صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

I

THE COUNTER-REFORMATION AND THE

DOCTRINE OF GRACE

Romans iii. 24: Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

LET us think of that memorable year, the year of our Lord 1521. In that year the terrible army of the Turks began to threaten central Europe. In that year a European empire first annexed a great part of the new world. In that year died Pope Leo X and with him the Papacy of the Renaissance began to descend into the grave. And in 1521 Martin Luther was finally excommunicated, and Ignatius de Loyola was converted. On the one side was the German friar who had burnt the Pope's bull with theatrical display in front of an enthusiastic mob. On the other side was a soldier of Spain lying sick, taking a turn for the better when almost at the point of death, reading the life of Christ and resolving to be His penitent servant.

Now Martin Luther and Ignatius de Loyola did what they did, and we are what we are, because Leo X had been in want of money. The late Pope Julius II had determined to rebuild the venerable basilica which Constantine erected near to the circus of Nero where St. Peter was crucified; and to raise funds for a grandiose new church Leo 'published indulgences throughout the Christian regions'. Indulgentia in Christian Latin meant forgiveness or remission, or, as our forefathers called it, a 'pardon'. And Luther in Germany and Zwingli in Switzerland separately began a revolution by attacking, not indulgences, but the granting of indulgences as a means of raising money. Leo X had previously offered an indulgence for all sins and 'reconciliation with the most High' without even mentioning confession

=

or contrition, and, if not in intention, yet in effect, the preaching of indulgences in Germany by Tetzel meant that the pardon won by the precious blood of Christ could be secured for the souls in purgatory by a piece of money and a paper certificate.

It is evident that the whole question of the Pope's authority is involved in the theory of these indulgences, whether that theory be unimpeachable or not. And it is now freely stated by Roman Catholic writers that indulgences were converted into 'money transactions' and a 'traffic', and that the greatest abuses prevailed. In fact the discipline which had originally existed for the purpose of deepening repentance for sins had been made into a system for doubling the revenue of the Papal States. We must briefly notice some stages in this miserable decline.

In the primitive Church a Christian who had committed a heinous sin, especially such sins as fornication or idolatry, and then repented and confessed his sin to his bishop or a priest appointed by the bishop, had to undergo a course of penitential discipline of prayer and fasting before he received absolution and was once again permitted to receive the holy communion. So high was the moral standard demanded by the Church that it was not until late in the fourth century that the question was even raised whether a person who had sinned against the second or the seventh commandment should receive absolution for a second offence. It rested with the local Church to determine whether the spiritual condition of the penitent demanded a long discipline or justified some indulgence and a comparatively early absolution and remission of this temporal chastisement.1

By the end of the Middle Ages this wholesome system

1 For the early history of Penance see Pierre Batiffol, 'Les Origines de la Pénitence' in Études d'Histoire et de Théologie Positive (Lecoffre, Paris,

had become seriously corrupted by a combination of different evils. It was not a corruption that the Keltic practice of treating the whole process of confession and penance as strictly private had gradually spread from the British Isles to the south of Europe.1 But it was a corruption that absolution for heinous sins was granted before the penitent had undergone any adequate testing or discipline and that donations in money were sometimes regarded as a suitable reparation for ill-doing. Moreover, the whole subject became involved in a very precarious doctrine concerning purgatory and the merits of the saints.

The penitent was taught that though he was forgiven as Moses and David were forgiven, yet, like them, he must be prepared to suffer some temporal punishment. He must make amends to God whose majesty had been outraged. If he did not pay to God this satisfaction while he lived, he must after death before he entered heaven pay it by suffering the torments of purgatory. And this was understood to mean that he must undergo something more than the discipline, the formative trials, which God sends us for the good of our character even when a sin has been forgiven. It meant the payment of an expiation by bitter suffering, an agony like the agony of hell, although the Roman canon 11 May of the mass, full of primitive doctrine, speaks of the faithfuls of the departed as resting in the sleep of peace. Could this awful punishment be mitigated or escaped? Rome said 'Yes; the Church has an inexhaustible treasure, not only in the infinite merits of Christ, but in the works which the saints have done over and above what was necessary for their salvation. Part of this overplus might be credited to the repentant sinner.' And in 1343 Pope Clement VI announced in virtue of this treasure a full pardon of sins to pilgrims who were truly penitent and had confessed.

1 See O. D. Watkins, A History of Penance, vol. ii, pp. 750 ff. (Longmans, London, 1920).

[ocr errors]

fait for
Cepar

peace

the

[ocr errors]

Then the question arose, May an indulgence be sought for a father, a mother, a child no longer living? Again Rome said 'Yes'. In 1476 Pope Sixtus IV wrote that if parents and friends who wished to help those who were exposed to the fire of purgatory for the expiation of sins' would pay 'a certain sum of money' for the repair of the church at Xanten, he willed that the money should avail per modum suffragii for the souls aforesaid. The donation was to be considered as a recommendation to the Almighty for a plenary remission of punishment. This is the first known instance of an indulgence being applied to the souls in purgatory, and it gave rise to dreams of avarice which in the next century hardened into one of the worst scandals in Christian history.

When Julius II died, 70,000 ducats had already been spent on the new basilica of St. Peter and it was still far from completion. Leo X, a patron of the arts, wanted to complete it, and Albert of Brandenburg had been elected to the great position of Archbishop of Mainz. Albert had to pay a huge sum before the Pope would give him the pallium, the narrow scarf which had originally been a decoration given as a compliment, but had become a symbol of metropolitan jurisdiction. He had to borrow money through bankers in Augsburg, and it was arranged that in consideration of a cash payment to the Pope of 10,000 ducats, Albert's agents might dispose of indulgences. Half the proceeds were to go to the Pope and the rest was to be retained by the Archbishop. The bargain was concluded on April the 15th, 1515. The Dominican John Tetzel was entrusted with the task of preaching up the indulgences, and he was accompanied by an agent of the bankers. Among the blessings promised to the donors of money was a plenary remission of all sins and all punishment due to sin. For this an expression of penitence was necessary. But for the souls already in purgatory a plenary indulgence

« السابقةمتابعة »