here made of the indulgences attached to adoration
of the relics, etc. On the development of this form of indulgence
see Lea, _Hist. of Conf. and Indulg._, III, 131-194, 234-195, and
Gottlog, _Kreuzablass und Almosenablass_, pp. 195-254.

[16] See Thesis 12.

[17] See Theses 4-6, Note 2.

[18] For Luther's opinion of this distinction, see the Discourse
Concerning Confession elsewhere in the present volume.

[19] "Not even the poorest part of the penance which is called
'satisfaction,' but the remission of the poorest part of
penance." Letter to Staupitz, below.

[20] There is ample proof that in practice the indulgences were
preached as sufficient to secure the purchaser the entire
remission of sin, and the form _a culpa et poena_ was officially
employed in many cases (Cf. Brieger, _Das Wesen des Abiases am
Ausgang des M A._ and PRE3 IX. 83 ff., and Lea, _History of
Confession_, etc., III, 54 ff.). "It is difficult to withstand
the conclution that even in theory indulgences had been declared
to be efficacious for the removal of the guilt of sin in the
presence of God," Lindsay, _History of the Reformation_, I, 226.

[21] It is the basis of this theory that Roman Catholic writers on
indulgences declare them to be "extra-sacramental," i. e., outside
the Sacrament of Penance. So, e.g., Kent, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Art. _Indulgence_.

[22] See Theses 56-58.

[23] The doctrine of the "Treasury of the Church" grew up as a
result of the indulgences. It was an attempt to answer the
question, How can a "satisfaction," which God demands, be waived?
The answer is, By the application of merits earned by Christ and
by the Saints who did more than God requires. These merits form
the Treasury of the Church. Cf. Seeberg, PRE3 XV, 417; Lea,
_Hist. of Confession_, etc., III, 14-28.

[24] See Theses 26.

[25] i. e. A plenary indulgence similar to those granted for
pilgrimage to Rome in Jubilee-years. See above, p.18.

[26] See Theses 53-55.

[27] See Thesis 75.

[28] See Thesis 35.

[29] See Thesis 27.

[30] _Weimar Ed._, I, 63 ff.; _Erl. Ed._, I, 101 ff.

[31] _Weimar Ed._, I, 94 ff,; _Erl. Ed._, I, 171 ff., 177 ff.

[32] See Thesis 1.

[33] See Thesis 4.

[34] See Letter to Archbishop, below. The text of this
Instruction in Kapp, Sammlung, etc. (1721), pp. 117-206.
Tschackert has surmised that even the number of the Theses was
determined by the number of the paragraphs in this Instruction.
There were