Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 2: That there exists in the Church a treasury which is the foundation of indulgences
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo, Book I, a treatise of the Controversies. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
In order to investigate whether indulgences exist, which was the second thing proposed, two things must be inquired. One, whether there exists in the Church some treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints, which can be applied to those who are liable to a punishment still to be paid after the fault has been remitted in the sacrament of Penance. The other, whether there is in the Supreme Pontiff and the other bishops a power of applying this treasury, and in that way of absolving men from the guilt of temporal punishment. For that these two are necessary for constituting indulgences, such as are defended by Catholic authors, no one can deny.
As to the first, then, there were not lacking among the ancient scholastic theologians some who, although they admitted indulgences, nevertheless doubted about the treasury. For Francis of Mayrone, on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 19, question 2, called into doubt the treasury of the superabundant satisfactions of Christ laid up in the Church. And Durandus, on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 3, made it a question whether the satisfactions of the saints belonged to this treasury. But each was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church, if perhaps she thought otherwise. For these are the words of Durandus in the preface of his commentaries on the Master: “And since the interpretation of the doubtful passages of sacred Scripture belongs to the holy Roman and Catholic Church, I submit all my works entirely to her correction.” For the rest, the common opinion of the other theologians, both the older ones, as Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventure, and all the more recent, has always acknowledged the treasury of the satisfactions both of Christ and of the saints; and according to that opinion Clement VI, Supreme Pontiff, a little after the death of Mayrone and Durandus, issued a decree on the matter in the Constitution which begins Unigenitus. But Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other sectaries of this time cited above, as in many other things, so also in the article on the treasury of satisfactions, have departed from the opinion of the Catholic Church and the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff. We therefore, in order to explain and prove the whole matter more easily, shall bring forward some propositions.
First proposition. “In the good actions of just men a double value, or price, can be assigned: namely of merit, and of satisfaction.” Luther, in the assertion of article 17, said that this distinction was a fiction, but he attempted to refute it by no argument. That it is not a fiction, however, but a most true thing, can be demonstrated with little trouble. We say, then, that in one and the same good work, such as almsgiving or fasting, both merit and satisfaction are found, and that one of these can be separated from the other, and neither is hindered by the other. It is proved first from the Scriptures. Almsgiving blots out sin, which is to be satisfactory. Tobias 4: Alms deliver from all sin, and from death. Ecclesiasticus 3: As water quencheth fire, so alms quencheth sin. Saint John Chrysostom, homily 25 on the Acts of the Apostles: “There is no sin,” he says, “which alms cannot purge.” Saint Cyprian in the sermon on almsgiving: “By alms,” he says, “and just works the flame of sins is quenched.” And yet the same almsgiving, because it is a good work and pleasing to God, is meritorious of eternal life, as is plain from Matthew 25: Possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, and so on. Nor can it be answered that it does not belong to the same almsgiving to be both satisfactory and meritorious, but that one is satisfactory and another meritorious. For to be satisfactory belongs to almsgiving because it is a laborious and penal work; to be meritorious belongs to the same because it is a good work done out of charity; and almsgiving is not less good, or less done out of charity, because it is laborious and penal, nor the reverse. Therefore one and the same work bears both fruits.
The same can be said of fasting, for it is truly satisfactory, because penal, as is plain from the deed of the Ninevites in the last chapter of Jonah; and yet it is meritorious if it is done out of charity, since the Lord says in Matthew 6: But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee. And what will he repay, if not a reward? For so a little before it is said of the hypocrites, who desire to be seen by men to fast, Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. The same can be said of prayer. For in the Lord's prayer we ask that our debts be forgiven us, and by this petition we make satisfaction for venial sins, as Saint Augustine affirms in the Enchiridion, chapter 71: “For the daily, brief and light sins,” he says, “without which this life is not lived, the daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction.” And yet of the same prayer the Lord says in the Gospel, chapter 6: But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. Finally, concerning the works of penance in general, that they can be at once satisfactory and meritorious, there is extant a memorable sentence of Saint Cyprian at the end of the sermon on the lapsed: “He who has thus made satisfaction to God, who by penance for his deed, by shame for his fault, has conceived more both of virtue and of faith from the very grief of his fall, being heard and helped by the Lord, will make glad the Church which he had lately saddened, and will now merit not only the pardon of God, but a crown.”
Let us add here to the testimonies reasons drawn from theology. First, a good work done out of charity is meritorious of eternal life, as we have copiously demonstrated in the fifth book on Justification. But nothing is taken away from the goodness and dignity of that work if it is accepted by God as satisfaction for punishment: therefore the same work will be meritorious and satisfactory. Moreover, he who prays for others, and obtains for them the remission of sin or any other benefit of God, certainly does not work less well, nor please God less by so praying, than if he prayed for himself alone; nay, he does better and pleases God more, because he exercises charity at once toward God and toward his neighbour; therefore he does not lose his reward with God, although he has also obtained some benefit for his neighbour by that very work. Wherefore the same prayer can be at once impetratory and meritorious. And if that is so, what prevents its being at once satisfactory and meritorious? For just as he merits with God a worthy reward for his work who by praying out of charity obtains something for his neighbour, so also will he merit with God a worthy reward for his work who, by praying, or fasting, or giving alms out of charity, strives to make satisfaction for the sins of others. Further, if two pious men pray or give alms with equal charity and piety toward God, and to one there is remitted some temporal punishment to which he was liable, while the other needs no remission, I ask whether they acquire for themselves an equal reward in eternal life, or a different one? If equal, then a good work can be at once meritorious and satisfactory, and loses nothing of the nature of merit because the nature of satisfaction is added to it; if different, then a good and meritorious work does not receive its full reward from God. For so little cannot be taken from the reward of eternal life and the increase of grace without that being far more precious and greater than the remission of any temporal punishment whatever. But it is absurd that a good and meritorious work should not receive its full reward from God. Therefore those two men will obtain an equal reward, even though to one alone the temporal punishment is remitted; for to the other it is not remitted, not because it cannot be, but because it is not necessary.
Lastly, a double reward can be owed to one and the same work, the one from commutative justice, the other from distributive: but to a satisfactory work the remission of punishment is owed from commutative justice, and to a meritorious work a reward is owed from distributive justice as to its substance, as Saint Thomas teaches in the first part, question 21, article 1, and in the first book against the Gentiles, chapter 93, although as to its manner it is owed and rendered according to commutative justice, from the same Saint Thomas, in the second part of the second part, question 61, article 4, reply to the first. Therefore one and the same good work can be at once satisfactory and meritorious. The major premise of this argument is most certain, for to the preacher of the Gospel food and clothing are owed from commutative justice. For the labourer is worthy of his hire, Luke 10; and the Apostle affirms, 1 Corinthians 9, that the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel, and to show that this is required according to commutative justice, he calls that reward a stipend: Who, he says, serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges? But to the same preacher a reward in eternal life is owed according to distributive justice. For that is what Scripture promises in 1 Peter 5 when it says: Feed the flock of God which is among you, and when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. Of which reward blessed Paul, speaking in 1 Corinthians 3, says: Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour. We see the same daily in human affairs. For a soldier who bears himself faithfully and bravely in war merits from commutative justice his ordinary pay, and again from distributive justice merits the favour of his general, and that in the distribution of military ranks and honours he be preferred to others who have borne themselves less faithfully or less bravely. And the minor premise of the same argument is no less certain. For that the compensation of punishment belongs to commutative justice is plain from the sacred letters, Deuteronomy 25: According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be. Nor can there be any doubt about this. And that a reward corresponds to the merits of good works according to distributive justice, at least as to substance, the theologians teach from the fact that in the Scriptures God, as a judge, distributes to each according to his works, as appears in Matthew 25 in the parable of the talents, and from that saying of the Apostle, 2 Timothy 4: There is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day; and everywhere in the sacred letters, as in Acts 10, Romans 2, and elsewhere, God is said not to be a respecter of persons, which vice is contrary to distributive justice, as Saint Thomas teaches in the second part of the second part, question 63, article 1. Therefore it is sufficiently established that the same good work can be meritorious of eternal life and at the same time satisfactory for temporal punishment, and not less meritorious because satisfactory.
Second proposition. “A good work, insofar as it is meritorious, cannot be applied to another; it can, however, insofar as it is satisfactory.” The first part of this sentence is beyond controversy; for he is said to merit who works well, and from the good work is worthy of a reward; but it cannot happen that, because one man works well, another should be judged to work well, or be held worthy of a reward. Then, no one can be stripped of his own merit, however much he prays, or fasts, or gives alms for others; therefore he cannot share his merit with others, and this is what the Scriptures everywhere teach when they say, every man shall receive his own reward, 1 Corinthians 3, and thou wilt render to every man according to his works, Psalm 61. Each can indeed by his good works obtain for others some divine benefits; he can also share his good works as regards satisfaction for the guilt of punishment, or as regards the joy which is received from them. For so David affirms that he was a partaker with all that fear God, Psalm 118. But that another should be worthy of a reward from another's merit, or that he who has worked well should be deprived of his merit, cannot happen. The second part of the same sentence can be proved without difficulty. For satisfaction is the compensation of a punishment, or the payment of a debt; but one man can so compensate a punishment or pay a debt for another that the other could deservedly be said to have made satisfaction. Moreover, he who makes satisfaction for another cannot by the same work make satisfaction for himself; therefore he has truly shared his satisfaction with the other. And all this can be illustrated by familiar examples. For a citizen can so pay off the debt of another citizen with his own money that he cannot with the same money pay off some debt of his own at the same time; and again one citizen cannot by his good works bring it about that another citizen is worthy of a magistracy, which belongs to distributive justice, although he can free him from a pecuniary debt, so that he can be said to have made satisfaction if he pays the debt for him, which belongs to commutative justice. So then no one can apply to another his own merit, to which a reward is owed from distributive justice; he can, however, apply satisfaction, which is exacted for punishment from commutative justice.
Third proposition. “There exists in the Church a treasury of satisfactions from the sufferings of Christ, infinite, which can never be exhausted.” This proposition cannot be called into doubt. For the passion of Christ was of infinite price, since it was the passion of an infinite person, namely the Word incarnate. For so the Apostle speaks, Acts 20: Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. So it is God who shed blood for the Church, but he shed it in human flesh hypostatically assumed, as blessed Peter says in his first epistle, chapter 4: Christ having suffered in the flesh. Now the dignity of a satisfaction takes its measure from the dignity of the person making satisfaction, just as the gravity of an offence from the dignity of the person offended. Then, Christ died for all men, as the Apostle writes, 2 Corinthians 5: Christ died for all; and as Saint John says in his first epistle, chapter 2: He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. But it is certain that to all the men who have lived hitherto the price of Christ's death has not in fact been applied for the expiation of their sins; nay, that the greater part of men are given over to eternal death, for many are called, but few chosen, Matthew 20; and, Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat, Matthew 7. There remains, therefore, much of that price which can always be applied, even if it were not infinite, as in truth it is, and it will always overflow. Especially since the whole satisfaction of Christ can be applied to us, since he himself needed no satisfaction for himself, who did no sin, nor could do any. For as the Apostle says to the Hebrews, chapter 7, Christ had no need first to offer sacrifice for his own sins, then for the people's, since he was always holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners; and as the same says, 2 Corinthians 5, he who knew no sin was made sin, that is, a victim for sins. For he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, 1 Peter 2.
Fourth proposition. “To this treasury of superabundant satisfactions belong also the sufferings of the blessed Virgin Mary and of all the other saints who suffered more than their sins required.” This proposition the heretics of our time can in no way bear to hear, and especially John Calvin and Martin Chemnitz, whose arguments we shall solve in their place. We assert, then, that not a few holy men have suffered far more for God and for justice than the guilt of temporal punishment demanded to which they were liable on account of the faults committed by them. For the fault itself, and the guilt of eternal punishment, the Catholic Church teaches to be expiated not by their satisfactions but by the blood of Christ. This truth is proved, first, from the sufferings of the blessed Virgin. For it is agreed that the Virgin Mary was stained by no actual sin; it is also pious to think that she was free from original sin as well, as we have taught elsewhere, but this does not belong to our present matter. That the most holy Virgin was free of actual sin is the common sense of the whole Church, as the Council of Trent affirms, session 6, canon 23. Saint Ambrose also, in the last sermon on Psalm 118, writes that the blessed Virgin was whole from every stain of sin. And Saint Augustine, in the book on nature and grace, chapter 36, says that so much grace was conferred on her that she overcame sin in every respect. Saint Bernard teaches the same in letter 174. The Greek liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom proclaim the Virgin Mary altogether irreproachable and uncontaminated, nay, purer and holier than the Cherubim and Seraphim themselves. Finally, those words of the Canticles, chapter 4, Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee, suit no particular person more fittingly than the blessed Virgin. The Virgin Mary, therefore, needed no satisfaction for herself, and yet she suffered very much for God, and especially when the sword of sorrow passed through her soul, according to the prophecy of Simeon, Luke 2.
Second, the same can be proved from the sufferings of Saint John the Baptist, who, it is agreed, being sanctified in the womb, led a most innocent life, so that he was liable to hardly the lightest and fewest faults, so that not undeservedly it is sung of him:
The caves of the desert in thy tender years
thou didst seek, fleeing the crowds of men,
lest thou shouldst stain thy life with the light
fault of the tongue.
And yet from the Gospel we learn that his whole life was passed so severely and hardly that it could be a pattern of penance to all, and at last that for the truth he suffered chains, prison, and the cutting off of his very head. Wherefore it cannot be called into doubt that an altogether immense heap of sufferings was left over to him, which he himself did not need for expiating his own sins. Third, the same can be shown from the sufferings of the holy prophets. For they were all most holy men, so that they had need of an altogether moderate satisfaction for their faults; and yet they were oppressed by so many straits and afflictions that they could have expiated very many and very great sins. Of himself blessed Job, one of the most ancient prophets, says thus, chapter 6: O that my sins, whereby I have deserved wrath, and the calamity that I suffer, were weighed in a balance. As the sand of the sea this would appear heavier. Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other most holy prophets could have said the like, who bore the gravest persecutions from the impious, or even death itself. For of these the Apostle writes to the Hebrews, chapter 11: And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. Fourth, the same can be most clearly demonstrated from the sufferings of the Apostles. For of himself blessed Paul, in the second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11: They are the ministers of Christ, and I, as one less wise, say so: I am more; in many more labours, in prisons more frequently, in stripes above measure, in deaths often, and so on. And yet how little he himself owed in satisfaction for his own faults he indicates in the first to the Corinthians, chapter 4, when he says, I am not conscious to myself of any thing; and 2 Corinthians 1: For our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity of heart and sincerity of God we have conversed in this world. And of all the Apostles the same blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 4: I think, he says, that God hath set forth us apostles, the last, as it were men appointed to death. And below: Even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no fixed abode; and we labour, working with our own hands: we are reviled, and we bless; we are blasphemed, and we entreat; we are made as the refuse of this world, the offscouring of all even until now.
Fifth, the same is proved from the sufferings of the martyrs, who were plainly innumerable. For it is agreed that martyrdom is so full a satisfaction that it can expiate the guilt contracted from however great a number and magnitude of sins. For provided it is agreed that someone is truly a martyr, the Church does not hesitate to number him among the saints and blessed, even if before his martyrdom he had been covered with many crimes. For the Lord's promise is general, Matthew 10: Every one that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father. And: He that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. Wherefore blessed Cyprian, book 4, letter 2, affirms that all martyrs ascend to heaven immediately after death to receive their crown. Saint Augustine also, tractate 84 on John, says that in the Church there is no prayer for the martyrs, since we ought rather to be commended by their prayers; and in sermon 17 on the words of the Apostle: “He does an injury to a martyr,” he says, “who prays for a martyr.” Innocent writes the same in the chapter Cum Marthae, on the celebration of masses, nor does any Catholic contradict it. Since, then, martyrdom can expiate all guilt however grave, and many martyrs had the lightest guilt, or even none, at the very time of their martyrdom, it certainly follows that an immense heap of satisfactions was left over to the martyrs. Sixth and last, the same is proved from the very many and very great fruits of penance which so many holy confessors have brought forth, and especially the hermits, who for a very long time led a most holy and most laborious, that is, a most harsh and hard life, who without doubt contributed altogether much in satisfactions to this spiritual treasury.
Wherefore Pope Clement VI rightly declared, in the Extravagant Constitution which begins Unigenitus, under the title on penances and remissions, that there exists in the Church a spiritual treasury gathered from the sufferings of Christ and of all the saints. By which name of treasury we understand nothing else than the very many sufferings which those who bore them did not need for expiating their own offences, and which nevertheless have not perished nor been given over to oblivion, but live and remain before the eyes of God.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Exstare thesaurum aliquem in Ecclesia, qui sit indulgentiarum fundamentum. Ut investigemus an indulgentiae sint, quod erat secundo loco propositum, duo quaeren¬ da sunt. Unum, an exstet in Ecclesia thesau¬ rus aliquis satisfactionum Christi et sancto¬ rum, qui applicari possit iis, qui rei sunt poenae luendae post culpam in sacramento Poenitentiae remissam. Alterum, an sit in Pontifice Maximo, aliisque Episcopis pote¬ stas applicandi hunc thesaurum, et eo mo¬ do absolvendi homines a reatu poenae tem¬ poralis. Nam haec duo necessaria esse ad indulgentias constituendas, quales a Catho¬ licis auctoribus defenduntur, nemo negare potest. Quod igitur ad primum attinet, non de¬ fuerunt ex antiquis Theologis scholasticis, qui tametsi indulgentias admitterent, tamen de thesauro dubitarent . Nam Franciscus Maironis in 4. sent. dist. 19. quaest. 2. the¬ saurum satisfactionum Christi supereffluen¬ tium, et apud Ecclesiam reconditarum, in dubium revocavit. Durandus vero in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 3. in quaestionem vertit, an ad hunc thesaurum pertinerent satisfactio¬ nes sanctorum. Uterque autem paratus erat judicio Ecclesiae acquiescere, si forte aliter saperet. Haec enim sunt verba Durandi in praefatione Commentariorum suorum in Ma¬ gistrum : « Et quoniam interpretatio dubio¬ rum sacrae Scripturae ad sanctam Ecclesiam I.IBEft I. 1$ Komanam, et Catholicam pertinet, omnia opera ejus correctioni totaliter suppono». Caeterum communis aliorum Theologorum, tum antiquiorum, ut sancti 1 horna* , et S. Bonaventurse, tum recentiorum omnium sententia, thesaurum sat 'sfactionum tum Christi, tum sanctorum scmpcr agnovit, et secundum eam sententiam Clemens Vi Pon¬ tifex Maximus paulo post obitum Maironis, et Durandi, de ea re decretum edidit, in Constitutione, quae incipit, Unigenitus. C feterum Martinus Lutherus, Joannes Calvinus, et alii supra citati hujus temporis sectarii, ut in aliis rebus multis, sic etiam in articulo de thesauro satisfactionum ab Ecclesia? Catholica? sententia, ut Pontificis Maximi judicio recesserunt. Nos igitur ut rem totam facilius explicemus et probemus, aliquot propositiones in medium adferc- mus. Prima propositio. « In bonis actionibus hominum justorum duplex valor, sive pre¬ tium assignari potest, meriti videlicet, et satisfactionis ». Hanc distinctionem Luthe¬ rus in assertione art. 17. figmentum esse dixit, sed nullo argumento eam refutare tentavit. Non esse autem figmentum, sed rem verissimam, parvo negotio demonstrari potest. Dicimus igitur, in uno, atque eodem opere bono, ut eleemosyna, vel jejunio, et meritum, et satisfactionem reperiri, et unum horum ab altero sejungi posse, neque unum ab altero impediri. Probatur primum ex Scripturis. Eleemosyna delet peccatum, quod est satisfactorium esse. Job. iv. Elee- mosyna ab omni peccato, et a morte Uberat. Ecclesiastici, m. Sicut aqua extinguit ignem , ita eleemosyna extinguit peccatum (1). San¬ ctus Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 25. in Acta Apostolorum : «Non est, inquit, pec¬ catum, quod non possit purgare eleemosy¬ na ». Sanctus Cyprianus in serm. de elee¬ mosyna : « Eleemosynis, inquit, atque ope¬ ribus justis, delictorum flamma sopitur». Et tamen eadem eleemosyna, quia est opus bonum, et Deo gratum, meritoria est vita? a?ternse, ut perspicuum est ex c. xxv. Mattb. Percipite regnum , quod vobis paratum est ab origine mundi. Esurivi enim, et dedistis mihi manducare , etc. (2). Neque responderi po¬ test, non convenire eidem eleemosyna?, ut sit satisfactoria, et meritoria, sed aliam esse satisfacto riam, et aliam meritoriam. Nam esse satisfactorium convenit eleemosyna?, quia 'est opus laboriosum, et pcenalc; esse meritorium convenit eidem, quia est opus bonum ex charitate factum ; non est autem eleemosyna minus bona et ex charitate facta, quia laboriosa et pcena is, neque contra. Igi¬ tur una et eadem utrumque fructum parit. Idem dici potest de jejunio, est enim vere satisfactorium, quia poenale, ut perspicuum est ex facto Ninivitarum, Jonse ultimo, et tamen est meritorium, si fiat ex charitate, cum Dominus dicat Matth. vi. Tu autem cum jejunas , unge caput tuum , ct faciem tuam lava , ne videaris hominibus jejunans, sed Pa¬ tri tuo, qui est in abscondito , ct Pater tuus, equi videt in abscondito , redde * tibi (3). Quid autem reddet, nisi mercedein ? Sic enim paulo ante de hypocritis dicitur, qui cupiunt videri ab hominibus jejunantes , omen dico vobis receperunt mercedein suam. Idem de oratione dici potest. Nam in oratione Domi¬ nica petimus ut dimittantur nobis debita nostra, atque hac petitione satisfacimus pro peccatis venialibus, ut sanctus Augustinus affirmat in Enchiridio cap. 71 : «De quoti¬ dianis, inquit, brevibus, levibusque pecca¬ tis, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quoti¬ diana fidelium oratio satisfacit ». Et tamen de eadem oratione Dominus dicit in Evange- lio cap. vi. Tu autem cum oraveris, intra in cubiculum tuum, et clauso ostio , ora Patrem tuum in abscondito, et Pater tuus, qui videt in abscondito, reddet tibi (4). Denique de operi- ribus poenitentia? generatim quod simul satis- factoria et meritoria esse possint, exstat memo¬ rabilis sententia sancti Cypriani in serm. de Lapsis extremo. « Qui sic Deo satisfecerit, qui poenitentia facti, sui, qui pudore delicti plus et virtutis et fidei de ipso lapsus sui dolore conceperit, exauditus, et adjutus a Domino, quam contristaverat nuper, la?tam faciet Ecclesiam, nec jam solam Dei veniam merebitur, sed coronam ». Addamus hic testimoniis rationes ex Theologia petitas. Principio, opus bonum ex charitate factum meritorium est vita? mterna?, ut copiose de¬ monstravimus lib. v. de justificatione. At nihil detrahitur de bonitate, et dignitate ejus operis, si acceptetur a Deo ad satisfactionem pro poena : igitur idem opus meritorium et satisfactorium erit. Ad ha?c, qui orat pro aliis, eisque impetrat remissionem peccati, vel quodvis aliud beneficium Dei, certe non (I) Job. IV, 11 ; Eccl. III, 33. (2) Matth. XXV, 34. — (3) Matth. VI, 10. - (4) Matth. VI, 0. OAPUI ii. minus bene operatur, et Deo placet ita oran¬ do, quam si pro se tantum oraret, immo me¬ lius facit, ac magis Deo placet, quia simul exercet charitatcm in Deum et in proximum, ig tur non perdit mercedem suam apud Deum, quamvis etiam proximo beneficium aliquod illo ipso opere impetraverit. Quare poterit eadem oratio simul esse impetrato- ria, et meritoria. Quod si ita est, quid im¬ pedit quo minus possit esse simul satisfacto- ria et meritoria? Quemadmodum enim ille meretur apud Deum dignam operis sui mer¬ cedem, qui ex charitate orando impetrat aliquid proximo : sic etiam merebitur apud Deum dignam operis sui mercedem, qui ex charitate orando, vel jejunando, vel elee¬ mosynas tribuendo, pro aliorum peccatis nititur satisfacere. Praeterea, si duo pii viri cum aequali charitate et pietate erga Deum orent, aut eleemosynas tribuant, et uni remittatur poena aliqua temporalis, cui erat obnoxius, ad ter non egeat ulla remissione, quaero, an par praemium in vita aeterna sibi acquirant, an diversum? Si par, igitur opus bonum meritorium, et satisfactorium simul esse potest, neque aliquid amittit de ratione meriti, propterea quod ratio satisfactionis accedat : si diversum, igitur opus bonum, aut meritorum non integram a Deo merce¬ dem accipit. Nam non potest tam parum detrahi de praemio vitae aeternae, et augmenti gratiae, quin sit illud multo pretiosius, et majus quam remissio cujuscumque poenae temporalis. Est autem absurdum, opus bo¬ num, et meritorium, non accipere a Deo in¬ tegram mercedem. Igitur par praemium duo illi viri obtinebunt, etiamsi alteri tantum poma temporalis remittatur ; nam alteri non remittitur, non quia non possit, sed quia non est necesse. Postremo, potest uni atque eidem operi duplex merces deberi, altera ex justitia commutativa, altera ex distributiva : atqui operi satisfactorio debetur remissio poenae ex justitia commutativa, operi meritorio debe¬ tur praemium ex justitia distributiva secun¬ dum substantiam, ut sanctus Thomas docet in I. par. quaest. 21. art. 1. et lib. i. contra Gentes c. 93. quamvis secundum modum debeatur, et reddatur secundum commuta- tivam, ex eodem sancto Thoma, in 2. 2. quaest. 61. art. 4. ad primum. Igitur potest unum atque idem opus bonum simul satis¬ fit factorium esse, et meritorium. Propositio hujus argumenti certissima est, nam evan- gelizanti debetur ex justitia commutativa victus et vestitus. Dignus est enim operarius mercede sua , Luc. x. et Apostolus affirmat I Corinth. ix. Dominum ordinasse, ut qui Evangelium annunciant, de Evangelio vi¬ vant, ac ut ostendat, id exigi secundum ju¬ stitiam commutati vam, mercedem illam sti¬ pendium appellat : Quis, inquit, militat suis stipendiis unquam? Eidem vero evangelizanti debetur praemium in aeterna vita secundum justitiam distributivam. Id enim est quod promittit Scriptura I Petri ii. cum ait : Pa¬ scite, qui in vobis est gregem Dei, et cum. apparuerit Princeps Pastorum, accipietis im¬ marcescibilem gloriae coronam. De quo prae¬ mio loquens B. Paulus I Corinth. iii. Unus¬ quisque, inquit, mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem (1). Idem etiam quotidie vide¬ mus in rebus humanis. Miles enim, qui fide¬ liter, fortiterque se gerit in bello, meretur ex justitia commutativa stipendium ordina¬ rium, et rursus ex distributiva meretur gra¬ tiam ducis, ac ut in distributione graduum, atque honorum militarium aliis praeferatur, qui minus fideliter, aut minus fortiter se gesserunt. Poito assumptio ejusdem argu¬ menti non minus est certa. Quod enim com¬ pensatio poenae pertineat ad justitiam com- mutativam perspicuum est ex sacris litteris Deuter. xxv. Pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Neque de hac re ulla dubitatio esse potest. Quod autem meritis operum bonorum respondeat praemium se¬ cundum justitiam distributivam saltem se¬ cundum substantiam, docent theologi ex eo quod in Scripturis Deus, ut judex distribuit unicuique secundum opera sua , ut patet Matth. xxv. in parabola de talentis, et ex illo Apostoli II Timoth. iv. Reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die justus judex (2), et passim in sacris litteris, ut Act. x. Rom. n. et alibi dicitur Deus non esse acceptator personarum. Quod vitium contrarium est justitiae distributiva?, ut S. Thomas docet in 2. 2. q. 63. artic. 1. Igitur satis constat, idem opus bonum posse meritorium esse vitae aeternae, et simul sa¬ tisfactorium pro temporali poma, nec minus meritorium, quia satisfactorium. Secunda propositio. « Opus bonum, qua parte meritorium est, non potest alii appli- (1) Luc. X, 7 ; I Corin. IX, 7 ; l Pet. V, 2 ; I Corin. III, 8. - (2) 1 Tim. IV, 8. 20 LIBER I. cari : potest tamen, qua satisfactorium est». Prior hujus sententiae pars extra controver¬ siam est; nam is dicitur mereri qui bene operatur, et ex bono opere dignus estp-rn- mio : non potest autem fieri, ut ex eo quod unus bene operatur, alter censeatur bene operari, vel dignus praemio habeatur. Deinde nemo potest proprio merito spoliari, quan¬ tumvis pro aliis oret, vel jejunet, vel elee¬ mosynas faciat, non igitur meritum suum cum aliis communicare potest, et hoc est quod Scripturae passim docent, cum dicunt, unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet I Corinth. m. et reddet unicuique secundum opera sua, Psalm. lxi. Potest quidem unus¬ quisque per opera sua bona impetrare aliis divina aliqua beneficia ; potest etiam com¬ municare opera sua bona, quod attinet ad satisfactionem pro reatu poenae, vel ad gau¬ dium, quod inde percipitur. Sic enim David affirmat, se participem fuisse omnium timen¬ tium Deum, Psalm. cxvm. Sed ut alius ex merito alterius sit dignus praemio, vel ut qui bene operatus est, merito suo privetur, fieri non potest. Posterior pars ejusdem senten¬ tiae non difticulter probari potest. Nam sa¬ tisfactio est compensatio poenae, vel solutio debiti : potest autem unus ita pro alio poe¬ nam compensare, ^el debitum solvere, ut ille satisfecisse merito dici posset. Praeterea, qui pro alio satisfacit, non potest eodem opere pro se satisfacere, igitur vere satis¬ factionem suam cum altero communicavit. Et possunt haec omnia familiaribus exemplis illustrari. Nam potest civis propria pecunia debitum alterius civis ita dissolvere, ut non possit eadem pecunia debitum aliquod suum simul dissolvere : et rursus non potest unus civis bonis operibus suis efficere, ut alius civis dignus sit Magistratu, quod ad justi¬ tiam distributivam pertinet, cum tamen pos¬ sit debito pecuniario eum liberare, ut satis¬ fecisse dici possit, si pro eo debitum solvat, quod pertinet ad commutati vam. Sic igitur nemo potest meritum proprium , cui debe¬ tur prsemium ex justitia distributiva, alteri applicare, potest tamen applicare satisfactio¬ nem, qua} ex justitia commutati va exigitur pro poena. Tertia propositio.» Exstat in Ecclesia the¬ saurus satisfactionum ex Christi passionibus infinitus, qui numquam exhauriri poterit». Hmc propositio in dubium revocari non po¬ test. Nam Christi passio pretii fuit infiniti, cum esset passio personse infinitae, Verbi videlicet incarnati. Sic enim loquitur Apo¬ stolus Actor, xx. Attendite vobis , et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Epi¬ scopos regere Ecclesiam Dei , quam acquisivit sanguine suo (1). Itaque Deus est, qui san¬ guinem fudit pro Ecclesia, sed in carne humana hypostatice assumpta illum fudit, ut ait B. Petrus in priori epistol. cap. iv. Christo , inquit, in carne passo. Dignitas autem satisfactionis mensuram accipit a di¬ gnitate personm satisfacientis, quemadmo¬ dum gravitas offensionis a dignitate perso¬ nae Imsae. Deinde Christus pro hominibus omnibus mortuus est, ut Apostolus scribit I Corinth. v : Pro omnibus , inquit, mortuus est Christus ; et ut ait S. Joannes in priori epist. cap. n. Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris , non pro nostris autem tantum , sed etiam pro totius mundi (2). Certum est autem non omnibus hominibus, qui hactenus vixe¬ runt , pretium mortis Christi reipsa appli¬ catum non fuisse ad eorum expianda pec¬ cata, immo majorem partem hominum morti aeternte addictam esse, multi enim sunt vo¬ cati ', pauci vero electi. Matth. xx. Et : lata est porta, et spatiosa via, quae ducit ad perdi¬ tionem, , et multi ingrediuntur per eam. Mat¬ th. vii. (3). Superest igitur multum illius pretii, quod semper applicari possit, etiam si infinitum non esset, sicut revera est, et semper redundabit. Praesertim cum tota Christi satisfactio nobis applicari possit, cum ipse per se nulla satisfactione indiguerit, qui peccatum non fecit, nec facere potuit. Nam ut dicit Apostolus ad Hebr. vii. non habuit Christus necesse prius pro suis delictis sa¬ crificium offerre, deinde pro populi, cum fuerit semper sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus, et ut idem ait II Corinth. v. factus est peccatum, id est , hostia pro peccatis is, qui peccatum non noverat. Ipse enim peccatum non fecit , nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus. I Petri it. (4).. Quarta propositio. « Ad hunc thesaurum superfluentium satisfactionum , pertinent etiam passiones B. Mariae Virginis, et om¬ nium aliorum sanctorum , qui plus passi sunt, quam eorum peccata requirerent». Hanc propositionem nullo modo audire pos- Q) Act. XX, 28. - (2) II Cor. V, 14; I Joan. II, 2. - (3) Mat. XX, 16 : Math. VII, 13. — [\) II Cor. V. 21 ; i Pet. II, 22. CAPUT n. 21 sunt hteretici ffbstri temporis, ac potissimum Joannes Calvinus, et Martinus Kemnitius, quorum argumenta suo loco solvemus. As¬ serimus igitur non paucos sanctos homines multo plura propter Deum, et justitiam esse perpessos, quam exigeret reatus poenae tem¬ poralis, cui fuerunt obnoxii propter culpas ab ipsis commissas. Nam culpam ipsam, et reatum poense sempiternae non ipsorum sa¬ tisfactionibus, sed Christi sanguine expiari Ecclesia Catholica docet. Probatur haec ve¬ ritas, primum ex passionibus B. Virginis. Constat enim Virginem Mariam nullo actuali peccato maculatam fuisse, pium quoque est existimare, ab originali quoque peccato im- munem illam fuisse, ut alibi docuimus, sed hoc in praesenti ad rem nostram non perti¬ net. Actuali autem peccato caruisse Virgi¬ nem sanctissimam, communis est totius Ec¬ clesiae sensus, ut Concilium Tridentinum affirmat sess. 6. can. 23. Sanctus quoque Ambrosius serm. ult. in Psalm. cxvnr. scri¬ bit B. Virginem fuisse ab omni integram labe peccati. Et S. Augustinus lib. de natura et gratia cap. 36. dicit ei tantum gratiae colla¬ tum, ut peccatum omni ex parte vinceret. Quod idem docet S. Bernardus in epist. 174. Liturgiae Graecorum Basilii et Cbrysostomi praedicant Virginem Mariam prorsus irre¬ prehensam, et incontaminatam, immo purio¬ rem et sanctiorem ipsis Cherubim, et Sera¬ phim. Denique verba illa Canticorum iv. Tota pulchra es, amica mea , et macula non est in te. Nulli particulari personae aptius, quam B. Virgini conveniunt. Non igitur eguit Virgo Maria ulla satisfactione pro se, et ta¬ men plurima passa est propter Deum, ac praesertim cum animam ejus gladius doloris pertransiit, juxta Simeonis vaticinium Lu¬ cae n. Secunda, idem probari potest ex pas¬ sionibus S. Joannis Baptistae, quem constat in utero sanctificatum vitam innocentissi- mam duxisse, ut vix levissimis culpis, et paucissimis obnoxius fuerit, ut non imme¬ rito de ipso canatur : Antra deserti teneris sub annis Civium turmas fugiens petisti, Ne levi posses maculare vitam Crimine linguae. Et tamen ex Evangelio discimus, totam ejus vitam adeo severe et duriter actam, ut exemplar poenitentiae omnibus esse potuerit, et tandem pro veritate vincula, carcerem, et ipsam capitis obstruncationem passum esse. Quare in dubium revocari non potest, quin ingens omnino cumulus passionum ei superfuerit, quo ipse ad expianda propria peccata non eguit. Tertio idem ostendi po¬ test ex passionibus sanctorum Prophetarum. Fuerunt enim omnes viri sanctissimi, ita ut modica omnino pro suis culpis satisfactione opus habuerint; et tamen tot angustiis, et afflictionibus oppressi fuerunt, ut plurima et maxima peccata expiare potuerint. De se B. Job, unus ex vetustissimis prophetis sic ait cap. vi. Utinam appenderentur peccata mea , quibus iram merui , et calamitas quam patior in statera , quasi arena maris haec gravior appareret (1). Similia dicere potuissent He- lias, Helisaeus, Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel, et alii sanctissimi prophetas, qui gravissimas persecutiones ab impiis, vel etiam ipsam mortem pertulerunt. De his enim scribit A- postolus ad Hebr. xi. Alii vero ludibria et ver¬ bera experti, insuper et vincula, et carceres, la¬ pidati sunt , secti sunt, tentati sunt, in occisione gladii mortui sunt, circuierunt in melotis, in pellibus caprinis, egentes, angustiati, afflicti, quibus dignus non erat mundus , in solitudini¬ bus errantes, in montibus, et speluncis, et in cavernis terrae. Quarto idem clarissime de¬ monstrari potest ex passionibus Apostolo¬ rum. Nam de se B. Paulus in epist. poste¬ riore ad Corinth. c. xi. Ministri, inquit, - Christi sunt, et ego, ut minus sapiens dico, plus ego, in laboribus plurimis , in carceribus abundantius, in plagis supra modum, in mor¬ tibus frequenter etc. Et tamen quam parum deberet pro suis ipse culpis satisfacere, in¬ dicat in priore ad Corint. c. iv. cum ait : Nihil mihi conscius sum ; et II Corinth. i. Gloria nostra haec est , testimonium conscientiae nostrae, quod in simplicitate cordis, et sinceri¬ tate Dei conversati sumus in hoc mundo. Porro de omnibus Apostolis idem B. Paulus J Corinth. iv. Puto, inquit, quod Deus nos Apostolos novissimos ostendit tamquam morti destinatos ? Et infra : Usque in hanc horam, et esurimus, et sitimus, et nudi sumus, et cola¬ phis caedimur, et instabiles sumus, et labora¬ mus operantes manibus nostris ; maledicimur, et benedicimus ; blasphemamur, et obsecramus ; tamquam purgamenta hujus mundi facti sumus, omnium peripsema usque adhuc (2). Sexto (1) Job., VI, 2.— (2) Ileb. XI. 36; II Corinth. XI, 23: I Corinth. IV. 4; II Corinth. I, 12; I Corinth, IV, 9, 11. LIBE It !. -j-) idem probatur ex passionibus Martyrum, qui plane innumerabiles fuerunt. Constat enim Martyrium tam plenam satisfactionem esse, ut expiare possit reatum contractum ex quanto¬ vis ingenti numero, et magnitudine pecca¬ torum. Nam dummodo constet aliquem esse vere Martyrem, Ecclesia non dubitat, eum inter sanctos, et Beatos numerare, etiamsi ante martyrium multis flagitiis fuerit coo¬ pertus. Promissio enim Domini generalis est, Matth. x : Omnis , qui confitebitur me coram hominibus , confitebor et ego cum coram Patre meo. Et: Qui 'perdiderit animam suam propter me , inveniet eam (1). Quare B. Cy¬ prianus lib. iv. epist. 2. affirmat, Martyres omnes statim a morte coelum ascendere ad coronam percipiendam. Sanctus quoque Augustinus tract. 8-i. in Joannem dicit pro Martyribus in Ecclesia non orari, cum nos potius debeamus eorum orationibus com¬ mendari ; et serm. 17. de verbis Apostoli : « Injuriam, inquit, facit Martyri, qui orat pro Martyre » . Quod idem scribit Innocen¬ tius cap. Cum Marthae, de celebr. miss. nec ullus Catholicorum contradicit. Cum igitur Martyrium omnem reatum, quamvis gravis¬ simum expiare possit , et multi Martyres reatus levissimos, aut etiam nullos habue¬ rint ipso tempore Martyrii, certe sequitur, ut ingens cumulus satisfactionum Martyri¬ bus superfuerit. Sexto denique idem proba¬ tur ex fructibus poenitentia: plurimis, et maximis quos protulerunt tam multi sancti Confessores, ac praesertim Eremitae, qui longissimo tempore vitam sanctissimam, et laboriosissimam, id est, asperrimam et du¬ rissimam egerunt, quos non est dubium in hoc spiritale cerarium multum omnino sa¬ tisfactionum contulisse. Quare recte Clemens VI. Pontifex in Con¬ stitutione extravagantis, quae incipit, Unige¬ nitus, titulo de poenitentiis, et remissionibus, declaravit, extare in Ecclesia thesaurum spi¬ ritalem ex passionibus Christi et sanctorum omnium conflatum. Quo thesauri nomine nihil aliud intelligimus nisi passiones pluri¬ mas, quibus non eguerunt ad propria delicta expianda, qui eas perpessi sunt, et tamen non perierunt, nec oblivioni traditee sunt, sed vivunt, ac permanent ante oculos Dei.