Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 3: That there is in the Church a power of applying the treasury of satisfactions, and thereby of granting 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).
We have shown so far that there exists in the Church a treasury of satisfactions from the sufferings of Christ and of the saints, which were not necessary to them for expiating their own guilt. It follows now that we show that there is in the Church a power of applying a treasury of this kind to others who need it. And that this may be made plainer, we shall bring forward some propositions.
First proposition. “The satisfactions superfluous to Christ and the saints can be applied to others who are liable to a temporal punishment still to be paid.” It is proved, first, from the article of the Apostles' Creed, the communion of saints. For we are taught in this article that all the faithful are members one of another, and as it were a certain living body, as blessed Paul also affirms in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12; and that just as living members help one another, so the faithful share their goods among themselves, especially since the things which are superfluous to one can be necessary, or very useful, to another. Second, it can be proved from the words of the Apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians 12: I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for you. And 2 Timothy 2: I endure all things for the sake of the elect. And Colossians 1: I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church. For although these words can be so expounded that they signify that the Apostle suffered many things for the elect and for the Church because he could not preach the Gospel without exposing himself to many dangers and undergoing many labours, and again that he suffered for the elect and for the Church so that by his example he might strengthen the weak and kindle them toward the prize of the heavenly calling: yet it cannot be denied that they can also rightly be expounded of the sharing of satisfactions; for these senses do not fight with one another, and can all be admitted together. For the Apostle wished to profit the faithful in every way in which it could be done; for he who says, I most gladly will be spent myself for you, excepts nothing. Now he could profit them by sharing his sufferings for the expiation of temporal guilt, since satisfactions of that kind abounded to him, as we have already shown; therefore he wished and willed to profit the faithful in this way also, and so by suffering he filled up those things that were wanting of the sufferings of Christ, that is, what Christ was still to suffer in his saints, for his body the Church: whether by instructing through preaching, or by strengthening through examples, or by expiating through satisfactions. And what the Apostle Paul wished, the other holy Apostles wished without doubt, and other pious men who burned with the charity of God and of their neighbour. Certainly Saint Augustine, in the tractate on Psalm 61, gathers plainly enough from this passage of the Apostle that the sufferings of the saints are contributed to the common good of the Christian commonwealth, which have been joined to the sufferings of Christ hitherto and will be joined until the end of the world.
Second proposition. “To the pastors of the Church authority has been divinely granted to dispense the treasury of satisfactions, and thereby to grant indulgences.” It is proved, first, from those words of the Lord, Matthew 16: Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. For this promise is most ample and general, and is not restricted to sins, as is that of John 20, Whose sins you shall forgive, and so on; but it embraces all the bonds which can hinder men from attaining eternal salvation. And so on this word is founded the power not only of absolving from sins in the sacrament of Penance, but also of absolving from any censures whatever, and likewise of dispensing in laws, in vows, in oaths, when a reasonable cause is present. For by these words the supreme tribunal of ecclesiastical power is promised to the Apostle Peter, that in the place of Christ he might rule and judge the whole Church with supreme power; which was at last conferred on him when he heard from Christ, John 21, Feed my sheep. On which matter we have written much in the first book on the Supreme Pontiff, where we have also refuted the objections of the heretics. Wherefore, just as Peter as supreme judge in the place of Christ can absolve sinners rightly disposed from any faults whatever, by applying to them through the sacrament of Baptism or of Penance the merits of Christ, so also he can absolve the same men outside the sacrament from temporal punishments, by applying to them the sufferings of Christ and of the saints. And the reason why the guilt of fault is loosed in a sacrament, but the guilt of punishment outside a sacrament, is ready to hand. For although the power of loosing is general, yet all things must be loosed as their nature requires: mortal faults are not loosed without the infusion of grace, and the infusion of grace is not given by human ministry except through the sacraments; but the guilt of punishment remaining after the fault has been dismissed is loosed outside a sacrament, because it does not require the infusion of new grace, but presupposes that already obtained. Moreover, that a temporal punishment very often remains to be paid after the fault has been dismissed has been proved by us most fully in the fourth book on Penance, which need not be repeated here. And that the guilt of those punishments can be expiated by the sufferings of Christ and of the saints, which are preserved laid up in the treasury of the Church, was demonstrated a little before.
To the same purpose belong those words, Matthew 18: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. For lest anyone should despise the Church, of which it had been said a little before in the same place, If he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican, Christ adds that the power of the prelates of the Church will be so great that whatever they bind or loose is bound or loosed also with God, since he willed them to be judges and princes of the Church in his place; and since this promise too is general, there is no reason why it cannot be extended to the loosing of the guilt of temporal punishment, especially since satisfaction is made to divine justice from the overflowing satisfactions of Christ and of the saints. For why should the power of absolving from the guilt of fault, even mortal, through the application of the merits of Christ, be gathered from these words, rather than absolution from the guilt of punishment through the application of the same merits, since it is agreed that both kinds of guilt can be loosed, and the words of the Lord are general?
Second, this same power is proved from the practice and perpetual usage of the Catholic Church. For what the Church has always had in use, it cannot be doubted is from God, even if perhaps the foundation of that custom were hidden from us. That an indulgence was granted in the very time of the Apostles is plain from those words of blessed Paul, 2 Corinthians 2: And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. That we be not overreached by Satan. The Corinthians had asked blessed Paul, as Theodoret and Saint Thomas teach on this passage, that he would forgive the incestuous man, excommunicated and doing serious penance, and remit what remained of his penance; blessed Paul assented, and ordered that they themselves should grant the indulgence in his name. And that we may see that nothing was lacking of the things which belong to a just indulgence, which are counted as three by the theologians and will be treated more fully by us in their place, namely authority in the one granting, piety in the cause, and the state of grace in the one receiving: the Apostle says that he grants the indulgence in the person of Christ, that is, by authority received from Christ, and that for their sakes, that is, for their common benefit, so that no place be given to the snares of the devil on account of the excessive severity of the prelate. Finally, it is agreed from the same epistle that the incestuous Corinthian had conceived such sorrow for his sin that there was danger lest he be swallowed up by excessive sadness; from which we understand that he had come through true penance to the state of grace.
After the apostolic times there are extant the testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian concerning the remission of punishment which the bishops made, whether at the intercession of the martyrs or for other causes; nor does it much matter that those bishops did not say that they gave the indulgence from the treasury of satisfactions. For neither did they say, when they remitted sins through the sacrament of Baptism or of Penance, that they did it by applying the merits of Christ; and yet without doubt they applied the merits of Christ, as even the adversaries concede; for satisfaction must be made to divine justice, whether the debts of sins are remitted in a sacrament or outside a sacrament. Although neither were they altogether silent about the treasury, as we shall say presently. But let us see the testimonies themselves. Tertullian in the book to the Martyrs, chapter 1: “Which peace,” he says, “some, not having it in the Church, have been accustomed to beg from the martyrs in prison; and therefore you ought on that account also to have it in you, and cherish it, and guard it, so that perhaps you may be able to bestow it on others also.” Saint Cyprian, book 3, letter 15, which in the Pamelian edition is letter 11, writes to the holy martyrs who had asked that peace be given to the lapsed, and warns them to commend the lapsed to the bishops cautiously and with discrimination. “Let them keep your petitions and desires,” he says, “for the bishop, and await a ripe and peaceful time for giving the peace you ask.” And below: “I beg you, with what prayers I can, that mindful of the Gospel, and considering what and what sort of things your predecessors the martyrs granted in the past, how careful they were in all things, you also weigh carefully and cautiously the desires of those who ask, as friends of the Lord and as those who will afterwards judge with him, and look into the conduct, and the works, and the merits of each; consider also the kinds and qualities of their very offences, lest, if anything be promised by you or done by us abruptly and unworthily, our Church begin to blush even before the Gentiles themselves.” The same at the end of the sermon on the lapsed: “To the penitent, the working, the praying,” he says, “he can mercifully pardon; he can put to their account whatever the martyrs have asked and the priests have done for such.” Thus he. Now it is not credible that penitents sought the patronage of the martyrs confined in prisons when they wished to carry out their whole penance; but when they desired that peace, that is, absolution and communion, be given them without the whole penance completed; accordingly they asked the martyrs to pray that a part of their penance be remitted them by the bishops, that is, that an indulgence be given.
This also must be observed, that the bishops were accustomed to give an indulgence at the prayers of the martyrs, not only that they might honour the martyrs and kindle them to complete their martyrdom, but also because they saw that the merits of the martyrs could be shared with the penitents, and that their sufferings could be accepted for the satisfaction which the lapsed penitents lacked. And so the ancient Church too looked to the treasury when it gave indulgences. Which can be gathered from Tertullian, who, after he began to be a heretic, in the book on modesty, chapter 22, denied what he had before conceded in the book to the Martyrs, namely that reconciliation could be granted to the lapsed at the prayers of the martyrs; and he gives as his reason that no satisfactions are left over to the martyrs which they can share with the lapsed: “Let it suffice a martyr,” he says, “to have purged his own offences. It belongs to an ungrateful or a proud man to scatter upon others too what he has obtained at a great price.” And below he thus addresses the martyr: “If you are a sinner, how will the oil of your little lamp be able to suffice both for you and for me?” From whose words it is plainly gathered that the sufferings of the martyrs were accustomed to be applied to those who obtained an indulgence at the petition of the martyrs themselves. Nor is Tertullian's reason solid, since we have already shown that the sufferings of very many martyrs could truly expiate the debts not only of the martyrs themselves but also of other men, as regards the guilt of temporal punishment.
After those times there are extant the most ancient councils of the Church, partly general, partly also of various provinces, in which indulgences are granted to penitents through the bishops. The first Council of Nicaea, canon 11, or in another edition 12, decreed that those who do penance seriously may obtain some indulgence from the bishop. “It will be lawful,” it says, “for the bishop to think something more humane concerning these”; but the more negligent the same council orders to fulfil altogether the appointed time of penance. And what is this but to grant some indulgence to the former and none to the latter? Similar things are found in the Council of Ancyra, canon 5, and in the Council of Laodicea, canon 2, of which the one was celebrated not long before Nicaea, the other not long after. Saint Basil also teaches the same in his canonical letters, which are found in the Nomocanon of Photius, canon 73. And from the time of Saint Gregory the use of indulgences was so well known and evident that not even the adversaries can deny it except altogether shamelessly. For that Saint Gregory granted indulgences to the people on the station days the weightiest authors testify: Saint Thomas on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 20, question 1, article 3, little question 2, and William of Auxerre who preceded him, in the fourth book of the Summa Theologica, tract 6, chapter 9. That Pope Leo III granted indulgences eight hundred years ago Saint Ludger is witness, in the letter on Saint Swithbert which is found in Surius, volume 2, after the life of Saint Swithbert written by Saint Marcellinus. For thus Saint Ludger speaks in that letter, chapter 9: “The same holy Pope Leo, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 803, coming with great solemnity of his cardinals, archbishops, bishops and prelates to the Emperor Charles in Germany, and being received imperially with his own by the same emperor, among many works of his piety, at the urging of the same most serene emperor and king, dedicated at Aachen in the palace a church of the perpetual Virgin Mary, endowing the same church with many indulgences.” And below: “And at Cologne he consecrated altars both at Saint Martin's and in the Capitol, and consecrated many other monasteries and altars and chapels throughout Germany and Gaul, everywhere conferring many indulgences.” And below: “The same holy Pope offered to the same church special indulgences for all the faithful celebrating the feast of Saint Swithbert the bishop, and flocking to the divine offices.” Thus he. That Pope Sergius the younger, who sat about the year 844, granted an indulgence of three years and three lents to those visiting the church of Saint Martin on the Hills on the feast day of the same church, is agreed from the memorial of this matter which is extant carved in marble in most ancient letters in the same church, so that no suspicion of fraud can be imagined. Nor is it in any way credible that Leo III, or Sergius II, or Gregory I, since they were most holy men, would have dared to institute a new thing which they had not received from their predecessors; and the very manner of speaking of Saint Ludger, and the words carved in marble by order of Sergius, plainly indicate that the granting of indulgences was a customary thing. We could relate many things like these of later popes, as Gregory VII, Alexander III, and others. But the adversaries do not deny that indulgences were granted by the later popes.
Third, this same power is proved from the general councils of the Catholic Church, in which indulgences are granted or approved. For what the general councils teach, that the universal Church teaches. We have in the year 1096 the general Council of Clermont, as Saint Antoninus witnesses in the second part of the history, title 16, chapter 1, paragraph 23, in which Pope Urban II granted a plenary indulgence to those who set out for the holy war. A little after, namely in the year 1116, in the general and most numerous Lateran Council, Pope Paschal II granted an indulgence of forty days to those who had come to the said council, as the Abbot of Ursperg, who was then living, witnesses in the chronicle of the year 1116. Again in the year 1213, as the Abbot of Ursperg witnesses, Innocent III granted a plenary indulgence for the help of the Holy Land, and at the same time summoned the most crowded general Lateran Council, which was celebrated in the year of the Lord 1215, and in it indulgences too were dealt with, and abuses corrected which had gradually crept in about indulgences, as appears from the chapter Cum ex eo, on penances and remissions. And the correction of abuses testifies that the thing is most ancient, for abuses do not creep in except in those things which have long been in use. A similar correction is read in the general Council of Lyons, as we have in the Sext, on penances and remissions, chapter 1, and in the general Council of Vienne, as we have in the second Clementine under the same title; and in the Council of Constance, likewise general, not only are the errors of John Wycliffe on indulgences condemned, session 8, but also in the last session Martin V grants a plenary indulgence. Finally the Council of Trent, session 25, again approves the use of indulgences and corrects abuses. And although this argument from the authority of so many general councils is despised by the heretics of our time, yet in truth it is a most weighty argument. For the Arians too made nothing of the Council of Nicaea, the Nestorians of the first of Ephesus, the Eutychians of Chalcedon, and the rest at various times of the councils of those bishops by whom they were condemned; and yet the Catholic Church has always kept this custom, that heresies be condemned in councils, and as Saint Augustine writes to Januarius in letter 118, there has always been in the Church the most wholesome authority of plenary councils.
Fourth, it is proved by a reason drawn from those signs by which Catholic dogmas are distinguished from heresies. For this is proper to Catholic dogmas, that their origin is not found unless we go up to the Gospel or the Apostles. But of heresies there can always be designated a certain author, and place, and time, in which they began to arise. Now no one hitherto has been able to point out the author of indulgences, nor the place or time in which they began to be preached. For all who make mention of indulgences, whether they be doctors, or popes, or even councils, so speak of them as of a customary and received thing. Wherefore Martin Chemnitz, in the fourth part of the Examination, page 329, confesses that the origin of indulgences was not noted clearly enough in the histories; and what he affirms a little after, page 333, that indulgences began about the year of the Lord 1200, is convicted of being manifestly false from the things we have cited concerning the indulgences granted by Paschal II, Urban II, Sergius III, and most of all by Leo III, who sat in the year of the Lord 800, that is, four hundred years before the 1200 noted by Chemnitz. But the beginning of the heresy against indulgences is most well known. For it is agreed, not only from Catholics but also from Chemnitz himself, page 375, that the Waldensians were the first who began to attack the doctrine of the Church on indulgences. And the Waldensians, whose author was Waldo, a citizen of Lyons, from which city they were called the Poor Men of Lyons, are agreed to have appeared in the world about the year of the Lord 1170, from Claude Coussord at the end of the book against the Waldensians. From which also the error of Chemnitz about the origin of indulgences is refuted. For if the Waldensians, who attacked indulgences, arose about the year of the Lord 1170, how can it be that indulgences themselves began about the year of the Lord 1200?
Fifth, it is proved from the divine testimonies of revelations and miracles. For Saint Bernard preached in many places the indulgences which Pope Eugene III granted to those who, having taken the cross, set out for the holy war of Jerusalem, and confirmed his preaching by very many and very great miracles, as can be known from his life faithfully written, book 3, chapter 4, and from the beginning of the second book On Consideration of the same Bernard. Saint Francis also obtained by divine revelation an indulgence from the Lord and from his Vicar the Roman Pontiff for the church of Saint Mary of the Angels. Of which indulgence we shall say more in the last chapter of the second book, to which place we refer the reader. Saint Bridget, a most holy widow, whose revelations were diligently examined and approved by most learned men, was more than once admonished by Christ himself concerning the greatest indulgences which are at Rome. See book 6 of the Revelations, chapters 102 and 105.
Sixth and last, it is proved by a reason drawn from a likeness. For in every well-ordered commonwealth the dispensation of common goods belongs to the prince or magistrate, and again it belongs to the same to admit the satisfaction of one for another, if they judge that it so serves the benefit of the same commonwealth. As for example, if some prince owes much pay to his soldiers, and again has in prison many who, for frauds committed against the accounts of the treasury, ought to pay a penalty either in money or in body; if perhaps those soldiers, enriched from plundered cities, have no need of their pay, and make it over to the commonwealth to be disbursed at the prince's discretion, certainly the prince will be able, for some benefit of the commonwealth, to make satisfaction to his treasury from that military pay for the debts of the wretches who are held in prison, and to absolve those wretches. But it is certain that the bishops are the princes of the Christian people, and that the Roman Pontiff bears the supreme magistracy in the whole Church in the place of Christ; nor is it less certain that there exists in the Church a treasury of satisfactions from the sufferings of Christ and the saints, which they themselves do not need, and which they desire to be spent for the common benefit of the faithful. Finally it is certain that there are many faithful men, both sons and friends of God, who nevertheless are still held bound by the guilt of temporal punishment: why then will the bishops, and most of all the Supreme Pontiff, if a reasonable cause is present, not be able to make satisfaction to God from that treasury for the debtors, and in the name of God himself to accept that same satisfaction for those debtors, and in that way to give them an indulgence, and absolve them from the guilt of temporal punishment?
Third proposition. “The prelates of the Church can dispense the passion of Christ both through the sacraments and through indulgences, but the sufferings of the saints only through indulgences.” The reason is ready to hand. For the passion of Christ, insofar as it is dispensed for the justification and reconciliation of sinners, cannot be dispensed by the prelates of the Church except through the sacraments; for grace and glory (as all theologians confess) none can give outside the sacraments except God by his own power, and Christ by the power communicated to him by God, which they call the power of excellence. But insofar as the same passion of Christ is dispensed for the remission of temporal punishment, it can be dispensed both through the sacraments and outside the sacraments. For in the sacrament of Baptism, by virtue of the passion of Christ, all punishment is remitted, whether temporal or eternal; but in the sacrament of Penance eternal punishment is always remitted, and some part of temporal punishment. But the sufferings of the saints cannot be dispensed through the sacraments. For never in the sacraments is punishment remitted without the remission of fault; and faults cannot be expiated by the sufferings of the saints, to pass over the fact that the sacraments are instruments of the passion of Christ alone, and have no force from the sufferings of the saints, since the saints themselves also were sanctified through the sacraments of Christ. It remains, therefore, that the sufferings of the saints, if they are to be dispensed in any way, must be dispensed outside the sacraments only, and that for the payment of the guilt of temporal punishment only. And if the sufferings of the saints are dispensed outside the sacraments, there ought to be no doubt that the passion of Christ also can be dispensed outside the sacraments for the payment of the guilt of temporal punishment. And let these things suffice for the present to explain and confirm the truth; for in the following chapter, from the solution of objections, the truth itself will shine out more.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Esse in Ecclesia potestatem applicandi the¬ saurum satisfactionum , ac per hoc Indul¬ gentias concedendi. Demonstravimus hacfenus extare in Ec¬ clesia thesaurum satisfactionum ex passio¬ nibus Christi et sanctorum, quce ipsis ad expiandum reatum proprium necessariae non fuerunt. Sequitur nunc, ut ostendamus, esse potestatem in Ecclesia thesaurum ejusmodi applicandi aliis, qui indigent. Quod ut pla¬ nius fiat, propositiones aliquot in medium adferemus. Prima propositio. « Satisfactiones Christo et Sanctis supervacaneae applicari possunt aliis, qui rei sunt luendae poenae tempora¬ lis ». Probatur primo ex articulo Symboli Apostolici, Communionem sanctorum. Doce¬ mur enim in hoc articulo, fideles omnes esse invicem membra, et quasi vivum quoddam corpus, ut etiam B. Paulus affirmat Rom. xii. et I. Corinth. xn. et sicut membra viva se invicem juvant, ita fideles inter se bona sua communicare, praesertim cum ea, quae uni superflua sunt, alteri necessaria, vel valde utilia esse possunt. Secundo probari potest ex verbis Apostoli Pauli II Corinth. xii. Ego libentissime impendam , et superim¬ pendar ipse pro vobis. Et II Timoth. ii. Om¬ nia sustineo propter electos. Et Coloss. i. Gau¬ deo in passionibus pro vobis, et adimpleo quic desunt passionum Christi in carne mea pro corpore ejus , quod est Ecclesia (2). Quamvis enim possint haec verba ita exponi, ut signi- .ficent, Apostolum passum esse multa propter electos, et propter Ecclesiam, quia non po¬ tuit Evangelium praedicare, nisi se multis periculis exponeret, et multos labores subi¬ ret, et rursum passum esse propter electos, propter Ecclesiam, ut exemplo suo infirmos confirmaret, et ad bravium supernae voca¬ tionis accenderet : tamen negari non potest, quin possint etiam recte exponi de commu¬ nicatione satisfactionum : nam isti sensus inter se non pugnant, et possunt omnes si¬ mul admitti. Optavit enim Apostolus fideli¬ bus prodesse omnibus modis, quibus id fieri poterat; nihil enim excipit, qui dicit, libentissime impendam ipse pro vobis. Potuit autem prodesse communicando passiones suas ad expiandum reatum temporalem , (1) Mat. X, 2>. 39. - (2) II Cor. XII, 15 : II Tim. II, 10 ; Colos. I. 14. CAITT II!. 11 cum sibi ejusmodi satisfactiones abunda¬ rent, ut jam ostendimus : igitur optavit et voluit etiam hac ratione fidelibus prodesse, quare patiendo adimplebat ea, qua; deerant passionum Christi, id est, qua; Christus in sanctis suis adhuc passurus erat, pro cor¬ pore ipso Ecclesia; sive instruendo praedica¬ tionibus , sive confirmando exemplis , sive expiando satisfactionibus. Quod autem Apo¬ stolus Paulus optavit, optarunt sine dubio cseteri sancti Apostoli, aliique pii viri, qui Dei et proximi charitate flagrabant. Certe sanctus Augustinus tractatu in Psalm. lxi. satis aperte colligit ex hoc loco Apostoli, conferri in commune bonum Reipublicae Christianae passiones sanctorum, quae ad¬ junctae passionibus Christi hactenus sunt, et usque ad mundi finem adjungentur. Secunda propositio. « Ecclesiae Pastoribus auctoritas divinitus concessa est, thesaurum satisfactionum dispensandi, ac per hoc In¬ dulgentias concedendi ». Probatur primo ex verbis illis Domini Matth. xvi. Quodcum- que solveris super terram , erit solutum et in coelis. Est enim haec promissio amplissima ac generalis, nec restringitur ad peccata, qualis est illa Joan. xx. Quorum remiseritis peccata etc. (1). Sed complectitur omnia vincula, quae impedire possunt homines a consecutione salutis aeternae. Itaque in hoc verbo fundatur potestas non solum absol¬ vendi a peccatis in Sacramento poenitentiae, sed etiam absolvendi a censuris quibuscum¬ que, necnon dispensandi in legibus, in vo¬ tis, in juramentis, dum causa rationabilis adest. Promittitur enim his verbis apostolo Petro supremum tribunal ecclesiasticae po¬ testatis, ut loco Christi Ecclesiam omnem regere, et judicare summa cum potestate possit, quod ei tunc demum exhibitum est, cum a Christo audivit Joan. xxi. Pasce oves meas (2). De qua re multa scripsimus iri libro primo de Summo Pontifice, ubi etiam objectiones haereticorum refutavimus. Quare quemadmodum Petrus ut supremus Judex loco Christi absolvere potest homines pecca¬ tores rite dispositos a culpis quibuscumque, applicando illis per sacramentum Baptismi, vel Poenitentiae Christi merita, ita etiam po¬ test absolvere eosdem extra sacramentum a poenis temporalibus, applicando eisdem Christi, et sanctorum passiones. Ratio autem cur reatus culpae solvatur in sacramento, reatus autem poenae extra sacramentum, est in promptu. Quamvis enim potestas sol¬ vendi sit generalis , tamen debent omnia solvi pro ut exigit eorum natura : culpae le- thales non solvuntur sine infusione gratiae , infusio autem gratiae non datur ministerio humano, nisi per sacramenta : reatus autem poenae remanentis post dimissam culpam, solvuntur extra sacramentum, quia non re¬ quirit- infusionem novae gratiae , sed eam jam adeptam praesupponit. Porro superesse saepenumero poenam temporariam luendam post dimissam culpam, probatum est a no¬ bis fusissime in lib. iv. de poenitentia, quae non sunt hoc loco repetenda. Posse autem reatum earum poenarum expiari Christi, et sanctorum passionibus , quae in thesauro Ecclesiae reconditae asservantur, paulo ante demonstratum est. Eodem pertinent illa verba, Matth. xviii. Quaecumque alligaveritis super terram , erunt ligata et in coelis ; et quae¬ cumque solveritis super terram, erunt soluta et in coelis. Ne quis enim Ecclesiam contemne¬ ret, de qua dictum erat paulo ante in eodem loco : Si te non audierit , dic Ecclesiae , et si Ecclesiam non audierit , sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus (3), addit Christus tantam fore potestatem Praesulum Ecclesiae, ut quaecum¬ que ipsi ligaverint, vel solverint, sint etiam apud Deum ligata, vel soluta, cum ipsos loco suo judices et principes Ecclesia; esse voluerit, et cum haec etiam promissio gene¬ ralis sit, nulla est ratio, cur non possit ex¬ tendi ad solutionem reatus poenae tempo¬ ralis, praesertim cum divinae justitiae satis¬ fiat ex redundantibus satisfactionibus Chri¬ sti, ejt Sanctorum. Cur enim potius colligatur ex his verbis potestas absolvendi a reatu culpa; etiam lethalis per applicationem me¬ ritorum Christi , quam absolutio a reatu poenae per applicationem eorumdem me¬ ritorum, cum constet utrumque reatum solu¬ bilem esse, et verba Domini generalia sint? Secundo probatur ha;c eadem potestas ex praxi, et usu perpetuo Ecclesia; Catholica;. Quod enim Ecclesia semper in usu habuit, dubitari non potest, quin sit a Deo, etiamsi forte fundamentum ejus consuetudinis nos lateret. Ipso Apostolorum tempore conces¬ sam fuisse Indulgentiam, perspicuum est ex verbis illis B. Pauli II Corinth. ii. Cui au¬ tem aliquid, donastis , et ego : nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter ros in persona •1) Mnt. XVI. 10 : Joan. XX . 20. - Joan. XXI. i7 - (3)Mat. XVIII, IS. # 24 UBER I. Christi , ut non circumveniamur a Satana (1). Rogaverant Corinthii B. Paulum, ut Theo- doretus, et S. Thomas hoc loco docent, ut incestuoso excommunicato et seriam pre- nitentiam agenti, ignosceret, et condonaret quod supererat pcenitentise ; annuit B. Pau¬ lus, et jussit, ut ipsi nomine suo indulge- rent. Ac ut videamus nihil defuisse eorum, qu£e ad justam indulgentiam pertinent, quse tria numerantur a Theologis, et a nobis suo loco fusius tractabuntur, nimirum auctoritas in concedente, pietas in causa, et status gra¬ tiae in suscipiente : Apostolus in persona Christi, id est, auctoritate a Christo accepta indulgere se dicit, idque propter ipsos, id est, propter communem ipsorum utilitatem, ut non detur locus insidiis diaboli ob ni¬ miam praelati severitatem. Denique constat ex eadem epistola Corinthium incestuosum tantum de suo peccato dolorem concepisse, ut periculum esset ne nimia tristitia absor¬ beretur; ex quo intelligimus, eum per veram poenitentiam ad statum gratiae pervenisse. Postapostolica tempora exstant testimonia Tertulliani et Cypriani de remissione poenae, quam Pontifices faciebant, vel ad Martyrum intercessionem, vel aliis de causis, neque multum refert quod Pontifices illi non dice¬ rent se ex thesauro satisfactionum indulgen¬ tiam dare. Nam neque dicebant cum per Baptismi, vel Poenitentiae sacramentum pec¬ cata remittebant, se id facere applicando merita Christi : et tamen sine dubio Christi merita applicabant, ut etiam adversarii con¬ cedunt ; debet enim divinae justitiae satisfieri, sive in sacramento, sive extra sacramentum peccatorum debita remittantur. Quamquam nec omnino de thesauro siluerunt, ut statim dicemus. Sed testimonia ipsa videamus. Ter¬ tullianus in libro ad Martyres cap. 1 : «Quam pacem, inquit, quidam in Ecclesia non ha¬ bentes , a Martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt, et ideo ea etiam propterea in vobis habere, et fovere, et custodire de¬ betis, ut si forte et aliis praestare possitis » . S. Cyprianus lib. iii. epist. 15. quae in editione Pameliana est epist. 11. scribit S. Martyribus, qui pacem dari lapsis petie¬ rant, eosque monet, ut caute, et cum de¬ lectu lapsos commendent Episcopis. « Peti¬ tiones, inquit, et desideria vestra Episcopo servent, et ad pacem vobis petentibus dan¬ dam maturum et paccatum tempus exspe¬ ctent » . Et infra : a Oro vos, quibus possum precibus, ut Evangelii memores, et conside¬ rantes quae, et qualia in praeteritum ante¬ cessores vestri Martyres concesserint, quam solliciti in omnibus fuerint, vos quoque sol¬ licite et caute petentium desideria pondere¬ tis, utpote amici Domini, et cum illo post- modum judicaturi inspiciatis , et actum, et opera, et merita singulorum ; ipsorum quo¬ que delictorum genera ; et qualitates cogi¬ tetis, ne si quid abrupte et indigne vel a vobis promissum, vel a nobis factum fuerit, apud Gentiles quoque ipsos Ecclesia nostra erubescere incipiat». Idem in sermone de lapsis extremo : « Poenitenti, inquit, ope¬ ranti, roganti, potest clementer ignoscere , potest in acceptum referre quicquid pro talibus et petierint Martyres, et fecerint sa¬ cerdotes ». Hsec ille. Non est autem credi¬ bile pcenitentes ambivisse patrocinia Marty¬ rum in carceribus constitutorum , quando integram poenitentiam peragere volebant ; sed quando pacem, id est, absolutionem, et communicationem sibi dari cupiebant, non peracta integra poenitentia ; proinde a Mar¬ tyribus petebant , ut sibi ab Episcopis par¬ tem pcenitentise condonari, hoc est, indul¬ gentiam dari precarentur. Illud quoque observandum est, Episcopos dare solitos indulgentiam ad preces Marty¬ rum, non solum ut Martyres honorarent, et ad consummandum martyrium accenderent, sed etiam quia videbant, merita Martyrum posse communicari poenitentibus, et accep¬ tari passiones eorum pro satisfactione, quee lapsis poenitentibus deerat. Atque ita vetus etiam Ecclesia ad thesaurum respiciebat cum indulgentias daret. Id quod ex Tertul¬ liano colligi potest, qui posteaquam haere¬ ticus esse coepit, in lib. de pudicitia cap. 22. negavit quod antea in lib. ad Martyres con¬ cesserat, posse videlicet ad preces Martyrum indulgeri lapsis reconciliationem : et ratio¬ nem adfert, quia non supersunt Martyribus satisfactiones, quas cum lapsis communicare possint : « Sufficiat, inquit, Martyri propria delicta purgasse. Ingrati, vel superbi est in alios quoque spargere, quod pro magno fue¬ rit consecutus ». Et infra sic Martyrem allo¬ quitur : « Si peccator es, quomodo oleum faculse tuse sufficere et tibi et mihi pote¬ rit »? Ex cujus verbis manifeste colligitur, Martyrum passiones applicari solitas illis, qui ad petitionem ipsorum Martyrum indul¬ gentiam consequebantur. Nec ratio Tertul- (1) II Cor. 11,10, CAPUT III. 25 liani solida est, cum jam ostenderimus plu¬ rimorum Martyrum passiones vere potuisse non solum ipsorum Martyrum, sed etiam aliorum hominum debita expiare , quod attinet ad reatum poenae temporalis. Post illa tempora exstant Concilia Ecclesia: antiquissima, partim generalia, partim etiam diversarum provinciarum , in quibus per Episcopos indulgentiae poenitentibus conce¬ duntur. Concilium Nicaenum I can. 11. vel in alia editione 12. statuit, ut qui serio poe¬ nitentiam agunt, possint indulgentiam ali¬ quam ab Episcopo obtinere. « Licebit », in¬ quit, « Episcopo de his aliquid humanius cogitare » : negligentiores autem jubet idem Concilium, ut definitum tempus poenitentiae omnino explere debeant. Quid autem hoc est, nisi prioribus aliquid, posterioribus nihil in- dulgere ? Similia habentur in Concilio An¬ cyrano can. 5. in Concilio Laodiceno can. 2. quorum alterum non diu ante Nicaenum, alterum non diu post Nicaenum celebratum fuit. Idem etiam docet S. Basilius in epistolis suis canonicis, quae habentur in Nomoca- none Photii canon. 73. A tempore autem S. Gregorii usus indulgentiarum usque adeo notus et perspicuus fuit, ut ne adversarii quidem id negare, nisi omnino impudenter valeant. Nam S. Gregorium indulgentias in diebus stationum populo concessisse testantur gravissimi auctores. S. Tbomas in 4. sent. dist. 20. q. 1. art. 3. quaestum. 2. et qui eum praecessit Gulielmus Altisiodorensis lib. iv. Summae theologicae tract. 6. c. 9. Leonem III Pontificem ante annos 800. Indulgentias con¬ cessisse, testis est S.Ludgerus in epistola de S. Suviberto, quae exstat apud Surium tom. 2. post vitam S. Suviberti a S. Marcellino descriptam. Sic enim loquitur in ea epist. S. Ludgerus c. 9. « Idem S. Leo Papa anno Dominicae Incarnationis 803. cum magna solemnitate suorum Cardinalium , Archie- piscoporum, Episcoporum, et Praelatorum ad Imperatorem Carolum in Germaniam ve¬ niens, et ab eodem imperatore imperialiter cum suis susceptus, inter multa pietatis suae opera, instantia ejusdem serenissimi impe¬ ratoris et regis, Aquisgrani in palatio dedi¬ cavit Ecclesiam perpetuae Virginis Mariae, donans eamdem Ecclesiam multis indulgen¬ tiis ». Et infra: « Et Colonia: Agrippinae tam ad sanctum Martinum, quam in Capitolio altaria consecravit, et multa alia Monasteria et altaria, ac cappellas per Alemaniam, et Galliam consecravit; ubique multas indul¬ gentias conferendo ». Et infra : « Obtulit idem S. Papa eidem Ecclesiae speciales in¬ dulgentias cunctis fidelibus celebrantibus festem S. Suviberti Episcopi, et ad divina confluentibus ». Haec ille. Sergium juniorem Pontificem, qui sedit circa annum 844. con¬ cessisse indulgentiam trium annorum, et trium quadragenarum visitantibus Ecclesiam S. Martini in montibus in die festo ejusdem Ecclesiae constat ex memoria hujus rei, quae exstat in marmore inciso litteris antiquissimis in eadem Ecclesia, ut nulla fingi possit su¬ spicio fraudis. Neque ullo modo credibile est, Leonem III, aut Sergium II, aut Gre¬ gorium I, cum viri sanctissimi essent, ausos fuisse rem novam instituere, quam a praede¬ cessoribus non accepissent, et modus ipse loquendi S. Ludgeri, et verba in marmore incisa jussu Sergii, aperte indicant, rem solitam fuisse indulgentiarum concessionem. Multa his similia de posterioribus pontifi¬ cibus, ut Gregorio VII, Alexandro III, et aliis referre possemus. Sed adversarii non negant, quin a posterioribus Pontificibus in¬ dulgentiae concessae fuerint. Tertio probatur eadem haec potestas ex conciliis generalibus Ecclesia: Catholicae, in quibus indulgentiae conceduntur, vel probantur. Quod enim concilia generalia docent, id universa Eccle¬ sia docet. Habemus anno 1096. concilium Claramontanum generale teste S. Antonino 2. par. hist. tit. 16. cap. 1. § 23. in quo Ur¬ banus II Papa indulgentiam plenariam tri¬ buit iis, qui ad sacrum bellum proficisce¬ bantur. Paulo post, anno videlicet 1116, in Concilio Lateranensi generali, et numero¬ sissimo Paschalis II Papa concessit indul¬ gentiam 40. dierum iis, qui ad Concilium praedictum venerant, teste Abbate Ursper- gensi, qui tunc vivebat, in chronico anni 1116. Rursus anno 1213. teste abbate Ur- spergensi Innocentius III, concessit indul¬ gentiam plenariam pro auxilio terrae Sanctae, et simul indixit concilium generale Latera¬ nense frequentissimum, quod celebratum est anno Domini 1215. atque in eo de indulgen¬ tiis quoque actum est, et emendati abusus, qui circa indulgentias paulatim irrepserant, ut patet ex cap. Cum ex eo, de pcenit. et remiss. Emendatio vero abusuum testatur rem esse antiquissimam, non enim irrepunt abusus, nisi in iis rebus, quae diu fuerunt in usu. Similis emendatio legitur in concilio generali Lugdunensi ut habemus in Sexto, de pcenit. et remiss. c. 1. et in concilio gene- rui i Viennensi, ut habemus in 2. Glementina, eodem titulo ; in concilio vero Constantiensi item generali, non solum damnantur errores de indulgentiis Joannis Wiclcffi, sess. 8, sed etiam in ultima sessione concedit Murtinus V indulgentiam plenariam. Denique Tridenti- num Concilium sess. 25. iterum probat usum indulgentiarum, et emendat abusus. Quam¬ vis autem hoc argumentum ab auctoritate tot generalium conciliorum ab haereticis no¬ stri temporis contemnatur : tamen revera gravissimum est argumentum. Nam Ariani quoque nihili faciebant concilium Nicaenum, Nestoriani Ephesinum primum, Euthychiani Chalcedonense, et ca3teri variorum tempo¬ rum Concilia eorum Episcoporum, a quibus damnabantur, et tamen semper Ecclesia ca¬ tholica hunc morem servavit, ut in conciliis haereses damnarentur, et ut S. Augustinus ad Januarium scribit in epist. 118. semper fuit in Ecclesia plenariorum conciliorum sa¬ luberrima auctoritas. Quarto probatur ratione petita ab iis si¬ gnis , ex quibus internoscuntur Catholica dogmata ab haeresibus. Nam Catholicorum dogmatum hoc est proprium, ut non inve¬ niatur eorum origo, nisi ad Evangelium, vel Apostolos ascendamus. Hseresum autem semper designari potest certus auctor, et locus, et tempus, in quo exoriri coeperunt. Jam vero nullus hactenus indicare potuit auctorem indulgentiarum, neque locum, vel tempus , quo praedicari coeperint. Omnes enim, qui de indulgentiis mentionem faciunt, sive doctores sint, sive pontifices, sive etiam concilia, ita de iis loquuntur, ut de re usitata, et recepta. Quare Murtinus Kemnitius in quarta parte Examinis pag. 329. fatetur originem indulgentiarum non satis luculenter in historiis notatam fuisse, et quod paulo post pag. 333. affirmat, indulgentias coepisse circa annum Domini 1200. manifeste falsum esse convincitur ex iis, quae citavimus de indulgentiis concessis a Paschali II, Urbano II, Sergio III, et potissimum a Leone III, qui sedit anno Domini 800. id est, quadringentis annis ante millesimum ducentesimum a Kemnitio notatum. Initium autem haeresis contra indulgentias notissimum est. Constat enim non solum ex Catholicis, sed etiam ex ipso Kemnitio pag. 375. primos fuisse Val- denses, qui doctrinam Ecclesiae de indulgen¬ tiis oppugnare coeperunt. Valdenses autem quorum auctor Valdesius civis Lugdunensis fuit, a qua civitate Pauperes de Lugduno appellati sunt, constat mundo apparuisse circa annum DominLll70. ex Claudio Cus- sordio in libro contra Valdenses extremo. Ex quo etiam confutatur error Kemnitii de ori¬ gine indulgentiarum. Nam si Valdenses, qui indulgentias oppugnabant, exorti sunt circa annum Domini 1170. quomodo fieri potest, ut indulgentim ipsae coeperint circa annum Domini 1200. Quinto probatur ex divinis testimoniis re¬ velationum et miraculorum. Nam S. Ber- nardus praedicavit multis in locis indulgen- gentias, quas Eugenius III Papa concessit iis, qui accepta Cruce ad bellum sacrum Hierosolymitanum proficiscerentur, et prae¬ dicationem suam miraculis plurimis et ma¬ ximis confirmavit, ut cognosci potest ex vita ejus fideliter scripta lib. m. cap. 4 et ex initio lib. ii. de Consideratione ejusdem Bernardi. Sanctus quoque Franciscus divina revela¬ tione indulgentiam a Domino, et ab ejus Vi¬ cario Romano Pontifice obtinuit pro Ecclesia S. Mariae de Angelis. De qua indulgentia plura dicemus in ii. lib. cap. ult. ad quem locum lectorem remittimus. S. Birgitta vidua sanctissima, cujus revelationes diligenter examinatae, et approbatae per viros doctis¬ simos fuerunt, ab ipso Christo non semel ad¬ monita est de indulgentiis maximis quae sunt Romae. Vide lib. vi. Revelationum cap. 102. et 105. Sexto et ultimo probatur ratione ducta a simili. Nam in omni bene instituta republica pertinet ad principem, vel magistratum dis¬ pensatio communium bonorum, et rursus ad eosdem pertinet admittere satisfactionem unius pro altero, si ita judicent expedire uti¬ litati ejusdem reipublica?. Ut exempli gratia, si princeps aliquis debeat stipendia multa militibus, et rursum habeat in carceribus multos, qui ob fraudes, fisci rationibus il¬ latas, debeant poenam luere vel in pecunia, vel in corpore, si forte milites illi ex direptis civitatibus locupletati, stipendiis non egeant, eaque reipublicse condonent pro arbitrio principis eroganda, certe poterit princeps ob utilitatem aliquam reipublicse ex militaribus illis stipendiis, fisco suo pro debitis misero¬ rum, qui carceribus detinentur, satisfacere, et miseros illos absolvere. At certum est, Episcopos, principes esse populi Christiani, et Romanum pontificem in universa Ecclesia loco Christi summum magistratum gerere : nec minus est certum, exstare in Ecclesia thesaurum satisfactionum ex passionibus CAPUT IV. Christi et sanctorum, quo ipsi non egent, et in communem fidelium utilitatem erogari desiderant. Denique certum est, multos esse fideles homines, et Dei filios, et amicos, qui tamen reatu poenae temporali adhuc tenean¬ tur obstricti : cur igitur non poterunt Epi¬ scopi, ac potissimum Pontifex Maximus si rationabilis causa subsit, ex thesauro illo pro debitoribus satisfacere Deo, et nomine ipsius Dei, eamdem satisfactionem pro debitoribus illis acceptare, atque ea ratione indulgentiam illis dare, eosque a reatu poenae temporalis absolvere ? Tertia propositio : « Praelati Ecclesiae dis¬ pensare possunt Christi passionem, tum per sacramenta, tum per indulgentias, passiones vero sanctorum non nisi per indulgentias ». Ratio est in promptu. Nam Christi passio, qua parte dispensatur pro justificatione et reconcilialione peccatorum, non potest ab Ecclesiae praelatis dispensari nisi per sacra¬ menta : gratiam enim et gloriam (ut omnes Theologi fatentur) non potest donare extra sacramenta, nisi Deus potestate propria, et Christus per potestatem sibi communicatam a Deo, quam vocant excellentiae. Qua parte autem eodem Christi passio dispensatur pro remissione poenae temporalis, potest et per sacramenta et extra sacramenta dispensari. Nam in sacramento Baptismi virtute passionis Christi remittitur omnis poena sive tempo¬ ralis, sive aeterna : in sacramento vero Poe¬ nitentiae remittitur semper poena sempiterna, et pars aliqua poenae temporalis. Passiones vero sanctorum per sacramenta dispensari non queunt. Numquam enim in sacramentis remittitur poena sine remissione culpae : culpae autem passionibus sanctorum expiari non possunt, ut illud omittam, quod sacramenta instrumenta sunt passionis solius Christi, nec ullam vim habent a passionibus sanctorum, cum ipsi etiam Sancti per Christi sacramenta sanctificati fuerint. Restat igitur, ut passiones sanctorum, si ullo modo dispensari debeant extra sacramenta solum, idque pro solutione solius reatus poenae temporalis dispensari debeant. Quod si passiones sanctorum extra sacramenta dispensentur, dubium esse non debet, quin etiam Christi passio pro solutione reatus poenae temporalis extra sacramenta dispensari possit. Atque haec ad explican¬ dam, et confirmandam veritatem in praesenti sufficiant ; nam in sequenti capite ex obje¬ ctionum solutione veritas ipsa magis elucescet.