Indulgences
INDULGENCES
In the Romish church, are a remission of the punishment due to sin, granted by the church, and supposed to save the sinner from purgatory. According to the doctrine of the Romish church, all the good works of the saints, over and above those which were necessary towards their own justification, are deposited, together with the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, in one inexhaustible treasury. The keys of this were committed to St. Peter, and to his successors, the popes, who may open it at pleasure; and, by transferring a portion of this superabundant merit to any particular person for a sum of money, may convey to him either the pardon of his own sins, or a release for any one in whom he is interested from the pains of purgatory. Such indulgences were first invented in the eleventh century, by Urban II. as a recompence for those who went in person upon the glorious enterprise of conquering the Holy Land. They were afterwards granted to those who hired a soldier for that purpose; and in process of time were bestowed on such as gave money for accomplishing any pious work enjoined by the pope. The power of granting indulgences has been greatly abused in the church of Rome. Pope Leo X., in order to carry on the magnificent structure of St. Peter’s, at Rome, published indulgences, and a plenary remission to all such as should contribute money towards it. Finding the project take, he granted to Albert elector of Mentz, and archbishop of Magdeburg, the benefit of the indulgences of Saxony, and the neighbouring parts, and farmed out those of other countries to the highest bidders: who, to make the best of the bargain, procured the ablest preachers to cry up the value of the ware. The form of these indulgences was as follows:
“May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, that of his blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they may be: even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy see, and as far as the keys of the holy church extend. I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on their account: and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism: so that when you die, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
According to a book, called the Tax of the sacred Roman Chancery, in which are contained the exact sums to be levied for the pardon of each particular sin, we find some of the fees to be thus: s. d. For procuring abortion …………………………. 7 6 For simony………………………………………. 10 6 For sacrilege……………………………………. 10 6 For taking a false oath in a criminal case………….. 9 0 For robbing……………………………………… 12 0 For burning a neighbour’s house……………………. 12 0 For defiling a virgin…………………………….. 9 0 For lying with a mother, sister, &c………………… 7 6 For murdering a layman……………………………. 7 6 For keeping a concubine…………………………… 10 6 For laying violent hands on a clergyman…………….. 10 6 And so on. The terms in which the retailers of indulgences described their benefits, and the necessity of purchasing them, were so extravagant that they appear almost incredible. If any man, said they, purchase letters of indulgence, his soul may rest secure with respect to its salvation. The souls confined in purgatory, for whose redemption indulgences are purchased, as soon as the money tinkles in the chest, instantly escape from that place of torment, and ascend into heaven. That the efficacy of indulgences was so great, that the most heinous sins, even if one should violate (which was impossible) the Mother of God, would be remitted and expiated by them, and the person be freed both from punishment and guilt.
That this was the unspeakable gift of God, in order to reconcile man to himself. that the cross erected by the preachers of indulgences was equally efficacious with the cross of Christ itself.” “Lo, ” said they, “the heavens are open: if you enter not now, when will you enter? For twelve pence you may redeem the soul of your father out of purgatory; and are you so ungrateful that you will not rescue the soul of your parent from torment? If you had but one coat, you ought to strip yourself instantly, and sell it, in order to purchase such benefit, ” &c. It was this great abuse of indulgences that contributed not a little to the reformation of religion in Germany, where Martin Luther began first to declaim against the preachers of indulgences, and afterwards against indulgences themselves. Since that time the popes have been more sparing in the exercise of this power; although it is said, they still carry on a great trade with them to the Indies, where they are purchased at two rials a piece, and sometimes more. We are told also that a gentleman not long since being at Naples, in order that he might be fully ascertained respecting indulgences, went to the office, and for two sequins purchased a plenary remission of all sins for himself and any two other persons of his friends or relations, whose names he was empowered to insert. Haweis’s Church Hist. vol. 3: p. 147; Smith’s Errors of the Church of Rome; Watson’s Theol. Tracts. vol. 5: p. 274; Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 1: p. 594, quarto.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
indulgences
(Latin: indulgere, to be kind)
The remission of temporal punishment due to sin after its guilt has been forgiven, which the Church grants from the treasury of the merits of Christ and His saints. A plenary indulgence is the remission of the whole debt of temporal punishment. A partial indulgence remits only a part of that punishment. An indulgence of 40 days, for example, remits so much of temporal punishment as would be remitted by performing the ancient canonical penances for 40 days. In granting an indulgence to the living, the Church offers satisfaction to God from her treasury of merit, so that such an indulgence is a real juridical absolution from temporal punishment. Indulgences for the dead are gained by way of intercession (per modum suffragii), i.e., the Church offers satisfaction from her treasury of merit and asks God to apply this satisfaction to the souls in purgatory. An indulgence for the living, if all conditions are fulfilled, produces its effect infallibly, while that for the dead, because departed souls are not under the Church’s jurisdiction, depends on the good pleasure of God. Besides the habitual intention, the state of grace and the performance of the prescribed good works, prayers, alms, visits to a church, etc., are required to gain an indulgence. Confession and Communion are required for a plenary indulgence. Confession twice a month and Communion five or six times a week suffice for all plenary indulgences except for the jubilee indulgence. For illustration of an indulgence Brief, see brief . For more in-depth description of an Indulgence, and its history, see the related Catholic Encyclopedia article.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Indulgences
The word indulgence (Lat. indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer’s salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted: In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth. Some writs of indulgence–none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)–contain the expression, “indulgentia a culpa et a poena”, i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, “History” etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, “De Indulg”., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve” a culpa et a poena” (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the “quaestores” or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7). The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church. An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God’s justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Suppl., xxv. a. 1 ad 2um), “He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it.” The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations. In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God’s mercy and the demands of God’s justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.
VARIOUS KINDS OF INDULGENCES
An indulgence that may be gained in any part of the world is universal, while one that can be gained only in a specified place (Rome, Jerusalem, etc.) is local. A further distinction is that between perpetual indulgences,which may be gained at any time, and temporary,which are available on certain days only, or within certain periods. Real indulgences are attached to the use of certain objects (crucifix, rosary, medal); personal are those which do not require the use of any such material thing, or which are granted only to a certain class of individuals, e.g. members of an order or confraternity. The most important distinction, however, is that between plenary indulgences and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value.
God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise amount is in severity and duration. Finally, some indulgences are granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of the souls departed. It should be noted, however, that the application has not the same significance in both cases. The Church in granting an indulgence to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e. she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory.
WHO CAN GRANT INDULGENCES
The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the Church is an exercise of authority (potestas iurisdictionis), not of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year’s indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside–except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, “Quodlib.”, II, q. viii, a. 16).
DISPOSITIONS NECESSARY TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. “at least with a contrite heart “, is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works — prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church, etc. — which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence. For details see “Raccolta”.
AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
The Council of Constance condemned among the errors of Wyclif the proposition: “It is foolish to believe in the indulgences granted by the pope and the bishops” (Sess. VIII, 4 May, 1415; see Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, 622). In the Bull “Exsurge Domine”, 15 June, 1520, Leo X condemned Luther’s assertions that “Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful”; and that “Indulgences do not avail those who really gain them for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of God’s justice” (Enchiridion, 75S, 759), The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: “Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide) that the Church has received from Christ the power to grant indulgences, and that the use of indulgences is salutary for the faithful,
BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE
An essential element in indulgences is the application to one person of the satisfaction performed by others. This transfer is based on three things: the Communion of Saints, the principle of vicarious satisfaction, and the Treasury of the Church.
(1) The Communion of Saints
“We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Romans 12:5). As each organ shares in the life of the whole body, so does each of the faithful profit by the prayers and good works of all the rest-a benefit which accrues, in the first instance, to those who are in the state of grace, but also, though less fully, to the sinful members.
(2) The Principle of Vicarious Satisfaction
Each good action of the just man possesses a double value: that of merit and that of satisfaction, or expiation. Merit is personal, and therefore it cannot be transferred; but satisfaction can be applied to others, as St. Paul writes to the Colossians (i, 24) of his own works: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church,” (See SATISFACTION.)
(3) The Treasury of the Church
Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (ii, 2), “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ. The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): ” All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.” And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God’s sight than what one suffers on one’s own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull “Unigenitus”, published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343, and later inserted in the “Corpus Juris” (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): “Upon the altar of the Cross “, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.” Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther’s assertion that “the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints” (Enchiridion, 757). For the same reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety (Enchiridion, 1541).
According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.
THE POWER TO GRANT INDULGENCES
Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins (see PENANCE), the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred. Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty. This becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of the power granted to Peter (Matthew 16:19): “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shaft loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Cf. Matthew 18:18, where like power is conferred on all the Apostles.) No limit is placed upon this power of loosing, “the power of the keys “, as it is called; it must, therefore, extend to any and all bonds contracted by sin, including the penalty no less than the guilt. When the Church, therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven. That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul’s words (2 Corinthians 2:5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incestuous man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul’s order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one “this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many” and adds: “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority — “in the person of Christ.” Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.
These essentials persist in the subsequent practice of the Church, though the accidental features vary according as new conditions arise. During the persecutions, those Christians who had fallen away but desired to be restored to the communion of the Church often obtained from the martyrs a memorial (libellus pacis) to be presented to the bishop, that he, in consideration of the martyrs’ sufferings, might admit the penitents to absolution, thereby releasing them from the punishment they had incurred. Tertullian refers to this when he says (Ad martyres, c. i, P.L., I, 621): “Which peace some, not having it in the Church, are accustomed to beg from the martyrs in prison; and therefore you should possess and cherish and preserve it in you that so you perchance may be able to grant it to others.” Additional light is thrown on this subject by the vigorous attack which the same Tertullian made after he had become a Montanist. In the first part of his treatise “De pudicitia”, he attacks the pope for his alleged laxity in admitting adulterers to penance and pardon, and flouts the peremptory edict of the “pontifex maximus episcopus episcoporum “. At the close he complains that the same power of remission is now allowed also to the martyrs, and urges that it should be enough for them to purge their own sins — sufficiat martyri propria delicta purgasse”. And, again, “How can the oil of thy little lamp suffice both for thee and me?” (c. xxii). It is sufficient to note that many of his arguments would apply with as much and as little force to the indulgences of later ages.
During St. Cyprian’s time (d. 258), the heretic Novatian claimed that none of the lapsi should be readmitted to the Church; others, like Felicissimus, held that such sinners should be received without any penance. Between these extremes, St. Cyprian holds the middle course, insisting that such penitents should be reconciled on the fulfillment of the proper conditions. On the one hand, he condemns the abuses connected with the libellus, in particular the custom of having it made out in blank by the martyrs and filled in by any one who needed it. “To this you should diligently attend “, he writes to the martyrs (Ep. xv), “that you designate by name those to whom you wish peace to be given.” On the other hand, he recognizes the value of these memorials: “Those who have received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can, before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs ” (Ep. xiii, P.L., IV, 261). St. Cyprian, therefore, believed that the merits of the martyrs could be applied to less worthy Christians by way of vicarious satisfaction, and that such satisfaction was acceptable in the eyes of God as well as of the Church.
After the persecutions had ceased, the penitential discipline remained in force, but greater leniency was shown in applying it. St. Cyprian himself was reproached for mitigating the “Evangelical severity” on which he at first insisted; to this he replied (Ep. lii) that such strictness was needful during the time of persecution not only to stimulate the faithful in the performance of penance, but also to quicken them for the glory of martyrdom; when, on the contrary, peace was secured to the Church, relaxation was necessary in order to prevent sinners from falling into despair and leading the life of pagans. In 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letojum) declares that the penance should be shortened in the case of those who showed sincerity and zeal in performing it — “ut spatium canonibus praestitum posset contrahere (can. xviii; cf. can. ix, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xix). In the same spirit, St. Basil (379), after prescribing more lenient treatment for various crimes, lays down the general principle that in all such cases it is not merely the duration of the penance that must be considered, but the way in which it is performed (Ep. ad Amphilochium, c. lxxxiv). Similar leniency is shown by various Councils–Ancyra (314), Laodicea (320), Nicaea (325), Aries (330). It became quite common during this period to favor those who were ill, and especially those who were in danger of death (see Amort, “Historia “, 28 sq.). The ancient penitentials of Ireland and England, though exacting in regard to discipline, provide for relaxation in certain cases. St. Cummian, e.g., in his Penitential (seventh century), treating (cap. v) of the sin of robbery, prescribed that he who has often committed theft shall do penance for seven years or for such time as the priest may judge fit, must always be reconciled with him whom he has wronged, and make restitution proportioned to the injury, and thereby his penance shall be considerably shortened (multum breviabit poenitentiam ejus). But should he be unwilling or unable (to comply with these conditions), he must do penance for the whole time prescribed and in all its details. (Cf. Moran, “Essays on the Early Irish Church”, Dublin, 1864, p. 259.)
Another practice which shows quite clearly the difference between sacramental absolution and the granting of indulgences was the solemn reconciliation of penitents. These, at the beginning of Lent, had received from the priest absolution from their sins and the penance enjoined by the canons; on Maundy Thursday they presented themselves before the bishop, who laid hands on them, reconciled them with the Church, and admitted them to communion. This reconciliation was reserved to the bishop, as is expressly declared in the Penitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury; though in case of necessity the bishop could delegate a priest for the purpose (lib. I, xiii). Since the bishop did not hear their confession, the “absolution” which he pronounced must have been a release from some penalty they had incurred. The effect, moreover, of this reconciliation was to restore the penitent to the state of baptismal innocence and consequently of freedom from all penalties, as appears from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (lib, II, c. xli) where it is said: “Eritque in loco baptismi impositio manuum”–i.e. the imposition of hands has the same effect as baptism (cf. Palmieri, “De Poenitentia”, Rome, 1879, 459 sq.).
In a later period (eighth century to twelfth) it became customary to permit the substitution of some lighter penance for that which the canons prescribed. Thus the Penitential of Egbert, Archbishop of York, declares (XIII, 11): “For him who can comply with what the penitential prescribes, well and good; for him who cannot, we give counsel of God’s mercy. Instead of one day on bread and water let him sing fifty psalms on his knees or seventy psalms without genuflecting …. But if he does not know the psalms and cannot fast, let him, instead of one year on bread and water, give twenty-six solidi in alms, fast till None on one day of each week and till Vespers on another, and in the three Lents bestow in alms half of what he receives.” The practice of substituting the recitation of psalms or the giving of alms for a portion of the fast is also sanctioned in the Irish Synod of 807, which says (c. xxiv) that the fast of the second day of the week may be “redeemed” by singing one psalter or by giving one denarius to a poor person. Here we have the beginning of the so-called “redemptions” which soon passed into general usage. Among other forms of commutation were pilgrimages to well-known shrines such as that at St. Albans in England or at Compostela in Spain. But the most important place of pilgrimage was Rome. According to Bede (674-735) the “visitatio liminum “, or visit to the tomb of the Apostles, was even then regarded as a good work of great efficacy (Hist. Eccl., IV, 23). At first the pilgrims came simply to venerate the relics of the Apostles and martyrs; but in course of time their chief purpose was to gain the indulgences granted by the pope and attached especially to the Stations. Jerusalem, too, had long been the goal of these pious journeys, and the reports which the pilgrims gave of their treatment by the infidels finally brought about the Crusades. At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): “Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance”. Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): “Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii).
Similar concessions were frequently made on occasions, such as the dedication of churches, e.g., that of the old Temple Church in London, which was consecrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 10 February, 1185, by the Lord Heraclius, who to those yearly visiting it indulged sixty days of the penance enjoined them — as the inscription over the main entrance attests. The canonization of saints was often marked by the granting of an indulgence, e.g. in honor of St. Laurence 0’Toole by Honorius III (1226), in honor of St. Edmund of Canterbury by Innocent IV (1248), and in honor of St. Thomas of Hereford by John XXII (1320). A famous indulgence is that of the Portiuncula (q.v.), obtained by St. Francis in 1221 from Honorius III. But the most important largess during this period was the plenary indulgence granted in 1300 by Boniface VIII to those who, being truly contrite and having confessed their sins, should visit the basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul (see JUBILEE).
Among the works of charity which were furthered by indulgences, the hospital held a prominent place. Lea in his “History of Confession and Indulgences” (III, 189) mentions only the hospital of Santo Spirito in Rome, while another Protestant writer, Uhlhorn (Gesch. d. Christliche Liebesthatigkeit, Stuttgart, 1884, II, 244) states that “one cannot go through the archives of any hospital without finding numerous letters of indulgence”. The one at Halberstadt in 1284 had no less than fourteen such grants, each giving an indulgence of forty days. The hospitals at Lucerne, Rothenberg, Rostock, and Augsburg enjoyed similar privileges.
ABUSES
It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Cor., xi, 27-9). And, as God’s forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evil practices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther’s revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.
Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as “unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity”. In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words “a culpa et a poena”, the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).
Traffic in Indulgences
These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.
In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. Leaving the details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article (see REFORMATION), it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this evil association: the only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety. Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the payment might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those who sought to gain it might lose sight of the more important conditions. On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of indulgences. This class has happily disappeared, but the type has been preserved in Chaucer’s “Pardoner”, with his bogus relics and indulgences.
While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it should also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took care to insist on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not difficult to understand why the Church, instead of abolishing the practice of indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements. The Council of Trent in its decree “On Indulgences” (Sess. XXV) declares: “In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away with as a source of grievous abuse among the Christian people; and as to other disorders arising from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any cause whatsoever–since these, on account of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special prohibitions–the Council lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out such abuses as exist in his own diocese, of bringing them before the next provincial synod, and of reporting them, with the assent of the other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence measures will be taken for the welfare of the Church at large, so that the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed on all the faithful by means at once pious, holy, and free from corruption.” After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.
Apocryphal Indulgences
One of the worst abuses was that of inventing or falsifying grants of indulgence. Previous to the Reformation, such practices abounded and called out severe pronouncements by ecclesiastical authority, especially by the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and that of Vienne (1311). After the Council of Trent the most important measure taken to prevent such frauds was the establishment of the Congregation of Indulgences. A special commission of cardinals served under Clement VIII and Paul V, regulating all matters pertaining to indulgences. The Congregation of Indulgences was definitively established by Clement IX in 1669 and reorganized by Clement XI in 1710. It has rendered efficient service by deciding various questions relative to the granting of indulgences and by its publications. The “Raccolta” (q.v.) was first issued by one of its consultors, Telesforo Galli, in 1807; the last three editions 1877, 1886, and 1898 were published by the Congregation. The other official publication is the “Decreta authentica”, containing the decisions of the Congregation from 1668 to 1882. This was published in 1883 by order of Leo XIII. See also “Rescripta authentica” by Joseph Schneider (Ratisbon, 1885). By a Motu Proprio of Pius X, dated 28 January, 1904, the Congregation of Indulgences was united to the Congregation of Rites, without any diminution, however, of its prerogatives.
SALUTARY EFFECTS OF INDULGENCES
Lea (History, etc., III, 446) somewhat reluctantly acknowledges that “with the decline in the financial possibilities of the system, indulgences have greatly multiplied as an incentive to spiritual exercises, and they can thus be so easily obtained that there is no danger of the recurrence of the old abuses, even if the finer sense of fitness, characteristic of modern times, on the part of both prelates and people, did not deter the attempt.” The full significance, however, of this “multiplication” lies in the fact that. the Church, by rooting out abuses, has shown the rigor of her spiritual life. She has maintained the practice of indulgences, because, when these are used in accordance with what she prescribes, they strengthen the spiritual life by inducing the faithful to approach the sacraments and to purify their consciences of sin. And further, they encourage the performance, in a truly religious spirit, of works that redound, not alone to the welfare of the individual, but also to God’s glory and to the service of the neighbor.
———————————–
BELLARMINE, De indulgentiis (Cologne, 1600); PASSERINI, De indulgentiis (Rome, 1672); AMORT, De origine……indulgentiarum (Venice, 1738); BOUVIER, Traité dogmatique et pratique des indulgences (Paris, 1855): SCHOOFS, Die Lehre vom kirchl. Ablass (Munster, 1857); GRONE, Der Ablass, seine Gesch. u. Bedeutung (Ratisbon, 1863).
W. H. KENT Transcribed by Charles Sweeney, S.J.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Indulgences
(Lat. indulgentiae), the name of a peculiar institution in the Roman Church. The doctrine of indulgence, in its most plausible form, is stated by a Romanist writer as follows: It is a releasing, by the power of the keys committed to the Church, the debt of temporal punishment which may remain due upon account of our sins, after the sins themselves, as to the guilt and eternal punishment, have been already remitted by repentance and confession (Grounds of Catholic Doctrine, chap. 10, quest. 1). The doctrine and practice of indulgence constitutes the very center of the hierarchical theory of Romanism, and was, probably for that very reason, the first object of attack on the part of Luther in the beginning of the Reformation.
I. Origin of the System. The early Church knew nothing of indulgences. The system seems to have originated in that of penance (q.v.), which, in the hands of the episcopacy, began to assume a corrupt form in the 3rd century. The immediate object of penance was to restore an offender, not to communion with God, but to the communion of the Church. When an excommunicated person sought readmission, the bishop assigned him a penitential discipline (q.v.) of abstinence, mortification, and good works, after which he was taken back into fellowship by certain regular modes of procedure. The bishop had the power to abridge the period of probation, or to mitigate the severity of the penance, and in this power lies the germ of the doctrine of Malgence (see Canons of Council of Ancyra, c. v). In course of time penitential discipline came to be applied, not merely to excommunicated persons, but to all delinquents within the pale of the Church; and penance came at last, in the hands of the schoolmen, to be a sacrament, with its systematic theory nicely fitting into the hierarchical system, of which, in fact, it became the very keystone. Nothing could so surely augment the power of the priesthood as the right of fixing penalties for sin, and making terms of forgiveness. Just as, in early times, the penances of the excommunicated were frequently mitigated, so, in the course of the Middle Ages, an analogous mitigation was introduced with reference to the works of penance to which delinquents were subjected. Permission was given to exchange a more severe for a gentler kind of penance.
Sometimes, in place of doing penance himself, the party was allowed to employ a substitute. And sometimes, in fine, instead of the actual penance prescribed, some service conducive to the interest of the Church and the glory of God was accepted. This last was the real basis of indulgence. Even here, however, the process was gradual. At first only personal acts performed for the Church were admitted. Then pecuniary gifts became more and more common, until at last the matter assumed the shape of a mere money speculation. Initiatively the abuse grew up in practice. Then came Scholasticism, and furnished it with a theoretical substratum; and not until the institution had thus received an ecclesiastical and scientific basis was a method of practice introduced which overstepped all limits. The first powerful impulse to the introduction of indulgences, properly so called, was given by the Crusades at the great Synod of Clermont in 1096. Urban II there promised to all who took part in the Crusade, which he proposed as a highly meritorious ecclesiastical work, plenary indulgence (indulgentia splenarias); and from that date for a period of two hundred years, this grace of the Church continued one of the most powerful means for renewing and enlivening these expeditions, although it was evident to unprejudiced contemporaries that the adventurers, when they crossed the ocean, did not undergo a change of character with the change’ of climate. The same favor was ere long extended to the military expeditions set on foot against the heretics in Europe, and at last, by Boniface VIII, in 1300, to the year of the Roman Jubilee. Subsequently to that date, several monastic orders and holy places likewise received from successive popes special privileges in the matter of indulgence (Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, 1, 236).
II. Scholastic Doctrine of Indulgence. The practice of indulgence had been going on for some time when the Scholastic theologians took it up, and formed a speculative theory to justify it. Three great men contributed to this task: Alexander de Hales (q.v.), Albertus Magnus (q.v.), and Thomas Aquinas (q.v.). Alexander de Hales (t A.D. 1245) laid a firm foundation for the theory in the doctrine, first fairly propounded by him, of the Treasure of the Church (thesaurus ecclesiae). It runs as follows: The sufferings and death of Christ not only made a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of men, but also acquired a superabundance of merit. This superfluous merit of Christ is conjoined with that of the martyrs and saints, which is similar in kind, though smaller in degree, for they likewise performed more than the divine law required of them. The sum of these supererogatory merits and good works forms a vast treasure, which is disjoined from the persons who won or performed them exists objectively, and, having been accumulated by the Head and members of the Church, and intended by them for its use, belongs to the Church, and is necessarily placed under the administration of its representatives, especially the pope, who is supreme. It is therefore competent for the pope, according to the measure of his insight at the time, to draw from this treasure, and bestow upon those who have no merit of their own such supplies of it as they require. Indulgences and remissions are made from the supererogatory merits of Christ’s members, but most of all from the superabundance of Christ’s own, the two constituting the Church’s spiritual treasure. The administration of this treasure does not pertain to all, but to those only who occupy Christ’s place, viz. the bishops (Alex. Hales, Summa, 4, qu. 23, art. 2). As regards the extent of indulgence, Alexander is of opinion that it reaches even to the souls in Purgatory, under the condition, however, that there shall be the power of the keys in the party who dispenses it; faith, love, and devotion in the party to whom it is dispensed; and a competent reason and a proper relation between the two (1.c. par. 5). He does not, however, suppose that in such cases indulgence is granted in the way of judicial absolution or barter, but in that of intercession (per modum suffragii sive interpretationis).
Albert the Great ( 1280), adopting the, opinions of his predecessor, designates indulgence the remission of some imposed punishment or penance, proceeding from the power of the keys, and the treasure of the superfluous merits of the perfect. With respect to the efficacy of indulgence, Albert proposes to steer a middle course between two extremes. Some, he says, imagine that indulgence has no efficacy at all, and is merely a pious fraud, by which men are enticed to the performance of good works, such as pilgrimage and almsgiving. These, however, reduce the action of the Church to child’s play, and fall into heresy. Others, carrying the contrary opinion further than is necessary, assert that an indulgence at once and unconditionally accomplishes all that is expressed in it, and thus make the divine mercy diminish the fear of judgment. The true medium is that indulgence has that precise amount of efficacy which the Church assigns to it (Alb. Magnus, Sentent. lib. 4, d. 20, art. 16). Thomas Aquinas deduces the efficacy of indulgence directly from Christ.
The history of the adulteress shows, he says, that it is in Christ’s power to remit the penalty of sin without satisfaction, and so could Paul, and so also can the pope, whose power in the Church is not inferior to Paul’s. Besides, the Church general is infallible, and, as it sanctions and practices indulgence, indulgence must be valid. This, Thomas is persuaded, all admit, because there would be impiety in representing any act of the Church as nugatory. The reason of its efficacy, however, lies in the oneness of the mystical body, within the limits of which there are many who, as respects works of penitence, have done more than they were under obligation to do; for instance, many who have patiently endured undeserved sufferings sufficient to expiate a great amount of penalties. In fact, so vast is the sum of these merits that it greatly exceeds the measure of the guilt of all the living, especially when augmented by the merit of Christ, which, although operative in the sacraments, is not in its operation confined to these, but, being infinite, extends far beyond them. The measure of the efficacy of indulgence this St. Thomas reckons to be the truth is determined by the measure of its cause. The procuring cause of the remission of punishment in indulgence is, however, solely the plenitude of the Church’s merits, not the piety, labors, or gifts of the party by whom it is obtained; and therefore the quantity of the indulgence does not need to correspond with any of these, but only with the merits of the Church. In respect to the party who ought to dispense indulgence, St. Thomas asserts that no mere priest or pastor, but only the bishop, is competent for the duty. On the other hand, deacons and other parties not in orders, as, for example, nuncios, may grant indulgence if, either in an ordinary or extraordinary way, they have been entrusted with jurisdiction for the purpose. For indulgence does not, like sacramental acts, pertain to the power of the keys inherent in the priesthood, but to that power of the keys which belongs to jurisdiction (Aquinas, Supplem. 3 partes Summae Theologici, qu. 25-27).
III. Opposition to Indulgences within the Church of Rome. Such a doctrine could not fail to offend truly pious souls even within the Church. Long before the Reformation the whole system was attacked by eminent doctors. One of its most powerful opponents was John of Wesel (q.v.), in the middle of the 15th century. A festival of jubilee, with vast indulgences, was proclaimed by pope Clement VI in 1450, and cardinal Cusanus visited Erfurt as a preacher of indulgence. This brought the subject practically before Wesel’s mind, and he wrote a treatise against indulgences (Adversus indulgentias: see Walch, Monum. Med. avi, 2, fasc. 1, 111-156). For a full account of it, see Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, 1, 258 sq. The flagrant abuses connected with the sale of indulgences began to cause a reaction against the system even in the popular mind. In the 15th century, in particular, the disposal of them had become almost a common traffic; and a public sale of them was generally preceded by some specious pretext; for instance, the reduction of the Greeks under the yoke of the Romish Church, a war with heretics, or a crusade against the Neapolitans, etc. Too often the pretences for selling indulgences were in reality bloody, idolatrous, or superstitious. It was one of the charges brought against John XXIII at the Council of Constance, in 1415, that he empowered his legates to absolve penitents from all sorts of crimes upon payment of sums proportioned to their guilt. When such- indulgences were to be published, the disposal of them was commonly farmed out; for the papal court could not always wait to have the money collected and conveyed from every country of Europe. And there were rich merchants at Genoa, Milan, Venice, and Augsburg who purchased the indulgences for a particular province, and paid to the papal chancery handsome sums for them. Thus both parties were benefited. The chancery came at once into possession of large sums of money, and the farmers did not fail of a good bargain. They were careful to employ skilful hawkers of the indulgences, persons whose boldness and impudence bore due proportion to the eloquence with which they imposed upon the simple people.
Yet, that this species of traffic might have a religious aspect, the pope appointed the archbishops of the several provinces to be his commissaries, who in his name announced that indulgences were to be sold, and generally selected the persons to hawk them, and for this service shared the profits with the merchants who farmed them. These papal hawkers enjoyed great privileges, and, however odious to the civil authorities, they were not to be molested. Complaints, indeed, were made against these contributions, levied by the popes upon all Christian Europe. Kings and princes, clergy and laity, bishops, monasteries, and confessors, all felt themselves aggrieved by them; the kings, that their countries were impoverished, under the pretext of crusades that were never undertaken, and of wars against heretics and Turks; and the bishops, that their letters of indulgence were rendered inefficient, and the people released from ecclesiastical discipline. But at Rome all were deaf to these complaints; and it was not till the revolution produced by Luther that unhappy Europe obtained the desired relief (Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. cent. 3:sec. 1, chap. 10 Leo X, in order to carry on the expensive structure of St. Peter’s Church at Rome, published indulgences, with a plenary remission to all such as should contribute towards erecting that magnificent fabric. The right of promulgating these indulgences in Germany, together with a share in the profits arising from the sale of them, was granted to Albert, elector of Mentz and archbishop of Magdeburg, who selected as his chief agent for retailing them in Saxony John Tetzel, a Dominican friar, of licentious morals, but of an active and enterprising spirit, and remarkable for his noisy and popular eloquence. Assisted by the monks of his order, he executed the commission with great zeal and success, but with no less indecency, boasting that he had saved more souls from hell by his indulgences than St. Peter had converted by his preaching. He assured the purchasers of them that their crimes, however enormous, would be forgiven; that the efficacy of indulgences was so great that the most heinous sins, even if one should violate (which was impossible) the mother of God, would be remitted and expiated by them, and the person freed both from punishment and guilt; and that this was the unspeakable gift of God, in order to reconcile men to himself. In the usual form of absolution, written by his own hand, he said: May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy passion.
And I, by his authority, that of his apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred; then from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous so ever they may be: even from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy see, and as far as the keys of the holy Church extend. I remit to thee all punishment which thou deservest in Purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which thou possessedst at baptism: so that when thou diest the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the Paradise of delights shall be opened; and if thou shalt not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The terms in which the retailers of indulgences described their benefits, and the necessity of purchasing them, were so extravagant that they appear almost incredible. If any man, said they, purchase letters of indulgence, his soul may rest secure with respect to its salvation. The souls confined in Purgatory, for whose redemption indulgences are purchased, as soon as the money tinkles in the chest, instantly escape from that place of torment, and ascend into heaven. That the cross, erected by the preachers of indulgences was equally efficacious with the cross of Christ itself. Lo, said they, the heavens are open: if you enter not now, when will you enter? For twelve pence you may redeem the soul of your father out of Purgatory; and are you so ungrateful that you will not rescue the soul of your parent from torment? If you had but one coat, you ought to strip yourself instantly and sell it, in order to purchase such benefit. It was these abuses, as much as any other one cause, which led to the Lutheran Reformation, and it was against these that Luther first directed his attacks. SEE LUTHER; SEE REFORMATION.
III. Present Doctrine and Practice of Indulgence. The following extracts show what has been, since the Council of Trent, and is now, the Romish doctrine of indulgence. The Council declared that as the power of granting indulgences was given by Christ to the Church, and she has exercised it in the most ancient times, this holy synod teaches and commands that the use of them, as being greatly salutary to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils, shall be retained; and she anathematizes those who say they are useless, or deny to the Church the power of granting them; but in this grant the synod wishes that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved practice of the Church, be exercised, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened (Conc. Trid. Sess. 25 De Indulg.). Pope Leo X, in his bull De Indulgentiis, whose object he states to be that no one in future may allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting indulgences and their efficacy, declares that the Roman pontiff, vicar of Christ on earth, can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the faithful, whether in this life or in Purgatory, indulgences, out of the superabundance of the merits of Christ, and of the saints (expressly called a treasure); and that those who have truly obtained these indulgences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for their actual sins to the divine justice as is equivalent to the indulgence granted and obtained (Bulla Leon. X, adv. Luther). Clement VI, in the bull Unigenitus, explains this matter more fully: As a single drop of Christ’s blood would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race, so the rest was not lost, but was a treasure which he acquired in the militant Church, to be used for the benefit of his sons; which treasure he would not suffer to be hid in a napkin, or buried in the ground, but committed it to be dispensed by St. Peter and his successors, his own vicars upon earth, for proper and reasonable causes, for the total or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin; and for an augmentation of his treasure, the merits of the blessed mother of God, and of all the elect, who are known to come in aid.
The reasonable causes, on account of which indulgences are given, are, where the cause be pious, that is, not a work which is merely temporal, or vain, or in no respect appertaining to the divine glory, but for any work whatsoever which tends to the honor of God or the service of the Church, an indulgence will be valid. We see, occasionally, the very greatest indulgences given for the very lightest causes; as when a plenary indulgence is granted to all who stand before the gates of St. Peter, whilst the pope gives the solemn blessing to the people on Easter day; for indulgences do not depend, for their efficacy, on consideration of the work enjoined, but on the infinite treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints, which is a consideration surpassing and transcending everything that is granted by an indulgence. In some cases the work enjoined must not only be pious and useful, but bear a certain proportion with the indulgence; that is, the work enjoined must tend to an end more pleasing in the sight of God than the satisfaction remitted, although it is not necessary that it be in itself very meritorious, or satisfactory, or difficult, and laborious (though these things ought to be regarded too, but that it be a means, apt and useful, towards obtaining the end for which the indulgence is granted.
So the large resort of people, before the gates of St. Peter, when the pope gives his solemn blessing, is a means, apt and useful, to set forth faith respecting the head of the Church, and to the honor of the apostolic see, which is the end of the indulgence (Bellarmine, De Indulgentiis, lib, 1, can. 12). The first General Lateran Council granted remission of sin to whoever shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually help to oppose the infidels (can. 11). The third and fourth Lateran Councils granted the same indulgence to those who set themselves to destroy heretics, or who shall take up arms against them (see Labbe, 10, 1523). Boniface VIII granted not only a full and larger, but the most full pardon of all sins to all that visit Rome the first year in every century. Clement V decreed that they who should, at the Jubilee, visit such and such churches, should obtain a most full remission of all their sins; and he not only granted a plenary absolution of all sins to all who died on the road to Rome, but also commanded the angels of Paradise to carry the soul direct to heaven. Sincere repentance, we are told, is always enjoined or implied in the grant of an indulgence, and is indispensably necessary for every grace (Milner, End of Controversy, p. 304). But as the dead are removed from the possibility, so are they from the necessity of repentance; as the pope, says Bellarmine, applies the satisfactions of Christ and the saints to the dead, by means of works enjoined on the living, they are applied, not in the way of judicial absolution, but in the way of payment (per modum solutionis).
For as when a person gives alms, or fasts, or makes a pilgrimage on account of the dead, the effect is, not that he obtains absolution for them from their liability to punishment, but he presents to God that particular satisfaction for them, in order that God, on receiving it, may liberate the dead from the debt of punishment which they had to pay. In like manner, the pope does not absolve the deceased, but offers to God, out of the measure of satisfaction, as much as is necessary to free them (lb.). Their object is to afford succor to such as have departed real penitents in the love of God, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of penance, for sills of commission and omission, and are now purifying in the fire of Purgatory, that an entrance may be opened for them into that country where nothing defiled is admitted (Bull Leo XII). We have resolved, says pope Leo XII, in his bull of indiction for the universal jubilee in 1824, in virtue of the authority given us by heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, and of his Virgin Mother, and of all the saints which the author of human salvation has entrusted to our dispensation. During this year of the jubilee, we mercifully give and grant, in the Lord, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of all their sins to all the faithful of Christ, truly penitent, and confessing their sins, and receiving the holy communion, who shall visit the churches of blessed Peter and Paul, etc. We offer you, says Ganganelli, in his bull De Indulgentiis, a share of all the riches of divine mercy which have been entrusted to us, and chiefly those which have their origin in the blood of Christ.
We will then open to you all the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of the Mother of God, the holy apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the good works of all the saints. We invite you, then, to drink of this overflowing stream of indulgence, to enrich yourselves in the inexhaustible treasures of the Church, according to the custom of our ancestors. Do not, then, let slip the present occasion, this favorable time, these salutary days, employing them to appease the justice of God, and obtain your pardon. The temporal punishment due to sin, by the decree of God, when its guilt and eternal punishment are remitted, may consist either of evil in this life, or of temporal suffering is the next, which temporal suffering in the next life is called purgatory; that the Church has received power from God to remit both of these inflictions, and this remission is called an indulgence (Butler’s Book of the Rome. Cath. Ch. p. 110). It is the received doctrine of the Church that an indulgence, when truly gained, is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the Church, but also an actual remission by God himself of the whole or part of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight (Milner, End of Controversy, p. 305 sq.).
As to the present practice of indulgences, it subsists, with all its immoral tendencies, in full force to this day. It is true, however, that the abuses connected with the sale of indulgences are not so flagrant as in former times, especially in those countries where the Roman Church is destitute of political power. Where it has, the system is almost as bad as ever. It is said that, as lately as the year 1800, a Spanish vessel was captured near the coast of South America, freighted (among other things) with numerous bales of indulgences for various sins, the price of which, varying from half a dollar to seven dollars, was marked upon each.
They had been bought in Spain, and were intended for sale in South America. Seymour tells us as follows: This inscription is placed in that part of the Church which is of all the most public. It is placed over the holy water, to which all persons must resort, on entering the Church, before partaking of any of its services. It is as follows: Indulgence. The image of the most holy Mary, which stands on the high altar, spoke to the holy pope Gregory, saying to him, Why do you no longer salute me, in passing, with the accustomed salutation? The saint asked pardon, and granted to those who celebrate mass at that altar the deliverance of a soul from Purgatory, that is, the special soul for which they celebrate the mass.’ There is nothing more frequently remarked by Protestants, on entering the churches of Rome, than the constant recurrence of the words indulgentia plenaria,’ a plenary indulgence attached to’ the masses offered there; and this is tantamount to the emancipation of any soul from Purgatory, through a mass offered at that altar. Instead of these words, however, the same thing is more plainly expressed in some churches. In the church Santa Maria della Pace, so celebrated for the magnificent fresco of the Sibyls by Raphael, there is over one of the altars the following inscription: Ogni messa celebrata in quest’ altare libera un animod al purgatorio’–Every mass celebrated at this altar frees a soul from Purgatory. In: some churches this privilege extends throughout the year, but in others it is limited to those masses which are offered on particular days. In the church of Sta. Croce di Gerusalemme this privilege is connected in an especial manner with the fourth Sunday in Lent. And this is notified by a public notice posted in the church close to the altar, setting forth that a mass celebrated there on that day releases a soul from Purgatory (Seymour, Evenings at Rome).
Indulgences are now granted in the Romish Church on a very ample scale, especially to all contributors to the erection of churches, and to the funds of the Propaganda and other missionary societies, etc. In fact, almost ally act of piety (so-called) entitles one to an indulgence: as, for instance, the worship of relics; the visiting of churches or special altars; participation in divine worship on great festivals, such as inauguration of churches, and, especially, taking part in pilgrimages. Indulgences which apply either to the whole Church are called general (indulg. generalis), while those that are confined to particular localities, as a bishopric, etc., are called particular (indulg. particularis). The most general indulgence is that of the Roman Catholic year of Jubilee (q.v.). The general indulgence is always made out by the pope himself, while the particular indulgences, either plenarice or minus plesne, are often among the privileges of divers localities, either for special occasions and various lengths of time, or occasionally forever. The papal indulgence is to be proclaimed by the bishop and two canons of the diocese receiving it. Indulgences are divided into plenary and non- plenary, or partial, temporary, indefinite, local, perpetual, real, and personal.
1. A plenary indulgence is that by which is obtained a remission of all the temporal punishment due to sin, either in this life or in the next.
2. A non-plenary or partial indulgence is that which remits only a part of the temporal punishment due to sin: such are indulgences for a given number of days, weeks, or years. This sort of indulgence remits so many days, weeks, or years of penance, which ought to be observed agreeably to the ancient canons of the Church, for the sins which we have committed.
3. Temporary indulgences are those which are granted for a certain specified time, as for seven or more years.
4. Indefinite indulgences are those which are granted without any limitation of time.
5. Perpetual indulgences are those granted forever, and which do not require to be renewed after a given number of years.
6. A general indulgence is one granted by the pope to all the faithful throughout the world.
7. A local indulgence is attached to certain churches, chapels, or other places; it is gained by actually visiting such church or other building or place, and by observing scrupulously all the conditions required by the bull granting such indulgence.
8. A real indulgence is attached to certain movable things, as rosaries, medals, etc., and is granted to those who actually wear these articles with devotion; should the fashion of them cease, so that they cease to be deemed the same articles, the indulgence ceases. So long, however, as such articles continue, and are reputed to be the same, the indulgence continues in force, notwithstanding any accidental alteration which may be made in them, as the affixing of a new string or ribbon to a rosary.
9. A personal indulgence is one which is granted to certain particular persons, or to several persons in common, as to a confraternity or brotherhood. These privileged persons may gain such indulgences wherever they may happen to be, whether they are in health, in sickness, or at the point of death.
10. Other indulgences are termed enjoined penances, penitence injustice. By them is conferred the remission of so much of the punishment which is due to sins at the judgment of God as the sinner would have to pay by canonical penances, or by penances enjoined in all their rigor by the priest. An indulgence produces its effect at the very moment when all the works prescribed in order to obtain it are performed. (Richard et Giraud, Bibliotheque Sacree, 13, 366 sq.) The scales of payment are peculiar, being made to meet a variety of cases, and they are so lenient that the payment of them can form no bar against the subsequent commission of the crime for which an indulgence has already been received.
IV. The Congregation of Indulgences (Congregatio Cardinalium de indulgentiis et Sacris reliquiis) assists the pope in managing the department of indulgences. It is one of the functions of this congregation to investigate the grounds of all applications on the part of bishops, dioceses, churches, etc., for indulgences, and to report thereon to the pope. SEE CONGREGATION, vol. 2, p. 475.
V. Criticism of the Romish Doctrine of Indulgence. We cannot attempt to give in this place a full refutation of the Romish doctrine of indulgences, nor is it necessary. In her 22nd Article, the Church of England formally condemns the Romish doctrine of indulgence as well as Purgatory (q.v.). The article was framed (1558) before the Council of Trent, which endeavored to remedy the worst abuses arising from the practice of such a doctrine, but which nevertheless virtually sanctioned the principles naturally involved in the system. In the Parker MS. of 1562 (the 25th session of the Council of Trent, which was held Dec. 3 and 4, 1563) appears the change of terms from Scholasticorum doctrina to Doctrina Romanensiun (comp. Pusey’s Eirenicon, part 1, p. 207; Blunt, Hist. of the Reformation, A.D. 1514-1547, p. 444, 465).
The English theologians held (1) that temporal pain, the fruit of sin, is in its nature remedial and disciplinary, both to the sinner, and to others that they may see and fear; and (2) that as such it is not remissible by any sacrament or ordinance entrusted to the Church. The former proposition they support by Jer 2:19; Isa 3:9; by the examples of Moses and David; Num 20:12; Deu 1:37; 2Sa 12:14. The following quotations cover, however, more nearly all the points: Viewed even in its purest form, as stated by the most eminent doctors, and sanctioned by papal bulls, the doctrine of indulgence not only introduces a contradiction into the Catholic system, in respect that works of satisfaction, which were originally an integral part of the sacrament of penitence, are entirely disconnected with it, and viewed as a mere matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but it has this further radical defect pervading all its constituent parts, that moral and religious things, which can only be taken as spiritual magnitudes, are considered as material ones, quality being treated wholly as quantity, and, consequently, a standard of external computation and a sort of religious arithmetic applied, which involves contradiction. Even in order to establish the superabundance of the merit of Christ, it was affirmed that though a single drop of his blood would have sufficed for a universal atonement, yet the Savior had shed so much, as if it were not the divine sacrifice of love on the part of the Son of God and man, and his atoning death in general, but his several outward sufferings and their quantity in which its value and importance consisted.
In like manner, on the part of the saints, it was not their peculiar and more exalted moral and religious character, but their several works, and especially the volume rather than the worth of these, which was taken into account; and the whole was handled as something totally disconnected with their persons, as an objective fund, a sum of ready money in the Church’s hands. According to the same category, the imputation of the merits of Christ and the saints was described as a purely external transference of a portion of that sum to one who needed it. For, although a penitent frame of mind was required of the sinner, still it was not for the sake, nor according to the measure of that, that the merit of Christ and the saints was transferred to him, but solely for the sake of some service performed by him for the Church, and this performance, again, is quite an external and isolated work. At the same time, as respects the merits of the saints, the theory of indulgence rests on the supposition that a man, who is still human, although a saint, may not only possess a sufficiency of merit to answer his own need before God, but may likewise do more than the divine law demands of him, and thus acquire a surplus of merit for the use of others. Even this is a monstrous supposition, but still more monstrous perhaps is another, which invades the religious domain and the glory of God.
In point of fact, the doctrine and practice of indulgences gives the Church a position as an absolutely unerring and omniscient judicial power. It identifies the tribunal of the Church with that of God, and the tribunal of the pope with that of the Church, thereby indirectly identifying the pope’s with God’s, so that the pope is raised to a position, in virtue of which, as the visible head of the mystical body of Christ, and as the dispenser of all penalties and graces, he decides the highest questions involving the salvation of the living and the dead, according to his mere pleasure. Granting, however, that the whole doctrine were well founded, the position assigned to the pope would be one elevated far above the reach of fancy, and could be designated only as that of a terrestrial god. What an infinite amount of obligation would it impose upon the papacy, and with what conscientiousness sharpened to the utmost ought the popes, if they were bold enough to believe that such plenitude of power had actually been lodged in the hands of any child of the dust, to have dispensed the lofty blessings committed to their trust! How carefully ought they to have guarded them from perversion and debasement! And yet what do we see? Abuse upon abuse, and profanation upon profanation, in an ascending scale, for more than two centuries, until at last moral indignation bursts like a tempest upon their impiety (Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, 1, 246). Either the pope has the power of bringing souls out of Purgatory, or he has not. If he has not, the question is decided. If he has, what cruelty, then, for him to leave there whole millions of souls whom he might by a word bring out of it! Without going so far, why this strange inequality in the distribution of a treasure which is deemed inexhaustible? Why will a pater and an ave in my parish church avail only for five or six days’ indulgence, when they avail for forty days in another church, before another Madonna or another cross? Why is the performance of the works paid, in such or such a congregation, with a plenary indulgence, and in this or that other with a mere indulgence for a time? Why-but we should never end with the contradictions with which this matter is beset. Yet let us give one-just one more. If plenary indulgence be not merely a lure, how comes it that masses continue to be said for the souls of those who received it when dying?
Why that solemn deprofundis repeated at Rome during the whole reign of a pope on the anniversary of the death of his predecessor? This is what Luther said in his theses, and the objection is not the less embarrassing for being old. The only means of getting out of the difficulty would be to accept the consequences of the system. You have only to regard as well and duly entered into heaven all who left this world with that infallible passport, and to refuse, therefore, to say a mass for them. And why is this not done? We, have no need to explain. Between a mere act of Inconsistency added to so many others and the drying up of the very best source of her revenues, could Rome ever hesitate? But if there be ground to ask, on the one hand, why the popes and the bishops have not, at least, the charity to grant everywhere, and to all, as many indulgences as they have a right to dispense, no less reason have we to be astonished at the low price they put upon them, and the incredible facilities offered to such as wish to acquire them. See, for instance, the statutes of the brotherhood (confrerie) well known under the name of the Most Holy and Immaculate Heart of Mary. By a brief of 1838, plenary indulgence is accorded to those who shall worthily confess on the day of their reception into the brotherhood; which is as much as saying to people, Come in among us, and all your previous sins will be wiped out.’
Plenary indulgence, moreover, to such as shall confess themselves, and communicate at certain epochs of the year, and these are ten in number. Further, indulgence of five hundred days to whosoever shall devoutly be present at the mass of Saturday, and shall pray for the conversion of sinners. Though we should believe in indulgences, it strikes us that we could not but feel some scruples at seeing them lavished away in this manner. For a mass that shall have cost you half an hour, to be exempted from Purgatory for near a year and a half! For one confession, to be exempted from it altogether, although you may have deserved a thousand years of it! If not stopped by shame, these bold traffickers in salvation ought at least, one would think, to dread lest their wares should suffer depreciation in consequence of being given away for so little. True, they do not cost them anything, and there is no limit to purchases. Nobody, well knowing to how many years of Purgatory he may be condemned, can reasonably stop in adding to the amount of indulgences with which he is to appear at the bar of judgment. By placing himself on the most favorable conditions, and taking care to let no occasion be lost, a man of sixty might without difficulty have amassed them for above a million of years, over and above the plenary ones, each one of which ought to suffice, and with which one does not well see what the rest can signify (Bungener, Hist. of the Council of Trent, p. 520, 521).
VI. For further literature and discussion of the subject, see Bp. Philpot’s Letters to Mr. Butler, p. 151-153; Hales, Analysis of Chronology, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 1019-22. Mendham, Spiritual Venality of Rome (London, 1836, 12mo); Mendham, Venal Indulgences and Pardons of the Church of Rome exemplified (Lond. 1839, 12mo); Ferraris, Bibliotheca Promta, s.v.; Elliott, Delineation of Romanism, book 2, ch. 13; Herzog, Real-Encyklop. 1, 67; Neander, History of Doctrines, 2, 594; Neander, Church History, 3:52, 138; 5, 180, 280; Mosheim, Ch. History, bk. 4, cent. 16: 1, ch. 1 and 2; D’Aubignd, History of the Reformation, bk. 3; Amort, De Origine, etc., in. dulgentiarun, (Aug.Vind. 1735, fol.); Hirscher, Lehre v. Ablass (Tbing. 1844); Gieseler, Church Hist. 2, 35, 81; Hook, Church. Dictionary, s.v.; Eadie, Ecclesiastical Dictionary, s.v.; Cramp, Text-book of Popery, ch. 19; Bungener, Hist. of the Council of Trent, p. 518-530; Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, 1, 235 sq.; Bergier, Dict. de Theologie, 3:398.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Indulgences
In the primitive church very severe penalties were inflicted on those who had been guilty of any sins, whether public or private; and, in particular, they were forbidden to partake, for a certain time, of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or to hold any communion with the church. General rules were formed upon these subjects; but as it was often found expedient to make a discrimination in the degrees of punishment, according to the different circumstances of the offenders, and especially when they showed marks of contrition and repentance, power was given to bishops, by the council of Nice, to relax or remit those punishments as they should see reason. Every favour of this kind was called an indulgence or pardon. After the bishops had enjoyed this privilege for some centuries, and had begun to abuse it, the popes discovered that in their own hands it might be rendered a powerful instrument to promote both their ambition and their avarice. They could not but perceive that if they could persuade men they had the power of granting pardon for sin, it would give them a complete influence over their consciences; and if they could at the same time prevail upon them to purchase these pardons for money, it must add greatly to the wealth of the Roman see. In the eleventh century, therefore, when the dominion of the popes was rising to its zenith, and their power was almost irresistible, they took to themselves the exclusive prerogative of dispensing indulgences, which they carried to a most unwarrantable length. Instead of confining them, according to their original institution, to the ordinary purposes of ecclesiastical discipline, they extended them to the punishment of the wicked in the world to come; instead of shortening the duration of earthly penance, they pretended that they could deliver men from the pains of purgatory; instead of allowing them gratuitously, and upon just grounds, to the penitent offender, they sold them in the most open and corrupt manner to the profligate and abandoned, who still continued in their vices. They did not scruple to call these indulgences a plenary remission of all sins, past, present, and future, and to offer them as a certain and immediate passport from the troubles of this world to the eternal joys of heaven. To give some sort of colour and support to this infamous traffic, they confidently asserted that the superabundant merits of Christ, and of his faithful servants, formed a fund of which the pope was the sole manager; and that he could, at his own discretion, dispense those merits, as the sure means of procuring pardon from God, in any proportions, for any species of wickedness, and to any person he pleased. The bare statement of this doctrine is a sufficient refutation of it; and it is scarcely necessary to add, that it has no foundation whatever in Scripture. It is an arrogant and impious usurpation of a power which belongs to God alone; and it has an obvious tendency to promote licentiousness and sin of every description, by holding out an easy and certain method of absolution. The popes derived very large sums from the sale of these indulgences; and it is well known that the gross abuses practised in granting them were among the immediate and principal causes of bringing about the reformation. They continue still to be sold at Rome, and are to be purchased by any who are weak enough to buy them. The sums required for indulgences were first published by Anthony Egane, a Franciscan friar, in 1673; and the original pamphlet was republished by Baron Maseres, in 1809, in his last volume of Occasional Essays.