Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 4: Objections against the doctrine of the two preceding chapters are solved
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).
Against the things said in the second and third chapters many objections are raised by the adversaries, which must be briefly dissolved. I shall pass over for the present the arguments of Luther and the other heretics, both because I shall refute them all together in the second book, and because they hang together so badly that they scarcely carry the appearance or the shadow of an argument. Which makes it the more wonderful that on account of such weak and foolish reasons so many peoples could have fallen away from the ancient faith. I shall bring forward, then, only the objections of Durandus and Mayrone.
First objection. God the Father rendered to the merits of Christ, and above all to his most bitter passion and death, a most abundant reward, as the Apostle teaches in the epistle to the Philippians, chapter 2, when he says: He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names. There remain, therefore, no sufferings unrewarded to be laid up in a treasury. Answer. The sufferings of Christ, insofar as they could be called merits, that is, as acts of the virtues of obedience, patience, humility, and above all charity, had some reward, the glory of the body and the exaltation of the name, as the Apostle writes; but insofar as they were satisfactions, that is, good and penal works, they obtained no reward at all in the person of Christ himself, since he had no sins of his own for which he was bound to make satisfaction. And so all the afflictions of Christ, insofar as they have the nature of satisfaction, were superfluous to him, and are rightly contained in the treasury. Although neither did Christ have the full reward of his labours insofar as they were meritorious. For he had the essential glory of the soul without merits in the first instant of his conception, as the theologians teach; and since those merits were of infinite price, certainly the glory of the body alone and the exaltation of the name were not their full reward. Wherefore the theologians rightly hold that Christ merited by the rigour of justice grace and glory for all men, even if they had been going to be infinite in number.
Second objection. A mortal fault is the cause of infinite harm, as far as concerns itself, since it is an offence against God, who is the supreme and infinite good; therefore, to take away a mortal fault a satisfaction of infinite price was necessary. The whole passion of Christ, therefore, although it was of infinite merit, is consumed in the redemption and expiation of mortal fault; and thereby nothing remains to be laid up in the treasury for the expiation of punishments. Answer. If the argument proposed proved anything, it would prove that only a single mortal fault could have been blotted out by the passion of Christ, and that nothing then remained in the treasury, not only for taking away punishments, but even for taking away very many faults. But it is not so: for many faults, each of which is an infinite offence, do not require for their expiation many infinite satisfactions; but one truly infinite satisfaction, such as was any affliction of Christ whatever, suffices for expiating all those faults and the punishments owed for them, for nothing can be given greater than the infinite. Wherefore Clement VI wrote most truly in the Constitution which begins Unigenitus that one drop of the blood of Christ, on account of its union with the Word, could have sufficed for reconciling the whole world. And since the Lord Christ shed for us not one drop of blood but all his blood, and from his very conception until his death bore the heaviest labours with the most ardent charity, that he might reconcile us to God the Father and make satisfaction to divine justice for our faults, there cannot be any doubt that there always remains a price, and that a most just one, by which our debts can be paid.
Third objection. The satisfaction of Christ is infinite, as has already been said; there is no need, therefore, that satisfactions from the sufferings of the saints be joined to the satisfaction of Christ. Answer. There is indeed no need that the sufferings of the saints be joined to the sufferings of Christ, as if these did not suffice of themselves. But they are joined nevertheless, because it is fitting that those sufferings should not be empty before God, especially since this is both glorious to Christ, from whom flows every good of the saints, and also very honourable to the saints themselves. But how the satisfactions of Christ concur in this application with the sufferings of the saints, that is, whether one part of the satisfaction is applied from the sufferings of Christ and another part from the sufferings of the saints, or whether the whole satisfaction is always taken from the sufferings of Christ, and the sufferings of the saints are added over and above to the heap of satisfaction, does not seem to need too curious an investigation. This seems certain, that the sufferings of Christ, which are of infinite price, are applied through indulgences in a finite manner, and therefore something is really added over when the sufferings of the saints are joined to them, which Dominic Soto rightly noted on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 21, question 1, article 2.
Fourth objection. All the saints have received the full reward of their labours; nay, the theologians rightly gather from the divine letters that all the saints were rewarded by God above what was condign, since the Lord says, Luke 6: Good measure and pressed down and shaken together and running over shall they give into your bosom. And the Apostle to the Romans, chapter 8: The sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. Nothing remains, therefore, from the labours of the saints which can be spent on the expiation of others' sins, and preserved to this end in the treasury of the Church. Answer. We have already taught above that in the good works of the saints, which were laborious and penal, there is a double nature, the one of merit, the other of satisfaction. As regards the nature of merit, then, all the saints received for their labours a full reward, nay, even a pressed down, shaken together and overflowing measure of reward. But as regards the nature of satisfaction, many labours of the saints would be empty and without fruit unless they were consumed for the guilt of others, since the saints themselves needed either no labours, or certainly lesser ones, for expiating their own guilt.
Fifth objection. The saints did or bore nothing at all for God which they were not bound to do or bear; nothing therefore remains to them which they could share with others. The antecedent is gathered from many testimonies of sacred Scripture, but chiefly from what is found in Luke 17: When you shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do. Wherefore the wise virgins, Matthew 25, not without cause answered the foolish ones who said, Give us of your oil: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. Answer. It is not necessary in this place to dispute about works of supererogation, of which we have treated in the book on Monks. For even if we admitted, which nevertheless we showed to be false in the place noted, that holy men did or bore nothing at all for God which they were not bound to do or bear, the argument would still conclude nothing. For the very obedience to the law, which we are without doubt bound to fulfil, is meritorious and satisfactory, and it can happen that he who renders obedience to the law does not need that satisfaction for his own offences, and therefore can share it with others. Nor do the wise virgins speak of satisfaction, but of the oil of grace and charity, without which we cannot be saved. Which oil indeed each keeps for himself, nor can pour it out upon others, since the pouring out of so precious an oil is the work of God alone. The charity of God, says the Apostle to the Romans, chapter 5, is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.
Sixth objection. If our offences could be expiated by the sufferings of the saints, it would not be absurd to call them our redeemers, at least in part. But Christ alone is the Redeemer of the human race, of whom the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 1, who is made unto us justice and redemption; and 1 Corinthians 6, You are bought with a great price. Answer. On account of this argument there were not lacking some among the more recent writers who said that the sufferings of the saints are not so applied to us through indulgences that they are just compensations for the punishments we owe to God, that is, true satisfactions; but that they are something which moves God to apply to us the satisfaction of Christ. But this opinion was reproved by Pope Pius V, and by Gregory XIII, who confirmed the sentence of Pius. For Pius V condemned many articles of certain men of Louvain, one of which was: “Temporal punishment is remitted by the satisfactions of Christ alone, but the sufferings of the saints are offered to God so that God in view of them may apply to us the merits of Christ.” Moreover, that same opinion is contrary to the Constitution of Clement VI which begins Unigenitus, and to the Bull of Leo X in which the errors of Luther are condemned, and to the common consent of the theologians. Besides, if the sufferings of the saints could not be applied to us for redeeming the punishments which we owe to God for sins, lest the saints should seem to be our redeemers, then certainly neither could we ourselves redeem those same punishments by our own labours, lest we should seem to be our own redeemers. But the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 8, and canons 13 and 14, most plainly teaches the contrary. To the argument, therefore, we answer that if the name of Redeemer is taken properly and absolutely, Christ alone is the redeemer; for he is properly and absolutely called Redeemer who redeems from captivity, not he who pays for another some debt of small moment. But we are called captives only when we are sold under sin, as the Scriptures speak, and when bound with the snares of the devil we are held to his will; which happens only when through mortal sin we fall from the grace of God. And from this slavery and captivity we can be redeemed by the blood of Christ alone; accordingly he alone ought truly and properly to be called redeemer. But if in a broad way whoever frees another from some debt is called a redeemer, it will not be absurd if holy men are said to be our redeemers in some way, that is, in a certain respect, not simply, and in a broad way, not in the rigour of the words. For if the prophet Daniel did not unfittingly say to King Nabuchodonosor, Redeem thou thy sins with alms, Daniel 4, why should holy men be unfittingly said to be able in some way to redeem our offences by their sufferings? And if blessed Paul wrote of himself, 1 Corinthians 9, I became all things to all men, that I might save all, why could he not also have written, that I might redeem all? For the name of Saviour is no less proper to Christ than that of Redeemer.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
Solvuntur objectiones contra doctrinam
duorum capitum superiorum.
Adversus ea, quae dicta sunt capite secundo
et tertio, multa objiciuntur ab adversariis,
quae sunt breviter diluenda. Omittam autem
in praesentia Lutheri, et caeterorum haereti¬
corum argumenta, tum quoniam ea simul
omnia in secundo libro refellam : tum quia
tam male inter se cohaerent, ut vix prae se
ferant speciem, vel umbram argumenti. Quo
magis mirum est propter tam debiles et ine¬
ptas rationes potuisse tot populos ab antiqua
fide deficere. Adferam igitur solum Durandi
et Maironis objectiones.
Prima objectio. Deus Pater Christi meritis,
atque in primis acerbissimae passioni ejus, et
morti cumulatissimum praemium reddidit, ut
Apostolus docet in epist. ad Philippenses
cap. ii. cum ait : Humiliavit semetipsum fa¬
ctus obediens usque ad mortem , mortem autem
Crucis; propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum,
et dedit illi nomen , quod est super omne no¬
men (1). Non igitur supersunt passiones
aliquae non remuneratae, quae in thesauro
recondantur. Responsio, Christi passiones
qua parte merita dici poterant, actiones vi¬
delicet virtutum ohedientiae, patientiae, humir
litatis, ac potissimum charitatis, praemium
aliquod habuerunt, gloriam corporis, et no¬
minis exaltationem, ut Apostolus scribit : sed
qua parte satisfactiones erant, ut opera bona,
et pcenalia, nullum omnino praemium in ipsa
Christi persona sortitae sunt, cum ipsa nulla
peccata propria haberet, pro quibus satisfa¬
cere teneretur. Itaque universae Christi af¬
flictiones, ut rationem satisfactionis habent,
supervacaneae ipsi fuerunt, et in thesauro
jure continentur. Quamquam neque inte¬
grum praemium Christus habuit laborum
suorum, qua parte meritorii erant. Nam
gloriam animae essentialem sine meritis ha¬
buit in primo instanti conceptionis suae, ut
theologi docent : et cum ea merita infiniti
pretii essent, certe non fuit integrum eorum
praemium sola corporis gloria, et nominis
exaltatio. Quare theologi recte statuunt Chri¬
stum meruisse de rigore justitiae gratiam, et
gloriam omnibus hominibus, etiamsi illi in¬
finiti futuri fuissent.
Secunda objectio. Culpa lethalis est infi-
(I) PbiU II. 9
28
LIBER I.
niti damni causa, quod ad se attinet, cum
sit offensa Dei, qui est summum et infini¬
tum bonum : igitur ad culpam lethalem tol¬
lendam, necessaria fuit infiniti pretii satis¬
factio. Tota igitur Christi passio, quamvis
infiniti meriti fuerit, in redemptione et ex¬
piatione culpae lethalis consumitur ; ac per
hoc nihil superest, quod pro expiandis poe¬
nis in thesauro reponatur. Responsio. Si ar¬
gumentum propositum aliquid efficeret, pro¬
baret unicam solum culpam lethalem Chri¬
sti passione deleri potuisse : et jam non so¬
lum pro tollendis poenis, sed etiam pro tol¬
lendis plurimis culpis nihil in thesauro re¬
mansisse. Sed non ita est : nam multae
culpae, quarum unaquaeque sit offensio infi¬
nita, non requirunt ad sui expiationem
multas infinitas satisfactiones : sed una sa¬
tisfactio vere infinita, qualis fuit quaelibet
Christi afflictio, sufficit ad expiandas omnes
illas culpas, et poenas pro eis debitas, nihil
enim majus infinito dari potest. Quare ve¬
rissime scripsit Clemens VI in Constitutione,
quae incipit Unigenitus, unam sanguinis gut¬
tam Christi, propter unionem ad Verbum,
toti mundo reconciliando satis esse potuisse.
Et cum Dominus Christus non unam sangui¬
nis guttam, sed totum sanguinem pro nobis
fuderit, et ab ipsa conceptione usque ad
mortem ardentissima charitate gravissimos
labores pertulerit, ut Deo Patri nos recon¬
ciliaret, proque culpis nostris divinae justitiae
satisfaceret, dubium esse non potest, quin
semper supersit pretium, idque justissimum,
quo debita nostra solvi possint.
Tertia objectio. Satisfactio Christi est in¬
finita, ut jam dictum est : non igitur opus
est, ut ad satisfactionem Christi adjungantur
satisfactiones ex passionibus sanctorum .
Responsio : Non est quidem opus, ut adjun¬
gantur passiones Sanctorum passionibus
Christi, quasi hae per se non sufficiant. Sed
adjunguntur tamen, quia aequum est, ut
passiones illa) coram Deo non sint inanes,
praesertim cum id sit tum gloriosum Christo,
a quo manat omne bonum sanctorum, tum
ipsis etiam sanctis perhonorificum. Quomo¬
do autem concurrant in hac applicatione
satisfactiones Christi cum passionibus san¬
ctorum, id est, an applicetur pars una satis¬
factionis ex passionibus Christi, pars alia ex
passionibus sanctorum, an vero integra sa¬
tisfactio accipiatur semper ex passionibus
Christi, et superaddantur ad cumulum satis¬
factionis passiones Sanctorum, non videtur
nimis curiose investigandum. Illud videtur
certum, passiones Christi, quae sunt infiniti
pretii applicari per indulgentias finito modo,
et ideo aliquid revera superaddi, cum pas-
.siones Sanctorum illis adjunguntur, quod
recte annotavit Dominicus a Soto in 4. sen-
ten. dist. 21. quaest. 1. art. 2.
Quarta objectio. Sancti omnes plenam
mercedem laborum suorum acceperunt, im-
mo supra condignum Sanctos omnes a Deo
remuneratos recte colligunt Theologi ex di¬
vinis litteris, cum Dominus dicat Luc. vi.
Mensuram bonam , et confertam, et coagitatam,
et supereffluentem dabunt in sinum vestrum.
Et Apostolus ad Rom. vm. Non sunt condi-
gnse passiones hujus temporis ad futuram glo¬
riam, quse revelabitur in nobis { 1). Nihil igitur
superest ex laboribus Sanctorum, quod ad
expiationem alienorum peccatorum insumi
possit, et ad hunc finem in thesauro Eccle¬
sia) conservetur. Responsio. Jam supra do¬
cuimus in bonis operibus Sanctorum, quae
laboriosa et poenalia fuerunt, duplicem esse
rationem, alteram meriti, alteram satisfac¬
tionis. Quod igitur attinet ad rationem me¬
riti, plenam mercedem, imo etiam confer¬
tam, et coagitatam, et supereffluentem men¬
suram praemii sancti omnes pro suis labori¬
bus acceperunt. Quod autem pertinet ad
rationem satisfactionis, multi labores San¬
ctorum inanes, et sine fructu essent, nisi pro
reatibus aliorum consumerentur, cum ipsi
sancti aut nullis, aut certe minoribus labo¬
ribus pro suis expiandis reatibus indige¬
rent.
Quinta objectio. Nihil omnino sancti fe¬
cerunt vel pertulerunt propter Deum, quod
facere, vel perferre non tenerentur : nihil
igitur illis superest, quod cum aliis commu¬
nicare possint. Antecedens colligitur ex mul¬
tis testimoniis Sacrae Scripturae, sed ex eo
potissimum, quod habetur Luc. xvn. Cum
feceritis hsec omnia, dicite : servi inutiles sumus;
quod debuimus facere, fecimus. Quare pru¬
dentes virgines Mattb. xxv. non sine causa
fatuis dicentibus, date nobis de oleo vestro ,
responderunt, ne forte non sufficiat nobis, et
vobis, ite potius ad vendentes, et emite vobis (2).
Responsio. Non est necesse hoc loco de ope¬
ribus supererogationis disputare de quibus
in libro de Monachis disseruimus. Nam et-
(1) Luc. VI, 38 j Rom. VIII, 18. - (2) Luc. XVII, 10 ; Mat. XXV, 8.
'CAPUT V.
29
iamsi admitteremus, quod tamen falsum es¬
se loco notato demonstravimus, nihil omni¬
no sanctos viros fecisse, vel pertulisse pro¬
pter Deum, quod facere vel tolerare non te¬
nerentur; nihil tamen argumentum conclu¬
deret. Nam ipsa obedientia legis, ad quam
implendam sine dubitatione tenemur, meri¬
toria, et satisfactoria est, et potest fieri, ut
ea satisfactione pro suis delictis non egeat,
qui legis obedientiam praestat, ac propterea
cum aliis eam communicare possit. Neque
virgines prudentes de satisfactione loquun¬
tur, sed de oleo gratiae, et charitatis, sine
quo salvi esse non possumus. Quod quidem
oleum unusquisque retinet sibi, neque in
alios effundere potest, cum sit opus solius
Dei, effusio tam pretiosi olei. Chantas Dei ,
inquit Apostolus ad Rom. v. diffusa est in
cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum , qui
datus est nobis (1).
Sexta objectio. Si Sanctorum passionibus
expiari possent nostra delicta, non esset ab¬
surdum eos appellare nostros redemptores,
saltem ex parte. At solus Christus est Re¬
demptor generis humani, de quo dicit Apo¬
stolus I Corinth. i. Qui factus est nobis justi¬
tia, et redemptio ; et I Corinth. vi. Empti
estis pretio magno (2). Responsio. Propter
hoc argumentum non defuerunt aliqui ex
recentioribus, qui dicerent, passiones san¬
ctorum non ita nobis applicari per indulgen¬
tias, ut sint justae compensationes pro poenis,
quas nos debemus Deo, hoc est, verse satis¬
factiones : sed esse aliquid, quod moveat
Deum, ut nobis Christi satisfactionem appli¬
cet. Sed hsec opinio reprobata est a Pio Y
Pontifice et a Gregorio XIII qui sententiam
Pii confirmavit. Damnavit c.nim Pius Y
multos articulos quorumdam Lovaniensium,
quorum unus erat : « Solius Christi satisfac¬
tionibus remitti poenam temporalem, San¬
ctorum autem passiones offerri Deo, ut Deus
illarum intuitu applicet nobis merita Christi » .
Prseterea repugnat eadem illa opinio Consti¬
tutioni Clementis YI. quae incipit Unigeni¬
tus, et Bullae Leonis X. in qua damnantur
errores Lutheri, et communi consensui Theo¬
logorum. Ad hsec, si non possent nobis ap¬
plicari Sanctorum passiones ad redimendas
poenas, quas pro peccatis Deo debemus, ne
sancti redemptores nostri esse videantur,
certe, neque nos ipsi propriis laboribus,
poenas easdem redimere possemus, ne nos
ipsi redemptores nostri esse vTdearqur. At¬
qui Concilium Tridcntinum sess. 14. c. 8.
et can. 13 et 14. apertissime docet contra¬
rium. Ad argumentum igitur respondemus,
si proprie, et absolute nomen Redemptoris
accipiatur, solum Christum esse redempto¬
rem ; is enim dicitur proprie et absolute
Redemptor, qui redimit a captivitate, non
qui solvit pro alio debitum aliquod parvi
momenti. Nos autem tunc solum captivi di¬
cimur, cum venumdati sub peccato, ut Scri¬
pturae loquuntur, et cum laqueis Diaboli
vincti tenemur ad ipsius voluntatem ; id
quod tunc solum fit, cum per lethale pecca¬
tum a gratia Dei excidimus. Ab hac autem
servitute et captivitate solo Christi sanguine
redimi possumus, proinde ipse solus vere
proprieque redemptor dici debet. At si lar¬
go modo redemptor appelletur quicumquc
liberat alium ab aliquo debito, non erit ab¬
surdum, si Sancti viri Redemptores 'nostri
aliquo modo, id est, secundum aliquid, non
simpliciter, et largo modo, non in rigore
verborum esse dicantur. Nam si Propheta
Daniel Regi Nabuchodonosor non inepte di¬
xit, Peccata tua eleemosynis redime , Dan.
IV. cur inepte dicantur Sancti viri aliquo
modo passionibus suis delicta nostra posse
redimere ? et si B. Paulus de se scripsit I
Corinth. ix. Omnibus omnia factus sum , ut
omnes facerem salvos (3) ; cur non etiam scri¬
bere potuit, ut omnes redimerem? Non enim
minus est proprium Christo nomen Salvato¬
ris, quam Redemptoris.