Please handle this volume with care. The University of Connecticut Libraries, Storrs » » » » *f ' ^^ ^ ' ^ BOOK 265.6-L462 v. 1 c.1 LEA # HISTORY OF AURICU CONFESSION & "^°U'-GENCES 3 T153 000b772b 2 A HISTORY CONFESSION AND INDULGENCES, Digitized by the Internet Arcinive in 2009 with funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/historyofauricul01leah A HISTORY AURICULAR CONFESSION INDULGENCES IN THE LATIN CHURCH. BY HENRY CHARLES LEA, LL.D. VOLUME I. CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. LONDON: SWAN SONNENSCHETN & CO., PATERNOSTER SQUARE. 1896. V "'T PRINTED IN AMERICA, PREFACE. u> 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. «4 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 (y''> 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 V/D 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 shoAV 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. Scriptural Forgiveness of Sin ..... Rudimentary Organization in the Early Church . CHAPTER II .—Discipline. Condition of Admission of Converts ...... 8 Episcopal Courts for the Forum Externum ..... 9 ReconciUation a Matter of Discipline . . . . . .11 Voluntary Confession Mitigates Penance . . . . .12 The Church has no Jurisdiction over the Forum of Conscience . 14 Class of Sins Subjected to Discipline ...... 15 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 Formulas for Imposition of Penance No Repetition of Penance Permitted 20 21 23 24 26 28 31 33 34 Vlll CONTENTS. Decline of Public Penance in the Middle Ages The Clergy not Admitted to Penance Penance of Ecclesiastics in the Middle Ages . 37 38 45 CHAPTER IV.— Reconciliation. Reconciliation Distinct from Absolution Nature of Imposition of Hands Imposition of Hands Gradually Disused in the Sacrament Reconciliation an Episcopal Function .... But also Pei'formed by Priests and Deacons . Death-bed Reconciliation ...... 50 50 53 54 56 59 CHAPTER v.— The Heresies. Origin of Heresy The Montanists The Novatians The Donatists 63 64 65 70 CHAPTER VI .—The Pardon of Sin. Intercessory Prayer Expiation by Temporal Misfortune Repentance and Amendment Origen's Seven Methods The Eucharist The Mass— Oblations . Extreme Unction Justification by Faith and Grace Pelagianism — Predestination Conti'ition and Attrition 76 77 78 81 85 87 92 93 95 101 CHAPTER VII.— The Power of the Keys. Martyrs and Saints as Mediators . The Texts in Matthew and John . The Early Church Knows Nothing of the Keys Gradual Development of the Claim Opinions of Jerome and Augustin 105 107 108' 110 116 CONTENTS. IX Uncertainty in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries Priests Claim Ej)iscopal Functions — Formulas of Ordination Priests Exercise only a Delegated Power Influence of the False Decretals . . . . . Gradual Advance from the Ninth to the Eleventh Centuries Uncertainty of St. Bernard and Gratian Influence of the University of Paris and the Schoolmen Tentative Theories of Hugh of St. Victor Peter Lombard Divides Remission into (7u^|ja and Poena Debate over the Function of the Priest in Absolution . Elaboration of the Theory as to Culj)a and Poena . Remission of Sin is Effected only by the Keys Discussion as to the Nature and Certainty of Absolution The Key of Knowledge ...... Sacerdotal Control of Salvation ..... PAGE 118 121 124 126 129 134 136 140 142 144 149 152 157 161 166 CHAPTER V 1 1 1 .—Confession Discussion Whether Confession is of Divine Law . Auricular Confession Unknown to the Early Church Confession to God in Public .... Private Consultation with Experts Introduction of Private Confession to Priests Private Confession Recognized by Leo I. Confession in the Monastic Orders Gradual Development of Confession to the Priest 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 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 . 168 171 174 175 179 183 184 185 191 193 197 203 205 208 211 215 217 CHAPTER IX.— Enforced Confession. Efforts to Render Auricular Confession Obligatory The Lateran Canon of 1216 Prescribes Annual Confession 227 228 CONTENTS. Difficulty of Enforcing the New Rule . Questions to which it gave Rise Unfitness of the Clergy for the Confessional Methods of Coercion Adopted Modern Observance of Confession . Improvement in the Character of Confessors Duty of Physicians to Force Patients to Confess Confession by Ecclesiastics .... Confession by Priest before Celebrating Mass 231 237 241 250 254 255 262 267 271 CHAPTER X .—Jurisdiction. Origin of the Jurisdiction of the Priest Power of the Keys Circumscribed by Jurisdiction . The Exclusive Right of Parish Priests over their Subjects Absolution Invalid without Jurisdiction Exceptions Admitted to This ..... Perplexities Arising from Jurisdiction .... Confessors of Men of Rank and Prelates Licences to Choose a Confessor — Confessional Letters Modern Relaxation of Jurisdiction .... Struggle with the Mendicants over the Question of Jurisdiction The Council of Trent requires Episcopal Approbation of Confesso — Efforts of the Regulars to Neutralize it . Question as to the Necessity of Annual Confession to the Parish Priest — Heresy of John of Poilly 274 277 278 282 283 286 288 292 296 297 303 307 CHAPTER XI.— Reserved Cases. Origin of Reserving Cases to the Bishop Growth of the Custom in the Twelfth Century Explained by Delegation of Jurisdiction Papal Letters Overriding Episcopal Reservation Arbitrary Exercise of Episcopal Power The Council of Trent Confirms the Power Variations in Different Dioceses Papal Reserved Cases ..... Confesssional Letters for Papal Cases Conflict Between the Council of Trent and the Popes 312 313 314 316 317 318 319 321 325 327 CONTENTS. XI Incompatibility of the System with the Sacramental Theory — Pei plexities in Applying it ... . Methods of Evasion by Priests — Indirect Absolution Faculties are Usually Granted for Reserved Cases . Impediments which Excuse the Penitent Question of Erroneous Absolution Various Questions Arising from Reserved Cases Conflict over Reserved Cases Between the Secular and Regular Priests 329 333 334 336 338 340 342 CHAPTER XII.— The Confessional. Requisites for a Perfect Confession Excej)tions to the Rule of Completeness Scrupulous Penitents Divided Confession Gregarious Confession . Repeated Confession Confession and Absolution by Writing or Messenger 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 .... 347 349 353 354 358 360 362 367 378 380 382 393 396 400 404 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 . 412 415 420 421 422 424 425 428 431 437 438 Xll CONTENTS. Various Questions Arising from the Seal .... Its Influence on Penance ....... The Penitent also Bound to Secrecy ..... Exceptions — Future Sins — Debts and Deposits — Matters Mentioned by the Penitent ........ Extent to which the Confessor may Allude to Confessions Impossibility of Enforcement — Garrulity of Confessors Cases of Violation ........ Habitual Violation in the Reliarious Orders .... PAGE 439 442 444 445 448 450 453 456 CHAPTER XIV .—Absolution Absolution Unknown in the Early Church Power of Intercessory Prayer Deprecatory Formulas of so-called Absolution Development of Absolution from Reconciliation The Theory of the Sacraments Early Conceptions of the Sacraments Development in the Twelfth Century Established by Peter Lombard . Gradual Acceptance of the Theory . Authoritatively Adopted in 1439 Transitional Formulas of Absolution The Indicative Formula Introduced Rendered defide by the Council of Trent Recapitulation ..... The Saci*ament in Sinful Hands Death-bed Absolution .... Causes of Invalidity of Absolution Partial Absolution .... Conditional Absolution .... Reimputation of Sins .... Absolution Before or After Performance of Penance Confession and Absolution in the Lutheran Church in the Calvinist Church . in the Anglican Church . 460 460 463 465 469 469 471 473 475 479 480 483 488 493 495 496 498 501 503 503 506 515 519 520 PART I. CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION I.— 1 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/'^ 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."^ 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.^ 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 ;"* 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- ^ 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 elg /uerdvoiav, and even so orthodox a scholar as Benito Arias Montano adds to the Vulgate " ad pcenitentiam." A still higher authority is Pope John XIX. who in 1032 quotes the text in the same way (Johan. PP. XIX. Epist. 17). ^ Ps. L. 19; Isaiah, LV. 7. Cf. Ezek. xvili. 23; xxxill. 11. ■' Jonah, III. ^ Joel, ii. 13. 4 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. ■ monly identified with Mary Magdalen, of whom he said " 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/ 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."- Paul attributes the remission of sin to the blood of Christ;^ 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 Ohrist."* The early Christians however adhered to the teaching of the Master and to the traditional Hebrew view of the expiatory power of almsgiving.-^ Towards the close of the first century we 1 Luke, VII. 47; xm. 5; xv. xxiii. 40-43; John, viii. 3-11; Matt, xvili. 3-4, 35 ; XXV. 31-46 ; xxvi. 69-75. ^ James, v. 14-16; I. Jolin, l. 9; v. 16. ^ Ephesians, I. 7. * I. Cor. V. 5. This would seem to be the most probable explanation of the somewhat enigmatical text, especially as it was the current belief of the Jews of the period that sin is punished here rather than hereafter. This is seen in the question of the disciples, " Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" (John ix. 2), and though on this occasion Christ 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 asking, "Whether it is easier to say. Thy sins are forgiven thee ; or to say. Arise and walk." ^ " Water quencheth a flaming fire and alms resisteth sins." — Ecclesiasticus, . III. 33. — " Wherefore king let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and redeem PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. 5 find St. Clement of Rome assnming 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.^ About the same period the Didache and Bar- nabas both inculcate almsgiving as a means of redeeming sins,^ and so soon afterwards does the second epistle which passes under the name of Clement.^ St. Ignatius speaks only of repentance as requi- site for reconciliation to God,^ and about the middle of the second century the Shepherd of Hernias seems to know of no other means of remission,^ 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 delivereth from death and the same is that which purgeth away sins." — Tobias, xii. 9. — " Give alms and behold all things are clean unto you." — Luke, xi. 41. ^ Clement. Epist. i. ad Corinth, viii. 1 ; xxii. 1 ; xxiii. 1, 15. ^ Didache, c. iv. — Barnabas Epist. xiv. 20. But already the evil of indis- criminate almsgiving was recognized — " Let thine alms sweat in thy hands till thou hast learned to whom to give " (Didache, c. i.). ^ Pseudo-Clement. Epist. ii. ad Corinth. 8, 13. "Fasting is better than prayer and almsgiving than both . . . . for almsgiving lifteth the burden of sin" — lb. 16. So Pius IX. in proclaiming the jubilee of 1875, urges the bishops to exert themselves "ut peccata eleemosynis redimantur." — Pii P.P. IX. Encyc. Gravibus (Acta, T. VI. p. 358). * Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. c. iii. viii. ^ Hermse Pastor. Lib. l. Vis. ii. Lib. ii. Mandat. iv. Lib. iii. 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 elsewhere^ 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 ;"^ although when addressing the whole body of believers in Corinth he seems to regard the function as inherent in the congregation at large,^ 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.^ 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.^ 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- cated.'^ 1 Studies in Church History, 2d edition, 1883. ^ Galat. vi. 1. ^ " But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man that is named a 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 though I were present, him that hath so done " — Ibid. 3. ° "And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also." — II. Cor. ll, 10. ® S. Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. c. viii. The shorter Latin version says " Omnibus igitur poenitentibus dimittit Deus si poeniteant in unitatem Dei et concilium {awedpiov) episcopi." The longer version is "Omnibus igitur poeni- tentibus dimittit Deus, si ad unitatem ecclesife concurrerint et ad consensum episcopi." (Petermann's Ignatius, jjp. 206-7.) ' 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 miake 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 we 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 leaders of thought, such facts and views as may serve to illustrate the gradual evolution and crystallization of Latin Christianity in relation to sin and its remission. CHAPTER 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 Avere 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 baptism^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.* He was regenerate, he was born again without sin 1 Didache, c. vii. 2 "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. (Eendel Harris's Transla- tion, p. 51). 3 Clement. Recogn. Lib. iii. c. 67. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Ed. Viennse, 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. * Justin. Mart. Apologise iii.— Clement. Recogn. Lib. i. c. 69.— Tertull, de Baptismo c. xx.— S. Zenonis Lib. i. Tract, xxxix., xl., xli. (Migne'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 after twelve years of repentance. — Clement. Alex. Stromata Lib. vi. (Ed. Sylburg. p. 636). 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."^ 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.^ 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 intermim, 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 whose duty it is to find precedent in the first three centuries for all the insti- tutions and dogmas of the middle ages.^ It is true that the Church ^ Didache, c. xv. '■* Cypriani de Unitate Ecclesise p. 109. Cf. Epist. ad Pomponium p. 9 (Ed, Oxon.l. ^ See Estius in Lib. iv, Sententt. Dist. xv. § 13. Modern theologians find it diflficult 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. vii. Q. vii. cap. 4 art. 3) says that 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 indul- gences depends wholly upon the sacramental character of ancient penance. See Bouvier Traite des Indulgences, Ed. 1855, pp. 17 sqq. Grone (Der Ablass, seine Geschichte und Bedeutung, Eegensburg, 1863, p. 27) endeavors to reconcile 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.^ 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.^ 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 modei'n minor excommunication, and thus in foro externa, but having in con- nection with it sacramental satisfaction. Palmieri (Tract, de Pcenit. Romae, 1879, p. 77) controverts the views of those who assert that the penitence of the early Church was only in foro externa, to reconcile the sinner to the Church, and condemns it as opposed to Catholic opinion. Subsequently, however, when be 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 opj^ression thus lodged in the hands of an unscrupulous prelate is exhibited in the jii-ose- cution of the i3riest Isidor by Theophilus, the arbitrary archbishop of Alexan- dria. — Palladii Vit S. Jo. Chrysost. c. vi. ^ Cypriani Epist. LV. ad Antonianum '' Et quia apud inferos confessio non est nee exomologesis illic fieri potest, qui ex toto corde pcenituerint et roga- verint in ecclesia debent interim suscipi et in ipsa Domino reservari, qui ad ecclesiam venturus, de illis utique quos in ea intus invenerit, judicabit." " Cleri Roman. Epist. ad Cyprian. (Cypriani Epist. xxx.) " Ipso Deo sciente quid de talibus faciat et qualiter judicii sui examinet pondera." RECONCILIATION. 1] of the fourth centiny prove that diaconal reconciliation was not con- fined to the African Church/ 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.^ 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.^ St. Augustin gives us clearly to understand that the so-called penitents of the early Church were simply excommunicates f and when Bishop Therapius received the priest Victor to the peace of the Church before he had satisfied God ^ Cypriani Epist. xviii. — C. Illiberitan. can. 32. — 0. Toletan. I. ami. 400, c. 2. Cf. C. Carthag. IV. ann. 398, c. 4 " Diacouus cum ordinatur, solus epis- copus que eum benedicit manual super caput illius ponat quia uon ad sacerdo- tium sed ad ministerium consecratur." These passages naturally give concern to modern apologists, wlio endeavor 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. ^ Tertull. de Prsescriptionibus c. xxx. ^ Euseb H. E. vi. 44. * S. Augustin. Epist. cclxv. n. 7. "Aguiit homines pcenitentiam si post bap- tismum ita peccaverint ut excommunicari et postea reconciliari mereantur, sicut in omnibus ecclesiis illi qui proprie pcenitentes appellantur." In referring to St. Augustin it is important to bear in mind the immense influence which he exercised in moulding the doctrine and discipline of the medieval and modern Church. This is illustrated in the Decretum of Gratian, where no less than 607 canons are taken from his works, genuine and suppositi- tious. Much as current Christianity owes to St. Paul, he furnishes only 408 canons. It was on Augustin rather than on Paul that the schoolmen built, as is obvious in the Sentences and the commentaries upon them which form the main body 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.^ The episcopal tribunals Avhich 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 Officiality, 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, J]uphrosynus 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.^ 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 ^ Cypriani Epist. Ixiv. ^ Greg. Thaumaturg. Epist. Canon. (Harduin. Concil. I. 191-4). CONVICTION OB CONFESSION. 13 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.^ A hundred years later we find the same judicial system in force in the canons of St. Gregory of Nyssa, 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." 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.'^ 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.^ It pun- ^ Constitt. Apostol. Lib. ii. c. xix , xxiv., xli., xlv. ^ Greg. Nysssen. Epist. Canon, c. iv. ' Basil. Epist. Canon, ii. 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. * The distinction between crime and sin would seem to have been unknown to the early Fathers. St. Augustin uses the words crimen and peccatum as indicating only difference in degree. The saints are without crimen though no man is without ^jeccaifwrn (Enchirid. c. 64. Cf. Serm. CCCXCIII.). Towards the close of the fifth century the Sacramentarium Leonianum makes communion purge from crimen (Jejunii Sept. ill., Octobris iv. — Muratorii 0pp. 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 diiference 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 Avas imposed on him and its performance enforced by the severest penalties within reach.^ 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.^ 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 enim inter peccatum et delictum distat quod peccatum est mala facere, delictum vero est bona delinquere quae summo- pere sunt teuenda. Vel certe peccatum in opere est, delictum in cogitatione " (Homil. in Ezek. Lib. ii. Homil. ix. c. 3). Yet again, he uses delictum as synonymous with peccatum (Moral, xiii. v.). It all shows how completely vague as yet were the conceptions as to jurisdiction over conscience. ^ Concil. Venetici aun. 465 c. 1. — Concil. Agathens. ann. 511 c. 37. ^ 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 SINS. 15 plaint of Chiysostom 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.^ 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. Augus- 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.^ 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 ^ S. Joan. Chrysost. cle Sacerdotio Lib. ii. c. 2-4. - 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; Bruns, 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). 16 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 works 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.^ 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.^ Even late in the fourth century St. Pacianus tells us that all other offences can be redeemed by good works and amendment,-^ and this opinion was still widely current in the time of St. Augustin.* How, towards the close of the fourth century, the Church gradually extended its cognizance over a wider range of less serious oflPences, 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 ^ 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. ^ Reliqua peccata meliorum operum compensatione curantur ; haec vero tria crimina metuenda sunt. — S. Paciani Parsenesis ad Pcenit. c. iv. * Qui autem opinantur csetera eleemosynis facile compensari, tria tamen mortifera esse non dubitant et excommunicatione punienda donee poenitentia humiliori sanentur, impudicitiam, idololatriam, homicidium. — S. August, de Fide et Operibus c. xix. EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION. 17 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 unpardonable. 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."^ 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.^ 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,^ 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 ^ S. Gregor. Nyssaen. Epist. Canon, c. vii. viii. ^ 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. ■^ De Pcenitent. c. 4. I.— 2 18 DISCIPLINE. those for which Christ would uot intercede and gave a long list of minor offences for which Christ would procure pardon.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.* That repentant sinners sought to placate an offended 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. ^ 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. Pcenitentiae Lib. ix. c. 20, and Pal- mieri Tract, de Pcenit. jap. 85, 91. The fact doubtless is that there was no universal rule, each local church having its own practice. ^ S. Augustin. Epist. CLiii. c. 3. * Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. V. Th. ii. pp. 269 sqq. NO FORUM INTERNUM. 19 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.^ 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. ^ Oria;enis Homil. il. 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 •} 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 oifences, 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.^ Pacianus, indeed, gives us to understand that many penitents were distinguishable only by greater luxury in vestments and banquets.^ ^ Canon. Apostol. xxvi. (Ed. Dion. Exig. xxviii.). One of the accusations against Chrysostotn 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). '^ Hieron. Epist. Lxxvii. | 4 ad Oceanum. ^ Paciani Parsenesis ad Posnitentiam. PRIVATE PENANCE UNKNOWN IN EARLY CHURCH. 21 For at least the first four centuries the Cliurch prescribed only public penance. It is the penance " secundum morem ecclesise " repeat- edly alluded to by St. Augustin/ who tells us that it was only adminis- tered for grave sins, lighter ones being removed by daily prayer.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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} 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.^ St. ^ S. Augustin. Enchirid. c. Ixxxii ; Serm. cccxcil. c. iii. '■* In his sermon De Symholo to the catechumens (cap. 7) he tells them " Illi enim quos videtis agere pcenitentiam scelera commiserunt, aut adulteria aut aliquse facta immania ; inde agunt pcenitentiam. 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. ^ 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. Levitae Capitul. v. 133 and the collec- tions of canons). * S. Isidor. Hispalens. de Ecclesise Oflaciis Lib. ii. c. xvii. ?| 4, 5.— Cf Epiphan. Panar. Hseres. Lix. ^ See Palmieri, Tract, de Pcenit. pp. 393-402. ® " Audis prseconem stantem et dicentem Quicunque estis in posnitentia abite. Omnes qui non participant sunt in pcenitentia. Si es ex lis qui sunt in pceni- 22 PUBLIC PENANCE. Ambrose prescribes public penance for secret sins/ 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.^ 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.^ 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 God^ — 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.^ Nor were tentia non debes participare, nam qui non participat est in pcenitentia." — S. Joh. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Ephesios Horn. iii. 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. ii. c. 23. ^ S. Ambros. de Pcenitent. Lib. i. c. 16. ^ S. August. Append. Serm. 258 I 2. ^ S. Augustin. Serm. 392, cap. 5. * Gennadii de Eccles. Dogmat. c. 53. * " Quod inlotos, quod sordulentos, quod extra Isetitiam oportet deversari, in asperitudine sacci et horrore cineris et oris de jejunio vanitate." Tertull. de Poenit. c. xi. " Orare oportet impensius et rogare, diem luctu transigere, vigiliis noctes et fletibus ducere, tempus omne 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.^ The Apostolic Canons only once prescribe a term of penance, which is three years for a layman mutilating himself.^ 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.^ This was the plan proposed by Cyprian after the Decian persecution* and as late as the middle of the fifth century Leo I. lays it doAvn as the rule in spite of the multifarious legislation of councils on the subject.'^ 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 f 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.* 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 Ninus, Clementianus and Florus, who had lapsed only after prolonged prison and torture, and who Christi perditutn nullum jam.velle vestitum, post diaboli cibum malle jeju- nium, justis operibus incumbere quibus peccata purgantur, eleemosynis fre- quenter insistere, quibus a morte animse liberantur." — Cyprian, de Lapsis xxxv. Cf. C. Agatbens. ann. 506 c. xv. ^ Constitt. Apostol. Lib. ii. 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 secundum disciplinse ordinem ad exomologesin veniant." — Cyprian. Epist. xvi. xvii. For virgins wbo bad allowed tbemselves to be seduced he threatens "poenitentiam 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/ Yet the matter was wholly discretionary, for when a second persecntion 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.- Somewhat similar was 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.^ 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.^ The first was ^etus or weeping, in which 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 substrntio, lying down or kneel- ing during the prayers uttered for his benefit : the fourth was consis- tentia or congregatio, 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 ^ 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. ^ Ejusd. Epist. Ivii. ^ Petri Alexandri Canones (Max. Bibl. Patrum, III. 370 sqq). * Concil. Neocassar. ann. 314 c. 5. STAGES OF PENANCE. 25 hands.^ This elaborate system was of gradual development. Ter- tullian seems only to know the single stage of fletus? 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.^ 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.* The great council of Nicsea, 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.^ In the East, the adoption of the four stages by St. Basil the Great rendered them traditional in the Greek Church,^ 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 Nicsea, reduces the stages to two, auditio and consistentia, and the whole term to seven years,^ 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,^ 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.^ Yet even so recent a writer as Father de ^ 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 seem to be little doubt that this canon is a subsequent interpola- tion. See Morin. de Pcenitent. Lib. Vl. c. 1. ^ 9 sqq. ^ Tertull. de Pcenitent. c. 6. * Constitt. Apostol. ii. xliii. * Concil. Ancyran. ann. 314 c. 4. * Concil. Nicsen. I. ann. 325 c. 11. ^ 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. ii. 304). 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). '' Concil. Arelatens. ann. 443, c. x. « Felicis PP. III. Epist. vii. » 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.^ 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 auditlo, four of substraflo and one of consistentia ; for fornication the term was seven years, two each of the first th?ee, 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.^ 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.'' When definite terms of penance came to be ' Th. ex Charmes Theol. universalis Diss. v. cap. v. Q. 2, Concl. 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 lie 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 Nicsea, 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, w^iich will be consid- ered hereafter. ^ Constitt. Apostol. Lib. ii. c. ix., x., lii. 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.' 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,^ while Gregory of Nyssa asserts it unre- servedly when there is real repentance and amendment.^ 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,* 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.'^ 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.^ Various councils in Gaul, ' Concil. Ancyran. ann. 313 c. xxiv. ; Concil. Neocsesariens. 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, iii. c. Ixxiv. ^ S. Gregor. Nyssseni Epist. Canon, c. iv. v. * " Ut poenitentibus secundum peccatorum difFerentiara episcopi arbitrio poenitentise tempora decernantur." — C. Carthag. III. ann. 397 c. xxxi. 5 S. Joh. Chrysost. Homil. xiv. ad 11. Corinth. | 3. ® "Ceterum de pondere sestimando delictorum sacerdotis est judicare, ut attendat ad confessionem poenitentis et ad fletus atque lacrymas corrigentis ac tunc jubere dimitti cum viderit congruam satisfactionem." — 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 Cans. 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 centuiy, take the same position' 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.^ 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.^ In fact, he was ^ Concil Andegavens. ann. 453 c. xii. ; C. Aurelianens. IV. ann. 541 c. viii. ; C. Cabilonens. ann. 649 c. 8. This question of discretion in the prescription of penance has its imi^ortance 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. '^ " Quanto fcedior 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. Levitse Capitular. Lib v. c. 116. — Alex, de Ales Summse P. iv. Q. xiv. Membr. 6 Art 3 — T. Aquinat. Summse Suppl. Q. xxviii. Art. 3. — J. Friburgens. Summse Confessorum Lib. III. 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. Ill 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 pcenitentium reprsesentamus." 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. ^ Tertull. de Poenit. c. ix. — Cyprian, de Lapsis ad calcem. — S. Paciani Para- SEVERITY OF PENANCE. 29 forbidden to engage in secnlar pursuits ; if he threw off his penitential garments and returned to the world, he was cut off from all associa- tion with the faitliful and was segregated with such strictness that anyone eating with him was deprived of communion.^ 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.'^ 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 nsesis ad Pcenit c. x. xi. — Concil Cabillon. ann. 813 c xxxv. — S Arabros. de Lapsu Virginis ^35; de Poenitent. Lib. ii. c. x. ^ 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. ' Sozomen. H. E. vii. 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. ^ 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 was well advanced that permission to marry was freely given by Nicholas 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.^ Optatus, indeed, in scolding the Donatists for impiously condemning bishops to perform penance, asserts that it is worse than death.^ 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.^ St. Ambrose indeed tells us that it was easier to find a man who had preserved his innocence than one who 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.^ 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." These involuntary penitents did not always submit peaceably, espe- cially in the earlier periods when, after the cessation of a persecution, there were great numbers of the lapsed Avhose public idolatry admitted of no concealment and who were necessarily condemned to penance i^i its full rigor. The troubles of Cyprian are well known with the ^ Siricii PP. Epist. I. c. 5 ad Himerium. — S. Caesar. Arelatens. Serm. cclxi. c. 3, in Append. S. Augustin. — Concil. Arelatens. II. ann 443 c. xxi. — Leoni& PP. I. Epist. CLXVii. c. x-xiii. — Ivon. Carnotens. Deer. P. xv. c. Ixxii. Ixxx. — Gratian. c. 16 Caus. xxxiii. Q. ii. The decretals of Siricius and Leo were carried through all the collections of canons up to Gratian and were held to be the law of the Church. ^ Concil. Toletan. XVI. ann, 693 c. iv. ^ " O impietas inaudita quern jugulaveritis inter pcenitentise tormenta ser- vare ! in comparatione operis vestri latronum levior videtur immanitas. Vos vivum facitis homicidium ; latro jugulatis dat de morte compendium." — Optati de Schism. Donatist. Lib. il. c. xxi. Cf. c. xxv. ^ S. Paciani Paransesis ad Poenitent. c. x. xi. '" S. Ambros. de Poenitent. Lib. ii. c. x. xi. ^ "Abundant hie poenitentes : quando illis manus imponitur fit ordo longis- simus." — S. Ausfust. Serm. ccxxxii. 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.^ 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 was 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.^ St. ^ The epitaph on Marcellus, attributed to Pope Damasus, says — Veridicus rector lapses quia crimina flere Prsedixit miseris fuit omnibus hostis amarus : Hinc furor, hinc odium, sequitur discordia, lites, Seditio, caedes, solvuntur fcedera 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, caedes, bellum, discordia, lites. Exemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni [Maxentii] Integra cum rector servaret fcedera pacis, Pertulit exilium omnino sub judice Isetus Littore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit. — Migne's Patrolog. T. VI. p. 28. ^ " Suscipit enim Deus pcenitentiam 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 -} 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.^ 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.'^ 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. Epipban. Panar. Hseres. Lix. We sball bave frequent occasion to see bow little correspondence tbere is between tbe opinions of tbe Fatbers and tbe modern doctrines of tbe Cburcb — a fact candidly admitted by tbe Salamanca tbeologians wben tbey remark tbat tbere is mucb apparent heresy in tbe ancient writings ; in view of tbe sanctity of tbe writers tbis is explained away by tbeologians, but if uttered by men of less autbority it would be condemned as beresy. " Inventse sunt multoties in scripturis SS. Patrum propositiones ex vi terminorum baeresin dicentes, tamen, attenta sanctitate et doctrina prsedictorum Sanctorum, prsefatse propositiones in aliquum varum sensum interpretatse sunt Doctoribus, quae in aliis bominibus inferioris notse inventse, ut bsereseS sunt damnatse." — Salman- ticens. Cursus Tbeol. Moral Tract, xvii. c. ii. n. 106. A more effective plan of preserving tbe faitbful from tbe errors of tbe Fatbers was tbat of expurgating tbeir works. In 1570 we find tbe great Spanish scbolar Arias Montano tbus employed on St. Augustin, St. Jerome and otber leading writers (Colleccion de Documentos ineditos, T. XLI. 175). ^ S August. Serm. cocxciii. Yet by tbis time tbe tbeory was gaining ground tbat pardon might be bad from God tbrougb tbe power of tbe keys lodged in tbe Cburcb at large, and tbis was shared in some degree by St. Augustin (Serm. cccxcii. ^5). His views on tbe subject will be considered bereafter. ^ Ejusd. Epist. OLiii. 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 them 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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,^ 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. ^ Coelestin PP. II. Epist. ii. cap. 2.. ^ Leonis PP. I. Epist. cviii. ad Theodorum cap. 2. — This passage sufficiently shows that there was no absolution preceding reconciliation as has been imag- ined by some modern apologists. ^ S Ambros. Orat. de Obitu Theodos. c. 34.— Paulini Vit. S. Ambros. c. 34.— Rufini H. E. Lib. ii. c. 18.— Theodoriti H. E. Lib. v. c. 18. ^ 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 Avith this he ordered the clergy to drive them out, which was done, chanting " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat breacl."^ 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.^ Every year this ceremony was repeated, as long as the penance lasted.^ 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 vShepherd of Hernias tells us that but a single opportunity for repentance is open to the servants of ^ 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 Pcenitentiarn. As late as the middle of the thirteenth century Alexander Hales describes it in substantially the same detail (Summae P. iv. Q. xiv. Membr. 6 Art. 3). In the Ambrosian Church however reconciliation took place on Good Friday (Morin de Pcenit. Lib. ix. caj). 29, § 3, 4) and this custom prevailed in Spain at least until the seventh century. — Concil. Toletan. IV. ann. 633, c. 7. ^ Gregor. PP. II. Epist. xiii. The sixteenth council of Toledo (ann. 693, c. 4) speaks of penitents " sub pcenitentise satisfactione custodiae mancipati." ^ 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.' 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 repents of his repentance and aims to satisfy Satan, not God.^ St. Clement of Alexandria argues that to require repeated penitence is no penitence.^ For mortal sins Origen tells us that there is but one chance of repentance.* 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.^ 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.^ 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 worldly 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.'' This shows that the refusal of a second penance and reconciliation by no means debarred the sinner from salvation. Though not at peace with 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 ' Pastor. Hermse Lib. ii. Maudat. iv. 1, 3. "Servis enim Dei una pceni- tentia est." ^ Tertull. de Pcenitent. 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." ^ S. Clement. Alexand. Stromata, Lib. ii (Ed. Sylburg. p. 386). * Origenis Homil. in Leviticum XV. 2. ~"In gravioribus enim criminibus semel tantum poenitentise conceditur locus." * S. Ambros. de Pcenitent. Lib. ii. c. xi. Cf. c. xcv. ® Socrat. H. E. vi. xxi. Chrysostom in fact says " Si quotidie peccas, quotidie poenitentiam age." — De Pcenitent. Homil VIIL | 1. ' 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.^ 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.^ As far as the Church was concerned, however, he was cut off. Among the accusations brought against Chrysostom in the Synod ad Qiiercum, 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,"^ 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.* It is true that, about the same period, Victor Tunenensis asserted that the sinner can be cured as often as he lapses,^ 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 ^ S. August. Epist. CLiii. c. iii. ad Macedonian. ^ S. Hieron. Epist. cxxii. c. 3, ad Rusticum. ^ Synod, ad Quercum (Harduin, I. 1042). Tiie Pseudo- Justin Martyr was apparently of the same opinion as Chrysostom.— Pseudo- Justin. Mart. Explica- tiones Q. 97. * C. Toletan. III. anu. 589 c. xi — "Quoniam comperimus per quasdam His- paniarum ecclesias, non secundum canonem sed foedissime pro suis peccatis homines agere poenitentiam, ut quotiescunque peccare voluerint toties a pres- byteris se reconciliari expostulent ; ideo pro coercenda tam execrabili prse- sumptione id a sacro concilio jubetur, ut secundum formam canonicam antiquorum detur poenitentia .... hi vero qui ad prsevia vitia vel infra poenitentise tempus vel post reconciliationem relabuntur secundum priorum canonum severitatem damnentur." ^ Victoris Tunenens. de Posnit. 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 time 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 be 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.' 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 word poenifentia, 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.^ Toward the close of the century, when the new system was 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.^ 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.^ By this time it had lost whatever medicinal character it may have had of old and was wholly vindictive and deterrent. Alexander Hales explains the prohibition of repetition by its symbolizing the expulsion from Para- ^ Hugon. de S. Victore de Sacramentis Lib. ii., P. xiv. c. 4. Cf. Ejusd. Summse Sentt. Tract, vi. c. 12. ^ Grat. Deer. Caus. xxxiir. Q. iii. Dist. 4. ad calcem.—F. Lorabard. Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. xiv. | 3. '■ Alani de Insulis Lib. Poeuitent. (Migne's Patrol. CCX. 296). * S. Raymond. Summfe 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 otlier 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/ The matter continued to be a erux for the school- men, especially in consequence of the ambiguity between penance and repentance. Aquinas says penitence can be repeated except the j^ceni- 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 cle 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.^ 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.* 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.'' The applications of the penitential system to ecclesiastics oifer 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.^ Toward the close of the fourth century how- 1 Alex, de Ales SumniEe 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." ^ S. Th. Aquinat. Summse P. iir. Q. Ixxxiv. Art. 10. 3 Astesani Summse de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. vi. Q. 3 ; Lib. v. Tit. xxxv. Q 3, 4. * Durandi di S. Portiano Comment, super Sententt. Lib. IV. Dist. xiv. Q. 6, ^ Juenin de Sacramentis Diss. VI. Q. vii. Cap. 1, Art. 2, ^ 2. ^ C. Nicaen. aun. 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.' 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.'' 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.^ 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.* 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." 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.^ 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 ;'^ and about 700 the established formula of papal instructions to the suburbicarian bishops on their consecration con- tains a clause reminding them of it.^ Gratian, in the twelfth century, gives the decretal of Siricius and the Carthagenian canon, but restricts ' 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. ^ 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. ann. 400 c. 2. •' 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." * C. Roman, ann. 465, c. 3. ^ Concil. Agathens. ann. 506, c. 43. ^ Concil. Epaonens. ann. 517, c. 3. — C. Arelatens. IV. ann. 524 c. 3. ' Sacramentar. Gelasianum, Lib. I. n. xcv. (Muratori 0pp. XIII. ll. 208). — Sacramentar. Gregorian. (Ibid. XIII. ill. 26). ^ Lib. Diurn. Roman. Pontiff. Cap. ill. 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.^ IN^ominally the rule was preserved by the canonists, but we may safely assume that in practice it became obsolete.^ 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,^ The council of Nicsea 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 wdio confessed to sin was to be rejected.* 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ It was easy to adopt canons and issue decrees, but their enforcement 1 Gratiani Deer. c. 55, 66, 68, Dist. 50. - Astesani Summge de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. xxxv. Q. 1. •^ Cypriani Epist. xxxix. * Concil. Nicsen. ann. 325 c. ii. ix. " Siricii PP. Epist. x. c. 8, 13. ® Innocent. PP. I. Epist. ii. c. 12. For the frenzied passion of the Christians for the public games see Salvianus, De Gubernatione Dei. ' Innoc. PP. I. Epist. iii. 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. ® Isidor. Hispalens. de Eccles. OflBciis Lib. ir. c. 5 | 14. ECCLESIASTICAL MORALS. 41" was a cliiFerent 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/ 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 w^ould have no difficulty in obtaining positions elsewhere.^ 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.^ If Optatus is to believed in his account of the Donatist schism the African Church was filled with criminals of the worst type, both bishops and priests,^ and if Cyprian is to be believed this degradation of morals had existed since the middle of the third century.^ 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.^ 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.'' Indeed, a provision in the Apostolic Canons punishing with 1 Siricii. PP. Epist. vi. c. 2, 3. 2 S. Isidori Pelusiot. Lib. ii. Epist. 121, 127; Lib. in. Epist. 17, 103, 127, 224, 259. ^ Hieron. Comment, in Jeremiam Lib. il. c. viii. v. 10-11. * 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. ^ 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 sufiicient proof of their innocence. — Epist. LXVI. « Salviani de Gubern. Dei Lib. v. c. 10 ; Lib. vn. c. 17, 18, 22. ^ 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/ while Gregory the Great speaks of its occurrence as a matter within his own knowledge.^ 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.* 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 offence^ 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 ^ Canon. Apostol. c. xxviii. ^ Concil. Chalced. ann. 451, c. 2. — Concil. Quinisext. in Ti'ullo ann. 701, c. 22. Cf. Concil. Namnetens. c. ann. 895, c. 7 (Harduin. VI. 458.). ^ Gregor. PP. I. Homil. xvil. in Evangel, n. 13. * S. Anselmi Lucens. Collect. Canon. Lib. v. c. 48. "Quod ministeria eccle- sise pro captivorum redemptione vendenda sunt." ^ 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 tlie Great in laying down the rule adds " non enim vindicabis bis in idipsum." (Basil. Epist. Canon, ii. 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, ii. 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. Lxvii. PENANCE OF ECCLESIASTICS. 43 monastery and implore '' divine mercy " with tears and sack-cloth and ashes/ With 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 offences 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.^ 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.'^ 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.* 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.' At the time this seems to ^ S. Hieron. Epist. cxLVii. I 8, ad Sabinian. ^ Optati cle Schism. Donatist. Lib. ii. c. xxiv.-xxv. ■^ Siricii PP. Epist. i. c. 14.— Inuoc. PP. I. Epist. xvir. c. 3, 4 ; Epist. xxiv. c. 3. He attributes to tlie 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. XVII. c. 5). * 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. ann. 441 c. 4. * 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.^ 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 ut qui in presbyterali honore aut in diaconii gradu faerint consecrati, 11 pro crlmlne aliquo suo per manus imposltionem remedlum acclplant poenl- tendi : quod sine dublo ab apostollca tradltione descendit, secundum quod scrlptum est : Sacerdos si peccaverlt quls orablt pro lllo. . , Unde hujusmodi lapsls ad promerendum miserlcordlam Del prlvata est expetenda secesslo, ubi illis satlsfactlo si fuerit digna sit etlam 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 Septuaglnt Leviticus V. but there Is no such text there, and Leo can hardly have been unaware that the Levltlcal regulations are wholly opi^osed to his thesis. The Vulgate says — " Si sacerdos qui unctus est peccaverlt, delinquere faciens populum, offeret pro peccato suo vitulum Immaculatum Domino." — Levit. iv. 3 (virtually the same in LXX.). " Et explabit sanctuarium et tabernaculum testimonli atque altare, sacer- dotes quoque et universum populum." — Ibid. xvi. 33 (the same in LXX.). When Pope Zachary (Epist. viir. c. 14) quoted Leo, the text "Sacerdos si peccaverlt," etc., is referred to L Kings ir. — but this is equally incorrect, the passage being " si autem in Domlnum peccaverlt vir quis orablt pro eo ? " — which is destructive of all intercession for sins against God. ^ Johann. Jejunator. Libellus Pcenitentlalls (Morlni Tract, de Pcenitent. Append, pp. 85-6). Cf. 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 miinioii by profession of penance can still baptize.' In 523 the council of Lericla 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.^ 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.^ 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 whole 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.* Another penitential provides that if a man wounds another he shall pay him ' Concil. Aurelianens. I. ami. 511, c. 12. ^ Concil. Ilerdens. ann. 523, c. 1. Of. c. 5. ^ Excerpta ex Libro Davidis U 7, 10 (Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen der abenlandischen Kirche, pp. 1, 2). * 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 icer-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.^ This rigor of pmiishment 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 were 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 scourgiugs and a year's imprisonment, and the same for nuns, besides shaving the heacl.^ 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 who sheltered a fugitive cleric from a sentence of his prelate.^ 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.* 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.' 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 ^ Pcenitent. Pseudo-Roman, c. vii. I 7 (Wasser.schlebeu, p. 369.) ^ S. Bonifacii Epist. XLix. — Capit. Carolomanni I. c. 6 (Baluz. I. 105). 2 Concil. Toletan. XIII. ann. 693, c. si. * Rabani Mauri Pceuitentium Liber, cap. 1. '" 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/ 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,^ in 1089 Urban II. decided like the Toledan council that it was a matter within the discretion of his bishop.^ 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.* 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.^ 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.^ 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.'' 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.^ Even 1 Concil. Toletan. XIII. ann. 693, c. x. ^ Nichol. PP. I. ad Arducium c. vi. (D'Achery, I. 597). ^ Lowenfeld, Epistt. Pontiff. Roman, inedd. p. 63. * Harduin. Concil. VI. ii. 1653. ^ Anselmi Lucens. Canon. Lib. viii. c. 3, 30, 37. « Pseudo-Calixti Epist. ad Gallic 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. ' Capitularia, Lib. v. c. 131. * 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/ 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.^ Gratian find the question equally insoluble ; he gives thirteen canons on one side and twelve on the other and vainly endeavors to reconcile them.^ 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- ^ Synod. Strigonens. II. c. ann. 1099 (Batthyany, Legg. Eccles. Hung. II. 128.) ^ Ivonis Decreti Prolosus. ^ Decreti Dist. 60. 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 would be blasphemed among the nations^ — a candid admission of the reasons, not particularly creditable to the Church, which continued to be put forward in justification.^ 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.^ 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. Poenitentialis (Migne's Patrol. OCX. 295-6). ^ About 13255 after scholastic theology had been fally 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 personee sed ordinis, quia agens publicam pcenitentiam 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 publicum." — Durand. de S. Portiano super Sententt. Lib. IV. List, xiv. Q. 4 || 6-7. ^ Eaymund. de Pennaf. Summse Lib. II. Tit. xxxv. § 3. — Alex, de Ales Summse P. iv. Q. xiv. Membr. 6, Art. 3. — Aquinat. Summse P. ill. Q. Ixxxix. Art. 3. — Astesani Summae de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. xxxiv. xxxv. Q. 1.— Angeli de Clavasio Summ. Angel, s. v. Pcenitentia || 4, 5. 1—4 CHAPTEK IV. EECONCILIATION. 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 Chnrch, 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,^ 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,^ and was repeated whenever penitents were present in church during their term of penance,^ 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.* ^ Cypriani Epistt. xvi. xvii.' ' ^ C. Agathens. ann. 611, c. 15.— Leonis PP. I. Epist. CLXVll. Inquis. 2. — Bened. Levit. Capitularia, Lib. v. c. 116, 122, 123. .^.C. Laodicens. ann. 324 c. 19.— S. August. Serm. ccxxxii. c. 7. — In the African Churcli 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.). ■* Constitt. Apostol. ii. xlv. " Et erit ei in locum lavacri impositio manuum. Nam per impositionem manuum nostrarum credentibus Spiritus sanctus daba- tur." Cf. Acts VI. 6 ; vill. 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/ 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 dying^ 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.^ 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. ^ Constitt. Apostol. viii. xi. xii. — " Recipe nunc quoque supplicantium tibi pcenitentiam . . . et reduc eos in sanctam tuam ecclesiam, restitutis illis priori dignitate et honore per Christum Deum et Salvatorem nostrum." Palmieri (Tract, de Pcenitent. 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. ^ C. Nicsen. I. ann. 325 c. xiii. — Ccelest. 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 pcenitentiam 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, poenitentia accepta, placuit sine reconciliatoria manus impositione iis communicari, quod morientis sufficit consolationi secun- dum definitiones patrum, qui hujusmodi communionem congruenter viaticum nominarunt. Quod si supervixerint, stent in ordine po3nitentium, 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.^ 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 pcsnitentige fructibus legitimain communionem cum reconciliatoria manus impositione percipiant." — Concil. Arausican. I. ann. 441 c. 3. — Concil. Arelateus. ann. 443 c. 28. This was not a mere local regulation. It is virtually the same in Concil. Nicsen. I. c. 13 and C. Carthag. IV. ann, 398 c. 78. Cf, Gregor. Nyssaen. Epist. Canon, e. 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 continuo creditur moriturus, reconcilietur per manus impositionem et infundatur ori ejus Eucharistia " So also Leo I. (Epist. cviii. c. 5 ad Theodorum.). " Testimonia eis fidelium circumstantium prodesse debebunt et poenitentiae 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). ^ Bened.Levit. Capital. 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 ofBciates. — Morin. de Discipl. Sacr. Poenit. App. p. 67. ^ 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.^ 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,^ 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."^ 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 penitent* 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.^ Early in the sixteenth century Prierias tells us that it is not per- formed, and that crossing is more effective though not essential.^ 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." About 1550 Domingo Soto admits that conferring the Holy Ghost. — " Manus enim sacerdotis super caput poenitentis manum divinam sive virtutem. adesse sigaificat ad sanctificandum vel signifi- candum poenitentem. — Guill. Paris, de Sacram. Poenitentise c. 3 (Ed. Paris, 1674, T. I. p. 461). 1 Th. Aquinat. Opusc. xxil, c. 4. Cf. Summse P. iii. Q. Ixxxiv. Art. 3. ^ Synod. Nemaus. ann. 1284 (Harduin. Concil. VIII. 911). ^ Joh. Friburgens Summ. Confessor. Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 90. * Durand de S. Portiano Comment, sup. Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. xxii. Q. 2 i 7. ^ S. Antonini Confessionale (Ed. sine nota, fol. 69=^); Summse P. III. Tit. xvii. c. 21 ? 1. ® Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Absolutio vi. § 2. ' Bochelli Deer. Eccles. Gallicanas Lib. ii. Tit. vii. c. 188. 54 RECONCILIATION. it was still used by some confessors ;^ towards the close of the century or beginning of the next Bellarniine 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 deniaP — 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.''^ 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 ^ Dom. Soto Comment in IV. Sententt. Dist. xiv. Q. iv. art. 3. 2 Bellarmin. Concio viii. de Domin. 4 Adventus (0pp. Neapoli, 1861, T. VI. p. 50). ^ Zerola, Praxis Sacr. Pcenitentise c. xxiv. Q. 4. — Victorelli Addit. ad. Aphoris. Confessarior. Emanuelis Sa. s. v. Absohdio n. 25. •* Estius in iv. Sententt. Dist. xv. § 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 imiDosition of hands. Binterim (Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. V. Theil ii. 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, ii. | 40 (Frankfurt a M. 1854, p. 143). AN EPISCOPAL FUNCTION. 55 competent to perform it, for in the early ages of the Chnrch 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 -^ and Jerome and Chrysostom both incidentally say that their functions are the same, except as to ordination.'' 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 ^ " Etiam eaclem oratio super eo oretur tota ut super episcopo cum sola ex- ceptione nominis episcopatus. Episcopus in omnibus rebus sequiparetur presbytero excepto nomine catbedrfe 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 recension 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, VIII. 25. ^ " Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus quod joresbyter 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 quae ille de ej^iscopis dixit etiam presbyteris competunt. Sola namque ordinatione superiores sunt et hinc tantum videntur jaresbyteris praestare." — Chrysost. Homil. si. 1 1 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 otficials set apart for special duties but that each member of the congregation performed such fiinctions as his gifts enabled him to do, while from the Pastoral Epistles (I. Timoth. ill.) it would appear that at that time there were only bishops and deacons, and that, as tire churches grew, assistants under the name of elders or priests were furnished to the bishops and were also placed over congregations siDringing 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 Galilean Church which pronounced his assertion erroneous, rash, scandalous, etc. (D'Argentre Collect. Judic. de novis Erroribus UT. ii. 413). For the discussion on this subject see S. Alph. Liguori, Theol. Moral Lib. VI. n. 738. 56 RECONCILIATION. his authority/ 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. ^ 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,^ the third council in 397 relaxed the rule and permitted it when the bishop was consulted, and in cases of necessity in his absence,* 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.^ 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,^ and in the absence of the bishop or priest, a deacon could officiate.'^ ^ " In societatem nostram nonnisi per poenitentise remedium et per imposi- tionem episcopalis manus communionis recipiant unitatem." — Leon. PP. I, Epist. CLix. c. 6. ^ Optati de Schismate Donatistarum Lib. i. c. xix. ^ Concil. Carthag. IL ann. 390, c. 3. * " Ut presbyter inconsulto episcopo non reconciliet poenitentem, nisi absents episcopo et necessitate cogente." — C. Carthag. iii. 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. ^ 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 coelo." — Can. Apost. 51. ^ Bened. Levit. Capitul. v. 127, vii. 202. — Isaaci Lingonens. Canon, i. 35. — Eegino de Discip. Eccles. i. 306. — Burchardi Deer. xix. 40, 70.— Pcenitent. Pseudo-Theodori c. 5 (Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, p. 571). ■^ Morini de Discipl. Sacram. Pcenitentiae Lib. vill. c. xxiii. n. 12. — Martene de antiq. Ecclesise Ritibus, Lib. I. c. vi. art. 7, Ord. 2, 10. — Hadriani PP. I. Epitome Canonum, Regulse 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 •} and that of London in 1 200 defines this necessity to be when the priest is unable or foolishly refuses and there is danger of death.^ 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.^ 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,* 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.'' 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. 4'23).— Pcenitent. Merseburg. a. (Ibid. p. 389).— Eeginon. de Discip. Eccles. Lib. i. c. 296.— Burchardi Deer. Lib. xix. c. 154.— Canons of iElfric 16 (Thorpe's Ancient Laws, II. 349).— Pez Thesaur. Anecd. II. ii. 611.— Ivon. Deer. P. xvi. c. 161, 162.— Stephani Augustodun. de Sacram. Altaris c. vii. (Migne, CLXH. 1279). This assertion of Stephen of Autun called forth a special correction by Brisighelli in his expurgation of the Fathers. Index Expurg. Brasichillens. lioinse (Bergomi) 1608. 1 Concil. Eboracens. ann. 1196, c. 4 (Harduin. VI. ii. 1931). 2 Concil. Londinens. ann. 1200, c. 3 (Ibid. 1958). 3 Odonis Paris. Synod. Constit. c. 56 (Ibid. 1946). * Morini de Discipl. Sacram. Pcenitent. Lib. Vlil. c. xxiii. n. 14. ^ 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/ 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ This apparently remains the law of the 1 Concil. Rotomagens. ann. 1231, c. 36 (Harduin. VII. 189).— Constitt. S. Edmundi Cantuarens. circa 1236, c. 12 (Harduin. VII. 269).— Constitt. Wal- theri de Kirkliam Episc. Dunehn. ann. 1255 (Ibid. p. 492). — Nicli. Gelant. Episc. Andegav. Synod. XV. ann. 1273, c. 1 (D'Achery Spicileg. I. 731). — Statuta Eccles. Meldens. c. 77 (Martene Thesaur. I. 904). This is so completely destructive of tlie accepted sacramental theory that efforts are naturally made to argue it away. Palmieri however can only assert (Tract, de Poenit. p. 166) that all this refers to reconciliation and not to absolu- tion, in which he is flatly contradicted by the Avords of the statutes themselves. ^ C. Claromontens. ann. 1268, c. 7 (Harduin. VII. 596, 599). ^ 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. * 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 officium 23 Mar. 1628 (Bullar. IV. 144). — Cf. Marc. Paul. Leonis Praxis ad Litt. Maior. Poenitentiar, IN S OLEUM 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.^ 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.^ 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 Bibliotli. s. v. Absolvere Art. 1. n. 58, 59. ^ P. Lombard. Lib. iv. Dist. xx. § 6. — Gratiani Deer. can. xiv. Cans. xxvr. Q. 6. 2 Durandi Spec. Juris Lib. i. Partic. 1, 1 5, n. 22. — Astesani Summse de Casi- bus Lib. V. Tit. xxxv. Q. 3. 60 BEGONCILIATION. 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.^ 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 Nicsea, 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.^ 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 commmiion was granted as a viaticum in view of the mercy of God and to avoid appearing to follow the harshness of the ISTovatians.^ 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. ^ C. Sardicens. ann. 347, c. 1, 2. Hosius was a man of the liigliest repute. Before tlie 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 Nicaea "Ab ipsa quoque Hispania vir ille multo omnium sermone celebratus, unacum reliquis aliis consedit " (Euseb. Vit. Constant, iii. 7. — Socratis H. E. I. 8, 13). ^ Innocent. PP. I. Epist. 6, c. 2. The expression " reconciliationem com- munionis " is noteworthy, as showing that the distinction between communion and reconciliation was not recognized in Rome, though it had been in the counci Aries. ON THE DEATH-BED. 61 collectious 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/ We have seen however that the viaticum did not always imply reconciliation and that precautions were taken to avoid conferring 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.^ 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 sufliced 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.^ 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.* 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.). ^ Concil. Vasens. I. ann. 442, c. 2. ' Leonis PP. I. Epist. 108, c. 6.— Gratian. c. 10, Caus. xxvi. Q. vi. — Rodulfl Bituricens. Capit. c. 44 (Migne CXIX. 724). During tlie 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 rej^entance and he was duly interred in consecrated ground. (Dollinger, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, Miinchen, 1890, II. 622-3.) Leo T. 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). * Canon. Ingelramni Ixii. (Hartzheim Concil. German. I. 256). — Poenitent. Pseudo-Gregor. III. c. 4, 12, 14 (Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, pp. 539, 541). Q2 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.^ A homily variously attributed to St. Ambrose, St. Augustin and St. Cgesarius 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.^ 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 eifect nothing.'^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ ^ S. Augustin. Serrn. cccxciii. ^ " Fateor vobis non illi negamus quod petit, sed nee praesumo quia bene hinc exit ; non prsesumo, non polliceor, non dico, non vos fallo, non vos decipio, non yobis promitto. . . . Poenitentiam dare possum, securitatem dare non possum." — S. Caesar. Arelatens. Homil. xix. ^ Salviani adv. Avaritiam Lib. i. |. 10. * G-regor. PP. I. Dialog, iv. 12 ^ Poenitent. Pseudo-Gregor. c. 31 (Wasserschleben, p. 546). ^ P. Lombard. Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. xx. § 1. " Nisi forte tanta sit vehe- mentia gemitus et contritionis quae sufficiat ad delicti punitionem." CHAPTER Y. THE HEEESIES. Thus far we have been considering the theories and practices which^ however divergent and even contradictory, were yet held to come 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 heresiarch 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, flourished 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 his 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.' 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,^ and dividing sins into remissible and irremissible — peni- ^ Hippolyti Refvit. Ornn. H^res. viii. 19.— Tertull. de Praescriptionibus cap. lii.— Euseb. H. E. v. 16, 18, 19.— Philastrii Lib. de Hseres. n. lxxxiii. — Epiplian. Panar. Hasres. 48.— S. Basilii Epist. Canon, i. 1. St. Jerome in 384 says of the Montanists " Illi ad omne pene delictum ecclesiaj obserant fores" (Epist. xli. n. 3, ad Marcellam) and in 399 be classes Montanus with Novatus as refusing admission to penance (Epist. LXXVil. 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 Hgeresibus XXVI., XXXII. ^ "He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him THE M0NTANI8TS. 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.^ 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. Augustin chronicles the reception of the survivors and of their property by the Catholics in his time.^ 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 Novatus 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 Deciau 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." ^ Secundum hanc difFerentiam delicto rum poenitentise 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 seminat : nee amittit sed prse- paret fructum ; non vacabit ab emolumento 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 pcenitentise fructus, hanc quoque consistere non licet sine cessatione delicti. Ita cessatio delicti radix est venise ut venia sit pcenitentise fructus." — Ibid. cap. x. ^ S. Augustini de Hseresibus n. lxxxvi. I.— 5 QQ THE HERESIES. sisted until it nearly cost liim his see and then he yielded under pretext of arming the sinners for another impending persecution. The Roman Church was 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 forciug him to admit them to reconciliation. He yielded and admitted Trophimus to communion.^ 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.^ The laxity of Cornelius naturally excited strong antagonism. The confessors who had survived refused to acknowledo;e 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.^ 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.^ 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 ^ Cypriani Epist. LV. "■ S. Cypriani Epist. xxxiv., lviii. ^ Ibid. Epist. Lii. * Eusebii H. E. vi. xliii. THE NO VA TIANS. 6 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 JSTovatianus, 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 all the sees of their opponents and a schism was fairly started.^ 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.^ 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,^ but in reality their practice differed little if any from that of many churches which, by acknowledging the line of Roman bishops, were 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 lihellaticiy or those who during persecution had purchased exemption by pro- curing libelli attesting their paganism from the ofiicials, and he admits that Novatianus urged sinners to repentance, while refusing them readmission to the Church.^ The epistle of the Roman clergy ' Cypriani Epist. XLiv., XLV., XLVi., xlvii., xlviii., xlix., l., li., lv., LViii. — Euseb. H. E. vi. xliv., vii. viii. ^ Euseb. H. E. vi. 43. — Hilarii Pictaviens. Tract, in Ps. cxxxviii. n. 8. — Paciani contra Novatianos Epist. iii. — Epiphan. Panar. Hseres. Lix. — Philas- trii Lib. de Hseres. n. xxxiv. — Zacchsei Consultationum Lib. ii. c. xvii. xviii. St. Augustin adds that tliey forbade second marriages. — S. August, de Hseresibus 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 Pcenitent. Lib. ii. c. ii. They also quoted Matt. xii. 31-2 concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, but were naturally unable to define it. * 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 poenitentibus 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.^ 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.^ 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 Novatiaus of his time as admitting the efficacy of repentance for minor sins and leaving the graver ones for God.^ 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.* 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 Nicaea, 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. ^ Socrat. H. E. iv. 28. ^ Ambros. de Poenit. Lib. i. c. 3. * Socrat. H. E. iv. 28, vii. 25.— Hist. Tripart. Lib. xii. 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 were 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.^ 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.^ Constantine invited to the council the Xovatian 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.^ 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.* When in 383 Theoclosius 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.^ 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, Coelestin I. found it irksome to have a rival bishop of Rome, and so persecuted his competitor Rusticus that the ^ The Council of Trent (Sess. xiv. cle Pcenit. 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. Nicjen. I. c. 8. ^ Sozomen. H. E. i. 22. * Socrat. H. E. ii. 38.— Sozomen, iv. 20. ^ Sozomen. H. E. vii. 12. 70 THE HERESIES. latter was obliged to celebrate in secret.^ The growing power of Rome throLigliont 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.^ 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 Montanus, Novatus and Donatus.^ 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 :* 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.^ 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 Cliurch 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. vii. 12. - Concil. Arelatens. II. aim. 443, c. 9. ^ Lib. Diurn. Eoman. Pontif. Tit. viii. ■* Juenin de Sacramentis Dist. vi. Q. vi. c. 8 Art. 1^2. For a different view see Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. V. Th. ii. j)]). 356-61. ^ 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.^ Rome finally triumphed though not till after a prolonged struggle. The council of Nicsea required rebaptism of Paulicians received into the church.^ In 360, after the council of Rimini, Pope Libelous 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.^ 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,* 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.^ ^ S. Cypriani Epist. LXix. lxx. lxxi. lxxii. lxxv. — Euseb. H. E. vii. 9. — S. Hieron. de Viris Illust. c. Ixix. ^ C. NicEen. I. c. 3 9. 3 Siricii PP. Epist. i. c. 1 .—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. ii. 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. ii. 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. ^ 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 Sj)irit 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 Meusurius Bishop of Carthage, the African bishops assembled and elected as his successor CEecilianus, who was ordained by Felix Bishop of Aptungis. Doubtless there were 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. III. 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. ii. 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 baj)tized, all those whom he had baptized were subjected to rebaptism (Canones Gre- gorii 32 ; Poenitent. Theodori I. ix. | 11 ; ii. ii. I 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 ei^istle 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 Reportor. Alex, de Hales s. v. Baptisa7^e, Basilese, 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 under 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 L, and in 877 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 which 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.^ 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. ii. c. 4, 16, 17, 18.— S. August. Epist. xciii. n. 43 ; Contra Lib. Petilian. ii. 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.^ 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.^ 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, Avhich, 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 f which is the well-known orthodox theory of effects wrought ex opere operato 1 S. Optati Lib. ii. c. 24. =^ Ibid. ii. 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 Novatian error was the refiisal of penance while that of the Donatists was its indiscriminate infliction. — Epiphan. Panar. Haeres. Lix. — Philastrii Lib. de Hseres. n. 35. ^ S. Optati Lib. ii. 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.' 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.^ 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. ^ " 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 sestimaret, non reverendo eum qui post Deum ab hominibus timebatur." — S. Optati. Lib. iii. c. 3. 2 Ibid. Lib. vi. c. 7. CHAPTER VI. THE PAEDON OF SIN. HiTHEETO we have been dealing with the forum externum — with the relations between the sinner and the Chnrch. 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 INTEROESSION. 77 shown by the remark of Aristides, which might seem borrowed from some Brahmanic revery, "And I have no doubt that the world stands by reason of the intercession of Christians."^ There is a well-known story of St. John the Divine, which has been used by modern apolo- gists, in lack of other evidence, to prove the antiquity of indulgences, reciting how he Avon 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.^ Rufinus, at the close of the fourth century, relates of ApoUonius, a Nitrian 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."^ 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.^ 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 ^ Apology of Aristides ch. xvi. (Eendel Harris's Translation). ^ Euseb. H. E. iii. 23. ^ Eufini Historia Monachorum cap. 7. * Velut enim operibus quibusdam totius populi purgatur, et plebis lacrymis abluitur, qui orationibus et fletibus plebis redimitur a peccato, et in homine mundatur interiore. — S. Ambros. de Poenitent. Lib. i. c. 15. Cf. Tertull. de Poenitent. 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.^ Augustin is more moderate, but yet» countenances the belief in the expiatory character of worldly troubles.^ 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.* 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.^ In view of its scriptural warrant, almsgiving naturally is mainly relied upon by many authorities, with an insistance that explains the acquisitive use of it by the medieval Church. St. Am- ^ Mors quae poenae causa infertur pro peccato purgatio est peccati ipsius pro quo jubetur inferri. Absolvitur ergo peccatum perpcenam mortis nee su23erest aliquid quod pro hoc crimine judicii dies et poena 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 Summse de Casibus Conscientise, Lib. V. Tit. xxiii. Q. 3. ^ S. Hieron. Epist. xsxvi. ad Damasum. ^ 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 and 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. * Ubi emendatio nulla pcenitentia necessario vana, quia caret fructu suo. — Tertull. de Poenit. c. 1. ^ Agere autem pcenitentiam nihil aliud est quam profiteri et affirmare se ulterius non jDeccaturum. — 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ In the sixth century St. Csesarius of Aries is more emphatic — with the help of God every man can redeem his sins with alms.^ From all this we may fairly conclude that the assiduous teaching of the expiatory power of alms- ^ "Neque ego abnuo liberalitatibiis in pauperes factis posse miniii peccatum, sed si fides commendat expensas. Quid enim prodest collatio patrimonii sine gratia charitatis ? " — S. Ambros. de Poenit. Lib. 11. c. 9. The word " charity " lias acquired in our language so comi^letely the sub- sidiary sense of almsgiving that perhaps it is necessary to remind tlie reader of its theological significance, which is far wider and higher, embracing the love of God and all that this implies. ^ Habes obolum ? eme coelum, 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 redemptionis animse eleemosyna est. — S. Jo. Chrysost. de Poenitent. Homil. iii. I 2. See also the doubtful Homil. vil. | 6. ^ 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. 813 c. 36) and Ivo of Chartres considers it necessary to include the canon in his collection (Deer. P. xv. c. 70). * 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 quaerit debet jam non agere pcenitenda, ne quod uno latere extin- guitur alio succendatur. — S. Graudentii Serm. xiii. Cf. Serm. xviii. ^ Nullus sine peccato esse potest, sed peccata sua omnis homo, Deo auxiliante, redimere potest. — S. Caesar. Arelatens. Homil. xiv. (Migne, LXVI. 1076). SQ 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.^ The irrepressible enthusiasm of Chrysostom, 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.'-^ 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.'^ The development of this idea led to the extravagant self-tortures of the anchorites of Palestine and the Thebaid, 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.* Nearly contemporary with Cassianus was St. ^ Et tu si veniam vis mereri, dilue lacrymis culpam tuam : eodem momento, eodem tempore respicit te Christus. — S. Ambros. Exposit. Evang. sec. Lucam. Lib. V. n. 95, Lib. vi. n. 18, Lib. x. c. 88. Cf. S. Maximi Taurinens. Homil. Liii. ' Confessio enim peccatorum abolitio etiam est delictorum. — S. Jo. Chrysost. in Genesi Homil, xx. n, 3. ^ Bacbiarii Monacbi de Reparatione Lapsi c, 15, * 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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 oflFences, Vo Converting a sinner from the error of his ways, VI. Abundant loving charity, VII. and lastly, the hard and laborious way of repentancs, 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.* Chrysostom also summarizes the ^ '' Non levi agendum est contritione ut debita ilia redimantur quibus mors seterna debetur ; nee transitoria opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae 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 compungamus in cubilibus, id est in cordibus nostris ; si ita egeritis nos quidem de profectu vestro Isetabimur, sed vos de acquisita salute gaudebitis." — lb. Homil. ix. - ^ S. Fulgentii Ruspensis de Remissione Peccatorum Lib. i. c. 6, 11, 12, 28. ^ Hesychii in Levit. Lib. v. c. 17, 18 ; Lib. vii. c. 25, 26, 27. * Origenis in Levit, Homil. il. c. 4. L-6 \5f>\o\ 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.^ About the middle of the sixth century St. C^esarius 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 offi^nces and martyrdom.^ 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.^ To this period may be assigned the commencement of the vogue of the Penitentials, by which for three centuries or more the conscience of ^ S. Jo. Chrysost. de Pcenitentia Homil. ll. § 1-4; Homil. v. | 1. — " Profer lachrymas et ipse [Deus] indulgentiam impertitur: profer pcenitentiam et ipse tribuit remissionem peccatorum." ^ Prima remissio est peccatorum qua baptizamur in aqua (Joan. iii.). Secunda remissio est charitatis affectus (Luc. vii.). Tertia remissio est eJeemosynarum fructus (Ecclus. iii.). Quarta remissio, profusio lacrymarum (III. Peg. xi.). Quinta remissio est criminum confessio (Psa]. xxxi.). Sexta remissio est aflictio 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. xxiii.). — S. Csesar. Arelatens. Homil. XIII. 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." ^ Sed etiam fit absolutio peccatorum per charitatis affectum, per eleemosyn- arum fructum, per profusion em lacrymarum, per confessionem criminum, per cordis et corporis afiiictionem^ 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.^ 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.^ The Origenian computation of seven how- ever was more popular and lasting, and is found with little variation in the Poenitentiale Bigotianum and Vallicellianum.^ 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 ^ Pcenitent. Cummeani Procem. (Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen, p. 461). — Confessionale Pseudo-Egberti c. 2 (lb. 304.) — Poenitentiale Pseudo-Egberti Lib. IV. c. 63 (lb. 341). ^ Pcenitent. Merseburgens. a. Prolog. (lb. 388). — Pcenitent. Pseudo-Gregor. III. c. 2. ^ Pcenitent. Bigotianum Prolog. (lb. p. 444). — Pcenitent. Vallicellianum II. Ordo Pcenitent. (lb. 552). * Theodulfii Aurelianens. Capitula ad Presbyteros xxxvi. — Jonse Aure- lianens. de Institutione Laicali Lib. l. c. 5. — Haymonis Halberstat. Homilise de Sanctis, Horn. 11. Rabanus Maurus gives virtually the same modes of redeeming sins, but at greater length. — Rab. Mauri de Universe 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. Regulse c. 23. — Canones sub Edgaro, ap. Thorpe. II. 260). Others conjoin repentance with confession (Isidor. Hispalens. de Eccles. Officiis Lib. ii. c. 17 § 6). Others hold penitence alone to be sufficient (Responsa Nicholai PP. I. ad Consulta Bulgaror. c. 16. — S. Theodori Studitse Serm. Lxxxii.). Sometimes almsgiving suffices (Ecclesi- astical Institutes Prolog, ap. Thorpe, II. 395. — Sacramentarii Gelasiani Lib. ill. n. 49), and sometimes it is linked with fasting (Sacram. Gelas. Lib. i. n. 82. — Sacram. Gregoranium op. Muratori 0pp. T. XIII. P. ii. p. 973), sometimes fast- ing alone answers (Missale Gothicum, ap. Muratori T. XIII. P. iii. 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.* 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.^ 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.'^ 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.^ 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. XII I. P. i. p. 527). ^ Ecclesiastical Institutes ^ xxxvi (Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes II. 435.— Spelman, Concil. Britann. I. 612). ^ Primo per baptismum ; secundo per martyrium, tertio per confessionem et pcenitentiam ; quarto per lacrymas ; quinto per eleemosynam ; sexto per in- dulgentiam in nos peccantibus ; septimo per charitatis opera. — Honor. Augus- todun. Elucidarium, Lib. ii. c. 20. ^ Septem sunt prtecipui 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. * Alani de Insulis Lib. Pcenitent. (Migne's Patrol. OCX. 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 aiid 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. iii. c. 16. Towards the close of the thirteenth century William Durand (Rationale Divin. Oflic. Lib. Vl. c. xxiv. n. 8) recurs to the older form " per baptismum, per martyrium, per eleemosynas, per indulgentiam, per prsedicationem, per charitatem, per pcenitentiam," 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.^ 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, A¥e 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 ;^ 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.^ 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.,"* and it is assumed in the prayers of the Sacramenta- ries, especially in the Missa pro peccatis.^ 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 ^ This process is very clearly illustrated in the False Decretals, where the text is quoted with the interpolation " qui jaro vobis fundatur," and the deduc- tion is crudely drawn " Crimina enim atque peccata, oblatis his Domino sac- rificiis, delentur . . . atque hsec Domino ofFerenda, talibus hostibus delectabitur et placabitur Dominus et peccata dimittet ingentia." — Pseudo-Alex. I. Deer. 1. ^ 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 Cans, xxxiii. Q. iii. Dist. 1.) ^ Addebat autem his quod etiam remissio peccatorum per hsec [mysteria] credentibus detur. — Eufini Hist. Monachor. c. 7. Had this been at the time an accepted belief of the Church, Eufinus would not have taken the trouble to mention it. * Cum omne crimen atque peccatum oblatis Deo sacrificiis deleatur — C. Bracarens. III. ann. 675 c. 1. — Gratian P. III. Dist. li. c. 7. ^ Hanc igitur oblationem Domine quam tibi ofTerimus pro peccatis atque oflFensionibus nostris ut omnium delictorum nostrorum remissionem consequi mereamur, etc. — Sacram. Gregor. (Muratori 0pp. T. XIII. P. ll. 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ As venial and forgotten sins by this time were remitted by various simple observances, including the general confession in the ritual,* this was virtually eliminating communion as a factor in peni- tence. The council of Trent thus limits its efficacy to the pardon of ^ St. Augustin, in arguing the question whether a man conscious of sin ought to pretermit the daily communion customary at the period says : " Cseterum 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. Victoria de Potestate Ligandi et Solvendi cap. xxi.) ; in the thirteenth it was a matter of counsel for those unabsolved to abstain (Constitt. Eichardi Poore cap. xxx. ap. Harduin. VII. 97), and the rule was made de fide by the council of Trent, Sess. XIII. De Eucharist, cap. vii., xi. ^ Alex, de Ales SummEe P. iv. Q. x. Membr. 8 Art. 1, U 1, 2. ^ S. Th. Aquinat Summse P. iii. 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. III. 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. ^ Jo. Friburg, Op. cit. Lib. ill. 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.^ 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 eulogioe or blessed bread among those unable to attend the services. In the earlier period, daily attendance was expected, which subsequently Avas diminished to weekly, so that these oblations constituted a substantial contribution to the ex- penses of worship.^ They were only to be received from members in good standing ; if conscious of sin they ought not to offer ; if the sin w^ere known the oblation was refused, and it thus became a sort of spiritual tribunal.^ At first these contributions were voluntary,^ but ^ Concil. Trident. Sess. xiil. De Eucliaristia c. 3.— Catechism, ex Deer. Con. Trident. De Eucharistise Sacramento c. xiil. "Hujus enim victimse odore ita delectatur Dominus ut gratise et pcenitentise donum nobis impertiens pec- cata condonet." ^ Canon. Hippolyti xxx. 214, xxxi. 216 (Achelis, p. 122). — Canon. Apostol. iv. — Concil. Carthag. III. ann. 397 c. 24. — Sacramentar. Gregor. (Muratori 0pp. T. XIIL P. III. pp. 9, 12).— Missale Francor. (Ibid. p. 443)— Ordo Eomanus (Ibid. 945, 947).— Amalarii Eclog* de Off. Miss* (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. ii. v. 56, 63, 89). Benedict the Levite however urges daily oblations and weekly communion (Capitul. vi. 170). ^ 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). * 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.^ 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 ;^ but Innocent I. ordered the oblations to be solicited and the names of the givers to be recited.^ Thus the custom continued and many passages in the rituals show that God was expected to remit sins in 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.* 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 ^ S. Hieron. Epist. xiv. ad Heliodor. c. 8. This long continued a debatable question. About the year 900 Eegino 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. Roman. 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 ecclesise." — lb. c. 19. ^ At nunc publice recitantur offerentium nomina et redemptio peccatorum mutatur in laudem. — S. Hieron. Comment, in Jeremiam Lib. ii. Cap. 11, vv. 15, 16. ' Innocent PP. I. Epist. xxv. c. 2, * Et a prseteritis nos delictis exuant et futuris. — Sacrament. Gregorian. (Muratori, T. XIII. P. ii. p. 769. Cf. pp. 617, 642, 645, 646, 651, 684, 697 etc.) — Missale Gothicum (lb. 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 w ould come and make their gift and then go out without waiting to hear the mass.^ 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.^ 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 which 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 Avhile to assume that he was repentant or contrite.^ What relations this bore to the established systems of ^ Walafridi Strabi cle Rebus Ecclesise c. 22. ^ Sacrament. Gregor. (Ibid. P. ii. pp. 813-26). — Sacrament. Galilean. (Ibid. P. III. 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 Rome, madly in love with four nuns, who bribed some mendicant priests to offer in their masses prayers to enable him to seduce them. ^ Hanc igitur oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro faraulo tuo [illo] ut omnium peccatorum suorum veniam consequi mereatur, qusesumus 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 powers 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, Avhich 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. ^ 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 crimes^ and such masses are still authorized.^ 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. iii. p. 847) there is a Missa Doviinicalis 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 Eitibus Lib. i. c. viii. Art. 11 Ordo 20. ' ^ Et quia plerunque non minor est avaritia sacerdotis quam populi . . . multos morientium seducit cupiditas sacerdotum vanam eis securitatem pro- mittentium si quae habent sacrificiis obtulerint et missas emant, quas nequaquam gratis haberent. In quo quidem mercimonio prsefixum apud eos pretium con- stat esse, pro una scilicet missa unum denarium et pro uno annuali quadraginta. — P. Abselardi Ethica cap. 17. ^ Huius quipjie oblatione placatus Dominus gratiam et donum poenitentise concedens, crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit. — C. Trident. Sess. xxii. De Sacrific. Missse 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 pcBna of sin. ^ Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca s. v. Missa, Art. vii. 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, to offer for sins." The immense revenue accruing from the " stipends " or " alms " paid for 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 Church VOTIVE MASSES. 91 practice was in the direction of mortuary masses which does not belong to our immediate subject and cannot be discussed here.^ 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 diflScult 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 i^ays 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 appUcare 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 Bomane Curie, Basiliae, 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 keeji the money. — Benedicti XIV. Casus Conscientite, 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 Apostolicoe Sedis, 12 Oct. 1869. ^ 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 PABDON OF SIN. Exaltatio Crucis indicate that the sinner who adored the cross was liberated/ and the same is seen in the ratio ad capillaturam on bestowing the tonsure.^ Entrance into religion was also regarded as a second baptism which washed away all the sins of the monk.^ Extreme unction, however, was a more important and more durable means of obtaining pardon, which, as it has direct apostolic warrant* 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 Avas one of the original three, was divided into two, confirmation and extreme unction. The confection of the chri>sm 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.^ 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 I'Eglise Gallicane, II. ii. 89, 92 (Paris, 1651). ^ Sacramentarium Gregorianum (Muratori T. XIII. P. ii. p. 680). 2 Ibid. p. 917. ^ Theodori Capitula c. 2 (Wasserschleben p. 145). — Theodori Pcenitent Lib. II. c. iii. I 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). * 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. ° Eisque ex eo ungere habent in remissionem omnium peccatorum. — Sacra- ment. Gelasianum Lib. i. n. 40 (Muratori T. XIII. P. ii. p. 105). In the Sacram. Gregorianum (Ibid. pp. 578-80) the formula expresses the virtue of the chrism in more general terms. / USTIFICA TION B Y FA ITU. 9 3 and place of chief suifering.^ 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.^ 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 Hermas we find the doctrine that the elect of God are saved through faith,^ 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 ■ ^ Thus a formula of the eleventh century has "Ungo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, oleo sancto atque sacrato, ut virtute Spiriti sancti Iribuat tibi haec sacra unctio sanitatem animse et corporis in remissioaem omnium peccatorum et vitam seternam." And the final instructions are " Deinde communicet eum sacerdos corpore et sanguine Domini, et sic septem continuos dies, si necessitas contigerit, tarn de communione quam de alio officio, et suscitabit eum Dorainius 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. ^ P. Lombard. Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. xxiii. ^| 1-3. ^ Pastor Hermae, Vis. lii. 8. 94 ^'HE PARDON OF SIN. not the reward of merit but a free and spontaneous pardon/ 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.^ Not 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.* 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.^ 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.^ 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.' The question broadened and deepened, and the assertions of the orthodox became more accentuated, in the controversy with Pelagian- ^ Fides enim sola justificat . . . Verum enim nemo potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus : ergo qui remittit Deus est. — S. Hilar. Pictaviens. Comment, in Matt. c. viii. n. 3. Peccata vetera flentibus et crimina quibus obsordescimus conscientia serum- nosis, lisec sedula in coelo consolatio pragparatur. — lb. c. iv. n. 4. Et peccatorum remissio non probitatis est meritum, sed spontanese indul- gentiae voluntas. — Ejusd. Tract, in Psalm, lxvi. n. 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. ^ S. Hilar. Pictav. Tract, in Ps. cxviil. Lib. xvi. n. 5. * Marii Victorini in Epist. ad Ephes. Lib. i. Vers. 7 ; de Physicis Libri cap. 15. ^ Neque enim aqua lavat animam sed prius ipsa lavatur a Spiritu. — S. Hieron. Dial, contra Luciferanos | 6. ® Eufini Comment, in Symbol. Apostol. c. 40. ' S. Basilii Regula, Interrog. cxxiii. (Migne, CHI. 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 Libei- 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,' and the one insurmountable ob- struction to salvation is despair — Judas would have been pardoned had he not despaired of pardon and hanged himself.^ Yet faith is ^ 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 Praedes- tinatione Sanctorum cap. 8. Cf. c. 3, 10. Quicunque dixerit gratiam Dei qua justificamur jjer Jesum Christum Do- minum nostrum ad solam remissionem peccatorum valere quae jam commissse sunt, non etiam ad adjutorium ut non committantur, anathema sit. — Coelest. 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. Prosper! Aquitan. Eesponsiones ad Capit. Vincentian. c. 15 ; Ejusd. ccmtra Collatorem c. 11. — S. Eligii Nov- iomens. Homil. xi. — Rabani Mauri Homil. in Evang. et Epistt. Hom. cxi. ^ Immo poenitendo deterius peccant cum de peccatorum remissio desperant. — S. Fulgentii Euspens. de Remiss. Peccatorum Lib. 11. 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.^ 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/ and repentance of course is super- fluous.^ Of course human free-will was incompatible with all this, and it was argued away in the most absolute fashion,* Man's will only serves him to displease God, when he serves God the will is God's, not his/** 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.^ 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. Augustin would have none of such temporizing and easily showed that the distribution of salvation was regulated and predestined by the divine will,'' nor had he any greater trouble in disposing of the Galilean Semipelagian saints whose cloc- ^ S. August. Lib. de Prtedestinat. c. 3, 6. " Cum aliis prjeparetur aliis non prseparetur voluntas a Domino." - Ibid. c. 3. — Prosperi Aquitan. (?) De Vocatione omnium Gentium Lib. i. c. 17. — C. Arausican IL ann. 529 c. 6. ^ S. August. Lib. de Prsedestinat. c. 16. For this there is the authority of St. Paul, Romans, xi. 29, which was duly quoted. * S. August. Lib. de Prsedestinat. c. 10. — Pseudo-Augustin. Hypognasticon Lib. III. * C. Arausican. II. c. 23. "Suam voluntatem homines faciunt, non Dei, quando id agunt quod Deo disiDlicet ; quando autem id faciunt, quod volunt ut divinse serviant voluntati, quamvis volentes agant quod agunt, illius tamen 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. Cans, XXIII. Q. 4 post c. 19. ® Romans, viii. 29, 30 ; xi. 5, 6. — Ephesians, i. 3-11. '' S. August. Lib. de Prsedestinat. 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 gratise." — Cf. Ejusd. de Correptione et Gratia c. 15; Epist. cii. ad Deogratias, n. 15. — S. Fulgentii Ruspens. de Remiss. Peccator. Lib. ii. c. 2. PREDESTINATION. 97 trines were nearly the same as those of the heretic.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.* 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 ^ S. August. Lib. de Prsedest. 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. ^ 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 absoluto tempore concep- tum, etiam si priusquam peccare possit moritur, cur seternaliter condemnet? Sed dum proprio reatu mininie punitur, manifestum est illud fieri propter illud peccatum 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. II. c. 24. ^ Tales nos amat Deus quales futuri sumus ipsius dono, non quales sumus nostro merito. — C. Arausican. II. ann. 529 c. 12. * Gemina est praedestinatio, 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 prsedestinationis perpen- dere ordinem. — S. Isidori Hispalen. Sententt. Lib. il. 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 growing 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.^ 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.^ Yet the ingenuity of churchmen sufficed to reconcile predestination ^ A sermon attributed to St. Caesarius of Aries says " Per mathematicos sic loquitur : Nuinquid homo peccat ? Stellae sic sunt positae, necesse est ut faciat homo peccatum . . . quia Stella facit ut homo peccet ; nam ipse non peccat." — S. Augustin. Append. Serm. ccLiir. 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 (lb. p. 58).— C. "Valentin. III. ann. 855 (lb. p. 87).— Ratramnus Corbeiens. ■de Praedestinat. Dei. — Amulonis Lugdunens. Sententt. de Prsedestinat. — S. Remigii Lugdunens. de Tribus Epistolis Liber. — Hincmarus Remens. de Prse- •destinatione. — Joan. Scoti Erigense Lib. de Prsedestinat. — Flori Piac. Lug- dunens adv. Jo. Scot. Erigenam. — Lupus Ferrariens. de Tribus Qusestionibus ; Ejusd. Collectaneum de Tribus Quaestionibus. — S. Prudentius Trecens. de Prsedestinat. 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,^ 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,^ and as the priestly sentence of excommunication or absolution had a very eifective 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.^ 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 pardon* — 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.^ 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 /orwm 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.^ 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 ^ Synod Atrebatens. ann. 1025 c. 16 (D'Achery, Spicileg. I. 623). ^ Ut quos omnipotens Deus per compunctionis gratiam visitat, illos pastoris sententia absolvat. — Gerardi Camerac. Epist. (Gousset, Actes de la Prov. Eccles. de Reims, II. 51). ^ P. Abselardi Ethica, c. 20. * Card. Robert! Pulli Sententt. Lib. i. c. 12 ; Lib. V. c. 11. ^ Prsedestinati enim ad vitam 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. xxiir. Q. 4, post c. 19. ® 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 predestinatiou, election and reprobation. It w^ould 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ It is true that there was a reaction in favor of free- will ; William of Paris asserts that there are three modes of justifi- ^ Rich, a S. Victore de Potestate Ligandi et Solvendi c. 3, 7. '^ Pet. Cantor. Verb. Abbrev. c. 141. — S. Raymundi Summse Lib. lii. Tit. xxxiv. ^ 5. — Alex, de Ales Summse 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 infused grace in his enumeration of the essentials of penitence. The three things are " cordis compunctio, oris confessio, operis satisfactio." — Bandini Sententt. Lib. IV. Dist. 16. ^ Petri Hieremise Sermones; De Pcenitentia Serm. iv. (Brixiae, 1502). ATTRITION AND 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 ;^ 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,^ and Aquinas argued that grace is infused by repentance, thus rendering it an effect rather than a cause,^ 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 God^ — a highly important diiference, 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,^ 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.^ 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," which does not require grace and charity, becomes 1 Guillel. Parisiens. de Sacr. Pcenitentise c. 9 (Ed. 1674, p. 472). ^ Alex, de Ales Sumtnse P. iv. Q xvii. Membr. 4 Art. 6 § 4. ^ S. Th. Aquinat. Summse P. lir. 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. iii. c. 162). Human free-will is powerless to win grace, but it is efficient to impede it (Lib. III. c. 160). * Astesani Summse de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. xxii. Q. 2. ° Dom. Soto Comment, in IV. Sententt. Dist. xvil. Q. ii. Art. 5. " 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, thousrh he does not attribute it to the sacrament but to the act of confession which sometimes he says intensifies attrition into con- trition.^ 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 Avith a vehement desire to regain the grace of God, and he even ascribes infusion of grace to the sacrament.^ Car- dinal Henry of Susa seems to know nothing of it.^ 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.* 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,® and finally the Dominicans adopted it. St. Antonino of Florence asserts it as an accepted fact^ and Chancellor Gerson, who detested equally both Thomists and Scotists. alludes to it as a matter of course.^ Prierias not only as- sumes it but quotes Aquinas in its support,^ while the Council of Trent in carefully balanced phraseology^" approached it sufficiently to ^ Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xviii. Membr. ii. Art. 1. ^ Guillel. Paris, de Sacram. Pcenitent. c. 4, 21. ' * Hostieusis Aurese Summse Lib. v. De Pcen. et Remiss. ^ 5. * S. Th. Aquinat. Sumnise Supplem. Q. 1, Art. 3 ; Q. 18, Art. 1. ^ S. Bonavent. in Lib. IV. Sententt. Dist. xviri. P. i. Art. 2, Q. 1. * 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. '' S. Antonini Summse P. ill. Tit. xiv. c. 19^3. Yet in another passage (P. I. Tit. X. c. 3 § 5) he sjieaks of it as only occasional — "cum per confessionem efficiatur quis aliquando de attrito contritus." ^ Fit etiam ut attritio minus sufficiens fiat in confessione contritio. — Joh. Gersoni Regulae Morales (0pp. Ed. 1488, xxv. G.). ^ Summa Sylvestrina s. vv. Claves | 4, Confessio Sacrament, i. § 1. ^" 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.^ 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.^ 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 assei'ted the contradictoiy proposition tlaat prevenient grace is a necessary condition of justification ; that man can do notliing of himself and that his will is powerless without the grace of God. — Sess. VI. De Justificat. cap. 5 ; can. 3. ■^ Attritio, id est imperfectus de peccato dolor, sufficit cum sacramento poeni- tentise ad gratiam irapetrandum. — Eman. Sa Aphorism! Confessariorum s. v. Confritio I 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). ^ Thornse 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 follow that they are predestined to evil.'^ 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.^ It would carry us too far from our subject to enter into the disputes which agitated the Church for two centuries and ^vhich 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. ^ 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 justitise et Pater homiuum 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 YII. 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 ;^ and a passage in Cyprian shows us the belief fully cur- rent.^ 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. Honors 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.^ So crude, indeed, were the notions of the age that Bachiarius argues that a sinner, whose crime was so gross that it was 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 ^ Tertull. de Pudicit. c. 22. — "Sufficiat martyri propria delicta purgasse. Quis alienam mortem sua solvit nisi solus Dei filius?" ^ 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 remittantur." ^ S. Hilarii Arelatens. Vit. S. Honorati c. 7. 106 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. themselves were injured parties.^ Yet direct prayers to the saints do not seem as yet to be officially recognized. In the earliest of the Sacramentaries, attributed to Leo I., prayers are oifered 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.^ When the mediator could only be addressed ^ Bacliiarii 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 0pp. 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 Vivgin 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 Galilean Sacramentary of the eighth century, there is only one, the Assump- tion, and this occurs in January (lb T. XIII. P. iii. 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. Ecclesiae Eitibus, 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. III. 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. ll. pp. 494, 527). Yet in the middle of the seventh century, St. Eloi in si3eaking 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 that God, as the sole source of pardon, was to be approached directly. He evidently had not entrusted to any one, in heaven or on earth, the dispensation of his mercy. Yet alongside of this there had for some time been quietly growing a claim that God had entrusted to the Church a mysterious and unde- fined power over the forgiveness of sins. This was founded on the celebrated texts in the gospels of Matthew and John — " And I will give to thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou 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, xvili. 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 " (Sacramentarium 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 Priez poue, nous ! et le second . . . en lui criant Sauvez nous ! " ^ 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 Ciiurch 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 successor, 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 repentance^ 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 with God : as soon as assured of the sinner's repentance he would have been recorded as absolving him. The earlv Christians would have stood ag-hast at the suffg-estion 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 jjeace 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. ii. 213). Bellar- mine reaches the same result, but by a different process (De Controversiis Christianae Fidei, Cont. III. Lib. v. c. 6) and it was the received Jesuit doctrine. See La Theologie Morale cles Jesuites (Ant. Arnauld), Cologne, 1667, pp. 121 sqq. 1 Matt. XXIV. 34; Mark, xiii. 30 ; Luke xxi. 32. ^ Acts, VIII. 22. This did not escape Wickliffe in his controversies over the power of the keys. See Thomas of Walden's De Saoramentis 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/ 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 Hermas, 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 as;ainst whom we have sinned remits them to us^ 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.'^ 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 ^ "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 ad versus 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. * Irenaei contra Haereses Lib. v. c. xvii. ^| 1, 2. ^ Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. 110 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.^ 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 in 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.^ 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 to 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's 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.^ The idea gradually made its way in some churches, though under 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,'^ and the ' S. Polycarp. Ejsist. ad Philippenses. ^ Audio etiam edictum esse propositum et quidera peremptorium Pontifex scilicet maximus quod et episcopus episcoporum edicit ' Ego et moechise et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto.' — Tertull. de Pudicit. c. 1. 3 Ibid. c. 21. * Tribue etiam illi O Domine episcopatum et spiritum clementem et potes- tatem ad remittenda peccata. — Canon. Hippolyti ill. 17. This was not the only supernatural gift which the superstition of the age 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 bishop was held to be able to relieve disease. The prayer of ordination adds " et tribue ei facultatem ad dissolvenda omnia vincula iniquitatis dsemonum et ad COMMENCEMENT OF CLAIMS. HI Apostolical Constitutions, based on these canons, have nearly the same formula at the close of the tliird century.^ 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 nsed 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.^ 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 works 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.'^ Evidently to Origen ordina- tion conferred no such power ; to him the priest was a mediator who propitiated God at the altar.* 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 Hsereses, il. 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 Graecos 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. ^ Da ei Domine omnipotens per Christum tuum participationem sancti Spiritus ut habeat potestatem dimittendi peccata secundum mandatum tuum (/card rr/v kvTolijv gov)." — 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 Spiritum sanctum." ^ Achelis, Die Canones Hippolyti, pp. 61-2. — Constitt. Apost. viii. 24. ^ 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 solum quoniam episcopus dicitur, habere hujusmodi potestatem ut soluti ab eo sint soluti in coelo aut ligati in terris sint ligati in coelo." — Origenis Comment, in Matt. Tom. xir. | 14. * Origenis in Levit. Hom. vii. n. 2. 112 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. deceive himself, for none but Christ can pardon ; man is not greater than God, nor can the servant condone an oiFence committed against his master. The most that he will admit is that the intercession of priest and martyr may incline God to mercy and change the sentence. It is the height of arrogance for man to assume that he can do what God did not concede even to the apostles — to separate the grain from the chaff and the wheat from the tares.'^ A phrase of Cyprian's contemporary, St. Firmilian of Cappadocia, has been quoted as assert- 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 ; ^ that Firmilian made no claim for such power is shown by his assembling a council in support of Novatianus.^ Com- modianus, in his instructions to penitents, says nothing of any priestly ministrations ; as he had himself endured a course of penance he had every opportunity of knowing that the sinner dealt directly with God ; nor in his remarks to priests and bishops does he make any allusion to their possession of such authority.* St. Peter of Alexandria, in 305, 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.^ ' Nemo se fallat, nemo se decipiat. Solus Dominus misereri potest. Veniam peccatis quae in ipso commissa sunt solus potest ille largiri qui peccata nostra 'portavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quern Deus tradidit pro peccatis nostris. Homo Deo esse non potest major; nee remittere aut donare indulgentia sua servus potest quod in dominum delicto graviore commissum est. — S. Cyprian, de Lapsis n. 17. Cf. n. 18, 29; Epist. 4, 55, 56; De Unitate Ecclesise. Potest ille [Deus] indulgentiam dare, sententiam suam potest ille deflec- tere . . . potest in acceptum referre quidquid pro talibus et petierint martyres et fecerint sacerdotes. — De Lapsis n. 36. Turn deinde quantus arrogantise tumor est, quanta humilitatis et lenitatis oblivio, arrogantiae suae quanta jactatio ut quis aut audeat aut facere se posse credat, quod nee apostolis concessit Dominus, ut zizania a frumento putet se posse decernere, aut quasi ipsi palam ferre et aream purgare concessum sit, paleas conetur a tritico separare. — Epist. 55. ^ Cypriani Epist. 75 (Ed. Oxon). It is somewhat remarkable to find thi& abusive epistle quoted by a Catholic, as Binterim does (Denkwiirdigkeiten Bd. V. Th. ii. p. 183) and to see it moreover coolly attributed to Cyprian himself. ^ Etiseb. H. E. vi. 44. ^ Commodiani Instructiones, n. 49, 69. * S. Petri Alexandr. Can. xi. SL W BE VEL OPMENT. 113 Yet when a claim such as that inferred in the ordination ritual of the Canons of Hippolytus had once been made, it was sure, in the plastic condition of doctrine and practice, to develop with the in- creasing power and pretensions of the Church as it emerged from persecution to domination. Appetite grows by what it feeds on and it would have required abnegation not often predicable 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 Novatian Bishop Acesius who attended the council of Nicsea and subscribed to its canons but refused to join in com- munion with his fellow members, and when asked by Constantine the reason 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."^ 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.^ St. Hilary of Poitiers is a more significant witness, and in his Commentary on Matthew he seems ignorant of the claim that the power of binding and loosing was conferred on the apostles to be transmitted to their successors. He treats it wholly as a personal grant to them and makes no allusion to any other view of the matter.'^ Various other writers of the second half of the fourth century ascribe no pardoning power to the Church ; the fate of the sinner depends exclusively on God.* St. ^ 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. vii. 25. ^ Lactant. Divin. Institt. Lib. IV. c. 17 ; Lib. vi. c. 13, 24. •^ S. Hilarii Pictav. Comment in Matt. c. xvi. n. 7 ; c. xviii. n. 8. Possibly his 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 sacerdotalists. Juenin (De Sacram. Diss. vi. Q. v. Cap. 1 Art. 2 | 2) admits that Hilary does not claim the power as transmitted to the successors of the apostles, but Palmieri (Tract, de Poenit. p. 114) boldly quotes what he says as to the apostolic power, as though he conceded the transmission. '^ Philastrii Lib. de Hseres. n. 34. — Marii Victorini in Epist. ad Ephes. Lib. I. n. 7. — S. Epiphanii Panar. Hseres. 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 saccessors 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 his exhortation to sinners he only ascribes to the Church a power to assist, and it is Christ who obtains pardon for us.^ The Manichseans 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, Ephraim Syrus denounces them bit- terly for this ; there is but One who can remit sins, except in the rite of baptism.^ Possibly this example may have begun to infect the Church, for his contemporary, St. Basil the Great, claims that authority to bind and to loose is lodged with the bishops.^ 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 them by the hazy and dubious character of the pax ecclesice 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 JSTovatians, 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 ^ S. Paciaui contra Novatianos Epist. I. — Paransesis ad Poenitentiam. — " Qui fratribus peccata sua non tacet, ecclesise lacrymis adjutus, Christi precibus absolvitur." '^ Wegnern Manichaeorum Indulgentiae pp. 187-88 (Lipsise, 1827). — -"Canes morbidi sunt qui, cum panis buccellas non inveniant, peccata et debita remit- tunt. Qua in re adinodum rabiosi sunt et digni qui contundantur ; quum unus tautum 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 Manichseans when he speaks of the invasion of the land by heretics whose priests sell pardon of sin for money, and say " Pro crimine da tantum milii et indulgetur tibi. Vanus plane et in- sipiens presbyter, qui cum ille prsedara accipiat putat quod peccatum Christus indulgeat." St. Maximus could hardly have anticipated the time when, as we shall see hereafter, the teaching which he thus denounced was practiced by pardoners in all the lands of the Eoman obedience. ^ S. Basil. Epist. Canon, iii. c. 74. INCONSISTENT UTTERANCES. 115 by a word, but he has ordered that it should be done through men.^ 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 so without the action of the priest.^ 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 f and when it came to the practical exertion of the power he denies that he possesses it and attributes it solely to God,* while his biog- rapher Paulinus tells us that he regarded himself merely as an inter- cessor.^ The same inconsistency is found in Chrysostom. We have seen how he assumes that pardon is to be had by almsgiving and other good works. Elsewhere he emphatically declares that no intercessor is needed ; God freely forgives those who seek him with heartfelt tears ; the prayer of the wicked is much more efficacious with God than any intercessory prayers can be.^ In other passages he exalts the power of the priesthood beyond the most extravagant claims put forward since his time. Whatever they do is confirmed by God, who ratifies the sentences of his servants ; their empire is as complete as though they were already in heaven ; it is not only in baptism that they regenerate us, but they can pardon subsequent ^ S. Ambros. in Ps. cxviir. Serm. x. n. 17. — In Ps. xxxviii. Enarrat. n. 37, 38. — Exposit. Evangel, sec. Lucam Lib. v. Serm. 10 n. 13.— De Cain et Abel Lib. ii. c. iv. n. 15. — De Poenitent. Lib. i. c. 7, 8. ' Quis enim tu es qui Domino contradicas, ne cui velit culpam relaxet, cum tu cui volueris ignoscas ? Vult rogari, vult obsecrari. Si omnium justitia, ubi Dei gratise? Quis es tu qui invidias Domino? — Exposit. Evangel, sec. Lucam Lib. vii. n. 235-6. ^ De Pcenitent. Lib. I. c. 2. — Exposit. Evangel, sec. Lucam Lib. v. Serm. X. n. 11, 92; Lib. vii. n. 225.— In Ps. xxxviir. Enarrat. n. 10. — De Spiritu Sancto Lib. iii. c. xviii. n. 137. * In his well-known letter to Theodosius St. Ambrose says, " Peccatum non tollitur nisi lacrymis et pcenitentia. Nee Angelus potest nee arcbangelus : Dominus ipse qui solus potest dicere Ego vobiscum sum, si peccaverimus nisi poenitentiam deferentibus non relaxat." — S. Ambros. Epist. Li. c. 11. ^ Paulini Vit. S. Ambros. c. 39. ® Nam ipse solus cordi medelam afFerre potest . . . sine intercessore exorabilis est, sine pecuniis sine sumptibus petitioni annuit : sufficit solo corde clamare et lacrymas ofFerre et statim ingressus eum attraxeris. — S. Job. Chrysost. de Poenit. Homil. iv. | 4. Cf. Homil. viii. I 2. — In Epist. ad Hebreeos Homil. ix. | 4.— Homill. xi. non hactenus editse Hom. vi. — Homil, in Philippens. I. 18. 116 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. sins/ St. Jerome is less inconsequent. It is true that in one pass- age lie speaks of the bishops as succee'ding 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.^ 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 thence 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 from 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 of priests.* Evidently the claim was gaining ground and the power naturally was grasped most eagerly by those least fitted for ks exercise. It was impossible that so voluminous a writer as St. Augustin, moved by varying impulses during a long series of years, should be ^ S. Job. Chiysost. de Sacerdotio Lib. iii. c. 6, 6. — "Neque enim tantum cum nos regenerant [aqua baptismi] sed etiam post regenerationem admissa peccata condonare possunt." ^ S. Hieron. Epist. xiv. ad Heliodor. c. 8, 9. ^ Istum locum [Matt. xvi. 19] episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes ali- quid sibi de Pharisgeoruui assumunt supercilio, ut vel damnent innocentes vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur : cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum sed reorum vita quseratur. — S. Hieron. Comment, in Evangel. Mattbaei Lib. ill. c. xvi. V. 19. We sball see bereafter what a stumbling-block was this passage to the theologians until they concluded to ignore it. * S. Isidori Pelusiot. Lib, iir. Epist. 260. — "Ministri enim sunt, non parti- cipes, deprecatores non judices, mediatores 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 sins.^ 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.^ 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.^ The passage in John (xx. 22-3) he explains as meaning that the charity of the Church diifused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost dismisses the sins of those ^ Ubi si ministri desint quantum exitium sequitur eos qui de isto seculo vel non regenerati exeunt aut ligati. — S. Augustin. Epist. ccxxviii. n. 8 ad Honoratum. - 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 Ecclesise gremio consti tutus, eadem fide atque correctione sanaretur." — S. August, de Doctrina Christiana Lib. i. c. 18. " Ergo Petrus figuram gestabat Ecclesise ; Ecclesia corpus est Christi. Ee- cipiat igitur jam mundatas gentes quibus peccata donata sunt." — Ejusd Serm. cxLix. c. 6. Cf. Enarratio in Ps. oi. Serm. ii. | 3.— Serm. ocxcv. c. 2. — Serm. CCCLI. c. 5. — De Agone Christiano c. 31. — Enchirid. c. 65. — Serm. cfccxii. c. 3. It will be seen how nearly Luther followed in the footsteps of his master. " Medicus bonus [Christus] segros non solum prsesentes 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. Respondeat illi non ego sed Christus : " O homo quando ego a Judseis putatus sum homo, dimissionem peccatorum fidei dedi." Non ego, respondet tibi Christus : " O hseretice 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. 118 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. sharing it, and retains them in those who do not share it/ Yet with all his learning and acnteness St. Augustin 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 (Kev. XX. 4).^ 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.^ 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,* though the individual priest has no power ; God pardons or condemns wholly irrespective of what the priest may say or do.^ 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.^ 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.'' St. Csesarius 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 ^ S. Augustin. iu Joannis Evang. Tract, cxxi. n. 4. 2 De Civitate Dei Lib. xx. c. ix. | 2. ^ De Natura Boni c. 48. * Contra Adversarium Legis | 36. * 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. ® Coelestin. PP. I. Epist. iv. c. 2. ' Zacchsei Consultationum Lib. ll. c. 17-18. OPINION IN THE SIXTH CENTURY. 119 repentant to win for himself access to heaven.^ 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,^ 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 for the enquiring student.^ In the Sacramentaries of the period more- over the allusions to the grant to St. Peter are singularly few.* 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 ^ Sed unde scis inquis, si forte Deus mihi misereatur et dimittet mihi peccata mea? Verum dicis, frater, verum dicis. Unde scio, et ideo tibi do pceniten- 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. Duse 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 pcenitentiam veram ut cum veneris in judicium Dei non ab eo confundaris, sed ab eo in regnum ipsius inducaris. — S. Caesar. Arelat. Homil. XIX. ^ Job. Jejunatoris Libellus Pcenitentialis (Morin. de Discipl. Pcenitent. 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. ^ Bachiarii Monachi Professio Fidei, c. 7 ; Ejusd. de Eeparatione Lapsi c. 22, 23. — Job. Cassiani Collat. xx. c. 5.— S. Prosperi Aquitan. contra Collatorem c. 11.— Gennadii Massiliens. de Ecclesise Dogmatibus 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 Eemiss. Peccator. Lib. i. c. 15, 19, 22, 24 ; Lib. ii. c. 20. — Juliani Pomerii de Vita Contemplativa Lib. ii. c. 7. — Victor Tunenens. de Poenitentia 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 0pp. T. XIII. P. l. p. 545). In the Missale Ooihicum, 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. iii. 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.^ At the same time, when he warns the laity that if unjustly bound they must submit, for resistance will bring sin where there was none before, he shows that at least in Rome the power of the keys was beginning to be vigorously exercised.^ 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."^ In the East at this period the symbolical commentary on Leviticus by Hesychius 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.* 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.^ 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 that God will not absolve them unless they are truly contrite.^ In the next century a homily, attributed to the Venerable Bede, says that only heresy or pagan superstition, or Jewish infidelity or schism requires the intervention of the priest ; all other sins God himself cures in the conscience and intellect of the sinner.'' By this time the use of the Penitentials — collections of canons ^ Gregor. PP. I. Homil. in Evangel. Lib. I. Homil. xvii. | 18 ; Lib. il. Homil. xxvi. II 5, 6. "Unde fit ut ipse liac ligandi et solvendi potestate se privet qui banc pro suis voluntatibus et non pro subjectorum moribus exercet . . . ut quos omnipotens Deus, per compunctionis gratiam visitat illos pastoris sententiam absolvat. Tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidentis cum interni arbitrium sequitur judicis." ^ Ibid. Lib. ii. Horn. xxvi. ^ Ibid. Lib. ii. Horn, xxxiv. | 18. ^ Hesychii in Levit. Lib. l. c. 4 ; Lib. iv. c. 13 ; Lib. vi. c. 22. ^ Nam cum sacerdos mediator inter Deum et homines existat, ac pro peccato multitudinis Deum propitiet. — S. Anastas. Sinaitse Orat. de S. Synaxi (Canisius et Basnage, I. 471). ^ S. Eligii Homil. vii. xi. '' Bedse Homil. Lib. iil. Hom. xiii. CLAIMED B Y PRIESTS. 121 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 ]3riests, 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 Avhich 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.^ 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 ^ Durand. de S. Portiano Comment, super Sententias Lib. IV. Dist. xix. Q. 1 I 6. — Astesani Summse de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. xxxvi. Q. 2. For reasons that will presently be apparent Aquinas passes over this in his Ojiusc. 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 Qrnfiles, 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 Sacramentaries 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,^ while in the formula for the ordination of priests there is no such power asked for, but only that of oflPering 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.^ 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 seveuty-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 ^ Da ei Domine claves regni cceloruni ut utatur, non glorietur, potestate quam tribuis in aedificationem uon in destructionem. Quodcunque ligaverit suiter terrain sit ligatum et in ccelis, et quodcunque solverit super terram erit solutum et in ccelis. Quorum detinuerit peccata detenta sint, et quod dimiserit tu dimittas.— Sacramentar. Gregorian. (Muratori 0pp. T. XIII. P. ill. p. 84). Cf. Sacrament Gelasian. Lib. i. n 99 (lb. P. ii. p. 218). — Missale Francor. (Ibid. p. 458). ^ S. Eligii Noviomens. Homil. 4. ^ 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. 123 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. Lif bert, 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,^ and the earliest formulary in which it occurs dates from about the year 1200. 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.^ The fact that there is no clause conferring the keys in nearly all the Oriental rituals — the Orthodox Euchologium, the Maronite, the Jacobite and the Coptic — ^ 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. ^ Vit. S. Lietberti Camerac. c. 17 (D'Achery, Spicilegium, II. 142). ^ Ferraris s. v. Ordo art. 1 n. 52. — Martene de antiquis Ritibus Ecclesife 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 [loe. 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 imjDOSsible (De.Synodo Dioecesana Lib. viii. 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.^ 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.^ 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, Rodolf 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.^ 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 f and in 1095 the great ^ Martene, loc. cit. Orel. xix. xx. xxii. xxiii.— 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 spirituals ut liges et solvas quidquid est in terra et in coelo."— Ibid. Ord. xxi. ■^ Synod. Regiaticinse c. 7 (Harduin. V. 26-7). ^ Pcenitentiam confitentibus vobis causa religionis injungere, quandoquidem vos igne divini amoris fervere non dubitamus, nisi episcopi in quorum paroechiis estis prohibuerint, licentiam damns. — Lowenfeld, Epistt. Rom. Pontiff, inedd., p. 54. * Eique potestatem ad suscipiendos pcenitentes ex apostolica authoritate con- cessit. — Berthold. Constant. App. ad Herman. Contractum (Urstisii Germ. Histor. p. 355). STRUGGLE BETWEEN BISHOPS AND PRIESTS. 125 council of Piaceuza, presided over by Urban IT., 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.^ 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 bishopst^ 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.^ 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.^ 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. Alcnin 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 ^ Concil. Placentin. aim. 1095. — Concil. Claromont. ann. 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 Poenitent.) showing that the power was still only a delegation from that of the bishops. ^ Synod. Strigonens. II. c. ann. 1099, c. 21 (Batthyani, II. 157). ^ Post Concil. Eotomagens. ann. 1074 c. 8 (Harduin. VI. I. 1520). * 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/ In a similar spirit many ritnals 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.^ 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,^ thus reducing the power of the keys to the merest formality. With the commencement of the Carlovingian decadence came the eifort 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 ^ Alcuini de Psalmorum Usu Prsefat. ; lb. n. 12. — Ejusd. de Virtut. et Viciis c. 13.— Ejusd. Epistt. 12, 112. ^ Me exiguum humilemque mediatorem constituisti ad advocandum et in- tercedendum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum pro peccantibus et ad pceni- tentiam revertentibus. — Pez, Thesaur. Anecdot. II. ir. 613. — Martene de antiquis Ritibus Ecclesiee. Lib. i. Cap. vi. Art. 7, Ord. 3, 4, 9. ^ Smaragdi Diadema Monachor. c. 15, 16. — " Quia pcenitentise 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.^ 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.^ Another forgery, attributed to Clement I., 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 w^as felt to be doubtful and required this authentic corroboration.'^ 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.* 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 ^ Con. Parisiens. ann. 829 Lib. ii. Cap. x. xii. xiii. (Harduin. IV. 1344, 1347-8). ^ Ipsam quoque infamiam qua sunt aspersi delere non possumus, sed animas eorum per pcenitentiam publicam et ecclesiee satisfactionem sanare cupimus, quia manifesta peccata non sunt occulta correctione purganda. Pseudo-Calixti Epist. ad Gallise Episcopos. ^ Propter quod ipsi trado a Domino mihi traditam potestatem ligandi et sol- vendi, ut de omnibus quibuscunque decreverit in terris hoc decretum sit et in ccelis. Ligabit enim quod oportet ligari et solvet quod expedit solvi. — Pseudo- Clement. Epist. I. Carried into Ivonis Decret. P. xiv. c. 1. ■* Ecclesiam . . . cujus claves episcopos esse dicebat. Ipsi enim habent potestatem claudere ccelum et aperiri portas ejus, quia claves cceli 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.^ This he follows up by assuming ia 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.^ 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/'^ and the Synodical Epistle of Felix III. has a similar forgery inserted in it.* 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.'' 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 ^ Et ideo Dominus et magister noster discipulis suis et successoribus eorum ligandi ac solvendi dedit potestatem ut peccatores ligandi habeant potestatem, et poenitentiam condigne agentes absolvi ac peccata cum divina invocatione dimitti queant. Nee miruin etc. — Capitular. Lib. V. c. 116. ^ Ibid. c. 129, 137. ^ 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." * Ibid. c. 134. The Epistle vii. of Felix III. in ordering the viaticum for dying penitents says " aut similiter a presbytero viaticum abeunti a sseculo 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. ^ 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 Prankish 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 as laws promulgated by Pepin, Charlemagne and Louis le Debon- naire, and thus as entitled to unquestioned respect and obedience. The Capitularies of Benedict were not the least audacious and suc- cessful of the great cycle of Isidorian forgeries. It is to the same influences that we may attribute the incorporation of remission by the priest in the twelve methods of obtaining pardon, by the Peni- tentials of Merseburg and of Gregory III., as mentioned in the previ- ous chapter (p. 83). In spite of the forgeries the theory of the power of the keys made slow advance. It is true that Jonas of Orleans, who, as we have seen, retained the Origenian list of seven modes of remission, in another passage speaks of priests reconciling men to God,^ and the Penitential which passes under the name of Egbert of York speaks of bishops granting remission of sins in reconciliation ^ On the other hand Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz and perhaps the most authoritative writer of the age, quotes approvingly the damag- ing passage of St. Jerome; he is inclined to ascribe the power to all the elect in the church, and the special grant to Peter he construes as a warning that outside of the Petrine Church there is no salvation, yet priests and bishops can relieve the penitent from the dread of eternal death and threaten the hardened sinner with endless torment.^ Simi- larly the learned Hay mo Bishop of Halberstadt, while freely con- ceding that the power of the keys was transmitted to bishops and priests 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."^ That he attached no importance to the keys ^ Moris est Ecclesise de gravioribus peccatis sacerdotibus, per quos homines Deo reconciliantur, confessionem facere.— Jonae Aurelianens. de Instit Laicali Lib. I. c. 16. ^ Pcenitent. Pseudo-Ecberti Lib. i. c. 12. — " Et episcopus super eos cantat et remissionem dat. . . . et ita ei juxta illud remissionem dat." ^ Rabani Mauri Comment, in Matt. Lib. v. c. xvi. * After quoting Matt. xvi. and xviil. Haymo says " eandem potestatem 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 lepram et lepram, id est inter peccatum majus et minus." — Haymon. Halberstat. Homil. de Sanctis, Horn. iii. 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- dotal ministrations.^ 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."^ 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.^ As the distinction between oulpa and poena 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 of 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,* 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.'^ 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 to estimate the direction of its currents of thought. One of the few scholars of the age, Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, in vindicating episcopal ^ Haymon. de Varietate Librorum Lib. ll. c. 61-67. 2 Ecclesiastical Institutes c. 36 (Thorpe, II. 435). ^ Abbonis Sangermanens. Serm. II. III. * Keginon. de Discipl. Eccles. Lib. i. c. 295, 296. * Concil. Trosleian. ann. 909 c. 15 (Harduin. VI. I. 544). THE TENTH CENTURY. 131 immunity from secular jurisdiction, declares that they are not to be rashly judged of men who have received from God the power of judging even the angels, wdiich was carrying the function of the keys to its highest denomination, but how little reference this had to any practical exercise of it is seen in his elaborate instructions to his priests, in which there is no reference to anything but reconciliation to the Church by the bishop/ St. Ulric of Augsburg, in his synodal constitutions, which are very minute, tells his priests to invite their parishioners to confession on Ash Wednesday, and to impose due penance on them, but he says nothing about absolution and seems ignorant of anything save the reconciliation of the dying.^ St. Odo of Cluny claims for prelates the power to bind and to loose but, like Atto of Vercelli, it is as a weapon of defence against the lawless oppressors of the Church, and he relies to terrify them wholly on the worldly punishments with which God afflicts the wicked.^ Save at the approach of death, the age was too cruel and carnal to care much for spiritual terrors, and the less the Church deserved and enjoyed the respect of the laity the greater became the claims which it put forward to serve as a shield. Ratherius, Bishop of Verona, who was thrice driven from his see by the secular power, at the in- stance of his clergy unable to endure the rigidity of his virtue, naturally seeks to exalt in the most extravagant manner the authority of his office. Bishops, he says, are Gods, they are Christs, they are angels, kings, and princes ; they are physicians of souls, the janitors of paradise, bearing the keys of heaven, which they can close or open at will.* Yet of these divine beings he admits that there is scarce one fitted for the position or fit even to lay hands on another when elected, while the priests are only to be distinguished from the laity by shaving, the tonsure, some slight difference in garments and the negligent performance of the offices, to satisfy the world rather than God.^ It would be curious to enquire what was his conception ^ Atton.Vercell. de Pressuris EcclesiasticisPars. i — Ejusd. Capitulare, cap. 90. ^ S. Udalrici Augustani Sermo Synodalis. ^ S. Odonis Cluniacens. CoUationum Lib. i. c. 19. Cf. Lib. ll. c. 16. * Talibus igitur, rex, subdi ne dedigneris, quia velis nolis ipsos deos, ipsos angelos, ipsos principes, ipsosjiidices habebis . . . Medici animarum sunt, janitores paradisi sunt, claves cceli portantes, reserare et claudere ccelum valent. — Ratherii Veronens. Prseloquiorum Lib. ll. n. 11, 12. ^ Ejusd. de Contemptu Canonuru P. ll. || 1, 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.^ 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."^ Burchard of Worms, in his collection of canons, gives the extract from the forged decretal of Clement I. already cited, in which bishops are declared to have the power of opening or closing heaven, because they are the keys of heaven,^ but St. Fulbert of Chartres seems to know nothing of all this. In an exhortation to sinners he tells them to perform the penance enjoined on them, but this is useless without amendment ; many, he says, have escaped 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 of ^ Hoc nunquam vidi aliquem fecisse vel audivi ; sed quia infirmitatem meam huic nil prodesse timui, ad sanctos intercessores confugi. — Dithmari Chron. Lib. VII. c. 7. ^ Non sum dignus ego tuam suscipere poenitentiam. Suscipiat te omnipo- tens Deus et liberat te de omnibus peccatis tuis, prgeteritis, prsesentis et futuris.— Garofali, Ordo ad dandam Pcenitentiam, Roma, 1791, p. 21. ^ Burchardi Decret. Lib. i. c. 125. This forgery evidently was the basis of the assertion of Ratherius of Verona just quoted. VAGUE CONCEPTIONS. 133 salvation.^ 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 of 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 tlie righteous can purify the unright- eous without respect to orders. If this likewise fails, there is no cause for despair, for the Fathers agree that confession is then to be made to God.^ How vague as yet were all conceptions on the sub- ject is seen in Gregory VII. assuming to absolve correspondents at a 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,^ 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 year 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 an angel a message from God telling him never to condemn any one before the Lord should have judged him.* It is true that St. Ivo inserts the exaggerated description of bishops as keys of heaven from the Pseudo-Clement, but he likewise gives the emphatic con- ^ Fulbert. Carnot. Serm. ii. Cf. Ejusd. de Peccatis capitalibus. ^ De occultis omni ecclesiastico ordini confiteri debemus ; de apertis vero solis convenit sacerdotibus, per quos Ecclesia, quae publice novit et solvit et ligat. Sin nee in ordinibus ecclesiasticis cui confitearis invenis, vir mundus ubicuinque sit requiratur. . . . Sed diligenter intuendum quid est quod sine determinatione cujusquam ordinis liomo mundus lustrare immundum dicitur : et quosdam sanctorum Patrum legimus qui animas rexerunt, et tamen eorum ordinum nescimus. Quod si nemo cui confitearis invenitur, ne desperes quia in hoc Patrum conveniunt sententise ut Domino confitearis. — B Lan- franci Lib. de Celanda Confessione. 3 Gregor. PP. VII. Regest. Lib. i. Ep. 34; Lib. ii. Ep. 61 , Lib. vi. Ep. 2. * 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.^ 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.^ St. Bernard seems to know little of the power of the keys. In his book of conusel 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.^ 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 of Smaragdus quoted above, while he also exalts the power of the 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 lay the foundations for the structure of sacerdotalism. Husrh of St. 1 Ibid. P. V. c. 225 ; P. xiv. c. 7 ; Ejusd. Panorm. Lib. v. c. 86. ^ Ejusd. Serm. ii. '^ Ejusd. Serm. xiii. * S. Bernardi Lib. de Modo bene vivendi c. 27. — " Deus misereatur tui et dimittat tibi omnia peccata tua; Deus retribuat tibi indulgentiam tuorum delictorum ; Deus indulgeat tibi quidquid peccasti ; Deus te lavet ab omni peccato." '" S. Bernardi Serm. de Diversis, Serm. XL. ; Lib. ad Milites Templi c. 12; Epist. cxiir. I 4; Vit. S. Malachiae c. 25; Serm. in Nat. Domini, Serm. ii. | 1 ; Serm. in Temp. Resurrect. § 10; Serm. ill. in Assumpt. B. Virginis; Serm. ll. in Festo Omn. Sanctt. | 13 ; Serm. de Diversis, Serm. xci. § 1. — " Omnia siquidem in eonfessione lavantur." ® S. Bernardi Lib. de modo bene vivendi cap. xxvii; Instructio Sacerdotis cap. xxiii. The belief in transubstantiation effected by the priest of course vastly stimu- lated the growth of sacerdotalism and led directly to the assumption of the power of absolution. At an earlier period the fact that the character of the priest did not affect the efficacy of the mass was explained by saying that an invisible angel stood by who, at the words of consecration, changed the bread and wine into the body and blood. — Poenitent. Vallicellian. II. cap. 49 (Was- 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 indiiferent tone of the passages just cited. ^ 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.^ 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 eifect 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.^ 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 ^ Hugon. de S. Victore de Sacramentis Lib. ii. P. xiv. c. 8. — Bernardi Serm. I. in Festo SS. Pet. et Paul. n. 2. ^ Gratian. c. 44, 45, 60, 62 Cans. xi. Q. iii. ' Gratian. Deer, post can. 89 Caus. xxxiii. Q. iii. Dist. 1. Gratian's only allusion to the keys is incidental (P. i. Dist. xx. initio) and there he evidently regards them as belonging to the, forum extermim — 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. XXXIII. 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 gratite 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 to as papal legislation increased, but no one ever ventured to alter it. We shall see hereafter that Gratian's conservatism respecting the theory of the sacraments was as pro- nounced as in regard to confession and the power of the keys, and the fact shows in the clearest light how completely modern Catholic theology is the creation of the University of Paris. Gratian labored in Rome, where the chief concern was to develop a working body of canon law, and where little heed was taken of the speculations which were agitating the University. His compilation shows no trace of 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.^ Yet little as the practical churchman might imagine it, his labors were of small account in comparison with those of the schoolmen 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 two 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 fragments of shattered sovereignty. It was then that the Church emancipated itself from the State, and, by skilful use of the doctrines promulgated in the False Decretals, formulated the principles which eventually enabled Gregory VII. and his successors to triumph over monarchs. ■ ^ Dante gives to Gratian ftill meed of praise for Ms labors — Queli' altro fiammeggiare esce del riso Di Gratian, che I'uno e I'altro foro Ajuto si cite piace in Paradise. — Paradiso, X. But when tlie schoolmen had succeeded in revolutionizing theology, canon law 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 had done its work and was superseded. The admissions and conclusions which represented the ideas and practice of the twelfth century are unsuited to modern times, and though it retains its place in the Corpus Juris and the papal compilations which follow are merely addenda to it, it is not to be quoted as authority, save in its extracts from the Fathers. — Alph. de Leone, de Offic. et Potestate Confessarii, Recoil, ii. n. 55. THE SCHOOLMEN. 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 God, and 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 every corner of the known and of the unknowable, framing a system of dialectics through which their crudest and wildest speculations assumed the form of incontrovertible logical demonstration. With keen subtilty and untiring industry, through successive generations, they advanced from one postulate to another, building up the vast and complex fabric of Catholic theology. Fashioned by their hands the Christian faith emerged from the schools a very different thing from what it had been on entering, and the modifications which it underwent were all directed to the exaltation of ecciesiasticism. The whole was moulded into symmetry by the master hand of St. Thomas Aquinas, the most perfect product of scholasticism, who grasped all the labors of his predecessors and reduced them to a system which, despite the opposition of the Scotists, has held its place to the present day. Scarce more than thirty years after his death Dante already introduced him as the spokesman and greatest of the schoolmen.^ His Summa 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 was the most important bulwark of the principles and policy which the Reformation sought to destroy. Leo XIII. 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 Summa is vastly better suited than the Pauline Epistles to the needs and de- sires of the papacy, and he was not wasting his revenues when he appropriated 300,000 lire to defray the expenses of a new edition of the writings of the Angelic Doctor, in which he tells us that all philosophy and all doctrine are to be found.^ ^ Paradise x. xi. '■' Ut longe lateque fluat Angelici Doctoris excellens sapieutia, qua oppri- mendis opinionibus perversis nostrorum temporum fere nihil est aptius, con- servandse veritati nihil efficacius. — Leonis PP. XIII. Motu Proprio Placere 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. Cf. Epist. Encyc. ^terni Patris, 4 Aug. 1879 ; Litterge Jampr-idem, 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 of 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 [avrolo] : Loose him and let him go." To any but a 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 seriously 'adduced as scriptural proof and adapted to every successive change of doctrine. St. Ambrose (De Poenit. Lib. ll. 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 the mouth of the tomb, showing that it is for us to remove the impediments and for him to resuscitate and to lead out from the tomb those released from their bonds. St. Augustin goes a step further ; in his exegesis the unbelieving Jews who stood around become the disciples ; Christ resuscitates the sinner and orders the disciples to remove the bands, which, as he ai'gues, means that the Church loosens them (S. August. Serm. LXVii. c. 1, 2. Cf. Serm. xcviir. c. 6; Serm. ccxcv. c. 3 ; Enarratio in Ps. CI. Serm. il. | 3 ; De Diversis Quaes- 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 which the bishops can relieve him of the punishment incurred (S. Gregor. PP. I. Homil. in Evangel, xxvi. f 6). St. Eloi sees in the story a proof of justi- fication by grace, for the priest can only loosen those whom God has revived 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 Noviomens. 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. Galilean, ap. Muratori 0pp. T. XIII. P. HI. pp. 300, 712). About 800 Alcuin uses Lazarus to prove the necessity of the intervention of the priest (Alcuini Epist. cxii.) 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. II. 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 poena, and Peter Lombard utilizes Lazarus to prove that God pardons the culpa and leaves the poswa 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 prena 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). AdamofPerseigne, 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. vill. 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 Poen. 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 jjower to the priest is to make of him a God.^ Hugh himself was an earnest sacerdotalist, 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 God^ — 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 Sumrnse 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. xvii. ^ 3) and he thinks so much of the argument that he recurs to it repeatedly (Dist. sviii. §§1,4); Bellarmine contends vigorously for its significance against Calvin (De Poeni- tent. Lib. iii. 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 (Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. V. Th. III. p. 222). The story of the leper (Matt, viii.) and that of the ten lepers (Luke xvii.) were also largely used as evidence of the power of absolution. See Rich, a S- Victore de Potestati Ligandi etc. c. xii. xiii. xiv. xv. ; Thomse Waldensis de Sacramentis Cap. cxlii. ^ Hugon. de S. Victore de Sacramentis Lib. ii. P. xiv. c. 8. '^ Log. clt. — Ejusd. Summse Sententt. Tract, vi. c. 14. THE SCHOOLMEN. 141 true, pardons for contrition, but the Church has yet to be satisfied ; if the sinner has no 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.^ 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.^ Difficulties evidently arose as soon as the powers claimed for the Church were made the subject of investigation and defi.nition. 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 were 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.^ These were all ^ Hugon. de S. Victore Summse Sententt. Tract, vi. c. 11. ^ 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. Bernard! Epist. CLXXXVlll.). In another letter (Epist. cxcil.) he says of him " Nihil vidit i^er speculum et in senigmate, 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. ^ 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 Avhich 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 and loose in diiferent ways. He only dismisses the sin, purifying the 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 of showing that men are bound or loosed, for though a man may be loosed before God, he cannot be so considered in the face of the Church save by the judgment of the priest.^ This reduced the ^ P. Lombardi Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. 18, H 5, 6. In order to give the priest some substantive power of binding and loosing he adds (| 7) that the priest binds when he imposes penance and looses when he remits part of it or admits to communion those who are purged by its performance. The place of Peter Lombard — the '' magister " par excellence — is unique in the history of theology, for he was the first who brought into order the newly growing science of scholastic theology. The schoolmen were everywhere pushing their 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 poena — in which God removes the sin by cleansing the soul, and allows the priest to remit the punishment of eternal damnation.^ Cardinal Pullus, a contemporary, seems to have had a vague conception of this distinction between culpa and poena, which was destined to be- come of such supreme importance, for iu 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 comi^lete 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. ^ Quidam arbitrati sunt. . . . Solus enim Christus, non sacerdos, animam resuscitat, ac pulsis tenebris interioribus et maculis earn illuminat et mundat, qui animse faciem lavat ; debitum vero seternse poense solvere concessit sacer- dotibus— Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. 18 § 4. Hugh Archbishop of Eouen is apparently one of those alluded to by Lom- bard as dissociating the pardon of sin from the remissions of its punishment (Hugon. Eotomag. 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.^ 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 snch as Wickliffe or Hnss 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 Penafort, 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 ^ Card. Rob. PuUi Sententt. Lib. vi. c. 59. How perfectly tentative was all tbis is seen in Pullus's next remark (lb. c. 60) that be who confesses and is absolved is held to punishment until bis penance is performed, but what that punishment is God only knows. FUNCTION OF THE PRIEST. 145 ninth century by Druthmar of Corbie.^ It is true that the high sacerdotal Hugh of St. Victor rejects it/ but when Peter Lombard adopted it he only expressed the prevailing opinion of his time.^ 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.* 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 Ghost.^ Toward the close of the t^welfth century Peter of Poitiers, ^ S. Hieron. Comment, in Evangel. Matthaei Lib. ill. c. xvi. v. 19. — Chris- tiani Druthmari Exposit in Matt. xvi. ^ Hugon. S. Victor. Summse Sententt. Tract, vi. c. 11. ^ 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 died in the Cluniac house of Chalons, in 1142, confessing his sins and receiving the viaticum, and though there is nothing said as to absolution, Peter assumes that the viaticum was to him the pledge of eternal life. The body was taken to the Paraclete and buried there, when Heloise asked for a sealed patent of absolution to be hung over the tomb. Peter sent it duly sealed in this form " Ego Petrus Cluniacensis qui Petrum Abailardum in monachum Cluniacensem suscepi, et corpus ejus furtim delatum Heloisae abbatissse et monialibus Para- cleti concessi, auctoritate omnipotentis Dei et omnium sanctorum absolvo eum pro officio ab omnibus peccatis suis." — Pet. Venerab. Epist. Lib. iv. Ep. 21 ; Lib. VI. Epp. 21, 22, cum not. Andrese Chesnii (Migne, CLXXXIX. 428). * A peccatis ergo presbyter solvit, non utique quod peccata dimittat sed quod dimissa sacramento pandat. Et quid est opus pandi nisi ut consolatio fiat pceni- tenti? — Card. Rob. Pulli Sententt. Lib. vi. c. 61. ^ Rich, a S. Victore de Potestate Ligandi etc. c. 11, 12. — Ejusd. de Statu Inte- rioris Hominis Tract. ll. cap. iii. Dante classes Richard of S. Victor among the most eminent of theologians — Vedi oltre fiammeggiar I'ardente spiro D'Isidoro, 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 Bandiniis all adopt the views of Peter Lombard that the priest only manifests who are bound and who loosed/ 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.^ The manifestation theory maintained its place in the schools for a consid- erable period. It was taught by St. Ramon de Penafort, the most distinguished authority of the first half of the thirteenth century.^ Alexander Hales is not Avilling formally to admit it, but he approaches to it very closely/ 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 poena he grants it.^ 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 ^ Petri Pictaviens. Sententt. Lib. iii. 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. ^ P. Cantoris Verb, abbreviat. cap. 145. ^ Judicium sacerdotis qui auctoritate clavium ligat et solvit in terris, id est, ostendit esse ligatum vel solutum a Deo. — S. Raymundi de Pennaforte Summae Lib. III. Tit. XXXV. I 5. * Alex, de Ales Summse P. iv. Q. xxi. Membr. 1. ^ S. Bonavent. in Lib. IV. Sentt. Dist. xvili. P. 1. init. ; Ibid. Art. 2 Q. 1. Willem van Est admits that Lombard's opinion was followed by a host of authoritative doctors but adds that it is false and erroneous leading directly to the Wickliffite heresy — "Si homo debite fuerit contritus omnis confessio exterior est ei superflua et inutilis " — condemned by the council of Constance (Artie. Joann. Wicliflf n. 7, Harduin. VIII. 299), and that it was finally set aside at Trent. — (Estius in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. ^ 1). It was also condemned as a heresy by the council of Alcala, in 1479, when taught at Salamanca by Pedro de Osma (Alfonsi de Castro adv. Hsereses Lib. iv. s. v. Confessio). The Tridentine Catechism reconciles the discrepancy by describing the degree of contrition requisite for the remission of sin as so intense and ardent that few mortals can attain it, wherefore God in his mercy has supplied the 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 of Trent itself, Sess. xiv. De Pcenit. c. 4.— Azpilcuetae Manuale Confessarior. c. 1 n. 24. FUNCTION OF THE PRIEST. 147 poena, though he can exercise this power only on those properly pre- pared.^ This however only introduced a new difficulty which Aquinas strove to meet by asserting that the use of the keys was only efficient when in accordance with the will of God, and that when the priest disregarded the divine impulse his action was invalid/ 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.^ 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.* Shortly afterwards Durand de St. Pourgain rejects wholly as incom- patible with the dignity of the sacrament the idea that the priest only manifests the absolution.^ At the council of Constance Chancellor Gerson renewed the assertion^ but before the council was ended, in 1418, ^ S. Th. Aquin. Summae Suppl. Q. xvili. Art. 2, 3.— Opusc. xxii. 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. ^ Summse Suppl. Q. xviii. Art. 1, 4. ^ Jo. Scotus in Lib. IV. Sententt. Dist. xix. Q. 1, ^ Astesani Summse 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 o-pere operato, through which God works upon the sinner. — Vorrillong super IV. Sentt. Dist. xiv. ^ Durandi de S. Portiano Comment, super Sententt. Lib. iv. Dist. xviii. Q. 3 ^ 6. " Jo. Gersoni de Eeform. Ecclesiae c. xxviii. (Von der Hardt, I. v. 136). 148 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. Martin V. condemned it by implication when lie included among the errors of Wickcliife and Huss the denial of priestly power of absolu- tion/ and Thomas of Walden, in controvertmg the Wickliffite errors, assmnes as a matter of course that the absolution bv the priest precedes the absolution by God.^ St. Antonino tells us that contrition deletes the sin quoad Deum, and the penance imposed in confession manifests that it is deleted quoad ecdesiam.^ In 1439 the Council of Florence formally declared that the sacrament effects absolution/ Subsequently Prierias describes the manifestation of the absolution of the penitent as the first operation of the functions of the keys." 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.^ 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." Domingo Soto on the other hand denounces the theory of manifestation as blasphemous towards the Church and im- pious as regards Scripture.^ In fiict, 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.^ 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.^'' 1 C. Constant. Sess. ult. (Harduin. VIII. 915). ^ Thomse Waldens. de Sacramentis cap. CXLIV. This work may be re- garded as autlioritative. It was written by command of Martin V. who formally approved it after examination by theologians delegated for the purpose. 5 S. Antonini Summ^e P. i. Tit. xx. (Ed. Venet. 1582, T. I. fol. 299 col. 1). * C. Florent. Deer. Unionis (Harduin. IX. 440). ^ Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Claves | 4. « Caietani Tract, iv. De Attritione Q. 4; Tract, xviii. De Confessione Q. 5. ' Summa Tabiena s. v. Sacerdos | 4, 5. ^ Dom. Soto Comment, in IV. Sententt. Dist. xiv. Q. 1, Art. 3. ^ Si quis dixerit absolutionem sacramentalem sacerdotis non esse actum judicialem, sed nudum ministerium pronuntiandi et declarandi remissa esse peccata confitenti, modo tantum credat se esse absolutum .... anathema sit. — C. Trident. Sess. xiv. De Poenitent. can. 9. — Cf. Ferraris Prompta Biblio- •theca s. v. Absolvere Art. lii. n. 12. " Estius in IV. Sententt. Dist. xviii. § 1. CULPA ET POENA. 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 poena — 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.' 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.^ 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.^ 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. ^ Sacramentariuin Gregorianum (Muratori 0pp. T. XIII. P. il. p. 1043). "^ Hugon. de S. Victore Summse Sententt. Tract, vi. c. 11. Cf. EJusd. de Sacramentis Lib. ii. P. xiv. c. 2. ^ P. Abeelardi Expos. Theolog. Christianae 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,' 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,^ while on the other hand there were already zealous sacerdotalists who claimed that although God remitted the sin it was the priest who granted release from hell.^ The time however had not yet come for conceding such powers to the ministers of the Church, and the theory of Richaid of St. Victor obtained general currency. Although Master Bandinus does not recognize it Alain de Lille virtually does.* 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.^ 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.^ William of Paris admits the division between culpa and ^ 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. ^ Sunt adhuc qui mirantur et quterunt 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 ssepe et satis molesta expiatio ? — Rich, a S. Victore de Potest. Ligand. c. 23. ^ Petri Pictaviens. Sententt. Lib. iii. c. 16. — Peter readily disposes of this claim by showing that when God remits the sin the sinner necessarily is in charity and as such becomes worthy of eternal life and not of eternal pun- ishment. * Alani de Insulis Lib. de Pcenitentia (Migne COX. 299). ^ Caesar. Heisterb. Dial. Dist. iii. c. 1, 40. * Nota ergo quod pro quolibet peccato mortali duplex poena debetur, tem- poralis videlicet et aeterna : seterna remittitur per cordis contritionem ; remanet postea temporalis ab ecclesia infligenda. — S. Raymundi Summae Lib. iii. Tit. XXXV. ^ 5. CULPA ET PCENA. 151 poena, 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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 poena. 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 dimin- ^ Guillel. Paris, de Sacram. Poenitent. c. 5, 21 (Ed. 1674, T, I. pp. 464, 510). ^ Alex, de Ales Summae P. iv. Q. xvii. Membr. 4 art. 3 ; Membr. 6 art. 3. — " Dicendum quod aliud et aliud ia peccato remittit Christus et sacerdos ; quia Christus culpam et poenam seternam et sacerdos pcenara purgatoriam et aliquid de poena prsesenti taxata in canone si discretioni ejus videtur." ^ Hostiens. Aurese Summse Lib. v. De Poenit. et Remiss. ^ 46. — S. Bonavent. in Lib. iv. Sententt. Dist. xviii. P. I. art. 2, Q. 1, 2. — Durand. de S. Portian. Comment, super Sentt. Lib. iv. Dist. xiv. Q. 2, I 9. * Si autem aliquis non vere contritus est, sacerdotes eum non possunt ab- solvere, quia cum culpa remissa non est, poena demi non potest. — Johan. de Deo Pcenitentialis Lib. i. c. 1. 152 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. ishing the poena ;^ 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 poena, yet God alone removes the culpa and the priest contrib- utes in some undefined way, not as an efficient but as a predisposing cause. ^ 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 sins of the penitent.^ ^ Alex, de Ales Summse P. IV. Q. xxi. Membr. i. ; Membr. ii. art. 1. ^ S. Th. Aquinat. Summae P. iii. Q. Ixii. art. 1 ; Q. Isiv. art. 1 ; Q. Ixxxiv. art. 3 ; Q. Ixxxvi. art. 4, 6 ; Supplem. Q. x. art. 3 ; Q. xvii. art. 3 ; Summae contra Gentiles Lib. iv. cap. 72. In another passage Aquinas represents God as the efficient cause and the keys as only an instrument, yet indispensable, like water in baptism. — Opusc. XXII. cap. 2. ^ Dicendum est quod meritum ecclesiae est sub dispensationem clavium, et idcirco tarn ex merito Christi quam aliorum qui sunt de ecclesia, ecclesiae claves efficaciam habent. — S. Th. Aquin. in IV. Sentt. Dist. xviii. Q. ii. art. 5. This is a simple explanation of the virtue of sacramental absolution which has long maintained itself (Caietani Tract, iv. De attritione Q. iv. ; Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xxi. Q. ii. art. 3 ; Palmieri Tract, de Pcenit. p. 422). As the treasure, however, was assumed to be the basis of indulgences and as these became the exclusive prerogative of the pope, who was asserted to be the sole dispenser of the treasure, it was seen that there was danger in admitting the priest to such control over it, and some theologians restricted his function in this respect to applying it in diminishing the penance, and thus explaining the nominal satisfaction which, as we shall see hereafter, gradually replaced the severity of the canons (Astesani Summae de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. xxxvii. Q. 2). Thus when Luther pointed out that if the sinner is released by the application of the merits of Christ there is no exercise of the power of the keys, Ambrogio Caterino retorted that it is impious to question the power of the keys and that the application of the treasure is made only to those already absolved by the keys (Ambr. Catherini adv. impia ac valde pestifera Martini Lutheri Dogmata Lib. V. — Florentiae, 1520, fol. 89). The council of Trent 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 baptism CULPA 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 poena} In 1317 Astesanus holds that contrition liberates from oulpa, leaving only the poena 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.^ William of Ware substantially agrees with him.^ 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 poena of which they can remit only a portion.* As a rule the Dominicans followed Aquinas and developed his views. Durand de S. Pourqain argues that if the contrition is insuf- jficient the power of the keys extends over the culpa and by the application of grace supplies what is lacking.^ Peter of Palermo and as employed in indulgences (C. Trident. Sess. v. De Pecc. Orig. I 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 Summse P. iv. Q. v. art. 4, Membr. iii. | 7. — S. Th. Aquinat. Summse P. III. Q. xlix. art. 2 ad 2 ; Q. Iii. 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). ^ Astesani Summse de Casibus Lib. v. Tit. xix. Q. 2 ; Tit. xxxvi. Q. 2. ^ Vorrilong super IV. Sentt. Dist. xviii. * P. de Aquila in IV. Sentt. Dist. xiv. Q. 3 ; Dist. xv. Q. 1 ; Dist. xvii. Q. 1 ; Dist. XVIII. Q. 1, 2. Pietro d'Aquila was highly esteemed by Clement VI., who, in 1347, made him bishop of Sant-Angeli de' Lombard! and transferred him the next year to 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. , * Dur. de S. Portiano in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. Q. ii.; Q. iii. || 4, 5; Dist. XVIII. Q. ii. ?il 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 ; Avhere there is only attrition the sacrament converts it into contrition and thus the priest absolves from both culpa and poena} St. Antonino of Florence, though a Dominican, however, recurs to the older theory that repentance remits the culpa and if perfect the "poena, 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.^ 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.^ 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.* 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.^ 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 justificatioh ; 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 poena remained to be ^ Petri Hieremise Quadragesimale, Serm. xx. ^ S. Antonini Summse P. iii. Tit. xiv. cap. 17, | 3; cap. 18. ^ Gab. Biel in IV. Sentt. Dist. xiv. Q. ii. Art. 2, Concl. 3, 4, 6. * Caietani Tract, iv. De Attritione Q. 4 ; Tract, xviii. Q. 5. * Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Claves ? 4. — " Tertio, solvit absolvendo a culpa. Quarto, remittendo poenam seternam at commutando earn in temporalem pur- gatoriam. Quinto minuendo poenam. temporalem. vel aliquando totaliter abolendo. EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENT. 155 satisfied either oa earth or in purgatory.^ 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.^ 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.'^ Bishop Zerola came perilously near to this, but escaped condemn ation, 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.* 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 unworthy^ — 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 ^ C. Trident. Sess. vi. De Justificatione can. 30. ^ C. Trident. Sess. xill. De Eucharistia c. 7, can. 11; Sess. xiv. De Poeni- tentia cap. 4; can. 4, 12, 13.— Father Sayre (Clavis Regiae Sacerd. Lib. i. cap. 6, n. 6) uses this as an example of change of doctrine. All the older theologians, he says, taught the suflBciency of contrition, but since the utterances of the council of Trent they necessarily teach the opposite. ■^ Urbani PP. VIII. bull In eminenti Prop. 43, 58 (Bullar. Ed Luxemb. V. 369). * Zerola, Praxis Sacr. Poenitent. cap. vii. Q. 29. ^ Escobar Theol. Moral. Tract, vii. Examen iv. cap. 5, n. 29. 156 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. the fate of being- east into hell ;^ or, as he expresses it elsewhere, it is the absolution granted by the priest that drives away sin/ — tlms ex- tending the power of the keys over both culpa and poena. Benedict XIII. in a series of instrnctions 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."' The Trideutine 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 absiilution.' Palmieri is as confident and as uncompromising as Prierias : the power of tlu> keys is the absolute power of admitting to or of excluding from heaven ; it remits the culpa and Avith 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 Avon justification from God, for they were insnfticiently versed in the sacraments.'^ Who can deny that Catholic theology is a pro- gressive science, and who can predii't what may be its idtimate development? Vet the satisfaction with which modern teachers 1 BoUanniuo, Dottriua Oristiana, Delia Penitenza (0pp. Neapoli, 1862, T. YI. p. 19o) — " Ed il saoerdote esteiionuento pronunzia I'assoluzione : cosi Iddio interiormonte per mezzo di quelle parole del sacerdote scioglia quell' aniiua dal node de' peccati col quale era legata; se le rende la grazia sua, e la libera del obbligo che aveva d'esser preoipitata nell' Inferno." ■^ Bellarmin. de Po?nit. Lib. in. cap. 2 (Ibid. III. 079)— "Ut enim flatus ex- tiuguit igueui et dissipat nebulas, sic enim absolutio saoerdotis pecoata dispergit et evauesoere tacit." '^ Instruzione per gli tigliuoli, in Ooucil. Roman, ann. 1725; Tit. xxxii. cap. 3 (Romas 1725, pp. 138, 432). * Juenin de Sacramentis Diss. vi. Q. vii. cap. 5, Art. 1. * Talmieri Tract, de Ptenit. 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 ditierence between actual and virtual penitence, tlie 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. lOG) 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, e.v vi hrmini, there is no recollection of sin it might not be easy to explain. LIMITATIONS. 157 may well regard their eouquests over the iufiuite 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. AVhen we come to consider the nature and certainty of the abso- lution thus wrought by tlie power of the keys >vc 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 liombard, 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 \\\\o arc not bound or loosed with God ; the sentence of the Cinirch 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.^ Evidently the dialectics of the period could not enable him to frame a coherent tlieory. 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 it^ — an eminently scholastic device but not conducive to the ])cace 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 lie 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 Kichard 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 ' P. Lombard. Seutt. Lib. iv. Dist. xviii. ? 7 ; Dist. xix. U 3, 5. ■^ Rob. Pulli Sontt. Lib. vi. cap. 52, 6L 158 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. without the priestly absolution.^ Master Bandinus, while asserting that the sentence of the priest is to be dreaded, admits that it must be in accordance with justice to be valid.^ With the progress of 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 absolution is illusory through their lack of due contrition, thus avowing that it is merely a snare by lulling them in false security.^ S. Ramon de Penafort, about the same period, is more cautious. He puts the ques- tion, Wliat is it that the priest remits in penitence ? and essays to answer it, but fails. He states various opinions then current, which show how unsettled as yet was the matter in the schools, and concludes by conceding that the binding and loosing are absolute only when just.^ Cardinal Henry of Susa solves the question in a manner highly derogatory to the keys : sin creates a double responsibility, to God and to the Church ; contrition obtains j)ardon from God, but the offence to the Church remains and must be expiated by confession and satisfaction ; if the contrite sinner neglects this the sin does not return, but new mortal sin is committed which again consigns him to perdition.^ Thus the only function of the priest is to assign or remit penance. Aquinas admits that the priest cannot use the power of the keys at his pleasure, but only as God prescribes, and he relies on divine inspiration to guide the confessor aright, but the futility of this was apparent when an objector asked him how, without a revela- tion from God, the priest can know that the penitent is absolved, and Aquinas could only reply that any judge may acquit a guilty man on the evidence of witnesses and to the confessor the penitent is the only witness, for and against himself.^ Giovanni Balbi follows ^ Rich, a S. Victore de Potestate Ligandi c. 8, 9, 11, 12. 2 Mag. Bandini Sentt. Lib. iv. Dist. 18. ^ Guillel. Parisiens. Opera de Fide ; Ejusd. de Sacramento Poenitentise c. 6, 21. * S. Raymundi Summse Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. § 5. ^ Hostiens. Aurese Summse Lib. v. De Pcen. et Remiss. | 6 ; De Remissioni- bus I 1. ® S. Tb. Aquinat. Summse Supplem. Q. xviii. Art. 4; Ejusd. Opusc. xxii. cap. 3. PBIESTL 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.* 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. Pourgain 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.^ 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.^ Gabriel Biel minimizes the power of the keys ; God alone removes sin and ^ Joannis de Janua Summa quae vocatur Catholicon s. v. Poenitentia. ^ Astesani Summse Lib. v. Tit. xxxi. Q. 2. * Vorrillong super IV. Sentt. Dist. xvill. * Marsilii Defensoris Pacis P. ll. cap. 6. ^ Durand. de S. Port, in IV. Sentt. Dist. xix. Q. ii. | 7 ; Dist. xx. Q. 1, ll 5, 6, 8. ® Thomse Waldensis de Sacramentis cap. cxliv. n. 4.— Weigel Claviculse Indulgentialis cap. 7. — Thomas of Walden moreover (cap. CLViii. n. 3) makes 160 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. opens the gate of heaven ; the priest merely sentences ; if his sen- tence is in accordance witli the law of God it is confirmed, if not it is revoked.^ 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.^ To this Bartolommeo Fumo assents, ex- cept as to the invalidation of the sentence,^ while Domingo Soto asserts positively that the sentence of the priest is powerless if it is erroneous/ 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 ministrant ; that it may be rejected by God is not hinted.'^ Modern theologians accordingly have no hesitation in asserting that the effect of absolution is certain and infallible ;" 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. Wickliflfe says—" But oure bileve techis us that no synne is forgiven but if God hymseif forgif fiirste 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. xvin. Q. 1, Art. 1, not. 2; Dist. xx. Art. 3, Dub. 1. ^ Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Claves I 6. ' * Bart. Fumi Armilla Aurea s. v. Clavis n. 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. xviii. Q. ii. Art. 5 ad 5. * 0. Trident. Sess. xiv. De Poenitentia cap, 6. ^ Caramuelis Theol. Fundament, n. 1120.— Palmieri Tract, de Pcsnit. 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 j)enitent. 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. Pcenit. 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 defined 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.^ 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.^ 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. ^ Alani de Insulis Sententt. cap. 27. — " Sed jam istse claves mutatse sunt in adulterinas, quia non jam Dei intuitu et rationis ductu ligant aut solvunt sed amore pecuniae non ligandos ligant, ut de eis posset dici : Quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit solutum in coelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis. 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." ^ Rabani Mauri Comment, in Matt. Lib. v. cap. xvi. I.— 11 162 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. discrimination and power.^ 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.^ 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 on 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.^ 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.* 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.^ This theory of the key of knowledger 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,^ nor did the learned doctors, who made this concession to the evidence of their everyday experience. ^ Hugon. de S. Victore Summse Sentt. Tract, vi. cap. 14. ''■ Gratian. P. l. Dist. xx. initio. ^ P. Lombard. Sentt. Lib. iv. Dist. xix. §§ 1, 2, 3. * Bandini Sentt. Lib. iv. Dist. xix. ^ Pet. Pictav. Sentt. Lib. iii. cap. 16. ^ Eich. a S. Victore de Potestate Ligandi cap. 13.— Adami de Persennia Epist. XXI. — Alani de Insulis Sententt. cap. 27. — Bonaventurse in IV. Sentt. Dist. XVIII. 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 (Summse 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 (Aurese Summse Lib. v. De Eemissionibus ^ 1) — THE KEY OF KNOWLEDGE. 163 pause to think what an extraordinary scheme of salvation they were attributing to God in their eiforts 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.^ 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.^ The phrases olave "Seel sive dicas unam clavem vel cluas hsec est rei Veritas quod quicquid ligatum est in terris a sacerdotibus ligatum est et in ccelis, subaude tu, clave non errante." William of Ware (Super IV. Sentt. Dist. xviii.). " Unde potest esse aucto- ritas cognoscendi sine scientia." Pietro d'Aquila (In IV. Sentt. Dist. xviii. 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. iii. 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. 1, art ii. concl. 3) — " Clavis scientise non est habitus scientiae neque scientia actualis, sed autoritas discernendi inter dignum et indignum in foro poenitentiae quae 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 I'altra era de argento . . . Quandunque I'una d'este chiavi falla, Che non si volga dritta per la toppa, Diss' egli a noi, non s'apre questa calla. Piu cara e I'una, ma I'altra vuol troppa D'arte e d'ingegno, avanti che disserri, Perch' egli 6 quella che '1 nodo disgroppa." — Purgatorio, xx. ^ Joh. Eckii Enchirid. Locor. commun. cap. viii. De Confessione. — Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt, Dist. xviii. Q. 1, art. 1.— Estii in IV. Sent, Dist. xviii. § 1. " Est igitur utraque clavis tam scientise quam potestatis penes sacerdotes, non tantum doctos et bonos, verumetiam penes indoctos et malos " (Ibid, Dist. XIX. I 1). ^ Alex, de Ales Summae P. IV. Q. xx. Membr. vii. art. 1. — Hostiens. Aureae Summae Lib. v. De Remiss. § 1. — Joh. Gersonis de Reform. Eccles. cap. 28. — Weigel Clavic. Indulgentialis cap. 7. — Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvill. Q. ii. art. 5. — Estii in IV. Sentt. Dist. xix. § 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.^ 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.^ Du- rand de S. Pourgain cuts the knot resolutely ; tbe priest ought to have knowledge, but its absence does not invalidate his power.^ 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.^ 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."^ 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,® and the distinction between these classes of sins is so tenuous that, as we shall see, the wisest doctors are frequently ^ Guillel. Paris, de Sacr. Pcenitent. cap. 20. ^ S. Th. Aquin. Summee Supplement. Q. xvii. art. 3. * Durand. de S. Port, in IV. Sentt. Dist. xviii. Q. 1. * Th. Waldens. De Sacramentis cap. CL. n. 1. * Caietani Tract, xviii. De Confessione Q. 5. ^ Escobar Theol. Moral. Tract, vii. Exam. iv. cap. 7, n. 36. Authorities are, liowever, as usual divided on this point. Chiericato (De Pcenitent. 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. Animar. Tom. I. Tract. II. 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. Alphouso Liguori against such invalid absolution is for the most part inapplicable — that is to seek a more competent spiritual judge.^ 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.^ 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,^ though, oddly enough, we are told that this need not be done if it causes sufficient inconvenience to render confession odious.* 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 confessed^ — all of which shows how little ^ 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 alteri confiteri decent Nav. Vasq. etc." ^ Synod. Sutchuens. ann. 1803 cap. vi. | 7 (Collect. Concil. Lacens. Tom. VI. p. 608). ' S. Antonini Suminse P. iii. Tit. xvii. cap. 15; cap. 21, I 3. — Summa Diana s. V. Confesmrius 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. Summse P. ii. Tract. 5 cap. 4 (Eomse, 1748). 166 THE POWER OF THE KEYS. importance is really attached to the functiou 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.^ 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 iujury to himself, he can let it pass.^ 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.^ 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 ? Respondetur affirmative dummodo clavis scientise non erret circa species aut circumstantias mutantes illas ; vel clavis potentise pariter non erret in absolvendo a i^eccatis 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 potentiae, imponendo scilicet vel majorem vel minorem poenitentiam, vel non interrogando exacte omnes circumstantias." 2 S. Alph. de Ligorio Theol. Moral. Lib. vi. n. 618. ^ Gobat Alphabetum Confessariorum 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.^ ^ " 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. CHAPTEE 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 miknown, and they only advance human reasons in its favor.^ S. Ramon de Penafort 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).^ 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.^ Bonaventura follows him in saving^ that Christ only suo-o-ested it and left it to be instituted by the apostles.* 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.^ 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,^ which is ^ Hugon. de S. Victore de Sacramentis Lib. 11. P. xiv. cap. 1. — P. Lombard. Sentt. Lib. iv. Dist. xvii. | 6. ^ S. Raymundi Summae Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. | 4 De Confess, ii. ^ Alex, de Ales Summae P. IV. Q. xviii. Membr. iii. Art. 2 ; Membr. ii. Art. 1. * S. Bonavent. in IV. Sentt. Dist xvii. P. ii. Art 1, Q. 3. ^ Gloss, sup. Deer. Caus. xxxiii. Q. iii. Dist. 5. — As tbis 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 tam perni- ciosam glosam." « S. Th. Aquin. Sumrn^ 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.^ 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.^ 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.^ Thomas of Walden can answer Wickliffe only by say- ing that everything which Christ said and did is not recorded in Scripture.* Cherubino da Spoleto speaks of it as not absolutely of divine or natural law although it was impliedly commanded by Christ.^ There was thus ample latitude of opinion, and on the eve of the Reformation Baptista de Saulis and Prierias both inform us ^ Joli. Friburgens. Summae Confessor. Lib. iii. Tit. xxxiv. Q. 31. — Astesani SummEe Lib. V. Tit. x. Art. 2, Q. L— Guill. Vorillong super IV. Sentt. Dist. XVII.— Durand. de S. Port, in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. Q. viii. || 9, 11, 12. Astesanus (loc. cit. Q. 2) points out that the divine origin of confession ren- ders it obligatory on all mankind, the 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 ii. | 2. This point seems to have originated with Richard Middleton (Rob. Episc. Aquinat. Opus Quadragesimale Serm. xxvii. cap. 3). ^ Joh. Scoti in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. Q. unic. — Pet. de Aquila in IV. Sentt. Dist. xvii. Q. ii. — Summa Angelica s. v. Confessio ii. I 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. xvill. 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 (Rodulphii Hist. Seraph. Relig. p. 307). ^ Joh. Gersonis Compend. Theologise (Ed. 1488, xxvii. F.). * Thomse Waldens. de Sacramentis cap. CXLVIII. * 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;^ 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.^ 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 Peiiafort, 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.'^ 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.* 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.^ 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.* 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 ^ Summa Rosella s. v. Confessio ii. — Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Confessio Sacram. II. § 4. Baptista de Saulis, the author of the Summa Rosella, is also known as "de Salis" and "Tornamala." ^ Alfonsi de Castro adv. Hsereses Lib. iv. s. v. Confessio. ^ Caietani Tract, xviii. De Confessione Q. 1. — Jo. Eckii Enchirid. cap. VIII. De Confessione. — Ambr. Catherini Apologia pro veritate Lib. i. (Florent. 1520, fol. 78). — Jo. RofFensis Assertionis Lutheranse Confutatio, Art. 5. * Erasmi Colloq. Confabulatio Pia. — Menendez y Pelayo, Heterodoxos Espanoles, IL 90. ^ Dom. Soto in IV. Sentt. Dist. xviii. Q. 1, Art. 1. ® C. Trident. Sess. xiv. De Pcenit. 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.^ 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 afix)rd 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 ^ Qui quidem canon tollit omnem dubitandi ansam, quia reddit banc veri- tatem infallibilem, cum emanaverit in concilio cecumenico confirmato a Summo Pontifice, ut bene docent Fagnanus etc." — Clericati de Poenitent. Decis. XVII. 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. Xor 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 Avhole 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 dulv cited bv the theoloo-ians.^ There is also the direct com- ^ 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, xxviii. 13. " And were baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins." Matt. III. 6. " And many of them that believed came confessing and declaring their deeds." Acts, xix. IS. "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 ; xvii. 14) of which the exegesis is very like that of the Raising of Lazarus. For an abstract of the various futile and contradictory efibrts of the theolo- THE PRECEPT OF ST. JAMES. 173 mand of St. James in his Catholic epistle, of which the theologians are somewhat chary. ^ 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. ^ " 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— afterM^!r^