  account  of  the  delectation  they  experience 
in  such  details.6  One  very  suggestive  mode  of  teaching  sin  was  a 
question  used  by  ignorant  priests — "  If  you  should  do  this,  or  that, 
would  you  confess  it?" — which  the  synod  of  Verdun,  in  1598,  for 
bids  and  characterizes  as  framed  in  the  workshop  of  the  devil.7  Esco 
bar  reproves  the  indiscretion  with  which  confessors  are  accustomed 
to  push  their  questioning  of  women,  and  tells  them  that  it  would  be 

1  Manip.  Curatorum  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  9. 

2  S.  Raymundi  Summ*  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  g  4.— Hostiens.  Aurese  Summa 
Lib.  v.  De  Pom.  et  Eemiss.  §  48.— Manip.  Curator,  ubi  sup.— Jo.  Gersonis 
Regular  Morales  (Opp.  Ed.  1488,  xxv.  E.). 

3  Summa   Angelica  s.  v.  Inter  rogationes.— "  Et  quod   stet  [pcenitens]  fee* 
versa  latere  confessoris  si  est  mulier  aut  juvenis,  et  non  admittas  quod  aspiciat 
in  faciem  tuam,  quia  multi  propter  hoc  corruerunt." 

4  Savonarolse  Confessionale,  fol.  50. 

5  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  in.  §  18.— Godscbalci  Rosemondi 
fessionale  cap.  v.  P.  ii.  §  De  Conjugate. 

6  Martini  de  Frias  de  Arte  et  Modo  audiendi  Confessiones,  fol.  xva. 

7  Synod.  Verdunens.  ann.  1598,  cap.  51  (Hartzheim  VIII.  470). 


380  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

better  for  them  to  ascertain  less  exactly  the  grade  of  sin  than  thus  to 
create  scandal.1  Gobat  recognizes  the  extreme  danger  to  both  parties 
in  these  matters,  and  tells  us  that  some  moralists  hold  that  they  are 
not  to  be  investigated  as  minutely  as  others  deem  to  be  necessary.2 
Tamburini,  after  a  searching  discussion  of  all  possible  sexual  aber 
rations,  cautions  the  confessor  not  to  push  his  inquiries  too  far  lest 
both  parties  be  led  into  temptation,3  and  a  manual  of  1726  observes 
that  a  priest  who  seeks  too  curiously  into  details  and  uses  expressions 
too  free  is  a  contaminator  rather  than  a  confessor.4  The  Jesuit  rule 
was  prudent,  if  not  strictly  logical — that  it  is  better  for  the  confessor 
to  know  less  of  the  sins  of  his  penitent  than  to  create  scandal  for 
either  party.5  The  learned  Binterirn,  after  a  brief  allusion  to  the 
brutalities  of  the  Peniteiitials  and  discreet  silence  as  to  medieval  and 
modern  writers,  observes  "  Past  ages  present  much  which  modern 
times  have  changed.  What  has  passed  away  belongs  to  history,  not 
to  the  present."6  Let  us  devoutly  hope  that  it  may  be  so. 

It  is  not  only  the  danger  to  the  penitent  that  is  acknowledged,  but 
the  risk  of  corruption  to  which  the  confessor  himself  is  exposed. 
Already,  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  Gregory  the  Great  alludes 
to  the  perils  incurred  in  receiving  the  confessions  of  the  dying, 
when  the  recital  of  sins  committed  inflames  with  the  desire  to  imitate 
them.7  If  thus  the  solemn  atmosphere  and  repulsive  details  of  the 
death-bed  are  insufficient  to  neutralize  such  incentives  to  sin,  it  is 
easy  to  imagine  how  great  must  be  the  strain  on  virtue  when  the 
priest,  with  all  the  passions  of  a  man,  has  whispered  in  his  ear  from 
female  lips  the  acknowledgment  of  lustful  longings  or  of  temptation 
unresisted.  When  St.  Bonaventura  tells  the  confessor  that  he  must 
repress  all  feeling  of  pleasure  at  what  he  hears,  it  shows  that  he  fully 


1  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  38. 

2  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  217,  539,  546. 

3  Tamburini  Method.  Confessionis  Lib.  II.  cap.  vii.  §  10,  n.  77. 

4  Istruzione  per  i  novelli  Confessor!  P.  I.  n.  149  (Roma,  1726). 

5  Lohner  Instructio  practica  de  Confessionibus  P.  I.  cap.  iii.  §  2,  Q.  4 ;  P.  II. 
cap.  1,  Q.  3. 

6  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  V.  n.  234. 

7  S.  Gregor.  PP.  I.  Exposit.  in  I.  Kegum  Lib.  vi.  cap.  ii.  |  4.     "Nam  dum 
cogitant  quse  confitentes  fecerunt,  ad  scelera  quse  audiunt  inardescunt ;  nam 
ssepe  dum  audiunt  quibus  se  alii  blandimentis  obruerant,  amare  ipsi  incipiunt 
quse  jam  eorum  exhortatione  morientes  illi  confitentur." 


DANGER  TO  THE  CONFESSOR.  381 

appreciated  the  besetting  danger  of  the  confessional.1  John  of  Frei 
burg  recognizes  it  fully,  and  when  Astesanus  seeks  to  answer  the 
argument  that  details  of  carnal  sin  provoke  delectation  in  the  con 
fessor  he  can  only  reply  that  they  must  be  confessed  and  that  the 
grace  of  the  sacrament  annuls  the  inclination  to  sin — an  argument 
the  futility  of  which  he  subsequently  admits  when  cautioning  the 
priest  not  to  be  too  curious  lest  he  infect  himself.2  Passavanti  con 
siders  the  risk  to  both  parties  so  great  that  he  advises  the  penitent  to 
select  a  confessor  and  make  a  detailed  confession ,  after  which  he  or 
she  shall  confess  only  in  general  terms,  referring  for  particulars  to 
the  first  confession.3  The  very  nasty  discussions  over  the  immediate 
effects  of  the  revelations  of  the  confessional  show  how  inflammable 
is  the  material  which  the  Church  has  furnished  for  functions  so  deli 
cate,  and  penitents  are  instructed  to  use  language  as  decent  as  possible 
so  as  not  to  excite  the  sensuality  of  their  pastors.4  Habert  gives  a 
most  earnest  warning  to  the  confessor  as  to  the  dangers  of  the  dis 
closures  to  which  he  must  listen  :  the  contagium  of  no  infectious 
disease  is  more  deadly  to  the  body  than  are  the  recitals  of  the  confes 
sional  to  the  soul ;  only  those  in  full  spiritual  vigor  can  hear  them 
without  infection.5  Theologians,  in  fact,  differ  on  the  question 
whether  a  confessor  who  has  realized  by  experience  his  own  fragility 
commits  a  mortal  sin  in  exposing  himself  to  the  danger  of  listening 
to  the  confessions  of  women.6  As  a  palliative  for  this  evil  Benedict 
XIV.  suggests  that  a  priest  sins  gravely  who,  after  enjoying  pro 
longed  delectation  from  a  confession  of  this  kind,  grants  absolution 
without  first  performing  an  act  of  contrition,  and  the  council  of 

1  S.  Bonaventurse  Confessionale  cap.  1,  Partic.  2. 

2  Joh.  Friburgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  81,  &  — Aste- 
sani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xii.  Q.  1 ;  Tit.  xvii.   See  also  S.  Antonini  de  Audientia 
Confess,  fol.  lOb. 

3  Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza  Dist.  v.  cap.  4,  5. 

4  Caietani  Opusc.  Tract,  xxii.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacr.  \\ 
lO.-Joh.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  x.  n.  57.-Henriquez  Summrc 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  XI.  cap.  xvi.  n.  6.-Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Pollutio  n.  3 
Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  cap.  xxv.  Q.  17,  21.— Bonacin*  Compendium  s.  v.  Pol 

n.  2.-Gobat  Alphab.  Confessor,  n.  543.-Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Dist.  xxxvi.  n 
6.— S.  Alpli.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  in.  n.  438 

5  Habert  Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Tract.  I.  cap.  ii.  n.  2. 

6  Caramuelis  Theol.  Fundam.  n.  506-10.-Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Pot 
Zerola  Praxis  Sacr.  Poenit.  cap.  xxv.  Q.  17,  21. 


382  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

Suchuen,  in  1803,  directs  that  no  confession  is  to  be  heard  without 
offering  a  preliminary  prayer  to  God  to  be  preserved  from  infection 
if  violations  of  the  sixth  commandment,  which  give  rise  to  so  many 
temptations,  are  to  be  listened  to.1 

In  view  of  these  admitted  dangers,  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  sur 
prise  that  the  seduction  of  women  in  the  confessional  has  always  been 
a  source  of  anxiety  to  the  Church.  I  have  been  obliged  to  treat  this 
unpleasant  subject  in  some  detail  elsewhere,2  and  may  be  spared  from 
examining  it  here  as  fully  as  its  importance  demands.  It  was  a 
recognized  evil  prior  to  the  enforcement  of  confession,3  and  it  could 
not  but  increase  when  the  whole  population  was  driven  annually  to 
the  confessional,  regardless  of  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  indi 
vidual.  That  it  was  regarded  as  an  ever-present  probability  is  seen 
in  the  reiterated  declarations  that  the  parish  priest  who  was  known 
as  a  "  solicitor"  to  evil  forfeited  his  jurisdiction  over  women,  who 
were  then  at  liberty  to  seek  another  confessor,4  or  if  this  was  not 
possible,  even  to  omit  confession  altogether.5  Council  after  council 


1  Benedict!  PP.  XIV.  Casus  Conscientise  Sept.  1739,  cas.  2.— Synod.  Sutch- 
uens.  ann.  1803,  cap.  vi.  §  7  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  608). 

Akin  to  this  is  the  prurient  delight  which  the  moralists  seem  to  take  in 
treating  of  sexual  sins  and  their  proneness  to  enter  into  the  filthiest  details,  as 
well  as  to  select  them  in  presenting  examples  on  which  to  argue.  Chiericato 
remarks  on  this  when  he  conies  to  treat  of  the  sixth  and  ninth  precepts,  and 
promises  to  confine  himself  to  what  is  strictly  necessary,  but  he  does  not  spare 
the  reader  much  (De  Poenit.  Decis.  xxvii.  n.  9).  His  good  resolution  does  not 
endure,  moreover,  for  he  subsequently  devotes  an  entire  section  to  a  wholly 
superfluous  dissertation  on  hermaphrodite  nuns,  full  of  indecent  details,  related 
with  quiet  complacency  (Ibid.  Decis.  XLIII.).  It  was  a  recognized  fact  that 
these  grave  theologians  experienced  delectation  in  treating  of  these  subjects, 
and  there  was  a  question  whether  they  thus  commit  sin,  for  it  is  for  a  good 
purpose.— Alph.  de  Leone  de  Off.  et  Potest.  Confessar.  Eecoll.  xin.  n.  24. 

The  most  notorious  example  of  the  kind  is  Sanchez,  Disput.  de  S.  Matrimonii 
Sacramento.  I  have  purposely  avoided  looking  into  it,  but  if  it  is  worse  than 
many  of  its  congeners  it  must  be  indeed  repulsive. 

2  History  of  Sacerdotal  Celibacy,  2d  Ed.  pp.  350,  566  sqq.,  632  sqq. 

3  C.  Toletan.  I.  ann.  398,  cap.  6.— P.  Abselardi  Serm.  xxix.— Cap.  8,  9,  10 
Caus.  xxx.  Q.  1.— Calixti  PP.  II.  Serm.  i.  de  S.  Jacobo  (Migne  CLXIII.  1390). 

*  Guido  de  Monteroquer,  however,  states  (Manip.  Curator.  PP.  II.  Tract,  iii, 
cap.  9)  that  when  such  a  parish  priest  refuses  a  licence  to  confess  elsewhere  or 
there  is  no  other  priest  accessible,  there  is  nothing  for  the  woman  to  do  except 
to  confess  to  him,  first  praying  to  God  for  strength  to  resist  his  importunities. 

5  Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimale,  Serm.  LXIV. 


SOLICIT  A  TION. 


busied  itself  with  devising  futile  measures  to  repress  it.  Bishop  Poore 
vainly  threatened  fifteen  years'  penance  to  be  followed  by  imprison 
ment  in  a  monastery/  while  Bishop  Pelayo  shows  his  zeal  for  the 
cloth  by  enumerating  it  among  the  customary  sins  of  women.2 
Csesarius  of  Heisterbach  speaks  of  the  many  examples  which  he 
could  adduce,  but  suppresses  out  of  respect  for  religion  ;  St.  Bona- 
ventura  assures  us  that  few  parish  priests  are  free  from  this  or  some 
other  vice  that  should  incapacitate  them  ;  and  an  anonymous  contem 
porary  writer  alludes  to  the  corruption  of  women  in  the  confessional 
as  an  ordinary  and  well-understood  matter.3  So  well  understood  is 
it,  indeed,  that  it  has  led  to  an  exception  in  the  rule  of  perfect  con 
fession,  and  reticence  on  the  subject  of  carnal  sins  is  allowed  to  a 
woman  obliged  to  confess  to  a  priest  known  as  a  solicitor  to  evil.4 

The  abuse  was  stimulated  not  only  by  the  temptations  and  oppor 
tunities  of  the  confessional,  but  it  was  virtually  divested  of  all 
spiritual  terrors  for  the  woman  by  the  assurance  of  pardon.  The 
doctors  of  both  the  Dominican  and  Franciscan  schools  were  unani 
mous  in  saying  that  a  woman  thus  seduced  ought  not  to  confess  to  her 
paramour  and  that  he  ought  not  to  absolve  her  from  their  mutual 
sin,  but  that  if  he  did  so  the  absolution  is  good,  the  only  objection 
urged  against  this  being  that  it  relieved  the  woman  from  the  shame, 
which  is  a  wholesome  concomitant  of  confession.5  No  other  conclu- 


1  Constitt.  R.  Poore,  ann.  1217,  cap.  9  (Harduin.  VII.  91). 

2  Alvar.  Pelagii  de  Planctu  Ecclesia?  Lib.  n.  Art.  xlv.  n.  84. 

3  Csesar.  Heisterb.   Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  41.— S.  Bonavent.   Quare   Fratres 
Minores  Praedicent  (Opusc.  I.  405). — Collectio  de  Scandalis  Ecclesiae  (Dollin- 
ger,  Beitriige  zur  politischen,  kirchlichen  und  Cultur-Geschichte,  III.  186). 

4  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19  §  8.— Bonal  Institt.  Theol. 
T.  IV.  n.  246. 

5  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  Poenit.  (Migne,  OCX.  298-299).— S.  Th.  Aquin.  in 
IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  1,  Art.  3 ;  Ejusd.  Summre  Suppl.  Q.  xx.  Art.  ii.  ad  1. 
—Jo.  Friburgens.  Surnmae  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  65.— Astesani 
Sumrnse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxix.  Q.  4.— Manip.  Curator.  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4- 
Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimale,  Serin.  LXIV.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v. 
Confessio  Sacr.  I.  g  17 ;  in.  $  9. 

Domingo  Soto  (in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvin.  Q.  iv.  Art.  2)  draws  a  distinction. 
If  granted  without  scandal  and  without  incitement  to  sin  the  absolution  is  valid 
and  may  be  fruitful.  But  if  it  is  known  to  others  it  causes  scandal,  which 
can  scarce  be  less  than  a  mortal  sin,  and  where  there  is  danger  of  exciting 
to  evil  it  is  an  imprudent  sacrilege,  and  is  not  only  invalid  but  a  mortal  sin. 
He  adds  that  in  some  dioceses  it  wTas  forbidden  under  pain  of  excommuuica- 


384  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

sion  could  be  drawn  from  the  carefully  constructed  theories  of  the 
keys,  but  somehow,  as  Alain  de  Lille  says,  the  keys  of  heaven  and 
hell  have  become  strangely  confused.  Under  such  circumstances,  in 
the  popular  mind,  sin  could  scarce  be  reckoned  as  sin,  while,  so  far 
as  concerns  the  Church,  if  scandal  could  be  avoided,  it  was  good- 
naturedly  tolerated  as  a  necessary  evil.  Even  after  the  outbreak  of 
the  Reformation,  Bernal  Diaz  de  Lugo  argues  that,  unless  married 
women  or  virgins  are  concerned,  it  is  only  a  qualified  fornication  • 
although  it  is  regarded  with  special  horror  by  the  people,  it  gives  a 
handle  to  heretics  and  it  leads  men  to  keep  their  wives  and  daughters 
from  the  confessional,  wherefore  the  punishment  should  be  severe  in 
proportion  to  the  extent  to  which  a  case  has  become  known  and  the 
scandal  which  it  has  caused.1  As  for  the  ordinary  concubines  of 
priests,  there  is  no  objection  expressed  to  their  confessing  to  their 
paramours  unless  they  should  fear  that  the  confession  itself  might 
give  occasion  to  sin  and  thus  create  an  impediment  to  the  sacrament.2 
Solicitation  in  the  confessional  naturally  aiforded  a  fair  mark  for 
the  heretics,  of  which,  as  Archbishop  Carranza  observes,  they  did 
not  fail  to  take  full  advantage.3  With  the  steady  and  alarming 
growth  of  heresy,  it  was  full  time  for  the  Church  to  take  effective 
steps  for  the  suppression  of  the  evil.  The  matter  was  clearly  sub 
ject  to  episcopal  jurisdiction,  and  there  was  ample  store  of  statutes 


tion.  In  fact  it  was  so  forbidden  at  Liege  in  1287,  and  shortly  afterwards  at 
Cambrai  (Hartzheim  III.  686;  IV.  68).  In  1519  Rosemond  tells  us  (Confes- 
sionale,  fol.  117)  that  the  prohibition  was  still  nominally  in  force  in  the  diocese 
of  Liege,  but  that  it  was  not  observed,  yet  he  wishes  that  the  same  rule  were 
adopted  elsewhere. 

Doubtless  one  reason  for  the  tolerance  of  an  abuse  so  demoralizing  was  the 
dread  of  scandal  caused  by  making  the  woman  seek  another  confessor,  and  the 
implied  violation  of  the  seal.  Even  Benedict  XIV.,  as  we  shall  see,  allowed 
this  ever-present  spectre  of  scandal  to  overcome  his  repugnance  in  this  matter. 

1  Bern.  Diaz  de  Luco  Pract.  Grim.  Canon,  cap.  75,  76.     In  a  similar  spirit 
Bishop  Bernal  Diaz  cautions  ecclesiastical  judges  not  to  inquire  too  curiously 
into  secret  cases  of  adultery,  for  the  fragility  of  the  clergy  leads  them  to  in 
dulge  in  it  on  account  of  the  little  risk  of  discovery,  and  he  emphasizes  this 
by  mentioning  that,  in  the  previous  year,  1537,  in  the  vicinity  of  Valladolid 
three  priests  had  been  castrated,  within  the  space  of  eight  months,  in  private 
vengeance  for  this  offence. 

2  Angles  Flores  Theol.  Qugestionum,  P.  i.  fol.  148a  (Venet.  1584). 

3  Carranza,  Comentarios  sob  re  el  Catechismo,  P.  nr.  Tercera  Sacramento, 
cap.  vii. 


SOLICITATION.  335 

for   the   exemplary   punishment  of  offenders,   but   they    had    been 
allowed  to  become  a  dead  letter,  the  bishops  were  inert,  the  crime 
was  one  not  easily  proved  by  the  ordinary  proceedings  of  the  ecclesi 
astical  courts,  and  the  risk  of  scandal  rendered  all  parties  indisposed 
to  action,  although  the  seal  of  the  confessional  was  relaxed  in  order 
that  the  penitent  might  speak  if  she  saw  fit.1     Rome,  however,  had 
one  instrumentality  at  its  command  which,   by  the  secrecy  of  its 
methods,  could  avert  unnecessary  publicity,  and,  by  the  energy  of 
its  measures,  could  obtain  conviction.    This  was  the  Inquisition,  and 
though  the  crime  of  solicitation  might  seem  to  be  beyond  its  cogni 
zance,  heresy  has  always  been  an  elastic  term,  capable  of  being  made 
to  serve  any  desired  end.     Paul  IV.  therefore  determined  to  employ 
the  Holy  Office ;  its  organization  in  Spain  was  especially  efficient, 
and  tentative  proceedings  might  safely  be  commenced  there.     Ac 
cordingly,   on  February   18,  1559,  a  brief  was  dispatched  to  the 
inquisitors  of  Granada,  informing  them  that  the  pope  was  advised 
that  sundry  beneficed  priests  and  confessors  in  their  diocese  were 
accustomed  to  solicit  women  in  the  confessional ;  such  an  abuse  of 
the  sacrament  argued  disbelief  of  the  Catholic  faith,  and  its  perpe 
trators  were   therefore  justiciable   by  the   Inquisition,  which   was 
given  full  powers  to  try  them  and  punish  them  at  discretion,  even 
relaxing  them  to  the  secular  arm  for  execution ;  all  exemptions  and 
immunities  of  the  religious  Orders  were  moreover  withdrawn,  and 
they  were  all  subjected  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  Office.2   What 
was  the  immediate  effect  of  the  measure  in  Granada  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing,   but  apparently  it  was  sufficient  to  justify  an 
enlargement  of  the  field  of  experiment,  for,  in  1561,  Pius  IV.  ad 
dressed  a  similar  commission  to  the  Inquisitor  General  rendering  it 
operative  throughout  the  Spanish  dominions,  and  in  Italy  the  Roman 
Inquisition  was  also  set  to  work.3     The  Spanish  Inquisition  included 
the  crime  in  its  annual  "  Edict  of  Denunciations,"  which  required 
all  persons  cognizant  of  the  offences  therein  enumerated  to  denounce 

1  Eodriguez,  Nuova  Somma  de'  Oasi  di  Coscienza,  P.  i  cap.  53,  n.  S 

2  Llorente  (Hist.  Critica,  Cap.  xxvm.  Art.  1,  n.  4)  places  this  brief  in  U 
but  a  copy  of  it  in  the  Bulario  del  Orden  de  Santiago,  III.  3: 

torico  Nacional  de  Espafia)  bears  the  date  of  1559,  in  the  I 
Paul  IV. 

3  Pii  PP.  IV.  Bull.   Cam  sicut  nuper  (Bullar.  II.  48).-Tambu 
Generate  dell'  Inquisizione,  II.  238-48. 

L-25 


386  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

offenders  forthwith  to  the  Inquisition.  This  brought  in  an  abundant 
harvest  of  accusations,  and  was  suspended  in  1571,  but  was  resumed 
in  1576,  on  realizing  that  without  it  there  was  little  hope  of  effective 
work.1 

In  some  of  the  trials  of  the  period,  which  I  have  had  opportunity 
to  consult,  the  brutal  indecency  of  the  confessor,  as  proved  by  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  witnesses,  almost  passes  belief  and  raises 
a  curious  question  as  to  what  could  have  been,  in  the  minds  of  the 
victims,  the  conception  of  a  religion  which  clothed  such  ministers 
of  Satan  with  the  awful  power  of  the  keys.  That  the  Inqui 
sition,  however,  regarded  the  offence  as  comparatively  trivial  is 
shown  by  the  leniency  of  the  punishments  inflicted — detention  in  a 
monastery  for  a  year  or  more,  with  perhaps  a  scourging,  disability  to 
hear  confessions  of  women  and  similar  penalties  being  the  customary 
sentence,  and  these  were  always  carried  out  in  private,  such  culprits 
never  being  exposed  to  the  humiliation  of  appearing  in  the  public 
autos  de  fe.2  The  theologians,  in  fact,  were  not  disposed  to  attach 
any  peculiar  importance  to  the  crime,  for  it  was  a  disputed  question 
among  them,  with  opinions  equally  divided,  whether  a  guilty  con 
fessor,  in  making  his  sacramental  confession,  was  required  when 
revealing  a  carnal  sin  to  specify  whether  it  was  simple  fornication 
or  committed  with  his  penitent,3  which  forms  an  instructive  contrast 
to  their  customary  eagerness  to  require  the  acknowledgment  of  all 
aggravating  circumstances.  How  much  more  the  scandal  was  dreaded 
than  the  sin  is  exhibited  in  one  or  two  Jesuit  cases  about  this  time. 
In  1583,  Father  Sebastian  Briviesca  was  guilty  of  solicitation  in 
Monterey,  a  town  of  Galicia.  Another  Jesuit  father,  Diego  Her- 


1  Llorente,  ubi  sup.  n.  7,  8. 

2  MSS.  Universities  Bibliothek,  Halle,  Yc.  20,  T.  I.,  XI.     Similar  clemency 
seems  to  have  obtained  in  Naples.     In  one  case  a  priest  duly  convicted  by 
several  witnesses  was  merely  suspended. — Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite"  du  Secret 
de  la  Confession,  p.  303. 

3  Fumi  Aurea  Armilla  s.  v.  Circumstantia  n.  12. — Em.  Sa  Aphor.  Confessar. 
s.  v.  Confessio  n.  25. — Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  xi.  n.  3. — La 
Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  P.  ii.  n.  1041. 

In  Spain  the  Cruzada  indulgence  afforded  easy  relief  in  foro  conscientice,  for 
it  enabled  offenders  to  select  their  own  confessors,  and  these  were  authorized 
to  absolve  for  all  cases  excepting  heresy,  and  there  was  no  heresy  when  the 
sinfulness  of  the  act  was  admitted. — Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vil.  Exam, 
iv.  cap.  7,  n.  37. 


SOLICITATION.  337 

nandez,  discovered  it  and  desired  to  denounce  the  offender  to  the 
Inquisition,  but  was  prevented  and  bitterly  persecuted,  while  Brivi- 
esca  was  dismissed  from  the  Order,  was  furnished  with  money  and  a 
companion  to  ship  him  from  Barcelona  to  Naples,  and  was  there 
provided  for  by  being  made  confessor  of  the  Hospital  of  Santiago. 
Cristobal  Trugillo,  another  Jesuit,  similarly  guilty,  was  conveyed 
away  in  the  same  manner.  The  facts,  however,  leaked  out,  and 
Francisco  Marcen,  Provincial  of  Castile,  who  had  thus  shielded  his 
Order,  was  tried  by  the  Inquisition  of  Valladolid  in  1587,  and  was 
imprisoned  for  thus  disobeying  its  edict.  In  the  course  of  the  affair 
the  consultations  between  those  engaged  in  it  were  carried  on  under 
a  fictitious  pretence  of  confession,  thus  parodying  the  sacrament  in 
order  to  be  able  to  claim  the  seal  of  the  confessional  for  the  commu 
nications  made ;  while,  by  a  refinement  of  casuistry,  the  women 
witnesses  were  persuaded  that  it  was  not  their  duty  to  denounce  the 
offenders  and  were  admitted  to  the  Eucharist  while  thus  under  ex 
communication.  A  characteristic  incident  was  that  the  question  was 
submitted  to  the  Jesuit  professors  at  Salamanca,  without  stating  that 
the  Order  was  involved,  when  they  pronounced  that  the  offenders 
must  be  denounced  to  the  Inquisition,  but  on  being  informed  of  the 
truth  they  promptly  found  arguments  to  reverse  their  decision.1  In 
spite  of  the  Inquisition  the  offence  could  not  be  suppressed  in  Spain. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  Arbiol  informs  us  that 
the  perpetrators  were  mostly  priests  advanced  in  years ;  he  denounces 
the  offence  as  the  scandal  of  the  world,  and  seeks  to  discourage  it  by 
pointing  out  the  disgrace  attendant  on  an  inquisitorial  sentence.2 
In  1608,  Paul  V.  granted  to  the  Portuguese  Inquisition  the  same 


1  Bibl.  Vatican.  MSS.  Ottobonian.  Lat.  495. 

How  little  the  Society  of  Jesus  trusted  its  members  and  how  anxious  it  was 
to  prevent  scandal  are  visible  in  the  rule  that  when  a  priest  is  hearing  con 
fessions  of  women  there  must  always  be  a  companion  posted  where  he  can  see 
but  not  hear  (S.  J.  Regular  Sacerdoturn  n.  18).    In  addition  to  this  the  sacristan 
is  directed  to  keep  watch,  and  there  must  always  be  syndics  observing  the 
confessors  and  reporting  to  the  superior  any  prolonged  confessions  or  confei 
ences  outside  of  the  confessional  (Instructio  pro  Confessariis  n.  5).     Yet^ 
Memoranda  of  a  Visitor  of  the  Order  in  the  South  German  Province,  in  li 
show  that  these  salutary  rules  were  neglected  with  the  result  occasionally  o 
shocking  scandals.— Reusch,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  des  Jesuitenordens,  p.  2c 
(Miinchen,  1894). 

2  Arbiol,  Manuale  Sacerdotum  Lib.  IV.  cap.  23  (Caesar- Augusta,  II 


388  ™E  CONFESSIONAL. 

jurisdiction  over  solicitation  as  that  which  had  been  conferred  on  the 
Spanish,  and,,  in  1622,  Gregory  XV.  extended  its  provisions  over 
all  the  lands  of  the  Roman  obedience.  Further,  as  there  were  many 
lands  in  which  there  was  no  Inquisition,  and  as  the  bishops  had  not 
jurisdiction  over  the  regulars,  who  furnished  so  many  confessors,  he 
withdrew  in  this  matter  their  privileges  and  exemptions  and  sub 
jected  them  to  the  episcopal  courts,  on  which  he  conferred  power  to 
punish  at  discretion,  even  including  relaxation  to  the  secular  arm.1 
To  emphasize  this  among  the  religious  Orders,  in  1633,  Urban  VIII. 
directed  that  this  bull  should  be  read  annually,  with  a  verbal  warn 
ing,  in  the  chapters  of  all  Orders  and  sworn  evidence  of  the  fact  be 
transmitted  to  the  Roman  Holy  Office.  He  further  issued  an  en 
cyclical  directing  that  when  episcopal  approbations  were  given  to 
confessors  they  should  be  instructed  to  require  all  female  penitents, 
who  confessed  to  having  been  solicited,  to  denounce  the  offender.2 
Yet  Gregory's  bull  was  not  published  in  either  France  or  Germany, 
and  there  were  few  bishops  who  took  the  trouble  to  promulgate  its 
provisions  in  their  dioceses.  In  France  the  assemblies  of  the  clergy 
refused  to  receive  it  as  unsuited  to  the  customs  of  the  country  and  as 
infringing  on  the  seal  of  the  confessional,  and  an  attempt  to  publish 
it  early  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  promptly  suppressed.3  Father 
Gobat,  writing  in  1666,  says  that  the  German  moralists  have  not 
commented  upon  the  papal  decrees,  either  because  they  have  not 
been  received  and  published  in  Germany,  and  there  is  no  hope  of  its 
being  done,  or  because  the  German  women  cannot  be  expected  to  go 


1  Gregor.  PP.  XV.  Bull.  Universi  Dominici  Gregis  (Bullar.  III.  484). 

2  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Bullar.  I.  291.— Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Denuntiare  n.  9. 

3  Pontas,  Diet,  de  Gas  de  Conscience  I.  872  (Ed.  1741).— Amort  Diet.  Select. 
Casuum  Conscient.  I.  704-5. — Lochon,  Traite  du  Secret  de  la  Confession,  pp. 
135,  144. 

Yet  in  France  the  crime  of  solicitation  was  severely  punished  when  detected. 
It  was  a  cas  royal,  justiciable  by  the  secular  courts.  June  23,  1673,  a  spiritual 
director  of  a  convent,  who  had  abused  his  position,  was  hanged  and  burnt  in 
the  Place  Maubert,  after  trial  and  sentence  by  the  Chatelet.  Still,  the  argu 
ments  urged  against  Gregory's  bull  and  the  conditions  proposed  as  necessary 
to  prevent  its  provisions  from  working  injustice  would  have  reduced  it  to  a 
nullity  and  show  how  little  respect  was  entertained  in  France  at  the  time  for 
papal  authority.  People,  in  fact,  had  no  hesitation  in  declaring  that  it  afforded 
sufficient  proof  of  papal  fallibility. — Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret 
inviolable  de  la  Confession,  pp.  283,  304-20. 


SOLICITATION.  339 

with  complaints  to  such  exalted  personages  as  bishops  and  vicars- 
general,  or  because  scandal  was  dreaded  to  the  weak  and  comfort  to 
the  heretics ;  he  adds  that  he  can  name  a  number  of  vicars-general 
who  have  never  received  such  a  complaint,  save  one  in  a  single 
instance.1 

In  spite  of  this  resistance  of  inertia  the  papacy  did  not  abandon 
the  struggle.  It  was  not  easy  to  define  what  constituted  solicitation 
in  confession,  and  advantage  was  taken  of  construing  it  in  the  strict 
est  and  most  limited  manner.  In  1614,  the  Roman  Inquisition  had 
decreed  that,  as  many  priests  used  the  confessional  as  a  place  of  assigna- 
nation,  without  hearing  confessions,  this  should  be  considered  as 
solicitation  in  confession  and  be  liable  to  its  penalties.2  In  1666, 
Father  Gobat  argues  that  the  most  filthy  conduct  with  a  female 
penitent  does  not  constitute  a  reserved  case  without  the  final  act.3 
The  casuists  defended  the  proposition  that  for  a  confessor  to  hand  a 
love-letter  to  a  female  penitent  during  confession  is  not  solicitation, 
and  this  Alexander  VII.  condemned  in  1665.4  At  the  same  time  he 
struck  a  blow  at  a  more  important  feature  of  the  matter.  AVe  have 
seen  it  admitted  by  the  theologians  that  the  priest  could  grant  valid 
absolution  to  his  paramour  for  their  common  sin,  and  great  authori 
ties  were  found  to  argue  not  only  that  it  was  lawful  but  that  it  was 
expedient  if  it  would  quiet  her  conscience  and  avert  defamation  from 
her,  even  though  the  relations  were  notorious.5  Alexander  did  not 
deny  the  validity  of  such  absolution,  but  he  condemned  a  proposition 
in  circulation  to  the  effect  that  it  released  the  woman  from  the  obliga 
tion  of  denouncing  the  priest,  which  was  a  perfectly  fair  deduction 
from  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  remission  of  the  sin.6  The  com 
ments  of  the  moralists  on  the  papal  utterances  show  how  ingenious 
were  the  devices  employed  to  rob  them  of  their  efficiency  and  how 
difficult  it  naturally  proved  to  induce  women  to  undergo  the  labor 

1  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  576-77. 

2  Mattheucci  Cautela  Confessarii  Lib.  I.  cap.  5,  n.  3. 

3  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  353-"  nisi  copulam  carnalein  exerce 
ea  perfectione  quam  descripsi." 

4  Alex.  PP.  VII.  Deer.  1665,  Prop.  6. 

5  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Confessar ius  n.  35. 

6  Alex.  PP.  VII.  Deer.  1665,  Prop.  7.-"  Modus  evadendi  obligatic 
nimciand^  sollicitationis  est  si  sollicitatus  confiteatur  cum  s 
potest  ipsuin  absolvere  absque  onus  denunciandi." 


390  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

and  mortification  of  denouncing  those  who  had  committed  the  offence 
on  them,  while  confessors,  to  whom  the  knowledge  came  in  subsequent 
confessions,  were  debarred  by  the  seal  of  the  confessional  from  the 
duty  of  denunciation  without  permission  from  the  penitent.1  Denun 
ciation,  in  fact,  is  a  thankless  task  on  all  hands.  The  confessor  was 
warned,  and  the  warning  is  repeated  at  the  present  day,  that  if  he 
undertakes  it  he  exposes  himself  to  no  little  detraction  and  danger.2 
As  for  the  woman,  theologians  argued  that  she  was  not  bound  to 
denounce  if  she  had  reasonable  fear  of  grave  injury  to  life,  reputa 
tion  or  property,  to  herself  or  to  her  kindred  to  the  fourth  degree.3 
The  Sorbonne  went  even  further  than  this,  for,  with  the  support  of 
the  Faculty  of  Douai,  in  1707,  it  declared,  in  spite  of  the  bull  of 
Gregory  XV.,  that  it  was  a  mortal  sin  for  a  confessor  to  oblige  a 
penitent  to  denounce  a  priest  who  had  seduced  her  in  the  confessional. 
In  1698  it  had  already  given  an  elaborate  decision  on  the  subject  to 
the  effect  that  the  confessor  should  not  be  denounced  until  after  he 
had  received  a  fraternal  admonition  without  abandoning  his  evil 
courses,  nor  even  then  if  it  would  cause  loss  of  reputation  or  danger 
to  the  woman,  and  in  no  case  unless  the  prelate  appealed  to  was 
known  to  be  a  man  of  wisdom  and  discretion,  likely  to  manage  the 
matter  advisedly.4  Under  such  limitations  there  was  little  danger  ot 
anything  being  done  to  check  solicitation. 

Moreover  the  reticence  of  Alexander  VII.,  in  not  declaring  invalid 
the  absolution  granted  by  the  confessor  to  his  victim,  bore  its  natural 
fruits.  It  was  left  as  an  affair  to  be  regulated  in  the  several  dioceses, 
and,  acute  as  were  the  theologians,  they  do  not  seem  to  have  recog 
nized  the  absurd  incongruity  that  salvation  in  such  a  matter  could  be 


1  Viva  Trutina  Theol.  in  Prop.  6  Alex.  PP.  VII.— Tamburini  Method.  Con 
fess.  Lib.  in.  cap.  ix.  §  4.— Mattheucci  Cautela  Confessar.  Lib.  I.  cap.  5.  — Jac. 
a  Graffiis  Pract.  Casuum  Eeservat.  Lib.  n.  cap.  12. 

2  Henriquez  Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  cap.  x.  n.  8. — Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xviir.  cap.  viii.  Append. 

Fenelon,  however,  ordered  all  mission  priests,  to  whom  women  confessed  to 
have  been  solicited  by  confessors,  to  refuse  absolution  unless  the  penitent  would 
authorize  denunciation  to  be  made  to  him,  and  he  promised  to  avert  all  danger 
from  both  the  woman  and  the  priest. — Avis  aux  Confesseurs,  v.  (CEuvres,  1838, 
II.  349). 

3  Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  XI.  n.  55. — Viva  Cursus  Theol. 
Moral.  P.  vi.  Q.  viii.  Art.  5,  n.  8. 

4  Lochon,  Traite  du  Secret  de  la  Confession,  pp.  197-217. 


SOLICITATION.  391 

dependent  on  locality — that  under  precisely  similar  circumstances  an 
absolution  should  be  good  before  God  if  granted  in  one  diocese  and 
worthless  across  the  boundary  line.  La  Croix  tells  us  that  such 
absolutions,  as  a  general  rule,  are  lawful  and  sacramental,  though 
some  think  them  sacrilegious  and  provocative  of  fresh  temptations, 
but  they  have  been  prohibited  in  certain  dioceses,  such  as  Liege, 
Milan  and  Cologne.1  During  the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth  century 
it  was  the  subject  of  considerable  discussion  in  some  local  synods, 
where  it  was  denounced  as  a  frequent  and  intolerable  abuse,  and  in 
some  of  them  it  was  prohibited.2  In  1709,  Cardinal  de  Noailles, 
Archbishop  of  Paris,  forbade  it  in  future  in  his  province,3  but  it 
remained  valid  and  lawful  throughout  the  Church  at  large  until  the 
accession  of  Benedict  XIV.4  In  1741,  in  the  first  year  of  his  pon 
tificate,  he  denounced  the  practice  in  the  severest  terms  ;  he  withdrew 
from  confessors  all  power  of  absolving  in  such  cases,  absolution  so 
given  was  declared  invalid,  except  in  artieulo  mortis  when  no  other 
priest  was  accessible,  and  the  attempt  to  grant  it  was  subjected  to 
ipse  facto  excommunication,  reserved  to  the  Holy  See.  Moreover,  in 
confirming  the  constitution  of  Gregory  XV.,  he  sought  to  sweep 
away  all  the  refinements  and  distinctions,  through  which  casuists  had 
evaded  the  papal  decrees,  by  defining  in  the  widest  sense  the  act  of 
solicitation,  and  he  straitly  commanded  that  absolution  should  be 
refused  to  one  who  had  been  solicited  unless  she  would  promise  to 
denounce  the  offender.5  In  1742  he  extended  these  provisions  to  the 


1  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  P.  ii.  n.  1204. 

2  Synod.  Cameracens.  arm.  1661,  cap.  11 ;  Synod.  Namurcens.  ann.  1698  cap. 
28;  Synod.  Bisuntinens.  ann.  1707,  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  14  (Hartzheim  IX.  i 

219,  323).— Synodicon  Mechliniense,  I.  559  ;  II.  319. 

3  Pontas,  Diet,  de  Cas  de  Conscience,  I.  837. 

4  Benzi,  writing  in  1742  (Praxis  Trib.  Conscient.  p.  253),  says  there  is  no 
general  law  prohibiting  such  absolutions,  and  they  are  good  if  not  rendered 
invalid  through  lack  of  contrition  and  intention  to  abstain.     Then  to  this  he 
adds  a  postscript  that  he  has  received  Benedict's  bull  Sacramentum  pcenitentm 
and  that  it  must  be  observed  wherever  published. 

5  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Const.  Sacramentum  Pce.nitenticc,  1  Jun.  1741 
Bened.  XIV.  I.  23). 

In  spite  of  all  the  care  with  which  this  decree  is  drawn,  the  indefati^ 
commentators  assumed  that  the  "peccatum  turpe"  must  be  "copula  consum- 
mata,"  but  Liguori  holds  (Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  554)  that  it  applies  to  ai 
external  act  of  touch  or  speech.     Yet  Benedict  himself  gives  color  to  such 


392  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

Greek  churches  subject  to  Borne/  and  in  1745  he  took  a  retrograde 
step,  which  shows  the  pressure  to  prevent  scandal,  for  he  permitted 
absolution  by  an  accomplice,  in  articulo  mortis,  when  calling  in 
another  confessor  might  create  suspicion.2  In  the  same  year,  how 
ever,  he  promulgated  a  decree  inflicting  perpetual  disability  of  admin 
istering  the  Eucharist  on  all  guilty  of  solicitation,  and  he  directed 
this,  together  with  the  legislation  of  his  predecessors,  in  accordance 
with  the  decree  of  1633,  to  be  read  annually  in  all  the  regular  Orders, 
either  at  table  or  in  a  chapter  specially  assembled,  and  also  in  all 
general  and  provincial  chapters,  of  which  sworn  evidence  was  to  be 
forwarded  to  the  Roman  Inquisition.3 

The  Holy  See  has  thus  exhausted  all  the  resources  of  its  power ; 
the  legislation  is  ample  if  it  can  be  enforced.  Whether  it  is  so  or  not 
must  be  a  matter  of  conjecture,  for  scandal,  as  of  old,  is  the  most 
dreaded  of  all  things.  If  solicitation  were  not  regarded  as  an  exist 
ing  danger,  the  council  of  Venice,  in  1859,  would  scarce  have  en 
joined  on  all  confessors  to  keep  constantly  before  their  eyes  the 
papal  decrees  against  it,  nor  would  various  other  modern  synods 
have  deemed  it  necessary  to  repeat  the  prohibitions  of  absolving  the 
accomplice  in  sin.4  That  Pius  IX.,  in  the  bull  Apostolicce  Sedis,  in 
1869,  should  maintain  the  excommunications  latce  sententice  against 
those  who  absolve  their  guilty  partners  and  those  who,  when  solicited, 
fail  within  a  month  to  denounce  the  offending  confessor,  may  be 
taken  as  a  matter  of  course,  but  there  is  no  little  significance  in  an 
instruction  issued,  in  1867,  by  the  Congregation  of  the  Inquisition 
to  all  prelates  in  the  Catholic  world,  pointing  out  that  the  papal 
constitutions  were  neglected,  and  that  in  some  places  abuses  existed 

casuistry  when  he  decides  (Casus  Conscient.  Jul.  1746,  cas.  2)  that  if  a  confessor 
hands  a  love-letter  to  another  confessor  to  be  given  to  a  penitent  whom  he 
knows  will  confess  to  the  latter,  and  it  is  duly  delivered  as  soon  as  the  confes 
sion  is  ended,  neither  of  them  is  guilty  of  solicitation. 

For  a  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  see  his  De  Synodo  Dicecesana  Lib.  vii. 
cap.  xiv. 

1  Const.  Etsi  Pastoralis  (Coll.  Lacens.  II.  518). 

2  Const,  cxx.  (Bullar.  Bened.  XIV.  I.  219). 

3  Thesauri  de  Prenis  Ecclesiasticis  P.  n.  s.  v.  SoUcitantes. 

4  C.  Venet.  ann.  1859,  P.  m.  cap.  xxii.  |  5  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  334).— C 
Australiens.  I.  ann.  1844,  Deer.  xii.  (Ibid.  III.  1052-3).— C.  Tuamens.  ann. 
1817,  Decr.xvii.  (Ibid.  III.  765).— C.  Eavennat.  ann.  1855  cap.  v.  \  9  (Ibid.  VI. 
160).— C.  Kemens.  ann.  1857,  cap.  vi.  n.  27  (Ibid.  IV.  211). 


SOLICITATION.  393 

which  required  greater  energy  on  the  part  of  officials  to  detect  and 
punish.  It  further  gave  a  summary  of  the  procedure  to  be  followed, 
by  which  it  appears  that  three  separate  and  independent  denuncia 
tions  against  a  confessor  must  be  received  before  action  is  taken ;  the 
punishment,  on  conviction,  is  merely  deprivation  of  the  faculty  to 
hear  confessions  and  abjuration  of  the  implied  heresy,  and  even  this 
trivial  penalty  may  be  diminished  by  confession  before  conviction. 
Every  one  concerned  is  sworn  to  the  strictest  silence,  and  when  the 
case  is  ended  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  forgotten.1  These  would  seem 
but  slender  barriers  to  throw  around  temptations  so  severe  to  a  celi 
bate  priesthood — temptations  which  lead  Frassinetti  to  declare  that 
"  there  cannot  be  the  slightest  doubt  that  to  hear  the  confessions  of 
women  is  the  most  dangerous  and  fatal  rock  which  the  minister  of 
God  has  to  encounter  in  the  stormy  sea  of  this  world."2  That  the 
opportunities  afforded  by  the  confessional  are  not  wholly  thrown 
away  would  appear  from  Father  Miiller's  remarkable  summary  of 
the  seductions  employed,3  and  from  the  space  devoted  in  modern 
text-books  to  the  various  intricate  questions  and  distinctions  in 
volved.4 

In  the  recognized  danger  of  confessing  women  it  has  always  been 
the  effort  of  the  Church  to  reduce  as  far  as  possible  the  peril  by 

1  Collectio  Lacensis,  III.  553-6.     This  leniency,  doubtless  attributable  to 
the  dread  of  scandal,  offers  an  unfortunate  contrast  to  the  severity  with  which 
the  offence  was  punished  of  old,  including  deposition,  prolonged  pilgrimaj 
and  life-long  confinement  in  a  monastery  (Cap.  9,  Caus.  xxx.  Q.  1). 

2  The  New  Parish  Priest's  Practical  Manual,  p.  361. 

3  Miiller's  Catholic  Priesthood,  IV.  158.-"  Was  it  not  he  who  taughi 
that  such  shameful  deeds  were  innocent,  that  he  meant  no  harm,  t| 
intended  only  to  cure  them,  to  try  them,  or  to  sanctify  them? 
assure  them  that  he  would  take  their  sin  upon  his  soul  ?    Did  he  not 
that  every  priest  did  such  things?     Did  he  not  even  threaten  then 
vengeance  of  heaven  if  they  refused  ? " 

For  another  summary  by  St.  Alphonso  Liguori  see  Guarceno,  C 
Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  viii.  Append. 

*  Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  590  sqq.-Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Mo 
Tract,  xvm.  cap.  vi.  art.  5;  cap.  vm.  append.-Mig.  Sanchez,  Prontuam 
la  Teologia  Moral,  Trat.  VI.  Punto  xi.     The  latter  warns  confessors 
greatest  prudence  is  to  be  exercised  in  giving  to  solicited  penitents  the 
tion  to  denounce  the  offender,  as  otherwise  it  is  apt  to  be  the  cai 
rather  than  of  edification. 


394  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

regulations  which  should  render  the  confession  as  nearly  public  as 
is  consistent  with  the  preservation  of  its  secrecy.  At  first  these  pre 
cautions  seem  to  have  been  especially  provided  for  nuns.  The  coun 
cil  of  Paris,  in  829,  directs  that  when  they  confess  it  must  be  in 
church  before  the  altar  with  witnesses  not  far  off.1  From  that  time 
onward  there  has  been  a  perpetually  recurring  series  of  similar  in 
junctions,  the  constant  repetition  of  which,  with  trifling  variations, 
shows  how  difficult  it  has  been  to  secure  their  observance.  In  cases 
of  sickness  or  other  necessity,  confession  can  be  heard  in  the  house 
of  the  penitent,  but  then  the  chamber-door  must  be  open  and  some 
one  be  in  sight,  though  not  within  ear-shot.  Otherwise  the  confes 
sion  is  ordered  to  be  in  the  open  church,  in  some  spot  visible  from 
around,  it  must  be  after  sunrise  and  before  sunset,  and  if  the  peni 
tent  is  a  female  there  must  be  some  one  else  in  the  church,  or  she  is 
not  to  be  heard ;  the  confessor,  moreover,  is  directed  to  place  her  at 
his  side,  to  avert  his  face  or  gaze  upon  the  floor,  and  on  no  account 
to  look  at  her.2  These  wholesome  regulations,  however,  seem  to 
have  been  but  slackly  observed,  and  the  sterner  moralists  assume 
that  their  neglect  led  to  abuses  and  disorders  of  the  worst  descrip 
tion.3  It  seems  strange  that  it  was  not  until  the  Counter-Eeformation 


1  C.  Parisiens.  ann.  829,  cap.  46  (Harduin.  IV.  1323).     This  is  virtually 
repeated,  in  1279,  by  Archbishop  Peckharn  of  Canterbury  (Ibid.  VII.  788). 

2  Martene  de  antiq.  Eitibus  Eccles.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  art.  3,  n.  8,  9.— Constitt. 
Odonis  Paris,  circa  1198,  cap.  vi.  $  2,  3  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1940).— Constitt.  R. 
Poore  ann.  1217,  cap.  27  (Ibid.  VII.  97).— Constitt.  S.  Edm.  Cantuar.  circa 
1236,  cap.  17  (Ibid.  VII.  270).— C.  Narbonnens.  ann.  1227,  cap.  7  (Ibid.  VII. 
146).— C.  Claromont.  ann.  1268,  cap.  7  (Ibid.  VII.  594).— C.  Coloniens.  ann. 
1280  (Ibid.  VII.  826).— C.  Mogunt.  ann.  1281,  cap.  8  (Hartzheim,  III.  664).— 
Statutt.  Jo.  Episc.  Leodiens,  ann.  1287,  cap.  4  (Ibid.  III.  686).— S.  Bonaven- 
turas  Confessionale  Cap.  I.  Partic.  1,  3.— Raynaldi  Confessionale. — Manipulus 
Curatorum,  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  8.— S.  Antonini  de  Audientia  Confess,  fol. 
136 ;  Ejusd.  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  19.— John  Myrc's  Instructions  for 
Parish  Priests,  vv.  880-895. 

3  Jo.  Gersonis  Orat.  in  C.  Remens.  ann.  1409  (G-ousset,  Actes  etc.  II.  657)— 
"  Fiat  confessio  coram  oculis  omnium,  in  patente  loco,  ne  subintroeat  lupus 
rapax  in  angulis  suadens  agere  quae  turpe  est  etiam  cogitare.     Va3  aliter  agen- 
tibus  et  sub  familiaritatis  specie  in  angulis  vel  camerulis  res  ignominia  plenas 
exercentibus,  easque   deteriore  sacrilegio  sub  devotionis  specie  palliautibus, 
excusantibusque. " 

So  Bishop  Robert  of  Aquino  (Opus  Quadragesimale  Serm.  xxix.  cap.  2). 
"Nam  ego  nescio  laudare  illos  qui   audiunt  confessiones  mulierum  in  locis 


USE  OF  CONFESSIONALS.  395 

had  commenced  that  the  simple  and  useful  device  of  the  confessional 
was  introduced — a  box  in  which  the  confessor  sits,  with  a  grille  in 
the  side,  through  which  the  kneeling  penitent  can  pour  the  story  of 
his  sins  into  his  ghostly  father's  ear  without  either  seeing  the  face 
of  the  other.  The  first  allusion  I  have  met  to  this  contrivance  is  in 
the  council  of  Valencia,  in  1565,  where  it  is  ordered  to  be  erected  in 
churches  for  the  hearing  of  confessions,  especially  of  women.1  In 
this  same  year  we  find  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  prescribing  the  use  of  a 
rudimentary  form  of  confessional — a  seat  with  a  partition  (tabella) 
to  separate  the  priest  from  the  penitent.2  Eleven  years  afterwards, 
in  1576,  he  orders  confessionals  placed  in  all  the  churches  of  the 
province  of  Milan,  and  he  alludes  to  their  use  in  his  instructions  to 
confessors.3  The  innovation  was  so  manifest  an  improvement  that 
its  use  spread  rapidly.  In  1579,  the  council  of  Cosenza  adopted  it ; 
in  1585,  that  of  Aix ;  in  1590,  that  of  Toulouse;  in  1607,  that  of 
Mechlin  ;  and  in  1609,  that  of  Narbonne.  Some  resistance  was  ap 
parently  expected  on  the  part  of  the  priests,  for  there  are  occasional 
threats  of  punishment  for  disobedience,  and  at  Mechlin,  where  three 
months  were  allowed  for  compliance  with  the  order,  no  one  was  per 
mitted  subsequently  to  hear  a  confession  in  any  other  way,  except 
in  case  of  necessity  or  by  special  licence  from  the  Ordinary.4  The 
Roman  Ritual  of  1614  orders  the  use  of  the  confessional  in  all 


secretis,  in  cameris,  in  angulis  latebrosis  in  quibus  etiam  quandoque  et  soepe 
qui  boni  et  justi  creduntur  ad  enormissima  sacrilegia  et  vituperabiles  dissolu- 
tiones  labuntur." 

1  C.  Valentin,  aim.  1565,  Tit.  n.  cap.  17  (Aguirre  V.  417). 

Binterim  (Denkwiirdigkeiten,  V.  n.  233)  is  in  error  in  attributing  to  tl 
council  of  Seville,  in  1512,  an  allusion  to  confessionals.     The  allusion  i* 
«m/««io»or*a— letters  either  papal  or  episcopal  empowering  the  purchaser 
be  confessed  in  his  own  house,  and  also  to  have  mass  celebrate, 
had  become  so  common  as  to  be  an  abuse.— C.  Hispalens.  ann.  1 
(Aguirre,  V.  370)).     From  the  instructions  given  in  1528  by  Martin  d 
(De  Arte  et  Modo  audiendi  Confess,  fol.  vi.)  as  to  the  positions  of  pri 
penitent,  he  evidently  knows  nothing  of  confessionals. 

a  C.  Mediolan.  I.  ann.  1565,  P.  I.  cap.  6  (Harduin.  X.  653). 

3  C.  Provin.  Mediolan.  IV.  ann.  1576  (Acta  Eccles.  Me. 
Instruct.  Confessar.  Ed.  Brixise,  1678,  pp.  51,  76. 

*  C.  Consentin.  ann.  1579  (Binterim,  he.  ^.).-C.  Aquens.  ann    1 
Poenit.  (Harduin.  X.  1550).-C.  Tolosan.  ann.  1590,  cap.  IV.  n.  ( 
1800).-C.  Mechlin,  ann.  1607,  Tit.  V.  cap.  3  (Ibid.  p.  1944).-C.  Narbonn.  ai 
1609,  cap.  16  (Ib.  XI.  17). 


396  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

churches,  and  prescribes  its  position  in  an  open  and  conspicuous 
place.1  Yet,  in  1630,  Alphonso  di  Leone  repeats  the  old  injunctions 
that  confessor  and  penitent  shall  not  face  or  touch  each  other,  and 
alludes  to  confessionals  only  as  a  device  used  in  many  dioceses,  show 
ing  that  as  yet  they  were  by  no  means  universal.2  Indeed,  as  late 
as  1709  the  Spanish  Inquisition  found  it  necessary  to  issue  an  edict 
ordering  priests  to  hear  confessions  in  the  body  of  the  church  and 
not  in  cells  or  chapels.3  Yet  in  spite  of  the  introduction  of  confes 
sionals  the  necessity  is  felt  of  constant  watchfulness  to  prevent  abuses, 
and  the  modern  councils,  like  those  of  old,  are  untiring  in  their 
admonitions  of  the  precautions  to  be  observed  for  the  prevention  of 
scandals.4 

Akin  to  this,  as  connected  with  the  morals  of  the  confessional,  is 
a  question  which  has  given  rise  to  considerable  discussion  and  dif 
ference  of  opinion — whether  or  not  the  penitent  should  mention,  or 
the  confessor  should  require  him  to  reveal,  the  name  of  an  accomplice 
in  any  sin.  Although  this  would,  of  course,  apply  to  robbery  or 
crimes  of  violence,  its  special  interest  is  connected  with  lapses  of  the 
flesh.  In  any  case  knowledge  thus  obtained  might  be  put  to  evil 
uses,  but  in  the  latter  class  the  temptation  to  a  dissolute  priest  to 
take  advantage  of  women  whose  weakness  had  thus  come  to  his 
knowledge  is  peculiarly  dangerous.  Until  the  last  century  no 
authoritative  expression  of  approval  or  condemnation  was  issued 
and  the  matter  was  left  to  the  chance  regulations  of  local  synods 
and  the  conflicting  opinions  of  the  doctors.  Lanfranc  complains 


1  Rituale  Roman.  Tit.  iii.  cap.  1. 

2  Alph.  de  Leone  de  Off.  et  Potest.  Confessarii  Recoil,  xvi.  n.  20. 

3  Bibl.  National,  de  Espana,  Section  de  MSS.  P.  v.  fol.  C.  17,  n.  38. 

4  C.  Baltimor.  I.  ann.  1829,  Deer.  xxv.  (Coll.  Lacens.  III.  30-1).— C.  Baltimor. 
V.  ann.  1843,  Deer.  ix.  (III.  90).— C.  Australiens.  I.  ann.  1844,  Deer.  xii.  (III. 
1051).— C.  Thurlesens.  ann.  1850,  Deer.  xi.  n.  41  (III.  782).— C.  Rothomagens. 
ann.  1850,  Deer.  xvii.  n.  3  (IV.  530).— C.  Tolosan.  ann.  1850,  Tit.  in.  cap.  l,n. 
70  (IV.  1054).-C.  Casseliens.  ann.  1853,  Tit.  iii.  (III.  837).— C.  Tuamens.  ann. 
1854,  Deer.  viii.  (III.  860).— C.  Quebecens.  II.  ann.  1854,  Deer.  ix.  §  7  (III.  639). 
— C.  Port.  Hispan.  ann.  1854,  Art.  iv.  n.  1,  2  (III.  1098).— C.  Halifaxiens.  I. 
ann.  1857,  Deer.  xiv.  (III.  745).— C.  Viennens.  ann.  1858,  Tit.  iii.  cap.  7  (V. 
169).— C.  Coloniens.  ann.  1860,  Tit.  ii.  cap.  15  (V.  351).— C.  Pragens.  ann. 
1860,  Tit.  iv.  cap.  7;  Tit.  v.  cap.  8  (V.  508,  543).— Synod.  Ultraject.  ann.  1865, 
Tit.  iv.  cap.  8  (V.  830).— C.  Plen.  Baltimor.  II.  ann.  1866,  App.  x.  (III.  553). 


REQUIRING  THE  NAME  OF  ACCOMPLICE.  397 


that  some  penitents  think  that  they  cannot  obtain  pardon  unless  they 
betray  the  names  of  their  accomplices  and  that  some  confessors  make 
special  inquiry  after  them,  which  he  regards  as  exceedingly  improper.1 
On  the  other  hand,  in  the  capitular  confessions  of  the  convents,  the 
sinner  was  required  to  make  a  full  statement,  no  matter  whom  it 
might  implicate.2     Occasionally  a  council  would  take  note  of  the 
practice  of  over-curious  confessors  to  prohibit  it  —  perhaps  the  priest 
who  made  such  inquiries  was  threatened  with  suspension,  and  the 
penitent  who  volunteered  such  information  was  ordered  to  be  re 
proved.3     It  would  seem  to  have  been  a  common  enough  practice,  of 
which  Csesarius  of  Heisterbach  expresses  his  disapproval,  for  though 
it  may  occasionally  be  serviceable,  priestly  proclivity  to  sin  renders 
it  dangerous.4     The  schoolmen  were  divided  on  the  question.    Many 
held  that  such  inquiries  are  proper  when  made  with  a  good  motive, 
such  as  to  pray  for  the  sinful  accomplice,  or  to  reprove  her  in  secret, 
or  to  benefit  her  or  the  penitent  in  any  way,  and  Aquinas  asserts 
positively  that  the  identity  of  the  accomplice  must  be  revealed  if 
necessary  to  the  completeness  of  the  confession,  which  would  infer 
the  right  of  the  confessor  to  require  it.5     Others  deny  that  it  should 
be  done  in  confession,  but  suggest  that  subsequently  the  priest  can 
properly  ascertain  the  name.6     Others  again  asserted  that  those  con 
fessors  sin  gravely  who  inquire  curiously  as  to  the  persons  with  whom 
a  penitent  has  sinned,  but  it  is  less  when  done  outside  of  confession  ; 
at  the  same  time  all  necessary  circumstances  must  be  confessed,  r< 
gardless  of  the  consequences  to  others  whom  they  may  impli 

1  Lanfranci  Lib.  de  Celanda  Confessions  (Migne,  CL.  629). 

2  Ps.  Bernardi  Documenta  pie  vivendi  (Migne,  CLXXXIV.  1. 

3  Odonis  Parisiens.  Constitt.  circa  1198,  cap.  vi.  «  14  (Harduin.  VI  11 
-KPoore  Constitt.  ann.  1217,  cap.  27  (Ibid.  VII.  97,.-Edinandi  Cantor 
Constitt.  ann.  1236,  cap.  20  (Ibid.  VII.  271).-Jo.  Episc.  Leodiens.  * 

1287,  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  III.  689). 

4  C^sar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  in.  cap.  28-31. 

•  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summ*  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  87.- 
Summa  P.  m   Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  2  ll.-Somma  Pacific*  cap.  2 
Aquin.  Opus  Quadrages.  Serm.  xxix.  cap.  l.-S.  Th.  Aquin  (        "•='•* 
In  IV    Sentt.  Dist.  xvi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  2  ad  co/c*ii.-Gab.  I 

^^^SfSSi  Dis,  xx,  P.  ,  Art.  1,  Q.  -~ 
Lib.  v.  Tit.  xii.  Q.  5.-Cherubini  de  Spoleto  Quadragesimale 


Catholicon  s.  v.  Oonfessio. 


398  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

Bartolommeo  da  S.  Concordio  forbids  all  inquiries  and  quotes  S. 
Ramon  de  Pefiafort  in  support/  and  Bartolommeo  Fumo,  on  the 
authority  of  Caietano,  declares  emphatically  that  nothing  which  will 
betray  the  name  of  another  is  to  be  confessed.2  The  tendency  of 
opinion  was  decidedly  in  this  direction.  Bartolome  de  Medina  asserts 
that  aggravating  circumstances  can  be  suppressed  if  necessary  to 
prevent  identification  of  an  accomplice ;  if  a  confessor  refuses  abso 
lution,  unless  a  penitent  will  reveal  his  partner  in  guilt,  he  is  to  be 
denounced  to  the  Inquisition  as  a  heretic,  and  a  subsequent  confessor 
can  refuse  absolution  until  the  penitent  does  so ;  when  the  accom 
plices,  however,  are  heretics  and  robbers,  absolution  can  be  withheld 
until  the  penitent  denounces  them  to  the  proper  authorities.3  Rod 
riguez  quotes  opinions  to  the  effect  that  if  a  penitent  desires  to  name 
his  accomplice  it  is  a  most  grave  sin  for  the  confessor  to  permit  it.4 
On  the  other  hand,  Manuel  Sa  tells  us  that  the  older  doctors  held 
that  sins  implicating  others  must  be  confessed,  but  that  many  of  the 
moderns  consider  that  sins  may  even  be  suppressed  which  would 
harm  or  defame  another ;  this  opinion  is  probable,  but  he  prefers  the 
ancient  one  when  mere  loss  of  reputation  is  involved,5  while  Tam- 
burini  argues  that  the  accomplice  must  be  revealed  if  necessary  to 
determine  the  character  of  the  sin/  and  Juan  Sanchez  suggests  that 
the  penitent  may  confess  fully  without  betraying  his  accomplice  by 
changing  his  dress  and  adopting  a  fictitious  name  and  nationality,, 
which  will  throw  the  confessor  off  of  the  scent.7 

The  theologians  by  this  time  were  mostly  agreed  that  it  is  a  mortal 
sin  to  require  the  revelation  of  an  accomplice  without  reasonable 
cause,  but  the  definition  of  reasonable  cause  was  somewhat  elastic ; 
the  amendment  of  the  accomplice  was  not  regarded  as  a  justification, 
but  the  revelation  could  be  compelled  if  necessary  to  prevent  the 
relapse  of  the  penitent  or  to  ascertain  accurately  the  grade  of  the 


1  Summa  Pisanella  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  g  5. 

2  Fumi  Aurea  Armilla  s.  v.  Circumstantia  n.  11. 

3  Bart,  a  Medina  Instruct.  Confessar.  Lib.  u.  cap.  iv.  De  Complicibus  \  I. 

4  Rodriguez,  Nuova  Somma  de'  Casi  di  Coscienza,  P.  I.  cap.  53  $  9. 

5  Em.  Sa  Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  17. 

6  Tamburini  Method.  Confess.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ix.  $  2. 

7  Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  ix.  n.  10.     For  the  authorities 
on  either  side  of  this  long-vexed  question,  with  the  preponderance  in  favor  of 
the  revelation  of  the  accomplice,  see  Benzi,  Praxis   Tribunalis   Conscientice,. 
Disp.  I.  Q.  ii.  Art.  1,  Par.  2,  n.  11. 


REQUIRING  THE  NAME  OF  ACCOMPLICE.  399 


sin.1  These  exceptions  gave  considerable  latitude  to  evil-disposed 
priests,  who  could  construe  them  as  they  saw  fit  with  ignorant  peni 
tents,  forcing  the  revelation  of  the  identity  of  the  accomplice,  and 
the  continued  reprehension  of  the  practice  of  making  such  inquiries 
outside  of  the  confessional,  where  it  would  not  be  covered  by  the 
seal,  shows  that  the  desire  for  this  forbidden  knowledge  was  difficult 
to  repress.2 

It  was  not  till  1745  that  Benedict  XIV.,  in  a  brief  addressed  to 
Portugal,  finally  prohibited  absolutely,  as  scandalous  and  pernicious, 
the  custom  of  inquiring  the  name  of  the  accomplice ;  this  did  not 
suffice,  and,  in  1746,  he  subjected  to  excommunication  latce  sententice 
reserved  to  the  pope,  all  who  should  teach  it  as  permissible.  Even 
yet  there  were  obstinate  theologians  who  assumed  that  these  decrees 
were  restricted  to  Portugal  and  that  the  practice  was  still  allowable 
elsewhere ;  a  third  decree  was  therefore  requisite,  which  he  issued 
within  three  months  of  the  second,  declaring  that  the  prohibition 
was  general  and  must  be  universally  enforced.  Yet  so  obstinately 
was  the  evil  upheld  that  a  fourth  utterance  was  necessary,  in  1749, 
placing  in  Portugal  the  offence  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inqui 
sition.3  This  settled  the  matter  so  far  as  direct  demands  by  the 
confessor  are  concerned,  though  even  this  would  seem  to  be  by  no 
means  eradicated  if  we  may  judge  from  the  necessity  which  several 
recent  councils  have  felt  of  still  prohibiting  it4  and  from  Pius  IX., 
in  the  bull  Apostolicce  Sedis,  making  special  reference  to  the  decrees  of 
Benedict  XIV.  and  confirming  the  reserved  excommunication  of  all 
who  shall  teach  it  to  be  lawful  for  the  confessor  to  inquire  the  name. 
Yet  the  prohibition  can  be  virtually  eluded,  for  the  confessor,  if  he 

1  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vil.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  32;  cap.  7,  n.  38, 
41.— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  244,  254.— Juenin  de  Sacram.  Diss.  vi.  Q.  5, 
cap.  6,  Art  3  § 3.— Viva  Cursus  Theol.  Moral.  P.  VI.  Q.  5,  Art.  6,  n.  5.— Suminse 
Alexandrine  P.  I.  n.  479-86.— La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1144.- 
Tournely  de  Sacr.  Poanit.  Q.  vi.  Art.  iv. 

2  Clericati  de  Prenit.  Decis.  xxm.  n.  14. 

3  Benedict!  PP.  XIV.  Constt.  Suprema,  7  Jul.  1745;   Ubi  pri 
1746;  Ad  eradicandam,  28  Sept.  1746;  Apostolici  ministerii,  9  Dec.  174£ 
Ejusd.  de  Synodo  Dicecesana  vi.  xi. 

*  C.  Kavennat.  ann.  1855,  cap.  v.  g  6  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  159).- 
ann.  1859,  P.  m.  cap.  xxii.  |  5  (Ibid.  p.  334).     In  1866  the  Plenary  Council 
Baltimore  (Acta  p.  305)  felt  it  necessary  to  print  in  the  Appei 
tutions  of  Benedict  XIV. 


400  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

sees  fit,  can  ask  questions  which  will  enable  him  to  identify  the 
accomplice.1  In  addition  to  this  the  preponderating  weight  of 
modern  authority  does  not  regard  the  danger  of  exposing  an  accom 
plice  as  relieving  the  penitent  from  the  obligation  of  confessing  a 
sin.  Father  de  Charmes,  indeed,  expressly  says  that  he  must  reveal 
the  name  if  necessary  for  the  completeness  of  the  confession,  and  this 
infers  the  right  of  the  confessor  to  demand  it.2 

The  age  at  which  the  obligation  of  annual  confession  should  be 
enforced  would  appear  to  be  a  difficult  point  to  decide.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  seems  a  sacrilege  to  administer  to  children  of  tender  yean 
the  awful  sacrament  of  penitence,  with  its  presumed  requisites  01 
contrition  and  charity  and  a  conception  of  its  significance  as  th( 
means  of  averting  the  wrath  of  an  offended  God.  On  the  othei 
hand,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  Church,  as  soon  as  a  child  is 
doli  capax,  is  able  to  commit  sin,  to  distinguish  between  right  anc 
wrong,  and  to  be  responsible  for  its  acts,  confession  and  absolution 
are  the  only  means  of  rescuing  it  from  perdition  in  case  of  death 
and  are  therefore  of  the  highest  necessity.  Besides  this  is  the  fact 
of  which  the  Church  never  loses  sight,  that  the  plastic  period  oJ 
childhood  is  the  time  in  which  the  future  man  or  woman  is  to  b( 
moulded  and  trained  into  implicit  obedience  to  ecclesiastical  formulas 
and  authority  and  when  the  habits  are  to  be  formed  which  will 
render  them  docile  and  obedient  subjects  during  life.  These  con 
siderations  naturally  are  quite  sufficient  to  overcome  any  scruples  as 
to  bestowing  the  sacrament  on  those  who  are  manifestly  incompetent 
to  deserve  it  or  to  understand  what  it  means. 

The  question  as  to  the  age  when  responsibility  commences  has 
been  variously  answered.  When,  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  it  was  put  to  Timothy  of  Alexandria,  he  declined  to  decide ; 
Some,  he  says,  are  responsible  when  ten  years  old,  others  not  til] 


1  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Praxis  Confessarii  n.  118.— Gury  Casus  Conscientise  II, 
467-70. 

2  Becani  de  Sacramentis  Tract,  n.  P.  iii.  cap.  36,  Q.  2.— Reiffenstuel  Theol, 
Moral.  Tract,  xiv,  n.  57.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  489, 
492.— Gousset,  Theol.  Morale  n.  n.  434.— Zenner  Instructio  Pract.  Confessar. 
|  72,  n.  2 ;  §  96.—  Bonal  Institt.  Theol.  T.  IV.  n.  248-9.— Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol. 
Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  iv.  Q.  2,  Art.  1,  Concl.  3. 


MINIMUM  A  GE.  401 

later,  and  Balsamon  approves  of  the  reply.1  A  phrase  ascribed  to 
Gregory  the  Great  says  that  some  persons  attribute  sin  to  no  one 
under  fourteen,  as  though  there  were  none  but  sexual  sins,  while 
lying  and  perjury  are  also  sins,  and  are  frequent  with  children.2  An 
ancient  Ordo,  probably  not  later  than  the  ninth  century,  directs  the 
priest  to  adapt  the  penance  to  the  condition  of  the  penitent,  whether 
rich  or  poor,  bond  or  free,  infant,  boy,  youth,  adult  or  aged,3  which 
would  infer  that  confession  might  be  commenced  at  a  very  early  age. 
We  have  seen  (p.  196)  that  when  the  Empress  Agnes  made  a  gen 
eral  confession  to  St.  Peter  Damiani  she  is  said  to  have  included  all 
sins  committed  since  the  age  of  five.  While  confession  was  yet  vol 
untary  and  infrequent  of  course  there  could  be  no  general  regulation 
on  the  subject,  and  the  Lateran  canon  of  1216  abstained  (p.  229) 
from  any  more  definite  expression  than  requiring  it  after  reaching 
years  of  discretion.  The  interpretation  of  this  was  necessarily  vari 
able.  In  1227  the  council  of  Xarbonne  fixed  the  age  at  fourteen.4 
When  S.  Ramon  de  Peiiafort,  in  1235,  compiled  the  Decretals  of 
Gregory  IX.  he  seems  to  have  found  nothing  bearing  on  the  subject 
save  the  passage  above  quoted,  ascribed  to  Gregory  I.  A  quarter  ot 
a  century  later  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  assumes  seven  to  be  the  age 
of  responsibility,  when  children  should  confess  and  receive  penance,5 
and  the  Glossator  on  the  Decretals  says  that  at  that  age  they  are 
considered  to  be  doli  capaces.6  On  the  other  hand,  various  councils 
of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  determine  the  age  to  be 
fourteen  ;7  and  the  systematic  writers  content  themselves  with  pre 
scribing  the  age  of  discretion.8  In  1408,  Gerson  and  the  council  of 
Reims,  in  stating  that  no  cases  are  to  be  considered  as  reserved  in 
children  under  fourteen,  imply  that  confession  and  penance  begin  at 


1  Timothei  Alexand.  Eesponsa  canonica  cum  Gloss.  Balsamon.  (Max.  Bibl. 
Pat.  IV.  1060). 

2  Cap.  1  Extra  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxiii.  s  Fez  Thesaur.  Anecd.  II 

4  C.  Narbonnens.  ann.  1227,  cap.  7  (Harduin.  VII.  146). 

5  Hostiens.  Aureee  Summ»  Lib.  V.  De  Delictis  puerorum  g 
Remiss.  §  7. 

6  Summa  Rosella  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacram.  II.  \  4. 

7  Statuta  Johann.  Episc.  Leodiens.  ann.  1287,  cap.  4  (Hartzhemi  II 
Statut.  Synod.  Cameracens.  circa  1300  (Ib.  IV.  69).-Statut.  Synod.  Ren 
circa  1330  Sec.  Locus,  Precept.  IV.  (Gousset,  Actes  etc.  II.  5- 

8  Astesani  Summa;  Lib.  v.  Tit.  x.  Art.  2,  Q.  3.-Manip.  Curato 

iii.  cap.  2. 

I.— 26 


402  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

an  earlier  age,1  and  the  tendency  continued  to  lower  the  minimum, 
for,  although  Savonarola  assumes  that  confession  and  communion  are 
to  begin  simultaneously  when  the  child  can  distinguish  between  com 
mon  bread  and  the  Eucharist,  which,  he  says,  is  about  the  tenth  or 
eleventh  year,  the  other  authorities  of  the  Renaissance  period  specify 
seven  as  the  age  for  the  first  confession ;  Pacifico  da  Novara  adds, 
however,  that  in  some  countries  it  is  postponed  until  twelve  or  four 
teen,  and  Cherubino  da  Spoleto  quotes  authorities  for  all  ages  from 
seven  to  fourteen.2  After  this,  seven  has  continued  to  be  the  age 
usually  prescribed  for  commencing  confession,  though  S.  Carlo  Bor- 
romeo  orders  it  to  begin  at  five  or  six,  and  the  Tri dentine  Catechism 
contents  itself  with  merely  designating  the  age  of  discretion,  while 
it  seems  to  be  generally  admitted  that  the  penalties  prescribed  by 
the  Lateran  canon  for  neglect  are  not  to  be  inflicted  before  the  age 
of  twelve.3  In  1703,  the  council  of  Albania  denounced  forcibly  the 
execrable  custom  prevailing  there  of  not  commencing  confession  be 
fore  the  age  of  sixteen,  eighteen  or  twenty,  leading  to  the  eternal 
perdition  of  many  souls,  and,  in  1803,  the  council  of  Suchuen  blamed 
confessors  who  refuse  to  listen  to  children  of  nine  or  ten  on  account 
of  their  youth,  and  instructs  them  to  urge  all  on  reaching  the  age  of 
seven,  or  at  least  of  eight,  to  come  forward.4  To  what  extent  these 
prescriptions  are  observed  it  would  of  course  be  impossible  to  state. 
In  1747  we  find  Cardinal  Rezzonico,  Bishop  of  Padua,  expressing 
his  astonishment  on  learning  that  many  young  people  reached  the 
age  of  sixteen  or  eighteen  without  receiving  the  sacraments,  where 
fore  he  ordered  the  enforcement  of  the  rule  of  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  f 


1  C.  Remens.  ann.  1408  (Gousset,  Actes  etc.  658,  664). 

2  Savonarolae  Confessionale  fol.  76.— Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  526,  546. 
— Rob.  Episc.  Aquin.  Opus  Quadrages.  Serm.  xxvm.  cap.  1.— Somma  Paci- 
fica  cap.  12.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  Sacr.  n.  g  4. — Cherubim  de 
Spoleto  Quadragesimale  Serm.  LXII. 

3  S.  Car.  Borrom.  Instruct.  Confessar.  Ed.  1678,  p.  55. — Em.  Sa  Aphorism! 
Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessio  n.  3. — Henriquez  Suminse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  IV.  cap. 
5,  n.  2,  3. — Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Confessionis  necessitas  n.  1. — Layman  Theol. 
Moral.  Lib.  v.  cap.  vi.  $  5,  n.  7.— Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  L.  n.  12.— S.  Alph. 
de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  665.— Cat.  Trident,  de  Poenit.  cap.  8. 

Liguori  elsewhere  (Istruzioiie  Pratica,  cap.  ii.  n.  37)  assumes  the  age  to  be 
seven,  although  there  may  be  cases  in  which  it  should  commence  earlier  or  later. 

4  C.  Albanens.  ann.  1703,  P.  n.  cap.  4;  C.  Sutchuens.  ann.  1803,  cap.  vi.  g  6 
(Coll.  Lacens.  I.  302;  VI.  20). 

5  Lett,  Pastorale,  14  Agosto,  1747. 


AGE  FOR  THE  SACRAMENT.  \{ ,.; 


and  the  utterance  of  recent  councils  on  the  subject  is  the  measure  of 
the  importance  attached  to  it  by  the  Church  and  of  the  difficulty  of 
enforcing  obedience.1 

While  there  has  been,  in  modern  times,  this  unanimity  in  com 
mencing  confession  at  the  earliest  possible  age,  there  has  been  con 
siderable  uncertainty  as  to  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  of 
penitence.  The  incongruity  of  bestowing  absolution  on  those  in 
capable  of  understanding  it  or  of  fulfilling  its  requisite  conditions 
did  not  prevent  Pierre  de  la  Pain  from  asserting  that  as  soon  as  a 
child  is  doli  capax,  it  is  bound  by  the  prescription  of  annual  con 
fession  and  communion,  which,  of  course,  implies  absolution.2  St 
Antonino  is  more  cautious ;  the  priest  must  decide  from  the  con 
fession  of  the  child  whether  it  has  sufficient  use  of  reason  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Eucharist.3  S.  Carlo  Borromeo,  who  wished  con 
fession  to  begin  at  the  age  of  five  or  six,  ordered  absolution  to  be 
postponed  until  the  confessor  should  judge  the  child  to  be  capable  of 
receiving  the  sacrament,  which  could  scarce  be  before  ten  or  twelve.4 
The  synod  of  Verdun,  in  1598,  ordered  that,  after  the  age  of  eight, 
children  should  be  heard  singly  in  confession,  while  those  younger 
should  only  receive  an  unsacramental  benediction.5  When  Hen- 
riquez  says  that  children  younger  than  twelve  are  not  subject  to  the 
Lateran  canon  and  are  not  to  be  admitted  to  communion,  the  infer 
ence  is  that  they  are  not  to  receive  absolution ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  Juan  Sanchez  assumes  that  the  precepts  of  annual  confession 
and  taking  the  Eucharist  are  in  force  as  soon  as  the  child  is  capable 
of  distinguishing  between  right  and  wrong,  which  is  in  the  sixth  or 
seventh  year.6  Gobat  describes  the  perplexities  of  the  conscientious 
confessor  in  determining  whether  children  are  capable  of  the  sacra 
ment  or  not;  for  himself,  his  rule  is,  when  in  doubt,  to  administer 


1  C.  Ravennat.  ami.  1855,  cap.  5,  \  11  ;  C.  Urbinatens.  ann.  1859,  I 

viii.  I  50  ;  C.  Baltimor.  Plenar.  II.  ann.  1866,  Tit.  5,  cap.  5,  n.  276  (Coll.  Lacens. 
VI.  160,  20,  III.  471). 

2  P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xn.  Q.  1  ad  5. 

3  S.  Antonini  Summ*  P.  n.  Tit.  ix.  cap.  9,  §  1.     Yet  St.  Antonino  elsewh 
(P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  12  |  5)  quotes  Pierre  de  la  Palu  without  expres 
sent. 

4  S.  Carol.  Borrom.  Instruct.  Confessar.  p.  55. 

5  Synod.  Verdunens.  ann.  1598,  cap.  51  (Hartzheim  VIII.  470). 

6  Henriquez  Sumime  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  5,  n.  2,  3.— 
Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  XXVI.  n.  4. 


404  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

it  conditioned  on  capacity.1  Laymann  suggestively  tells  us  that 
children  are  not  to  be  absolved  if  there  is  dread  only  of  a  whipping 
and  not  of  hell ;  those  who  cannot  comprehend  the  sacrament  are  to 
be  dismissed  with  a  benediction ;  when  there  is  doubt,  conditional 
absolution  should  be  given.2  This,  which  at  best  is  a  sort  of  make 
shift  to  supplement  human  impotence  in  the  exercise  of  superhuman 
attributes,  has  been  eagerly  accepted  as  a  solution  of  the  difficulty. 
Guarceno  tells  us  that  those  confessors  err  gravely  who  do  not 
administer  absolution  before  the  first  communion,  for  the  discretion 
differs  widely  which  capacitates  the  child  for  the  reception  of  the 
two  sacraments;  confession  should  begin  at  seven,  and  if  there  is 
doubt  as  to  the  capacity  for  absolution  it  should  be  given  condition 
ally.3  From  the  earnestness  with  which  Frassinetti  argues  against 
the  practice  of  deferring  absolution  until  the  first  communion,  leaving 
unremitted  the  sins  confessed  meanwhile,  this  would  appear  to  be  a 
custom  by  no  means  eradicated ;  indeed,  Gousset  speaks  of  it  as  an 
abuse  practised  in  some  places.4  There  is  a  further  question  as  to 
the  applicability  to  children  of  the  reservation  of  cases,  which  has 
been  variously  debated,  but  which  seems  to  be  settled  by  the  prin 
ciple  that  reservation  is  not  a  punishment  inflicted  on  the  sinner  but 
a  limitation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  confessor.5  In  view  of  the 
recognition  of  youth  as  an  impediment  in  such  cases  (p.  336)  the 
matter  would  appear  to  be  academical  rather  than  practical,  but  the 
modern  custom  of  applying  for  faculties  to  absolve  neutralizes  the 
impediment,  and  we  are  told  that  in  the  last  century  Cardinal  Hon- 
orati,  as  Bishop  of  Sinigaglia,  removed  from  among  reserved  cases 
carnal  sins  in  boys  under  fourteen  and  girls  under  twelve,  for  the 
reason  that  it  would  prevent  their  confession.6 

In  the  spirit  which  pervaded  medieval  society  it  was  inevitable 
that  payment  should  be  expected  for  administering  the  sacraments, 


1  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  443-59. 

2  Laymann  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  5,  n.  7. 

3  Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvnr.  cap.  iv.  art.  2. — Marc  Institt. 
Moral.  Alphonsianse  n.  1663. 

4  Frassinetti's   New  Parish   Priest's   Manual,  p.  367.— Gousset,  Theologie 
Morale,  II.  406. 

5  Cabrini  Elucidar.  Casuum  Reservat.  P.  i.  Eesol.  xxvii.  xxviii. 

6  Fabri,  Istruzione  per  i  novelli  Confessori,  p.  311  (Jesi,  1785). 


FEES  FOR  CONFESSION.  4Q5 


and  that  of  penitence  could  be  no  exception.     Even  as  early  as  the 
fifth  century  we  see  that  fees  were  a  matter  of  course  for  the  exercise 
of  such   sacerdotal  functions,   for  Leo   I.,   in   scolding  the   Italian 
bishops  for  baptizing  on  other   days  than   Easter   and    Pentecost, 
threatened   punishment   for   persistence,   on  the  ground   that   they 
showed  themselves  to  be  seekers  of  filthy  gain  rather  than  of  the 
advantage  of  religion.1     In  one  of  the  earlier  Penitentials  the  peni 
tent  is  directed,  before  readmission  to  communion,  to  give  a  banquet 
to  the  priest  who  has  prescribed  the  penance2 — a  practice  doubtless 
conducive  to  a  shortening  of  the  penalty  inflicted.     That  the  custom 
of  payment  was  general  may  be  assumed  from  the  effort  to  check  it 
by  the  forgers  of  the  False  Decretals,  who  represent  Pope  Eutychianus 
as  forbidding  that  anything,  shall  be  received  for  baptizing  infants  or 
reconciling  sinners  or  burying  the  dead.3     While  exaction  and  ex 
tortion  were  thus  prohibited,  an  exception  was  made  in  favor  of  the 
acceptance  of  fees  voluntarily  tendered.4     That  the  priesthood  of  the 
period  did  not  observe  the  distinction  and  for  the  most  part  withheld 
their  services  when  their  cupidity  was  not  satisfied  is  manifested  by 
a  very  curious  passage  in   an    Ordo  of  the  period,  in  which  a  poor 
sinner,  when  invited  to  confess,  protests  that  he  is  unable  to  pay  for 
the  service  and  that  the  priests  will  only  oppress  and  persecute  him 
for  his  poverty.5     It  was  difficult  to  repress  this,  as  is  seen  from  the 
frequent  injunctions  to  exact  nothing  but  to  take  whatever  may  be 

1  Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVIII.  cap.  1,  Ad  Episcopos. 

2  Poenit.  Columbani  cap.  19  (Wasserschleben,  p.  358). 

3  Ps.  Eutychiani  Exhortatio  ad  Presbyteros  (Migne>  V.  165). 

4  Reg.  S.  Chrodegangi  Ed.  D'Achery  cap.  42  (Migne,  LXXXIX.  1 
Harduin.  cap.  32  (Concil.  IV.  1196). 

*  Pez  Thesaur.  Anecd.  II.  n.  621.-"  Ego  homo  sum  ignoti  nommis, 
opinion!*,  infimi  generis,  modicse  substantial,  cognitus  nulli  nisi  soli  mihi ;  n 
est  mihi  pecunia,  nulli  placere  possum  per  servitia,  desunt  mihi  pram 
etmunera;  hsec  omnia  perplurimorum  sacerdotum  requirit 
itas  et  avaritia;  si  hujusniodi  confiteor  scelera  mea  sacerdotibus  : 
fatis  muneribus  dedignantur  me  audire,  et  protectionem  et 
consilium  exhibere  vel  aliquo  modo  succurrere,  et  ita  deseror 
quicunque  me  ex  his  aspiciunt  fugiunt  me  aut  persequuntur  c 
mihi  loquuntur  venenum  aspidum  sub  labiis  eorum  consider* 
malitiam  blandis  sermonibus  ornant,  aliud  ore  promunt  ahud  cord 
opere  destmunt  quod  sermone  promittunt,  sub  pietatis  habitu  vela 
calliditatem  simplicitate  occultant,  produnt,  culpant,  objiciunt,  « 
turn  vultu  quod  animo  non  gestant." 


406  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

offered,1  yet  an  offering  was  expected  and  was  customary,  forming 
part  of  the  recognized  revenue  of  the  churches,  divided  monthly 
between  the  priests  and  the  superior  and  known  as  confessiones  tri- 
cenarice? 

It  was  reserved  for  Innocent  III.  to  give  legality  to  the  custom. 
The  subject  was  somewhat  delicate,  for  the  demand  of  payment  for 
the  sacraments  was  undoubted  simony,  and  yet  without  compulsion 
these  so-called  voluntary  payments  were  liable  to  be  not  forthcoming. 
Innocent,  however,  accomplished  the  feat  of  facing  both  ways  in  a 
decree  reciting  that  frequent  complaints  reach  the  Holy  See  that 
money  is  exacted  for  the  sacraments  and  that  fictitious  difficulties 
are  raised  if  the  priestly  greed  is  not  satisfied,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  are  laymen  inspired  with  heretical  views  who  seek  under 
the  guise  of  scruples  to  infringe  on  the  laudable  custom  which  the 
piety  of  the  faithful  has  introduced.  Therefore  depraved  exactions 
are  prohibited  and  pious  customs  are  to  be  observed ;  the  sacraments 
must  be  freely  conferred,  but  the  bishops  shall  coerce  those  who  en 
deavor  to  change  a  laudable  custom.3  In  this  peculiar  method  of 
coercing  voluntary  payments,  the  sacrament  of  penitence  is  not  spe 
cifically  mentioned,  but  by  common  consent  it  was  held  to  be  included, 
and  the  laudable  custom  was  firmly  established,  nor  is  it  likely  that 
many  confessors  were  as  scrupulous  as  one  commemorated  by  Csesa- 
rius  of  Hiesterbach  for  flinging  the  money  after  the  penitent  who 
refused  to  promise  abstinence  from  sin.4  The  canonists  of  the  thir 
teenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  show  us  that  the  custom  was  reduced 
to  somewhat  definite  rules  :  the  priest  could  not  demand  payment  or 
refuse  absolution  in  its  absence ;  he  was  warned  that  he  should  not 
during  the  confession  gaze  wistfully  and  suggestively  at  the  purse  of 
the  penitent,  nor,  if  the  latter  was  poor,  ought  he  to  exact  a  pledge 
to  secure  the  payment ;  strictly  speaking,  the  penitent  was  not  legally 
bound  to  pay,  unless  the  priest  was  poor  or  it  was  the  custom  of  the 
diocese,  but  it  was  proper  for  him  to  do  so  in  any  case  as  an  evidence 
of  his  devotion,  and  the  decree  of  Innocent  III.  was  freely  cited  in 


1  Ratherii  Veronens.  Synodica  ad  Presbyteros  cap.  8.— Commonit.  cujusque 
Episcopi  cap.  15  (Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  VII.  3).— C.  Bituricens.  arm.  1031 
cap.  12  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  850).— C.  Londiniens.  ann.  1125,  cap.  2;  ann.  1138, 
cap.  1  (Ibid.  VI.  n.  1125,  1204). 

2  Du  Cange,  s.  v.  Confessiones  tricenarice.  3  Cap.  42  Extra  V.  iii. 
4  Caesar.  Hiesterb.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  35. 


FEES  FOR  CONFESSION.  407 


support.1     Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  expresses  a  pious  belief  that  the 
priest  is  not  likely  to  be  corrupted  by  such  a  trifle,  but,  as  his  power 
in  the  confessional  was  arbitrary,  parishioners  who  had  to  appear 
before  him  annually  doubtless  felt  that  a  reputation  for  liberality 
was  desirable.     St.  Bonaventura  in  fact  tells  us  that  refusal  to  ab 
solve  without  payment  was  common,2  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the 
utterance  of  the  council  of  London,  in  1268,  under  the  Legate  Otto- 
boni,  which  complains  of  the  universal  sale  of  the  sacraments  through 
the  venality  and  greed  of  the  clergy,  and  alludes  specially  to  the 
practice  of  extorting  fees  before  listening  to  confessions.     It  ordered 
diluent  inquisition  and  punishment  of  oifenders,  significantly  adding 
that&  custom  should   not  be  pleaded  in  defence.3     The  Mendicants 
were  as  deeply  involved  in  this  as  the  parochial  clergy. 
to  handle  money,  the  rule  was  to  tell  the  penitent  to  make  his  pav 
ment  to  the  procurator  of  the  convent,  but  there  seems  to  have  been 
no  prohibition  to  receive  money's  worth.     A  popular  poc 
fourteenth  century  says  of  them 

Thai  say  that  thai  destroye  sinne, 
And  thai  mayntene  men  most  therinne. 
For  had  a  man  slayn  al  his  kynne 

Go  shrive  him  at  a  frere, 
And  for  lesse  than  a  payre  of  shone 
He  wyl  assoil  him  clene  and  sone, 
And  say  the  sinne  that  he  has  done 

His  saule  shal  neuer  dere.4 

At  the  Grands  Jours  of  Troves,  in  1405,  the  people  complained  of 
the  exactions  of  the  priests,  and  the  court  decided,  capriciously  enot 


'Bonaventune  Tract.  Quia  Fratres  Minores 
•  C.  Londiniens.  arm.  1268,  cap.  2  (Harduin.  VII       6). 
.  Hostiens.  nbi  .^.-Monuments  Franciscana  v    °*  '        parish 

sition  as  contrary  to  natural  and  divm 
D'Argentre,  I.  n.  305. 


408  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

gratuitously.1     This  of  course  had  no  influence  on  the  general  prac 
tice,  and  there  was  an  uneasy  conviction  underlying  it  that,  in  spite 
of  custom  and  of  Innocent's  decretal,  it  really  was  simony.     The  doc 
tors  endeavored  to  argue  this  away  by  the  distinction  between  volun 
tary  and  coerced  payments.     If  a  bargain  was  made,  or  if  absolution 
was  held  dependent  on  money,  it  was  simony  in  spite  of  custom  ;  if 
without  this  the  object  of  the  priest  was  to  gain  the  fee  and  not  to 
save  souls,  it  was  mental  simony ;  if  such  was  not  the  object  and  the 
money  was  tendered  spontaneously,  it  could  be  accepted  without  sin.2 
The  priests  themselves  disregarded  such  niceties  and  collected  their 
fees  from  the  willing  and  the  unwilling  alike.     In  the  attempted 
reformation  with  which  Cardinal  Campeggio,  in  1524,  endeavored  to 
stay  the  progress  of  the  Lutheran  heresy,  at  the  assembly  of  Ratis- 
bon,  one  provision  was  the  prohibition  of  exacting  anything  from 
unwilling  penitents.3     This  was  not  effective  for,  in  1536,  the  council 
of  Cologne  deplores  that  fines  were  imposed  in  place  of  the  canonical 
penances,  and  sinners  were  allowed  to  continue  their  evil  courses  to 
the  great  scandal  of  the  faithful,4  and,  in  1557,  Georg  Witzel,  in  a 
memorial  to  the  Emperor  Ferdinand,  includes  the  exaction  among 
the  oppressions  to  be  removed  before  a  project  for  the  reunion  of  the 
Lutherans  could  be  successful.5     The  payment  of  the  fee,  in  fact,  was 
often  the  main  thing.     When,  in  1564,  Pierre  de  Bonneville,  on  trial 
before  the  Inquisition  of  Toledo,  admitted  that  he  had  not  confessed  or 
communed  for  two  years,  in  consequence  of  cherishing  hatred  against 
a  rival,  the  inquisitors  immediately  asked  him  whether  his  parish 
priest  had  not  looked  after  him,  to  which  he  replied  that  the  priest 
had  called  to  inquire,  when  he  had  told  him  that  he  had  confessed 
and  communed  in  the  parish  church,  whereupon  the  priest  collected 
four  maravedises  from  him  and  departed  satisfied.6 

When  S.  Carlo  Borromeo  forbade  his  priests  from  demanding  fees 
from  penitents,  he  did  not  prohibit  their  acceptance,  and  he  justified 

1  Preuves  des  Libertez  de  1'Eglise  Gallicane,  II.  n.  91  (Paris,  1651). 

2  Weigel  Claviculse  Indulgentialis  cap.  76.— S.  Antonini  Confessionale  fol. 
31a. — Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  916. 

3  Constitt.  Ratisponens.  aim.  1524,  cap.  9  (Hartzheim  VI.  200). 

4  C.  Coloniens.  ann.  1536,  P.  xiv.  cap.  22  (Ibid.  p.  310). 

5  Dollinger,  Beitrage  zur  politischen,  kirchlichen  und  Cultur-Geschichte, 
III.  177. 

6  MSS.  Universitats  Bibliothek,  Halle,  Yc.  20,  T.  V. 


FEES  FOR  CONFESSION.  409 

his  action  not  on  the  ground  of  simony,  but  on  the  greater  authority 
which  the  priest  would  have  by  manifesting  his  independence  in  such 
matters.1  There  was  significance  in  the  command  of  the  council  of 
Aix  in  1585,  when  ordering  the  erection  of  confessionals  in  all 
churches,  it  prescribed  that  they  should  not  be  furnished  with  alms- 
boxes.  This  could  not  have  been  intended  to  preclude  all  payments, 
for  the  council  of  Narbonne,  in  1609,  while  prohibiting  all  begging 
or  demanding,  permits  the  acceptance  of  whatever  may  be  freely 
tendered,  and  Bishop  Zerola,  about  the  same  time,  informs  us  that 
this  was  the  custom  everywhere,2  though  there  were  rigorists  who 
argued  that  payment  cannot  be  accepted  without  simony.3  The 
Jesuit  Rule  forbade  it,  though  the  prohibition  seems  to  have  been 
difficult  of  enforcement,  and  the  Jesuit  Giuseppe  Agostino  teaches 
that  there  is  no  simony  in  receiving  payment  for  the  labor  of  admin 
istering  the  sacraments.4  Still  less  obedience  was  secured  for  the 
precept  in  the  Roman  Ritual,  which  prohibited  confessors  from  either 
asking  or  receiving  anything  for  the  performance  of  their  functions,5 
for  not  long  afterwards  Diana  argues  that,  though  it  is  a  sin  for  the 
priest  to  refuse  penance  and  the  viaticum  to  the  dying  unless  paid 
for,  refusal  to  pay  would  also  be  a  sin,  since  thus  the  departing  soul 
would  be  condemned  to  damnation,6  nor  does  he  seem  to  realize  how 
hideous  is  the  conception  which  he  thus  conveys  of  his  faith  and  its 
ministers.  Various  councils,  about  the  year  1700,  endeavored  to  sup 
press  the  custom  of  asking  for  payment,  but  were  careful  not  to  forbid 
its  acceptance.7  Chiericato  admits  that  such  payments  are  not  truly 
"  alms,"  as  commonly  expressed,  but  are  wages  for  the  labor  per- 


1  S.  Carol!  Borrom.  Instructio,  pp.  69,  79. 

2  C.  Aquens.  arm.  1585,  De  Poenit.  (Harduin.  X.  1530).— C.  Narbonn 
1609,  cap.  16  (Ibid.  XI.  18).— Zerola  Praxis  Sacr.  Poenit.  cap.  xxv.  Q.  2 

3  Rebelli  de  Obligationibus  Justitise  P.  n.  Lib.  xvii.  De  Officio  Confer 
*  Reusch,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  des  Jesuitenordens,   p.  i 

1894).— Augustini  Brevis  notitia  eorum  quse  necessaria  sunt  confess 
Simonia  n.  6.— But  the  Jesuit  prohibition  was  rendered  subject  1 
of  the  superior  (Regulse  Sacerdotum  n.  22). 

5  Ritual.  Roman.  Tit.  in.  cap.  1. 

6  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Scandalum  n.  13.-Alph.  de  Leone  ( 
Confessoris,  Recoil,  xm.  n.  53. 

'  C.  Neapolitan,  ann.  1699,  Tit.  in.  cap.  6  «  9;  Synod.  National    Alb 
ann.  1703  P.  m.  cap.  4;  Synod.  Bahiens.  ann.  1707,  Lib.  n. 
Lacens.  I.  186,303,851). 


410  THE  CONFESSIONAL. 

formed,1  and  Van  Espen  points  out  the  danger  of  requiring  priests  to 
live  on  the  fees  of  the  confessional,  whereby  their  temporal  comfort 
is  dependent  on  the  number  of  their  penitents.2  Lochon,  about  the 
same  period,  speaks  of  the  poor  who  give  as  a  reason  for  not  confess 
ing  that  they  are  unable  to  pay  for  it,  and  sharply  reproves  the  priests 
and  vicars  who  boast  that  the  confessional  brings  them  in  100  or 
150  livres  a  year,  or  that  they  have  cleared  so  much  at  Easter  or  by 
the  Jubilee.3 

The  first  endeavor  I  have  met  with  to  enforce  the  prescriptions  of 
the  Roman  Ritual  occurs  in  the  council  of  Avignon,  in  1725,  which 
orders  bishops  to  be  vigilant  in  preventing  confessors  from  receiving 
anything,  even  under  the  pretext  of  alms.4  This  effort  was  sporadic 
and  apparently  produced  no  effect,  and  in  one  department  of  con- 
fessorial  labor  the  Church  was  obliged  to  yield  the  point,  for  it 
recognized  that  confessors  of  nunneries  must  be  supported.  In 
1589,  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  decreed  that  a 
proper  "alms"  should  be  paid  to  them,  and,  in  1605,  it  defined  that 
this  should  be  a  stipend  payable  to  the  house  of  the  confessor,  suffi 
cient  to  defray  his  expenses  according  to  the  custom  of  the  country, 
the  nuns  themselves  being  wisely  forbidden  to  pay  anything.5  In 
1657,  this  stipend  was  fixed  by  the  Congregation  at  two  giuli  per 
diem,  to  which  the  superior  of  the  nunnery  might  add  something  if 
the  confessor  was  especially  assiduous,  and  regulations  of  this  kind 
I  presume  are  still  in  force.6  If  the  stipend,  however,  is  the  prin 
cipal  motive  of  the  confessor,  he  is  guilty  of  grave  mental  simony 
whenever  he  thinks  of  it.7 

In  modern  times  the  Beichtpfennig ',  or  payment  to  the  confessor, 
appears  to  be  regulated  by  diocesan  custom.  Binterim,  writing 
about  1840,  labors  strenuously  to  show  that  there  is  no  simony  in  it, 
as  there  is  no  compulsion,  but  he  admits  that  it  is  repulsive ;  the 


1  Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Decis.  x.  n.  1. 

2  Van  Espen  Jur.  Eccles.  P.  u.  Tit.  vi.  cap.  4,  n.  16. 

3  Lochon,  Traite  du  Secret  de  la  Confession,  p.  297  (Brusselle,  1708). 

4  C.  Avinionens.  ann.  1725,  Tit.  xxx.  cap.  4  (Coll.  Lacens.  I.  535). 

5  Clericati  De  Poenit.  Decis.  XLII.  n.  4.— Pittoni  Constitutions  Pontificiae, 
T.  VII.  n.  411,  557. 

6  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  577.— Pittoni,  op.  cit.  n.  939. 
— The  giuli  was  a  coin  of  ten  sous.     In  a  decision  of  1740  the  stipend  is  fixed 
at  fifty  crowns  a  year.— Bizzarri  Collect.  S.  Congr.  Episc.  et  Regul.  p.  388. 

7  Pittoni,  op.  cit.  n.  411. 


FEES  FOR  CONFESSION.  411 

•sinner  may  thus  be  deterred  from  unburdening  his  sins,  and  the 
ipriest  does  not  venture  to  exhort  to  frequent  confession  lest  he  be 
suspected  of  seeking  money  rather  than  the  salvation  of  his  flock. 
In  Germany  he  says  the  custom  has  long  been  abandoned,  but  in 
Holland,  where  the  priests  have  no  fixed  incomes,  it  is  still  retained.1 
Since  then  the  synod  of  Utrecht,  in  1865,  has  forbidden  wholly  the 
asking  or  acceptance  of  fees  on  the  ground  of  its  appearing  to  be  a 
redemption  of  sin  and  of  its  influence  in  preventing  frequent  con 
fession.2  On  the  other  hand,  in  1846,  I  find  it  spoken  of  as  a  legal 
and  unobjectionable  custom  in  those  dioceses  in  which  it  is  still  re 
tained,3  and  the  council  of  Quebec,  in  1863,  prohibited  the  exaction 
of  fees,  but  made  no  formal  protest  against  their  acceptance.4 

1  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  V.  in.  296-8. 

2  Synod.  Ultraject.  ami.  1865,  Tit.  iv.  cap.  8  (Coll.  Lacens.  V.  8i 

3  Aschbach,  Allgemeines  Kirchen-Lexicon,  s.  v.  Beichtpfennig. 

4  C.  Quebecens.  I.  ann.  1863,  Deer.  m.  §  10  (Coll.  Lacens.  VI.  402). 
The  Lutherans  inherited  the  Beichtpfennig  and  long  maintained  it,  as 

be  seen  hereafter. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE    SEAL    OF    CONFESSION. 

IT  is  a  self-evident  proposition  that,  if  auricular  confession  is  to 
be  enforced,  the  penitent  must  be  assured  of  the  inviolable  secrecy  of 
his  admissions  of  wrong-doing.  To  say  nothing  of  the  danger  of 
punishment  for  graver  crimes,  his  family  relations  and  his  reputation 
might  be  too  nearly  imperilled  for  him  to  venture  on  the  unburden 
ing  of  his  conscience  if  there  were  risk  that  even  his  less  grievous 
sins  and  weaknesses  might  be  bruited  abroad,  and  no  man's  life  or 
honor  would  be  safe  against  the  stories  that  might  be  circulated  by 
a  malignant  priest.  The  Church,  in  making  confession  a  matter  of 
precept,  has  therefore  been  obliged  to  give  assurance  to  its  children 
that  they  can  repose  absolute  reliance  on  the  impenetrable  silence 
with  which  their  utterances  shall  be  covered. 

Although  the  council  of  Trent  is  silent  upon  the  subject,  and 
though  it  was  a  disputed  point  among  the  schoolmen  whether  the 
seal  of  the  confessional  is  of  the  essence  of  the  sacrament,1  the  Church 
has  had  no  hesitation  in  asserting  it  to  be  of  divine  law.  The  earlier 
theologians  appear  to  have  paid  no  attention  to  this  point,  and  Aquinas 
only  argues  that,  as  the  priest  should  conform  himself  to  God,  of 
whom  he  is  the  minister,  and  as  God  does  not  reveal  the  sins  made 
known  to  him  in  confession,  so  the  priest  should  be  equally  reticent,2 
but  as  he  asserts  it  to  be  of  the  essence  of  the  sacrament,  and  as  the 
sacrament  is  of  divine  law,  the  conclusion  is  readily  drawn  that  it 
must  likewise  be  so.3  Duns  Scotus  assents  to  this  and  holds  that 
the  confessor  is  bound  to  silence  by  the  law  of  nature,  the  positive 


1  Aquinas  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  2)  asserts  the  seal  to  be  of 
the  essence  of  the  sacrament,  and  is  followed  by  Angiolo  da  Chivasso  (Summa 
Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio,  ult.  §  1),  whence  he  draws  the  natural  but  self-destructive 
conclusion  that  its  violation  renders  the  sacrament  null.     Pierre  de  la  Palu 
says  that  it  is  not  of  the  essence  (Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  celatio  in 
corp.},  and  so  does  Domingo  Soto  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  ii.  Art.  6). 

2  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  1. 

3  Ejusd.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  xi.  Art.  1. 


ASSUMED  TO  BE  OF  DIVINE  LAW.  413 

law  of  God  and  the  positive  law  of  the  Church.1     His  disciple, 
Francois  de  Mairone,  admits  that  the  seal  is  of  divine  law,  though 
it  would  not  be  easy  to  prove  it,  but  it  has  been  so  decreed  by  the 
Church.2    Astesanus  accepts  it  without  question  or  argument.3    That 
the  point,  however,  was  under  debate  in  the  schools,  without  entire 
agreement  as  to  the  proof,  is  seen  in  the  remark  of  Durand  de  S. 
PourQain,  that   the    common    argument  is  that  confession   and   its 
seal  proceed  from  the  same  law,  and  as  one  is  divine  the  other  must 
be,  but  he  rejects  this  reasoning  and  prefers  to  argue  that  the  seal  is 
part  of  the  sacrament,  and  is  therefore  of  divine  law.4     Guido  de 
Monteroquer  seems  to  know  nothing  of  divine  origin  and  bases  the 
seal  wholly  on  the  positive  law  of  the  Church  as  expressed  in  Gratian 
and  the  Lateran  canon.5    Passavanti  says  nothing  of  the  divine  origin 
of  the  seal  and  only  urges  in  its  support  reverence  for  the  sacrament, 
the  heavy  punishment  for  violation,  and  the  interference  with  con 
fession   which  disregard  of  secrecy  would  cause.6     Piero  d'Aquila 
proves  the  divine  origin  by  a  new  line  of  argument— revealing  con 
fessions  would  deter  men  from  confessing ;  confession  is  of  divine 
law,  and  consequently  the  prohibition  of  what  would  interfere  with 
it  must  also  be  of  divine  law.7     Subsequent  authorities,  as  a  rule, 
came  to  admit  the  divinity  of  the  seal  as  a  matter  of  course,  though 
as  late  as  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  Gabriel  Biel  considers  it 
to  be  only  of  natural   law  and  confines  his  argument  wholly  to- its 
utility.8     Of  course  no  evidence  is  furnished  beyond  Melchor  Cano's 
argument  that  Sixtus  IV.  condemned  as  heresy  Pedro  de  Osma's 
denial  of  the  obligation  of  the  seal,  and  that  if  it  were  not 
its  denial  would  not  be  heretical,  or  Gobat's  reasoning  that  Chris 
could  not  have  imposed  on  man  the  heavy  burden  of  oonfe 
unless  he  had  lightened  it  by  explicitly  or  implicitly  adding 


1  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic. 

2  Fr.  de  Maironis  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii. 

3  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xx.  Q.  2. 

4  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iv.  < 

5  Manip.  Curator.  P.  IT.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  11. 

6  Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza,  E 

7  P  de  Acmila  in  IV  Sentt.  Dist.  xx.  Q.  iii. 

•  Gab    «el  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxr.  Q.  unic.  Art  l.-S.  Anton,,,,  S— 
P.  m.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  22.-Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  <W»«<>™ 
Tabiena  ..  v.   Om/^m   Cdatio  \  I.-Dom.  Soto  in  IV. 
Q.  iv.  Art.  5. 


414  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

seal.1  Benzi  relies  for  evidence  on  tradition  and  the  practice  of  the 
Church,  while  Gary  and  Marc  beg  the  question  by  saying  that  it  is 
implicitly  of  divine  law,  for,  by  the  institution  of  Christ  confession 
ought  to  be  secret,  and  therefore  the  obligation  of  the  seal  was  im 
posed  on  confessors  by  Christ.2  Of  course,  all  modern  writers  assert 
its  divine  origin,  and  of  course  no  one  pretends  to  offer  evidence, 
while  Guarceno  even  asserts  that  it  is  heresy  to  doubt  the  obligation, 
in  spite  of  the  discreet  reticence  of  the  council  of  Trent  on  the 
subject.3  Binterim,  in  fact,  assures  us  that  evidence  would  be 
superfluous :  Christ  guaranteed  to  the  faithful  impenetrable  silence 
on  the  part  of  his  deputies,  and  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  that  he 
should  express  it  in  words.4  Yet  the  theologians  are  blind  to  the 
fact  that  when  they  give  as  a  reason  for  the  disuse  of  public  penance 
for  private  sins,  that  it  would  indirectly  violate  the  seal,  they  admit 
that  the  latter  is  of  comparatively  recent  introduction.5 

As  the  matter  has  thus  passed  wholly  out  of  the  domain  of  reason 
into  that  of  faith,  it  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  presumptuous 
ignorance  should  assume  not  only  that  the  seal  is  a  divine  ordinance 
but  that  in  fact,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  there  has  never 
occurred  an  instance  of  its  violation.  Thus  Guillois  tells  us  that  it 
has  never  been  broken,  and  that  it  is  said  that  even  the  unfrocked 
insermentes  priests  of  the  French  Revolution,  some  of  whom  sank  to 
the  depths  of  degradation,  never  revealed  anything  that  they  had 
heard  in  confession.6  Cardinal  Gibbons  even  goes  further,  and  with 
customary  theological  logic  finds  in  this  alleged  fact  a  proof  of  the 
divine  origin  of  the  sacrament.7  Such  assertions  may  strengthen 


1  Melchior.  Cani  de  Pcenit.  P.  v.  (Ed.  1550,  p.  80).— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar, 
n.  837. 

2  Benzi  Praxis  Tribim.   Conscientiae  Disp.  11.  Q.  vii.   Art.  1,  n.  1. — Gury 
Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  647.— Marc  Institt.  Moral.  Alphonsianse  n.  1860. 

3  S.  Alph.   de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  634.— Palmieri  Tract,  de 
Poenit.  p.  393.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  art.  7. 

4  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  V.  in.  312. 

5  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  512. 

6  Guillois,  History  of  Confession,  translated  by  Bishop  de  Goesbriand,  p« 
183.— Guillois  probably  derives  the  assertion  as  to  the  Eevolutionary  priests 
from  Gregoire,  Hist,  des  Confesseurs  des  Empereurs  etc.  p.  99. 

7  Cardinal  Gibbons  says  that  he  does  not  know  "  of  any  instance  under  my 
observation,  nor  of  any  recorded  in  history,  where  the  seal  of  the  confessional 
has  been  violated.     This  fact  can  be  affirmed,  not  only  of  those  priests  who 


UNKNOWN  TO  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.  415 


the  confidence  of  those  inclined  to  suspect  the  discretion  of  their 
pastors.     We  shall  presently  see  on  what  basis  they  are  founded. 

Yet  with  all  this  confident  assertion  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
seal  it  is  instructive  to  observe  that,  when  the  theologians  settle 
down  to  facts  and  to  details,  the  reason  they  allege  for  the  secrecy 
of  the  confessional  is  the  very  human  one  that  without  it  confes 
sion  would  be  too  odious  to  be  successfully  enforced,  and,  in  debating 
the  innumerable  questions  to  which  the  application  of  the  rule  gives 
rise,  the  sole  test  which  they  apply  is  not  in  conformity  with  the  pre 
sumed  command  of  Christ,  but  whether  a  decision  in  this  sense  or 
that  will  render  confession  odious.1  The  whole  matter  is  customarily 
treated  on  the  basis  of  the  most  naked  expediency. 

Of  course,  in  the  early  centuries,  when  the  only  form  of  peniten 
tial  confession  recognized  by  the  Church  was  public,  there  could  be 
no  injunction  of  secrecy.     If  evidence  of  this  be  wanted  it  can  be 
found  in  the  early  codes  prescribing  the  functions  of  the  priesthood 
and  the  penalises  imposed  for  derelictions— the  canons  of  Hippo- 
lytus  and  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  the  so-called  Canons  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  canonical  epistles  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and 
the  Great,  the  penitential  decrees  of  such  councils  as  those  of . 
Nicaja  and  Ancyra  and  the  collections  of  the  African  Church. 

have  remained  faithful  to  their  sacred  calling,  but  even  of  those  who  from 
time  to  time  have  proved  unfaithful.     This  inviolability  may,  wit! 
sumption,  be  regarded  as  an  additional  proof,  not  only  of  the  divine  msti 
of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  but  also  of  the  special  protection  of  < 
those  who  are  charged  with  the  important  duty  of  hearing  confer 
Letter  in  N.  Y.  Herald,  Feb.  7,  1892.  , 

In  this  the  Cardinal  only  exaggerates  somewhat  an  assertion  m  Aschba 
Allgemeines  Kirchen- Lexicon  s.  v.  Beichtsiegel. 

i  Alex,  de  Ales  Summ*  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  ii   Art.  l.-S 
in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  P.  ii.  Art.  2,  Q.  l.-S.  Th.  Aqum.  in  IV.  Sentt. 
xxi  Q  iii  Art  1  ad  l.-S.  Antonini  Summ*  P.  in.  Tit.  xvn.  cap  22,  \ 
Bob.  Muinat    Opus  Quadrages.  Serm.  XXIX.  cap.  2.-Summa 
Confessions  Celatio  I  5,-Eisengrein  Confessionale,  cap.  v, 
Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvin.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5,  6.-Summa ^Diana 
sacrament,  n.    16,  21,  38,  43,  46,  47.-Layman  ^J*? 
vi.  cap.  14,  n.  14.-Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  8/8, 
scient ,DisP.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art  1,  n.  1,  2;  Art.  3,  n.  3  2 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  n.  634.-Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II 
655,  671-Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvili.  cap.  iv.  Art, 


416  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

these  together  form  a  tolerably  extensive  body  of  canon  law,  repre 
senting  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  different  churches  up  to  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century,  and  had  there  been  any  duty  incum 
bent  on  priests  to  listen  to  the  confessions  of  sinners  and  to  veil  them 
in  impenetrable  silence  there  would  unquestionably  have  been  some 
allusion  to  it  and  some  penalty  prescribed  for  its  violation.  The 
absolute  ignorance  of  any  such  duties  manifested  by  all  these  law 
givers  is  sufficient  evidence  of  their  non-existence.1  At  the  same 
time  the  danger  to  which  a  penitent  might  be  exposed  by  the  public 
knowledge  of  his  sins  is  seen  in  the  exception  made  by  St.  Basil  the 
Great  in  favor  of  a  wife  who  confesses  to  adultery  and  from  some 
remarks  of  St.  August  in.2  The  first  allusion  to  the  advisability  of 
secrecy,  when  sinners  sought  counsel  in  private  of  holy  men,  in  place 
of  confessing  before  the  congregation,  occurs  in  the  life  of  St.  Am 
brose  by  his  disciple  Paulinos,  and  this  shows  that  it  was  a  volun 
tary  silence,  considered  remarkable  at  the  time,  for  the  biographer 
refers  to  the  reticence  of  the  saint  in  such  matters  as  a  praiseworthy 
trait,  rendering  him  an  example  for  subsequent  priests,  that  they 
should  rather  be  intercessors  with  God  than  accusers  before  men.3 
When,  in  the  fifth  century,  Sozomen  relates  the  tradition  that  after 
the  Decian  persecution,  the  excessive  number  of  penitents  caused 
bishops  to  place  in  the  churches  holy  priests  known  for  their  wisdom 
and  taciturnity  to  listen  to  their  confessions,  the  details  into  which 
he  enters  show  that  such  customs  were  unknown  to  his  contempor 
aries.4  In  the  West,  it  was  not  till  459  that  Leo  the  Great  forbade 
the  public  reading  of  confessions  before  the  congregation,  for  the 
reason  that  it  deterred  sinners  from  unburdening  their  consciences 
through  the  attendant  humiliation  and  danger  of  prosecution  for 
their  crimes.5  Secret  confession  being  thus  recognized  as  lawful, 


1  In  the  dearth  of  other  evidence  of  antiquity,  the  Carthaginian  canon  (p. 
15)  prohibiting  a  bishop  from  denying  communion  for  a  sin  privately  con 
fessed,  has  been  cited  as  proof  (Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret  inviola 
ble  de  la  Confession,  p.  14.   Paris.  1707).   Those  who  do  so  forget  that  in  early 
times  the  penitent  was  not  admitted  to  communion  until  his  prolonged  pen 
ance  was  completed,  and  we  shall  see  that  it  was  a  concession  in  his  favor 
when  the  Penitentials  allowed  it  midway. 

2  S.  Basil.  Epist.  Canon,  n.  cap.  xxxiv. — S.  Augustin.  Serm.  LXXXII.  cap.  8. 

3  Paulini  Vit.  S.  Ambros.  n.  39.  4  Sozomen  H.  E.  vn.  16. 
6  Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist.  CLXVIII.  cap.  2. 


COMMENCEMENT  OF  RECOGNITION.  417 

the  advisability  of  making  it  only  to  those  who  would  not  betray 
the  confidence  naturally  followed.  In  the  sixth  century  St.  Bene 
dict  tells  his  monks  that  any  sins  of  the  soul  should  be  made  known 
to  the  abbot  or  to  some  one  else  who  can  cure  their  wounds  without 
making  them  public.1  About  the  same  period,  in  the  East,  St.  John 
Climacus  shows  that  there  was  no  recognized  rule  on  the  subject  by 
arguing,  in  anticipation  of  Aquinas,  that  God  does  not  reveal  the  sins 
confessed  to  him,  and  the  confessor  should  follow  the  example.2 

During  the  succeeding  centuries,  as  the  practice  of  auricular  con 
fession  gradually  spread,  the  matter  of  secrecy  remained  in  this 
shape — a  sort  of  vague  moral  obligation,  without  any  definite  ex 
pression  or  liability  to  any  penalty.  In  the  vast  body  of  the 
Penitentials,  ransacking  every  sin  and  dereliction  to  affix  to  it  an 
appropriate  punishment,  there  is  none  prescribed  for  violation  of  the 
seal,  and  in  the  numerous  Ordines  which  have  reached  us  there  is 
no  allusion  to  it.  At  length,  in  813,  we  have  a  recognition  of  the 
duty  and  of  its  disregard  in  an  investigation  ordered  by  Charlemagne 
into  the  truth  of  a  report  that  priests  for  bribes  would  betray  robbers 
who  had  confessed  to  them3 — the  Prankish  law-giver  could  readily 
see  that  no  man's  life  would  be  safe  if  such  practices  were  allowed 
and  such  testimony  were  admitted.  At  the  same  time  there  was  no 
obligation  when  a  penitent  could  be  benefitted,  for  he  encouraged 
his  Saxon  converts  to  confess  by  a  law  providing  that  any  one  guilty 
of  a  mortal  crime,  who  would  voluntarily  confess  to  a  priest  and 
accept  penance,  should  escape  death  on  the  testimony  of  the  con 
fessor.4  Towards  the  close  of  the  ninth  century,  the  council  of 
Douzy  informs  priests  that  sins  confessed  to  them  are  to  be  made 
known  only  to  God  in  their  prayers,  but  it  names  no  penalty,  and 
the  only  authority  it  can  quote  for  this  is  the  passage  in  the  Rule  of 
Benedict.5 

The  tenth  century  affords  us  no  material  for  tracing  the  < 
ment  of  the  seal,  but  in  the  awakening  of  the  eleventh  it  makes  its 


1  S.  Benedict!  Kegul*  cap.  xlvi.    Towards  the  close  of  the  sixth  century 
this  injunction  is  repeated  by  St.  Paulinus  of  Aquileia,  D*  i. 

mentis  cap.  52. 

2  S.  Jo.  Climaci  Lib.  de  Pastoris  Officio. 

3  Capit.  Car.  Mag.  I.  ann.  813,  cap.  27. 

4  Capit.  de  Partibus  Saxonise  ann.  879,  cap.  14. 

5  C.  Dusiacens.  II.  ann.  874  cap.  8  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  157). 

I.— 27 


418  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

appearance  as  one  of  the  incidents  in  the  growth  of  sacerdotalism. 
An  Ordo  of  the  period  manifests  a  solicitude  for  the  penitent  in 
ordering  that  no  fasts  shall  be  prescribed  which  will  betray  his  sin, 
but  prayer  and  almsgiving  shall  be  imposed  in  their  place.1  About 
the  same  time  there  appears  the  first  prescription  of  a  penalty  for 
revealing  a  confession,  the  extreme  severity  of  which  shows  profound 
conviction  of  the  difficulty  of  enforcing  the  rule,  for  it  orders  the 
offender  to  be  deposed  and  to  spend  the  rest  of  his  days  in  pilgrim 
age.2  The  form  in  which  this  is  drawn  gives  it  the  appearance  of 
being  an  innovation,  and  though  it  was  copied  into  the  collection  of 
Anselm  of  Lucca,3  it  seems  at  the  time  to  have  remained  generally 
unknown  and  inoperative.  Some  Norman  canons  of  the  period  con 
tain  simply  a  precept  that  sins  made  known  in  confession  are  to  be 
revealed  to  no  one.4  It  was  about  this  period  that  Lanfranc  felt  it 
necessary  to  argue  elaborately  that  the  confessor  should  preserve 
silence  as  to  what  he  learned  in  confession ;  he  has  no  established 
rule  to  cite  in  support  of  his  appeal,  no  authoritative  decision  of  the 
Church ;  he  is  able  to  threaten  no  penalties,  and  can  only  say  that 
the  priest  who  does  otherwise  is  guilty  of  a  mortal  sin.5  The  absence 
of  any  recognized  prescription  on  the  subject  could  not  be  more 
clearly  indicated.  Similar  evidence  is  afforded  in  the  struggle  of 
St.  Anselm  to  reform  the  concubinage  of  the  clergy ;  those  who 
confess  their  sin  in  secret  and  repent  are  not  to  be  deprived  of  their 
functions,  and  for  this  he  alleges  only  reasons  of  expediency  without 
invoking  any  prohibition  of  revealing  what  had  passed  in  the  con 
fessional.6  Equally  significant  is  the  treatment  of  the  subject  by 
St.  Ivo  of  Chartres.  He  says  that  there  are  canons  forbidding  the 


1  Morin  de  Pcenitent.  Append,  p.  25. 

2  Corrector  Burchardi  cap.  244  (Wasserschleben,  p.   678)  —  "Caveat  ante 
omnia  sacerdos  ne  de  his  qui  ei  confitentur  peccata  sua  alicui  recitet ;  quod  ei 
confessus  est  non  propinquis  non  extraneis,  nee,  quod  absit,  pro  aliquo  scan- 
dalo,  nam  si  hoc  fecerit  deponatur  et  omnibus  diebus  vitae  suae  peregrinando 
poeniteat.    Si  quis  sacerdos  palam  fecerit  et  secretum  poenitentiae  usurpaverit, 
ut  populum  intellexerit  et  declaratum  fuerit  quod  celare  debuerit  ab  oiimi 
honore  suo  in  cuncturn  populum  deponatur  et  diebus  vitae  suae  peregrinando 
finiat." 

3  Anselrni  Lucens.  Collect.  Canon.  Lib.  XI.  cap.  25. 

4  Post  Concil.  Rotomagens.  ann.  1074,  cap.  8  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  1520). 
6  Lanfranci  Lib.  de  Celanda  Confessione  (Migne,  CL.  625-8). 

6  S.  Anselmi  Cantuar.  Epistt.  Lib.  I.  Ep.  56. 


INTRODUCED  INTO  THE  CANON  LAW.  419 

revelation  of  confessions,  and  proceeds  to  quote  a  few  from  the  earlier 
councils  and  St.  Augustin  which  have  no  relation  to  the  question.1 
Evidently  he  had  no  authority  to  cite  and  knew  of  no  penalty  to 
prescribe.  When  Abelard  says  that  there  may  be  cases  in  which 
prudence  prevents  confession  to  avert  scandal,  he  shows  how  little 
reliance  was  placed  on  the  reticence  of  confessors,  and  in  another 
passage  he  asserts  that  there  are  many  prelates  to  whom  it  is  not 
only  useless  but  injurious  to  confess,  in  consequence  of  their  readi 
ness  to  reveal  what  is  confessed,  thus  scandalizing  the  Church  and 
exposing  penitents  to  great  peril.2  Cardinal  Pullus  feels  obliged  to 
argue  that  the  confessor  is  not  to  deprive  of  communion  or  to  shame 
by  public  accusation  those  whose  sins  he  knows  only  through  secret 
confession.3 

Soon  after  this  the  canon  of  the  Corrector  Eurchardi  emerges  in  a 
somewhat  abbreviated  form,  with  the  name  of  "  Gregorius"  attached 
to  it,  in  the  compilation  of  Gratian,  who,  on  the  strength  of  it,  asserts 
that  the  confessor  who  reveals  the  sins  of  his  penitent  is  to  be  de 
posed.4  Gratian  was  promptly  followed  by  Peter  Lombard  ;5  it  was 
easy  to  identify  the  "Gregory"  with  Gregory  I.  or  Gregory  VII., 
and  the  tremendous  punishment  prescribed  by  the  canon,  having 
thus  obtained  lodgment  in  the  two  most  authoritative  works  of  the 
twelfth  century,  became  a  fixture  in  canon  law,  branding  the  offence 
as  one  of  the  deepest  dye  and  exaggerating  to  the  utmost  the  invio 
lable  character  of  the  seal.  With  the  development  of  the  sacramental 
theory,  and  the  increasing  importance  attached  to  auricular  confession, 
it  was  inevitable  that  the  impenetrable  secrecy  of  the  confessional 
should  be  more  and  more  insisted  upon.  Not  only  was  the  priest 
forbidden  to  speak  of  the  sins  thus  made  known  to  him,  but  he^vas 
told  that  he  could  make  no  use  of  the  knowledge  thus  acquired. 
Peter  of  Blois  sharply  reproves  an  abbot  for  treating  his  penitents 
with  contempt  and  thus  exposing  them  to  suspicion,  while  Alexander 
III.  decreed  that  a  confessor  had  no  right  publicly  to  objurgate  a 
penitent  for  his  sins  or  to  excommunicate  him  by  name,  thus  giving 
the  force  of  law  to  the  warnings  uttered  a  quarter  of  a  century  be- 

1  Ivon.  Carnotens.  Epist.  CLVI.  ;  Decreti  P.  v.  cap.  363-4. 

2  P.  Ab^lardi  Epit.  Theol.  Christ,  cap.  xxxvi.;  Ethicse.  cap.  xxv. 

3  Bob.  Pulli  Sententt.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  51. 

4  Cap.  2  Caus.  xxxm.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  6. 

5  P.  Lombard!  Sentt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  xxi.  §  7. 


420  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

fore  by  Cardinal  Pullus.1  Towards  the  close  of  the  century  Bishop 
Eudes  of  Paris  accepted  the  principle  in  its  fullest  sense  and  decreed 
that  no  one  through  anger,  hatred  or  fear  of  death  must  reveal, 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  word  or  sign  or  allusion,  anything  heard 
in  confession,  arid  in  1199  a  council  of  Dalmatia  includes  the  offence 
among  those  entailing  degradation2 — evidently  the  extreme  severity 
of  the  Corrector  Burchardi  was  unknown  or  disapproved.  Innocent 
III.  expressed  his  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  seal  when  he  de 
clared  that  the  confessor  who  reveals  a  sin  is  more  guilty  than  the 
penitent  who  commits  it  ;3  but  he  did  not  consider  it  as  absolutely 
inviolable  if  there  is  truth  in  a  story  told  by  Csesarius  of  Heister- 
bach,  who,  as  a  Cistercian,  is  not  likely  to  be  misinformed.  A 
Cistercian  not  in  priests'  orders  was  in  the  habit  of  celebrating  mass ; 
on  confessing  to  his  abbot  he  was  ordered  to  discontinue  the  sacri 
lege,  but  disobeyed,  fearing  detection.  The  abbot,  perplexed,  stated 
the  case  in  the  next  general  chapter  and  asked  advice.  The  assem 
bled  abbots  were  equally  at  a  loss  and  referred  the  matter  to  Inno 
cent  III.,  who  laid  it  before  the  Sacred  College,  when  the  cardinals 
were  of  opinion  that  the  seal  of  confession  must  not  be  broken,  but 
Innocent  declared  that  such  a  confession  was  not  a  confession  but 
blasphemy,  and  was  entitled  to  no  respect.  To  this  his  cardinals 
finally  assented,  and  the  decision  was  conveyed  to  the  next  Cistercian 
chapter.4 

Finally,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  229),  when  the  Laterau  council,  in 
1216,  rendered  annual  confession  obligatory,  care  was  taken  to  assure 
the  people  of  its  secrecy  by  a  clause  which  gave  the  sanction  of  posi 
tive  law  to  the  penalty  provided  by  the  Corrector  BurcJiardi,  with 
the  substitution  of  life-long  reclusion  in  a  monastery  for  perpetual 
pilgrimage.  Still  there  was  no  thought  of  claiming  divine  origin 
for  the  purely  human  prescription,  nor  was  its  binding  force  clearly 
recognized  among  churchmen,  for,  a  few  years  afterwards,  John, 


1  P.  Blesens.  de  Pcenit.  (Migne,  CCV1I.  1091).— Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P. 
XLIX.  cap.  55  (Cap.  2  Extra  I.  xxxi.). 

2  Odonis  Paris.  Synod.  Constitt.  circa  1198,  cap.  6 ;  Concil.  Dalmat.  ann. 
1199,  cap.  4  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1941,  1953). 

3  Innoc.  PP.  III.  Serm.  I.  de  Consecratione  (Migne,  CCXVIII.  652). 

4  Cgesar.  Heisterb.  Dial.  Dist.  in.  cap.  32. — Caesarius  relates  another  story 
(Ibid.  cap.  42)  of  a  priest  who  endeavored  to  seduce  a  female  penitent  by 
threatening  to  reveal  her  sins,  and  on  her  proving  firm  fulfilled  his  threat. 


IS  MERELY  A  PRIVILEGE  OF  PENITENTS.  421 

priest  of  S.  Thomas  cle  Portione  of  Rome,  was  sentenced  to  inter 
dict,  with  the  alternative  of  making  good  the  amount  stolen,  because 
he  refused  to  reveal  the  author  of  some  thefts  which  he  had  learned 
in  confession.      He  appealed  to  Honorius  III.,  who  ordered  the 
interdict  removed,  merely  remarking  that  it  would  be  pernicious  to 
force  the  priest  to  make  known  what  he  had  heard  in  confession  or 
to  pay  for  what  he  had  not  stolen.     Neither  surprise  nor  indignation 
is  expressed  at  such  an  attempt  by  ecclesiastical  judges,  and  the  in 
clusion  by  S.  Ramon  de  Peflafort,  in  1235,  of  this  decision  in  the 
Decretals  of  Gregory  IX.  shows  that  up  to  that  time  the  matter  was 
regarded  as  purely  a  disciplinary  regulation.1      How  completely, 
indeed,  it  was  still  considered  to  be  merely  a  human  institution— a 
privilege  provided  for  the  benefit  of  penitents — is  manifested  by  S. 
Ramon,  who  states  that  a  heretic  confessing  his  heresy  and  refusing 
to  abandon  it  or  to  betray  his  associates  is  not  entitled  to  the  seal, 
for,  as  an  infidel,  faith  is  not  to  be  kept  with  him.2     This,  in  fact, 
continued  for  some  time  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  con 
densed  in  the  verse  "  Est  hseresis  crimen  quod  nee  confessio  celat  " 
and  gave  infinite  trouble  to  later  canonists  who,  till  the  end  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  felt  obliged  to  controvert  it  and  to  argue  that  the 
most  the  confessor  could  do  was  to  warn  the  bishop  to  look  after  his 
flock,  without  mentioning  names.3     Moreover,  William  of  Auxerre, 
about  1220,  reports  three  cases  submitted  to  the  Paris  doctors,  in 
two  of  which  confessors  learned  of  impediments  to  approaching  mar- 
riao-es  and  in  the  third  of  the  irregularity  of  a  cleric  about  to  be 
ordained,  when  the  doctors  decided  that  to  reveal  them  would  not 
be  an  infringement  of  the  seal ;  infringement,  they  said,  was  the  it 
proper  divulging  of  confessions,  and  this  was  merely  "opening 
seal,  for  evil  must  be  prevented  as  far  as  possible.4     Matthew  Parn 
utters  no  word  of  comment  when  he  relates  how  a  conspiracy  a 

1  Cap.  13  Extra  v.  xxxi. 

2  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  \  4. 

^  Hostiens.  Aure*  Summia  Lib.  V.  de  Pom.  et  Remiss.  §  08.- 
in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  1  ad  1 ;  Ejusd.  Summa  Supple 
Art.  1  -  J.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic.-Astesam  Summae 
Tit.  xx.  Q.  2.-Durand.  de  S.  Porcian.  in  IV.  Sentt  Dist  2 
Manip.  Curator.  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  ll.-Summa  Pisanella  s     ,  *fg* 
O^/o.-Rob.  Aquin.  Opus  Quadrages.  Serin,  xxix.  cap.  ! 
Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic.  Art.  3,  Dub.  1. 

4  Tournely  de  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Q.  VI.  Art.  iv. 


422  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

Innocent  IV.,  in  1247,  was  revealed  by  a  priest  who  had  learned  it 
from  the  death-bed  confession  of  one  of  the  accomplices.1  Evidently 
it  required  considerable  time  to  elaborate  the  divine  origin  and  su 
preme  importance  of  the  seal,  and  even  after  these  had  long  been 
accepted  there  were  French  canonists  in  the  seventeenth  century  who 
argued  that  in  France  high  treason  was  not  protected  by  it.2 

To  supplement  the  seal,  in  the  effort  to  popularize  confession,  there 
was  a  persistent  attempt  made  to  remove  the  dread  naturally  felt  as 
to  the  discretion  of  the  confessor  by  persuading  people  that  a  super 
natural  power  immediately  effaced  from  the  memory  of  the  priest 
all  the  sins  confided  to  him.  We  have  seen  (p.  235)  that  this  belief 
was  emphatically  asserted  in  the  Sermones  ad  Fratres  in  Eremo  forged 
in  the  name  of  St.  Augustin.  Even  Peter  Cantor  declares  that 
when  men  in  danger  of  shipwreck  confess  their  sins  publicly,  they 
are  obliterated  from  the  memory  of  those  who  are  saved.3  The 
punishment  decreed  by  the  Lateran  canon  sufficiently  contradicted 
this  superstition,  and  William  of  Paris  does  not  repeat  it,  but  he 
ventures  on  a  statement,  of  which  there  was  no  danger  of  disproof, 
by  assuring  us  that  such  is  the  power  of  sacramental  confession  that 
even  the  omniscient  God  forgets  the  sins  confessed.4 

The  Lateran  canon,  relying  wholly  on  human  means,  slowly  pro 
duced  its  effect.  The  local  councils  held  during  the  next  two  cen 
turies  repeated  its  provisions  with  more  or  less  emphasis  and  gradually 
impressed  the  priesthood  with  the  idea  of  the  heinousness  of  revealing 
confessions.5  In  1302,  indeed,  the  council  of  Toledo  felt  obliged  to 
threaten  deportation  to  the  mines  or  perpetual  imprisonment  on 


1  Matt.  Paris.  Hist.  Anglic,  aim.  1247  (Ed.  1644,  p.  486). 

2  Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  sur  le  Secret  de  la  Confession,  p.  127.     Henry 
IV.  put  the  question  to  his  confessor,  the  Jesuit  Coton,  who  courageously 
replied  that,  sacred  as  was  the  life  of  the  king,  the  seal  was  even  more  sacred. — 
Ibid.  p.  129. 

3  P.  Cantor.  Verb.  Abbreviat.  cap.  144. 

4  Guillel.  Paris,  de  Po3nitentia  cap.  21. 

5  Statuta  Rich.  Poore  ann.  1217,  cap.  29  (Harduin.  VII.  97).— C.   Rotoma- 
gens.  ann.  1223,  cap.  9  (Ibid.  p.  128).— C.  Mogunt.  ann.  1261,  cap.  8  (Hartzheim 
III.  598).— C.  Mogunt.  ann.  1281,  cap.  8  (Ibid.  p.  664).— C.  Coloniens.  ann. 
1280,  cap.  8  (Ibid.  p.  828).— Synod.  Nemausens.  ann.  1284  (Harduin.  VII. 
912).— Statutt.  Joh.  Episc.  Leodiens.  ann.  1287,  cap.  4  (Hartzheim  III.  689).— 
Statutt.  Synod.  Eemens.  circa  1330,  Sec.  Locus,  Praecept.  iv.  (Gousset,  Actes 
etc.  II.  540).— C.  Suessionens.  ann.  1403,  cap.  45  (Ibid.  p.  631). 


GRADUAL  RECOGNITION.  423 

ibread  and  water  to  restrain  the  practice  of  violating  the  seal,1  and 
Astesantis  is  inclined  to  laxity  respecting  it,  when  the  questions 
were  involved  of  the  promotion  of  unworthy  sinners  or  the  marriage 
of  those  who  had  contracted  spiritual  affinity  through  sin.2     Mean 
while  the  schoolmen  were  busily  at  work  elaborating  their  theories 
of  its  divine  origin,  and  exhausting  their  ingenuity  in  devising  cases 
to  illustrate  the  rigor  of  its  observance.     All  this  became  universally 
accepted  as  doctrine,  so  that  when  Pedro  of  Osma,  in  1479,  in  de 
nying  the  necessity  of  confession,  likewise  denied  the  obligation  of 
the  seal,  Sixtus  IV.  had  no  hesitation  in  condemning  his  opinions  as 
heretical.3     Still,  as  late  as  1524,  the  council  of  Sens  felt  it  necessary 
to  explain  at  considerable  length  that  the  priest  who  breaks  the  seal 
violates  the  divine,  the  natural  and  the  ecclesiastical  law,  and  that 
such  a  practice  renders  confession  impossible,  to  which  it  added,  by 
way  of  warning,  the  clause  of  the  Lateran  canon  threatening  degra 
dation  and  monastic  reclusion.4     Even  in  1605  the  synod  of  Coire, 
in  ordering  priests  to  be  examined  as  to  their  knowledge  respecting 
the  seal,  shows  by  the  questions  which  it  prescribes  that  they  were 
expected  to  be  almost  wholly  ignorant  on  the  subject,5     Yet  at  this 
period  many  doctors  still  held  that  knowledge  obtained  in  confession 
could  be  used  to  prevent  a  greater  evil  than  the  infraction  of  the  seal, 
if  it  could  be  done  without  direct  or  indirect  revelation  or  injury  to 
the  penitent6— a  doctrine  which  was  not  condemned  until  1682,  when 
it  was  submitted  to  the  Congregation  of  the  Inquisition  as  one  of 
the  errors  of  the  Jansenists.7     The  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury  witnessed  considerable  trouble  at  Arras,  arising  from  the  indi 
cretion  of  some  confessors  and  leading  to  scandals  which  had  to  b 
settled  by  the  secular  tribunals.     They  seem  to  have  been  caused 
efforts  to  enforce  the  papal  bulls  against  solicitation,  which  * 
energetically  resisted  by  the  Galilean  clergy,  and  they  c 

1  C.  Penna-Fidelis  aim.  1302,  cap.  5  (Aguirre,  V.  227). 

2  Astesani  Summae  Lib.  V.  Tit.  xx.  Q.  2. 

3  Alph.  de  Castro  adv.  Hsereses  Lib.  iv.  s.  v.  Confess. 

*  C.  Senonens.  ann.  1524  (Bochelli  Deer.  Eeeles.  Gallic.  Lib.  n.  Tit.  MI.  cap. 

'5  C.  Curiens.  ann.  1605,  De  Sigillo  (Hartzheim  VIII.  642). 
6  Vittorelli  not.  in  Tolet,  Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  caj 
'  Le  Tellier,  Becueil  Historique  des  Bulles,  Mons 
Viva  Trutina  Theol.  Append.  \  6. 


424  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

the  publication  of  a  tract  which  asserted  that  the  confessor  can  reveal 
indirectly  a  confession  when  there  is  a  good  object  to  be  gained ;  that 
he  can  force  a  penitent  to  reveal  the  name  of  an  accomplice,  whom 
he  can  then  interrogate  both  sacramentally  and  otherwise,  denounce 
him  to  the  bishop  for  prosecution,  furnish  the  names  and  facts, 
summon  the  witnesses  and  interrogate  them ;  that  the  confessor  can 
also  oblige  the  penitent  to  repeat  the  details  of  his  sins  outside  of 
the  sacrament  and  thus  be  relieved  from  the  obligation  of  the  seal. 
The  Bishop  of  Arras,  Gui  de  Rochechouart,  in  1708,  condemned 
twenty-two  propositions  drawn  from  this  tract  and  forbade  it  to  be 
read  or  taught.1  It  was  in  all  likelihood  the  production  of  an  oppo 
nent  of  the  papal  measures,  framed  to  point  out  the  practical  con 
clusions  which  might  be  drawn  from  them. 

During  the  course  of  this  development  the  Church  claims  several 
martyrs  who  sealed  with  their  blood  their  fidelity  to  the  obligation  of 
secrecy.  It  is  related  that  Wenceslas  of  Bohemia,  in  1383,  angered 
with  his  Queen  Johanna,  ordered  her  confessor,  John  of  Nepomuk, 
then  a  canon  of  Prague,  to  reveal  her  confessions,  and  on  his  refusal 
after  threats  and  incarceration,  caused  him  to  be  thrown  from  the 
bridge  into  the  Moldau.  His  holiness  was  manifested  by  the  river 
promptly  drying  up,  leaving  his  body  exposed,  which  after  three 
days  was  buried  in  the  church  of  St.  Vitus,  and  thenceforth  we  are 
told  that  whosoever  insulted  his  memory  came  to  a  speedy  end.  His 
merits  were  long  in  meeting  recognition  in  Rome,  for  he  was  not 
canonized  until  1729.2  The  Jesuit,  Henry  Garnet,  is  also  claimed 


1  Lockon,  Traite  du  Secret  de  la  Confession,  Brusselle,  1708,  pp.  331-42. 

2  Dubrav.  Hist.  Boheni.  Lib.  xxm.    No  saint  can  be  considered  safe  from 
the  attacks  of  iconoclasts.     In  1677  the  Jesuit  Balbinus  (Epit.  Eer.  Bohemi- 
car.  ann.  1383)  tells  us  that  there  were  even  then  ignorant  men  who  detracted 
from  the  memory  of  the  holy  martyr.     Modern  research  has  shown  that  there 
was  a  John  of  Nepomuk,  notary,  canon  and  vicar  of  John  of  Genzenstein, 
Archbishop  of  Prague,  who  was  drowned  by  order  of  Wenceslas  in  1393,  in  con 
sequence  of  a  quarrel  over  the  abbey  of  Klabran. — Abel,  Die  Legende  vom 
heiligen  Johann  von  Nepomuk,  Berlin,  1855. 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  the  martyrdom  will  be  found  in  the  Ada  in  Causa 
Canonizationis  Beati  Joannis  Nepomuceni  Martyris  (Viennse,  1722,  pp.  318  sqq.) 
where  it  is  interesting  to  trace  the  growth  of  the  legend.  The  earliest  reference 
to  the  matter  is  a  cursory  one  by  Paul  Zidek,  who  wrote  in  1471,  nearly  ninety 
years  after  the  date  assigned  to  the  martyrdom.  The  silence  of  all  previous 
and  contemporary  writers  is  customarily  explained  by  the  Hussite  heresy,  but 


PRESSURE  ON  CONFESSORS  FOR  EVIDENCE.  425 

as  a  martyr,  though  doubtfully.  Catesby  is  said  to  have  revealed  in 
confession  the  Gunpowder  Plot  to  Father  Oswald  Tesmond  or  Green- 
way  and  asked  Tesmond  to  consult  Garnet  under  seal  ;  Garnet 
endeavored  unsuccessfully  to  dissuade  Catesby,  and  on  his  trial  ad 
mitted  his  knowledge  of  the  plot  under  the  seal  of  confession.1  To 
this  is  doubtless  attributable  the  controversy  on  the  subject  between 
Isaac  Casaubou  and  Cardinal  Duperron.  Casaubon  argued  that  con 
fessors  were  bound  to  reveal  projected  crimes  against  the  state  and 
asserted  that  the  Sorbonne  had  so  declared,  while  Duperron  in  reply 
produced  a  declaration  from  the  chief  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne  that 
they  would  rather  endure  the  stake  than  teach  such  a  doctrine.2 
Another  martyr  is  reputed  to  be  Johanu  Sarcander,  pastor  of  Hol- 
leschau  in  Moravia,  who,  in  1620,  during  the  troubles  of  the  Winter 
King's  short  reign,  was  put  to  death,  the  chief  cause  assigned  being 
his  refusal  to  violate  the  seal.3 

The  confessor,  in  fact,  was  the  repository  of  too  many  secr( 
to  be  subjected  to  pressure  for  their  disclosure,  while  as  yet  the  seal 
was  imperfectly  respected  and  had  not  been  recognized  as  jusl 
a  refusal  to  testify.     The  case  mentioned  above,  in  which  Honorius 
III  intervened  to  protect  a  priest  threatened  by  a  Roman  ecclesias 
tical  court  for  not  revealing  the  authors  of  a  robbery,  shows  hov 
difficult  it  was  at  first  for  even  churchmen  to  acknowledge  the  suprci 
obligation  of  silence,  and  in  the  secular  courts  there  must  have  been 
frequent  instances  of  similar  efforts  at  coercion.     The  course 
priest  to  pursue  in  such  cases  was  not  determined  for  some  t 
Ramon  de  Penafort  contented  himself  with  introducing  the  decree  c 
Honorius  in  the  compilation  of  Gregory  IX.,  and  in  1 

this  did  not  break  out  till^ha^^  elate  assigned  to  the 

occurrence      When  Sigismund  for  a  time  restored  Catholicism  after 
^rPrague  in  ItgEi  there  ^^*™«£^™™ 
would  have  been  exploited  to  the  utmost.    Besides,  the  Calixtn         *  were 
the  dominant  sect  among  the  Hussites,  retained  auricular  c 
sacrament  of  penitence,  and  could  have  had  no  possible  o 

di 


of  Sarcander  were  commenced  in  1836. 


426  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

prudently  avoids  touching  the  question,  but  his  postillator  refers  to  it. 
It  is  a  convincing  proof  of  the  novelty  of  the  seal  and  of  the  diffi 
culty  of  enforcing  its  recognition,  that  the  priest  when  interrogated 
in  court  is  not  told  to  plead  the  privilege  of  the  confessional  but  is  at 
once  instructed  to  resort  to  lying  and  perjury  and  mental  reservation; 
he  is  to  say  "I  know  nothing  whatever"  with  the  reservation  "  as 
man,"  or  "I  know  nothing  through  confession"  with  the  reservation 
"  to  tell  you."1  Alexander  Hales  explains  this :  what  the  priest 
knows  by  confession  he  knows  as  God,  not  as  man,  and  he  can  deny 
the  knowledge  under  oath.2  This  slightly  blasphemous  device  of 
knowing  as  God  seems  to  have  been  invented  in  the  previous  century 
by  Alexander  III.,3  and  the  schoolmen  seized  upon  it  to  relieve  the 
confessor  from  all  responsibility  to  man,  for  they  argued  that  what 
he  knew  as  God  he  could  not  know  as  man  ;  to  deny  such  knowledge 
under  oath  was  therefore  not  perjury,  and  some  even  went  so  far  as 
to  assert  that  it  would  be  a  lie  to  admit  of  knowledge.  To  this 
demoralizing  system  of  equivocation  Aquinas  and  Bonaventura  lent 
the  sanction  of  their  great  authority.4  Duns  Scotus  easily  exploded 
it  by  pointing  out  that  the  confessor  in  the  sacramental  function  is 
not  God  but  God's  minister,  and  his  knowledge  as  man  is  daily 
proved  by  his  consulting  experts  in  difficult  cases,  by  allusions  in 
sermons  to  matters  learned  in  the  confessional  and  by  the  received 
practice  that  a  confessor  can  speak  of  a  sin  thus  made  known  to  him 
provided  it  is  done  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  implicate  the  penitent.5 
Durand  de  S.  PourQain  endeavored  to  get  around  the  difficulty  by 
arguing  that  a  witness  in  court  speaks  as  a  subject,  while  a  confessor, 
qua  confessor,  is  not  a  subject,  but,  if  he  appears  as  a  voluntary  wit 
ness,  denial  of  knowledge  is  a  lie.6  The  long  argument  which  Pierre 
de  la  Palu  devotes  to  the  subject  shows  how  difficult  it  was  for  the 
schoolmen  to  satisfy  themselves  with  regard  to  it.7  The  fiction  of 


1  Guill.  Eedonens.  in  Kaymundi  Summae  P.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  §  4. 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  2,  Art.  1. 

3  "  Quia  non  ut  judex  scit  sed  ut  Deus."— Post  Concil.  Lateran.  P.  XLIX. 
cap.  55. — Cap.  2  Extra,  i.  xxxi. 

4  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art,  1  ad  1,  3 ;  Summse 
Supplem.  Q.  xi.  Art.  1.— S.  Bonavent.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  P.  ii.  Art.  2,  Q.  1. 

5  J.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic. 

6  Durand.  de  S.  Porcian.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iv.  f  10. 

7  P.  de  Palude  in  IV.  Sentt,  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art,  3,  Concl.  1. 


KNOWING  AS  GOD.  427 


knowing  as  God,  however,  was  too  flattering  and  too  convenient  to 
be  abandoned  ;  it  won  its  way  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  Scotist 
doctors,1  and  became  a  commonplace  in  the  manuals  and  systems, 
which  instruct  the  priest  to  commit  perjury  and  quiet  his  conscience 
with  the  figment  that  he  does  not  know  as  man.2  Even  the  secular 
lawyers  finally  accepted  it  and  admitted  that  there  is  no  sin  in  thus 


swearing  3 


,  caJLiug.  ^ 

With  the  seventeenth  century  there  came  for  a  time  a  tendency  t 
a  more  honest  and  straightforward  course.      Willem  van  Est  in 
structs  the  priest  that  he  cannot  deny  knowledge,  but  must  say  that 
such  inquiries  are  impious  and  that  it  is  not  right  for  him  to  answer 
them,  and  Maldonado  asserts  that  he  should  state  that  he  has  nothing 
to  say,  for  he  cannot  reveal  on  one  side  or  the  other  what  he  has  learned 
in  confession.4   They  had  few  followers,  however,  and  some  moral!* 
like  Berteau,  Busenbaum  and  Gobat,  suggest  ingenious  and  bare 
faced  equivocation  and  mental  reservation,  while  others,  like  Lay- 
mann  and  Diana,  adhere  to  the  old  formula  of  perjury  under  the 
assumption  of  knowing  only  as  God.5     Modern   moralists  of  all 
schools  unite  in  the  instruction  that  the  priest  is  to  deny  unequi 


i  Astesani  gamma  Ubm*to#*>  da  Chivasso  (Summa 
Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  ult.  «  4)  advises  mental  reservation  «  quia  non  Pos   t 
negare  quin  sciat  ut  homo."-Uabriel  Mel  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dirt.  : 
Ait  iii  Dub.  1,  ad  3)  instructs  the  confessor  to  refuse  to  answer,  and 
construed  against  an  accused  person  he  is  not  responsible 

»  Jo.  Friburgens  Summ*  Confessor.  Lib.  m.  T,t.  xxxiv  Q.  ( 
Curator.  P.  n.  Tract.  iii.  cap.  ll.-P.  de  Aquila  in  IV.  Sentt  D.st        .  Q.   u 
-Passavanti,  Lo  Specchio  della  vera  Penitenza  D.st.  V.  cap.  4.    Summa  P-a 
nella  s  v.  Confession!*  Celatio  n.  2.-S.  Antomm  Summae  P.  in. 
2  .Isnmma  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  m.  |  6,-Caietam  Summula  s^ 
Sori  .MMorfJ-Sammm  Tabiena  s.  v.   Confemonu   Celat* 
Confessionale,  cap.  vii.  Q.  ll.-Fr.  Toleti  Instructs  Sacerdotum,  Lib.  u 


xvi.  n.  4. 


Herein,  however,  subsequently  says  (Q.  19)  that  the  confe, 
test  against  all  inquiries  as  sacrilegious. 


„,„,,„ 

:  f. 


428  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

cally  under  oath  all  knowledge  of  what  he  has  heard  in  confession, 
although  some  of  them  do  not  take  the  trouble  to  explain  it  by  the 
fiction  of  knowing  only  as  God.1  The  retention  to  the  present  day 
and  insistence  on  this  are  presumably  for  the  benefit  of  priests  on 
distant  missions,  for  it  can  hardly  be  possible  that  any  civilized 
nation  can  refuse  to  recognize  the  privileged  nature  of  communica 
tions  between  penitent  and  confessor,  like  those  between  client  and 
counsel.  It  is  true  that,  as  recently  as  1810,  at  Jemappes,  a  court 
insisted  on  a  priest  revealing  the  name  of  a  thief  which  he  had 
learned  in  confession,  but  on  appeal  the  decision  was  set  aside  by  the 
Court  of  Cassation.  In  1822,  before  a  court  at  Poitiers,  the  prose 
cuting  officer  made  a  similar  demand,  but  it  was  refused.  In  1813 
the  question  was  settled  in  New  York,  in  the  case  of  a  priest  named 
Kohlmann,  who  had  returned  some  stolen  articles  which  he  had 
caused  a  thief  to  restore.  He  refused  to  reveal  the  name  and  was 
prosecuted,  but  a  Protestant  jury  acquitted  him  on  the  reasonable 
ground  that  to  destroy  the  seal  of  confession  is  equivalent  to  denying 
the  sacrament  to  Catholics.2 

The  extreme  rigor  of  the  penalties  decreed  by  the  canon  in  the 
Corrector  Burchardi  and  in  the  Lateran  Council — deposition  and 
life-long  penance  either  in  pilgrimage  or  in  a  monastery — marks  the 
sense  of  the  importance  attached  to  the  preservation  of  the  seal. 
The  Lateran  canon  became  the  received  law  of  the  Church  and 
continued  to  be  cited  by  all  writers  as  in  force  until  the  eighteenth 
century  was  well  advanced.3  Yet  it  had  few  terrors  for  gossiping  or 


1  Habert  Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  Tract.  I.  cap.  8.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol- 
Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  646.— Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Confess.  Disp.  II.  Q.  vii.  Art.  1, 
n.  4.— Concma  Theol.   Christ,   contracta,   Lib.  xi.  cap.  iv.   n.  11.— Th.  ex 
Charines  Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  iv.  art.  2.— Zenner  Instruct.  Pract.  Con- 
fessar.  \  60.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  650.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  xvui,  cap.  iv.  art.  7,  §  1.— Gousset,  Theol.  Morale  III.  512.— Mig.  San 
chez,  Prontuario  de  la  Teol.  Moral.  Trat.  vi.  Punto  xiii.  §  21. 

2  Gregoire,  Hist,  des  Confesseurs  des  Empereurs  etc.  pp.  92-4. 

3  Hostiens.   Aureae   Summae   Lib.  v.    De   Pcen.   et  Remiss.  $  53. — Summa 
Pisanella  s.  v.  Confessioms  Celatio  %  1.— S.  Antonini  Sumrnae  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xvii- 
cap.  22. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  |  5. — Eisengrein  Confessionale 
cap.  vii.  Q.  18.— Toleti   Instruct.   Sacerd.  Lib.  in.   cap.  xvi.  n.  4.— Em.  Sa 
Aphorismi   Confessar.    s.  v.    Confessio   n.   31.— Summa   Diana   s.  v.  Sigillum 
sacrani.  n.  51. — Hericourt,  Loix  ecclesiastiques  de  France  T.  II.  p.  14. 


PROSECUTION  FOR  VIOLATION.  429 

evil-disposed  priests,  for  in  the  forum  of  conscience  the  penance  to 
be  imposed  was  discretional,  like  that  for  any  other  sin,1  and  in  the 
external  forum  the  punishment  could  only  be  inflicted  after  trial  and 
conviction,  of  which  the  chances  were  remote.  Few  penitents  whose 
sins  had  been  betrayed  would  care  to  undergo  the  labor  and  expense 
of  such  a  prosecution  before  the  offender's  bishop  or  superior,  with 
the  prospect  of  a  result  doubtful  as  to  success  but  certain  to  extend 
and  intensify  the  knowledge  of  his  crimes  or  failings.  It  was  a 
debated  point  whether  an  official  prosecution  could  be  instituted 
without  the  penitent's  assent.  Proof  Avas  difficult,  because  those  to 
whom  a  priest  might  unlawfully  reveal  the  secrets  of  the  confessional 
were  equally  bound  by  the  seal,  and  it  was  a  disputed  question  how 
far  the  penitent  himself  could  release  anyone  from  its  obligation. 
So  sacred,  indeed,  was  the  seal  that  Gobat  points  out  that  any 
attempt  by  a  judge  to  inquire  into  such  a  case  would  be  sacrilegious, 
as  no  one  could  talk  or  give  evidence  about  the  matter,  and  Lenglet 
Du  Fresuoy  argues  that  the  confessor  himself  cannot  be  examined 
because  his  admission  would  be  a  second  violation  of  the  seal,  worse 
than  the  first.  The  matter  was  thus  surrounded  with  difficulties,  and 
the  doctors  were  by  no  means  in  accord  as  to  where  lay  the  burden 
of  proof.  Niccolo  da  Osimo  says,  in  1443,  that,  if  the  confessor 
denies  the  accusation  and  the  penitent  cannot  prove  it,  nor  the  priest 
show  where  else  he  learned  the  crime,  nor  prove  it  on  the  penitent, 
then  the  punishment  is  discretional.  Prierias  and  Giovanni  da 
Taggia  tell  us  that  if  the  priest  asserts  that  he  heard  the  crime  out 
side  of  the  confessional,  some  doctors  decide  that  he  must  be  believed/ 
while  others  hold  that  he  must  show  where  he  heard  it,  otherwise 
the  presumption  is  against  him,  but  still  the  punishment  is  discre 
tional,  as  he  is  not  fully  convicted,  in  which  somewhat  irrational 
conclusion  Henriquez  concurs.  Chiericato  says  that  unless  the  per 
mission  of  the  penitent  is  procured  for  the  prosecution  it  is  null  and 
void,  and  that  all  the  witnesses  are  bound  by  the  seal  and  cannot 
testify  without  his  licence.  Benzi,  on  the  other  hand,  declares  that 

1  S.  Antonini  Summaj  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  22.  The  Papal  Penitentiary 
charged  seven  gros  tournois  for  absolution  for  violation  of  the  seal,  but  it 
marked  the  sense  of  the  heinousness  of  the  offence  by  adding  that  the  severest 
punishment  must  also  be  inflicted,  a  clause  not  found  in  any  other  item  of  the 
Taxes.— Libellus  Taxarum  fol.  176  (White  Historical  Library,  Cornell  Uni 
versity,  A.  6124). 


430  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

the  prosecutioD  can  be  carried  011  without  a  faculty  from  the  penitent, 
and  that  the  crime  can  be  proved  by  witnesses.  Tournely  points 
out  that,  if  the  accused  pleads  that  he  had  permission  from  the  peni 
tent  to  reveal  the  sin,  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  him,  which  is  an 
impossibility  for  him,  and  that  therefore  great  caution  should  be 
used  in  undertaking  such  trials.  These  were  not  all  the  questions 
involved,  but  they  will  suffice  to  justify  the  remark  of  Lenglet  Du 
Fresnoy,  that  few  prosecutions  are  so  difficult  to  carry  on  as  those 
for  violations  of  the  seal.1 

In  view  of  these  uncertainties  and  of  the  anxiety  of  the  Church  to 
avoid  a  scandal  so  dangerous  it  is  evident  that  trials  for  this  offence 
must  have  been  rare,  and  rarer  still  the  infliction  of  the  canonical 
punishment.  Gobat,  in  fact,  mentions  a  case  in  which  a  parish  priest 
in  a  sermon  scolded  two  of  his  parishioners,  for  sins  made  known  to 
him  in  confession,  in  a  manner  enabling  them  to  be  identified,  and 
yet  the  ecclesiastical  judge  only  inflicted  on  him  a  heavy  fine.  He 
adds  that  at  this  period  (1666)  it  would  be  impossible  to  enforce  the 
penalty  of  perpetual  imprisonment  in  a  monastery,  and  that,  more 
over,  all  punishments  are  subject  to  the  discretion  of  the  judge.2  By 
this  time,  indeed,  the  canonical  punishment  was  admitted  to  be  obso 
lete,  and  it  would  seem  that  in  some  places,  at  least,  it  was  customary 
on  conviction  to  degrade  the  offenders  and  hand  them  over  to  the 
secular  arm,  which  sometimes,  as  in  Venice,  put  them  to  death,  and 
sometimes  sent  them  to  the  galleys.3  At  the  present  day  there  is 
not  the  resource  of  calling  in  the  secular  arm,  and  the  offence  is 
doubtless  treated  with  less  harshness.  It  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 


1  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  847.— L.  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret,  p.  264. 
— N.  de  Auximo  in  Surnmarn  Pisanellam  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio  n.  1. — Sunima 
Sylvestrina  s.  v.   Confessio  in.  g  5.—  Sunima  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio 
|  16.— Henriquez  Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  n.  10.— Sunima 
Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  51-55.— Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  6, 
17._Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Confess.  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  1,  n.  6. 

Diana  remarks  (ubi  sup.}  that  when  infractions  of  the  seal  were  denounced 
to  the  Inquisition  it  was  accustomed  to  hand  them  over  to  the  episcopal  courts, 
as  it  had  no  jurisdiction  unless  the  culprit  thought  it  lawful  or  held  some  other 
heresy  concerning  the  sacrament. 

2  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  843-5. 

3  Henriquez  Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xix.  n.  9. — Gobat  Alphab. 
Confessar.  n.  842.— Clericati  de  Po3nit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  18.— Benzi  Praxis  Trib. 
Confess.  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  1,  n.  6. 


DEVELOPMENT.  431 

deserving  of  extreme  punishment  seeing  that  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars  prescribes  for  it,  when  committed  by  a  member 
of  a  religious  Order,  the  comparatively  light  penalty  of  fasting  thrice 
a  week  on  bread  and  water,  to  be  eaten  on  the  floor  of  the  refectory, 
and  then  to  lie  at  the  entrance  and  be  trodden  on  by  the  outgoing 
brethren.1 

When  once  the  seal  of  confession  was  established,  the  schoolmen 
naturally  busied  themselves  with  developing  it  in  every  direction 
and  exalting  its  inviolability.  There  arose  of  course  the  question 
whether  the  priest  could  be  released  from  its  obligation  by  a  dispen 
sation  from  his  bishop  or  from  the  pope,  for  the  habit  was  growing 
of  regarding  the  dispensing  power  as  superior  to  all  law.  Some 
doctors  held  the  affirmative,  or  that  the  point  was  at  least  doubtful,2 
but  the  great  mass  of  authorities  decided  in  the  negative,  alleging 
various  reasons — that  the  confessor  knows  only  as  God,  that  the 
Church  cannot  alter  what  God  has  ordered,  that  in  the  confessional 
the  priest  is  the  special  delegate  of  God,  and  as  such  is  superior  to 
the  pope,  who  is  only  a  general  delegate.  Thus  the  principle  be 
came  established,  and  it  was  agreed  that  if  a  priest  should  be  excom 
municated  by  bishop  or  pope  for  refusing  to  reveal  a  confession  the 
excommunication  would  be  void.3 

The  definition  of  violation  of  the  seal  was  speedily  enlarged,  so  as 
to  cover  not  only  the  publication  or  revelation  to  any  one  of  sins  con 
fessed,  but  also  any  hint  or  sign  which  might  raise  suspicion  or  con 
vey  knowledge  of  what  has  occurred  in  the  confessional — even  if  a 
priest  should  say  of  a  thief  about  to  be  hanged  that  he  had  shown 
great  contrition  in  confessing  his  thefts.  What  the  priest  knows  as 
God  he  is  held  not  to  know  as  man ;  it  is  not  to  influence  his  action 


1  Pittoni  Constitutiones  Pontifici*  T.  VII.  n.  963. 

2  F.  de  Mairone  (in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.)  mentions  this  opinion,  but 
decides  against  it.     Piero  d'Aquila  (in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xx.  Q.  iii.)  inclines  to 
the  negative,   but  says   "ideo   illud  non  assero   sed    pro   nunc    suspensuin 
relinquo." 

8  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  3 ;  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  XI. 
Art.  1. — Astesani  Surnmae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xx.  Q.  2. — Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in 
IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iv.  \  8.— S.  Antonini  Summae  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap. 
22. — Eob.  Aquinat.  Opus  Quadrages.  Serm.  xxix.  cap.  2.— Summa  Sylvestrina 
s.  v.  Confessio  in.  $  I,  2.— Sumnia  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio  $  I. 


432  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

in  any  manner — at  least  in  any  manner  which,  by  redounding  to  the 
injury  of  the  penitent,  might  tend  to  render  confession  odious.  If 
he  is  an  abbot  and  learns  in  confession  from  a  prior  that  the  latter 
is  unfit  for  his  post,  he  cannot  remove  him ;  if  he  discovers  that  his 
servant  is  a  thief  he  cannot  discharge  him,  and  the  degiee  of  precau 
tion  which  he  can  adopt,  as,  for  instance,  with  regard  to  the  custody 
of  keys,  is  a  disputed  point ;  if  he  discovers  that  his  church  has  been 
polluted  he  cannot  inform  the  bishop  and  have  it  reconciled ;  if  he 
finds  that  his  usual  confessor  is  not  a  priest  he  cannot  cease  confess 
ing  to  him,  if  this  would  cause  him  disrepute,  but  should  confine  him 
self  to  venial  sins  and  seek  another  for  mortals ;  he  cannot  refuse 
the  Eucharist,  even  secretly,  to  one  whom  he  has  thus  learned  to  be 
unfitted  for  it ;  he  cannot  refuse  to  celebrate  a  marriage  of  which  he 
has  thus  learned  an  absolute  impediment ;  he  cannot  baptize  or  save 
the  life  of  an  unborn  child  of  a  dying  mother  who  has  confessed  to 
him  its  existence ;  he  cannot  prevent  the  execution  of  one  whom  he 
thus  knows  to  be  innocent ;  he  cannot  avoid  the  society  of  one  whom 
he  thus  learns  to  be  excommunicate.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  ex 
travagance  of  the  theologians  in  defining  the  infinite  importance  of 
the  seal.  Its  violation  is  not  permissible  to  save  the  life  of  the  pope, 
or  to  avert  the  overthrow  of  the  state,  or  even,  as  some  declare,  to 
gain  the  salvation  of  mankind,  or  to  prevent  the  conflagration  of  the 
world,  or  the  perversion  of  religion,  or  the  attempted  destruction  of 
all  the  sacraments.1  Such  being  the  case,  the  integrity  of  the  sacra 
ment  of  penitence  itself  must  yield  to  the  supreme  importance  of  the 
seal :  if  a  confessor  when  confessing  cannot  include  a  sin  without 
mentioning  matters  heard  in  confession  he  can  omit  it  and  leave  it 


1  Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio  $  1.— Fumi  Aurea  Armilla  s.  v. 
Confessor  n.  7.— Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.Q.  iv.  Art.  5.— Toleti  Instruct. 
Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  3,  6.— Em.  Sa  Aphorism!  Gonfessar.  s.  v.  Confessor  n- 
27,  Addit— Henriquez  Summaj  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xix.  n.  5.— Summa 
Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  1,  27.— Clericati  de  Pceuit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  2, 
16.— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  790,  894,  899,  904.— Berteau  Director.  Con- 
fessar.  p.  492.— Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Conscient.  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  1,  n.  2 ;  Art. 
3,  n.  23.— Tournely  de  Sacr.  Pcenitent.  Q.  vi.  Art.  iv.— Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Casus 
Conscient.  Maii,  1737,  cas.  2.-S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n. 
634,  657-8.— Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ.  Dissert,  v.  cap.  iv.  Q.  2,  Art.  2.— 
Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  667.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract, 
xvin.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7.— Mig.  Sanchez,  Prontuario  de  la  Teol.  Moral.  Trat.  vi. 
Punto  xii.  n.  4. 


ITS  SUPREME  OBLIGATION.  433 

unconfessed.1  Similarly,  if  a  penitent  reveals  the  name  of  a  partner 
in  gnilt  and  she  comes  to  confession  and  does  not  include  that  sin, 
the  confessor  cannot  question  her  about  it,  but  must  give  her  abso 
lution,  though  he  knows  that  she  still  has  a  mortal  sin  upon  her 
soul  and  will  commit  another  by  taking  communion  while  in  that 
state.2  This  trifling  with  the  sacrament  shows  so  little  respect  for 
the  functions  of  the  keys  that  Renter,  to  avoid  it,  suggests  the  trick 
of  repeating  the  Misereatur  tai  etc.,  omitting  the  sacramental  words 
of  absolution,  and  letting  her  depart  unhouselled  yet  thinking  herself 
absolved.3  It  is  not  the  only  case  in  which  divine  laws  humanly 
interpreted  contradict  each  other. 

Of  course  the  confessor  is  instructed  that  he  must  at  any  moment 
be  prepared  to  endure  death  in  preference  to  violating  the  seal  in  any 
manner.  As  the  use,  in  any  way,  of  knowledge  gained  in  confession 
is  strictly  prohibited,  it  is  even  a  question  whether  he  can  take  any 
steps  however  simple  to  avoid  a  snare  prepared  for  him  of  which  he 
has  learned  in  confession.  To  illustrate  this  the  theologians  have 
constructed  many  cases  that  have  been  debated  for  centuries,  of  which 
two  will  suffice.  A  priest  travelling  with  some  casual  companions 
learns  from  one  of  them  in  confession  that  a  plot  has  been  laid  to 


1  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Art.  3,  Dub.  1  ad  5.— Summa  Sylvestrina 
s.  v.  Confessio  in.  <§  8. — Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  3. — Gobat 
Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  838. — Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  14, 
n.  13.— Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Consclent.  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  10.— Th.  ex 
Charmes  Theol.  Univers.  Diss.  v.  cap.  iv.  Q.  2,  Art.  1,  concl.  5. — Varceno 
Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7. 

This  point  was  not  settled  without  some  discussion.  The  case  is  put  of  a 
priest  who  absolves  a  penitent  in  a  reserved  case  without  authority.  Can  he 
confess  the  fact  if  his  confessor  will  recognize  the  sinner,  as,  for  instance,  if 
it  is  a  bishop  who  has  obtained  his  see  simonically?  Duns  Scotus  (In  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic)  says  that  he  cannot,  but  must  confess  to  God; 
Francois  de  Mairone  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.)  says  that  he  can,  for  it 
only  goes  from  one  confession  to  another  and  is  still  covered  by  the  seal. 

2  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacr.  n.  49. — Habert  Praxis  Sacr.   Poenit. 
Tract,  iv. — Some  authorities  say  that  in  this  frequent  case  the  confessor  can 
make  a  general  inquiry,  but  on  denial  must  absolve. — Gobat  Alphab.  Con 
fessar.  n.  241-5 ;  Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Conscient.  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  8. — 
Manzo  says  (Epit.  Theol.  Moral.  P.  i.  De  Posnit.  n.  94)  that  if  he  cannot  indi 
rectly  induce  confession  and  cannot  avoid  absolving,  he  must  grant  the  sacri 
legious  absolution  rather  than  violate  the  seal. 

3  Eeuter  Neoconfessarius  instructus  n.  36. 

I.— 28 


434  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

murder  him  in  a  wood  through  which  their  journey  lies :  must  he 
advance  unflinchingly  to  his  doom  or  is  it  allowable  for  him  to  evade 
it  if  he  can  do  so  without  betraying  the  penitent  ?  Again,  a  penitent 
confides  in  confession  to  a  priest  about  to  celebrate  mass  that  the 
chalice  is  poisoned  :  must  he  perform  the  service  and  die,  or  can  he 
devise  some  excuse  for  not  celebrating  ?  There  were  rigorists  who 
insisted  that  in  these  cases  the  priest  must  calmly  proceed  as  though 
in  ignorance  ;  there  were  others  who  argued  that  evasion  is  justifiable 
if  it  can  be  accomplished  without  exciting  suspicion  as  to  the  peni 
tent,  but  all  agree  that  death  must  be  welcomed  in  preference  to 
violating  the  seal.1 

Whether  a  confessor  can  allow  his  knowledge  of  the  unworthiness 
of  a  penitent  to  influence  his  vote  in  secret  ballot,  when  that  penitent 
is  a  candidate  for  office,  is  a  disputed  question,  with  great  names  on 
either  side.  In  fact  the  degree,  if  any,  in  which  a  confessor  can 
permit  his  actions  to  be  governed  by  the  knowledge  gained  in  confes 
sion  has  been  the  subject  of  interminable  debates  and  forms,  in  the 
words  of  Tamburini,  the  most  important  and  most  vexatious  of  ques 
tions,  and  though  there  has  been  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  some  to 
teach  a  lax  doctrine  respecting  it,  the  weight  of  authority  leans  to 
that  which  will  most  avoid  rendering  confession  odious.2 


1  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic.— Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit. 
xx.  Q.  2. — Rob.  Aquinat.  Opus  Quadrages.  Serai,  xxix.  cap.  2. — Summa  An 
gelica  s.  v.  Confessio  lilt.  \  1 . — Summa  Sylvestriua  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  §§  9-13. — 
Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  celatio  %  12.— Dorn.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
xvin.  Q.  iv.  Art.  5. — Henriquez  Suinmae  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxiv.  n. 
5. — Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  14,  ri.  20. — Summa  Diana  s. 
v.  Sigillum  sacram.  n.  28,  29.— Gobat.  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  897.— Tamburini 
Method.  Confess.  App.  cap.  vi.— Arsdekin  Theol.  Tripart.  P.  nr.  Tract,  iii.  cap. 
4,  n.  17. — Clericati  de  Poanit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  14. — Tournely  de  Sacr.  Prenit.  Q. 
vi.  Art.  iv.— Benzi  Praxis,  Trib.  Conscient.  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  23.— S. 
Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  659.— Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ. 
Diss.  v.  cap.  iv.  Art.  2.— Gury  Cornp.  Theol.  Moral   II.  669. — Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7,  n.  1. 

2  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  22,  §  1.— Escobar  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  vn.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  41.— Tamburini  Method.  Confess.  Append  cap. 
vi.  $  2,  n.  1.— Arsdekin  Theol.  Tripart.  P.  in.  Tract.  1,  cap.  3,  Q.  15.— Summae 
Alexandrinse  P.  I.  n.  577.— Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret,  p.  203, 
Append,  p.  38.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Lib.  vi.  n.  655-7. 

The  Jesuit  Tanner  taught  that  the  confessor  can  use  the  knowledge  gained  in 
the  confessional  for  a  good  end,  provided  he  does  not  reveal  it ;  he  can  urge 


RIGID  CONSTRUCTION.  435 

It  is  a  violation  of  the  seal  to  decline  to  give  a  certificate  of  con 
fession,  though  absolution  has  been  refused,  when  such  certificates  are 
required,  as  in  schools  and  seminaries  and  convents,  even  though 
they  may  be  abused  to  obtain  sacrilegious  communion ;  but  when 
such  certificates  are  not  obligatory  and  an  unabsolved  penitent  may 
ask  it  for  a  wrong  purpose — as,  for  instance,  to  get  married — it  can 
be  refused.  These  certificates  are  never  to  specify  whether  absolution 
has  been  given  or  withheld,  for  that  would  be  a  violation  of  the  seal.1 
In  fact,  to  mention  that  absolution  has  been  denied  is  a  violation, 
and  when  parents,  teachers  or  masters  ask  whether  their  children, 
pupils  or  servants  have  been  absolved  they  are  to  be  referred  to  the 
penitents  for  information,  and  the  same  answer  is  to  be  given  to 
sisters  of  charity  who  are  apt  in  hospitals  to  seek  such  information 
in  order  that  they  may  prepare  for  the  viaticum.2  Even  conversation 
with  the  penitent,  outside  of  the  confessional  concerning  sins  con 
fessed,  is  a  violation  of  the  seal,  unless  the  penitent  freely  and  volun 
tarily  accords  permission.  Toletus  tells  us  that  if  a  confessor  finds 
that  he  has  improperly  conferred  absolution  (as  in  a  reserved  case  or 
by  not  insisting  on  restitution)  he  cannot  inform  the  penitent  of  it, 
but  should  say  to  him  "  I  pray  you  to  confess  again,  for  I  was  de 
ceived  in  your  confession,"  and  then  the  penitent  ought  to  obey,  when 
the  impediment  can  be  stated,  but  if  the  penitent  refuses  he  cannot 
be  compelled,  and  if  there  is  danger  of  scandal  it  is  better  not  even 
to  approach  him.  Even  if  the  confessor  knows  that  the  penitent  has 
not  performed  his  penance  he  cannot  allude  to  it  in  a  subsequent 
confession.3 

the  public  authorities  to  vigilance,  he  can  dismiss  unworthy  persons  or  prevent 
their  promotion,  etc.,  but  the  General  Aquaviva  prohibited  action  on  this 
opinion  or  its  teaching  in  the  schools. — Summa  Diana  s.  v»  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  43. 

1  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  32. — Benzi  Praxis  Trib.  Conscient. 
Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  7.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n. 
639.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  If.  661.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract, 
xvin.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7,  n.  2. 

This,  however,  is  denied  by  some  high  authorities  such  as  De  Lugo,  Bona- 
cina  and  others  (Benzi,  loc.  cit.),  and  in  the  seventeenth  century  the  practice 
was  not  uniform  (Du  Fresnoy,  p.  253). 

2  Benzi,  loc.  cit. — Varceno,  loc.  cit. — Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  659. 
Caietano  (Summuia  s.  v.  Confessori  necessaria]  denies  that  to  give  such  infor 
mation  is  a  violation,  but  says  that  it  ought  not  to  be  done. 

3  Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  5. — Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Sigil 
lum  Sacram.  n.  40,  41.— Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n 


436  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

The  supreme  importance  attached  to  the  seal  is  shown  in  the  rule 
that  if  in  any  case  involving  it  there  are  two  probable  opinions  the 
one  to  be  followed  is  that  which  favors  the  seal,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other,  for  the  violation  is  a  danger  to  be  averted  at  all  risks.1 
This  indicates  that  here,  as  everywhere  else  in  our  subject,  every 
attempt  to  establish  a  rule  of  conduct  only  raised  a  cloud  of  doubtful 
problems  which  taxed  to  the  utmost  the  ingenuity  of  the  moralists, 
and  were  often  incapable  of  a  solution  commanding  universal  assent. 
A  few  of  these  are  worth  brief  consideration,  if  only  to  show  the 
difficulty  of  handling  questions  so  intangible. 

We  have  seen  (p.  362)  that  it  is  allowable  for  a  penitent  to  write 
out  his  confession  and  hand  it  to  the  priest.  If,  through  accident 
or  carelessness,  such  a  paper  should  fall  into  other  hands,  is  the 
finder  bound  by  the  seal  or  not  ?  Some  doctors  hold  that  he  is  ;  the 
paper  is  an  inchoate  confession,  and  if  it  comes  into  the  possession 
of  a  judge  he  cannot  use  it,  but  must  bury  it  in  impenetrable  silence. 
The  matter  came  up  in  a  practical  shape  during  the  trial  of  the  cele 
brated  Dame  de  Brinvilliers,  in  1676.  Among  her  papers  was  found 
a  recital  of  the  crimes  of  which  she  was  accused  and  of  many  others 
equally  atrocious ;  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  sacramental  confession, 
commencing  "  Je  me  confesse  a  Dieu  et  a  votis,  mon  pere,"  and,  after 
considerable  discussion,  it  was  not  received  as  evidence,  though  it 
could  not  but  influence  the  minds  of  the  judges.2  More  recent 
writers,  however,  are  at  odds  on  this  point,  the  commoner  opinion 


41.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  652-3.— Th.  ex  Charmes 
Theol.  Univers.  Diss.  v.  cap.  iv.  Art.  2. — Varceno  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm. 
cap.  iv.  Art.  7,  n.  1. 

All  this  gives  rise  to  a  host  of  questions  on  which  the  authorities  are  by  no 
means  unanimous.  See  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  825-35;  Clericati  de 
Poanit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  10. — Benzi  Praxis,  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3;  n.  14.— Ars- 
dekin  Theol.  Tripart.  P.  in.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4,  n.  13. 

1  Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  I,  n.  5.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II. 
n.  650. — Guarceno  states  (Comp.  Theol.  Mora).  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7)  that 
probable  opinions  cannot  be  used  in  matters  relating  to  the  seal,  but  it  is  im 
possible  to  exclude  probabilism  altogether,  for  Tamburini  (Method.  Confess. 
Append,  cap.  vi.  n.  16)  cites  two  probable  and  opposite  opinions  on  the  ques 
tion  of  celebrating  in  a  polluted  church. 

2  Em.  Sa  Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.   Confessio  addit.  ad  calcem. — Summa 
Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  11. — Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret, 
p.  150. 


CONSULTATION  WITH  EXPERTS.  437 

being  that  it  is  not  covered  by  the  seal  but  only  by  the  natural  law 
of  secrecy ;  all  agree  that  to  use  the  information  thus  obtained  is  a 
mortal  sin,  if  the  sins  detailed  in  the  writing  are  mortal,  while  some 
hold  this  even  if  they  are  only  venial.  Gury  says,  however,  that  if 
the  paper  has  been  used  in  confession  by  handing  it  to  the  confessor 
it  thus  becomes  part  of  the  confession  and  is  covered  by  the  seal.1 

The  question  as  to  the  confessor's  consulting  with  experts  involves 
some  intricate  points.  So  many  doubtful  and  difficult  matters  must 
come  for  decision  before  a  confessor  that  even  the  most  experienced 
must  at  times  feel  the  need  of  advice,  and  in  the  Lateran  canon  the 
priest  is  directed  when  in  doubt  to  seek  the  assistance  of  those  more 
learned,  carefully  suppressing  the  name  of  the  penitent.2  Previous 
to  the  enforcement  of  confession  there  had  been  no  scruples  of  this 
kind.  About  1190,  we  find  details  of  confessions  sent  to  Clement 
III.,  with  the  names  of  the  penitents,  in  seeking  his  advice :  his 
answers  repeat  them  and  are  embodied  in  the  legal  compilations  of 
the  period,  thus  rendering  them  publici  juris.3  Of  course,  when  the 
seal  became  established,  this  was  impossible,  and  the  schoolmen  had 
no  difficulty  in  proving  that  it  covered  the  consultation  by  arguing 
that  this  in  fact  was  only  a  portion  of  the  confession.4  Yet  Guido 
de  Monteroquer  not  unnaturally  seems  to  regard  the  very  act  of  con 
sultation  as  in  some  sort  a  violation  of  the  seal,  for  he  instructs  the 
confessor,  when  seeking  advice,  not  to  say  "  I  have  heard  such  a 
crime  in  confession,"  but  to  put  it  hypothetically  "  If  such  a  case 
happens,  what  ought  to  be  done  ?"  and  he  explains  that  the  confessor 
cannot  say  that  he  has  heard  it  because  he  was  acting  as  the  vicar 
of  God.5  St.  Antonino  does  not  go  quite  so  far,  but  he  insists  on 
the  utmost  caution,  so  that  the  consultant  may  not  be  able  to  form  a 
suspicion  as  to  the  penitent,  and  finally  the  confessor  is  told  that  he 
must  not  leave  the  confessional  to  consult  an  expert  and  return, 


1  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  7.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral. 
Lib.  VI.  n.  650.— Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  II.  Q.  vii.  Art.  4,  n.  3.— Gury  Comp.  Theol. 
Moral.  II.  653. 

2  Cap.  12  Extra  v.  xxxviii.     "Sed  si  pruclentiori  consilio  indiguerit  illud 
absque  ulla  expressione  personae  caute  requirat." 

3  Compilat.  II.  Lib.  iv.  Tit.  xiii.  cap.  2 ;  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xviii.  cap.  2  (Friedberg, 
Quinque  Compilationes  Antiques,  pp.  96,  102). 

*  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  unic. 
5  Manip.  Curator.  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  11. 


438  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

because  this  would  lead  the  bystanders  to  infer  that  the  penitent  has 
confessed  some  mortal  sin.1  Curiously  enough,  with  all  this  zeal  for 
the  preservation  of  secrecy,  it  is  a  disputed  point  whether  or  not  the 
consultant  is  bound  by  the  obligation  of  the  seal.  Some  moralists 
argue  that,  as  he  can  only  be  consulted  with  the  permission  of  the 
penitent,  he  is  the  latter' s  agent,  the  communication  to  him  is  not 
sacramental,  and  he  is  only  bound  by  natural  secrecy ;  others  hold 
that,  as  the  consultation  is  pertinent  to  the  administration  of  the 
sacrament,  he  is  subject  to  the  sacramental  seal.2  If  the  penitent 
declines  to  assent  to  the  consultation,  the  confessor  is  instructed  to 
refuse  absolution  and  tell  him  to  seek  some  one  more  learned.3 

We  have  seen  what  trouble  reserved  cases  have  given  in  dividing 
confession  and  absolution,  and  they  naturally  formed  an  equally 
vexatious  problem  with  regard  to  the  strict  obligation  of  the  seal. 
In  fact,  it  shows  how  completely  the  seal,  in  its  modern  acceptation, 
is  a  consequence  and  outgrowth  of  enforced  confession,  that  the 
practice  of  sending  penitents  with  reserved  cases  to  the  bishop  con 
tinued  so  long,  for  it  was  an  advertisement  to  the  world  that  they 
had  committed  a  reserved  sin.  In  1408,  John  Gerson  complains  of 
the  infamy  to  which  it  exposed  sinners,  especially  women,  to  be  thus 
sent  to  the  bishop.4  The  schoolmen  found  some  difficulty  in  recon 
ciling  the  incongruity.  William  of  Ware  quotes  William  of  Auxerre 
as  saying  that  the  seal  does  not  prevent  the  confessor  from  referring 
cases  to  his  superior,  but  he  pronounces  this  to  be  a  mistake,  as  it 
reduces  the  confessor  to  the  functions  of  an  interpreter.  Yet  Duns 
Scotus  accepted  this ;  he  argued  that  in  such  cases  the  confessor  is 
merely  an  interpreter  or  medium  of  communication,  and  thus  the 
whole  is  one  confession  and  is  covered  by  the  seal.5  This,  in  fact, 
was  the  simplest  explanation  when  the  penitent  was  sent  to  the  bishop 


1  S.  Antonini  Summge  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  22,  g  3.— Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd. 
Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  2. — Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q,  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  5. 

2  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vii.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  10.— Layman  Theol. 
Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  14,  n.  18. — Liguori,  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his 
Moral  Theology  (Lib.  vi.  n.  648.   Of.  Elenchum  Qusestionum,  Q.  77),  considered 
that  the  consultant  is  not  bound  by  the  seal,  but  subsequently  he  concluded 
that  the  affirmative  is  more  probable. 

3  Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret,  p.  210. 

4  C.  Eemens.  ann.  1408  (Gousset,  Actes  etc.  II.  658). 

5  Vorrillong  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.— Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxr. 
Q.  unic. 


RESERVED  SINS.— RESTITUTION.  439 

with  a  letter  stating  that  he  required  absolution  and  penance  for 
incest  or  homicide,  or  whatever  the  reserved  sin  might  be,  a  practice 
which,  as  shown  above  (p.  330),  continued  at  least  until  the  eve  of 
the  Reformation,  and  probably  longer.  Doubtless  the  increasing 
rigor  in  the  construction  of  the  seal  contributed  to  discourage  the 
custom,  for,  about  1690,  Arsdekin  asserts  that  for  a  confessor  to  give 
to  his  penitent,  without  his  permission,  a  letter  to  the  bishop,  simply 
stating  that  he  has  a  reserved  case,  is  an  infraction  of  the  seal.1  The 
modern  system  of  applying  for  a  faculty  eludes  the  difficulty  by 
removing  the  reservation,  and  the  formula  of  application  (p.  335)  is 
carefully  drawn  to  reduce  the  violation  of  the  seal  to  a  minimum, 
though  it  cannot  wholly  avoid  what  amounts  to  an  infraction  under 
the  more  rigid  definitions.  To  escape  it  as  far  as  possible,  Gobat 
instructs  the  priest,  when  he  receives  the  faculty,  not  to  send  for  the 
penitent  but  to  wait  till  he  meets  him  casually ;  then  tell  him  to  say 
"  I  accuse  myself  again  of  such  a  sin,"  and  absolve  him  on  the  spot, 
without  making  the  sign  of  the  cross — presumably  to  avoid  attract 
ing  attention.2  This  would  seem  to  rate  the  importance  of  the  seal 
higher  than  that  of  the  sacrament,  as  it  renders  the  latter  wholly  a 
matter  of  chance. 

The  subject  of  restitution  of  ill-gotten  gains  and  reparation  for 
injuries,  which  forms  an  important  portion  of  the  duties  of  the  con 
fessional,  is  somewhat  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  strict  obligations 
of  the  seal,  for  the  confessor  is  the  natural  channel  through  which 
such  payments  can  be  made  by  penitents  desirous  of  escaping  the 
humiliation  of  acknowledging  their  offences,  and  it  is  a  debated 
question  whether,  in  serving  in  'that  capacity,  he  is  violating  the 
seal  or  not.  The  weight  of  authority  is  in  the  negative,  but  the 
utmost  caution  is  enjoined  to  prevent  suspicion  as  to  the  source  of 
payment.3 

A  question  which  gave  rise  to  considerable  discussion,  in  establish 
ing  the  inviolability  of  the  seal,  is  whether  a  priest  can  make  use  of 
knowledge  gained  both  inside  and  outside  of  confession.  On  the 
one  hand  it  was  urged  that  malicious  priests  might  reveal  sins  con 
fessed  to  them,  on  the  plea  that  they  knew  of  them  otherwise  :  on 

1  Arsdekin  Theol.  Tripart.  P.  in.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4,  n.  6. 

2  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  700. 

3  Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  21. — Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral. 
I.  708. 


440  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

the  other,  that  sinners  might  close  the  mouths  of  priestly  witnesses 
by  promptly  confessing  to  them  their  misdeeds.  Alexander  Hales 
thinks  this  latter  argument  the  stronger,  and  puts  the  case  of  four 
priests  journeying  together,  of  whom  one  commits  a  crime  in  the 
sight  of  his  companions  and  confesses  it  to  one  of  them.  The  other 
two  denounce  the  culprit  and  summon  the  confessor  as  a  witness, 
when,  on  his  refusing  to  testify,  his  bishop  can  rightfully  punish  him.1 
Some  doctors  drew  a  distinction  and  taught  that  the  lips  of  the  con 
fessor  were  sealed  by  the  confession  if  he  had  prior  knowledge  of  the 
fact,  but  not  if  he  acquired  it  subsequently.  Aquinas  refutes  these 
arguments  and  holds  that  knowledge  obtained  elsewhere  releases  the 
seal,  irrespective  of  time,  but  the  confessor  must  not  mention  the 
corroborative  fact  of  the  confession.2  Bonaventura  agrees  with  this 
and  adds  that  the  confessor  should  warn  the  penitent  of  the  fact  of 
his  knowledge  and  should  not  volunteer  his  testimony,  but  wait  to 
be  summoned  as  a  witness  by  due  authority.3  The  use  of  knowledge 
thus  gained  extrinsically  has  become  the  received  practice  of  the 
Church,  with  comparatively  few  dissidents,  but  the  elaborate  and 
intricate  arguments  necessary  to  establish  it  show  the  inherent  diffi 
culties  of  the  questions  involved  and  the  nervous  anxiety  to  avoid 
rendering  confession  odious.4 

Another  question  which  has  provoked  endless  controversy,  not 
even  yet  positively  settled,  is  the  apparently  simple  and  elementary 
one  whether  or  not  the  penitent  can  authorize  the  confessor  to  make 
known  any  sins  which  he  has  confessed  to  him.  Alexander  Hales 
and  Bonaventura  argued  that  such  authorization  must  be  invalid, 
because  the  confessor  knows  only  as  God  and  is  ignorant  as  man ; 
therefore,  if  the  penitent  wishes  to  release  the  priest  from  silence,  he 
must  relate  the  facts  again  outside  of  confession.  Other  doctors  ad 
vanced  another  reason ;  the  pope  cannot  authorize  violation  of  the 
seal  and  much  less  can  a  layman.  Aquinas  brushes  aside  these 
dialectics  and  asserts  the  power  of  the  penitent  to  permit  the  con- 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Sumime  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  2,  Art.  2. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  2 ;  Suinmse  Suppl.  Q. 
XI.  Art.  5. 

3  S.  Bonaventurse  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  P.  ii.  Art.  2,  Q.  3. 

4  Eisengrein  Confessionale  cap.  vii.  Q.  27.— Arsdekin.  Theol.  Tripart.  P. 
in.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4,  n.  2. — Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  12. 


CONFESSION  TO  LAYMEN.  441 

fessor  to  reveal  what  he  pleases  to  whom  he  pleases.1  Then  Durand 
de  S.  Pourc,ain  advanced  a  reason  of  expediency,  pointing  out  that 
if  such  authorization  were  recognized  a  prisoner  on  trial  might  be 
commanded  by  the  judge  to  release  his  confessor  from  the  seal,  when 
a  refusal  would  expose  him  to  justifiable  suspicion.2  William  of 
Ware  assumes  the  power  of  authorization  as  an  accepted  fact,  for 
every  one  can  renounce  a  right.3  Guido  de  Monteroquer  says  that 
it  is  a  disputed  question,  and  Angiolo  da  Chivasso  denies  the  power.4 
So  the  debate  went  on,  some  authorities  affirming,  others  denying, 
and  some  contenting  themselves  with  stating  that  the  question  is 
doubtful  and  disputed  ;  nor  has  it  ever  been  authoritatively  settled, 
though  the  common  opinion  of  modern  authorities  is  in  the  affirma 
tive,  and  the  priest  is  warned  to  be  exceedingly  cautious  in  the  use 
of  such  authorization,  for  any  indiscretion  tends  to  render  confession 
odious,  and  he  is  not  to  extort  it  by  threats  of  withholding  absolution.5 
We  have  seen  above  (p.  220)  how  persistently  the  custom  of  con 
fession  to  laymen  lingered  and  IIOAV  difficult  it  proved  to  establish 
the  exclusive  right  of  the  priesthood  to  hear  confessions.  The  ques 
tion  as  to  the  obligation  of  the  seal  in  such  confessions  was  a  delicate 
one,  for  the  denial  of  it  would,  on  the  one  hand,  assist  in  breaking 
down  the  practice  and,  on  the  other,  would  tend  to  diminish  the 
reverence  inculcated  for  everything  connected  Avith  the  sacrament. 
Aquinas,  who  admitted  the  quasi-sacerdotal  character  of  lay  confes 
sion,  argues  that  in  it  the  seal,  strictly  speaking,  cannot  exist,  but 


1  Alex,  de  Ales  Suminse  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  ii.  Art.  2.— S.  Bonaventime 
in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  P.  ii.  Art.  2,  Q.  2.— S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  2 ;  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  xi.  Art.  4. 

2  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iv.  §  9. 

3  Vorillong  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi. 

4  Manip.  Curator.  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  11.— Surnma  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio 
ult.  §  5. 

5  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  g  2. — Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confes- 
sionis    Celatio   \   11.— Eisengrein   Confessionale   cap.   vii.   Q.   23-5.— Em.   Sa 
Aphorism!  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  30.— Mart.  Fornarii  Instit.  Sacerd.  p. 
93.— Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  4.— Zerola,  Praxis  Sacr. 
Pcenit.  cap.  xxv.  Q.  34.— Marchant  Trib.  Animar.  Tom.  I.  Tract,  iv.  Tit.  vi. 
Q.  6.  Append.  2,  Concl.  3.— Busenbaum  Medullse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  Tract, 
iv.  cap.  3,  Dub.  1.— Arsdekin  Theol.  Tripart.  P.  in.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  4,  n.  12.— 
Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite"  du  Secret,  p.  173.— Tournely  de  Sacr.  Poenit.  Q. 
vi.  Art.  4.— Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  1,  n.  3.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio 
Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  651.— Marc  Institt.  Moral.  Alphonsianae  n.  1866. 


442  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

nevertheless  the  recipient  of  the  confession  is  bound  to  the  most 
rigorous  secrecy.1  Astesanus  says  that  he  participates  in  some  sort  in 
the  seal  and  is  subject  to  punishment  at  discretion  for  violation  of  it.2 
This  view  long  prevailed.  Prierias  quotes  various  authorities  to  the 
same  effect,  and  insists  that  the  lay  confessor,  when  interrogated, 
must  deny  and  swear,  the  same  as  a  priest,  which  infers  that  he  too 
receives  the  confession  as  God.3  Domingo  So  to  even  says  that  the 
layman  is  more  bound  by  the  seal  than  a  priest,  and  its  violation  by 
him  is  a  mortal  sin,  deserving  of  severe  punishment,  while  Cardinal 
Toletus  asserts  that  such  confessions  are  covered  by  the  seal.4  Diana 
considers  it  a  disputed  question,  while  Chiericato  affirms  that  the  lay 
man  is  bound.5  Later  doctors  take  the  view  that  if  confession  is 
made  knowingly  to  a  layman  under  necessity  it  is  not  covered  by  the 
seal ;  if  under  the  mistaken  belief  that  the  confessor  is  a  priest,  it  is, 
but  it  is  admitted  that  the  question  is  one  on  which  opinions  are  not 
unanimous.6 

In  treating  of  satisfaction  we  shall  see  hereafter  the  influence  ex 
erted  by  the  rigid  definition  of  the  seal  in  mitigating  the  severity  of 
penance,  for  it  became  a  received  axiom  that  the  inflictions  imposed 
should  in  no  way  expose  the  penitent  to  suspicion  as  to  the  sins 
which  he  had  confessed.  It  required  some  time  to  develop  this  idea 
and  render  it  dominant.  Aquinas  remarks  that  confessions  are  to  be 
secret  and  not  public  on  account  of  the  scandal  and  incitement  to 
evil  caused  by  the  recital  of  sins,  but  there  is  no  scandal  in  peni 
tence,  for  works  of  satisfaction  are  performed  for  trifling  sins  and 
even  for  none.7  Penance  however  was  diminishing  so  rapidly  that 
its  manifestation  could  not  fail  to  imply  that  the  penitent  had  been 
guilty  of  mortal  sin,  and  the  desire  to  avoid  rendering  confession  odious 
was  sufficient  motive  for  the  prescription  that  penance,  like  confession 


1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  1  ad  3. 

2  Astesani  Surnmae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xx.  Q.  2. 

3  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  $\  1,  4.     See  also  Petri  Hieremiae 
Sermones,  De  Poenitentia  Serm.  xvii.  (Brixise.  1502). 

4  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  iv.  Art.  1, 5.— Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd. 
Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  6,  7. 

5  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.   n.  3. — Clericati  de  Pcenit.   Decis. 
XLIX.  n.  6. 

6  Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  4,  n.  2. — Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7. 

7  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvir.  Q.  iii.  Art.  4  ad  4. 


SECRECY  OF  PENANCE.  443 

itself,  should  be  secret.  Astesanus  lays  down  the  rule  that  the  penitent 
is  bound  to  keep  his  penance  secret,  when  the  knowledge  of  it  would 
tend  to  injure  his  reputation  or  that  of  the  confessor,  which  infers 
that  the  latter  should  only  inflict  what  can  be  kept  from  observation.1 
So  completely  was  this  principle  accepted  that  Durand  de  S.  Pourgain 
inquires  whether  the  papal  penitentiaries  are  not  making  public  the 
sins  confessed  to  them  when,  for  clericide  and  other  heinous  offences, 
they  are  accustomed  to  strip  the  penitent  and  scourge  him  around 
the  church,  and  he  replies  that  he  had  asked  the  penitentiaries  and 
had  been  told  that  they  only  did  this  when  the  crime  was  notorious 
at  the  home  of  the  penitent,  and  moreover  that  his  face  was  always 
so  covered  as  to  be  unrecognizable.2  In  modern  times  it  is  asserted 
to  be  a  violation  of  the  seal  to  impose  a  penance  which  may  arouse 
suspicion  of  the  commission  of  mortal  sin,  but  in  this,  as  in  so  much 
else,  contradictory  necessities  cannot  be  reconciled,  and  it  is  admitted 
that  certain  adjuncts  of  penance  must  be  excepted  when  required  for 
the  restitution  of  debts,  reparation  of  reputation,  saluting  an  enemy 
and  the  avoiding  of  approximate  occasions  of  sin  in  abandoning  a 
trade,  dismissing  a  concubine,  leaving  a  certain  house  etc.3  It  would 
appear  moreover  that  a  form  of  conditional  penance,  which  is  a  favor 
ite  with  some  writers,  such  as  kissing  the  ground  whenever  the  penitent 
utters  a  blasphemy4  cannot  be  carried  out  without  at  least  an  implied 
violation  of  the  seal.  The  penances  customary  among  the  Regulars 
also  gave  rise  to  troublesome  questions.  After  the  capitular  penances 
had  been  discontinued,  through  the  introduction  of  auricular  confes 
sion,  penances  were  frequently  prescribed  to  be  performed  in  the 
chapter  or  the  choir  or  the  refectory,  and  this,  with  the  growth  of 
the  strict  observances  of  the  seal,  was  denounced  as  an  infraction.5 


1  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xx.  Q.  2. 

2  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  iv.  $  12-13.— Cf.  Jo. 
Friburgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  12. 

Yet  Pontas  asserts  (Diet,  de  Gas  de  Conscience  s.  v.  Confesseur  n.  cas  3)  that 
a  penitent  must  not  be  absolved  who  refuses  to  accept  a  penance  of  Friday 
fasting  for  a  year  because  it  will  expose  him  (or  her)  to  the  suspicion  of  family 
and  friends,  and  who  declares  that  he  prefers  to  accept  a  longer  time  in  pur 
gatory. 

3  Tournely  de  Sacram.  Poenit.  Q.  vi.  Art.  4. — Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii. 
Art.  3,  n.  5. 

4  Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  5,  Q.  2,  Concl.  2. 

5  Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis  Disp.  vi.  n.  18. 


444  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

While,  rigidly  speaking,  the  penitent  is  perhaps  not  bound  by  the 
seal  of  the  confessional,  whatever  occurs  there  is  covered  with  the 
veil  of  impenetrable  secrecy,  except,  indeed,  any  solicitation  to  evil 
of  which  the  confessor  may  be  guilty.  Saving  this,  it  is  a  mortal 
sin  for  the  penitent  to  speak  of  what  the  priest  has  said  to  him, 
especially,  we  are  told,  if  it  would  tend  to  the  discredit  of  the  latter 
or  expose  him  to  ridicule.  Some  authorities  are  inclined  to  ascribe 
this  to  the  sacramental  seal,  but  the  majority  construe  it  as  what  is 
called  the  natural  seal.1  Morally  the  distinction  between  the  two 
would  not  seem  to  be  great  if  the  authorities  are  correct  in  stating 
that  the  penitent  can  deny  under  oath  any  confession  which  he  has 
made,  because  he  has  made  it  to  the  confessor  as  God  and  not  as 
man,2  but  apparently  there  is  the  practical  difference  that  no  special 
punishment  is  decreed  for  infraction  on  the  part  of  the  penitent.  His 
offence  is  a  mortal  sin  to  be  wiped  out  by  confession  and  satisfaction. 

The  seal  would  be  an  exception  to  the  divine  laws  confided  to  the 
care  of  the  Church  if  the  Church  had  not  found  itself  under  the 
necessity  of  admitting  limitations  to  its  operation.  We  have  seen 
that  at  first  it  was  held  not  to  cover  heresy,  because  faith  was  not  to 
be  kept  with  heretics,  and  this  possibly  led  to  the  theory  held  by 
some  authorities  that  all  sins  of  which  the  penitent  did  not  promise 
amendment  were  deprived  of  its  protection  and  could  be  revealed. 
Aquinas  feels  it  necessary  to  disprove  this  elaborately,  and  was  fol 
lowed  by  the  leading  doctors,  but  it  still  had  supporters  up  to  the 
sixteenth  century.3 

1  Jo.  Gersonis  Regulse  Morales  (Opp.  Ed.  1488,  xxv.  F.). — Jo.  Nider  Praecep- 
torium,  Prsecept.   in.   cap.  ix. — Eisengrein   Confessionale  cap.  vii.  Q.  19. — 
Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  862.— Henriquez  Summse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi. 
cap.  xxi.  n.  6. — Layman  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  n.  20. — Eeginald. 
Praxis  Fori  Poenit.  Lib.  in.  n.  35. — Busenbaum  Medullse  Theol.  Moral.  Lib. 
VI.  Tract,  iv.  cap.  3,  Dub.  1,  Eesp.  2.— Tamburini  Method.  Confess.  Append, 
cap.  iv.  n.  1. — Benzi  Praxis,  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  4,  n.  4. — Gury  Comp.  Theol. 
Moral.  II.  652.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvm.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7  §  1. 

Apparently  at  times  irreverent  penitents  have  complained  of  their  confessors 
to  their  superiors,  have  talked  disrespectfully  of  what  was  said  to  them  in  con 
fession,  and  have  generally  given  a  good  deal  of  unpleasant  trouble. — Lochon, 
Traite  du  Secret  de  la  Confession,  pp.  54-8. 

2  Em.  Sa  Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.  Confessor  n.  24. — Alabardi  Tyrocinium 
Confessionum  P.  I.  cap.  xxxvii.  (Venetiis,  1629). 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  1  ad  1 ;  Summae  Suppl. 


FUTURE  SINS.  445 

A  more  doubtful  controversy  occurred  on  the  question  of  future 
sins — sins  which  the  penitent  confessed  an  intention  of  committing 
and  refused  to  abandon.  Many  reasons  seemed  to  urge  that  the 
confessor  should  not  be  debarred  from  giving  notice  of  them  to  the 
individual  or  authorities  threatened,  and  the  earlier  doctors,  as  S. 
Ramon  de  Pefiafort  and  Alexander  Hales,  argue  that  they  are  not 
entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  seal.1  The  object,  however,  of  ren 
dering  confession  attractive  overcame  this  reasoning,  and  subsequent 
authorities  insisted  that  such  future  sins  should  be  kept  secret,  but 
that  when  the  danger  to  be  anticipated  from  them  was  urgent  the 
confessor  could  give  a  general  warning  to  prelates  or  rulers  to  be  on 
their  guard2 — which  in  itself  was  an  infraction  of  the  rule  that  no 
use  of  any  kind  should  be  made  of  knowledge  thus  obtained.  Yet 
late  in  the  fifteenth  century  Angiolo  da  Chivasso  argues  that  if  the 
future  crime  threatens  injury  to  others  it  is  not  in  foro  pcenitentice, 
and  may  be  revealed,  though  he  admits  that  most  of  the  doctors 
think  otherwise.8  Not  long  afterwards  Caietano  pronounces  uncom 
promisingly  in  favor  of  the  seal,  while  Prierias  gives  a  typical  ex 
ample  of  the  conscienceless  ease  with  which  everything  can  be  made 
to  yield  to  expediency.  He  states  both  sides  of  the  question  and 
gives  the  reasons  for  each,  and  then  concludes  that  if  the  evil  to  be 
prevented  is  greater  than  the  scandal  of  breaking  the  seal,  the  priest 
should  reveal  the  sin ;  this  is  especially  the  case  when  an  individual 
or  the  community  is  threatened,  for  then  he  is  bound  to  reveal  it  if 
he  can  conveniently  do  so  without  danger  to  himself  and  advantage 
to  others,  including  the  penitent.4  Subsequent  authorities  seem  sub 
stantially  unanimous  that  all  such  intended  crimes  are  covered  by 
the  seal,  but  that  warnings  and  cautions  in  general  terms  can  be 
given  to  the  parties  threatened.5 


Q.  xi.  Art.  1.— Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iv.  \  12.— 
Sumina  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio  §  2. 

1  S.  Kaymundi  Summae  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  \  4.— Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P. 
IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  ii.  Art.  2. 

2  S.  Bonaventurse  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  P.  ii.  Art.  2  g  1. — Astesani  Summae 
Lib.  V.  Tit.  xx.  Q.  2. — Summa  Rosella  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio. 

3  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  ult.  |  7. 

4  Caietani  Opusc.  Tract,  xxi. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  §  2. 

6  Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio  §  2. — Eisengrein  Confessionale 
cap.  vii.  Q.  15.— Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  6.— Summa  Diana 
s.  v.  Sigillum  sacram.  n.  16. — Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  VI.  Q.  5,  cap.  6,  Art. 


446  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

A  somewhat  curious  distinction  is  drawn  in  the  case  of  debts 
and  deposits  mentioned  by  the  penitent  in  the  course  of  his  con 
fession.  If  these  are  connected  with  theft,  fraud  or  usury  on  his 
part,  the  knowledge  is  protected  by  the  seal ;  if  not,  they  are  not 
regarded  as  part  of  sacramental  confession,  and  the  confessor  is 
required  to  reveal  what  he  knows  about  them  when  summoned  by 
proper  authority  to  give  evidence,  even  though  he  may  have  sworn 
to  keep  silence.1  We  may  perhaps  regard  this  as  part  of  a  subject 
which  has  caused  a  vast  amount  of  discussion — the  exact  position  of 
matters  mentioned  casually  or  otherwise  by  the  penitent  in  con 
fession  and  relating  more  or  less  directly  to  his  sins.  This  is  evi 
dently  a  very  wide  and  obscure  question,  in  the  intricate  variations 
of  which  the  casuists  can  revel  to  their  hearts7  content.  Aquinas 
would  appear  to  have  settled  it  when  he  said  that,  although  the  seal 
only  extends  as  far  as  the  sacrament,  still  all  things  uttered  in  the 
confessional  are  to  be  strictly  held  secret,  on  account  of  the  danger 
of  scandal,  yet  not  long  afterwards  John  of  Freiburg  tells  us  that 
the  obligation  of  secrecy  only  covers  the  sins  confessed.2  The 
debate  on  this  point  centred  chiefly  on  what  are  known  as  natural 
defects,  such  as  diseases,  illegitimacy,  ignoble  birth,  Jewish  descent 
and  other  similar  matters  which  the  penitent  may  chance  to  men 
tion  in  confession,  and  the  degree  to  which  they  are  covered  by 


4,  $  3. — Tamburini  Method.  Confess.  Append,  cap.  iii.  n.  9. — Clericati  de 
Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  15. — Tournely  de  Sacr.  Poenit.  Q.  vi.  Art.  iv.— Benzi, 
Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  2. 

Lochon  (Traite  du  Secret,  p.  96)  objects  to  giving  warning.  The  strictness 
with  which  the  seal  was  construed  in  these  matters  is  shown  in  a  case  related 
by  Damhouder  (Praxis  Criminalis,  cap.  clii.  n.  9)  as  occurring  at  Bruges  in 
his  time.  A  sick  man  confessed  to  his  priest  that  he  and  a  number  of  accom 
plices  proposed  in  about  a  week  to  set  fire  to  several  parts  of  the  town.  The 
priest  reported  it  in  general  terms  to  a  magistrate,  who  caused  him  to  be 
shadowed  and  thus  identified  the  penitent  and  his  confederates.  On  deliber 
ation,  however,  it  was  concluded  that  they  could  not  be  punished  in  view  of 
the  source  of  information. 

1  Jo.  Friburgens  Summae  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  98. — S.  Antonini 
Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19,  §  12. — Summa   Pisanella  s.  v.   Confesslonis 
Celatio  n.  8. — Jac.  a  Graffiis  Practica  Casuum  Reservat.  Lib.  i.  cap.  xxxvi. 
n.  36. 

The  Summa  Tabiena,  however  (s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio  $  9),  says  that 
although  such  matters  are  not  under  the  seal  they  must  not  be  revealed. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquinat.  Summae  Suppl.  Q.  xi.  Art.  2. — Jo.  Friburgens.  ubi  sup. 


EXCEPTIONS.  447 

the  seal  constitutes  what  Tamburini  calls  a  Celebris  difficultas,  some 
doctors  arguing  that  they  are  protected  and  others  not,  though  the 
tendency  in  modern  times  has  been  to  construe  them  as  covered  for 
the  very  cogent  reason  that  to  reveal  them  is  to  render  confession 
odious.  Yet  personal  defects,  which  the  confessor  can  observe  for 
himself,  are  by  many  regarded  as  not  entitled  to  secrecy,  and  there 
is  a  tolerably  equal  division  on  the  question  whether  a  confessor  can 
say  of  a  penitent  that  he  is  over-scrupulous  or  long-winded,  though 
it  is  admitted  to  be  indiscreet.  Circumstances  not  displeasing  to  the 
penitent,  as  that  he  is  married  or  a  priest  or  a  soldier  or  a  trader  are 
held  not  to  be  covered  by  the  seal.1  There  are  some  high  authorities 
moreover  who  teach  that  venial  sins  confessed  are  not  covered  by  the 
seal,  and  that  it  is  only  a  venial  sin  for  the  confessor  to  talk  about 
them  through  inadvertence  or  lack  of  thought.2 

An  exception  to  the  seal  has  likewise  been  admitted  with  regard  to 
the  virtues  and  spiritual  gifts  of  penitents  as  revealed  by  them  in 
confession.  It  is  true  that  Diana  asserts  that  the  confessor,  to  obtain 
Christian  burial  for  a  public  prostitute,  cannot  inform  the  parish 
priest  that  she  died  contrite  and  that  he  had  absolved  her,3  but  the 
testimony  of  confessors  is  an  important  factor  in  obtaining  the  beati 
fication  of  saints,  and  although  the  seal  is  not  removed  by  death,4  it 
has  been  held  not  to  preclude  their  revealing  the  virtues  which  they 
may  have  learned  in  confession,  such  as  the  virginity  preserved  by 
St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  St.  Francis  Xavier,  St.  Pius  V.  and  St.  Luigi 
Gonzaga.  So  a  confessor  in  writing  the  life  of  a  pious  penitent  may 
say  that  he  never  committed  a  mortal  sin.  The  extension  of  this  to 
the  living  has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  discussion,  in  which  the 


1  Toleti  Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  2. — Jos.  Augustini  Brevis 
Notitia  Necess.  Confessionar.  De  Sac'r.  Pcenit.  n.  54. — Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar. 
n.  792. — Tamburini  Method.  Confess.  App.  cap.  iii.  n.  13. — Benzi,  Praxis  Disp. 
n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3,  n.  1,  3.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  657.— Varceno  Comp. 
Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  iv.  art.  7,  $  1. 

Gobat  (loc.  cit.)  quotes  in  this  connection  from  Cardinal  de  Lugo  the  very 
significant  remark  "  Si  tamen  circumstantiae  sunt  publice  notae,  et  simul 
careant  probro,  potes  innoxie  de  illis  loqui,  ut  quando  quis  confessus  est  se 
peccasse  cum  aliqua,  cum  tamen  sit  clericus  in  majoribus  aut  conjugatus." 

2  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  5. 

3  Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Sigillum  Sacram.  n.  50. 

1  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  vi.  Q.  5,  cap.  6,  Art.  4,  $  3. — S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio 
Lib.  vi.  n.  634.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvin.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7. 


448  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

majority  of  the  moralists  claim  that,  when  visions  and  ecstasies  and 
revelations  and  other  spiritual  graces  have  been  related  in  confession, 
to  obtain  direction  and  not  as  connected  with  some  sin,  they  are  not 
covered  by  the  seal  unless  the  penitent  objects  to  their  being  talked 
about,  in  which  case  they  are  covered.1 

Whether  knowledge  gained  in  confession  can  be  used  for  the 
benefit  of  penitents  is  a  disputed  question.  It  is  nearly  akin  to  the 
Jansenist  proposition  condemned  by  the  Inquisition  in  1682  (sup.  p. 
423),  but  subsequent  to  that  decision  Chiericato  asserts  it.  Such  use 
would  seem  to  have  much  to  recommend  it,  but  the  admission  is 
fraught  with  inevitable  dangers  and  more  recent  authorities  reject  it.2 
Closely  related  to  this  was  the  practice  (p.  396)  recommended  by 
some  of  the  earlier  doctors,  of  obtaining  the  name  of  a  partner  in 
sin  in  order  to  administer  what  is  called  fraternal  correction.  The 
energy  with  which,  in  1708,  Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy  argues  against  this 
infraction  of  the  seal  shows  how  stubborn  was  the  custom.3 

Human  nature  being  what  it  is,  there  is  a  manifest  impossibility 
in  preventing  priests  from  talking  about  the  sins  which  they  learn  in 
confession.  At  the  best,  the  interchange  of  experience  may  be  wise, 
and  it  may  be  an  indispensable  ingredient  in  the  ghostly  counsel 
bestowed  on  penitents.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  degenerate  into 
gossip,  hurtful  to  all  parties  and  liable  to  lead  to  suspicion  as  to  the 
sinners  concerned.  Recognizing  it  as  inevitable  the  Church  permits 
it,  provided  abundant  caution  is  used  to  avoid  all  danger  of  identi 
fying  the  individuals  concerned,  though  absolute  silence  is  recom 
mended  as  preferable,  especially  before  laymen,  and  the  books  as  a 
warning  give  instances  in  which,  without  intentional  indiscretion, 
penitents  have  been  identified  and  the  seal  has  been  broken.4 

The  extent  to  which  a  preacher  in  his  sermons  may  use  or  refer  to 
the  knowledge  gained  in  confession  has  naturally  been  the  subject  of 
no  little  discussion.  To  prevent  all  such  use  is  impossible  and 


1  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  22,  §  3.— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessor. 
n>  795.— ^Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  8.— Benzi,  Praxis  Disput.  n.  Q.  vii. 
Art.  3,  n.  4,  18.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvni.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7,  §  1. 

2  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  11.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral. 
Tract,  xvni.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7. 

3  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite  du  Secret,  pp.  231-40. 

4  Berteau  Director  Confessar.  p.  491.— Clericati  de  Poanit.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  8.— 
Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  816,  820.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  664. 


EXCEPTIONS.  449 

equally  so  is  it  to  lay  down  rules  for  safe  guidance.  It  is  generally 
agreed,  of  course,  that  it  is  an  infraction  of  the  seal  for  a  parish  priest 
to  speak  of  having  in  confession  heard  certain  sins  and  to  do  it  in  a 
manner  enabling  the  congregation  to  identify  the  sinners,  and  even 
more  general  references  are  not  allowable  when  the  assemblage  is 
small,  as  in  a  nunnery  or  to  a  group  of  novices.  Even  to  say,  in 
conversation  or  otherwise,  that  certain  sins  are  prevalent  in  a  place, 
is  a  violation  or  not,  according  to  the  size  of  the  place,  and  as  abso 
lute  definition  is  sought  in  all  things,  the  delimitation,  by  a  sort  of 
common  consent,  has  been  fixed  at  three  thousand  inhabitants,  the 
divine  law  of  the  seal  being  operative  below  that  number  and  not 
above  it.1  It  is  easy  to  imagine  how,  in  small  country  parishes  where 
the  failings  of  each  are  known  to  all,  any  allusions  by  the  priest  that 
can  be  construed  as  applicable  to  any  of  his  parishioners  will  be 
attributed  to  knowledge  acquired  in  the  confessional  and  will  cause 
scandal  and  heart-burnings. 

Perhaps  the  most  notable  exception  to  the  inviolability  of  the  seal, 
standing  in  curious  contrast  to  the  effusive  declamation  that  it  must 
not  be  infringed  to  prevent  the  conflagration  of  the  world,  is  that  in 
times  of  pestilence  the  confessor  can  consult  his  own  safety  by  having 
the  dying  sinner  brought  to  a  window,  or  can  keep  aloof  from  the 
bed,  when  the  penitent  must  speak  aloud  and  others  can  hear  his 
confession.  In  such  cases,  however,  the  confession  of  a  single  sin 
suffices  and  absolution  can  be  given  from  a  safe  distance.2 

To  be  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  seal,  confessions  must  be 
genuine  and  sacramental,  uttered  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  abso 
lution.  Confession  may  be  made  from  other  motives,  and  in  such 
case  the  seal  does  not  operate.  The  test  is  the  intention  of  the  peni 
tent,  and  this  affords  a  wide  field  for  the  fine-drawn  distinctions  of 


1  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  877-80.— Benzi  Praxis,  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii.  Art.  3, 
n.  22.— Casus  Conscient.  Bened.  PP.  XIV.  Jun.  1737,  cas.  3.— S.  Alph.  de 
Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  654.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  667-8.— 
Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvui.  cap.  iv.  Art.  7,  \  2. 

Somewhat  similar  is  the  answer  of  Benedict  XIV.  (Casus  Conscient.  Aug. 
1739,  cas.  3)  to  the  question  whether  a  priest  violates  the  seal  if  he  asks  a 
friend  going  to  the  cathedral  city  to  procure  for  him  a  faculty  to  absolve  for 
incest.  He  says  it  depends  on  the  size  of  the  town  or  village,  so  that  the 
friend  may  or  may  not  be  led  to  suspect  the  penitent. 

2  Laymann  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  v.  Tract,  vi.  cap.  13,  n.  3. 

I.— 29 


450  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 


the  casuists.1  The  confessional  was  occasionally  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  secrecy,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  387)  done  by  the 
Spanish  Jesuits,  who,  as  theologians,  must  have  known  that  the  device 
was  not  only  sacrilegious  but  ineffective  in  so  far  as  their  own  con 
sciences  were  concerned.  This  device,  however,  was  not  of  their 
invention,  but  was  resorted  to  almost  as  soon  as  the  seal  was  estab 
lished,  for,  in  1279,  Archbishop  Peckham  of  Canterbury,  seeking  aid 
from  Rome  to  discipline  a  licentious  bishop,  who  had  five  children  by 
a  concubine,  writes  that  the  offender  had  admitted  his  guilt  in  a  pri 
vate  interview  and  had  then  claimed  for  it  the  seal  of  the  confessional.2 
All  this  naturally  led  to  the  practice  of  confiding  secrets  to  priests 
under  the  seal,  though  not  in  confession.  It  is  generally,  though  not 
universally,  admitted  that  such  confidences  are  not  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  the  seal,  but  there  has  been  considerable  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to  the  precise  degree  of  obligation  incurred  by  the  priest 
who  listens  under  such  a  condition,  expressed  or  implied.  Some 
moralists  hold  that  although  it  is  not  the  seal  it  is  as  binding  as  the 
seal,  others  that  it  is  entitled  to  the  natural  seal,  others  that  it  is  less 
effective  than  an  oath  of  secrecy  and  can  be  revealed  in  case  of  neces 
sity  or  at  the  command  of  a  superior.  Father  Sayre  tells  us  that  in 
his  time  (1605)  it  was  a  common  practice,  even  between  laymen,  and 
that  the  belief  in  its  sanctity  was  a  widely  spread  vulgar  error.3 

In  a  priesthood  like  that  of  the  middle  ages,  so  largely  composed 
of  men  corrupt  and  ignorant  of  their  duties,  it  was  manifestly  impos 
sible  that  violations  of  the  seal  should  not  be  of  frequent  occurrence. 
Carelessness,  malice,  intoxication,  garrulity — numerous  motives  more 
or  less  innocent — rendered  the  enforcement  of  the  precept  a  difficult 


1  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iv.  $  12.— N.  de  Auxirno 
in  Summ.  Pisanellam  s.  v.  Confessionis  Celatio.— Vittorelli  in  Toleti  Instruct. 
Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  7.— Juenin.  de  Sacrarnentis  Diss.  VI.  Q.  5,  cap.  6, 
Art.  4,  g  3.— Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  798.— Benzi,  Praxis  Disp.  n.  Q.  vii. 
Art.  2.— Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  648. 

2  Wilkins  Concilia  II.  40. 

3  S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  iii.  Art.  1.— Summa  Pisanella  s. 
v.  Confessionis  Celatio  n.  6  cum  not.  Nich.  de  Ausimo.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v. 
Confessionis  Celatio  $  3.  — Caietani  Summula  s.  v.  Confessori  necessaria.— Toleti 
Instruct.  Sacerd.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xvi.  n.  7.— Henriquez  Summae  Theol.  Moral. 
Lib.  vi.  cap.  xxi.  n.  3.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvni.  Art.  iv.  n. 
7.— Sayri  Clavis  Regia  Sacerd.  Lib.  xn.  cap.  xvi.  n.  15. 


VIOLATIONS.  451 

matter,  to  be  effected  only  by  effort  extending  through  centuries. 
For  this  conclusion  we  are  not  left  wholly  to  a  priori  reasoning, 
though  cases  of  infraction  were  rarely  of  a  nature  to  find  place  in  the 
chronicles  of  the  period.  Ample  evidence  exists  in  the  complaints 
of  those  who  were  busied  in  introducing  and  enforcing  the  rule. 
Prior  to  the  Lateran  canon,  Alain  de  Lille  advises  penitents  not  to 
confess  to  priests  notorious  for  revealing  the  sins  confessed  to  them ; 
if  the  parish  priest  is  one  of  these,  his  licence  should  be  obtained  to 
seek  another  confessor.1  The  threats  embodied  in  the  Lateran  canon 
did  not  mend  matters  speedily.  William  of  Paris  says  that  no  one 
is  bound  to  confess  when  the  confessor  is  a  traitor  and  publisher  of 
confessions ;  at  the  most,  when  the  parish  priest  is  such,  only  those 
sins  should  be  confessed  to  him  of  which  the  knowledge  can  work  no 
evil  to  his  subjects,  and  a  licence  be  sought  from  him  or  from  the 
bishop  to  confess  elsewhere.2  Not  long  after  this  occurred  a  notorious 
case,  well-known  to  theologians  and  historians.  The  Dominican 
Berenguer  de  Castel-Bisbal,  Bishop  of  Gerona,  was  confessor  to 
Jayme  I,  el  Conquistador,  of  Aragon,  and,  according  to  the  latter' s 
statement  to  Innocent  IV.,  treacherously  betrayed  him  by  revealing 
a  secret  learned  in  the  confessional.  The  royal  wrath  was  savagely 
gratified  by  cutting  out  a  part  or  the  whole  of  the  culprit's  tongue 
and  banishing  him,  a  violation  of  clerical  immunity  which  subjected 
the  king  to  excommunication,  when,  like  Henry  II.  of  England,  he 
was  glad  to  purchase  absolution  by  conceding  partial  exemption  from 
secular  law  to  ecclesiastics  and  by  making  enormous  gifts  to  the 
monastery  of  Bonifaza  and  to  the  hospital  of  S.  Vicente  at  Valencia.3 
Even  when  there  was  sufficient  reticence  to  withhold  the  names  of 
penitents,  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa  complains  that  many  priests  gos 
siped  so  recklessly  about  confessions  made  to  them  that  identifica 
tion  of  individuals  was  easy  and  that  sinners  were  thus  largely 
deterred  from  confession.4  This  dread  of  priestly  garrulity  was  a 
considerable  factor  in  the  success  as  confessors  of  the  intruding 
Mendicants,  for,  at  least  in  the  earlier  period,  they  were  regarded 


1  Alani  de  Insulis  Lib.  de  Poenit.  (Migne  OCX.  304). 
'2  Guill.  Parisiens.  de  Sacr.  Pcenit.  cap.  2. 

3  Espaiia  Sagrada,   XLIV.   22-27,    279-87.— Concil.   Ilerdense   ann.    1246 
(Aguirre,  V.  194).— Raynald.  Annal.  ann.  1246,  n.  43-48.— Caramuelis  Theol. 
Fundam.  n.  1841. 

4  Hostiens.  Aurese  Surnmse  Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Remiss.  $  52. 


452  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 


as  more  strict  than  the  secular  clergy  in  the  observance  of  the  rule.1 
That  it  was  not  a  mere  presumptive  fear  of  indiscretion,  but  a  well- 
founded  apprehension  based  on  experience,  is  seen  by  the  efforts  of 
the  local  councils  during  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  to 
enforce  the  observance  of  the  precept  (p.  422),  while  even  until  the 
sixteenth  century  the  list  of  interrogations  drawn  up  for  the  exam 
ination  of  priests  in  the  confessional  contain  an  inquiry  as  to  the 
violation  of  the  seal2 — evidently  it  was  one  of  the  offences  custom 
arily  expected  of  them.  Erasmus  alludes  to  the  garrulity  of  con 
fessors  as  a  matter  of  common  notoriety,3  and  this  is  confirmed  by 
the  constant  reiteration  in  the  manuals  and  text-books  down  to  the 
present  time,  of  the  dictum  of  William  of  Paris — that  the  penitent 
who  knows  by  experience  that  his  parish  priest  is  a  revealer  of  con 
fessions,  or  has  a  reason  to  fear  it  in  his  own  case,  is  excused  from 
confessing  to  him ;  if  he  can  find  another  priest  to  shrive  him  he  can 
do  so ;  if  not,  let  him  confess  only  such  matters  as  will  not  injure 
him  or  others  if  divulged.4  La  Croix  emphasizes  it  by  saying  that 
a  penitent  feeling  certain  that  his  confessor  will  reveal  his  sins  to  a 
single  person  is  not  bound  to  confess  to  him  even  on  the  death-bed, 
when,  if  assured  of  his  own  contrition,  he  can  confess  some  venials,  and 
thus  receive  indirect  absolution.5  There  is  ample  evidence  that  these 
provisions  were  not  framed  merely  to  meet  a  speculative  difficulty. 
Bartolome"  de  Medina  speaks  of  the  evils  wrought  in  Spain  by  im 
modest  confessors  who  violate  the  seal  and  bring  shame  upon  the 
ministry  and  contempt  for  its  functions.6  In  1604  the  council  of 
Cambrai  felt  it  necessary  to  prohibit  priests  from  gossiping  together 
about  the  confessions  which  they  had  heard,  and,  in  1699,  the  council 


1  S.  Bonaventurse  Tract.  Quare  Fratres  Minores  prsedicent. 

2  B.  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  926.— Somma  Pacifica  cap.  xxii.— Confession- 
ario  breve  y  muy  provechoso,  cap.  xii. 

3  "  Sunt  enim  permulti,  quod  compertum  est,  qui,  quod  accipiunt  in  confes- 
sionibus  effutiunt." — Erasmi  Colloq.  Confab,  pia. 

4  S.  Bonaventurse  Confessionale  Cap.  iv.  Partic.  1.— Manip.  Curator.  P.  u. 
Tit.  iii.  Cap.  4.— Joannis  de  Janua  Sumrnae  s.  v.  Confessio.— Summa  Pisanella 
s.  v.  Confessio  m.  n.  4.— S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xiv.  Cap.  19,  g  8.— 
Saulii  Comment,  in  Savonarolse  Confessionale  fol.  85a.— Clericati  de  Pcenit. 
Decis.  xxni.  n.  11.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  673.— Bonal 
Institt.  Theol.  T.  IV.  n.  246. 

6  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1190. 

6  Bart,  a  Medina  Instruct.  Confessar.  Lib.  II.  cap.  4. 


VIOLATIONS.  453 

of  Naples  tried  to  restrain  the  evil  by  cautioning  them  not  to  reveal 
confessions.1  That  these  efforts  were  not  uncalled  for  may  be  guessed 
from  the  rebuke  uttered  by  S.  Leonardo  da  Porto  Maurizio  of  the 
indiscretion  of  those  priests  who  freely  chatter  about  matters  heard 
in  confession  as  though  they  were  the  current  talk  of  the  streets.2 
Lochon,  in  1708,  tells  us  that  he  is  induced  to  write  his  book  by  the 
indiscretion  of  many  priests  and  the  uncertainty  felt  by  the  faithful 
whether  their  confessions  will  be  held  secret — in  fact,  he  says,  that 
many  priests  make  confessions  the  staple  of  their  talk,  speaking 
without  reticence  at  table  and  elsewhere  of  their  granting  or  with 
holding  the  absolution  of  individuals,  gossiping  about  the  family  affairs 
and  defects  of  their  penitents  and  violating  the  seal  without  scruple, 
even  though  not  revealing  the  sins  confessed,  besides  which  they 
often  take  when  preaching  the  opportunity  of  humiliating  those 
against  whom  they  have  a  grudge.3  Matters  were  no  better  in  Italy, 
for  Pittoni  states  that  the  imprudent  garrulity  of  confessors  is  the 
cause  of  constant  scandals.4  The  action  of  several  recent  councils 
would  appear  to  justify  the  inference  that  even  yet  the  seal  of  the 
confessional  is  not  observed  as  rigorously  as  might  be  desirable.5 

Apart  from  these  generalities,  individual  cases,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  offence,  are  not  apt  to  be  known  or  recorded,  but^I 
have  met  with  a  few  which  serve  to  indicate  that  they  are  by  no 
means  unexampled.  One  which,  by  its  public  nature,  attracted  some 
attention  at  the  time,  occurred  in  1331  as  an  incident  of  the  affair 
which  drove  to  England  Robert  d'Artois,  brother-in-law  of  Philippe 
de  Valois,  and  thus  contributed  to  the  hundred  years7  war.  In  the 
endeavor  to  bolster  up  claims  to  Artois,  which  he  had  renounced, 
Robert  produced  sundry  forged  documents.  They  were  pronounced 
fraudulent,  a  woman  who  had  fabricated  them  for  him  was  burnt, 


1  C.  Cameracens.  ami.  1604,  Tit.  vin.  cap.  8  (Hartzheim  VIII.  594).— C. 
Neapolit.  ann.  1699,  Tit.  in.  cap.  5,  n.  6  (Coll.  Lacens.  I.  185). 

2  S.  Leonardo  da  P.  M.,  Discorso  Mistico  e  Morale,  $  xxx. 

3  Lochon,  Traite  du  Secret,  Preface,  pp.  59-60,  63,  71.— See  also  Summae 
Alexandrinse  P.  I.  n.  570. 

4  Pittoni   Constitutiones   Pontificise,   T.   VII.  n.  345. — "Confessarii  igitur 
omnino  linguam  contineant,  quia  ex  eorum  imprudenti  loquacitate  ssepissime 
gravissima  oriuntur  scandala." 

6  C.  Senonens.  ann.  1850,  Tit.  in.  cap.  5 ;  C.  Lauretan.  ann.  1850,  Sect.  iv. 
n.  25;  C.  Venet.  ann.  1859,  P.  in.  cap.  xxii.  §  5  (Coll.  Lacens.  IV.  892;  VI. 
334,785). 


454  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

and  he  fled  to  the  Duke  of  Brabant.  In  the  course  of  his  trial  his 
confessor,  a  Dominican  named  Jean  Aubery,  was  seized  and  refused 
to  reveal  what  he  had  learned  in  confession,  but  on  being  pressed 
consented  to  speak  if  he  could  be  assured  by  masters  in  theology  that 
he  could  do  so  with  a  good  conscience.  An  assembly  of  theologians 
was  held  in  the  palace  of  the  Bishop  of  Paris,  presided  over  by  Pierre 
de  la  Palu,  the  foremost  theologian  of  France,  then  recently  created 
Patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  In  his  writings  Pierre  construes  rigidly  the 
obligations  of  the  seal,  but  on  this  occasion  he  argued  that  the  con 
fessor  could  and  ought  to  reveal  what  he  knew  ;  only  sins  are  covered 
by  the  seal,  but  this  was  not  a  sin  but  the  manifestation  of  the  truth, 
necessary  for  justice  and  the  peace  of  the  realm,  for  which  he  would 
deserve  reward.  All  the  masters  present  assented,  Jean  promised  to 
testify  and  was  assured  that  he  would  be  recommended  to  the  king. 
He  was  carried  before  the  officials  and  revealed  all  he  knew,  after 
which  he  was  remanded  back  to  prison  and  was  never  seen  again — a 
martyr  of  the  system  if  not  of  the  seal.1 

The  next  century  affords  an  example  in  which  there  was  even 
higher  authority  for  the  violation  of  the  seal,  for  the  confessor  in 
this  case  was  a  cardinal,  who,  under  dispensation  from  Eugenius  IV., 
revealed  a  confession  the  knowledge  of  which  was  important  to  the 
papal  policy  of  the  moment.  In  this  case  Prierias  is  the  apologist, 
and  argues  that  it  was  for  legitimate  cause  and  beneficial  to  some  one, 
even  though  not  to  the  penitent — and,  besides,  the  penitent  could 
also  have  revealed  it  himself.2  Several  cases  occurring  in  the  six 
teenth  century  may  be  noted.  The  plot  of  the  Constable  Bourbon 
against  Francis  I.  is  said  to  have  been  discovered  through  the  reve 
lation  of  a  confessor  to  whom  it  was  confided,  though  the  story  is 
told  in  different  ways.3  In  Spain,  St.  Thomas  of  Vilanova,  when 
Archbishop  of  Valencia,  interfered  to  save  a  murderer  who  had  by 
mischance  confessed  to  a  brother  of  his  victim  and  had  consequently 


1  Guillel.  Nangis  Con  tin.  ann.  1331. 

2  Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessio  in.  $  2. 

3  De  Thou  (Hist.  Universelle  Liv.  in.)  states  that  the  Seigneur  de  S.  Valier, 
father  of  Diane  de  Poitiers,  was  concerned  in  the  plot  and  was  betrayed  by 
his  confessor.     Pasquier  (Recherches  de  la  France,  Liv.  vill.  ch.  39)  says  that 
two  gentlemen  of  Normandy  were  solicited  to  join  and  refused  ;  they  confessed 
to  a  priest  who  revealed  the  matter  to  Breze,  Seneschal  of  Normandy. 


VIOLATIONS.  455 

been  betrayed ;  in  this  case  the  confessor  was  leniently  punished.1 
Offending  priests  did  not  always  escape  so  easily.  At  Toulouse,  in 
1579,  an  innkeeper  murdered  a  guest  and  buried  the  body  in  the 
cellar :  he  confessed  the  crime  to  a  priest  who,  seduced  by  a  reward 
offered  for  the  detection  of  the  murderer,  denounced  the  criminal  to 
the  magistrates ;  under  torture  the  culprit  confessed  the  crime,  add 
ing  that  no  one  but  the  confessor  could  have  betrayed  him ;  an 
investigation  ensued,  which  resulted  in  the  Parlement  of  Toulouse 
releasing  the  criminal  and  hanging  the  priest,  after  he  had  been 
degraded  by  the  bishop.2  In  this  the  example  was  followed  of  a 
case  occurring  at  Padua  about  1530,  when  the  murderer  was  dis 
charged  and  the  priest  executed  in  Venice.3 

In  the  seventeenth  century  Gobat  happens  to  relate  two  cases  of 
recent  occurrence.  In  one  of  these  a  man  poisoned  his  two  children, 
of  whom  one  died.  Suspicion  arising  he  fled,  but  meeting  a  Domini 
can  of  his  town,  he  relieved  his  conscience  by  confession.  The 
Dominican  reported  it ;  the  man  was  arrested,  tried  and  executed. 
In  another  case  a  woman  tried  for  a  crime  could  not  be  induced  to 
admit  her  guilt.  A  Dominican  visited  her  in  prison  ;  she  confessed 
to  him,  he  revealed  it  to  the  judge,  and  she  was  duly  put  to  death.4 
As  no  punishment  seems  to  have  awaited  the  friars  it  would  appear 
that  the  Teutonic  practice  in  these  matters  differed  from  the  Latin, 
though  perhaps  it  may  be  attributed  rather  to  a  growing  indifference 
to  the  sanctity  of  the  seal,  for  this  is  manifested  in  a  curious  case 
which  occurred,  in  1705,  in  the  diocese  of  Carcassonne.  A  parish 
priest  revealed  a  confession  to  the  wife  of  a  man  whom  the  penitent 
had  injured.  The  affair  became  public  and  the  syndic  of  the  place 
denounced  the  priest  to  the  episcopal  official,  who,  on  conviction, 


1  Lenglet  Du  Fresnoy,  Traite"  du  Secret,  pp.  101-104. 

2  Clericati  de  Poenitent.  Decis.  XLIX.  n.  19.         3  Du  Fresnoy,  op.  cit.  p.  108. 
4  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  778-9.     As  a  Jesuit,  Gobat  naturally  was  not 

averse  to  making  known  the  derelictions  of  Dominicans,  but  he  himself  did 
not  observe  the  prescriptions  of  the  seal,  for  he  tells  us  of  a  peasant  with  whom 
he  had  trouble  in  getting  him  to  define  the  number  of  his  sins.  The  man's 
parish  priest  was  a  penitent  of  Gobat,  who  thus  knew  that  he  was  equally 
negligent  in  confessing,  so  he  instructed  the  rustic  on  his  return  to  the  priest 
to  say  to  him  that  it  was  no  wonder  his  parishioners  confessed  so  badly  since 
he  confessed  so  imperfectly  himself  (Ibid.  n.  444).  As  Gobat  was  a  trained 
theologian  and  an  unusually  experienced  confessor,  his  story  makes  one  doubt 
the  observance  in  practice  of  the  rigid  definitions  of  the  books. 


456  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 

sentenced  him  to  three  years7  residence  in  a  seminary.  The  punish 
ment  was  uncanonically  light,  but  the  priest  appealed  to  the  court 
of  the  metropolitan,  which  set  the  sentence  aside  and  put  the  costs 
on  the  syndic,  who  then  interjected  an  appel  comme  d'abus  to  the 
Parlement  of  Toulouse,  which  decided  that  it  had  no  jurisdiction 
except  to  relieve  the  syndic.1  It  was  not  many  years  after  this  that 
Pere  d'Aubenton  is  said  to  have  revealed  to  the  Regent  Orleans  a 
confession  of  Philip  V.  of  Spain.2 

In  view  of  these  cases  it  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  violation  of 
the  seal  is  so  rarely  included  among  the  heinous  sins  reserved  to 
episcopal  jurisdiction  in  foro  pcenitentice.  I  have  met  with  but  one 
instance  of  it — that  of  the  Abbot  of  Monte  Cassino,  who  possessed 
diocesan  rights  over  a  considerable  territory.3  As  the  list  of  re 
served  sins  is  public,  perhaps  it  is  thought  indiscreet  to  let  it  be 
known  that  such  cases  are  possible.  At  the  same  time  it  is  admitted 
that  they  belong  to  the  class  in  which  par-vitas  materice  cannot  be 
pleaded  in  defence — that  is,  that  the  trifling  nature  of  an  infraction 
will  not  serve  in  extenuation.  Recent  authorities,  however,  tell  us 
that  if  the  danger  of  indirect  revelation  is  very  remote  parvitas  may 
be  urged.4 

The  most  persistent  violators  of  the  seal  were  the  regular  Orders. 
We  have  seen  how  emphatically  monastic  superiors  were  forbidden 
to  make  use  in  any  way  of  knowledge  gained  in  confession.  Yet 
already  in  the  thirteenth  century  the  complaint  was  made  that  they 
arranged  surreptitiously  to  obtain  information  as  to  the  sins  of  their 
subjects  by  establishing  a  code  to  be  used  by  confessors  under  which 
every  offence  had  its  special  penance,  so  that  they  knew  at  once  of 
what  each  member  of  the  house  had  been  guilty.5  Of  course,  knowl 
edge  thus  gained  by  violating  the  seal  would  be  used  without  scruple 
as  to  further  violation.  The  temptation  of  exploiting  the  confes 
sional  for  the  government  of  the  large  and  sometimes  insubordinate 


1  Du  Fresnoy,  op.  cit.  Append,  p.  105. 

2  Gregoire,  Histoire  des  Confesseurs  des  Empereurs  etc.  p.  99. 

3  Jac.  a  Graffiis  de  Casuum  Reservat.  Lib.  n.  cap.  xxxvi.  n.  1. 

4  Alph.  de  Leone  de  Off.  et  Potest.  Confessar.  Recoil,  vn.  n.  43. — Gury 
Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  649.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvn. 
cap.  iv.  art.  7. 

6  Collectio   de  Scandalis    Ecclesiae    (Dollinger,    Beitrage  zur  politischen* 
kirchlichen  und  Cultur-Geschichte,  III.  194). 


INOBSERVANCE  IN  THE  RELIGIOUS  ORDERS.  457 

bodies  of  men  assembled  in  the  religious  Orders  was  sufficient  to 
overcome  all  reverence  for  the  sanctity  of  the  seal.  Its  use  con 
tinued  and  was  reduced  to  a  system  among  the  Jesuits  as  one  of  the 
means  whereby  the  ironclad  discipline  of  the  Society  was  maintained 
and  enforced.  An  inside  view  of  it  is  afforded  by  a  very  curious 
memorial  from  some  Spanish  Jesuits  to  the  Inquisition,  forwarded 
about  1590  by  the  Holy  Office  to  Sixtus  V.  Among  various  com 
plaints  is  one  that  the  Company  of  Jesus  is  governed  through  the 
confessional.  The  ordinary  confessor,  it  is  stated,  can  absolve  only 
for  venial  and  mental  sins.  All  actual  and  mortal  sins  are  reserved 
for  the  Rector  of  the  College  or  his  superior ;  to  this  superior  every 
member  has  to  confess  once  in  six  months,  and  then  repeat  it  yearly 
to  the  provincial  when  he  comes,  and  again  to  the  visitor  when  he 
makes  his  rounds.  All  this  is  in  order  that  the  superiors  may  know 
the  character  of  every  member  and  govern  them  accordingly.  This 
renders  the  sacrament  odious,  it  leads  to  imperfect  confession,  for 
they  argue  that  when  the  seal  is  thus  violated  there  is  no  sin  in  con 
cealing  sins,  and  that  it  is  a  sacrilege  thus  to  abuse  the  sacrament. 
Besides,  many  take  advantage  of  this  when  confessing  to  poison  the 
ear  of  the  superior  with  false  witness  concerning  their  comrades,  and 
as  it  is  all  written  down  and  sent  to  the  General  there  result  many 
unjust  punishments ;  men  are  dishonored  and  debarred  from  ad 
vancement.  It  is  no  unusual  thing  for  a  man  to  be  kept  in  the 
novitiate  for  twenty  or  thirty  years  without  being  admitted  to  pro 
fession.1 

1  Bibl.  Vatican.  MSS.  Ottobonian.  Lat.  n.  495.  As  I  believe  this  remark 
able  document  is  inedited,  a  short  extract  from  it  may  serve  as  a  contribution 
to  the  history  of  the  Company  of  Jesus,  which  is  still  to  be  written. 

"  Con  lo  qual  dizen  hacerse  el  santo  sacramento  de  la  confesion  odioso,  pues 
hazen  que  totas  sus  flaquezas  y  miserias  los  ayan  los  subditos  de  manifiestar 
muchas  vezes  y  a  muchas  personas,  y  para  governarlos  exteriormente,  y  que 
desto  procede  el  detener  a  muchos  religiosos  veinte  y  treinta  anos  sin  admitir- 
los  a  la  profesion,  y  que  el  que  entre  mozo  novicio  se  vee  viejo  y  novicio. 
Dizen  tambien  hazerse  esto  santo  sacramento  pernicioso,  porque  da  ocasion  a 
que  no  se  haga  la  confesion  entera  y  que  se  callen  en  ella  muchas  faltas,  y  aun 
dizen  que  con  tanto  perjuicio  y  dano  de  sus  honrras  y  famas  no  les  obliga  el 
precepto  de  la  integridad  de  esto  santo  sacramento,  y  que  no  peccan  en  dimidiar 
sus  confesiones.  Demas  desto  dizen  este  santo  sacramento  se  haze  sacrilege  de 
parte  de  los  superiores  confesores,  pues  usan  del  para  sus  designias  y  gobierno 
exterior,  y  de  parte  de  los  que  confiesan  pues  dividen  la  confesion,  no  se  con- 
esando  enteramente  con  escrupulo  de  sus  consciencias,  y  que  ay  muchas  quef 


458  THE  SEAL  OF  CONFESSION. 


Sixtus  V.  apparently  took  no  action  on  this  memorial,  but  it  may 
reasonably  be  regarded  as  a  factor  in  inducing  his  successor,  Clem 
ent  VIII.,  to  take  the  subject  into  serious  consideration.  There 
were,  indeed,  theologians  of  authority  who  openly  taught  that  a 
prelate  could  use  for  the  government  of  his  diocese  or  convent  in 
formation  obtained  in  confession  from  his  subjects.1  Nothing  was 
more  conducive  than  this  to  render  confession  odious  among  eccle 
siastics,  and  for  this  reason  conscientious  prelates,  like  S.  Carlo 
Borromeo,  were  accustomed  to  refuse  to  hear  the  confessions  of  their 
subordinates.2  It  was  not  an  easy  matter  for  even  a  pope  to  handle, 
in  view  of  the  powerful  influence  of  the  religious  Orders,  together 
with  the  scandal  to  be  caused  by  proclaiming  that  the  seal  was 
habitually  violated  by  those  who  were  regarded  as  the  bulwarks  of 
the  Church,  and  nothing  but  a  profound  sense  of  the  necessity  could 
have  prompted  Clement  to  action.  Yet,  in  1593,  he  took  the  de 
cisive  step  of  forbidding  superiors,  and  all  confessors  who  might  be 
promoted,  from  using  in  any  manner  whatsoever  the  knowledge 
gained  in  confession  for  the  external  government  of  their  Orders. 
It  argued  a  lack  of  confidence  in  their  obedience  that  to  check  the 
abuse  of  which  the  Spanish  Jesuits  complained — that  the  ordinary 
confessor  was  practically  divested  of  authority  in  the  confessional  by 
the  extension  of  reservations — that  he  moreover  limited  the  power 
to  decree  reserved  cases.  Of  these  he  prescribed  eleven  and  forbade 
their  increase  save  by  general  chapters,  and  soon  afterwards  he  prac 
tically  abolished  even  these  by  decreeing  that  if  the  superior  refused 
to  grant  a  faculty  for  a  reserved  case,  the  confessor  could  absolve 
without  it.3  That  Urban  VIII.  was  obliged  to  publish  anew 


so  color  de  confesiones  dizen  de  otros  al  superior  quando  se  confiesan  testi 
monies  falsos,  como  saben  que  su  gobierno  es  de  confesiones  y  que  el  superior 
los  a  de  creer  y  escriverlo  al  General,  y  que  asi  se  an  visto  muchos  testimonios 
lebantados  y  muchos  castigos  sin  culpa,  de  donde  se  sigue  que  las  faltas  y  cay- 
das  en  la  dicha  compaiiia  perpetuamente  estan  en  pie  y  dexan  el  hornbre  sin 
credito." 

For  an  account  of  these  troubles  and  of  those  alluded  to  above  (p.  386),  from 
the  Jesuit  point  of  view,  see  Carlo  Borgo's  Memoria  Cattollca,  pp.  91  sqq.,  Cos- 
mopoli  (Roma)  1780. 

1  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  VI.  Q  5,  cap.  6,  art.  4,  \  3. 

2  Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Decis.  xxxix.  n.  3. 

3  Clement  PP.  VIII.  Deer.  26  Maii,  1593  (Bullar.  IV.  68,  inter  Constitt. 


INOBSERVANCE  IN  THE  RELIGIOUS  ORDERS.  459 

Clement's  legislation  shows  how  stubborn  was  the  opposition  which 
it  excited,  but  it  has  remained  since  then  the  law  of  the  Church,  and 
the  prohibition  to  use  knowledge  gained  in  confession  is  construed  as 
applying  to  secular  prelates  as  well  as  to  regular.1 


Urban!  VIII.). — Bernard!  a  Bononia  Man.  Confessar.  Ord.  Capuccin.  cap.  5, 
I  2.— La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1600,  1602  sqq. 

The  eleven  specified  reserved  cases  are  apostasy,  furtively  leaving  the  house 
at  night,  sorcery,  mortal  theft  of  property  of  the  house,  ownership  in  violation 
of  vow  of  poverty,  consummated  carnal  sin,  perjury  in  court,  complicity  in 
procuring  abortion,  homicide  or  wounding,  forgery  of  the  signature  or  seal  of 
the  house,  and  interfering  with  letters  between  the  superior  and  his  subjects. 

The  Jesuits,  in  their  fifth  general  congregation,  held  in  1595,  forthwith 
added  nine  more  cases. — Quintse  Congr.  Gen.  Deer.  51,  57,  64  (Decreta  Congr. 
Gen.,  Antverpise,  1635,  pp.  311,  322,  328).  Cf.  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi. 
P.  ii.  n.  1668), 

Human  perversity  could  always  be  relied  upon  to  turn  to  its  account  what 
ever  measures  were  taken  to  check  disorder.  The  system  of  reserved  cases 
which  Clement  VIII.  thus  virtually  abrogated  had  been  adopted  by  Martin  V- 
in  1430,  as  one  of  the  means  of  enforcing  the  much  needed  reform  of  the  Con 
ventual  Franciscans,  when  he  declared  contumacious  disobedience,  holding  of 
private  property,  lapses  of  the  flesh,  violence,  false  witness,  libelling,  forgery 
of  seals  and  false  accusations  to  be  reserved  to  the  provincial  ministers. — 
Martini  PP.  V.  Bull.  Own  generate,  RegulaB  cap.  7  (Bullar.  I.  311). 

1  Gury  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  II.  670. 


CHAPTBE    XIV. 

ABSOLUTION. 

ALTHOUGH,  in  a  general  way,  absolution  has  been  referred  to  in 
preceding  chapters,  there  is  much  concerning  it  which  requires  fur 
ther  consideration  if  we  would  understand  the  evolution  of  sacerdo 
talism  leading  to  the  existing  theory  and  practice  of  the  Church. 

We  have  seen  that  in  primitive  times  there  was  nothing  to  cor 
respond  with  the  modern  conception  of  absolution — the  pardon  or 
remission  of  sin  by  one  human  being  to  another.  There  was  recon 
ciliation  to  the  Church,  but  there  Avas  no  assumption  that  this 
reconciliation  included  or  inferred  justification — the  reconciliation  of 
the  sinner  to  God.  Yet  penitence  entitled  the  repentant  sinner  to 
the  mediation  of  the  Church,  including  its  ministers  and  the  congre 
gation,  and  this  mediation  was  held  to  be  an  efficient  factor  in 
placating  the  Deity.  From  an  early  period  the  prayers  of  the  just 
were  regarded  as  the  most  available  means  of  supplementing  the 
repentance  of  the  sinner  and  of  inducing  God  to  avert  from  him  the 
sentence  of  perdition.  The  congregation  joined  in  prayer  over  the 
penitents  during  the  term  of  penance  and  at  the  ceremony  of  recon 
ciliation.  The  intercession  of  all  was  sought,  but  that  martyrs  and 
saints  and  finally  priests  came  to  be  regarded  as  peculiarly  efficient 
mediators  was  a  natural  development  of  a  religion  which  was  con 
stantly  becoming  more  contaminated  with  pagan  elements  and  more 
anthropomorphic  in  its  conception  of  the  Divine  Being. 

We  have  already  seen  how  gradual  was  the  growth  of  belief  in  the 
power  of  the  keys  and  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  pretensions 
of  the  priests  reproved  by  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Isidor  of  Pelusium, 
the  Church  through  its  authoritative  expositors  for  a  long  while  there 
after  made  no  positive  claim  for  its  ministers  of  the  power  of  remit 
ting  sin.  That  was  a  heresy  of  the  Donatists,  fittingly  rebuked  by 
St.  Augustin.  When  they  presumed  to  use  the  "  indicative  "  form 
of  absolution,  which  Latin  Christianity  adopted  only  in  the  thir 
teenth  century,  he  declared  it  to  be  fatuous  and  heretical,  for  it  is 


INTERCESSION.  461 

God  who  pardons  and  not  the  priest.1  Priests  could  pray  over  the 
repentant  sinner  and  implore  for  him  the  rnercy  of  God,  but  that  was 
all,  and  no  one  ventured  to  define  the  exact  value  of  their  prayers : 
they  simply  did  all  that  they  could  and  the  penitent  could  ask  no 
more.  So  careful,  indeed,  were  the  Fathers  from  usurping  the  func 
tions  of  God  that  even  the  formula  of  baptism  was  purely  deprecatory, 
and  the  words  "  I  baptize  thee  "  do  not  make  their  appearance  until 
the  seventh  century.2 

Leo  I.  only  knows  a  supplicatory  power  as  belonging  to  the 
bishops,  though  he  assumes  that  the  prayers  of  the  Church  procure 
reconciliation  to  God.3  The  biographer  of  St.  Hilary  of  Aries  de- 


1  S.  Augustln.  Serm.  xcix.  cap.  8. 

2  The  oldest  Sacramentary  dates  from  the  close  of  the  fifth  century :  it  does 
not  give  the  details  of  the  baptismal  rite,  but,  in  the  mass  following,  the  remis 
sion  of  sins  in  it  is  ascribed  wholly  to  God — "  quos  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu  sancto 
regenerare  dignatus  es  tribuens  eis  remissionem  omnium  peccatorum." — Sacram. 
Leonianum  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  I.  p.  522). 

The  next,  which  is  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  gives  the  whole  ritual. 
It  contains  no  "  Ego  te  baptizo,"  but  as  the  neophyte  emerges  from  the  third 
plunge  the  priest  utters  the  prayer  "  Deus  omnipotens,  pater  Domini  Nostri 
Jesu  Christi,  qui  te  regeneravit  ex  aqua  et  Spiritu  sancto  quique  dedit  tibi 
remissionem  omnium  peccatorum,  Ipse  te  lineat  Chrismate  salutis  in  Christo 
Jesu  in  vitani  seternam." — Sacram.  Gelasianuui,  Lib.  I.  n.  Ixxv.  (Muratori 
XIII.  n.  169). 

In  the  subsequent  Sawamentarium  Gregorianum  (Muratori,  loc.  cit.  pp.  745, 
914)  the  priest,  when  making  the  immersion,  says  "  Ego  te  baptizo  in  nomine 
Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  sancti "  while  retaining  the  rest  of  the  formula,  and 
this  incongruous  mixture  of  indicative  and  deprecatory  elements  is  still  re 
tained  (Rituale  Rornanum,  Tit.  II.  cap.  2),  as  we  shall  see  is  also  the  case  in 
the  absolution  formula. 

The  parallel  has  its  interest,  for  when  Aquinas  was  battling  with  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  newly-introduced  indicative  formula  of  absolution,  he  argued 
(Opusc.  xxn.)  that  as  in  baptism  the  priest  says  "  Ego  te  baptizo,"  so  in  ab 
solving  he  should  say  "  Ego  te  absolve,"  ignorant  that  both  were  equally  destitute 
of  early  authority. 

In  the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction  the  deprecatory  form  has  been  pre 
served,  in  spite  of  some  attempts  to  modify  it  in  the  same  way  (Hit.  Eornan. 
Tit.  v.  cap.  2— Concil.  Trident  Sess.  xiv.  De  extrema  Unctione  cap.  1.— Bened. 
PP.  XIV.  De  Synodo  Dicecesan.  Lib.  vin.  cap.  2).  There  is  good  reason  for 
this  in  the  fact  that  part  of  the  function  of  this  sacrament  is  to  restore  the  sick 
to  health  in  fulfilment  of  the  promise  in  James  v.  14,  and,  as  in  this  case  the 
result  is  known,  it  is  manifestly  wiser  to  leave  the  whole  responsibility  with  God 

3  Leonis  PP.  I.  Epist.  cvm.  cap.  2  (Ad  Theodor.) — "  indulgentia  Dei  nisi 


462  ABSOLUTION. 


scribes  him  only  as  praying  over  his  penitents.1  A  sermon  attributed 
to  St.  Csesarius  of  Aries  argues  that  private  penance  is  much  less 
efficient  than  public  because  in  the  latter  the  penitent  attains  remis 
sion  of  sins  through  the  prayers  of  the  congregation  moved  to  pity 
by  the  sight  of  his  humiliation ;  it  would  be  a  doubt  of  God's  mercy 
to  suppose  that  such  prayers  are  ineffectual.2  Evidently  the  good 
saint  had  never  heard  of  priestly  absolution  or  any  formula  for  its 
ministration. 

We  have  seen  that  with  the  introduction  of  the  Penitentials  there 
came  closer  relations  between  priests  and  their  penitents,  accompanied 
with  the  gradual  invasion  of  private  confession  and  penance  upon 
the  public  ceremonies  with  which  the  Church  had  been  accustomed 
to  administer  reconciliation.  Further  details  of  this  change  will  be 
more  conveniently  considered  hereafter ;  for  our  present  purpose  it 
suffices  to  allude  to  the  struggle  between  the  bishops  and  the  priests, 
in  which  the  former  retained  jurisdiction  over  public  and  notorious 
crimes  and  abandoned  to  the  latter  private  sins  made  known  only 
through  secret  confession,  except  in  such  cases  as  came  to  be  known 
as  reserved.  Yet  as  the  priests  had  not  yet  received  in  ordination 
the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  they  were  merely  at  liberty  to  give 


supplicationibus  sacerdotum  nequeat  obtineri."     So  again  (Epist.  CLXXI.  cap. 
1,  ad  Timoth.)  "  reconciliandos  Deo  per  Ecclesise  preces  instanter  acquiras." 

1  Vit.  S.  Hilar.  Arelatens.  cap.  xiii.  (Migne,  L.  1233). 

2  S.  Augustin.  Sermones,  Append.  Serm.  civ.  n.  7;   CCLXI.  n.  2  (Migne, 
XXXIX.  1948,  2228). 

A  bull  of  Boniface  IV.  (608-615)  has  been  customarily  cited  to  prove  the 
early  existence  of  sacramental  absolution.  It  runs  "  Sunt  nonnulli  fulti  nullo 
dogmate,  audacissime  quidem  zelo  magis  amaritudinis  quam  dilectione  innam- 
mati  asserentes  Monachos,  qui  mundo  mortui  sunt  et  Deo  vivunt,  sacerdotalis 
officii  potentia  indignos,  neque  poenitentiam  neque  Christianitatem  largiri, 
neque  absolvere  posse  per  divinitus  injunctam  sacerdotali  officio  potestatem. 
Sed  omnino  labuntur."  It  is  attributed  to  a  synod  which  Bede  (H.  E.  Lib.  n. 
cap.  4)  says  was  held  by  Boniface  IV.  "  de  vita  monachorum  et  quiete  ordina- 
turus,"  and  is  given  as  such  in  the  collections  (Harduin.  III.  585;  Migne, 
LXXX.  104)  and  the  later  canonists  (Ivon.  Deer.  vii.  22 ;  Gratian.  cap.  25, 
Caus.  xvi.  Q.  1).  It  is,  however,  a  manifest  forgery  (Jaffe,  p.  939) ;  no  other 
acts  of  the  council  have  reached  us,  and  this  is  only  found  in  two  MSS.  the 
recensions  of  which  differ  considerably.  It  is  borrowed  from  a  canon  of  the 
council  of  Nimes,  held  by  Urban  II.  in  1096  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1749)  as  part 
of  the  struggle  alluded  to  (p.  298)  between  the  regulars  and  seculars,  and  its 
attribution  to  Boniface  IV.  to  give  it  greater  antiquity  was  doubtless  suggested 
by  the  passage  in  Bede. 


DEPRECATORY  FORMULAS.  463 

such  comfort  as  they  could  to  penitents  by  praying  over  them  and 
interceding  for  them  with  God.  The  formulas  of  so-called  absolu 
tion  in  the  rituals  and  Po3iiitentials  and  Ordines  have  been  preserved 
in  great  numbers  and,  until  the  eleventh  century  was  well  advanced, 
are  all  merely  prayers  to  God  to  grant  pardon  to  the  sinner,1  nor 
did  they  restore  him  to  communion,  for  that  was  regulated  by  the 
length  of  penance  imposed.  Some  of  them  are  elaborate,  in  others 
the  ceremony  is  exceedingly  simple,  after  the  prolouged  preliminaries 
had  been  performed ;  priest  and  penitent  prostrated  themselves  and 
prayed ;  then  they  consulted  together  as  to  the  penitence  to  be  im 
posed  ;  the  priest  merely  said  "  May  God  guard  thee  from  all  evil," 
etc.,  and  dismissed  the  sinner.2  Prayer  is  the  only  means  of  obtain 
ing  pardon  for  the  sinner  alluded  to  in  the  statutes  which  pass  under 
the  name  of  St.  Boniface  and  in  the  Rule  of  St.  Chrodegang;3 
Alcuin  alludes  only  to  it,4  and  even  Benedict  the  Levite  knoAvs  of 
nothing  else,  except  the  imposition  of  hands  for  public  sinners  recon 
ciled  and  absolved  from  excommunication.5  So  thoroughly  was  this 


1  Sacramentarium  Gregorianurn  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  n.  pp.  882-9, 
833-4,  916).— Sacramentarium  vetus  (Migne  CLI.  865-8).— Liturg.  Fontanel- 
lens  (Ibid.  p.  914).— Wasserschleben,  Bussordnungen,  pp.  252,  302,  349,  363, 
376,  389,  411,  423,  426,  437,  551,  666.— Morin.  de  Pcenitentia,  Append,  pp.  19, 
25,  51,  55.— Martene  de  antiq.  Eccles.  Eitibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7.— Fez, 
Thesaur.  Anecd.  II.  II.  661.— Burchardi  Decreti  Lib.  xix.  cap.  7. 

It  was  the  same  in  the  Greek  Church.  See  the  Libellus  Pcenitentialis  ascribed 
to  John  the  Faster  (Morin.  Append,  pp.  80-2,  94).  A  Greek  Ordo  of  uncertain 
date  expressly  disclaims  all  power  to  remit  sins — "  Ego  hurnilis  et  peccator 
sum :  illius  qui  mese  humilitati  confitetur  peccata  super  terram  diinittere  non 
valeo.  Nullus  est  qui  peccata  dimittere  possit  nisi  solus  Deus  .  .  .  Deus 
tibi  dimittat  in  hoc  saeculo  et  in  futuro.  Vade  in  pace."  (Ibid.  p.  120). 

2  "  Et  dicitur  ei  capitulum :  Dominus  custodiat  te  ab  omni  malo  et  reliqua,  et 
relinquas  eum."— Pcenit.  Sangallens.  (Wasserschleben,  p.  426)— Poenit.  Floria- 
cens.  (Ibid.  p.  423). 

3  S.  Bonifacii  Statuta  cap.  31  (D'Achery  Spicileg.  I.  509).— Reg.  S.  Chrode- 
gangi  cap.  32  (Migne,  LXXXIX.  1073)  — "Tune  da  illi  pcenitentiam  canonice 
mensuratam  et  postea  effunda  super  eum  orationes  et  preces." 

4  Alcuini  Epist.  cxn.— "  Quatenus   orationibus   illius  nostrae  confessionis 
oblatio  Deo  acceptabilis  fiat  et  remissionem  ab  eo  accipiamus  cui  est  sacrificium 
spiritus  contribulatus." 

5  Bened.  Levitse  Capital .  Lib.  v.  cap.  116.— "Ut  divinis  precibus  et  misera- 
tionibus  absolutus  a  suis  facinoribus  mereatur ;  quoniam  sine  manus  impositione 
nemo  absolvitur  ligatus." 

Here  imposition  of  hands  absolves  from  excommunication ;  the  absolution 
from  sin  comes  from  God. 


464  ABSOLUTION. 

understood  that  after  confession  the  penitent  was  instructed  to  ask 
not  for  absolution  but  for  prayer  and  intercession,  so  that  God  might 
deign  to  grant  him  pardon.1  The  function  thus  performed  was  some 
times  called  "  repropitiation  "  to  indicate  that,  by  the  efforts  of  the 
priest,  God  was  again  rendered  propitious  to  the  sinner.2  Theodulf 
of  Orleans  treats  confession  merely  as  an  appeal  to  the  priest  for 
counsel  and  aid,  so  that  by  mutual  prayer  or  the  performance  of 
penance  the  stains  of  sin  may  be  washed  away.3  When,  in  850,  the 
council  of  Pavia  denied  that  priests  had  any  power  of  the  keys  it  did 
not  forbid  them  to  continue  praying  over  their  penitents  as  they  had 
been  doing  for  two  centuries,  thus  assuming  that  the  prayers  were 
only  intercessory,4  and  this  is  emphasized  by  the  synod  of  Douzi,  in 
874,  which  asserted  that  the  priest  has  no  more  power  over  the  sins 
of  others  than  over  his  own — he  can  only  pray  alike  for  either.5  So 
little  importance,  indeed,  was  ascribed  to  these  ceremonies,  and  so 
foreign  as  yet  was  the  idea  that  they  were  essential  to  the  pardon  of 
sin,  that  Charlemagne,  in  ordering  a  general  fast  and  prayer  for 
famine,  pestilence  and  war,  orders  his  subjects  to  fit  themselves  for 
it,  not  by  confession  and  absolution,  but  by  cleansing  their  souls  for 
themselves  by  repentance  and  tears  and  abstaining  from  sin  here- 


1  "  Domino  Deo  confessus  sum  et  tibi  Deo  amico  et  sacerdoti,  et  rogo  te  cum 
humilitate  ut  digneris  orare  pro  me  infelici  et  indigno  ut  mihi  dignetur  per 
suam  misericordiam  Dominus  dare  indulgentiam  peccatorum  meorum. — Oth- 
mari  Abbatis  Instructio  (Wasserschleben,  p.  437). 

This  continued  until  the  eleventh  century.  Bishop  Burchardt  (Deer.  xix. 
7)  gives  a  similar  formula,  which  is  likewise  in  the  Corrector  Burchardi  cap. 
182  (Wasserschleben,  p.  666),  and  in  an  Ordo  printed  by  Garofalo  from  a  Farfa 
MS.  of  the  eleventh  century  (Garofali  Ordo  ad  dandam  Poenitentiam,  Romae, 
1791,  p.  37).  See  also  Morini  Append,  p.  56. 

2  Poenit.  Curnmeani  Prolog.  (Wasserschleben,  p.  462). — "Quid  est  autem 
repropitiare  delictum  nisi  cum  adsumpseris  peccatorem  et  monendo,  hortando, 
docendo  adduxeris  eum  ad  poenitentiam,  ab  errore  correxeris,  a  vitiis  emunda- 
veris,  et  feceris  eum  ut  ex  tale  converse  propitius  sit  Deus,  pro  delicto  repro 
pitiare  diceris." 

3  Theodulphi  Capitulare,  cap.  30  (Harduin.  IV.  919) — "Quia  confessio  quam 
sacerdotibus  facimus  hoc  nobis  adminiculum  affert,  quia  accepto  ab  eis  salutari 
consilio,  saluberrirnis  poenitentiae  observationibus  sive  mutuis  orationibus,  pec 
catorum  maculas  diluimus." 

4  Synod.  Regiaticina  ann.  850,  cap.  7  (Harduin.  V.  27). 

5  C.  Duziacens.  II.  ann.  874,  cap.  8  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  157). — "In  secreta  ora- 
tione  pro  quibus  sicuti  et  pro  suis  jugiter  intercedat  peccatis." 


DEPRECATORY  FORMULAS.  465 

i 

after.1  Even  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  so  indefinite  as  yet 
was  the  value  assigned  to  these  sacerdotal  ministrations  that  Urban 
II.  at  the  council  of  Nimes,  in  1096,  promulgated  a  canon  asserting 
that  the  prayers  of  monks  had  more  power  to  wash  away  sins  than 
those  of  secular  priests  and  that  they  were  not  to  be  prevented  from 
administering  absolution2 — showing  how  vague  was  still  the  concep 
tion  embodied  in  the  latter  term,  and  that  the  power  of  the  intercessor 
depended  on  his  holiness  and  not  on  his  ordination.  Moreover,  the 
collections  of  canons  of  the  period  continue  to  contain  those  which 
treat  the  priest  as  merely  counselling  his  penitent.3  Even  as  late  as 
1117,  when  Queen  Urraca  of  Castile  and  Bishop  Gelmirez  of  Com- 
postella  were  besieged  by  a  rebellious  mob  and  were  in  momentary 
expectation  of  death,  there  was  no  talk  of  the  bishop  absolving  his 
companions ;  he  simply  proposed  that  they  should  mutually  confess 
their  sins  and  join  in  prayer  to  God  for  their  remission.4  Xor  was 
the  purely  intercessory  character  of  the  rite  confined  to  private 
reconciliation ;  it  was  the  same  with  the  ceremonies  of  public  recon 
ciliation  administered  by  bishops  when  receiving  the  repentant  sinner 
back  into  the  Church  after  he  had  performed  the  penance  assigned  to 
him,  the  only  essential  difference  being  that  on  these  occasions  the 
whole  congregation  was  assumed  to  join  in  the  prayer.5 

Yet  during  the  period  under  consideration,  there  came  a  change, 
not  distinctly  traceable  in  successive  development,  but  confused  and 
irregular,  out  of  which  was  ultimately  evolved  the  power  of  the  keys 
and  sacramental  absolution.  It  is  impossible  to  give  a  connected 


1  Ghaerbaldi  Instruct.  Pastoralis  (Martene  Ampl.  Collectio  VII.  23). 

2  C.  Nernausens.  ann.  1096,  cap.  2,  3  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1750). 

3  Burchard.  Deer.  xix.  30  (Corrector  Burchardi  cap.  205).— Burchardi  xix. 
36  (Ivon.  Deer.  xv.  53).— Ivon.  Deer.  xm.  43. 

4  Historia  Compostellana,  Lib.  I.  cap.  cxiv.  n.  4  (Hispaila  Sagrada  XX.  231). 
— "  Confiteamur  alterutrum  peccata  nostra  et  oreinus  pro  invicem  ut  salvemur ; 
invocemus  misericordiam  Dei  ut  peccata  nostra  dimittat  et  misericordiam  suain 
prsestare  nobis  dignetur." — Evidently  the  contemporary  Bishop  Munio  who 
relates  this  knew  nothing  of  absolution. 

5  Sacrament.  Gelasianum,  Lib.  i.  n.  15,  59  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  u.  pp. 
20,  91).— Poenit.  Ps.  Eoman.  (Wasserschleben,  p.  376).— Pez,  Thesaur.  Anecd. 
II.  II  631.— Pcenit.  Bobiens.  (Wasserschleben,  p.  411).— Po3nit.  Ps.  Bedae  (Ibid, 
p.  256). — See  also  a  very  elaborate  Ordo  for  public  penance,  of  the  late  ninth 
century  in  Morin,  Append,  pp.  60-68. 

I.— 30 


466  ABSOLUTION. 

account  of  this,  as  the  scattered  indications  concerning  it  are  incap 
able  of  resolution  into  symmetrical  chronological  sequence.  Thus 
far  we  have  dealt  with  reconciliation,  a  term  which,  in  spite  of  the 
bishops,  came  to  be  employed  as  designating  the  result  of  private 
confession  folloAved  by  priestly  prayers  and  the  imposition  of  pen 
ance  j1  it  could  be  administered  at  any  time,  while  the  public  recon 
ciliation  was  reserved  for  bishops  on  Holy  Thursday,  and  it  was  the 
ceremony  which  soothed  the  last  moments  of  the  dying  penitent.2 
Gradually,  as  the  belief  in  the  power  of  the  keys  developed,  this 
reconciliation  came  to  be  regarded  as  in  some  way  reconciling  to  God 
as  well  as  to  the  Church.  We  have  seen  (p.  128)  the  audacious  in 
terpolations  by  which  Benedict  the  Levite  interjected  into  ancient 
formulas  the  idea  that  absolution  was  wrought  by  the  prayers  of  the 
priest,  and  the  word  "  absolution  "  began  quietly  to  be  used  as  well 
as  reconciliation.3  To  the  older  writers,  pardon  was  gained  by  the 
efforts  and  good  works  of  the  repentant  sinner,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  numerous  lists  of  the  seven  methods  of  obtaining  it,  and  in  this 
he  could  be  assisted  by  the  prayers  of  the  priest  and  of  the  congre 
gation,  but  now,  in  an  indistinct  and  hazy  manner,  absolution  became 
associated  with  reconciliation  in  some  minds,  while  others  kept  the 
ideas  distinct.  Alcuin  uses  the  words  interchangeably,  and  so  does 
Benedict  the  Levite.4  About  the  year  900  Abbo  of  S.  Germain  em 
ploys  absolution  in  place  of  reconciliation,  and  so  does  a  Penitential 
of  about  the  same  period.5  Yet  the  synod  of  St.  Macra,  in  881, 
attributes  absolution  to  God  and  reconciliation  to  the  priest  or  bishop, 

1  Pcenit.  Ps.  Theodori  cap.  41  g  1  (Wasserschleben,  p.  610).— Poenit.  Ps.  Ec- 
berti  (Morin.  Append,  p.  19).— Pez,  Thesaur.  Anecd.  II.  n.  56.— Ps.  Alcuin. 
Lib.  De  Divinis  Officiis  cap.  13.— Bened.  Levitse  Capitular.  Lib.  v.  cap.  116. — 
Statuta  S.  Bonifacii,  cap.  31  (D'Achery  I.  509).— Commonitor.  cujusque  Epis- 
copi  cap.  47  (Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  VII.  5). 

2  Morin.   Append,   pp.   29-31.  —  Ps.  Eutychian.    Exhort,    ad    Presbyteros 
(Migne,  V.  165-8).— Ps.  Evaristi  cap.  iii.  (Burchardi  Deer.  Lib.  xvm.  cap. 
16 ;  Ivon.  Deer.  P.  XV.  cap.  38 ;  Gratian.  cap.  4  Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vi.). 

3  Curiously  enough,  from  a  comparatively  early  period,  the  Church  claimed 
power  to  absolve  the  soul  after  death,  a  claim  which  it  subsequently  abandoned. 
The  subject  will  be  more  conveniently  considered  hereafter  when  we  come  to 
examine  the  varying  doctrines  as  to  the  future  life. 

4  Alcuini  Epist.  cxu. — Bened.  Levitae  Capitular.  Lib.  v.  cap.  129,  134,  136 
(Isaac.  Lingonens.  Tit.  I.  cap.  13,  16,  17). 

5  Abbon.   Sangerrnan.   Serm.    in.   (D'Achery   I.  339).  —  Pcenitent.  Vindo- 
bonens.  (Wasserschleben,  p.  418). 


RECONCILIATION  AND  ABSOLUTION.  467 

and  so  does  Bishop  Riculfus  of  Soissons.1  This  conception  possibly 
explains  the  use  of  the  word  absolution  in  Urban  II.'s  decree  of 
1196,  mentioned  above,  but  the  exceedingly  vague  sense  attached  to 
it,  even  in  the  twelfth  century,  is  visible  in  the  rule  that  when  a 
monk  was  dangerously  sick  he  was  to  receive  the  benediction  and 
absolution  from  all  his  brethren ;  if  he  grew  worse  extreme  unction 
and  the  Eucharist  were  given,  after  which  all  united  in  prayer  to  God 
for  his  absolution.2  A  distinction  between  absolution  and  reconcilia 
tion,  not  easily  intelligible,  is  expressed  in  one  of  the  False  Decretals, 
which  says  that  priests  can  absolve  the  sick  but  require  episcopal 
permission  to  reconcile  for  secret  sins,3  and  it  was  probably  on  the 
authority  of  this,  which  was  carried  through  all  the  collections  of 
canons,  that,  about  1130,  Honorius  of  Autun  reserves  to  the  bishop 
the  power  of  reconciliation  while  including  absolution  among  the 
duties  of  the  priest.4  By  this  time  there  was  no  practical  difference 
between  the  terms.  Herbert  de  Losinga,  in  his  prayer  to  St.  John, 
does  not  ask  for  absolution  or  remission  of  sins,  but  for  reconcilia 
tion.5  Yet  the  schoolmen  were  beginning  their  labors  in  defining 
everything,  and  some  distinction,  if  only  verbal,  must  be  found  for 
the  terms  which  were  virtually  synonymous.  They  were  evidently 
puzzled  by  the  use  of  both  words  for  the  same  thing,  and  St.  Ivo  of 
Chartres,  the  leading  authority  of  the  early  twelfth  century,  attempted 
to  show  that  although  the  act  was  one  it  had  two  results,  when  he  ex- 


1  Concil.    apud    S.    Macram   ann.   881,   cap.   7   (Harduin.   VI.   I.   361-2). 
"  Quoniam  aliter  nee  a  Deo  salvetur  nee  sacerdotal!  ministerio  reconciliari 
potest."— Riculfii  Suessionens.  Constitt.  cap.  9,  11  (Ibid.  pp.  416-17). 

2  P.  de  Honestis  Regulse  Clericorum  Lib.  n.  cap.  22.     Some  twenty  years 
later  we  find  death-bed  absolution  among  the  Carthusians— Guigonis  I.  Con- 
suetud.  cap.  xii.  §  2. 

The  word  absolution  is  used  as  a  priestly  function  in  a  council  held  in  Rome 
by  Gregory  VII.  about  1075  (Pflugk-Harttung,  Acta  Pontiff.  Roman.  II.  126). 
Corresponding  canons  of  a  council  of  Poitiers,  in  1100,  employ  the  phrase 
pcenitentiam  dare  (Harduin.  VI.  II.  1860).  The  exceeding  vagueness  of  the 
conception  of  "absolution"  at  this  period  is  seen  in  Gregory's  undertaking  to 
absolve  his  correspondents  at  a  distance  (p.  362),  and  we  shall  encounter 
further  examples  of  this  when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  development  of  in 
dulgences  in  the  eleventh  century. 

3  Ps.  Evaristi  cap.  iii.  (Burchardi  Deer.  Lib.  xvm.  cap.  16). 

4  Honorii  Augustodun.  Gemmse  Animse  Lib.  i.  cap.  181,  185. 

5  Herbert!  de  Losinga  Epist.  xvm.  (Bruxellis,  1836,  p.  36).—"  Veniam,  tan 
dem  veniam,  O  beate  Johannes  tuis  meritis  ad  reconciliationem." 


468  ABSOLUTION. 

plained  that  priests  in  absolving  reconcile  penitents,  even  as  Christ  in 
his  humanity  reconciled  the  world  and  in  his  divinity  absolved  it.1 
This,  which  shows  the  complete  identity  of  absolution  and  reconcilia 
tion,  would  seem  to  have  become  the  accepted  view,  for  Alexander 
Hales  defines  sacramental  confession  as  that  which  is  provided  for 
reconciliation  by  absolution,  and  the  power  of  which  is  confided  to 
priests  alone.2  Yet  the  meaning  of  the  word  absolution  continued 
to  be  vague.  In  1134  we  are  told  in  the  Cistercian  Rule  that  on 
stated  occasions  absolutions  were  pronounced  on  all  dead  kindred  ot 
the  brethren  by  name,  the  absolutions  consisting  simply  of  the  phrase 
requiescant  in  pace.3  Any  prayer,  whether  for  the  dead  or  living, 
was  thus  termed  an  absolution  ;  for  the  living  it  consisted  of  nothing 
more,  for,  in  the  middle  of  the  century,  Gratian,  in  arguing  for  the 
necessity  of  confession,  asks  how  a  priest  is  to  pray  for  a  sin  which 
he  does  not  know.4 

1  Ivon.  Carnot.  Serm.  n.  (Migne,  CLXII.  518).     Yet  St.  Ivo  gives  a  canon 
(Deer.  XV.  28)  in  which  the  priest  only  reconciles  the  dying  according  to  the 
old  rule  by  which  the  penitent,  if  he  survives,  is  to  perform  due  penance. 

2  Alex,  de  Ales  Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xix.  Membr.  1,  Art.l.— "Confessio  sacra- 
mentalis  .  .  .  quae  ordinata  est  ad  reconciliationeni  quae  fit  per  absolutionem." 

Hales  here  evidently  distinguishes  the  reconciliation  in  the  forum  internum 
from  the  reconciliation  in  the  forum  externwn,  which  was  entirely  independent 
of  absolution.  It  would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  subject  to  discuss  this  matter 
in  detail,  and  a  single  instance"  will  illustrate  the  difference  as  well  as  the  ad 
vantage  resulting  to  the  Church  from  extending  its  jurisdiction  over  both 
worlds.  In  1240  the  Duke  of  Lenezycz  hanged  John  the  Scholasticus  of 
Ploczk  and  Breslau,  whereupon  Peter,  Archbishop  of  Gnesen,  excommunicated 
him  and  laid  his  dominions  under  interdict.  He  purchased  reconciliation  by 
surrendering  to  the  archbishop  the  town  and  district  of  Lovicz  and  conferring 
certain  franchises  and  property  on  the  churches  of  Breslau,  Ploczk  and  Cuja- 
vien,  in  addition  to  which  he  was  required  to  supplicate  Gregory  IX.  to  confirm 
his  absolution.  A  war  with  the  pagans  served  to  excuse  his  personal  appear 
ance  in  Rome,  and  Gregory  sent  a  commission  to  the  Bishop  of  Breslau  and  to 
a  canon  of  Cracow  to  absolve  him  after  imposing  such  a  penance  as  should 
serve  to  deter  others  from  similar  crimes. — Raynald.  Annal.  ann.  1240,  n.  36, 
37.— See  also  the  case  of  Euggiero  da  Bonito,  penanced,  in  1319,  by  John 
XXII.  for  the  murder  of  the  Bishop  of  Fricento  (Raynald.  ann.  1319,  n.  13), 
and  the  formula  for  such  cases  in  the  "  Formulary  of  the  Papal  Penitentiary," 
p.  30  (Philadelphia,  1892). 

3  Usus  Antiquiores  Ord.  Cisterciens.  cap.  100  (Migne,  CLXVI.  1480).— "In 
quibus   tamen  absolutionibus   dicetur  tantum  Requiescant  in  pace."     Cf.  Du 
Cange  s.  vb.  Absolvere  4  ;  Absolutio  5. 

4  Post  Cap.  87  De  Poanitentia  Dist.  I.  \  9. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  THEORY.  469 

In  the  growth  of  the  simple  priestly  prayer  over  the  penitent  into 
an  absolution  or  pardon  of  his  sins  before  God,  we  can  trace  the 
practical  result  of  the  development  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  but  it 
derived  its  completeness  from  the  new  factor  of  the  cognate  theory 
of  the  sacraments  invented  by  the  tireless  brains  of  the  schoolmen 
of  the  twelfth  century.  Few  things  illustrate  more  instructively  the 
evolution  of  sacerdotalism  than  the  manner  in  which  the  sacraments 
grew  and  multiplied  and  became  invested  with  the  power  to  determine 
human  salvation.  Originally  the  word  was  used  with  a  very  vague 
and  general  signification.  To  Tertullian  it  had  merely  the  sense  of 
mystery  (jjujenjpeov).1  It  is  true  that  in  the  fourth  century  Hilary  of 
Poitiers  speaks  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  but  he  also  speaks  of 
faith  as  a  sacrament ;  so  the  cross  is  a  sacrament  and  likewise  the 
crucifixion,  and  even  prayer.2  St.  Augustin  defines  a  sacrament  as 
anything  in  a  ceremony  which  signifies  something  holy ;  the  cele 
bration  of  Easter  is  a  sacrament ;  even  a  number  may  be  a  sacra 
ment;  in  baptism  the  word  transforms  the  water  into  a  sacrament;3 
but  he  is  not  quite  consistent  when  he  alludes  to  Noah's  ark  as  a 
sacrament,  and  says  that  the  sacraments  of  the  Old  Law  were  pre- 
figurations  of  the  advent  of  Christ,  after  which  they  were  abolished 
and  were  succeeded  by  those  of  the  New  Law,  fewer  in  number, 
greater  in  influence,  and  easier  in  performance4 — evidently  to  him 
the  hard  life-long  penance  of  the  period  had  about  it  nothing  of  a 
sacramental  character.  Occasionally,  moreover,  he  uses  the  word  in 
its  original  sense  of  mystery.5 

The  subject  was  regarded  as  of  no  special  interest  or  importance, 
and  allusions  to  sacraments  are  comparatively  few  in  the  writers  ot 
the  succeeding  centuries.6  St.  Isidor  of  Seville  found  himself  obliged 


1  Tertull.  adv.  Marcionem  Lib.  v.  cap.  16;  De  Anima  cap.  9;  De  Jejuniis 
cap.  7. 

2  S.  Hilar.  Pictaviens.  Tract,  in  Ps.  cxvin.  n.  5 ;  Comment,  in  Matt.  cap.  v. 
n.  1;  cap.  VI.  n.   1;  cap.  XI.  n.  25;  cap.  xill.  n.  6;  cap.  XXX.  n.  2;  cap. 
xxxin.  n.  5. 

3  S.  Augustin.  Epist.  LV.  ad  Januarium,  cap.  1,  4,  17 ;  In  Joannein  Tract. 
LXXX.  n.  3. 

4  S.  Augustin.  contra  Faustum  Lib.  xix.  cap.  12,  13. 

5  Ejusd.  Epist.  CXL.  cap.  14. — "Aut  certe  profundum  sacramentuin  nos  in- 
telligere  voluit." 

6  It  seems  to  have  been  reserved  to  Father  Tournely  to  discover  that  the 
reason  why  the  sacraments  are  so  rarely  alluded  to  by  the  Fathers  is  that  they 


470  ABSOLUTION. 


to  define  the  word,  which  he  did  by  borrowing  the  definition  of 
Augustin  and  adding  that  the  sacraments  are  baptism,  chrism  and 
the  Eucharist,  which  are  so  called  because,  under  cover  of  material 
things,  the  divine  virtue  operates  secretly.1  It  was  probably  to  these 
that  Gregory  the  Great  referred  when  he  tells  us  that  we  receive  the 
sacraments  externally  that  we  may  be  filled  internally  with  the 
grace  of  the  spirit.2  This  limitation  of  the  term  to  material  objects 
did  not  prevent  the  use  of  the  word  in  its  old  vague  and  general 
significance.  In  liturgies  of  the  seventh  century  we  find  Lent 
spoken  of  as  a  sacrament,  the  cross  is  a  sacrament  and  so  are  the 
advent  of  Christ,  the  articles  of  the  creed  and  even  the  Virgin.3 
The  exorcised  salt  used  in  baptism  is  also  a  sacrament.4  The  defini 
tion  given  by  St.  Isidor,  however,  gradually  made  its  way.  In  the 
ninth  century  we  find  it  copied  by  Rabanus  Maurus,  who  adds  that 
there  are  several  kinds  of  baptism  besides  that  of  water,  for  there 
are  the  baptisms  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  martyrdom ;  there  are 
other  modes  also,  he  says,  of  purging  away  sins,  and  among  them 
he  enumerates  repentance  and  confession,  which  shows  that  thus  far 
the  latter  were  excluded  from  the  list  of  sacraments.5  His  contem 
porary,  Walafrid  Strabo,  takes  the  same  view ;  the  only  sacraments 
he  knows  are  baptism,  the  Eucharist,  and  chrism.6  Early  in  the 
eleventh  century  Fulbert  of  Chartres  enumerates  as  the  sole  requi 
sites  for  salvation  belief  in  the  Triuity,  baptism  and  the  Eucharist;7 
he  knows  no  other  sacraments.  In  1025  we  have  a  long  discourse 
on  repentance  addressed  by  Gerard,  Bishop  of  Arras,  to  some  Cathari 
whom  he  endeavored  to  convert.  The  good  bishop  evidently  had 
no  conception  that  there  was  anything  sacramental  about  penitence ; 
he  says  nothing  about  confession,  absolution  or  satisfaction,  but 


did  not  desire  to  expose  them  to  the  ridicule  of  the  pagans. — Th.  ex  Charmes 
Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  ii.  Q.  2,  art.  2. 

1  S.  Isidor.  Hispal.  Etymolog.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  xix.  n.  39,  40. 

2  S.  Gregor.  PP.  I.  in  I.  Eegum  Expos.  Lib.  v.  cap.  iii.  n.  21. 

3  Missale  Gothicum  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  in.  pp.]  292,  355).— Sacra- 
mentum  Gallicanum  (Ibid.  pp.  635,  674,  676,  706). 

4  Sacramentar.  Gelasianum  (Ib.  T.  XII I.  P.  I.  p.  67).     A  survival  of  this  is 
still  preserved  in  the  Koman  Kitual  (Tit.  II.  cap.  2),  where  the  blessed  salt  is 
spoken  of  as  a  sacrament. 

5  Rabani  Mauri  de  Universo  Lib.  v.  cap.  11. 

6  Walafridus  Strabo  de  Eebus  Ecclesiasticis. 

7  Fulberti  Carnotens.  Epist.  5  (Migne,  CXLI.  197). 


UNCERTAINTY  AS  TO  THE  SACRAMENTS.  471 

teaches  that  simple  repentance  obtains  forgiveness  without  formulas 
or  priestly  ministration.1  On  the  other  hand,  towards  the  close  ot 
the  century,  Lanfrauc  speaks  of  three  sacraments  of  confession ;  he 
defines  a  sacrament  by  quoting  St.  Augustin,  and  adds  that  it  also 
means  an  oath  because  taken  on  sacred  things,  and  that  the  conse 
cration  of  anything  is  called  a  sacrament.2  St.  Anselm  of  Lucca 
seems  to  have  a  more  definite  idea  of  the  subject,  but  he  only  knows 
four  sacraments — baptism,  the  chrism,  imposition  of  hands  and  the 
Eucharist.3  The  contemporary  Bonizo,  in  his  little  treatise  on  the 
subject,  only  describes  three— the  Eucharist,  blessed  salt  and  the 
three  forms  of  consecrated  oil,  but  he  says  there  are  other  sacraments 
now  used  by  the  Church,  such  as  breathing  in  exorcism,  effetatio  for 
catechumens,  and  the  imposition  of  hands  by  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  given  in  baptism,  penitents  are  reconciled  and  the  functions  of 
their  ministry  are  conferred  on  bishops,  priests  and  deacons.4  St. 
Ivo  of  Chartres  soon  afterwards  shows  an  equally  vague  conception 
of  the  significance  of  the  word.  So  far  from  attributing  the  institu 
tion  of  the  sacraments  to  Christ,  he  says  that  they  have  been  used 
since  the  creation  of  the  world.  When  he  enumerates  them  he  only 
mentions  baptism,  the  Eucharist  and  the  chrism,  but  he  adds  that 
everything  which  is  done  in  exorcisms,  such  as  prayers  and  insuffla 
tions,  is  a  sacrament ;  the  sacraments  common  to  bishop  and  priest 
are  catechising,  celebrating  mass  and  preaching ;  if  he  alludes  to  the 
sacrament  of  penitence,  it  is  an  infliction  to  be  borne  like  the  knife 
of  the  surgeon  ;  in  the  portion  of  his  Decretum  devoted  to  the  sacra 
ments  the  only  ones  treated  are  the  Eucharist,  baptism,  the  chrism 
and  holy  water.5  The  Gloss,  of  Monte  Cassino,  which  is  probably 
attributable  to  this  period,  gives  only  the  customary  enumeration  of 
baptism,  the  chrism  and  the  Eucharist.6 

When  the  schoolmen  undertook  the  reconstruction  of  theology  it 
was  not  to  be  expected  that  this  subject  would  be  passed  over  in 


1  Synod.  Atrebacens.  ann.  1025,  cap.  8  (Gousset,  Actes  etc.  II.  32-6). 

2  Lanfranci  Lib.  de  Celanda  Confessione;  Ejusd.  Lib.  de  Corp.  et  Sang. 
Domini  cap.  12,  13. 

3  S.  Anselmi  Lucens.  Collect.  Canonum  Lib.  ix. 

4  Bonizonis  Placeritini  Lib.  de  Sacramentis. 

5  S.  Ivon.  Carnotens.  Serm.  I.,  n.,  iv.,  xin. ;  Ejusd.  Decreti  P.  I.,  n.  cap. 
73,  75,  118. 

6  Du  Cange  s.  v.  Sacmmentum  I. 


472  ABSOLUTION. 

their  universal  passion  for  exploration  and  definition.     The  first  to 
attack  it  systematically  seems  to  have  been  Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  who 
devoted  an  elaborate  treatise  to  it.     The  only  sacraments  that  he 
mentions  as   essential   to    salvation   are   baptism   and    communion. 
There  are  others,  however,  which  are  aids  to  sanctification,  because 
through  them  virtue  may  be  exercised  and  greater  grace  acquired, 
such  as  holy  water  and  the  blessed  ashes  placed  on  the  head  on  Ash 
Wednesday ;  and  again  there  are  others  which  seem  to  have  been 
instituted  only  because  they  are  requisite  for  the  sanctification  of 
other  sacraments.1    He  describes  at  length  the  three  great  sacraments 
of  baptism,  of  confirmation  and  the  chrism,  and  of  the  Eucharist, 
devoting  a  chapter  to  the  question  whether  baptism  or  the  imposition 
of  hands  is  the  greater  sacrament.     As  for  the  lesser  sacraments,  he 
says  they  cannot  all  be  enumerated,  but  he  classifies  them  in  three 
divisions — those  consisting  of  things,  such  as   holy   water,  blessed 
ashes,  the  blessing  of  palms  and  wax  candles  and  the  like ;  others  in 
acts,  as  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  breathing  in  exorcism,  spreading 
the  hands,  bending  the  knees   etc.;  others  a^ain  in  words,  as  the 
invocation  of  the  Trinity  and  similar  formulas.     In  another  treatise 
he  tells  us  that  matrimony  is  a  sacrament  and  so  is  penitence,  but  it 
has  no  sacramental  virtue  in  itself,  and  its  effects  depend  on  the  char 
acter  of  the  ministrant.2      These  indefinite  and  somewhat  contra 
dictory  views  show  how  unexplored  as  yet  was  the  field  through  which 
he  was  tentatively  groping  his  way.     In  1139  the  second  council  of 
Lateran,  in  speaking  of  the  sacraments,  makes  no  allusion  to  penitence, 
though  it  could  scarce  have  been  omitted  had  it  been  recognized  as 
one  of  them.3    It  is  true  that  about  the  same  time  St.  Bernard  makes 


1  Hugon.  de  S.  Viet,  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  I.  P.  ix.  cap.  7. 

2  Ibid.  Lib.  n.  P.  vii.  ix.,  xi.,  xiv.   Ejusd.  Summae  Sententt.  Tract,  iv.  cap.  1  ; 
Tract,  vi.  cap.  12. 

In  a  very  significant  passage  he  says  "  How  can  I  feel  certain  of  pardon  if  I 
complete  the  penance  and  satisfaction  prescribed  for  me  by  a  man  who  may 
be  ignorant  or  negligent?  Do  what  you  are  ordered.  God  will  know  your 
devotion.  If  you  have  a  priest  who  does  not  tell  you  what  is  necessary  it  is 
because  your  sins  have  deserved  this  misfortune." — De  Sacramentis  Lib.  n.  P . 
xiv.  cap.  3. 

3  C.  Lateran.  II.  ann.  1139,  cap.  2,  22  (Harduin.  VI.  u.  1208). 

In  the  life  of  St.  Otho,  the  apostle  of  Pomerania  (Canisii  Thesaur.  III.  n. 
62),  who  died  in  1139,  he  is  represented  as  preaching  to  his  new  converts  a 
sermon  in  which  he  develops  the  whole  system  of  the  seven  sacraments,  of 


THE  SEVEN  SACRAMENTS.  473 

a  passing  allusion  to  the  "  sacrament  of  confession,"1  but  this  is  evi 
dently  but  the  use  of  the  word  in  its  customary  sense  of  something 
holy,  for  the  Liber  de  Vera  et  falsa  Pceniientia  of  the  Pseudo-Augustin, 
which  so  exaggerated  the  sacerdotalism  of  penitence,  knows  nothing  of 
it  as  a  sacrament,  and  Hugh  Archbishop  of  Rouen  seems  to  regard 
baptism  and  the  Eucharist  as  the  only  sacraments.2 

The  speculations  of  the  theologians  of  Paris  had  thus  far  met  with 
no  response.  In  Rome  they  attracted  no  attention,  for  Gratian  quotes 
without  dissent  St.  Isidores  enumeration  of  the  three  sacraments — 
baptism,  the  chrism  and  the  Eucharist — and  he  treats  only  of  bap 
tism,  confirmation  and  the  Eucharist.3  Elsewhere  he  classifies  sacra 
ments  into  those  which  are  of  necessity  and  those  which  are  of 
dignity ;  the  necessary  ones  cannot  be  repeated,  for  they  are  in 
delible,  and  if  administered  by  heretics  are  valid  (thus  excluding 
penitence),  while  those  of  dignity  must  be  worthily  administered 
by  the  worthy  to  the  worthy.4  Evidently  up  to  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century  there  was  no  conception  of  the  sacramental  theory, 
such  as  it  soon  afterwards  became  under  the  fashioning  hands  of  the 
Paris  theologians.  Of  this  we  have  the  earliest  description  in  Peter 
Lombard,  who  doubtless  only  threw  into  shape  the  ideas  which 
were  becoming  dominant  in  the  French  schools  and  were  finally  ac 
cepted  by  the  Church  as  embodying  its  aspirations  to  control  the 
spiritual  destinies  of  man.  In  fixing  the  number  of  sacraments  at 
the  mystic  figure  of  seven — baptism,  confirmation,  the  Eucharist, 
penitence,  extreme  unction,  orders  and  matrimony — he  wastes  no 
time  in  arguing  whether  these  or  others  shall  be  admitted,  but  states 
it  as  an  accepted  fact,  as  it  doubtless  was  by  this  time  in  the  Uni 
versity  of  Paris,  the  source  and  creator  of  modern  theology.5  It  was 


which  the  fifth  is  that  of  penitence.  The  date  of  this  life  is  unknown  and  has 
been  placed  as  late  as  1500,  but  it  probably  was  a  little  anterior  to  1189,  when 
St.  Otho  was  canonized,  as  his  canonization  is  not  mentioned  in  it.  The 
sermon  of  course  is  a  pious  fraud,  entitled  to  no  weight  as  historical  evidence. 

1  S.  Bernard!  Lib.  ad  Milites  Templi  cap.  12. 

2  Hugon.  Archiep.  Eotomagens.  Dialogor.  Lib.  v.  (Martene  Thesaur.  V.  947). 

3  Cap.  84  Caus.  I.  Q.  1.— P.  in.  De  Consecratione. 

4  Post  cap.  39,  106,  Caus.  I.  Q.  1. 

5  P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  ii.  I  1.— "  Jam  ad  Sacramenta  novae  legis 
accedamus  quse  sunt  Baptismus,  Confirmatio,  panis  benedictio,  id  est  Eucharis- 
tia,  Pcenitentia,  Unctio  extrema,  Ordo,  Conjugium." 

Probably  to  this  period  may  be  attributed  a  forged  decretal  assigned  to 


474  ABSOLUTION. 

easy  to  make  the  assertion,  but  the  schoolmen  could  not  fail  to  recog 
nize  the  difference  between  the  three  long  recognized  sacraments  and 
the  new  ones  thus  classed  with  them,  now  that  the  mass  of  observ 
ances,  such  as  holy  water,  blessed  salt,  the  sign  of  the  cross  etc.,  were 
separated  from  them  and  relegated  to  the  inferior  position  of  mere 
"  sacrarnentals."  It  was  evidently  necessary  to  assign  to  them  a  new 
and  distinct  efficacy,  akin  to  the  mysterious  power  ascribed  to  the 
oldest  of  all,  the  rite  of  baptism.  How  difficult  was  this,  and  what 
endless  debates  were  yet  required  before  the  theory  of  the  super 
natural  efficacy  of  the  seven  sacraments  could  be  denned  and  estab 
lished  may  be  seen  in  Peter  Lombard's  laborious  endeavor  to  explain 
the  sacramental  character  of  penitence.  A  sacrament,  he  says,  is 
a  sign  of  a  sacred  thing.  But  what  is  this  sign  here?  Some,  as 
Grandulfus,  say  that  the  sacrament  is  only  what  is  shown  externally, 
namely,  the  exterior  penitence  which  is  the  sign  of  the  interior  con 
trition  and  humility.  If  this  be  so,  then  not  every  evangelical  sacra 
ment  accomplishes  what  it  figures,  for  exterior  penitence  does  not 
cause  interior,  but  rather  interior  is  the  cause  of  exterior.  But  they 
say  this  is  only  to  be  understood  of  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Tes 
tament,  such  as  Baptism,  Confirmation  and  the  Eucharist.  But  the 

Alexander  I.  (A.  D.  108-116),  evidently  fabricated  for  the  purpose  of  estab 
lishing  the  sacramental  character  of  matrimony. — Collectio  Lipsiensis,  Tit. 
LIX.  cap.  6  (Friedberg,  Quinque  Compilationes  Antiquse,  p.  205). 

How  little  idea  was  entertained  by  the  primitive  Church  that  there  was  any 
sacramental  character  in  marriage  is  indicated  in  one  of  the  canons  of  Hippol- 
ytus  (xvi.  80,  Achelis  p.  85),  which  denounces  as  a  homicide  a  man  who 
abandons  a  concubine  and  marries  a  wife,  unless  the  concubine  has  been  un 
faithful.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  however  (vin.  38)  take  a  different  view 
of  the  matter. 

The  sacrament  of  orders  was  equally  unknown.  Hippolytus  tells  us  (v. 
43-7,  pp.  67-8)  that,  if  a  believer  has  suffered  prison  or  torture  for  Christ,  he  is 
a  priest  before  God  "  immo  confessio  est  ordinatio  ejus,"  but  to  become  a  bishop 
he  must  be  ordained ;  if  he  has  confessed  the  faith  but  not  suffered,  he  is  worthy 
of  priesthood,  but  must  be  ordained  by  the  bishop.  A  slave  punished  for 
Christianity  has  the  spirit  of  a  priest,  and  the  bishop  in  ordaining  him  is  to 
omit  the  clause  in  the  prayer  respecting  the  Holy  Ghost.  All  this  is  changed 
in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  vin.  29. 

Baptism  likewise  was  not  essential  (x.  63-4,  p.  76).  A  slave  is  not  to  be 
baptized  without  his  master's  consent.  He  must  be  content  to  be  a  Christian, 
and  if  he  dies  without  baptism  he  is  not  to  be  separated  from  the  flock.  The 
Apostolic  Constitutions  (vin.  38)  forbid  the  baptism  of  a  slave  without  the 
owner's  consent,  but  omit  the  rest. 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENITENCE.  475 

sacraments  of  Penitence  and  Matrimony  date  from  the  beginning  of 
the  human  race,  and  before  the  time  of  grace,  for  they  were  both 
instituted  for  our  first  parents.1  Again,  if  exterior  penitence  is  the 
sacrament  and  interior  the  thing  of  the  sacrament,  the  thing  precedes 
the  sacrament  oftener  than  the  sacrament  the  thing  ;  but  there  is  no 
inconvenience  in  this,  for  it  often  happens  in  the  sacraments  which 
cause  what  they  figure.  Again,  some  say  that  exterior  and  interior 
penitence  are  one  sacrament  and  not  two,  as  the  bread  and  wine  are 
one  ;  and,  as  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Body,  so  in  this,  they  say,  there 
is  a  sacrament  only,  namely,  of  exterior  penitence ;  a  sacrament  and 
a  thing,  namely,  interior  penitence,  and  a  thing  and  not  a  sacrament, 
namely  remission  of  sins.  For  exterior  penitence  is  both  the  thing 
of  the  sacrament  (that  is,  of  exterior  penitence)  as  well  as  the  sacra 
ment  of  the  remission  of  sins,  which  it  figures  and  accomplishes. 
Also,  exterior  penitence  is  the  sign  of  both  interior  penitence  and 
the  remission  of  sin.2  This  passage  will  probably  suffice  to  indicate 
the  kind  of  reasoning  by  which,  through  the  subtile  debates  of  the 
schools  for  centuries,  the  theory  of  the  sacraments,  their  nature  and 
power,  was  gradually  evolved  and  assumed  the  definite  shape  which 
has  become  a  matter  of  faith.  It  also  shows  how,  in  the  case  of 
penitence,  the  absolute  remission  of  sin  came  to  be  accepted  as  effected 
by  sacramental  confession  and  absolution. 

Although  Peter  Lombard's  doctrine  of  the  seven  sacraments  even 
tually  was  adopted,  it  did  not  by  any  means  meet  with  immediate 
acceptance.  We  have  seen  (p.  57)  how  long  the  custom  of  deacons 
receiving  penitents  to  communion  continued,  showing  that  the  sacra 
mental  character  of  penance  only  penetrated  gradually  through  the 
Church,  and  the  same  indication  is  found  in  the  persistence  of  con 
fession  to  laymen  and  women  (pp.  221  sqq.)  and  of  dividing  confes- 


1  In  this  Peter  Lombard  and  many  another  schoolman  engaged  in  building 
up  the  sacramental  theory  unconsciously  taught  heresy.     Even  in  the  four 
teenth  century  Durand  de  S.  Pourgain,  while  admitting  (In  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
II.  Q.  1  \  6)  that  penitence  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Law,  holds  that  that  of 
matrimony  dates  from  Adam.     Unfortunately  for  their  orthodoxy,  the  council 
of  Trent  (Sess.  vn.  De  Sacramentis  in  genere  can.  1)  declared  it  to  be  de  fide 
that  Christ  instituted  all  the  seven  sacraments. 

2  P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xxii.  §  3.     He  had  previously  (Dist.  xiv. 
g  1)  denned  exterior  penitence  to  be  a  sacrament,  and  interior  penitence  to 
be  a  virtue  of  the  mind,  and  either  of  them  is  a  cause  of  justification  and 
salvation. 


476  ABSOLUTION. 

sion  from  absolution  (p.  356).  Cardinal  Pullus  freely  admits  the 
sacrament  of  penitence,  but  is  wholly  unable  to  explain  how  it  works 
absolution  ;  in  fact  he  cannot  frame  an  intelligible  definition  of  abso 
lution  itself;  he  admits  that  it  is  God  who  pardons,  and  the  priest 
only  comforts  the  penitent  by  revealing  that  pardon  in  the  sacrament, 
but  as  God  does  not  pardon  until  due  penance  has  been  performed, 
and  no  one  can  tell  when  this  time  arrives,  the  absolution  given  in 
the  confessional  is  reduced  to  a  promise  which  may  never  be  per 
formed.1  Evidently  the  shrewdest  intellects  were  at  fault  in  adapting 
the  old  theories  to  the  new,  and  the  new  was  as  yet  imperfectly 
understood  even  by  its  founders,  as  is  seen  in  the  teaching  which  so 
long  held  its  place  in  the  schools  (p.  145),  that  the  priest  in  the  sacra 
ment  only  made  manifest  the  pardon  by  God.  In  this  half-developed 
condition  the  importance  of  the  consequences  that  might  be  deduced 
from  it  were  not  recognized,  and  it  was  treated  Avith  little  respect. 
Stephen  of  Tournay  pays  no  attention  to  it — to  him  penitence  was 
no  more  a  sacrament  than  it  was  to  his  master  Gratian,  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  Master  Roland,  afterward  Alexander  III.,  though 
the  latter,  as  a  matter  of  convenient  nomenclature,  speaks  of  peni 
tence  as  a  sacrament  in  his  bull  Omne  datum  optimum,  issued  to  the 
Templars  several  times  between  1163  and  1183.2 

Even  Richard  of  St.  Victor,  who  did  so  much  to  define  the  power 
of  the  keys  and  to  establish  its  exercise  in  priestly  hands,  seems  to 
regard  the  sacramental  question  as  a  theological  subtilty  of  no  prac 
tical  importance  ;  absolution  is  a  condition  precedent  to  receiving  the 
sacraments,  but  then  absolution  cannot  be  denied  to  any  one  who 
repents  because  he  has  been  pardoned  by  God  the  moment  he  repents.3 
Peter  of  Poitiers  shows  still  more  significantly  the  hesitation  with 
which  the  new  theory  was  received  when  he  tells  us  that  some  doctors 
assert  penitence  not  to  be  a  sacrament  but  only  a  sacramental,  like 
holy  water  and  blessed  bread ;  he  thinks  it,  however,  more  likely  to 
be  a  sacrament — not  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament  but  of  the 
Old,  for  it  is  not  the  work  of  God  but  of  man,  and  its  only  power  is 


1  E.  Pulli  Sentt.  Lib.  v.  cap.  15,  24;  Lib.  vr.  cap.  61.— "  Peracta,  inquam, 
poenitentia  reus  per  Deum  absolvitur   ....   Hujusmodi  absolutionem  homo 
non  facit,  quia  quando  earn  fieri  conveniat  nemo  novit." 

2  Steph.  Tornacens.  Summa  Deer.  Gratiani,  Caus.  xxxni.  Q.  3.— Kolandi 
Summa,  Caus.  xxxni.  Q.  3. — Eymer,  Foedera,  I.  30,  54. 

3  E.  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  ligandi  et  solvendi,  cap.  21,  22. 


THE  SACRAMENTAL  THEORY  ACCEPTED.  477 

derived  through  charity  :  remission  of  sin  certainly  precedes  it,  but 
still  it  is  necessary  lest  the  pardoned  sins  return  through  contempt.1 
The  council  of  London,  in  1175,  omits  penitence  from  among  the 
ministrations  for  which  no  money  is  to  be  charged,  as  though  it 
formed  no  part  of  priestly  functions.2  Alain  de  Lille  accepts  only 
six  sacraments,  including  penitence  among  them,  and  omitting  orders, 
which  is  replaced  by  dedication  of  churches,  while  confirmation  and 
extreme  unction  are  run  together  under  chrism,  as  of  old,  showing 
how  hazy  and  uncertain  as  yet,  was  the  whole  subject.3  Adam  de 
Perseigiie  admits  penitence  to  be  a  sacrament  and  explains  that  the 
contrition  of  the  penitent  is  the  res  sacramenti,  while  his  labor  in 
penance  is  its  external  visible  species,  which  shows  how  blindly  the 
theologians  were  yet  groping  for  some  working  hypothesis  to  explain 
the  new  doctrine.4  The  same  vagueness  is  exhibited  by  Master 
Baudinus  who  explains  the  use  of  confession  because  the  sacrament 
manifests  advantageously  the  union  between  Christ  and  the  Church.5 
Evidently  the  theologians  as  yet  did  not  know  exactly  what  to  do 
with  their  new  acquisition.  Its  spread  through  the  Church  was 
slow.  As  late  as  1217  Bishop  Poore  of  Salisbury  feels  obliged  to 
enumerate  the  seven  sacraments  and  explain  them  to  his  clergy, 
showing  how  novel  and  unfamiliar  they  as  yet  were  in  England,  and 
in  1255  Walter  of  Durham  felt  it  necessary  to  insist  that  all  priests 
should  know  the  seven  sacraments.6  This,  however,  proves  that 
Peter  Lombard's  catalogue  had  triumphed  in  the  schools,  and  thence 
forth  theologians  revelled  in  the  subtilties  by  which  they  exhibited 
their  dialectic  skill  and  ingenuity  in  determining  the  nature,  relations 
and  operations  of  the  several  sacraments.7 

In  this  development  a  complete  revolution  was  effected  in  the 


1  Pet.  Pictaviens.  Sentt.  Lib.  in.  cap.  xiii. 

2  Concil.  Londiniens.  ann.  1175,  cap.  7  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1637). 

3  Alani  de  Insulis  de  Artie.  Cathol.  Fidei  Lib.  IV.  (Fez,  Thesaur.  Anecd.  I. 
II.  487). 

*  Adami  Persennise  Abbatis  Epist.  xxvi.  (Migne,  CCXI.  672). 

5  Mag.  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib.  IV.  Dist.  xix. 

6  Kichardi  Poore  Constitt.  cap.  13 ;  Walteri  de  Kirkham  Constitt.  ann.  1255 
(Harduin.  VII.  92,  487). 

7  See,  for  instance,  the  infinite  distinctions  and  arguments  of  Alexander 
Hales  (Summse  P.  iv.  Q.  xiv.  Membr.  1,  Art.  3)  on  the  sacrament  of  penitence, 
which  he  tells  us  was  instituted  by  Christ  at  the  commencement  of  his  teaching 
but  not  in  its  formal  shape  until  he  delivered  the  keys  to  St.  Peter. 


478  ABSOLUTION. 

whole  economy  of  the  Church  as  the  efficient  instrument  of  human 
salvation.  It  was  permanently  and  irremovably  interposed  between 
God  and  man,  for  it  was  the  sole  custodian  and  ministrant  of  the 
sacraments,  and  these  were  essential  to  all  who  would  seek  eternal 
life.  Aquinas  tells  us  that  they  flowed  from  the  side  of  the  crucified 
Christ,  that  the  whole  Church  is  founded  on  them,  and  that  it  has  no 
power  to  institute  new  ones.1  The  three  that  are  indispensable  are 
baptism  for  all,  penitence  for  sinners,  and  orders  for  churchmen ;  the 
rest  are  only  important  aids  to  salvation,  and  thus  the  Eucharist, 
which  had  ranked  the  highest,  was  relegated  to  the  second  class.2  As 
for  the  sacrament  of  penitence,  without  it  there  can  be  no  remission 
of  sin — or  at  least  without  a  vow  of  receiving  it  when  circumstances 
shall  permit ;  it  is  the  only  channel  through  wThich  the  sinner  obtains 
the  benefit  of  the  Passion,  and  thus  is  necessary  to  salvation.  It  is 
true  that  infused  grace  suffices  for  the  remission  of  sin,  but  infused 
grace  is  not  to  be  had  without  the  sacrament.3  The  Scotists  were 
not  behind  the  Thomists  in  their  definition  of  its  power.  Duns 
Scotus  taught  that  this  is  so  great  that  it  suffices  for  the  recipient 
not  to  impose  an  obstacle  by  desiring  to  commit  sin  at  the  moment 
when  the  words  of  absolution  are  uttered,  and  Astesanus  declares 
that  there  is  no  pardon  for  sin  except  by  means  of  the  sacrament.4 
Its  exact  constitution  however  was  not  yet  satisfactorily  determined ; 
all  sacraments  consist  of  matter  and  form,  and  Durand  de  S.  Pour- 
gain  defines  that  in  penitence  the  matter  consists  in  the  words  of  the 
confession,  the  form  in  the  words  of  absolution ;  thus  contrition  and 
penance  become  mere  accidents,  though  they  are  essential  to  the 
enjoyment  of  its  benefits.5 

It  is  true  that  all  this,  like  the  rest  of  scholastic  theology,  was 
merely  the  speculation  of  the  schools,  without  any  authoritative  defi 
nition  by  the  Church  at  large,  but  it  became  the  universal  teaching 
in  which  theologians  were  trained,  and  was  accepted  everywhere  as  a 

1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixiv.  Art.  2;  Suppl.  Q.  xvii.  Art.  1. 

2  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summse  P.  in.  Q.  Ixv.  Art.  4.     Still  Aquinas  somewhat 
inconsequently  endeavors  (Ibid.  Art.  3)  to  overcome  this  practical  discrimina 
tion  against  the  Eucharist  by  declaring  it  to  be   "  sacramentorum  omnium 
potissimum." 

3  Ejusd.  Summse  Suppl.  Q.  VI.  Art.  1. 

4  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  4.— Fr.  de  Maironis  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
xiv.  Q.  1.— Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  ii.  Art.  2. 

5  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvi.  Q.  1  §4- 


THE  SACRAMEN1  OF  PENITENCE.  479 

whole,  though  details  continued  to  excite  debate.  When,  at  length, 
at  the  council  of  Florence,  in  1439,  the  occasion  offered  to  define  the 
faith  of  the  Church  in  the  Decree  of  Union  with  the  Armenians,  the 
work  of  the  schoolmen  was  ratified  and  the  new  theology  became 
the  standard  of  Latin  Christianity.  As  regards  the  sacraments,  Peter 
Lombard's  seven  were  assumed  to  be  necessary  articles  of  faith,  and 
the  views  of  Aquinas  were  unreservedly  accepted,  representing  their 
three  integral  parts  as  matter,  form,  and  the  intention  of  the  minis- 
trant.  In  the  sacrament  of  penitence  the  matter  was  declared  to  be 
the  acts  of  the  penitent — contrition,  confession  and  satisfaction — the 
form  is  the  words  of  absolution,  the  minister  is  the  priest  having  due 
jurisdiction,  and  the  effect  is  absolution  from  sin.1  So  completely 
was  salvation  dependent  on  the  sacrament  that  it  became  a  received 
maxim  of  the  schools  that  even  the  pope  cannot  grant  a  dispensation 
which  will  enable  a  sinner  to  be  saved  without  absolution.2  Finally, 
when,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  reformers  called  in  question  the 
whole  scholastic  theory  of  the  seven  sacraments,  the  council  of  Trent 
was  of  course  obliged  to  emphasize  their  necessity  and  power  by  de 
fining  it  to  be  a  matter  of  faith  that  all  seven  were  instituted  by 
Christ  and  are  necessary  for  salvation.3  As  for  confession,  it  was 
declared  de  fide  that  it  was  instituted  by  Christ  and  had  been  ob 
served  by  the  Church  from  the  beginning ;  the  sacrament  of  peni 
tence  is  as  necessary  to  the  sinner  as  baptism,  for  without  it  he  cannot 
attain  to  justification,  although,  in  case  of  necessity,  the  vow  to  accept 
it,  which  is  an  essential  part  of  contrition,  suffices.4  This  settled  the 
matter,  while  the  importance  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  the  sacra 
ments  and  the  prevailing  ignorance  respecting  it  are  reflected  in  the 
labored  explanations  of  the  Catechism  prepared  for  the  instruction 
of  parish  priests.5 

1  C.  Florent.  ann.  1439,  Decret.  Union.  (Harduin.  IX.  440). 

2  Sumina  Tabiena  s.  v.  Absolutio  I.  n.  1. 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  vn.  De  Sacramentis  in  genere,  can.  1,  4. 

4  C.  Trident.  Sess.  vi.  De  Justificatione  cap.  14;  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenitentia 
cap.  2,  4  ;  can.  6. 

In  view  of  the  Tridentine  definition  it  is  not  easy  to  understand  the  con 
demnation  by  Pius  V.,  Gregory  XIII.  and  Urban  VIII.  (Bull.  In  eminenti 
Prop.  70,  71)  of  the  Baian  and  Jansenist  proposition  that,  except  in  case  of 
necessity  or  of  martyrdom,  contrition  with  perfect  charity  and  the  vow  to 
confess  will  not  remit  sin  without  the  actual  reception  of  the  sacrament. 

5  Catechismi  Trident.  Lib.  n.  De  Sacramentis  in  generi  (Colon.  1572). 

The  Greek  Church  has  adopted  the  seven  sacraments  of  the  Latin.     That  of 


480  ABSOLUTION. 

In  reviewing  the  successful  labors  of  the  schoolmen  to  define  and 
establish  the  power  of  the  keys  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments, 
it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the  intercessory  prayers  of  the  priest 
gradually  grew  into  absolution  and  how  the  distinction  between  the 
reconciliation  of  the  bishop  and  the  absolution  of  the  priest  faded 
away  in  the  sacramentary  power  ascribed  to  both.  As  a  necessary 
complement  to  this  came  the  change  (p.  122),  gradually  introduced 
through  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  in  the  ordination  for 
mula  of  the  priest,  by  the  interpolation  of  the  clause  "  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whose  sins  thou  shalt  forgive  they  are  forgiven,  and 
whose  sins  thou  shalt  retain  they  are  retained/'  When  these  enlarged 
functions  were  finally  established  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
bishop  or  priest  would  remain  content  with  the  deprecatory  formulas 
of  absolution  which  ascribed  to  them  only  the  intercessory  power 
enjoyed  by  their  predecessors.  When  the  penitent  was  told  that 
confession  and  penance  were  to  win  for  him  remission  of  sins,  he 
would  naturally  ask  for  some  more  definite  assurance  than  a  few 
prayers  to  God  muttered  over  his  head,  and  it  was  inevitable  that  they 
should  be  modified  to  correspond  with  the  change  in  doctrine.  As 
in  the  latter,  so  in  the  former,  the  change  was  gradual.  It  was 
natural  that  the  claim  of  more  than  intercessory  power  should  show 
itself  first  in  the  formulas  of  public  reconciliation  by  the  bishops. 
An  Ordo  Romanus,  of  uncertain  date,  but  probably  early,  among  a 
number  of  purely  intercessory  prayers,  has  one  which  is  fairly  "  in 
dicative" — that  is,  which  claims  the  power  of  absolution — although 
it  refers  to  this  power  as  a  delegation  from  God.  The  plural  form 
shows  that  it  was  addressed  to  a  number  of  penitents,  who  were  thus 
relieved  of  their  sins  by  wholesale.1  The  changes  shown  in  the 

penitence  works  its  effect  when  absolution  is  granted  by  the  priest,  according 
to  the  rules  and  customs  of  the  Church.  Then  immediately  all  sins  are  for 
given  to  the  penitent  by  God,  in  accordance  with  the  promise  of  Christ  in 
John  xx.  23.— Liber  Symbolicus  Eussorum,  oder  der  grb'sserer  Catechismus 
der  Eussen,  pp.  67,  78  (Frankfort  u.  Leipzig,  1727). 

1  "Nos  etiam,  secundum  auctoritatem  nobis  indignis  a  Deo  comrnissam 
absolvirnus  vos  ab  omni  vinculo  delictorum  vestrorum  ut  mereamini  habere 
vitam  seternam."— Mag.  Biblioth.  Patrum.  T.  VIII.  pp.  423-4  (Ed.  Colon.  1618). 

This  may  possibly  be  an  interpolation  of  later  date.  The  same  Ordo  con 
tains  prayers  deprecatory  in  character — "  Ipse  vos  largifluo  pietatis  suae  dono, 
ac  mese  simul  parvitatis  ministerio  absolvere  dignetur  ab  omnibus  fragilitatis 
vestrse  excessibus." 


FORMULAS  OF  ABSOLUTION.  481 

formulas  used  by  priests  in  private  confession  are  more  tentative, 
indicating  how  timidly  at  first  the  claim  was  made  that  the  priest 
could  do  anything  save  -intercede  with  God.  The  old  prayers  were 
retained,  but  there  was  injected  into  them  an  assertion  that  the  priest 
as  far  as  he  could,  or  as  far  as  was  granted  to  him,  or  as  far  as  was 
permitted  to  him,  absolved  the  sinner,  or  he  associated  himself  with 
the  saints,  to  whom,  curiously  enough,  a  power  of  absolution  was 
ascribed,  showing  how  crude  as  yet  were  the  conceptions  as  to  the 
functions  of  God  and  his  creatures.1 


1  Numerous  formulas  of  this  transitional  kind  will  be  found  in  the  collec 
tions  of  Fathers  Martene  and  Morin,  presenting  the  subject  in  every  variety  of 
expression  that  the  imagination  of  the  scribe  could  suggest.  Several  interest 
ing  ones  were  also  printed  by  D.  Vincenzo  Garofalo  in  Rome,  in  1791,  from 
among  which  I  extract  the  following  examples  : 

In  one,  after  prayers  in  the  older  fashion,  there  occurs  the  formula  "  Ipse 
te  absolvat  ab  omnibus  peccatis  et  de  istis  peccatis  quse  modo  mihi  coram  Deo 
confessus  es  .  .  .  cum  ista  poenitentia  quam  modo  accepisti,  sis  absolutus 
a  Deo  Patre  et  Filio  et  Spiritu  sancto  et  ab  omnibus  sanctis  ejus  et  a  me 
misero  peccatore,  ut  dimittat  tibi  Dominus  omnia  delicta  tua  et  perducet  te 
Christus  ad  vitam  seternam."  This  is  followed  by  a  prayer  in  which  we  find 
u  absolvat  te  sanctus  Petrus  et  beatus  Michael  archangelus,  et  nos  in  quantum 
data  est  nobis  potestas  ligandi  et  solvendi  absolutionem  damus,  adjuvante 
Domino  nostro  Jesu  Christo." — Garofali  p.  15. 

Then  there  is  another  formula,  perhaps  a  little  more  assured — "In  ea  potes- 
tate  vel  auctoritate  fidentes  quam  Dominus  nobis  in  beato  Petro  apostolo 
tribuit  ....  quantum  nobis  permissum  est,  ab  omni  vinculo  peccatorum 
absolvimus:  et  quidquid  voluntate  propria,  suadente  Diabolo,  commisisti, 
quantum  possumus  pro  divina  gratia  indulgemus." — Ibid.  p.  16. 

Somewhat  more  assertive  is  this  :  "  Tu  homo  qui  me  confessus  es  peccata  tua 
coram  Deo  et  omnibus  sanctis,  qui  fidem  sanctae  Trinitatis  et  remissionem  pec 
catorum  credis,  in  hac  potestate  ligandi  atque  solvendi  quam  tradidit  Deus 
beato  Petro  apostolo  aliisque  apostolis  et  quae  pertinet  ad  successores  illorum 
pontifices  et  sacerdotes,  et  tantum  quantum  nobis  concessa  est  et  de  his  pec 
catis  [quae]  mihi  confessus  es,  absolutus  sis  per  misericordiam  Dei,  ut  diabolus 
tibi  nee  nocere  nee  te  dampnare  possit."— Ibid.  p.  37. 

When  dealing  with  clerical  penitents  there  would  seem  to  be  no  such  claim 
made.  The  absolutory  formula  is  purely  deprecatory,  calling  upon  all  the 
archangels  and  angels,  the  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles,  martyrs,  confessors 
and  virgins  to  intercede  for  the  sinner. — Ibid.  p.  24. 

Muratori  prints  (Antiq.  Ital.  Diss.  LXVIII.  T.  XIV.  p.  61)  a  curious  formula 
which  assumes  a  quasi-prophetic  power  operative  at  future  death.  It  also 
shows  the  use  of  "  mystery  "  for  sacrament  and  the  confused  idea  of  the  period, 
vacillating  between  absolution  and  reconciliation,  and  including  both  for 
greater  certainty — "Tu  qui  es  nostri  mysterii  vinculo  alligatus,  si  forte  tibi 

I.— 31 


482  ABSOLUTION. 

At  what  period  these  transitional  formulas  came  into  use  it  would 
be  impossible  now  to  determine  with  accuracy.  About  1020,  Bishop 
Burchard  in  his  Decretum,  which  long  continued  authoritative,  knows 
only  the  strictly  deprecatory  form.1  The  change  probably  commenced 
during  the  eleventh  century  and  continued  through  the  twelfth, 
growing  step  by  step  more  decided,  as  the  schoolmen  worked  out 
their  theories  of  sacerdotalism  and  the  priesthood  reduced  them  to 
practice.  It  was  long,  however,  before  anything  more  than  this  ten 
tative  form  was  ventured  upon.  A  formula  for  the  reconciliation  of 
public  penitents,  used  in  the  church  of  Reims  in  the  early  thirteenth 
century,  only  represents  the  bishop  as  acceding  as  far  as  he  can  in  the 
pardon  granted  by  God,  and  calls  for  the  intercession  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  and  the  saints.2  Another  of  about  1250  is  even  less  assertive, 


contigerit,  me  absente,  in  aqua  seu  in  itinere  vel  in  quocumque  loco  tit  ab  hoc 
SEeculo  migrare  cogeris,  quantum  nostrae  est  potestati  absolutus  et  reconciliatus 
sis  a  nobis  et  a  Domino  Deo  ejusdemque  misericordiae  commendatus." 

1  There  is  a  transitional  formula  in  Regino,  de  Discipl.  Eccles.  Lib.  I.  cap. 
295,  but  it  is  recognized  as  an  interpolation. 

In  the  formula  given  by  Burchard  (Deer.  Lib.  xix.  cap.  7)  the  priest,  after 
reciting  Psalms  102,  50,  53  and  51,  addresses  a  long  prayer  to  God— "  ut  famulo 
tuo  N.  peccata  et  facinora  sui  confitenti,  debita  relaxare  et  veniam  prsestare 
digneris  et  prseteritorum  criminum  culpas  indulgeas,"  and  finally  he  dismisses 
the  penitent  with  the  adjuration  "  Deus  omnipotens  sit  adjutor  et  protector  tuus 
et  praastet  indulgentiam  de  peccatis  tuis  praeteritis,  prsesentibus  et  futuris. 
Amen."  The  whole  rite  is  purely  deprecatory. 

Not  long  after  this,  in  1032,  we  have  a  very  curious  transitional  formula, 
which  illustrates  the  vague  and  confused  conceptions  as  yet  current  on  the 
subject.  The  Archbishop  of  Bourges,  in  proclaiming  peace  and  insisting  on  its 
observance,  said  "  Haec  qui  observaverit,  tanquam  filio  pads  immo  Dei,  a 
Domino  nostro  Jesu  Christo  et  sanctis  apostolis  ejus,  absolutionem  conferimus 
peccatorum  et  benedictionem  setemam  ;  ut  sicut  Dominus  beato  Petro  et  huic 
beato  Martiali,  ad  cujus  sanctissimum  corpus  assistimus,  ceterisque  apostolis, 
virtutem  atque  potestatem  ligandi  atque  solvendi  tribuere  dignatus  est ;  ita  a 
peccatorum  nexibus  absolvere  dignetur  eos  qui  de  pace  et  justitia  Deo  et  nobis 
qui  ejus  vice  licet  indigni  fungimur,  obedire  festinaverint." — C.  Lemovicens. 
ann.  1032,  Sess.  I.  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  874). 

If  this  is  an  absolution  it  is  conditioned  on  future  action,  and  therefore,  as 
we  shall  see,  is  invalid,  according  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

2  "  Omnipotens  Deus,  qui  beato  Petro  apostolo  suo  cseterisque  discipulis  suis 
suam  licentiam  dedit  ligandi  atque  solvendi,  ipse  vos  absolvat  ab  omni  vinculo 
delictorum.  Et  quantum  nostrse  fragilitati  permittitur  sitis  absoluti  ante  tri 
bunal  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  habeatisque  vitam  seternam  et  vivatis  in 


THE  INDICATIVE  FORMULA   INTRODUCED.  483 

as  it  only  introduces  the  bishop  as  one  through  whose  ministry  God 
pardons  the  penitents.1  Still  another  manifests  the  prevailing  confu 
sion  of  thought,  since  it  represents  the  bishop  as  absolving  in  order 
that  God  may  remit  the  sins  of  the  penitents,  both  past  and  future.2 
Many  of  the  Ordines  of  the  period,  moreover,  contain  a  number  of 
formulas,  some  deprecatory  and  some  transitional,  showing  that  it 
was  left  to  the  choice  of  the  bishop  or  priest  which  of  them  he  should 
select,  and  that  all  were  held  to  be  equally  effective.  In  fact,  as  the 
prevailing  theory  during  the  thirteenth  century  was  that  the  priest 
only  made  manifest  the  absolution  by  God  (p.  146),  the  exact  phrase 
ology  in  which  he  might  do  this  was  evidently  of  minor  importance. 
It  is  to  this  that  we  may  probably  attribute  the  introduction,  about 
the  year  1240,  of  what  is  known  as  the  "indicative"  formula — the 
interpolation  of  the  phrase  Ego  te  absolvo,  "  I  absolve  thee  "  among 
the  intercessory  prayers  with  which  it  forms  so  strange  and  incon 
gruous  a  contrast.3  However  little  real  importance  this  might  have 
at  the  time,  under  the  current  theories  of  the  function  of  the  priest 
in  absolution,  it  could  scarce  fail  to  excite  animadversion  and  opposi 
tion  as  an  assumption  of  power  for  which  the  Church  was  not  as  yet 
prepared.  But  a  few  years  earlier  William  of  Paris,  one  of  the  fore- 


sseculo  sseculorum,  intercedente  beata  Dei  genitrice  Maria  cum  omnibus  sanc- 
tis." — Morin.  de  Poenit.  App.  p.  48. 

"  Ipse  vos  absolvat  per  niinisterium  nostrum  ab  omnibus  peccatis  vestris 
.  .  .  atque  a  vinculis  peccatorum  vestrorum  absolutos  perducere  dignetur 
ad  regnum  ccelorum.  Amen.  Absolutionem  et  remissionem  omnium  pecca 
torum  vestrorum  percipere  mereamini  hie  et  in  sevum." — Ibid.  p.  71. 

2  Procedente  pietate  divina,  ad  quern  propria  remissio  pertinet  peccatorum, 
vos  fratres  invocato  nomine  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  absolvimus  ut  dimittat 
vobis  Dominus  omnia  peccata  vostra,  tarn  praeterita  quam  futura. — Martene  de 
antiq.  Ecclesiae  Eitibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ordo  14. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this,  as  in  two  of  those  previously  cited,  there  is 
an  attempted  remission  of  future  sins. 

3  The  date  of  1240  may  be  assumed  as  a  probable  approximation,  as  the 
indicative  formula  begins  to  make  its  appearance  soon  afterwards.    Aquinas  in 
a  tract  (Opusc.  xxn.  cap.  5),  which  we  may  suppose  to  be  written  about  1270, 
represents  his  disputant  as  asserting  that  thirty  years  before  the  deprecatory 
formula  alone  was  known ;  this  Aquinas  does  not  deny  except  by  citing  the 
text  of  Matthew  as  a  proof  of  greater  antiquity. 

In  1247  we  have  an  example  of  the  new  formula,  somewhat  diluted  by  the 
invocation  of  Christ  and  St.  Peter — "  Ego  absolvo  te  auctoritate  Domini  Dei 
nostri  Jesu  Christi  et  beati  Petri  apostoli  et  officii  nostri." — Joann.  de  Deo 
Poenitentiale,  Lib.  i.  cap.  2. 


484  ABSOLUTION. 

most  theologians  of  the  day,  had  chanced  to  use  as  an  illustration  the 
fact  that  the  priest  does  not,  like  a  secular  judge,  absolve  or  condemn, 
but  only  prays  to  God  to  grant  absolution,  thus  showing  that  the 
indicative  formula  was  wholly  unknown  to  him.1  It  therefore  came 
as  a  surprise,  and  the  conservative  view  found  expression  in  a  remon 
strance  addressed  to  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne  by  a  learned  layman 
of  Spires,  in  which  he  argued  that  no  man  can  say  to  another  " f  I 
remit  thy  sins  to  thee :'  even  Christ  did  not  say  this  but  e  Thy  sins 
be  forgiven  thee.'  No  one  should  even  say  '  May  God  pardon  thy 
sins  and  I  pardon  them '  unless  for  offences  committed  against  him 
self."2  The  earliest  defence  of  the  new  formula  that  has  reached  us 
is  that  of  Alexander  Hales,  in  1245.  He  speaks  of  it  as  received  in 
use,  and  proceeds  to  prove  that  it  is  properly  added  to  the  depreca 
tory  prayers  of  the  absolution  by  arguing  that  the  prayers  obtain 
grace  for  the  penitent,  and  the  absolution  only  assumes  that  the  grace 
is  bestowed,  for  no  priest  would  absolve  any  one  whom  he  did  not 
believe  to  be  absolved  by  God3 — thus  apologizing  for  it  and  assuming 


1  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Sacram.   Poenit.  cap.  19.      "  Neque  more  judicum 
forinsecorum  pronuntiat  confessor  Absolvimus  te,  non  condemnamus,  sed  magis 
orationem  facit  super  eum  ut  Deus  absolutionem  et  remissionem  atque  gratiam 
sanctificationis  tribuat,"  and  he  adds  "  Unde  in  absolutione  confitentium  non 
consueverunt  dicere  sacerdotes :  dimittat  tibi  Deus  peccata  quse  confessus  es 
mihi,  sed  potius  omnia." 

Yet  with  an  inconsistency  which  shows  how  vague  were  the  ideas  of  this 
period  of  development,  he  attributes  to  the  deprecatory  formula  the  powers  of 
the  indicative,  even  to  the  infusion  of  grace  and  release  from  hell  and  purga 
tory  ;  it  is  the  sacrament  that  effects  it  all  (Ibid.  cap.  21). 

2  Martene  Ampl.  Collect.  I.  357.     The  remonstrance  is  addressed   to  H., 
Archbishop  of  Cologne,  whom  Dom  Martene  suggests  may  be  Heribert,  arch 
bishop  from  999  to  1021.     This   is   evidently  impossible,  for  no   indicative 
formula  had  been  imagined  at  that  period.     A  more  probable  recipient  was 
Heinrich  von  Molenarken,  archbishop  from  1225  to  1238. 

3  Alex,  de  Ales  Summaj  P.  IV.  Q.  xxi.  Membr.  1.  Cf.  Membr.  2,  Art.  1. 
Modern  apologists,  of  course,  find  the  change  from  deprecatory  to  indicative 

absolution  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  inherent  power  to  bind  and  to  loose 
transmitted  through  the  apostles.  Binterim  (Denkwiirdigkeiten,  V.  in.  231-7), 
after  invoking  a  distinction  between  public  and  private  penance,  and  disputing 
the  conclusions  of  Fathers  Morin  and  Martene,  that  originally  the  bishop  and 
priest  were  mere  intercessors,  endeavors  to  prove  that  the  deprecatory  and 
indicative  forms  are  virtually  the  same.  "  Das  Gebet  der  Kirche  um  der  Siin- 
dervergebung  ist  zugleich  der  Ausspruch  das  einer  der  Siindervergebung 
wiirdig  ist."  However  this  may  have  been  in  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth 


DISCUSSION  OVER   THE  INDICATIVE  FORMULA.          485 

that  in  reality  it  meant  nothing  more  than  the  current  doctrine  that 
the  priest  only  made  manifest  the  pardon  by  God. 

Discussion  continued,  and  the  matter  naturally  came  before  the 
University  of  Paris,  which  debated  the  question,  probably  at  some 
time  between  1250  and  1260.  As  the  champion  of  sacerdotalism  it 
could  only  reach  one  conclusion,  and  it  pronounced  in  favor  of  the 
Ego  te  absolvo,  without  which  the  mere  deprecatory  absolution  was 
invalid.1  The  objectors  were  not  silenced ;  some  doctor,  whose  name 
has  not  reached  us,  wrote  a  tract  in  defence  of  the  time-honored  form 
which  attracted  so  much  attention  that  the  Dominican  General  sum 
moned  the  great  disputant  of  his  Order,  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  to 
refute  it.  This,  of  course,  was  an  easy  task  for  the  dialectics  of  the 
Angelic  Doctor.  The  grant  of  the  power  of  the  keys  was  absolute, 
and  must  be  so  expressed  ;  the  older  authorities  alleged  in  favor  of 
the  deprecatory  formula  were  brushed  aside  as  incompetent  to  decide 
so  great  a  question  :  if  the  Master  of  Sentences  did  not  adopt  the 
indicative  form,  he  at  all  events  did  not  express  an  objection  to  it — 
which  he  could  scarce  have  done,  seeing  that  he  had  never  heard  of 
it ;  the  incongruous  retention  of  the  preliminary  prayer  for  forgive 
ness  is  explained  by  its  being  intended  to  obtain  for  the  penitent 
fitness  to  receive  the  sacrament,  though  it  expresses  nothing  of  the 
kind.2  In  his  latest  work  Aquinas  discusses  the  question  elaborately 
and  replies  to  all  the  arguments  which  continued  to  be  brought 
agaiust  the  innovation,  but  in  the  end  he  admits  that  a  qualificatory 
explanation  would  be  desirable,  and  that  a  more  perfect  form  would 
be  u  I  absolve  thee,  that  is,  I  grant  thee  the  sacrament  of  absolution"3 
— a  concession  Avhich  shows  how  indefinite  as  yet  were  the  concep 
tions  of  the  theologians. 

In  spite  of  the  University  of  Paris  and  the  Angelic  Doctor,  the  use 
of  the  indicative  formula  spread  but  slowly.  The  uncertainty  of  the 
period  is  visible  in  the  authoritative  work  of  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa, 
who  in  one  place  gives  a  qualified  indicative,  and  in  another  a  transi 
tional  form,  while  purely  deprecative  ones  continued  to  be  used.4  Ap- 

century,  it  assumed  a  very  different  complexion  when  the  absolution  subse 
quently  was  held  to  confer  pardon. 

1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Opusc.  xxn.  cap.  2.  Ibidem. 

"  Ego  te  absolvo,  /.  e.  sacramentum  absolutionis  tibi  irnpendo." — S.  Th. 
Aquin.  Summse  P.  in.  Q  Ixxxiv.  Art.  3. 

4  Hostiens.  Aurese  Suminse  Lib.  v.  De  Poen.  et  Remiss.  \\  45,  60.— Martene 
de  Antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  Art.  7,  Ord.  15,  17. 


486  ABSOLUTION. 

parently  the  Holy  See  lent  its  influence  in  favor  of  the  innovation,  for, 
at  the  council  of  London,  in  1268,  held  by  the  Cardinal  legate  Otto- 
boni,  a  canon  was  adopted  specially  ordering  all  confessors  to  employ 
it.1  Towards  the  end  of  the  century  John  of  Freiburg  discusses  the 
question  in  a  manner  to  show  that  it  was  as  yet  by  no  means  settled. 
He  quotes  Albertus  Magnus,  Aquinas,  and  John  of  Varzy — all 
Dominicans — in  favor  of  the  indicative  form,  but  adds  that,  as  the 
priest  does  not  absolve  by  his  own  authority,  but  only  ministerially, 
it  is  well  to  append  some  phrase  such  as  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost/7  or  "  By  the  virtue  of  the  Passion  of  Christ," 
or  "  By  the  authority  of  God"2 — all  qualifications  which  show  that 
the  absolute  assumption  of  power  was  still  repugnant  to  many  pious 
souls.  The  Franciscans  were  not  as  prompt  as  the  Dominicans  to 
approve  the  change.  St.  Bonaventura  accepts  the  indicative  formula, 
but  explains  that  the  initial  prayer  obtains  grace,  and  when  God  has 
pardoned  the  culpa  the  words  Ego  te  absolvo  obtain  remission  of 
part  of  the  purgatorial  pcena,  and  enable  the  priest  to  commute  the 
rest  into  appropriate  penance,  thus  reducing  the  formula  to  a  wholly 
subordinate  position.3  Duns  Scotus  treats  the  phraseology  as  a 
matter  of  indifference ;  the  words  Ego  te  absolvo  answer  well  enough, 
and  in  the  rest  of  the  formula  each  church  can  follow  its  own  custom.4 
Astesanus,  in  1317,  argues  that  the  indicative  form  is  requisite  to 
distinguish  sacramental  absolution  from  the  general  absolution  in  the 
mass,  which  is  deprecatory  and  not  sacramental.5  William  of  Ware 
soon  afterwards  adopts  the  somewhat  grudging  admission  of  Duns 
Scotus,  and  adds  that  the  words  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father  etc." 
should  follow  in  order  to  show  that  the  priest  acts  as  a  commis 
sioner  and  not  as  a  principal.6  Even  the  Dominican,  Durand  de 
S.  Pourgam,  considers  the  plain  Ego  te  absolvo  too  absolute,  when 
the  real  agent  is  God,  and  urges  some  clause  recognizing  God  in 
the  matter.7 

If  there  was  hesitation  in  the  schools  to  accept  the  naked  Ego  te 


1  C.  Londiniens.  aim.  1268,  cap.  2  (Harduin.  VII.  617). 

2  Job.  Friburgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  89. 

3  S.  Bonavent.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  P.  1,  Art.  2,  Q.  1,  2. 

4  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  iv. 

5  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  V.  Tit.  ii.  Art.  2. 

6  Guiller.  Vorrillong  in  LV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv. 

7  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxil.  Q.  ii.  §  6. 


THE  INDICATIVE  FORMULA  ACCEPTED.  487 

absolvo,  there  was  equal  uncertainty  among  the  churches.  In  1284  the 
council  of  Mines  prescribes  a  formula  of  a  diluted  character.1  Early 
in  the  fourteenth  century  some  churches  of  Provence  still  used  the 
form  "  May  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost 
absolve  thee!"2  About  1325  William,  Bishop  of  Cahors,  employs 
a  formula  somewhat  hesitating  in  character,  and,  about  1350,  Pierre, 
Bishop  of  Senlis,  prescribes  one  which  is  deprecatory.3  The  form 
current  in  England  in  the  fifteenth  century  shows  that  it  was  still 
held  to  be  proper  to  disclaim  inherent  personal  power,4  and  Thomas 
of  Waldeu  is  indignant  at  the  audacity  of  those  who  added  "  and  I 
restore  thee  to  baptismal  innocence."5  John  Gerson,  about  the  same 
time,  requires  the  addition  of  "In  the  name  of  the  Father  etc."6  By 
this  time  the  phrase  Ego  te  absolvo  had  come  into  general  use,  though 
the  sentences  with  which  it  was  linked  varied  with  the  customs  of  the 
local  churches,  and  the  council  of  Florence,  in  1439,  impliedly  de 
clared  it  to  be  the  essential  part  of  the  absolution  formula  when  it 
denned  it  to  be  the  "  form  "  of  the  sacrament  of  penitence.7 

Even  this  did  not  wholly  settle  the  question.  Dr.  Weigel,  who, 
it  is  true,  was  an  adherent  of  the  council  of  Basle,  accepts  it,  with 
the  explanation  that  it  only  means  that  the  priest  acts  as  the  minis 
ter  of  God  in  absolving  what  God  had  already  absolved,  and  in 
reconciling  the  penitent  to  the  Church,8  and  Robert,  Bishop  of 
Aquino,  who  died  in  1475,  gives  us  a  very  curious  formula,  which 
shows  that  the  transitional  forms  still  lingered  in  use.9  In  the  schools 


1  Synod.  Nemausens.  ann.  1284  (Harduin.  VII.  911). 

2  Fr.  de  Mairone  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  1. 

3  Epist  Synod.  Guill.  Episc.  Cadurcens.  cap.  14  (Martene  Thesaur.  IV.  694). 
— Martene  de  antiq.  Eccles.  Ritibus  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxii.  Ordo  4. 

*  Ego  auctoritate  Dei  patris  omnipotentis  et  beatorum  apostolorum  Petri  et 
Pauli  et  officii  michi  commissi  in  hac  parte,  absolvo  te  ab  hiis  peccatis  michi 
per  te  confessis  et  ab  aliis  de  quibus  non  recordaris.  In  nomine  Patris  etc. 
Amen. — John  Myrc's  Instructions  to  Parish  Priests,  v.  1801. 

5  Thomae  de  Walden  de  Sacramentis  cap.  CLVII.  $  6. 

6  Jo.  Gersonis  Opusc.  Tripart.  P.  n.  ad  calcem. 

7  C.  Florent.  ann.  1439,  Deer.  Union.  (Harduin.  IX.  440)— "Forma  hujus 
sacramenti  sunt  verba  absolutionis  quae  sacerdos  profert  cum  dicit  Ego  te 
absolvo  etc." 

8  Weigel  Claviculse  Indulgentialis  cap.  9. 

9  Rob.  Episc.  Aquinat.  Opus  Quadragesimale,  Serm.  xxix.  cap.  1.— The 
priest  informs  the  penitent  that  his  sins  deserve  so  much  penance — "  Sed 
forte  vita  tua  ad  hoc  agendum  tantum  non  extenderetur.     Injungo  tamen  tibi 


488  ABSOLUTION. 

however  it  was  universally  admitted  that  the  one  essential  and  in 
dispensable  clause  was  the  Ego  te  absolve,  however  the  Thomists  and 
Scotists  might  debate  as  to  the  value  of  additional  and  supplementary 
sentences.1  It  was  inevitable  that  the  council  of  Trent,  when  it  came 
to  define  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  against  heretic  assault,  should 
accept  this  position.  Its  theologians  had  been  trained  in  this  belief, 
and  for  two  centuries  and  a  half  the  tradition  had  been  almost  uni 
form.  It  did  not  pause  to  look  further  back  or  to  realize  that  it  was 
proclaiming  as  orthodoxy  what  St.  Augustin  had  stigmatized  as  a 
Donatist  heresy,  but  it  accepted  the  custom,  and  in  serene  uncon 
sciousness  it  declared  that  the  words  Ego  te  absolvo  are  the  sole 
essential  part  of  the  formula  from  which  its  power  is  derived,  and 
that  the  adjuncts,  while  laudable,  are  superfluous.2  As  thus  without 
these  words  the  absolution  is  null,  the  council  unknowingly  pro 
claimed  to  the  world  that,  prior  to  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  cen 
tury,  an  infallible  Church  had  never  administered  to  its  children  a 
valid  absolution,  although  such  absolution  is  indispensable  to  their 
salvation. 

The  Tridentine  decree  was  final,  and  wherever  the  older  formulas 
may  have  remained  in  use  they  were  speedly  rooted  out.3  Yet,  in 
1584,  Bishop  Angles,  after  reciting  the  various  opinions  on  the  sub- 


talem  pcenitentiam  pro  omnibus,  et  eleemosynas  quibus  peccata  redimentur,  et 
omnia  alia  bona  quae  feceris  et  mala  quae  pro  Christo  sustinueris  accepta  loco 
pcenitentise  et  quod  prosint  tibi  in  remissionem  peccatorum  tuorum.  Et  si 
interim  moriaris,  auctoritate  Dei  et  beatorum  apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli  et 
sanctae  ecclesise  et  nostratae,  absolvimus  ab  omnibus  his  quae  confessus  es  et 
ab  aliis  de  quibus  non  recordaris  in  quantum  possumus  et  debemus.  Et  si 
quidquid  purgandum  remanserit  in  purgatorio  purgetur  juxta  misericordem 
Dei  voluntatem." 

1  Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  v.— Summa  Eosella  s.  v.  Absolutio  v.— Gab. 
Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xiv.  Q.  ii.  Art,  1,  not.  1.— Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog. 
fol.  107-8. — Savonarolae  Confessionale  fol.  G5b. — Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Abso 
lutio  vi.  $  2. — Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Absolutio  I.  n.  4. 

2  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  cap.  3.— "  Docet  praeterea  sancta  synodus 
sacramenti  poenitentiae  formam,  in  quae  praecipue  ipsius  vis  sita  est,  in  illis 
ministri  verbis  positam  esse :  Ego  te  absolvo,  etc.,  quibus  quidem  de  ecclesiae 
sanctae  more  preces  quaedam  laudabiliter  adjunguntur ;  ad  ipsius  tamen  formse 
essentiam  nequaquam  spectant ;  neque  ad  ipsius  sacramenti  administrationem 
sunt  necessariae."— Cf.  Catechis  Trident.  De  Poenitentia  cap.  3. 

3  C.  Leovardiens.  ann.  1570,  cap.  6 ;  C.  Wratislaviens.  ann.  1592,  cap.  8 ;  C. 
Cameracens.  ann.  1604,  cap.  18  (Hartzheim  VII.  317;  VIII.  392,  595). 


UNIFORMITY  ENFORCED.  489 

ject,  concludes  that  the  priest  as  judge  is  at  liberty  to  formulate  the 
sentence  as  he  pleases,  provided  only  that  it  is  an  authoritative  re 
mission.1  A  curious  episode  not  long  afterwards,  however,  suggests 
a  conjecture  as  to  the  real  importance  attached  to  this  point  by  the 
Holy  See.  It  had  under  its  direction  in  southern  Italy  a  hundred 
or  more  parishes  of  Greek  Catholics,  who  were  allowed  to  employ 
their  own  rites,  among  which  was  a  purely  deprecatory  form  of 
absolution.  In  1595,  Clement  VIII.  permitted,  in  case  of  neces 
sity,  these  Greek  priests  to  administer  absolution  to  Latins,  but 
required  that  they  should  use  the  formula  prescribed  by  the  coun 
cil  of  Florence,  to  which  they  might,  if  they  chose,  append  their 
own,  and  it  seems  to  have  escaped  his  attention  that  he  was  as 
suming  the  slightly  absurd  position  that  a  Greek  could  be  saved  by 
a  deprecatory  absolution  while  for  a  Latin  an  indicative  one  is 
necessary.2 

Hitherto  the  local  churches  had  maintained  to  a  great  degree  their 
independence  as  to  ritual,  but  the  council  of  Trent  had  profoundly 
altered  the  situation.  It  had  established  more  firmly  than  ever  the 
supremacy  of  the  Holy  See,  it  had  embodied  the  speculations  of  the 
schoolmen  as  points  of  faith  and  it  had  enabled  the  Latin  Church  to 
organize  itself  as  a  compact  theocracy  to  resist  the  alarming  progress 
of  heresy.  To  take  full  advantage  of  this  it  seemed  advisable  to 
introduce  uniformity  of  observance  everywhere.  In  furtherance  of 
this  St.  Pius  V.  promulgated  a  Missal,  Clement  VIII.  a  Pontifical 
and  Ceremonial,  and,  in  1614,  Paul  V.  issued  a  ritual  which  he 
rendered  obligatory  throughout  the  Roman  obedience.  In  this  was 
comprised  a  formula  for  absolution,  containing  the  indispensable 
clause  "I  absolve  thee"  with  various  strangely  incongruous  prayers 
and  adjurations,  survivals  of  the  old  deprecatory  formulas,  and  this 


1  Angles  Flores  Theol.  Qusestionum,  P.  i.  fol.  996  (Venet.  1584).     For  sub 
sequent  slightly  varying  formulas  see  C.  Aquens.  ann.  1585  De  Pcenitentia,  and 
C.  Narbonn.  ann.  1609,  cap.  16  (Harduin.  X.  1532 ;  XL  17). 

2  Clement.  PP.  VIII.  Deer.  31,  Aug.  1595,  g  3  (Bullar.  III.  52). 

Morin  (De  Poenit.  Lib.  vui.  cap.  xii.  n.  7)  tells  us  that  in  Rome  he  asked 
the  learned  Chian  Ligarinus,  who  was  principal  of  the  Greek  college,  main 
tained  at  papal  expense,  what  was  their  customary  formula  of  absolution, 
when  he  wrote  out  in  Greek  a  sentence  which  Morin  translates  "  Ipse  Domine 
remitte,  dimitte,  condona  peccata  hujus  N.  quia  tua  est  potentia  et  tuuin 
regnum,  Patris  etc. 


490  ABSOLUTION. 

has  since  then  remained  in  force.1     A  considerable  period  was  re 
quired  to  establish  the  desired  uniformity  everywhere,  but  it  was 


1  "  Misereatur  tui  omnipotens  Deus,  et  dimissis  peccatis  tuis,  perducat  te  ad 
vitam  seternam.  Amen. 

"  Indulgentiam,  absolutionem  et  remissionem  peccatorum  tuorum  tribuat  tibi 
omnipotens  et  misericors  Dominus.  Amen. 

"  Dominus  noster  Jesus  Christus  te  absolvat :  et  ego  auctoritate  ipsius  te 
absolve  ab  omni  vinculo  excommunicationis,  suspensionis  et  interdict!  in  quan 
tum  possum  et  tu  indiges.  Deinde  ego  te  absolve  a  peccatis  tuis  in  nomine 
Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti.  Amen. 

"  Passio  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  merita  beatse  Maria  Virginis  et  omnium 
sanctorum,  quidquid  boni  feceris  et  mali  sustinueris  sint  tibi  in  remissionem 
peccatorum,  augmentum  gratiae  et  premium  vitse  seternse.  Amen." — Eituale 
Komanum,  Tit.  ill.  cap.  2. 

In  this  the  only  necessary  words  are  absolvo  te,  though  it  is  better  to  add  a 
peccatis  tuis,  and  this  su races  in  cases  of  urgency.  Other  forms  are  valid  but 
illicit,  because  not  in  accordance  with  the  prescriptions  of  the  Church.  Such 
are  Ego  tibi  remitto  vel  condono  peccata  tua;  Solvo  te  a  peccatis  tuis  ;  Jubeo  volo 
te  absolutum  a  peccatis  tuis,  etc. — Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Absolvere  in. 
n.  1-9.  Cf.  Em.  Sa  Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.  Absolutio  n.  1 ;  Summa  Diana  s. 
v.  Absolutio  n.  1. 

While  the  omission  of  the  invocation  of  the  Trinity  does  not  invalidate  the 
absolution,  some  doctors  hold  that  to  omit  it  is  a  mortal  sin,  while  others  regard 
it  as  only  venial. — Mig.  Sanchez,  Prontuario  de  la  Teologia  Moral.  Tract.  VI. 
Punto  vii.  n.  2. 

Absolution  from  excommunication  is  foreign  to  our  subject,  but  its  occur 
rence  in  the  above  formula  suggests  the  remark  that  it  has  formed  by  no  means 
the  least  perplexing  duties  of  the  confessor.  In  the  middle  ages  excommuni 
cations  latce  sententice  and  ipso  facto  became  so  multiplied,  and  so  intricate  in 
consequence  of  their  being  reserved  to  bishop  or  pope,  that  no  man  could  know 
whether  he  was  under  excommunication  or  not  and  no  confessor  whether  he 
had  power  to  absolve.  In  1418,  Martin  V.  described  the  situation  "  et  sint 
rnultiplices  et  inexplicabiles  sententiae  excommunicationis  in  Corpore  Juris 
quarum  nonnullae  etiam  a  peritissimis  ignorantur,"  wherefore  he  makes  pro 
vision  for  the  absolution  and  dispensation  of  priests  who  have  ignorantly 
granted  absolution  without  authority  (Pittoni  Constitutiones  Pontificise  T.  VII. 
n.  47).  The  question  whether,  under  these  circumstances,  the  penitent  is  ab 
solved  is  a  knotty  one  on  which  the  doctors  were  not  in  accord  (Jo.  Friburg. 
Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  75).  There  was  the  same  doubt  and 
difficulty  when  the  penitent  was  unaware  that  he  was  under  excommunication 
(Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Con/essio  I.  \  20 ;  Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrog.  fol.  14-15). 
In  modern  practice  the  doctrine  of  invincible  ignorance  renders  absolution  in 
such  cases  valid,  even  though  the  excommunication  is  not  removed  (Bened.  PP. 
XIV.  Casus  Conscient.  Feb.  1736,  cas.  Hi.). 

When  in  hasty  absolutions  the  clause  ab  omni  vinculo  excommunicationis,  etc., 


THE  FINAL   CLAUSE  OF  THE  FORMULA  491 

ultimately  accomplished.  In  1703,  the  synod  of  Albania  ordered  all 
the  priests  of  the  province  to  learn  the  Roman  formula  within  two 
months  under  pain  of  deprivation  of  functions.1 

The  final  clause  "  Whatever  of  good  thou  mayest  do  and  of  evil 
thou  mayest  endure  be  to  thee  in  remission  of  sins,  in  increase  of 
grace,  and  rewrard  of  eternal  life  "  was  no  novelty.  Already  in  the 
thirteenth  century  the  doctors  instructed  the  confessors  that  it  was 
highly  beneficial  to  the  penitent  to  impose  on  him  as  penance  what 
ever  good  works  he  might  do  and  tribulations  he  might  suifer. 
Sacerdotalism  grasped  so  eagerly  at  control  of  every  action  of  life 
that  the  schoolmen  argued  that  good  works  performed  by  command 
of  the  confessor  acquire  a  double  value  through  the  power  of  the 
keys  and  that  by  the  simple  utterance  of  this  formula  the  penitent's 
charities,  piety  and  misfortunes,  past  as  well  as  future,  would  be 
reckoned  for  him  as  penance  performed  in  satisfaction  of  his  sins  : 
apparently  man  throughout  life  was  never  to  be  allowed  to  deal 
directly  with  his  God.  Thus,  although  this  clause  was  not  indispen 
sable,  it  was  highly  beneficial  to  the  penitent,  and  the  confessor  was 
advised  never  to  omit  it.  It  thus  became  a  recognized  portion  of  the 
formula,  and  it  served,  according  to  some  authorities,  to  justify  the 
imposition  of  trifling  penance  for  the  gravest  sins.2  Yet  in  this,  as 
in  almost  everything  else,  the  doctors  are  at  odds,  for  some  argue  that 
as  the  clause  is  merely  deprecatory  it  has  no  effect  in  elevating  the 
good  works  of  the  penitent  to  sacramental  efficacy. 3 


is  omitted  the  question  is  a  nice  one  whether  absolution  from  censures  is  con- 
.ferred.  Tamburini  (Method.  Confess.  Lib.  n.  cap.  x.  n.  57)  argues  in  the 
affirmative  because  absolution  from  sin  involves  release  from  all  the  bonds 
imposed  by  it,  though  this  reasoning  would  prove  the  clause  to  be  useless. 

1  Synod.  Albana,  ann.  1703,  P.  n.  cap.  4.  (Coll.  Lacens.  I.  302). 

2  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Pnen.  et  Remiss.  §{j  51,  60.  — Jo.  Fri- 
burgens  Summae  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiii.  Q.  108-10.— Astesani  Summse 
Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxi.  Q.  2.— S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  m.  Tit.xvii.  cap.  21,  §  1;  Ejusd. 
Confessionale,  fol.  69a,  716.— Summa  Angelica  s.  v.  Confessio  vi.  §  4.— Savona- 
rolaa  Confessionale,  fol.  656.— Summa  Sylvestrina  s.  v.  Confessor  iv.    \  2.— 
Zerola  Praxis  Sacr.  Prenit.  cap.  xxiv.  Q.  10,  12.— Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Absolutio 
n.  2. 

It  is  possibly  because  it  seems  to  invalidate  somewhat  the  importance  of  this 
clause  in  the  formula  that  Clement  XI.  (Bull.  Unigenitus  Prop.  70)  condemned 
as  a  Jansenist  error  the  proposition  that  temporal  afflictions  always  serve  either 
to  punish  sin  or  to  purify  the  sinner. 

3  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  507. 


492  ABSOLUTION. 

Of  course,  the  decision  at  Trent,  confirming  that  at  Florence,  was 
accepted  unconditionally  by  the  theologians,  and  it  was  not  difficult 
to  prove  that  the  deprecatory  portions  of  the  formula  have  no  absolu 
tory  power  whatever,  because,  as  Willem  van  Est  says,  it  would  be 
absurd  to  repeat  the  form  of  the  sacrament  in  the  words  "  I  absolve 
thee"  if  it  had  already  been  uttered  in  different  phrase.1  Juan  San 
chez  is  even  more  emphatic :  the  absolution  is  effected  by  the  priest, 
not  by  Christ,  even  as  in  the  mass  it  is  the  priest,  not  Christ,  that 
consecrates,  and  hence  it  is  useless  to  represent  the  priest  as  praying 
—an  argument  which  sufficiently  illustrates  the  complete  revolution 
effected  by  the  sacramental  theory  in  the  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sin.2  Hardly,  however,  had  this  been  satisfactorily  established, 
when  the  labors,  among  the  ancient  records,  of  scholars  of  undoubted 
orthodoxy,  brought  to  light  the  forgotten  rituals  and  furnished  incon 
trovertible  evidence  that  the  indicative  clause  was  a  late  interpolation. 
It  was  a  cruel  dilemma.  Father  Morin  placed  the  matter  in  a  shape 
which  admitted  of  no  dispute,  but  he  treated  the  subject  historically, 
not  theologically,  and  while  he  showed  how  and  when  the  change 
came  about  he  did  not  venture  to  speculate  how  the  old  doctrine  was 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  new.3  Father  Juenin  could  not  escape  so 
easily.  He  admitted  the  fact  that  anciently  all  absolutions  were  de 
precatory  and  that  the  council  of  Trent  had  made  it  defide  that  they 
must  be  indicative  ;  to  explain  this  he  can  only  argue  that  the  Church 
can  define  the  conditions  requisite  to  the  validity  of  its  sacraments ; 
it  is  a  judicial  proceeding  and  courts  can  frame  new  rules  to  super 
sede  the  old4 — discreetly  forgetful  that  it  is  a  matter  of  faith,  not  of 
discipline ;  that  man  is  here  dealing  not  with  man  but  with  God,  and 
was  just  as  certain  in  1230  that  he  was  following  the  divine  law  as 
he  was  in  1300  when  he  had  changed  that  law,  not  through  a  revela 
tion  but  through  the  dialectics  of  a  few  schoolmen.  Father  Tournely 
admits  the  change,  and  in  disregard  of  the  Tridentine  decree,  asserts 
that  it  makes  no  difference  for  the  Greeks  absolve  validly  with  a 
deprecatory  formula.5  Liguori  is  more  prudent  in  calmly  remarking 
that  some  doctors  assert  that  the  ancient  form  was  deprecatory,  but 

1  Estius  in  IV  Sentt.  Dist.  xv.  §  3. 

2  Jo.  Sanchez  Selecta  de  Sacramentis,  Disp.  vi.  n.  13. 

3  Morin.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  vm.  cap.  8-12. 

4  Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  vi.  Q.  vii.  cap.  1,  Art.  1 ;  cap.  2,  Art.  2,  §  2. 

5  Tournely  de  Poanit.  Q.  vi.  Art.  ii. 


RECAPITULATION.  493 

there  are  some  who  deny  it ;  it  is  "  common  "  among  theologians  that 
the  deprecatory  form  is  invalid,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
council  of  Trent  has  rendered  the  use  of  the  indicative  de  fide.] 
Palmieri  is  bolder ;  he  assumes  that  the  old  deprecatory  form  was 
used  in  public  penance,  which  he  says  was  not  sacramental,  and  there 
may  have  been  another  form  in  private  penance — though  how  it 
should  have  left  no  trace  he  does  not  explain  :  besides,  he  argues 
with  Tournely,  that  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  the  two 
forms,  and  that  the  deprecatory  suffices,  and  in  this  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  take  issue  with  Liguori,  though  he  abstains  from  a  positive 
affirmation.2  When  St.  Alphonso  Liguori  asserts  a  matter  to  be  de 
fide  on  the  unquestioned  authority  of  Trent,  and  a  theological  teacher 
in  Rome  calls  it  into  question,  what  certainty  can  the  faithful  feel  in 
any  dogma  ? 

I  have  dwelt  thus  in  detail  on  these  questions  because  they  shed 
much  light  on  the  evolution  of  the  priestly  power  to  remit  sins  on 
which  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Church  is  so  largely  based,  and 
a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  process  may  not  be  amiss.  The  primi 
tive  reconciliation  to  the  Church  was  accompanied  by  the  prayers  of 
priest  and  people,  through  which  it  was  hoped  that  the  penitent 
would  likewise  enjoy  reconciliation  with  God.  The  bishop  alone 
had  the  power  of  reconciliation,  and  he  alone  in  ordination  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  grant  of  the  keys,  such  as  it  was.  The 
constant  reiteration  of  the  command  that  the  priest  should  not  admit 


1  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  430. 

A  recent  Spanish  theologian  quotes  Liguori  as  saying  that  the  existence  of 
ancient  deprecatory  formulas  is  almost  universally  (communissime)  denied,  and 
Concina  to  the  effect  that  the  evidence  is  inconclusive,  and  there  he  leaves  it. 
— Mig.  Sanchez  Prontuario  de  la  Teologia  Moral,  Trat.  vi.  Punto  vii.  n.  9. 

Father  de  Charmes  furnishes  the  most  characteristic  specimen  of  theological 
imperviousness.  He  does  not  blush  to  say  (Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  ii.  Q.  2, 
Art.  2)  "  Forma  sacramentalis  absolutionis  ex  institutione  Christi  debet  esse 
indicativa ;  ita  nee  unquam  fuerit  nee  possit  esse  deprecativa,"  and  he  dismisses 
all  the  evidence  of  the  Penitentials  and  Ordines  "  Turn  quia  nullius  est  momenti 
ilia  probatio  negativa  contra  expressa  clavium  concessione  a  Christo  facto 
ecclesise." 

2  Palmieri  Tract,  de  Pcenit.  pp.  127-41.     "Nos  rein  in  medio  relinquimus, 
quamvis,  ut  quod  est  fateamur,  verisimilior  nobis  appareat  sententia  affirmans 
sufficientiam  per  se  formae  deprecativae." 


494  ABSOLUTION. 

to  reconciliation  without  the  authority  of  the  bishop  shows  that  the 
priests  were  constantly  infringing  on  the  episcopal  prerogatives, 
which  the  bishops  were  as  jealously  maintaining.  With  the  rise  of 
the  system  of  the  Penitentials  in  the  extensive  dioceses  of  the  mis 
sionary  lands,  the  bishops  were  content  to  allow  their  priests  to  pray 
over  their  penitents,  a  ceremony  in  which  they  recognized  no  exer 
cise  of  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
synod  of  Pavia,  in  850,  they  expressly  declared  that  this  power  was 
exclusively  episcopal  and  was  not  shared  by  the  priests  except  when 
specially  delegated,  for  the  bishops  alone  were  the  representatives  of 
the  apostles.  In  this  way  the  so-called  absolution  of  the  Penitentials 
established  itself,  comforting  to  the  penitent  without  any  definite 
determination  of  its  value  as  an  intercession  with  God.  With  the 
growth  of  belief  in  the  power  of  the  keys,  both  priest  and  penitent 
cheerfully  united  in  ascribing  increased  importance  to  this  depre 
catory  ceremony,  as  advantageous  to  both,  and,  as  reconciliation  to 
the  Church  gradually  was  assumed  to  be  reconciliation  to  God,  so 
the  formula  of  the  priest  was  held  to  infer  that  the  pardon  prayed 
for  was  granted.  When  the  power  of  the  keys  was  finally  estab 
lished,  when  auricular  confession  was  elevated  into  a  sacrament,  and 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  were  con 
ferred  on  the  priest  in  ordination,  there  could  no  longer  be  any  dis 
tinction  between  reconciliation  and  absolution ;  both  were  equally 
sacramental,  and  both  secured  pardon  for  the  sinner  who  threw  no 
obstacles  in  the  way.  Reconciliation  thus  became  absolution,  and,  as 
it  was  the  recognized  function  of  the  priest  to  administer  the  sacra 
ments,  this  one  could  not  be  withheld  from  him.  Yet  in  making  this 
concession  to  the  priest  the  bishop  retained  control ;  though  in  theory 
the  power  of  the  keys  was  granted  by  God,  in  practice  it  was  merely 
a  delegated  power,  for  it  could  only  be  exercised  by  episcopal  con 
sent,  and  under  the  name  of  reserved  cases  the  bishop  retained  ex 
clusive  jurisdiction  over  such  sins  as  he  saw  fit.  Thus,  towards  the 
end  of  the  twelfth  century,  Peter  of  Poitiers  tells  us  that,  although 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  is  incident  to  ordination  and  is 
possessed  by  every  priest,  it  is  only  potential  and  not  active  unless 
he  has  a  cure  of  souls  or  a  delegation  from  the  bishop.1  For  awhile 


1  P.  Pictaviens.  Sentt.  Lib.  in.  cap.  16. 

The  forged  decretal  of  Evaristus,  already  quoted,  shows  that  the  reconcilia 
tion  for  secret  sins  by  priests  was  recognized  as  a  delegated  power — "  Ut  pres- 


THE  SACRAMENTS  IN  SINFUL  HANDS.  495 

the  deprecatory  formula  of  reconciliation  and  absolution  continued 
to  satisfy  the  conscience,  but,  as  the  value  ascribed  to  the  ceremony 
was  enhanced  by  scholastic  dialectics,  it  gradually  assumed  more  and 
more  an  indicative  form,  until  at  last  the  "I  absolve  thee"  was 
boldly  injected  in  it.  That  the  priestly  class  should  welcome  this 
recognition  of  their  authority  was  natural ;  that  penitents,  when 
once  they  had  heard  of  it,  should  demand  it  for  the  repose  of  their 
consciences  was  inevitable ;  the  opposition  excited  by  the  innovation 
was  gradually  silenced,  and  finally  the  council  of  Trent  placed  the 
stigma  of  nullity  on  what  had  been  the  universal  practice  of  the 
Church  up  to  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

No  sooner  had  the  fact  of  sacramental  absolution  been  established 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  schoolmen  than  debates  arose  as  to  its  nature, 
extent,  and  mode  of  operation.  The  more  important  of  these  ques 
tions  have  been  referred  to  in  Chapter  VII.,  but  there  are  a  few 
more  which  merit  brief  notice. 

The  validity  of  priestly  ministrations  in  sinful  hands  was  a  subject 
which  had  long  exercised  the  Church  :  it  had  caused  the  persistent 
and  dangerous  heresy  of  the  Donatists,  and,  at  the  period  when  the 
scholastic  theology  was  assuming  shape,  the  Waldenses  revived  the 
theory  that  a  wicked  priest  could  not  administer  valid  sacraments. 
Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  in  a  passage  quoted  above  (p.  472)  had  been 
disposed  to  concede  that  the  virtue  of  the  absolution  was  dependent 
upon  the  capacity  of  the  minister,  but  the  complaints  of  Peter  Lom 
bard  and  Alain  de  Lille  of  the  ignorance  and  vice  of  a  large  portion 
of  the  sacerdotal  body  show  how  fatal  to  the  sacramental  theory 
would  have  been  such  an  admission,  and  it  was  accepted  in  the 
schools  that  a  bad  priest  in  virtue  of  his  office  could  grant  absolution 
as  valid  as  a  good  one ;  like  the  consecration  of  the  Host,  the  sacra 
ment  of  penitence  is  effected  ex  opere  operato  and  not  ex  opere 
operantis.1  Whether  this  applies  to  a  heretic  priest  administering 
absolution  in  articulo  mortis  to  a  true  believer,  is,  however,  a  ques 
tion  which  the  Church  has  never  been  able  to  determine  positively. 


byteri  de  occultis  peccatis  jussione  episcopi  poenitentes  reconcilient." — Ps. 
Evaristi  cap.  iii.  (Burchard.  Lib.  xvin.  cap.  16 ;  Ivon.  Deer.  xv.  38 ;  Cap.  4 
Caus.  xxvi.  Q.  vi.). 

1  Hostiens  Aurese  Summse  Lib.  v.  De  Remiss.  §  3. — Estius  in  IV.  Sentt. 
Dist.  xv.  $  2. 


496  ABSOLUTION. 

In  the  cognate  case  of  baptism,  where  also  the  salvation  of  a  human 
soul  is  at  stake,  any  one,  heretic  or  pagan,  male  or  female,  can  ad 
minister  a  valid  sacrament,  but  Aquinas  declares  that  this  applies  to 
no  other.1  St.  Antonino  affirms  that  heretic  absolution  is  good  if  the 
penitent  is  ignorant  of  the  heresy  or  is  firm  in  the  faith  and  is  pressed 
by  necessity.2  The  council  of  Trent  says  that  for  the  dying  there  is 
no  reservation  of  cases  and  that  all  priests  can  absolve  all  sinners,3 
and  though  the  good  fathers  were  probably  thinking  of  papal  and 
episcopal  cases,  the  incautious  phrase  has  been  used  to  support  the 
validity  of  heretic  absolution,  while  to  render  the  confusion  worse  a 
private  decision  of  the  council  is  cited  in  support  of  the  negative,  and 
one  of  Innocent  XI.  in  that  of  the  affirmative.  Liguori  tells  us  that 
prior  to  the  council  the  common  opinion  was  adverse,  but  since  then 
it  has  been  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  such  absolution.4 

It  was  an  old  rule  that  reconciliation  should  never  be  refused  to 
the  dying  who  sought  for  it,5  and  when  reconciliation  became  abso 
lution  the  same  charitable  custom  gradually  established  itself,  and 
was  finally  recognized  as  a  universal  rule  expressed  in  the  above 
utterance  of  the  council  of  Trent.  If  the  dying  man  has  asked  for 
a  confessor,  or  has  shown  signs  of  contrition,  and  is  speechless  on  the 
arrival  of  the  priest,  he  is  still  to  be  absolved  conditionally  without 
confession ;  even  in  the  absence  of  such  indications,  if  he  has  been 
regular  in  religious  observances,  the  same  holds  good,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  doctors,  although  there  are  great  names  ranged  in 
the  negative.  It  is  related  of  Clement  VIII.  that,  when  he  chanced 
to  see  a  workman,  employed  on  St.  Peter's,  fall  from  a  great  height, 
he  exclaimed,  with  rare  presence  of  mind,  while  the  poor  wretch 
was  still  in  the  air,  "  If  thou  art  capable,  I  absolve  thee  from  thy 
sins."6  There  are,  however,  multitudes  of  cases,  as  in  battle  and  ship- 


1  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  P.  in,  Q.  Ixxxii.  Art.  7  ad  2. 

2  S.  Antonini  Summae  P.  nr.  Tit.  xiv.  cap.  19  §  16. 

3  C.  Trident.  Sess.  xiv.  De  Poenit.  cap.  7. 

4  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  560. — Ferraris  Prompta 
Biblioth.  s.  v.  Moribundus  n.  32-35. 

5  Innoc.  PP.  I.  Epist.  vi.  cap.  2.— Rodolphi  Bituricens.  Capit.  cap.  44. 

6  Ern.  Sa  Aphorismi  Confessar.  s.  v.Absolutio  n.  10.—  Juenin  de  Sacramentis 
Diss.  vi.  Q.  vii.  Art.  4,  %  3.— Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Moribundus  n.  3, 
4.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  n.  482. 

Yet  the  proposition  that  a  man  of  Christian  life,  if  bereft  of  his  senses  or  of 


DEATH-BED  ABSOLUTION.  497 

wreck,  when  men  die  without  the  chance  of  ghostly  consolation.  The 
Church  boasts  that  it  never  requires  the  impossible  of  its  children, 
and  however  much  it  may  invalidate  the  assumed  necessity  of  the 
sacrament  for  salvation,  it  is  conceded  that  in  such  case  contrition 
embracing  desire  for  the  sacrament  procures  pardon.1  What  exact 
degree  of  contrition  obtains  remission  under  these  circumstances  it 
would  not  be  easy  to  define,  but  a  case  on  record  would  seem  to  indi 
cate  that  a  mere  impulse  suffices,  for  a  knight  slain  in  a  tournament 
was  buried  in  unconsecrated  ground,  under  the  papal  bulls  excom 
municating  all  participants  in  such  sports,  but  his  friends  appealed 
to  the  pope  and  proved  that  his  right  hand  was  raised  to  his  face  as 
though  to  make  the  sign  of  the  cross ;  this  was  admitted  as  sufficient 
evidence  of  repentance,  and  the  pontiff  authorized  his  burial  with  the 
rites  of  the  Church.2  The  grant  of  the  plenary  indulgence  of  the 
Cruciata,  moreover,  contained  a  clause  that  the  absence  of  a  confessor 
at  death  should  not  deprive  the  recipient  of  its  benefit  provided  he 
was  contrite  and  had  duly  confessed  at  the  prescribed  time.3  When 
in  cases  of  sudden  death  a  confessor  is  sent  for  and  arrives  after  life 
is  extinct,  he  cannot  absolve,  for  his  jurisdiction  is  only  over  the 
living.  There  are  some,  indeed,  who  hold  that  the  soul  does  not 


speech,  is  to  be  absolved,  when  enunciated  by  the  Jesuit  Moya,  was  condemned 
as  dangerous  by  the  Sorbonne  (D'Argentre,  III.  I.  113)  and  Pontas  is  even 
more  decided  in  rejecting  it  (Diet,  de  Gas  de  Conscience  s.  v.  Absolution  cas.  4). 
The  Jesuits  ordered  that  it  should  not  be  taught  in  the  schools,  but  their 
priests  argued  that  prohibition  of  teaching  did  not  infer  prohibition  of  the 
practice  (Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  602-5).  For  the  conflicting  opinions  on 
the  subject  see  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1140. 

1  Doin.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvm.  Q.  iv.  Art.  4.— Palmieri  Tract,  de 
Pcenit.  p.  279. 

2  Dollinger,  Beitriige  zur  Sektengeschichte  des  Mittelalters,  II.  622. 
Caramuel  relates  (Theol.  Fundam.  n.  1876)  as  an  example  to  be  followed 

that  when  Don  Balthasar  de  Morradas  lay  insensible  and  dying  in  Prague, 
some  priests,  hastily  summoned,  dared  not  to  absolve  him.  Then  came  a 
Jesuit  P.  N.,  of  high  repute  for  learning  and  piety,  who  turned  out  the  others, 
and  after  an  interval  left  the  room  saying  "  He  exhibited  sufficient  signs  of 
sorrow  and  I  absolved  him,"  though  there  had  been  no  change  in  the  condi 
tion  in  the  moribund.  As  Caramuel  remarks,  thus  Don  Balthasar  was  saved 
and  scandal  was  averted. 

3  Nogueira  Exposit.   Bullse  Cruciatse,  Colonise,  1744,  p.  3. — In  the  modern 
bull  of  the  Cruciata  this  privilege  is  not  confined  to  the  dying,  but  is  enjoyed 
by  the  living  if  from  any  cause  they  are  debarred  from  confession. — Pii  PP.  IX. 
Bull  Dum  Infidelium,  30  Apr.  1861,  \  1. 

I.— 32 


498  ABSOLUTION. 

leave  the  body  until  a  certain  time  after  apparent  death,  and  that 
during  this  interval  the  priest  should  grant  conditional  absolution, 
but  this  belief  is  only  of  doubtful  probability,  and  the  practice  is  not 
to  be  recommended.1 

In  treating  of  the  power  of  the  keys  we  have  seen  the  different 
theories  successively  current  as  to  the  value  of  the  absolution  con 
ferred  in  the  sacrament.  In  addition  to  these  general  views  there 
necessarily  arose  questions  affecting  individual  cases.  As  far  as 
these  originate  in  the  penitent,  they  will  be  considered  in  the  next 
chapter,  but  there  are  some  which  depend  on  the  confessor,  and  may 
be  briefly  referred  to  here.  The  limitation  of  jurisdiction,  as  we 
have  seen,  introduces  a  multitude  of  uncertainties,  for  the  sacrament 
is  invalid  if  a  priest  absolves  a  penitent  of  a  different  diocese,  or  for 
a  sin  which  his  bishop  has  reserved,  and,  though  modern  liberality 
has  somewhat  diminished  these  difficulties,  it  is  impossible  for  the 
unlearned  penitent  to  be  familiar  with  all  details,  and  he  is  liable  to 
be  deceived  into  imagining  himself  absolved  when  he  is  not— a 
liability  which  we  are  told  was  formerly  largely  abused  by  designing 
priests  for  purposes  of  gain.2  Another  source  of  uncertainty  lies  in 
the  confessor  misunderstanding  the  penitent  through  deafness,  in 
attention,  abstraction  or  drowsiness,  for  the  theory  is  that  he  must 
have  a  clear  perception  of  all  the  sins  confessed  in  order  that  his 
intention  may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  them  all,  otherwise  the  abso 
lution  is  invalid.  This  is  a  subject  which  has  evoked  considerable 
discussion  and  many  conflicting  opinions,  as  we  have  seen  above 
(p.  165).  Ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  confessor  as  to  his  duties  is 
another  source  of  doubt  which  has  been  alluded  to  above  (p.  164). 
The  theologians  are  never  weary  in  expatiating  on  the  immense  and 
varied  range  of  knowledge  requisite  to  perform  properly  the  duties 
of  the  confessional,  but  as  this  knowledge  is  mostly  conspicuous  by 
its  absence,  the  question  as  to  whether  God  will  ratify  the  judgments 
of  an  ignorant  priest  is  one  on  which  the  moralists  have  found  it 
hard  to  agree,  some  holding  that  he  will,  others  that  he  will  not, 
and  others  again  contenting  themselves  with  saying  that  it  is  a  dis- 

1  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1164. 

2  Asteaani  Summ*  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxviii.  Q.  3.-Weigel  Claviculae  Indulgen- 
tialis  cap.  7.— Bart,  de  Chaimis  Interrogatorium,  fol.  136,  92«, 


CAUSES  OF  INVALIDITY.  499 

puted  question,  with  probabilities  on  both  sides,1  The  matter, 
however,  is  one  which  affects  so  intimately  the  value  of  the  whole 
system,  that  to  render  the  validity  of  the  sacrament  dependent 
upon  the  learning  or  wisdom  of  the  ministrant  is  to  destroy  all 
confidence  in  it,  and,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  the  tendency  in 
modern  times  is  to  assure  the  penitent  that  the  absolution  is 
good,  independent  of  the  fitness  of  the  confessor.  It  can  readily 
thus  be  seen  how  manifold  and  intricate  are  the  questions  con 
cerning  the  validity  of  absolution,  turning  in  many  cases  upon 
delicate  shades  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  either  penitent  or  con 
fessor.  The  salvation  of  the  former  may  depend  upon  his  right 
ful  appreciation  of  them  and  on  his  repeating,  if  necessary,  his 
confession,  but  it  is  in  many  cases  beyond  his  power  even  to  know 
the  facts,  or,  if  he  knoAvs  them,  to  understand  their  correct  legal 
application.2 

In  addition  to  all  this  there  comes  the  impenetrable  question  of 
the  intention  of  the  ministrant,  which  is  indispensable  to  the  validity 
of  all  sacraments.  In  the  development  of  the  sacramental  theory 
this  at  first  received  no  attention,  but  it  gradually  suggested  itself 
as  a  sort  of  counterpoise  to  the  doctrine  of  ex  opere  operato,  to  afford 
to  the  priest  a  share  in  the  operation.  Through  the  labors  of  the 
schoolmen  it  gradually  assumed  a  more  definite  shape  until  Aquinas 
finally  defined  the  sacraments  to  consist  of  matter,  form,  and  the 
intention  of  the  ministrant,  of  which  the  last  is  as  indispensable 
as  either  of  the  others.3  This  definition  was  formally  accepted  by 
the  Church  in  the  council  of  Florence  in  1439,  and  confirmed  in  that 
of  Trent.4  It  is  thus  de  fide  .that  the  intention  of  the  confessor  to 
do  what  the  Church  does  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  absolu- 


1  Astesani  Summse  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxviii.  Q.  2.— Estius  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
xvii.  |  3.— Summa  Diana  s.  v.  Confessarius  n.  25.— La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib. 
vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1213. 

2  See  Dom.  Soto  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvin.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5;  Q.  iii.  Art.  3. 

3  Alex,  de  Ales  P.  IV.  Q.  vin.  Membr.  iii.  Art.  1,  §  1.— S.  Bonavent.  in  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist  vi.  P.  ii.  Art.  3,  |  1.— Hostiens.  Aurea?  Summse  Lib.  in.  De  Bap- 
tismo  I  8.— S.  Th.  Aquin.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  vi.  Art.  ii. ;  Opusc.  V.  De  Artie. 
Fidei  et  Sacram. ;  Sumrnae  P.  in.  Q.  Ixiv.  Artt.  8,  10.— Durand.  de  S.  Porciano 
in  IV.  Sentt,  Dist.  vi.  Q.  ii.  $$  8-10. 

4  C.  Florent  ami.  1439,  Deer.  Union.  (Harduin.  IX.  438).— C.  Trident.  Sess. 
vii.  De  Sacramentia  in  genere  can.  11. 


500  ABSOLUTION. 

tion.1  As  usual,  there  has  been  dissent,  and  some  theologians  have 
maintained  that  the  intention  to  perform  the  external  ceremony 
suffices,  but  Alexander  VIII.  condemned  this  opinion  in  1690.2 
This  casts  a  doubt  upon  the  validity  of  all  absolutions,  which  the 
theologians  admit,  but  which  they  are  unable  to  rectify,3  and,  in 
reply  to  the  argument  that  it  is  contrary  to  divine  justice  that  peni 
tent  sinners  or  helpless  infants  should  be  damned  through  the  malice 
of  a  priest,  Ferraris  can  merely  say  that  they  are  damned  for  their 
sin,  actual  or  original :  God  has  duly  provided  the  means  for  their 
salvation,  and  is  not  bonnd,  even  if  he  could,  to  prevent  the  malice 
of  his  minister.4 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that  there  can  be  no  assurance  that  the 
absolution  granted  in  the  confessional  is  of  any  value,  even  to  a 
penitent  properly  disposed,  but  however  freely  this  may  be  admitted 
among  themselves  by  theologians,  it  is  not  allowed  to  affect  the  posi 
tive  assurances  which  they  give  to  the  people  that  their  sins  are  re 
mitted  by  the  sacrament,  We  have  seen  (p.  156)  how  absolute  are 
the  promises  uttered  by  Cardinal  Bellarmine  and  others,  and  the 
same  assertions  continue  to  be  made  in  the  popular  manuals  of  in 
struction.  In  one  widely  circulated  under  the  highest  authority  the 
penitent  is  told  that  the  confessor  will,  "  if  he  finds  you  properly 
disposed,  give  you  in  God's  name  absolution  for  your  sins  .  .  .  and 
this  absolution  will  be  made  good  by  God  in  heaven," 5  and  another 


1  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Intentio-  S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral. 
Lib.  vi.  n.  16,  17,  18,  25. 

2  Alex.  PP.  VIII.  Constit.  Pro  pastorali  cura  Prop.  28  (Bullar.  XII.  67). 
This  is  one  of  the  matters  of  which  the  discussion  is  prudently  forbidden  by 

Benedict  XIV.  De  Synodo  Diocoesan.  Lib.  vn.  cap.  iv.  n.  9. 

3  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xix.  Q.  ii.  §  7.— Dom.  Soto  in 
IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xvn.  Q.  ii.  Art.  5.— Pallavacini  Hist.  Concil.  Trident,  ix. 
vi.  4-6. 

4  Ferraris  Prompta  Bibl.  s.  v.  Intentio  n.  30.     For  some  of  the  intricate 
questions  concerning  the  precise  intention  of  the  priest  as  he  recites  the  suc 
cessive  clauses  of  the  absolution,  see  Gobat,  Alphab.  Confessarior.  n.  146-57.    It 
is  only  a  venial  sin  for  the  priest  to  utter  the  formula  without  thinking  about 
it,  provided  he  makes  no  mistakes.    Ib.  n.  177. 

5  Jos.  Faa  di  Bruno,  Catholic  Belief:  or  a  short  and  simple  exposition  of 
Catholic  Doctrine,  p.  310.     As  this  work  has  the  imprimatur  of  Cardinal 
Manning  (1883),  of  Archbishop  McCloskey  (1884),  and  an  introduction  by 
Bishop  Ryan  of  Buffalo  (1884),  and  as  the  copy  before  me  is  of  the  eightieth 
thousand,  I  presume  that  it  presents  the  current  authorized  teaching. 


PARTIAL  ABSOLUTION.  501 

recent  work  asserts  that  uthe  absolution  of  the  priest  will  be  just  as 
valid,  just  as  powerful  as  the  absolution  of  Jesus  Christ  himself1 

Allusion  has  been  made  above  (pp.  329,  348)  to  the  principle 
that  pardcii  cannot  be  partial — that  remission  must  be  for  all  sins  or 
for  none,  since  absolution  restores  the  state  of  grace  which  is  incom 
patible  with  the  coexistence  of  a  mortal  sin,  and  there  can  be  no  divided 
reconciliation  with  God.  Besides,  as  a  single  mortal  sin  unremitted 
casts  the  sinner  into  hell  for  eternity,  it  could  practically  make  no 
difference  how  many  others  might  be  remitted.  All  this,  in  the  per 
fected  theory,  is  self-evident  enough,  but  before  the  theory  was 
worked  out  by  the  schoolmen  the  conception  of  these  matters  was  so 
vague  that  there  was  a  common  abuse  in  which  priests  received  sin 
ners  to  penitence  for  individual  sins.  Urban  II.  condemned  this  at 
the  council  of  Amalfi,  in  1089,  as  leading  souls  to  perdition,  and  the 
warning  had  to  be  repeated  more  than  once  2  Peter  Lombard  easily 
saw  the  fallacy  of  such  partial  absolution,  and  laid  down  the  rule  that 
confession  to  be  valid  must  be  complete ;  if  the  sinner  omits  any 
mortal  sin  the  absolution  granted  is  ineffective  even  for  those  con 
fessed.3  Notions  on  the  subject,  however,  were  still  too  confused  for 
this  to  be  universally  accepted,  and  towards  the  close  of  the  twelfth 
century  Master  Bandinus  argues  that  confession  of  a  single  sin  is 
valid  if  satisfaction  and  amendment  follow,  otherwise  it  is  not.4  The 
later  schoolmen  saw  clearly  the  error  of  this,  and  the  principle  be 
came  established  that  the  penitent  must  confess  all  the  mortal  sins 
that  he  can  recollect  and  receive  absolution  for  all,  since  God  does 
not  remit  one  without  the  rest,  and  the  priest  must  absolve  for  all  or 
none.5  Yet  immutable  as  the  rule  appears  to  be  by  its  very  nature, 
we  have  seen  the  exceptions  forced  upon  it  by  the  principle  of  juris 
diction  and  the  practice  of  reserved  cases,  and  Father  Segneri  leaves 


1  Miiller's  Catholic  Priesthood,  I.  49.— See  also  the  "  Catechism  of  the  Third 
Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore"  (1884),  p.  32. 

2  C.  Melphitan.  ann.  1089,  cap.  16;  C.  Claromont.  ann.  1095;  C.  Lateranens. 
II.  ann.  1139,  cap.  22  (Harduin.  VI.  n.  1687, 1736,  2212).— Cap.  8  Caus.  xxxin. 
Q.  iii.  Dist.  5. 

3  P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xv.  §  3. 

4  Mag.  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xv. 

5  Alex,  de  Ales  Summje  P.  IV.  Q.  xvui.  Membr.  vi.  Art.  5,  g  6.— S.  Bona- 
vent.  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xx.  P.  ii.  Art.  1,  Q.  1.— S.Th.  Aquinat.  Summse  P.  III. 
Q.  Ixxxvi.  Art.  3.— Catech.  Trident.  De  Poenitentia  cap.  9. 


502  ABSOLUTION. 

it  to  the  discretion  of  the  confessor  by  telling  him  that  if  hurried  he 
can  listen  only  to  the  graver  sins  and  grant  absolution  for  them, 
with  the  command  to  the  penitent  to  confess  the  rest  at  the  next 
time.1  There  is  also  an  admission  of  partial  absolution  in  the  rule 
that  if  an  invalid  absolution  is  followed  by  one  or  more  confessions, 
and  the  prior  invalidity  is  then  discovered,  the  first  confession  must 
be  repeated,  but  the  subsequent  ones  are  valid  and  need  not  be.2 
Partial  absolution,  in  fact,  came  to  be  known  as  absolutio  dimidiata, 
and  could  occur  when  the  priest  restricted  his  attention  to  only  a 
portion  of  the  sins  confessed  to  him.3  Another  illustration  of  it  is 
seen  in  the  rule  that  if  a  penitent  confesses  to  having  committed  a 
sin  ten  times,  and  subsequently  remembers  that  the  number  was  fif 
teen  or  twenty,  he  must,  in  his  next  confession,  include  the  overplus, 
which  infers  that  those  first  confessed  were  pardoned  while  the  rest 
were  not.4  These  petty  details  are  not  without  interest  as  showing 
the  difficulty  of  applying  in  practice  the  principles  which  seem  in 
theory  so  clear  and  well-constructed. 

Even  as  there  can  be  no  partial  absolution  so  it  would  appear  that 
there  must  be  no  gradations  or  differences  in  its  quality,  especially 
in  view  of  the  current  assurances  that  the  pardon  granted  by  the 
priest  is  as  complete  as  though  granted  by  Jesus  Christ  himself.  Yet 
ingenuity  has  devised  even  this,  and  an  absolution  granted  by  the 
pope  would  seem  to  be  regarded  as  more  effective  than  that  of  an 
ordinary  confessor.  An  indulgence  conceded  to  the  Clares  author 
izes  the  priest  to  absolve  them  and  restore  them  to  baptismal  inno 
cence  as  thoroughly  as  the  pope  would  do  if  he  heard  them  in 
confession.  In  1855,  the  Clares  applied  to  learn  whether  this  was 
still  in  force  or  whether  it  had  been  included  in  the  abrogation  of 
monastic  indulgences  by  Paul  V.,  in  1606,  and  were  told  that  it 
was  no  longer  available  for  the  living  but  was  still  effective  on  the 
death -bed.5 


1  Segneri  Instructio  Confessarii,  p.  85  (Dilingse,  1699). 

2  Escobar  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  vn.  Exam.  iv.  cap.  7,  n.  36.— Clericati  de 
Poenit.  Decis.  xxxi.  n.  3-5. 

3  La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1148. 

4  Cabrini  Elucidar.  Casuum  Keservator.  P.  I.  Resol.  xiv. 

5  Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v.  Indulgentia  Art.  v.  n.  66. — Deer.  Authent. 
Sacr.  Congr.  Indulgent,  n.  691,  12  Mart.  1855. — "  Quomodo  Sanctitas  Domini 
nostri  N.  Papse  faceret  si  ipsemet  in  confessione  peccata  vestra  auscultaret." 


CONDITIONAL  ABSOLUTION.  503 

A  subject  which  has  led  to  considerable  debate  and  variety  of 
opinion  is  the  validity  of  conditional  absolutions — that  is,  absolutions 
conditioned  on  some  future  event.  In  the  early  development  of  the 
sacramental  theory  absolutions  of  this  kind  were  the  rule,1  for  the 
penitent  had  to  earn  his  pardon  by  penance  and  amendment.  As 
the  theory  became  perfected  it  was  recognized  that  such  absolution 
was  incompatible  with  the  absolute  effectiveness  claimed  for  the 
sacrament  and  the  application  of  the  treasure  of  the  Church,  and 
consequently  it  was  pronounced  invalid,2  although  as  late  as  the  close 
of  the  thirteenth  century,  Henry  of  Ghent,  the  Doctor  Solennis, 
argued  that  a  bishop  might  commit  to  a  priest  the  shriving  of  a  peni 
tent  conditioned  on  his  confirming  the  absolution.3  When,  however, 
the  dependence  is  on  past  or  present  conditions  that  are  uncertain,  as  si 
tu  es  capax,  si  ego  possum,  there  is  no  question  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
sacrament  if  the  conditions  are  fulfilled,  and  the  probabilities  are  in 
favor  of  this  validity  even  when  the  condition  is  only  formulated 
mentally,  as  we  are  told  is  generally  the  habit  with  timid  and  inex 
perienced  confessors.4 

There  is  one  burning  and  much  debated  question  connected  with 
the  efficiency  of  absolution — the  reimputation  of  sin.  Are  sins  so 
thoroughly  remitted  by  the  sacrament  that  they  are  destroyed,  or  are 
they  merely  suspended,  ready  to  return  with  all  their  consequences  if 
the  pardoned  sinner  proves  his  unworthiness  of  God's  mercy  by  again 
relapsing  into  mortal  sin  ?  To  the  rigid  virtue  of  the  earlier  Church, 
which  knew  nothing  of  the  sacrament  and  required  life-long  peni 
tence  in  expiation  of  sin,  it  seemed  a  matter  of  course  that  the 
ingratitude  of  relapse  brought  back  the  pardoned  offences  and  their 
responsibilities,  and  the  parable  in  Matthew  xviii.  23-35  was  regarded 
as  proving  it  conclusively.  So  St.  Augustin  gives  us  to  understand, 
and  it  is  assumed  in  the  Gelasian  Sacra  mentary.5  St.  Ivo  of  Chartres 


1  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate,  etc.,  cap.  8. 

2  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summge  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  136.— Marc, 
Institt.  Moral.  Alphonsianse  n.  1414. 

3  Summa  Rosella  s.  v.  Absoltdio  5.— Summa  Tabiena  s.  v.  Absolutio  I.  n.  6. 

4  Clericati  de  Poenit.  Decis.  xxxv.  n.  12.— S.  Alph.  de  Ligorio  Theol.  Moral. 
Lib.  vi.  n.  431.— Marc.  Institt.  Moral.  Alphonsianae  n.  1663. 

5  S.  Augustin.  de  Baptismo  contra  Donatistas  Lib.  I.  cap.  12.— Sacramentar. 
Gelasian.  Lib.  I.  n.  xxxix.  (Muratori  Opp.  T.  XIII.  P.  ir.  p.  93). 


504  ABSOLUTION. 

gives  the  passage  from  St.  Augustin  without  qualification,  showing 
that  it  was  still  the  current  theory  in  the  early  twelfth  century.1 
When  the  schoolmen  commenced  their  labors  they  began  to  call  it 
into  question,  for  it  was  a  serious  blot  on  the  power  of  the  keys 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  which  they  were  seeking  to  estab 
lish,  but  it  was  too  deeply  rooted  in  tradition  to  be  easily  overthrown. 
Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  in  one  passage,  argues  in  favor  of  reimputation, 
though  as  one  of  the  hidden  ways  of  God  it  cannot  be  positively 
asserted  ;  in  another,  he  argues  against  it,  because  God  does  not  judge 
twice,  but  he  is  uncertain.2  Gratian  devotes  a  long  section  to  the 
subject  and  loses  himself  in  speculations  on  its  connection  with  pre 
destination,  but  seems  finally  to  incline  to  the  affirmative.3  Peter 
Lombard  states  that  the  question  is  obscure  and  perplexed,  authori 
ties  are  divided  upon  it,  and  he  prudently  leaves  it  to  the  judgment 
of  the  reader  without  expressing  an  opinion  of  his  own.4  It  was  not 
a  matter  of  merely  speculative  interest,  but  of  no  little  practical  im 
portance.  So  long  as  confession  was  rare  and  mostly  postponed  to 
the  death  bed,  it  made  little  difference  in  practice  whether  or  not 
relapse  brought  reimputation,  but  when  annual  confession  was  urged 
and  was  becoming  frequent,  the  affirmative  belief  entailed  the  neces 
sity  of  confessing  anew  all  the  sins  that  had  been  pardoned  and  of 
assuming  fresh  penance  for  them.  Experience  showed  that  few  peni 
tents  enjoyed  a  change  of  heart  and  abstained  from  sin,  and  this 
cumulative  reduplication  of  penance  was  a  fearful  burden  which 
might  well  seem  to  threaten  the  promising  progress  of  annual  appli 
cation  for  the  sacrament.  What,  in  fact,  was  the  worth  of  the 
remission  claimed  for  the  keys  if  it  lasted  only  until  the  commission 
of  a  new  sin?  The  interest  of  theologians  therefore  was  enlisted  on 
the  negative  side  of  the  question,  but  notwithstanding  this  the  new 
views  made  slow  progress.  Peter  of  Poitiers  adheres  to  the  old  doc 
trine  and  resolutely  faces  the  consequences,  saying  that  it  is  safer  to 
confess  the  pardoned  sins  again.5  On  the  other  hand,  Adam  of 
Perseigne  asserts  that  they  need  not  be,  unless  as  an  exercise  of 


1  S.  Ivon.  Deer.  P.  xv.  cap.  21. 

2  Hugon.  de  S.  Victore  de  Sacramentis  Lib.  u.  P.  xiv.  cap.  9 ;  Summse  Sentt. 
Tract,  vi.  cap.  13. 

3  Gratian.  Caus.  xxxnr.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  4. 

4  P.  Lombard.  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xxii.  §  2. 

5  P.  Pictaviens.  Sentt.  Lib.  in.  cap   12. 


REIMPUTATION  OF  SINS.  505 

humility/  while  Master  Bandinus  contents  himself  with  saving  that 
either  opinion  may  be  held,  for  the  doctors  are  divided.2  Innocent 
III.  had  no  hesitation  in  assuming  as  a  gospel  truth  that  a  single  sin 
will  work  the  reimputation  of  all  pardoned  ones,3  but  his  authority 
was  insufficient  to  settle  the  question,  and  it  continued  to  be  argued ; 
in  fact,  the  introduction  of  enforced  annual  confession  inferred  that  all 
Christians  relapsed  promptly  into  sin,  and  if  this  required  a  constantly 
growing  length  of  confession,  like  the  house  that  Jack  built,  with 
reduplication  of  penance,  reimputation  was  rendered  a  practically 
impossible  doctrine  which  had  to  be  got  rid  of,  directly  or  indirectly. 
Yet  the  task  was  not  easy ;  S.  Ramon  de  Pefiafort  admits  his  ina 
bility  to  form  a  definite  opinion  and  states  four  theories  as  current  at 
the  time  without  pronouncing  between  them.4  His  contemporary, 
William  of  Paris,  states  that  reimputation  is  one  of  four  questions 
which  greatly  agitate  the  schools ;  he  argues  against  it,  but  he  reaches 
practically  the  same  result  by  urging  that  the  sin  of  ingratitude  sub 
jects  the  relapsed  sinner  to  all  the  punishment  of  the  remitted  sins.5 
This  device  of  shifting  the  burden  from  reimputation  to  ingratitude 
was  a  compromise  eagerly  accepted.  Cardinal  Henry  of  Susa,  who 
does  not  venture  positively  to  deny  the  return  of  sin,  and  St.  Bona- 
ventura,  who  does  deny  it,  both  assert  that  the  relapsed  sinner  is 
damned  for  his  ingratitude.6  Aquinas  puts  it  into  attractive  shape  to 
save  the  honor  of  the  sacrament ;  he  argues  that  man  cannot  undo 
the  work  of  God,  and  that  no  subsequent  act  can  recall  what  God 
has  taken  away,  but  the  guilt  of  the  sins  returns,  inasmuch  as  the 
relapse  is  aggravated  by  the  previous  pardon  and  the  sin  of  ingrati 
tude  virtually  causes  reimputation.7  This  view,  which  was  destined 
to  become  dominant,  by  no  means  won  general  acceptance  at  the  time. 
John  of  Freiburg  does  not  venture  to  do  more  than  to  cite  the  con- 


1  Adami  Persenige  Abbatis  Epist.  xxvi.  (Migne,  CCXI.  683). 

2  Mag.  Bandini  Sentt.  Lib.  iv.  Dist.  xxi. 

9  Innoc.  PP.  III.  Serm.  I.  De  Consecr.  Pontif.  (Migne  CCXVII.  652). 

4  S.  Raymundi  Summse  Lib.  ill.  Tit.  xxxiv.  §  4. 

5  Guillel.  Parisiens.  de  Sacram.  Pcenit.  cap.  19. 

6  Hostiens.  Aurese  Summae  Lib.  v.  De  Pcen.  et  Remiss.  §  57. — S.  Bonavent. 
in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxn.  Art.  1,  Q.  1,  2. 

7  S.  Th.  Aquin.  Summae  P.  in.  Q.  Ixxxviii.  Artt.  1,  2,  3.    He  quotes  a  couplet 
current  in  the  schools — 

Fratres  odit,  apostata  fit,  spernitque  fateri, 
Poanituisse  piget,  pristina  culpa  redit. 


506  ABSOLUTION. 

flicting  opinions  of  the  doctors.1  Dans  Scotus  went  a  step  further ; 
the  penitent  has  given  to  God  an  equivalent  satisfaction,  the  transac 
tion  is  closed  and  cannot  be  reopened ;  at  most  the  pardoned  sin  can 
return  only  in  the  sense  of  an  aggravating  circumstance — a  view  of 
the  matter  in  which  he  was  naturally  followed  by  his  disciples, 
Francois  de  Mairone,  Astesanus  and  Piero  d'Aquila.2  The  Fran 
ciscans  having  thus  cleared  the  way,  the  Dominican  Durand  de  S. 
Pourgain  followed  with  the  universal  solvent  of  the  treasure  of  sal 
vation  ;  in  the  sacrament  the  priest  applies  an  equivalent  of  the 
merits  of  Christ ;  the  debt  is  settled  and  cannot  be  claimed  anew.3 
Guido  de  Monteroquer  states  both  opinions  without  venturing  to 
decide  between  them.4  Gabriel  Biel  inclines  towards  the  views  of 
Aquinas ;  the  pardoned  sins  may  be  said  to  return  through  the 
ingratitude  of  relapse,  and  thus  form  an  aggravating  circumstance, 
meriting  increase  of  punishment.5  The  question  was  one  which,  in 
in  view  of  its  supreme  importance,  its  uncertainty  and  the  long  debate 
over  it,  would  seem  to  have  especially  invited  an  authoritative  defini 
tion  from  the  council  of  Trent,  but  that  body  maintained  a  discreet 
silence  upon  the  subject,  and  it  has  never  been  settled.  Post-Triden- 
tine  theologians  mostly  teach  a  doctrine  based  on  that  of  Aquinas — 
that  reimputation  does  not  occur  simpliciter  but  secundum  quid,  for 
subsequent  sins  are  rendered  graver  in  consequence  of  the  ingratitude, 
but  the  subject  still  remains  open  and  is  matter  for  debate.6 

Another  question  relating  to  absolution,  in  which  the  altered 
custom  of  the  Church  has  aroused  a  certain  amount  of  discussion,  is 
whether  it  should  be  conferred  before  or  after  the  performance  of 
penance.  The  proposition  would  seem  to  be  self-evident  that  pardon 
and  restoration  to  standing  in  the  Church,  with  participation  in  its 


1  Jo.  Friburgens.  Summse  Confessor.  Lib.  in.  Tit.  xxxiv.  Q.  143. 

2  Jo.  Scoti  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxn.  Q.  1  —  Fr.  de  Maironis  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist. 
xxn.  Q.  1.— Astesani  Summae  Lib.  v.  Tit.  iv.  Art.  3.— P.  de  Aquila  in  IV. 
Sentt.  Dist.  xxn.  Q.  1. 

3  Durand.  de  S.  Porciano  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxi.  Q.  1,  \  7. 

4  Manip.  Curator.  P.  n.  Tract,  iii.  cap.  7. 

5  Gab.  Biel  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxn.  Q.  unic.  Artt.  2,  3. 

6  Estii  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xxii. — Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Dist.  vi.  Q.  iv.  cap. 
2,  Art.  4.— Th.  ex  Charmes  Theol.  Univ.  Diss.  v.  cap.  vii.  concl.  2. — Palmieri 
Tract  de  Pcenit.  pp.  195-203.— Varceno  Comp.  Theol.  Moral.  Tract,  xvnr.  cap. 
8.— Scheffer  S.  J.  in  Zeitschri/t  fiir  katholische  Theologie,  1891,  B.  XV.  S.  241. 


HEFORE  OR  AFTER   PENANCE.  507 

mysteries,  should  not  be  granted  until  expiation  had  been  made  for 
the  offence,  and  this,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  universal  rule  in  the 
earlier  times,  when  admission  to  the  Eucharist  was  the  sign  of  recon 
ciliation.  The  successive  stages  of  penance  were  steps  leading  to  the 
final  restoration  to  communion,  and  a  tract  in  opposition  to  the  Nova- 
tians  assumes  as  a  postulate  that  the  penitent  cannot  be  admitted  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  until  his  penance  is  completed.1  Sinners  who  had 
not  applied  for  public  penance  followed  the  dictates  of  their  own 
consciences  and  determined  for  themselves  whether  or  not  they  were 
worthy  to  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,2  but  St.  Ambrose 
rebukes  severely  those  who  applied  for  penance  and  expected  to  be  at 
once  admitted  to  communion.8  As  private  confession  gradually 
established  itself  in  the  Greek  Church,  the  confessor  when  it  was  con 
cluded  prayed  over  the  penitent,  who  again  presented  himself  when 
the  prescribed  penance  had  been  performed,  and  a  second  prayer, 
or  deprecatory  absolution  was  offered  over  him.4  In  the  seventh 
century,  Theodore  of  Canterbury  enunciates  the  absolute  rule  that 
the  Holy  Thursday  reconciliation  by  bishops  is  performed  after  the 
period  of  penance  is  completed,  and  these  periods  were  frequently 


1  Ps.  Augustin.  Quaestt.  ex  Vet.  et  Nov.  Testam.  cap.  102  (Migne,  XXXV. 
2308). 

2  S.  Augustin.  Serm.  CCCLT.   cap.  4 ;    Append.  Serm.  cxv.  cap.  4 ;    Serin. 
CCLV.— Socrat.  H.  E.  v.  19. 

Unless  a  man  felt  himself  guilty  of  that  which  deserved  excommunication 
he  was  not  to  deprive  himself  of  the  daily  medicine  of  the  Eucharist  (S. 
August.  Epist.  LIV.  cap.  3,  ad  Januarium)  showing  that  daily  communion  was 
still  practised  and  that  the  sinner  would  tacitly  admit  his  sin  by  abstention. 

In  the  seventh  century,  Theodore  of  Canterbury  tells  us  that  the  Greeks  took 
communion  every  Sunday,  and  three  weeks'  absence  incurred  excommunica 
tion.  Among  the  Latins  the  custom  was  the  same,  except  that  it  was  not 
enforced  with  a  penalty.— Theodori  Poenit.  i.  xii.  \\  1,  2  (Wasserschleben,  p. 
196). 

3  S.  Ambros.  de  Poanit.  Lib.  n.  cap.  9.— Carried  into  Gratian,  cap.  55,  Caus. 
xxxin.  Q.  iii.  Dist.  1. 

4  Johann.  Jejunator.  Libellus  Poenitent.  (Morin  de  Poenitent.  Append,  pp. 
80,  94). 

Morin  endeavored  to  obtain  an  explanation  of  this  double  absolution  from 
Leo  Allatius,  who  assured  him  that  the  second  formula  had  been  intended  to 
absolve  from  excommunication.  As  this  did  not  tally  with  the  text,  he  made 
inquiries  of  the  Archbishop  of  Trebizond,  when  in  Paris,  and  was  told  that  it 
was  then  used  when  the  penance  was  reduced  in  order  to  compensate  for 
insufficient  satisfaction  (Ibid.  pp.  139-40). 


508  ABSOLUTION. 

long.  Thus  an  apostate  returning  to  the  faith  is  excluded  from  the 
church  for  three  years,  after  which  he  is  allowed  to  enter,  but  is  not 
admitted  to  communion  for  seven  years  more.1  It  was  difficult  to 
maintain  the  rigor  of  these  rules  and  the  progressive  relaxation  of 
discipline  appears  in  the  concession  that,  although  penitents  ought  not 
to  be  admitted  to  communion  before  the  completion  of  their  penance, 
yet,  out  of  compassion,  they  could  be  allowed  to  partake  of  the  Eucha 
rist  after  six  months  or  a  year.2 

At  the  same  time,  in  the  Ordines  ad  dandam  Poenitentiam  which 
accompany  the  Penitentials,  it  would  appear  that  the  prayers,  which 
in  private  confession  constituted  the  so-called  absolution,  were  uttered 
immediately  on  the  conclusion  of  the  confession.  They  had,  as  we 
have  seen,  no  sacramental  character,  and  they  did  not  restore  the 
penitent  to  communion  till  his  penance  or  a  portion  of  it  was  per 
formed,  but  doubtless  they  comforted  him  and  led  him  to  accept 
more  cheerfully  the  penance  imposed  or  to  commute  for  it  more 
liberally.  With  the  further  progress  of  relaxation  a  custom  sprung 
up  rendering  it  in  some  degree  discretional  with  the  priest  whether 
to  admit  the  penitent  at  once  to  reconciliation  or  to  make  him  await 
the  performance  of  this  penance  f  instructions  even  are  found  that 
reconciliation  is  to  be  granted  at  once ;  or  the  distinction  is  drawn 
that  for  secret  sins  immediate  reconciliation  shall  be  given,  while  for 
public  ones  it  is  to  be  postponed  till  Holy  Thursday — thus  showing 
that,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  there  was  no  difference  in  character 
between  public  and  private  reconciliation  and  penance,  but  merely 
that  where  public  scandal  had  been  caused  there  must  be  public 
manifestation  of  repentance.4  This  increasing  laxity  did  not  suit 
the  views  of  the  more  rigorous  sacerdotalists,  who  sought  to  check  it 
by  the  current  device  of  forgery.  Halitgar  of  Cambrai  attributes  to 
Pius  I.  (A.D.  141-151)  a  command  that  penitents  are  not  to  be  ad- 


1  Theodori  Poenitent.  I.  xiii.  §  2 ;  Canones  Gregorii  cap.  45  (Wasserschleben, 
pp.  197,  165). 

2  Theodori  Poenitent.  I.  xii.  §  4  ;  Theodori  Capitula  cap.  26  ;  Canones  Gregorii 
cap.  123;   Poenitent.  Merseburg,  cap.  117;  Poenitent.  Vindobonens.  cap.  86; 
Judicii  dementis  cap.  11  ;  Poenitent.  Cummeani  xiv.  6  (Wasserschleben,  pp. 
196,  147,  174,  403,  421,  434,  492). 

3  Ps.   Alcuin.   Lib.   de   Divinis   Officiis   cap.    13. — Morin.   de    Poenit.   Ap 
pend,  p.  55. 

4  Poenit.  Vindobonens.  cap.  46 ;  Ps.  Theodori  Poenit.  cap.  41  \  1  (Wasser 
schleben,  pp.  420,  610). 


BEFORE  OR  AFTER  PENANCE.  509 

mittcd  to  communion  until  the  completion  of  their  penance.1  Benedict 
the  Levite  lays  down  the  positive  rule  that,  whether  the  penance  be 
public  or  private,  the  reconciliation  must  be  postponed  till  after  the 
performance  of  penance.2  It  was  difficult  to  tighten  the  bonds  of 
discipline  among  the  wild  converts  whose  subordination  had  been 
purchased  by  laxity.  Jonas  of  Orleans  complains  that  confessed 
homicides  intruded  themselves  irreverently  in  the  congregations  of 
the  faithful,3  and  Nicholas  I.,  in  prescribing  penance  for  a  matricide, 
admits  him  to  communion  after  the  third  year,  although  for  seven 
years  more  his  oblations  are  not  to  be  received  and  he  is  to  undergo 
severe  penance.4  In  895?  the  council  of  Tribur  endeavored  to  return 
to  the  ancient  rigor,  and  in  cases  of  voluntary  homicide  prescribed 
that  the  seven  years  of  penance  shall  elapse  before  the  sinner  is 
reconciled  and  admitted  to  communion  f  and  not  long  afterwards 
Abbo  of  S.  Germain  states  positively  that  no  bishop  can  grant  abso 
lution  before  the  penance  has  been  completely  performed.6 

The  effort  to  restore  the  old  discipline  was  unsuccessful,  and  its 
failure  may  perhaps  be  partially  ascribed  to  the  system  of  redemp 
tion  of  penance  which,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  see  hereafter,  was 
destined  to  exercise  a  sinister  influence  on  Church  and  people  alike. 
The  process  of  relaxation  is  illustrated  by  a  sentence  imposed,  in 
1065,  by  Alexander  II.  for  church-burning,  where  five  years7  penance 


1  Halitgari  Pcenit.  Roman,  cap.  10  (Canisii  Thesaur.  II.  n.  130). 

2  Bened.  Levit.  Capitular.  Lib.  v.  cap.  116,  127.     During  public  penance 
the  penitent,  while  denied  the  Eucharist,  was  allowed  to  receive  blessed  salt, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  then  reckoned  as  a  sacrament. — Ibid.  Lib.  vu. 
cap.  263 ;  Addit.  iv.  cap.  63,  76. 

The  case  of  Ebbo,  Archbishop  of  Reims,  illustrates  the  principle  of  recon 
ciliation  after  penance  as  well  as  the  political  use  of  the  disciplinary  machinery 
of  the  Church  in  the  prevailing  disorder.  After  the  restoration  of  Louis  le 
Debonnaire,  in  835,  he  was  forced  to  acknowledge  his  complicity  in  the  re 
bellion  of  the  emperor's  sons  and  to  resign  his  see  as  a  penance.  When,  after 
the  death  of  Louis,  in  840,  Ebbo  returned  to  France  in  the  train  of  the  Em 
peror  Lothair  and  took  possession  of  his  former  see,  he  argued  that  his  banish 
ment  for  nearly  seven  years  had  served  as  the  customary  penance,  and  that  he 
was  entitled  to  restoration  in  sign  of  reconciliation. — Ebbonis  Apologeticum 
(Migne,  CXVI.  15). 

3  Jonae  Aurelianens.  de  Instit.  Laicali  Lib.  I.  cap.  10. 

4  Nicholai  PP.  I.  Epist.  cxxxin.— Gratian.  cap.  15,  Caus.  xxxni.  Q.  ii. 

5  C.  Triburiens.  ann.  895,  cap.  58  (Harduin.  VI.  I.  456). 

6  Abbon.  Sangerrnan.  Serm.  n.  m.  (Migne,  CXXXII.  765,  769). 


510  ABSOLUTION. 

is  prescribed,  but  the  offender  is  admitted  to  communion  after  the 
expiration  of  the  current  year.1  In  the  second  quarter  of  the  next 
century  Hildebert  of  Le  Mans  shows  us  that  although  formal  recon 
ciliation  was  postponed  to  the  end  of  penance,  as  a  matter  of  favor 
penitents  were  allowed  to  take  communion  at  Easter.2 

When  reconciliation  developed  into  absolution  in  its  sacramental 
sense,  the  power  thus  assumed  should  have  aroused  greater  discretion 
as  to  its  exercise,  but  the  desire  to  render  confession  attractive  was 
too  strong,  and  concessions  were  made  to  bring  penitents  to  seek  the 
sacrament.  While  the  sacramental  theory  was  developing,  Cardinal 
Pullus,  as  we  have  seen  above  (p.  476),  asserts  that  God  does  not 
pardon  until  due  penance  has  been  performed;  when  it  was  assuming 
shape,  there  was  a  saving  clause  that  absolution  conferred  at  con 
fession  was  conditioned  on  performance  of  the  penance  enjoined ;  if 
this  was  neglected,  the  sinner  fell  back  into  the  state  of  eternal 
damnation.3  Conditional  absolution,  however,  as  we  have  seen, 
passed  out  of  fashion,  and  the  custom  became  general  of  adminis 
tering  absolution  as  soon  as  the  confession  was  concluded,  for  which 
the  argument  was  adduced  that  the  works  of  penance  are  greatly 
more  meritorious  when  performed  in  the  state  of  grace  conferred  by 
absolution  than  they  could  be  before.4  Indeed,  it  became  usual  to 
grant  the  absolution  even  before  imposing  the  penance  ;  St.  Antonino 
tells  us  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  which  precedes  the  other,5 
while  subsequent  authors  differ  between  themselves,  some  agreeing 
with  him,  while  others  hold  that  absolution  should  have  prece 
dence,  and  others  again  that  the  penance  should  first  be  imposed^ 
for  which  Chiericato  adduces  the  practical  argument  that  the  penitent, 
if  he  desires  the  sacrament,  cannot  then  refuse  to  accept  the  pen- 


1  Lowenfeld  Epistt.  Roman.  Pontiff.,  p.  53. 

2  Hildeberti  Cenomanens.  Serm.  xxxiv.  (Migne,  CLXXI.  509).   Morin  (De 
Pcenit.  Lib.  ix.  cap.  xxix.  n.  17)  gives  an  example  of  this  from  a  ritual  of 
Rouen  in  the  fourteenth  century.     On  the  other  hand,  in  the  thirteenth  cen 
tury,  Alexander  Hales  says  (Summse  P.  IV.  Q.  xiv.  Membr.  vi.  Art.  3)  that 
unreconciled  penitents  can  remain  in  the  church  until  the  octave  of  Easter, 
without  however  being  admitted  to  communion. 

3  Rich,  a  S.  Victore  de  Potestate  etc.  cap.  8. 

4  Estii  in  IV.  Sentt.  Dist.  xv.  $$  10,  15.     When  performed  after  absolution 
the  works  of  penance  are  de  condigno,  when  performed  before  they  are  only  de 
congruo. 

5  S.  Antonini  Summse  P.  in.  Tit.  xvii.  cap.  20,  2  ]. 


BEFORE  OR  AFTER  PENANCE.  511 

ance.1  Yet  the  old  custom  of  delaying  absolution  to  the  end  of  penance 
was  long  in  dying  out.  Father  Morin  adduces  from  various  rituals, 
up  to  the  fourteenth  century,  that  on  Holy  Thursday  the  penitents 
were  examined  and  classified  into  those  entitled  to  reconciliation  and 
those  whose  penance  was  still  to  be  continued.2  He  attributes  the 
innovation  of  immediate  absolution  to  the  crusades,  the  innumerable 
members  of  which  had  a  right  to  claim  the  benefit  of  the  sacrament, 
while  Father  Juenin  ascribes  it  to  the  multiplication  of  indulgences, 
which  is  virtually  the  same  thing.3  This  doubtless  contributed  to 
familiarize  the  popular  mind  with  the  custom,  but  there  were  occa 
sional  remonstrants.  Dr.  Weigel,  whose  adhesion  to  the  council  of 
Bale  shows  his  tendency  to  rigorism,  quotes  an  old  formula  post 
poning  reconciliation  to  the  end  of  penance,  and  deplores  the  pre 
vailing  laxity  which  occasions  so  many  evils.4  Yet  when  Pedro  de 
Osma  taught  at  Salamanca  that  absolution  should  be  deferred  till 
the  conclusion  of  penance,  the  council  of  Alcala,  in  1479,  pronounced 
it  a  heresy,  and  Sixtus  IV.  confirmed  the  decision  after  consultation 
in  due  form  with  his  cardinals.5 

Thus  a  practice  which  had  at  first  been  universal  and  had  con 
tinued  until  within  little  more  than  a  hundred  years  was  pronounced 
a  heresy  by  the  Holy  See  in  the  most  formal  manner.  The  affair, 
however,  was  scarce  heard  of  outside  of  Spain,  and  we  may  reason 
ably  assume  that  its  memory  was  speedily  buried,  for,  when,  in 
1517,  Luther,  in  his  twelfth  proposition,  asserted  that  of  old  the 
canonical  penances  were  imposed  prior  to  absolution,  as  a  trial  of 
true  contrition,  Prierias  in  his  rejoinder  not  only  assented  to  this, 
but  added  that  even  now  this  is  the  proper  course  unless  there  is 
certainty  that  the  penitent  will  perform  them,  and,  in  1525,  Latomus 


1  Summa   Sylvestrina  s.  vv.  Absolutio  vi.  $  2 ;    Confessor  IV.  g  1. — Aurea 
Armilla  s.  v.  Absohdio  n.  7.— Azpilcueta,  Comment,  de  Pcenit.  Dist.  vi.  cap.  1, 
In  Princip.  n.  35.— Zerola  Praxis  Sacr.  Pcenit.  cap.  xxiv.  Q.  13.— Summa  Diana 
s.  v.  Pcenitentiam  imponere  n.  8. — Reginald!  Praxis  Fori  Pcenit.  Lib.  vii.  n.  19. 
— Clericati  de  Pcenit.  Decis.  xxxiv.  n.  4.— Ferraris  Prompta  Biblioth.  s.  v. 
Pamit.  Sacram.  n.  39. 

2  Morin.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  ix.  cap.  xxix.  n.  15-17.     See  also  Binterim,  Denk- 
wiirdigkeiten,  V.  ill.  202-3. 

3  Morin.  de  Pcenit.  Lib.  x.  cap.  xxii. — Juenin  de  Sacramentis  Diss.  vi.  Q. 
vi.  cap.  5,  Art.  2. 

4  Weigel  ClaviculaB  Indulgent,  cap.  19. 

5  Alfonsi  de  Castro  adv.  Haereses  Lib.  iv.  s.  v.  Confessio. 


512  ABSOLUTION. 

admits  that  of  old  absolution  was  deferred  until  after  the  perform 
ance  of  penance.1  In  the  seventeenth  century  the  high  authority  of 
Cardinal  Lugo  is  on  record  to  the  effect  that  the  confessor  can  re 
quire  the  penance  to  be  performed  prior  to  conferring  absolution, 
but  that  in  such  case  it  loses  the  merit  derived  ex  opere  operate,2  and 
not  long  afterwards  Cardinal  Aguirre,  who  was  inclined  to  rigorism, 
urged  the  propriety  of  delaying  absolution  till  the  completion  of 
penance,  and  scolded  the  penitents  who  demand  it  at  once,  and  who 
abuse  the  pious  confessors  for  postponing  it  until  penitential  ob 
servances  shall  render  them  fit  to  receive  it.3  These  theologians  of 
the  purple  had  no  conception  how  nearly  they  were  trenching  on  an 
heretical  teaching  of  Jansenism.  In  1678  there  appeared  an  anony 
mous  book  on  the  subject,  under  the  title  of  Pentalogus  Diaphoricus, 
arguing  that  immediate  absolution  is  an  abuse,  and,  in  1685,  it  was 
duly  condemned  by  the  Congregation  of  the  Index.4  Antoine 
Arnauld,  in  his  Traite  de  la  frequente  Communion,  argued  in  the 
same  sense,  and  so  did  John,  Bishop  of  Castoria,  in  his  Amor  pcen- 
itens,  for  which  his  book  was  duly  suspended,  donee  corrigatur. 
Other  rigorists,  such  as  Huyghens,  Opstraet,  Gabriel  and  others, 
were  equally  earnest,  and  their  opinions  were  condemned  by  Alex 
ander  VIII.  in  1690.5  Noel  Alexandre  more  cautiously  asserted 
the  power  of  the  confessor  to  defer  absolution,  when  he  deems  it 
judicious,  until  the  penance  has  been  partly  or  wholly  performed, 
especially  in  the  case  of  habitual  sinners.6  The  later  Jansenists, 
Pasquier  Quesnel  and  his  followers,  scarce  went  further  than  this 


1  Dial.  Sylvest.  Prieriat.  Art.  12  (Lutheri  Opp.  Jenae  1564  fol.  176).— Jac.  La- 
tomus  de  Confessione  Secreta,  Antverpise,  1525. 

2  Gobat  Alphab.  Confessar.  n.  756. 

3  Aguirre  Dissert,  in  Cone.  Toletan.  IIL  n.  158,  164-5  (Concil.  Hispan.  III. 
255). 

*  Pere  Le  Tellier  assumes  (Kecueil  Historique  des  Bulles  etc.  p.  430)  that 
the  Pentalogus  was  a  Jansenist  production,  but  Dr.  Reusch  (Der  Index  der 
verbotenen  Biicher,  II.  520)  informs  us  that  it  was  written  by  Charles  de  Brias, 
a  Carmelite  Provincial  and  antagonist  of  the  Jansenists,  and  that  Antoine 
Arnauld  pronounced  it  to  be  a  monstrous  mass  of  truth  and  error. 

5  Arnauld,  TraitS  de  la  frequente  Communion,  Ch.  xi.  xn.— Alex.  PP.  VIII. 
Deer.  7  Dec.  1690,  Prop.  16,  17,  18,  20,  22.— Viva  Theol.  Trutina  in  easdem 
Propp.— La  Croix  Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  vi.  P.  ii.  n.  1205,  1230.— Index  Innoc. 
PP.  XL,  Append,  p.  3. 

6  Summse  Alexandrinse  P.  I.  n.  598. 


BEFORE  OR  AFTER  PENANCE  513 

when  they  urged  that  it  is  wholesome  for  penitents  to  endure  for 
awhile  the  burden  of  their  sins  before  reconciliation,  and  that  im 
mediate  restoration  destroyed  all  sense  of  sin  and  of  true  penitence, 
but  by  this  time  the  Holy  See  was  wholly  under  Jesuit  influence, 
and  even  propositions  so  moderate  as  these  were  included  by  Clem 
ent  XL  in  his  sweeping  condemnation  of  Janscnist  errors  and 
heresies.1 

The  final  struggle  over  the  question  was  an  incident  in  the 
attempted  reform  of  the  Tuscan  Church,  towards  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  by  the  Grand  Duke  Leopold.  We  shall  have 
occasion  hereafter  to  refer  more  fully  to  this  movement,  and  need 
only  mention  here  that  his  protege,  Scipione  de'  Ricci,  Bishop  of 
Pistoja  and  Prato,  in  1786,  assembled  a  diocesan  synod  to  commence 
the  work.  Prominent  among  the  evils  to  be  cured,  according  to  the 
synod,  was  the  unbridled  facility  of  absolution,  which  was  the  most 
fruitful  cause  of  demoralization,  reducing  Christian  virtue  to  an 
empty  name,  and  rendering  the  administration  of  penitence  a  con 
fused  Babel  of  capricious  rules.2  The  neglect,  it  added,  of  the  true 
functions  of  the  sacrament  was  the  deplorable  cause  of  the  abuses  and 
disorders  prevailing  in  it,  so  that  we  see  multitudes  of  pretended 
penitents  and  scarce  a  single  conversion.3  Among  the  reforms  sug 
gested  to  remedy  these  deplorable  conditions,  that  which  pertains  to 
our  present  subject  was  simply  that  while  the  synod  said  that  it  did 
not  disapprove  the  practice  of  imposing  penance  to  be  performed 
after  the  absolution,  there  should  also  be  acts  preceding  it  of  peni- 


1  Clement  PP.  XI.  Bull.  Unigenitus,  Prop.  87,  88  (Bullar.  VIII.  121). 

2  "  Si  e  introdotta  quella  sfrenata  facilita  di  assolvere  che  e  la  cagione  pid 
feconda  del  mail  che  soffra  la  chiesa.     Si  e  perduta  la  vera  idea  della  giustizia 
cristiana  ed  estinto  lo  spirito  della  religione,  il  quale  consiste  nella  carita,  non 
e  rimasto  che  un  vano  simulacro  di  giustizia  farisiaca,  ed  il  puro  nome  della 
cristiana  virtu.     Colle  varie  immaginazioni  degli  uomini     ...     si  e  intro 
dotta  uno  Babilonia  ed  una  confusione  di  massime  capricciosi  in  ogni  parte 
della  morale  e  particolarmente  nell'  amministrazione  della  Penitenza." — Atti 
e  Decreti  del  Concilio  di  Pistoia  dell'  Anno  de  1786,  p.  95. 

This  decree  was  signed  by  Eicci  and  236  members  of  the  synod.   Six  refused 
to  sign  and  one  signed  conditionally. — Ibid.  p.  100. 

3  "  E  1'origine  funesta  di  tanti  abusi  e  disordini  che  regnano  per  tuttavia  in 
un  cosi  augusto  Sacramento,  e  per  cui,  come  piansero  tante  volte  i  Romani 
Potifici  e  i  sacri  pastori,  noi  vediamo  una  moltitudine  grande  di  pretesi  peni- 
tenti  e  quasi  nessuna  conversione." — Ibid.  p.  141. 

1—33 


514  ABSOLUTION. 

tence  and  humiliation.1  This  would  appear  to  be  a  very  moderate 
measure  of  reform,  but  the  hardy  utterances  of  the  synod  aroused  a 
storm  of  objurgation  which  did  not  spare  even  this,  and  Ricci  was 
told  that  in  it  he  was  reviving  the  condemned  errors  of  St.  Cyran, 
Arnauld  and  the  Jansenists.2  The  projected  reforms  of  Leopold  were 
far-reaching ;  they  included  the  reduction  of  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  See  to  its  ancient  limits  and  the  independence  of  the  State,  and 
they  necessarily  excited  the  bitterest  antagonism.  An  assembly  of 
his  prelates,  convened  in  Florence  in  1787,  manifested  an  indisposi 
tion  to  support  him,  but  he  might  have  accomplished  permanent 
results  had  he  not  been  called  by  the  death  of  his  brother  Joseph 
II.,  in  1790,  to  the  imperial  throne,  where  his  own  speedily  followed, 
in  1792.  Thus  deprived  of  its  protector,  the  synod  of  Pistoia  could 
safely  be  condemned,  and,  in  1794,  Pius  VI.  issued  the  bull  Audorem 
fidei,  in  which  eighty-five  distinct  errors  in  its  utterances  were  qualified 
in  carefully  measured  terms  of  disapprobation.  Of  these  the  one 
requiring  acts  of  humiliation  and  penitence  prior  to  absolution  is 
stigmatized  as  false,  audacious,  insulting  to  the  common  practice  of 
the  Church  and  leading  to  the  error  condemned  in  Pedro  de  Osrna.3 
At  the  same  time  this  is  not  construed  as  depriving  the  confessor  of 
the  discretion  of  requiring  satisfaction  to  be  performed  before  abso 
lution  is  conferred,  which  some  moralists  recommend  to  be  done  with 
certain  penitents.4 


1  Ibidem,  p.  148. 

2  Istruzione  per  urr  Anima  fedele,  p.  230  (Finale,  1787). 

3  Pii  PP.  VI.  Bull.  Auctorem  fidei,  Prop.  xxxv. 

4  Palmier!  Tract,  de  Pcenit.  p.  460. 

Palmier!  asserts  (p.  425)  in  contradiction  to  all  the  evidence,  that  in  the 
early  Church  absolution  was  generally  performed  before  satisfaction,  and  in 
support  of  this  he  quotes  (p.  462)  an  irrelevant  passage  from  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  Lib.  n.,  and  omits  the  decisive  one — "  idem  nos  facere  debemus 
et  eos  qui  se  peccatorum  poenitere  dicunt,  segregare  per  certum  tempus  secun- 
dum  proportionem  peccati;  deinde,  poenitentia  peracta,  recipere  tanquam 
patres  filios  "  (Lib.  n.  cap.  19). 

The  point  is  not  without  importance  in  view  of  the  modern  theories  which, 
as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  seek  to  find  some  support  for  the  assertion  of  the 
council  of  Trent  that  the  sacrament  of  penitence  and  indulgences  existed  in 
the  primitive  Church. 


IN  THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH.  515 

Although  not  strictly  a  part  of  our  subject,  a  rapid  glance  at  the 
theories  and  practice  of  the  early  Reformers  with  regard  to  confes 
sion  and  absolution  may  not  be  without  interest.  It  was  naturally 
difficult  for  those  trained  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  to  renounce 
at  once  absolutely  its  consolations ;  the  idea  that  confession  was  a 
safeguard  of  morality  was  generally  entertained,  and  the  people 
would  scarce  have  been  satisfied  to  abandon  wholly  the  rites  which 
they  had  been  taught  to  consider  as  essential  to  salvation.  Luther, 
in  1520,  expressed  his  emphatic  approval  of  auricular  confession  as 
useful  and  indeed  necessary,  though  it  was  not  divinely  instituted,  it 
should  be  wholly  voluntary,  and  need  not  be  made  to  the  priest.1 
The  Augsburg  confession  lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  confession  is 
strictly  enforced  among  the  Lutherans  and  that  communion  is  given 
only  to  those  examined  and  absolved.  Great  merit  is  claimed  for 
the  insistence  with  which  faith  in  absolution  is  taught ;  it  is  believed 
as  a  voice  from  heaven,  and  the  believer  is  not  tortured  with  doubts 
and  distinctions,  as  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Penitential  works  are 
superfluous  ;  faith  is  the  one  thing  needful,  and  the  believer  is  justi 
fied  by  his  belief.2  Jurisdiction  is  admitted  in  the  bishops  to  remit 
sins  and  examine  the  faith  of  those  applying  for  communion  in  order 
to  reject  the  unfit.3  As  Melanchthon  says  in  his  Apology,  the  Re 
formers  had  so  improved  the  benefits  of  absolution  and  the  power  of 
the  keys  that  many  afflicted  consciences  gained  consolation ;  they 
believed  in  the  gratuitous  remission  of  sin  through  Christ,  and  felt 
themselves  fully  reconciled  to  God  through  faith,  while  formerly  all 
the  strength  of  absolution  was  weakened  by  the  doctrine  of  works 
and  the  sophists  and  monks  never  taught  gratuitous  remission. 
There  is  no  definite  period  fixed  for  confession,  which  is  wholly 
voluntary ;  all  are  not  fit  for  it  at  any  stated  time,  and  at  the  end 
of  a  year  it  is  impossible  to  recall  all  sins  committed ;  to  prescribe 


1  M.  Lutheri  de  Captiv.  Babilonica  cap.  de  Pcenit. 

2  Confessio  Augustana,  Abusus  Artie,  iv.  (Lutheri  Opp.  Jenae,  1570,  T.  IV. 
fol.  198a.— Goldast.  Constitt.  Imperial.  If.  164). 

The  examination  required  previous  to  absolution  was  not  into  sins,  but  into 
the  applicant's  knowledge  of  the  faith,  the  Paternoster,  the  Commandments 
and  the  Catechism.  Luther  held  this  to  be  the  chief  object  of  confession  to 
the  priest.  It  became  known  as  the  Verhor.—  Steitz,  Die  Privatbeichte  und 
Privatabsolution  der  Lutherischen  Kirche,  I.  §  31  (Frankfurt  a.  M.  1854). 

3  Confessio  Augustana,  Abusus  Artie,  vn. ;  De  Potestate  Ecclesiastica. 


516  ABSOLUTION. 

this  is  a  slaughter-house  of  conscience,  which  has  driven  many  to 
despair.1 

Luther's  conception  of  the  power  of  the  keys  was  that  it  is  granted 
to  the  Church  at  large  and  to  every  member.  Absolution  can  be  had 
from  anyone,  a  brother  or  a  neighbor,  at  any  time  and  in  any  place, 
in  the  house  or  in  the  fields,  and  he  who  is  asked  for  it  has  no  right 
to  refuse  it.  But  the  private  man  must  not  presume  to  exercise  this 
power  in  public,  for  that  is  reserved  to  him  who  is  selected  by  the 
congregation,  which  confers  this  right  upon  him  ;  in  private,  both  are 
equally  effective,  for  this  effectiveness  depends  upon  the  faith  of  the 
penitent.  The  best  satisfaction  is  to  sin  no  more  and  to  do  good  to 
your  neighbor,  be  he  friend  or  enemy.2 

The  Lutheran  Church  regulations  naturally  tended  to  attach  more 
importance  to  absolution  from  the  priest  than  from  laymen ;  no  one 
was  to  be  admitted  to  communion  unless  he  had  been  absolved  by  a 
minister ;  those  not  known  to  him  underwent  the  Verhor,  or  exami 
nation  into  their  familiarity  with  the  articles  of  religion,  and  in 
addition  to  this  there  was  a  Rechenscha/t  in  which  they  were  asked 
whether  they  lived  in  hatred  or  sin,  but  all  special  interrogation  was 
forbidden,  and  it  was  at  the  option  of  the  penitent  whether  he  should 
mention  any  sins  troubling  his  conscience.  Both  Rechenschaft  and 
Verhor  took  place  openly  in  the  choir,  while  the  seal  of  confession 
was  as  strictly  preserved  as  among  Catholics — what  was  confessed  to 
the  pastor  was  confessed  to  Christ.3  As  regards  absolution,  it  is 
instructive  to  note  that  the  Lutheran  Church  at  once  fell  into  nearly 
the  same  difficulties  as  the  Catholic  in  seeking  to  formulate  the 
supernatural  powers  claimed.  The  Scichsische  Kirchenordnung  of 
1539  instructs  the  penitent  to  revere  the  absolution  as  though  it  were 
spoken  by  God  himself  from  heaven.4  Other  formulas  show  how 
perplexing  it  was  to  avoid  the  indicative  form  while  granting  the 
absolute  forgiveness  of  sins  assumed  in  the  Lutheran  theory.5 


4  Ph.  Melanchthonis  Apologia  (Lutheri  Opp,  T.  IV.  fol.  229). 

2  Steitz,  op.  cit,  i.  ^  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  16,  i9,  34. 

3  Ibid.  ir.  |  37  (pp.  Ill,  112,  115,  121,  122,  132);  \  38  (p.  133). 

4  The  absolution  formula  says  "  Und  mein  lieber  Freund,  dies  Wort  der 
Absolution  so  ich  auf  Gottes  verheissung  die  mittheile,  sollst  du  achten  als  ob 
dir  Gott  durch  eine  Stimme  von  Himmel  Gnade  und  Vergebung  deiner  Sunden 
zusagt,  und  sollst  Gott  herzlich  danken  der  solche  Gewalt  der  Kirche  und  den 
Christen  auf  Erden  gegeben  hat."— Steitz,  ir.  §  39. 

5  Some  specimen  formulas  are — 

"  Der  allmachtige  Gott     .     .     .     vergiebt  er  die  alle  deine  Siinde,  und  ich 


IX  THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH.  517 

Luther's  teaching  that  all  Christians  could  grant  absolution  was 
gradually  forgotten.  Already,  in  1615,  the  Brunswick-Lunenburg 
Kirchenordnung  alludes  only  to  its  ministration  by  the  pastors.1  In 
the  same  way  personal  absolution  became  reserved  for  special  cases, 
while  general  absolution  from  the  pulpit  to  the  congregation  was 
retained.  This  was  held  to  pardon  sin  as  effectively  as  private  abso 
lution  for  all  who  had  faith  and  were  duly  prepared.  Those  who 
desired  its  benefits  were  expected  to  undergo  the  Verhor,  in  which 
they  individually  expressed  their  repentance  and  received  whatever 
instruction  was  requisite.2  At  the  present  time,  in  most  of  the  Ger 
man  churches,  even  the  Verhor  is  merged  into  a  general  formula. 
The  pastor  asks  three  questions :  if  every  one  has  confessed  to  God 
and  seeks  his  grace ;  if  every  one  has  faith ;  if  every  one  renounces 
all  sin  and  hatred?  These  are  answered  in  the  affirmative,  when 
he  announces  that  those  who  observe  these  things  in  their  hearts 
need  not  doubt  that  their  sins  are  forgiven  through  the  passion  of 
Christ,3 

In  inheriting  confession  the  Lutheran  Church  likewise  inherited 
the  Beichtgeld  or  Beichtpfennig — the  fee  paid  by  the  penitent  to  the 
confessor.  The  Lutheran  pastor  stepped  into  the  place  of  the  parish 
priest  without  his  temporalities  or  the  source  of  income  derived  from 
the  celebration  of  mass,  and  he  not  unnaturally,  though  unadvisedly, 
maintained  his  hold  on  what  means  of  support  he  could.  Towards 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  jurisconsult,  Peter  Miiller, 
printed  a  little  tract  on  the  subject,  from  which  we  learn  that  the 
Theological  Faculty  of  Leipzig  decided  that  there  was  no  law  pre- 


als  berufener  Diener  der  christlichen  Kirche,  auf  Befelil  unseres  Herrn  Jesu 
Christi  verkiindige  die  solche  Vergebung  aller  deiner  Stinden  in  Namen  des 
Vaters,  etc." 

"In  Namen  desselbigen  unsers  Herrn  Jesu  Christi,  auf  seinem  Befehl  und 
in  kraft  seiner  Worte,  da  er  sagt :  Welchem  ihr  die  Siinde  erlasset  etc.  spriche 
ich  dich  aller  deiner  Siinde  frei,  ledig  und  los  das  sie  dir  allgemahl  sollen 
vergeben  sein  so  reichlich  und  vollkomraen  also  Jesus  Christus  dasselbige,"  etc.. 

"  Und  ich  aus  Befehl  unsers  Herrn  Jesu  Christi,  anstatt  der  heilige  Kirche 
sage  dich  frei  ledig  und  los  aller  deiner  Siinden  in  Namen,"  etc.— Steitz,  n.  $  40. 

1  Steitz,  ii.  I  41  (pp.  149-50). 

2  Steitz,  ii.  §  42  (pp.  153-4).     In  1666  the  Jesuit  Gobat  (Alphab.  Confessar. 
n.  619)  states  that  in  many  Lutheran  towns  the  custom  of  auricular  confession 
was  still  observed. 

3  Steitz,  p.  160. 


518  ABSOLUTION. 

scribing  it,  and  the  sinner  was  not  obliged  to  pay  it,  but  that  it  was 
simply  a  matter  of  good-will.  Of  course,  it  was  argued  not  to  be  a 
payment  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  an  exhibition  of  obedience 
and  love  of  God,  while  experience  showed  that  many  more  withheld 
it  than  paid  it.  At  that  period  it  was  not  by  any  means  universal. 
In  Wiirtemberg  and  Upper  Hesse  it  had  been  discontinued ;  in  the 
duchy  of  Altenburg  its  retention  was  apologized  for  on  the  plea  of 
the  hard  times  and  the  increased  cost  of  the  necessaries  of  life.1  The 
custom  was  felt  to  be  a  scandal,  but  was  difficult  to  shake  off.  It 
was  admitted  that  many  thought  the  payment  necessary,  and  abstained 
from  confession  in  consequence ;  the  pastors  incurred  deserved  odium 
by  demanding  and  exacting  it ;  where  there  were  several  ministers 
in  a  parish  they  competed  with  each  other  for  the  fees ;  when  con 
fined  to  bed  by  sickness  they  would  cause  penitents  to  be  brought 
before  them  so  as  not  to  lose  the  money.  Quarrels  over  penitents 
would  occur,  quarrels  which  the  Leipzig  faculty  declared  to  be  a  dis 
grace  to  the  Church,  and  it  decided  that  no  one  should  be  subject 
to  constraint  in  the  choice  of  a  confessor.  Already,  in  1628,  the 
Supreme  Consistory  of  Dresden  threatened  dismissal  from  benefice 
and  function  for  those  who  collected  the  Beichtpfennig  as  a  debt,  and 
it  inflicted  this  penalty  in  some  cases  brought  before  it.  Scandals 
and  lawsuits  seem  to  have  been  not  infrequent,  and  the  rival  Cal- 
vinists  described  how  the  Lutheran  pastors  sold  for  half  a  thaler 
pardons  for  the  sins  of  a  lifetime.2 

These  troubles  continued.  In  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury  Bohmer  deplores  the  jus  bannarium  parochiale,  which  existed 
almost  everywhere,  and  under  which  the  sinner  could  confess  no 
where  save  in  his  own  parish — a  survival  of  the  old  "jurisdiction" 
of  the  Roman  Church.  If  there  were  two  pastors  in  the  parish  he 
could  confess  to  either,  leading  to  contentions  between  them  and 
sometimes  to  the  denial  of  the  sacraments  to  a  parishioner  who  had 
transferred  his  confession — an  outrage  punishable  by  suspension. 
All  this  he  says  arose  from  the  Beichtpfennig ;  he  wishes  it  were 
abolished  and  some  compensation  made  to  the  pastors  for  their 
diminished  revenues.3  The  disgrace  connected  with  the  subject  was 

1  P.  Miiller  De  Numo  Confessionario,  vom  Beicht-Pfennige  Commentatio ; 
Ed.  quarta,  Jense,  1683,  pp.  8-12. 

2  Miiller,  op.  tit.,  pp.  16-17,  19-20,  24-25,  29. 

3  J.  H.  Bohmer  Jur.  Eccles.  Protestantium  Lib.  v.  Tit.  xxxviii.  <j  66. 


ZWINGLI  AND  CALVIN.  519 

keenly  felt  by  sensitive  minds.  When,  in  1727,  Friedricli  Adolf 
Lampe  was  called  to  a  church  in  Bremen  he  abolished  the  Beichtgeld, 
which  he  stigmatized  as  Siindenyeld,  and  substituted  for  it  a  fund  of 
voluntary  contributions  to  secure  the  pastor  against  loss,  an  example 
which  was  imitated  by  all  the  other  congregations  in  the  territory  of 
Bremen.1  The  effort  to  do  away  with  it  succeeded  in  Prussia  in 
1817,  and  in  Nassau  in  1818,2  but  it  is  still  maintained  in  many 
places  in  spite  of  the  discontinuance  of  confession,  and  forms  a 
notable  portion  of  the  stipend  of  the  pastor.3 

Zwingli  was  more  radical  than  Luther.  As  early  as  1523  he  de 
clared  that  God  alone  remits  sins,  and  it  is  idolatry  to  ascribe  it  to 
a  creature ;  confession  to  a  priest  or  neighbor  is  only  for  consultation 
and  not  for  remission,  while  the  works  of  satisfaction  are  mere 
human  inventions.  Still  he  seems  unable  to  divest  himself  entirely 
of  the  idea  of  human  intervention,  for,  he  adds,  that  to  deny  to  a 
penitent  the  remission  of  a  single  sin  is  to  serve  as  a  delegate  of  the 
devil  and  not  of  God,  while  to  sell  remission  is  to  become  the  asso 
ciate  of  Simon  and  Balaam  and  the  emissary  of  Satan.4  In  1536, 
shortly  before  his  death,  he  addressed  to  Francis  I.  an  exposition  of 
faith  in  which  this  latter  concession  to  sacerdotalism  disappears.  All 
remission  of  sin  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  obtainable  through  faith  in 
remission  by  Christ  and  appeal  to  God  through  Christ :  no  man  can 
know  the  faith  of  another,  so  all  absolution  by  man  to  man  is  futile.5 
About  the  same  time  appeared  the  "  Institute"  of  John  Calvin,  sub 
sequently  revised  and  remoulded  in  1559,  so  that  in  its  existing 
shape  it  represents  his  latest  views.  Although  he  holds  with  Zwingli 
that  no  man  can  grant  absolution,  as  no  man  can  measure  the  degree 
of  another's  faith,  he  makes  concessions  to  sacerdotalism ;  ministers 
as  witnesses  and  sponsors  render  more  assured  the  consciences  of 
sinners,  and  thus  are  said  to  remit  sins  and  absolve  souls.  General 
confession  in  church  is  most  salutary;  private  confession  is  prescribed 
by  St.  James,  and  though  the  apostle  leaves  the  penitent  free  to 


1  Herzog's  Real-Encyclop.  VIII.  383.  2  Ibid.  II.  227. 

3  Wetzer  und  Welte,  II.  249. 

4  Huld.  Zwingli  Artie.  L.-LVI.  (Niemeyer,  Collectio  Confessionum,  Lipsia?, 
1840,  p.  12). 

5  H.  Zwingli  Expos.  Christ.  Fidei  cap.  xi.  Itemissio  Peccatonnn  (Xioineyer, 
p.  55). 


520  ABSOLUTION. 

choose,  the  pastor  is  the  fittest  confessor,  as  he  is  trained  to  correct 
our  sins  and  to  console  us,  but  the  penitent  is  not  to  be  required  to 
enumerate  all  his  sins.1  Even  Calvin,  halting  in  this  nebulous  field, 
cannot  be  wholly  consistent,  and  had  not  the  spirit  of  the  revolt 
which  made  him  its  leader  been  against  it,  his  sacerdotal  tendencies 
would  have  developed  into  a  spiritual  domination  as  complete  as  that 
of  Latin  Christianity.2  In  1561,  he  expressed  his  regret  at  having 
allowed  himself  to  be  overruled  into  omitting,  after  the  general  con 
fession  in  the  service,  some  form  of  absolution  to  be  pronounced  by 
the  minister.8  As  it  was,  in  1566,  after  his  death,  the  Confession  of 
the  Helvetic  Churches  emphatically  pronounced  that  confession  to 
God  suffices,  whether  in  private  or  publicly  in  the  general  confession 
in  the  service ;  confession  to  the  priest  and  acceptance  of  absolution 
from  him  are  superfluous.4  The  Huguenots,  however,  while  they 
had  no  formula  for  absolution,  and  seem  never  to  have  admitted  it, 
except  for  excommunication,  were  disposed  to  encourage  the  practice 
of  auricular  confession  by  protecting  it  with  the  seal.  Pastors  and 
elders,  to  whom  crimes  were  thus  made  known,  were  forbidden  to 
reveal  them  even  to  the  civil  magistrate,  except  in  cases  of  high 
treason.5 

The  partial  reformation  which  separated  the  Anglican  Church 
from  Rome  naturally  led  to  the  retention  of  a  larger  ascription  of 
power  to  the  priestly  order  than  was  admitted  by  the  more  radical 


1  Jo  Calvini  Institutionis  Lib.  in.  cap.  iv.  $  12,  22. 

2  Calvin  and  the  Genevan  Church  declared  the  invalidity  of  lay  baptism 
and  required  it  to  be  repeated  (Quick,  Synodicon  in  Gallia  Reformats,  I.  51), 
and  this  was  accepted  by  the  French  Huguenots  (Discipline  chap.  xi.  can.  1, 
ap.  Quick  I.  xliv.). 

3  Jo.  Calvini  Epist.  Ed.  Genevae,  1617,  p.  452— *'  Confessioni  publicae  ad- 
jungere  insignem  aliquam  promissionem  quae  peccatores  ad  spem  veniae  et 
reconciliationis  erigat  nemo  nostrum  est  qui  non  agnoscat  utilissimum  esse. 
Atque  ab  initio  hunc  morem  inducere  volui ;  sed  cum  oifensionem  quidam  ex 
novitate  metuerunt  nimium  facilis  fui  ad  cedendum  :  ita  res  omissa  est." 

4  Helvetica  Confessio  et  Expositio  Christianas  Fidei,  cap.  xiv.  (Genevae, 
1654,  p.  23). 

5  Discipline  chap.  v.  c.  28,  30  (Quick  I.  xxxv.).     Bishop  Gregoire,  writing 
in  1824  (Hist,  des  Confesseurs  des  Empereurs  etc.  p.  145),  tells  of  a  French 
Lutheran  (Calvinist?)  minister  of  the  period  who  required  confession  of  the 
members  of  his  congregation. 


IN  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.  521 

revolutions  on  the  Continent.  In  the  ritual  for  the  Ordering  of 
Priests  the  Edwardian  Liturgy  retained  the  formula  "  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost :  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive  they  are  forgiven,  and 
whose  sins  thou  dost  retain  they  are  retained;"1  and  this  still  holds 
its  place,  although  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  (Art.  xxv.)  expressly 
limit  the  sacraments  to  baptism  and  the  Eucharist.  The  power  of 
the  keys  thus  granted  was  not  intended  to  be  merely  potential.  In 
the  Liturgy  of  1552,  which  is  still  in  use,  the  Order  of  Morning  and 
Evening  Prayer  contains  a  general  confession  to  be  uttered  by  the 
congregation,  after  which  the  minister  pronounces  a  kind  of  depreca 
tory  absolution,  asserting  that  "Almighty  God  .  .  .  hath  given 
power  and  commandment  to  his  ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce 
to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of  their 
sins.7'2  In  this,  the  somewhat  vague  phraseology  used  would  seem 
to  have  been  carefully  selected  to  accord  with  the  assertions  of  St. 
Jerome  that  the  priest  only  makes  manifest  the  pardon  accorded  by 
God.  In  the  Office  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  however,  the 
power  of  the  keys  is  asserted  absolutely.  The  sick  penitent  is 
directed  to  confess  any  sins  lying  heavy  on  his  conscience,  after  which 
the  priest  grants  him  absolution  in  an  indicative  formula  in  which 
the  Ego  te  absolvo  is  virtually  the  same  as  that  of  the  Latin  Church 
— "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  his  church  to 
absolve  all  sinners  which  truly  repent  and  believe  in  him,  of  his 
great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  offences  :  and  by  his  authority  com 
mitted  to  me,  I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."3  A  rubric  of  the 


1  Cardwell,  The  Two  Books  of  Common  Prayer,  p.  416.— In  the  modern 
prayer-book  there  is  only  the  unimportant  interpolation,  made  in  the  revision 
of  1662,  after  "  Holy  Ghost,"  "  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church 
of  God  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands." 

2  Cardwell,  p.  27.     All  this  service  is  absent  from  the  liturgy  of  1549. 

3  Ibid.  p.  363.     In  the  preliminary  rubric  the  minister  is  directed  to  examine 
the  sick  man  "  whether  he  be  in  charity  with  all  the  world."     In  the  modern 
formula  there  is  interpolated  "  whether  he  repent  him  truly  of  his  sins,"  which 
was  introduced  in  the  revision  of  1662.— Campion  and  Beamont,  The  Prayer- 
Book  interleaved,  London,  1871,  p.  209. 

There  is  no  injunction  to  withhold  absolution  from  the  impenitent,  but  the 
modern  rubric  inserts  "  if  he  humbly  and  heartily  desire  it,"  which  is  not  in 
he  Liturgies  of  1549  and  1552. 

I.— 34 


522  ABSOLUTION. 

Liturgy  of  1549  directs  that  "the  same  form  of  absolution  shall  be 
used  in  all  private  confessions  "  the  omission  of  which  in  the  revision 
of  1552  shows  the  change  occurring  in  the  interval.  Apparently  in 
1549  it  had  been  deemed  inadvisable  to  abolish  entirely  the  sacra 
ment  of  penitence,  for  in  the  Communion  Service  of  that  year  there 
is  an  exhortation  to  those  having  troubled  consciences  to  ease  them 
by  auricular  confession  to  the  celebrant  "  or  to  some  other  discreet 
and  learned  priest,"  and  to  receive  absolution,  which,  of  course,  was 
of  the  indicative  form  prescribed  for  the  sick ;  but  this  was  a  volun 
tary  matter  which,  it  was  urged,  ought  not  to  be  a  subject  of  offence 
between  those  who  availed  themselves  of  it  and  those  who  did  not. 
In  the  revision  of  1552  this  is  modified  to  the  cautious  invitation  to 
"open  his  grief  that  he  may  receive  such  ghostly  counsel,  advice  and 
comfort  as  his  conscience  may  be  relieved  ;  and  that,  by  the  ministry 
of  God's  word,  he  may  receive  comfort  and  the  benefit  of  absolution 
to  the  quieting  of  his  conscience  and  the  avoiding  of  all  scruple  and 
doubtfulness."1  There  was  evidently  no  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
Edwardian  divines  to  deny  the  opportunity  of  confession  to  those 
who  wished  it  or  to  deprive  the  minister  of  the  power  of  the  keys, 
and  when,  at  the  Savoy  conference  of  1661,  the  Puritan  clergy 
begged  that  the  absolution  formula  should  be  made  "  declarative  and 
conditional,"  in  place  of  indicative,  the  request  was  refused.2  Yet 
the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  thus  retained  for  the  priestly  order 
fell  practically  into  desuetude.  In  1793,  Henry  Digby  Beste,  a 
Fellow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  preached  a  sermon  in  which 
he  urged  its  revival,  the  first  utterance,  he  says,  of  the  kind  for  two 
hundred  years,  but  as,  a  few  years  later,  he  was  converted  to  Cathol 
icism,  though  his  effort  attracted  some  attention  at  the  time,  it  was 
soon  forgotten.3  The  so-called  Tractarian  movement  revived  the 
dormant  claim,  which  the  Liturgy  shows  to  be  incontestable,  and,  in 
the  higher  or  Ritualistic  section  of  Anglicanism,  confession  and  abso- 


1  Card  well,  op.  dt.  pp.  278,  288,  291.     In  the  existing  Liturgy  there  is  a 
slight  modification — "  That,  by  the  ministry  of  God's  holy  word,  he  may  re 
ceive  the  benefit  of  absolution  together  with  ghostly  counsel  and  advice." 

2  Boyd,  Confession,  Absolution  and  the  Real  Presence,  p.  106  (London,  1867). 

3  Rev.  Henry  Digby  Beste,  A  Sermon  OD  Priestly  Absolution,  3d  Edition, 
London,  1874.— Cf.  Rev.  Orby  Shipley,  The  Church  and  the  World,  1st  Series, 
pp.  527-8;  Blount's  Dictionary  of   Theology  s.  v.  Confession  of  Sins,  n.  5. 


IN  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH.  523 

lution  are  practised,  in  very  much  the  same  fashion  as  in  the  Latin 
Church,  except  that  the  rite  is  voluntary.1 


1  Boyd,  op.  cit.  pp.  55-60.  This  applies  also  to  the  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
United  States.  In  a  recent  discussion  on  the  subject  of  Ritualism,  provoked 
by  an  address  of  Bishop  Paret  before  the  Maryland  Diocesan  Convention.  ;i 
journal  remarks  "In  many  of  our  Episcopal  churches  to-day  the  confessional 
is  as  distinct  a  part  of  the  ordinance  of  the  church  as  the  communion." 


END    OF    VOLUME    I. 


372 


npT971983 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


BX 

2265 

LM3 

1896 

V.I 

C.I 

ROBA