][. Srhidastic Doctrine of Indulf/ence.— The practice of inih-.lgence had been going on for some time when the Scliolasiic theologians took it up, and formed a speculative theory to justify it. Three great men con- tributed to this task: Alexander de Hales (q. v.), Al- bertus Magnus (q. v.), and Thomas Aquinas (q. v.). Alexander de Hales (f A.D. 1-245) laid a firm founda- tion for the theory in the doctrine, first fairly propound- ed by him, of the Treasure of the Church {thesaurus ec- ck'sife). It runs as follows : '' The suflferings and death of Christ not only made a sufficient satisfaction for the m\s of men, but also acquired a suiierabnndance 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 thcv likewise jier- formed more than the divine law required of them. Tlie I sum of these supererogatory merits and good works forms a vast treasure, which is disjoined from the persons who won or performed them, exists objectivelv. and, having been accumulated by the Head and members of the Church, and nitendcd by them for its use, l>eloni:s to the Church, and is necessarily placed under the atlmin- istratiou of its representatives, especially the pope, who IS supreme. It is therefore competent for the pope, ac- cording 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 suiiplies of it as thev
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 treasiure. The ad- ministration of this treasure does not pertain to all, but to those only who occupy Christ's place, viz. the bish- ops" (Alex. Hales, Summa, iv, qu. xxiii, art. ii). As re- gards 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 (/. 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 (f 1280), adopting the opinions of his predecessor, designates indidgence the remission of some imposed punishment or penance, proceeding from the power of the keys, and the treasure of the superflu- ous 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 indidgence 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, carrj-ing the con- trary opinion further than is necessary, assert that an indidgence 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 Chinch assigns to it (Alb. Magnus, Senient. lib. iv, d. XX, art. IG).
Thomas Aquinas deduces the efficacy of indulgence directly from Christ. The history of the adulteress shows, he says, that it is in Christ's poiver to remit the penalty of sin without satisfaction, and so could I'aul, 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, aU admit, because the/'e tvould be impiety in representing any act of the Church as nygatorij. The reason of its efficacy, however, lies in the oneness of the mystical body, within the limits of which there are many who, as re- spects 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 f/reatly exceeds the measure of the r/uilt of all the Uviny, especially when augmented by the merit of Christ, which, although op- erative in the sacraments, is not in its operation con- fined 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, sole- ly 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 icho our/ht to dispense indulgence, St. Thomas asserts that no mere priest or pastor, but only the bishop, is competent for the duty. On the other liand, deacons and other parties not in orders, as, for example, nuncios, may grant indul- gence if, either in an ordinary or extraordinarj' way, they have been intrusted with jurisdiction for the pur- pose. For indidgence does not, like sacramental acts, pertain to the power of the keys inherent in the priest- hood, hut to that power of the keys which belongs to jurisdiction (Aquinas, SupiAem. Hi partes SummcB Theo- loffice, qu. xxv-xxvii).