Canonical purgation is called that which is consonant with the rules of ecclesiastical law. It is twofold. One kind is by oath, in which there is nothing of lot. Only the heretics reject this kind, who contend that it is never lawful to swear, not even in court. Against them Alfonsus de Castro may be read, Cochlaeus against the Anabaptists, and Gregory of Valencia. This purgation is proved also, as regards lay persons, in the Council of Tribur; and Cromer likewise testifies that Sophia, queen of Poland, when accused of adultery, purged herself by her own oath and by the oath of seven honorable and noble women. It is proved also as regards priests and bishops by the constitution of Gregory the Great, who ordered various bishops to purge themselves in this way. Alexander, Innocent, and Leo established the same, and pontiffs sanctioned the same in the Councils of Agde and Lerida; Sixtus III, Leo III, and Pope Pelagius themselves did the same.
[margin: Alfonsus de Castro on oaths; Cochlaeus against the Anabaptists; Gregory of Valencia on II-II, disputation 6, question 7, point 7, on oaths; the Council of Tribur; Cromer, History of Poland, book 19, on Queen Sophia’s oath-purgation]
[margin: Canon-law authorities on episcopal and priestly purgation by oath, chiefly under 2 question 4: Gregory the Great, Alexander, Innocent, Leo, the Councils of Agde and Lerida, Sixtus III, Leo III, and Pelagius; visible chapter cues include c. si quis presbyter, c. super causa, c. quoties, c. omnibus, c. si legi, c. mandatis, c. auditu, c. saepe contingit, and c. si Episcopus]
The other purgation is through receiving the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist. We Catholics contend that this is lawful when it is enjoined by a competent ecclesiastical judge. In the old councils of Germany this purgation was approved. For it was there established that if theft is committed in a monastery, the brothers should purge themselves in this way:
Let Mass be celebrated in their presence, and when it is completed let all communicate in these words: “May the body of the Lord be for you today as a proof.” Likewise, if some misdeed is imputed to a bishop or priest, he must celebrate Mass and communicate for each charge, and show himself innocent of each thing imputed. But if he does not do this, let him be held an alien from the thresholds of the Church for five years.
Nor are examples lacking of excellent pontiffs who required this purgation. King Lotharius had not kept his agreements with Pope Nicholas, but had brought the adulteress back again to a share in his marriage bed. He went to Rome and sought absolution from Pope Hadrian, saying that he had stood by the promises made to Nicholas. “For the proof of his innocence,” says Sigebert, “the pontiff invited both the king and the chief men of the kingdom to the examination of the body and blood of the Lord. They, fearing God not at all, received the body of our Lord rashly and wrongly; but the king, dying immediately on the journey at Placentia, and all the rest, perished within a year.”
[margin: Sigebert in the Chronicle, year 870, on Lotharius and Pope Hadrian; German council chapters on Eucharistic purgation of monks, bishops, and priests]
The emperor Henry was a bad man, but nevertheless he shrank from committing a similar sacrilege when Pope Gregory VII, a pontiff as holy as he was hateful to all wicked men and as religious as he was always hateful to heretics, invited him to a like purgation by the venerable sacrament. Lambert of Hersfeld narrates the history in these words:
[margin: Lambert of Hersfeld, also called Lambert of Schaffnaburg, annal for 1077, on Gregory VII and Henry IV]
When he, namely Emperor Henry, had thus been absolved from excommunication, the pope celebrated the solemnities of Mass; and when the sacred oblation had been consecrated, he called the king with the rest of the multitude that was present to the altar, and, holding the Lord’s body in his hand, said: “I have long ago received letters from you and your supporters, in which you accused me of having occupied the Apostolic See through the heresy of simony, and of having stained my life by certain other crimes both before my episcopate and after I had received the episcopate, crimes which, according to the decrees of the canons, would have barred all access for me to sacred orders. And although I could refute the accusation by the support of many suitable witnesses, namely of those who have known the whole manner of my life most completely from early age, and of those who were the authors of my promotion to the episcopate, nevertheless, lest I seem to rely on human testimony rather than divine, and so that by a short satisfaction I may remove every scruple of scandal from everyone, behold the Lord’s body which I am about to receive. Let it today be for me a test of my innocence, so that almighty God, by his judgment today, may either absolve me from the suspicion of the crime charged, if I am innocent, or strike me with sudden death if I am guilty.”
Having spoken these and other terrible words, as is customary, by which he called God to witness as the most just judge of his cause and the defender of innocence, he received and ate a portion of the Lord’s body. When it had been most freely consumed, and when the people for some time had cried out in the praises of God, congratulating him on his innocence, at last, after silence had been obtained, he turned to the king and said: “Therefore, my son, if it pleases you, do what you have seen me do. The princes of the German kingdom deafen our ears day by day with their accusations, laying upon you a great mass of capital crimes. Because of these they think you ought to be suspended not only from every administration of public affairs, but also from ecclesiastical communion and from every mode of secular life until your last breath. They also ask earnestly that a day and place be appointed and a hearing granted for canonically discussing the accusations which they bring against you. And you know very well that human judgments often waver, and that in public debates falsehood is sometimes persuaded as truth, since according to the talents, abundance of speech, and charm of eloquent men, falsehood adorned with the trappings of words is willingly heard, while truth, relying on no supports of eloquence, is despised. Since therefore I wish you well, because in your calamities you have sought the aid of the Apostolic See as a suppliant, do what I advise. If you know yourself innocent, and that your reputation is attacked by your rivals through false accusations and calumny, free both the Church of God from scandal and yourself from the ambiguity of a long contest in a brief way, and receive this remaining part of the Lord’s body. Thus, with God as witness, your innocence being proved, every mouth of those unjustly chattering against you will be stopped; and with me henceforth as advocate of your cause and most vigorous defender of your innocence, the princes will be reconciled to you, the kingdom will be restored to you, and all the tempests of civil wars by which the commonwealth has long been vexed will be lulled forever.”
At these unexpected words Henry was thunderstruck, grew hot, and shifted about; and Lambert then follows how he declined to make this test of his innocence.
You have seen, reader, the form of this inquiry; you have seen its causes. Are they not true: that God is the most faithful witness of truth; that in human disputes there is room for deceit; but that a divine inquiry can neither be deceived nor deceive? In the form what is there except what is pious, what is consonant with Sacred Scripture and the divine precepts? The words suit the matter; the matter is instituted and most fittingly directed to the honor of God, the peace of the Church, the establishment of concord and justice, and the removal of scandals and schisms. Why then does a worthless pettifogger bark against the highest prelates of the Church? Why does a frog try to swell against an elephant? Why does that Sacramentarian call this “a furious kind of exploratory trial,” and call bishops “sacramental bishops” in mockery? He offers one reason, and one without reason: because, he says, that which was thought to have been instituted for salvation is thus converted into execration and destruction.
[margin: Hotman, Calvinist, Commentary on Feudal Law, cited for the mockery of “sacramental” bishops and “furious” exploratory proof]
Was it then only thought to have been instituted for salvation, and was it not so instituted? Now Christ is a liar, who openly professed this? Are these not his words: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”? If salvation is in me, and I am in the Savior, shall I only be thought saved, and not be saved? What of this: “As the living Father has sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me shall live because of me”? The promise is false if he is merely thought to live. And what of that clearest statement: “Not as your fathers ate manna and died. He who eats this bread shall live forever.” He shall indeed live; he shall live. This was instituted for true and perfect salvation not merely by opinion, but by knowledge, and by faith it is believed. Had not the Truth said: “This is the bread descending from heaven, that if anyone eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread who came down from heaven. If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.” Let him believe that it is not salvation who does not believe that under the species of bread there is flesh. We believe the flesh; we believe the salvation; yet not for every receiver.
[margin: John 6:56-59 cited for Eucharistic abiding, life, and the living bread]
The good receive, the bad receive, Yet with unequal lot: Of life, or of destruction. Death is to the bad, life to the good. See how unlike is the outcome Of a like receiving.
But the wrangler does not believe St. Thomas. Will he not believe the Apostle either? “Whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore many among you are weak and infirm, and many sleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged.” Therefore for those who receive unworthily there has always been destruction and execration: not by institution or by the will of the one instituting, but by the perversity of those receiving, who choose to abuse for death what was given for their salvation. It was instituted at the beginning for eternal life for those who receive worthily. Receive it so; no pontiff will convert it into destruction or execration, none has wished to, none has been able to. Does one who receives it as witness of innocence, though he is guilty, receive worthily? O judgment worthy of a priest of law, but of that priest who, defining justice for us as a goddess in place of the habit or virtue of justice, raised up a new shrine of justice.
[margin: 1 Corinthians 11:27 and following on unworthy reception and self-examination; a marginal cue to a commentary on Justinian’s Institutes appears beside Del Rio’s jibe about justice as a goddess]
What else is proposed in the whole form of purgation than what was sanctioned by St. Paul? Does not this purgation declare: God’s testimony is the best and most certain; let that be brought forward and let it remove the doubt. If you are guilty, do not summon him as witness. If you are innocent, summon him. First prove yourself; judge yourself. Are you guilty? Take care that you do not approach; you will eat damnation, and sacrilegious audacity will bring you ruin. Abstain, I warn and declare. But if, after searching the secrets of conscience, you find that you are aware of nothing against yourself and that no mortal fault makes you grow pale, then come with confidence. He will not fail innocence, who died for the guilty so that he might call them back to innocence. What evil is there in these things? What falsehood?
Nor did God fail the innocent; by this inquiry he purged them, but he slew the guilty. He absolved Gregory VII; he condemned Lotharius. He absolved, among the Morini, the nobleman Erkimbald of Bourbon, whom Cantipratensis calls a count. Fixed to his bed, this man learned that violence had been offered to a virgin by his nephew, though others contend it was his son. No one dared accuse, much less punish, the lord’s heir. What was the sick man to do? Should he neglect justice? God had handed him the sword for vengeance on evildoers. No one is found to kill his nephew. If he does it himself, there must be deceit, and he will be called a parricide. “I shall be called that,” he says, “but by men, though I am to be the executioner of my own blood; but in the eyes of the Lord I shall be a just avenger, a defender of justice. Is he not guilty because he is my nephew? I shall lack an heir; the Lord, whom I serve and whose glory I set before my own affections, will provide.” With this mind he hid a dagger under his pillow and called the nephew as though he were to give him his final counsels and commands. The young man came on the fifth day, hoping his uncle was reconciled. He approached and put his ear to the head of the one asking it. The uncle, in place of a kiss, thrust the dagger into his throat and did not stop pressing until he saw him breathe out his life. “Receive this victim of justice, God,” he added, “offered to you. You know how great a magnitude of grief torments the paternal love in my mind and bowels; but love of you has conquered.”
Shortly afterward, seeing that his strength was failing, he went through confession. He was silent about the killing of his nephew, which was fresh in everyone’s mouth. The bishop asked the cause of the silence: whether he had forgotten, or at least now accused himself and was sorry in mind? Bourbon replied that he believed the deed just, and that he did not wish what he thought meritorious to be undone. The bishop, detesting his obstinacy, as he thought it, returned to the church. The sick man called him back. Then he said to him as he returned: “Father, so that those present with you may understand how different God’s judgments are from men’s, open, I beg you, the pyx in which you bring the pledge of salvation kept safe.” The bishop opened it and did not find the host. To him as he marveled, the sick man showed that he had it in his mouth, given through the mediation of an angel. The story is very well known throughout all Belgium, adorned not only by very old paintings of elegant and careful art in the civic house at Brussels, but also attested by monuments of histories.
[margin: Thomas Cantipratensis, book 2, chapter 36; Fulgosius, book 1, chapter 6; Caesarius, book 9, chapter 38; Crantzius, Saxon Chronicle, book 4, chapter 43; and the Hirsau Chronicle are cited around the Erkimbald/Bourbon and Sibicho examples. The running text also notes old Brussels civic-house paintings and historical monuments for the Erkimbald story]
So also God absolved Sibicho, bishop of Speyer, when he was accused of adultery before Henry III. So often God either corrected by punishments the guilty and those liable to fault when they received unworthily, or did not permit them to receive and pass through. Yet sometimes God permitted this crime to go unpunished for the present, with worthy vengeance delayed to a later time, as the perfidy of the emperor Andronicus in Choniates teaches us. But the hidden abyss of judgments must not be searched by us. Still, this form of purgation was at times removed, because the Eucharist is not to be given to suspected persons.
[margin: Cyprian, sermon On the Lapsed; Gregory of Tours, On the Glory of the Martyrs, book 1, chapter 88; Peter of Cluny, On Miracles, book 1, chapter 25; examples marked chapters 58, 60, and 64; Surius, Life of St. Godfrey, book 3, chapter 12; Choniates at the end of the life of Manuel Comnenus; canon-law chapters dilecti on canonical purgation and tribus on consecration, distinction 2]