Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 7: From what bond we are loosed, or absolved, through 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).
Since it has been demonstrated that an indulgence is an absolution with a payment annexed, it follows that we explain from what bond an indulgence looses or absolves us. For thus it will be established what is the proper nature, definition and essence of an indulgence. It must be known, then, that the bond, or debt, or guilt of sin is twofold: the one of fault, the other of punishment. And again the guilt of punishment is itself twofold: the one of natural punishment, which follows original sin, such as sickness, death, ignorance, concupiscence and the like; the other of personal punishment, which follows actual sin, such as was the plague sent upon the people for the sin of David. Again, the guilt of personal punishment belongs either to the external court or to the internal. Again, the guilt of punishment owed in the internal or penitential court is either of a penance enjoined or of one to be enjoined. Finally, the guilt of the same penance, whether enjoined or to be enjoined, is either a debt so that satisfaction be made to the Church alone, or so that satisfaction be made also to God. These divisions having been set out, propositions must be added in the usual way.
First proposition. “Through indulgences we are neither absolved nor loosed from the guilt of any fault, that is, neither mortal nor venial.” And indeed about mortal fault there can be no doubt; for since it cannot be taken away without the infusion of grace, and grace is not infused by human ministry except through the sacraments, it must be held for certain that it cannot be taken away through indulgences. But about venial fault Peter Paludanus indeed seems to think, on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, that it is taken away by an indulgence. But far more probable is the common opinion of the others, that through indulgences nothing is taken away except the guilt of temporal punishment which remains when the fault has been dismissed. For an indulgence supplies the place of penitential satisfaction, and therefore is said by Innocent, in the chapter Cum ex eo, on penances and remissions, to weaken penitential satisfaction when the indulgence is indiscreet. Moreover, when the Pontiffs grant indulgences, they often declare that they remit the penance enjoined; often also they say that they bestow a certain number of years or days of indulgence, which can in no way be fitted to venial sins, but only to punishments. And so if at any time in letters of indulgence it is read that absolution from fault and punishment is granted, it must be understood that this is said because the indulgence is ordinarily joined with sacramental confession, and brings it about that he who through the sacrament of Penance has been absolved from fault is through the indulgence absolved from punishment. In the same way, when the Pontiffs say that through indulgences they absolve penitents from sins, or remit all sins, or a half or a third part of sins, they always speak of sins as to the punishment, not as to the fault, which is believed to be remitted before the indulgence.
Second proposition. “Through indulgences we are not freed from natural punishments.” On this all authors agree. For it is agreed that it has been determined by God that those natural punishments are not taken away until nature itself is changed, that is, when through the resurrection this mortal shall put on immortality, 1 Corinthians 15, and when we shall obtain the perfect adoption of the sons of God, namely the redemption of our body, Romans 8.
Third proposition. “Nor can indulgences take away the punishments which are inflicted in the external and contentious court, whether ecclesiastical or secular.” Saint Thomas teaches this on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 5, little question 2, nor do other writers dissent. For the punishments of the external court are inflicted for the good of the commonwealth, that criminals may be deterred from sins and honest men may enjoy security. Moreover, indulgences are not granted except to penitents reconciled to God; but those punishments of the external court are inflicted most of all on the obstinate and rebellious. Finally, indulgences, as has been said, hold the place of penitential satisfaction; wherefore they take away no other punishment than that which we owe in the secret and penitential court.
Fourth proposition. “Indulgences free men from the guilt of punishment not only before the Church but also before God.” This proposition was formerly denied by some, whose opinion the old theologians report and refute, Saint Thomas on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 3, and others. The same is denied at this time by Luther, Calvin and the other sectaries, who teach that an indulgence among the ancients was nothing else than the relaxation of a penalty which the Church herself had imposed, not that satisfaction might be made to God through it, but for the sake of example and discipline, that all might understand that he who paid a penalty of this kind had truly repented. And indeed against Catholics who think less rightly in this matter our proposition is proved by these arguments. First, because if satisfaction had to be made only to the Church, or the precept of doing penance laid down by the Church taken away, there would be no need of the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints. Second, the indulgence would be not useful but harmful, and the Church would seem to deceive her sons in a most grave matter, for she would free them from the mildest punishment of this life and send them on to the most atrocious punishment of Purgatory. Third, indulgences could not be granted for the dead, who are no longer bound by the precepts of the Church, and who neither need discipline themselves nor can be an example to others. Fourth, many of the faithful about to receive indulgences confess their sins to priests and fulfil the satisfaction enjoined; sometimes also the Pontiffs in letters of indulgence prescribe that priests enjoin salutary penances on those who desire to obtain the indulgence; therefore both the peoples who receive indulgences and the Pontiffs who grant them testify that they are of this opinion, that indulgences profit chiefly for the expiation of the punishment of Purgatory. Finally, this seems to be signified by those words, of true indulgence, which are usually added when indulgences are promulgated in the papal chapel. For that is called a true indulgence which truly takes away the guilt of punishment not only before the Church but also before God.
Now against the heretics there is no reason for us to labour much in proving this matter. For they deny that the guilt of punishment before God is taken away by indulgences precisely because they think that after the remission of fault no guilt of punishment remains before God, and that there is no need of any true satisfaction; and because they cannot deny that among the ancients there are very many testimonies of punishments which were enjoined on penitents or relaxed, they therefore teach that those punishments were accustomed to be inflicted for the sake of example and discipline. But all these things we have treated copiously enough in the fourth book on Penance, where we have also dissolved all the arguments which were brought forward by Luther, Philip and Calvin. Yet lest we should seem to have said nothing at all in this place, we can prove that indulgences avail for relaxing punishment even before God, first, from the words of Christ often cited, Matthew 16, Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven, and Matthew 18, Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven; for to what purpose is also in heaven added, if no bond is loosed but a human one? Second, from the Fathers, who everywhere affirm that satisfaction is made to God by punishments enjoined or voluntarily undertaken. Tertullian in the book on penance, speaking of those who while doing penance return to their sins, says thus: “He who had undertaken to make satisfaction to the Lord by penance for his offences will make satisfaction to the devil by another penance for his penance.” Saint Cyprian in the fifth sermon, on the lapsed: “The Lord,” he says, “must be prayed to, the Lord must be appeased by our satisfaction.” Saint Pacian in the exhortation to penance: “In proportion as you do not spare your own punishment,” he says, “God will spare you.” Saint Augustine, homily 30 from the book of fifty homilies, chapter 11: “Let him come,” he says, “to the prelates, by whom the keys are ministered to him in the Church; let him receive the measure of his satisfaction, and do that which profits not only him for receiving salvation, but the rest also for example.” And chapter 13: “It is not enough,” he says, “to change one's ways for the better, unless satisfaction be made to God also for the things that have been done, by the grief of penance, by the groaning of humility, by the sacrifice of a contrite heart, with almsgiving cooperating.” Peter Damian in the second sermon on Saint Andrew: “Do not flatter yourself,” he says, “if a lighter penance is prescribed for one who has sinned gravely by a gentle or a dissembling priest, since whatever you have done less here must be completed in the fires of Purgatory.”
From these testimonies we plainly gather that satisfaction is made to God by penances enjoined, and thereby that indulgences, which absolve from penances of this kind, expiate the guilt of temporal punishment even before God. Many other testimonies of the ancients could be adduced, but not all are to be repeated everywhere. Third, it is proved by a reason drawn from a likeness. For the penances imposed by priests and those which are voluntarily undertaken are altogether alike; for they consist of the same things, namely prayer, fastings and alms, and tend to the same end, and the one kind helps the other; nay, priests, when they impose penances, exhort penitents to undertake others also of their own accord, since it is credible that those imposed are not equal to the crimes, and Cyprian says in the sermon on the lapsed, “let the penance not be less than the crime.” Which the other Fathers likewise teach. Now it is certain that satisfaction is made to God by penances voluntarily undertaken, as is plain from the fact that they are usually hidden, according to that of Psalm 6: Every night I will wash my bed: I will water my couch with my tears. Therefore penances too were accustomed to be imposed by priests not only for the sake of example or discipline, but also to make satisfaction to God. Moreover, penances for hidden crimes were enjoined in secret, just as the confession itself had to be secret, as appears from the letter of Saint Leo I to the bishops of Campania; therefore they were not always enjoined for the sake of example or discipline. Finally, all the arguments by which in the first book on Purgatory we demonstrated that after this life there exist places of punishment in which the souls of those are exercised who while they lived did not make full satisfaction to God for their sins, also prove that indulgences free men from the guilt of punishment not only before the Church but also before God. For not even the Lutherans themselves would deny indulgences if they believed in Purgatory. It must, however, be noted in this place that indulgences which are granted in this life free immediately and principally from the debt of punishment to be undergone in this life, and mediately and as it were secondarily from the debt of punishment to be undergone in Purgatory. For just as the punishment of Purgatory succeeds the punishment which has not been fully expiated in this life, so also an indulgence freeing from the debt of the whole temporal punishment which would have had to be paid in this life consequently frees from the punishment of Purgatory which would perhaps have succeeded it.
Fifth proposition. “When in the form of an indulgence it is openly expressed that the remission of an enjoined penance is granted, no remission is understood to be granted except of that penance which the priest enjoined in the sacrament of Confession.” This proposition is against some who wish every penance whatever to be understood by enjoined penance, since, as they think, every penance owed for sins can be called enjoined, whether by the priest, or by the penitential canon, or certainly by God. So taught one Thomas Elysius in the Shield of Pious Catholics, question 44, article 7; but nearly all learned men think the contrary, as Saint Thomas; Cajetan, tract 15, chapter 7; Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 2, article 2, conclusion 3; Martin Ledesma on the third book of the Sentences, part 2, question 27, article 2; Navarrus in the tract on the Jubilee and Indulgences, notable 11, number 12; Antonio of Cordoba on indulgences, question 9, proposition 3; Sylvester, under the word Indulgentia, question 8, number 12, and question 10, number 11; Gabriel in the Supplement, on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 41, question 3, article 2, proposition 10; and moreover Peter Paludanus, Adrian, Peter Soto, and others to be named in the following proposition. And certainly the matter does not seem to be doubtful. For a penance is not properly said to be enjoined except by a priest, who by his precept binds the penitent in particular to perform certain penal works. For the penitential canons do indeed express in general what penance is fitting for what sins; but since it is not enough for imposing a just penance to know what is congruous to the sin in itself, unless the various circumstances also be attended to at the same time, especially concerning the person of the penitent, therefore a penance cannot be absolutely enjoined by a penitential canon; nor is anyone bound to undergo that penance which is noted in a penitential canon unless it be enjoined by some judge. In the same way God is not properly said to enjoin a penance, but to exact that which follows from the nature of the thing according to the gravity of the sin. There is added, moreover, that since the granting of an indulgence is according to the laws an odious thing, inasmuch as it relaxes the rigour of penance, as Navarrus rightly teaches and proves in the tract on the Jubilee, notable 9, number 9, the words of the papal letters ought not to be extended to penances enjoined in a broad and improper sense, but restricted to those properly enjoined, which are none but those which are enjoined by priests in the sacrament of Penance. For the things which are defined in the canons, or exacted, cannot be called enjoined except in a broad and improper sense.
Sixth conclusion. “When no mention is made of enjoined penances, but indulgences are granted absolutely, it must be understood that all penances are remitted, whether they have been enjoined or could have been enjoined.” This proposition is against weighty authors: Alexander of Hales in the Summa Theologica, part 4, question 23, member 2; Durandus and Paludanus on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 20, question 4; Adrian VI on the fourth book of the Sentences, question on indulgences, paragraph Sed ex hoc petes ulterius; Peter Soto, lecture 2 on indulgences, near the end; and Cardinal Cajetan, tract 13, chapter 7, who teach that indulgences are never given except of penances enjoined. But nevertheless we have as patrons of our opinion other authors, neither fewer nor less weighty: Saint Thomas on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 3; John Major on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 2, paragraph Dubitatur; Sylvester, under the word Indulgentia, question 2, number 1; Dominic Soto on the fourth book, distinction 21, question 1, article 1; Michael Medina, disputation 4 on indulgences; Ledesma in the second part on the fourth book, question 27, article 2; Antonio of Cordoba, question 9 on indulgences; Navarrus in the tract on the Jubilee, notable 11, number 18; and among the old canonists Panormitanus and John Andreae on the chapter Quod autem, on penances and remissions. Finally Cajetan confesses that this is the common opinion, and not undeservedly. For those too whom we cited for him, except Peter Soto, do not speak so openly that it is certain they are of the same opinion, although they seem to incline to it. Our proposition is proved, then, first, from the Extravagant Constitution of Boniface VIII which begins Antiquorum, in which we read that the indulgence given is full, fuller, and most full. But certainly if no indulgence were granted except of enjoined penances, it would have been enough to say that a full, or plenary, indulgence is granted. What then do fuller and most full mean? Add that the author of the Gloss on this Extravagant writes that Boniface, being asked about this matter, answered that by a most full indulgence he understood all that indulgence to which the keys of the Church can extend. And it cannot be doubted, as Cajetan too and Peter Soto confess, that the keys of the Church can extend to remitting penances not enjoined but nevertheless owed in the judgment of God. Add moreover that Paludanus, in the place noted, testifies that the penitentiary was forbidden by the same Boniface to enjoin satisfactions on those confessing their sins in that year of jubilee. It cannot be doubted, then, that Pope Boniface wished to give indulgences of penances not enjoined. Like to this is what Bartholomew of the Angel testifies of Pius V, Supreme and best Pontiff, in the Italian book entitled Consolation of the Penitent, book 1, chapter 4, page 13; for this author writes that Pius V, privately asked, affirmed that indulgences pronounced absolutely are not restricted to penances enjoined, but extended also to those not enjoined. And although these two Pontiffs did not publish a public explanation of this question by any papal rescript, yet even the private opinion of such great men is not of light moment. Second, it is proved from the custom of our times. For now penances of many years are hardly ever enjoined, and yet the Pontiffs, who are not ignorant of this, still promulgate indulgences of seven or ten years, and others like them; therefore the Pontiffs do not wish, at least at this time, to restrict indulgences to penances enjoined, but extend them also to those which could deservedly be enjoined if penances equal to the crimes were enjoined. Moreover, as we said above, at this time those who prepare themselves to obtain indulgences are accustomed to confess their sins to a priest and fulfil the satisfaction enjoined; therefore they do not think that only the penances enjoined are remitted to them, but others far greater; and if this opinion of the peoples were not true, the people would be manifestly deceived, and the cause of this deception could be laid to the prelates of the Church. Finally, in letters of indulgence it is sometimes laid down that priests impose salutary penances on those who are about to obtain the indulgences; therefore the indulgence of those letters belongs not to the penances enjoined but to those not enjoined. For neither do the Pontiffs intend to relax those salutary penances which they order to be imposed.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. A quo vinculo per indulgentias solvamur , vel absolvamur. Cum demonstratum sit indulgentiam esse absolutionem cum annexa solutione, sequi¬ tur, ut explicemus, a quo vinculo nos indul¬ gentia solvat, vel absolvat. Sic enim consta¬ bit, quae sit propria ratio, definitio ac natura indulgentiae. Sciendum igitur est, duplex esse vinculum, sive debitum, sive reatum peccati, alterum culpae, alterum poenae. Rur¬ sus autem reatum poenae iterum esse dupli¬ cem, alterum poenae naturalis, quae conse¬ quitur originale peccatum, qualis est morbus, mors, ignorantia, concupiscentia, et similes : alterum poenae personalis, quae consequitur peccatum actuale, qualis fuit pestis immissa in populum ob peccatum Davidis. Rursus, reatum poenae personalis, alterum pertinere ad forum externum, alterum ad internum. Rursum reatum poenae debitae in foro inter¬ no, sive poenitentiali, alterum esse poenae injunctae, alterum injungendae. Denique rea¬ tum ejusdem poenae sive injunctae, sive in¬ jungendae, vel esse debitum, ut satisfiat soli Ecclesiae, vel ut satisfiat etiam Deo. His di¬ visionibus expositis, propositiones more so¬ lito adjiciendae sunt. Prima propositio : « Per indulgentias non absolvimur, nec solvimur a reatu culpae ul¬ lius, id est, nec lethalis, nec venialis #. Et quidem de culpa lethali nulla dubitatio esse potest ; nam cum ea tolli non possit sine infusione gratiae, et gratia non infundatur mi- TQM. VII. nisterio humano nisi per sacramenta, pro comperto habendum est, eam per indulgen¬ tias non posse tolli. De veniali autem videtur quidem Petrus Paludanus in 4. dist. 20. qu. 4. existimare, tolli eam per indul¬ gentiam. Sed longe probabilior est aliorum communis sententia, per indulgentias non tolli nisi reatum poenae temporalis, qui re¬ manet culpa dimissa. Siquidem indulgentia supplet locum satisfactionis pcenitentialis, et ideo dicitur ab Innocentio, cap. Cum ex eo, de poenit. et remiss. enervare pcenitentialem satisfactionem, cum est indulgentia indi¬ screta. Praeterea, cum Pontifices indulgen¬ tias concedunt, saepe declarant se condonare poenitentiam injunctam, saepe etiam dicunt, se largiri certum numerum annorum, vel dierum indulgentiae, quae nullo modo ad peccata venialia, sed ad solas poenas accom¬ modari possunt. Itaque si quando in litteris indulgentiarum legatur concedi absolutionem a culpa et poena : intelligendum est id pro- pterea dici, quod indulgentia conjungitur ordinarie cum confessione sacramentali, et facit, ut qui per sacramentum Poenitentiae fuit absolutus a culpa, per indulgentiam ab¬ solvatur a poena. Pari ratione, cum dicunt Pontifices, se per indulgentias absolvere pce- nitentes a peccatis, vel condonare omnia peccata, vel dimidiam, aut tertiam partem peccatorum, semper loquuntur de peccatis quoad poenam, non quoad culpam , quae ante indulgentiam remissa esse creditur. Secunda propositio : « Per indulgentias non liberamur a poenis naturalibus ». In hac omnes auctores conveniunt. Constat enim definitum esse a Deo, ut poense illse natura¬ les non tollantur, nisi cum natura ipsa muta¬ bitur, id est, cum per resurrectionem mortale hoc induet immortalitatem, I Cor. xv. et cum adoptionem filiorum Dei perfectam con- sequemur, redemptionem videlicet corporis nostri. Rom. vm. Tertia propositio : « Nec poenas, quae in foro externo, et contentioso, sive ecclesiasti¬ co, sive saeculari infliguntur, indulgentise tollere possunt ». Docet hoc S. Thomas in 4. dist. 20. qu. 1. art. 5. quaestiuncula 2. nec dissentiunt alii scriptores. Siquidem poenae fori externi pro¬ pter bonum Reipublicac infliguntur, ut faci¬ norosi deterreantur a peccatis, et probi homines securitate fruantur. Praeterea, in¬ dulgentiae non conceduntur, nisi pcenitenti- bus, et Deo reconciliatis : poenae autem illae 3 34 LIBER I. * fori externi infliguntur maxime pertinaci¬ bus, et rebellibus. Denique indulgentiae, ut dictum est, locum obtinent satisfactionis pce- nitentialis : quare non aliam poenam tollunt, nisi quam debemus in foro secreto et pceni- tentiali. Quarta propositio : « indulgentiae liberant homines a reatu pcenai non solum coram Ecclesia, sed etiam coram Deo » . Haec pro¬ positio negabatur olim a nonnullis, quorum sententiam referunt, et refellunt Theologi veteres, S. Thomas in 4. dist. 20. q. 1. art. 3. et alii. Eadem hoc tempore negatur a Luthero, Calvino, caeterisque sectariis, qui docent, indulgentiam apud veteres non fuisse aliud, nisi relaxationem mulctee,quam Ecclesia ipsa imperaverat, non ut per eam satisfieret Deo, sed exempli et disciplinae causa, ut omnes intelligerent, illum, qui ejus¬ modi poenam luebat, vere recipuisse. Et quidem adversus Catholicos in hac re minus recte sentientes, probatur nostra propositio his argumentis. Primo quoniam si solum de¬ beret Ecclesiae satisfieri, sive tolli praeceptum agendae poenitentiae ab Ecclesia positum, non esset opus thesauro meritorum Christi et sanctorum. Secundo non esset utilis, sed noxia indulgentia,' et Ecclesia filios suos in re maxime gravi decipere videretur, libera¬ ret enim eos a poena hujus vitae mitissima, et remitteret ad poenam atrocissimam pur¬ gatorii. Tertio non possent concedi indul¬ gentiae pro defunctis, quippe, qui non ligan¬ tur jam Ecclesiae praeceptis, neque aut ipsi disciplina indigent, aut adiis exemplo esse possunt. Quarto, multi fideles indulgentias perce¬ pturi, confitentur sacerdotibus peccata, et satisfactionem injunctam explent : interdum etiam Pontifices in litteris indulgentiarum praescribunt, ut sacerdotes injungant poeni¬ tentias salutares iis, qui indulgentiam con¬ sequi desiderant ; igitur et populi, qui sus¬ cipiunt indulgentias et Pontifices, qui eas tribuunt, ejus sententiae se esse testantur, ut indulgentiae potissimum prosint ad poenam purgatorii, expiandam. Denique hoc signifi¬ care videntur verba illa, de vera indulgen¬ tia, quae addi solent cum indulgentiae in sa¬ cello Pontificio promulgantur. Vera enim indulgentia dicitur, quae reatum p cenae non solum coram Ecclesia, sed etiam coram Deo vere tollit. Jam vero adversus haereticos non est cur multum laboremus in hac re comprobanda. Ipsi enim propterea negant indulgentiis tolli reatum poenae coram Deo, quoniam existimant, post remissionem culpae nullum superesse reatum poenae coram Deo, nulla¬ que opus esse vera satisfactione; et quia ne¬ gare non possunt, apud veteres exstare plu¬ rima testimonia poenarum, quaepeenitentibus injungebantur, vel relaxabantur, ideo do¬ cent, eas pcenas infligi solitas exempli, et disciplinae causa. Caeterum haec omnia satis copiose tractavimus in iv lib. de poenit. ubi etiam omnia argumenta diluimus, quae a Luthero, Philippo, et Calvino in medium al¬ lata fuerunt. Ne tamen hoc loco nihil om¬ nino dixisse videamur, probare possumus indulgentias valere ad relaxandam poenam etiam coram Deo, primo ex verbis Christi saepe citatis. Matth., xvi. Quoclcumque sol¬ veris super terram , erit solutum et in calo. Et Matth., xviii. Quacumque solveritis super terram , erunt soluta et in ccelo (1) ; quorsum enim additur, et in coelo, si non solvitur vin¬ culum nisi humanum? Secundo ex Patribus, qui passim affirmant, per injunctas vel sponte assumptas poenas, satisfieri Deo. Tertul¬ lianus in lib. de poenit. Ioquens de . iis, qui dum agunt poenitentiam redeunt ad pec¬ cata, ita inquit : « Qui per delictorum poeni¬ tentiam instituerat Domino satisfacere, Dia¬ bolo per aliam poenitentia? poenitentiam sa¬ tisfaciet». S. Cyprianusin serm. 5 delapsis : « Dominus, inquit, orandus est, Dominus nos¬ tra satisfactione placandus ». S. Pacianus in Paraenesi ad poenitentiam : « In quantum, tn- quit, poenae vestrae non peperceritis, in tan¬ tum vobis Deus parcet ». S. Augustinus homil. 30. ex libro quinquaginta homilia- rum, cap. 11. «Veniat, inquit, ad Antistites, per quos illi in Ecclesia claves ministrantur, accipiat satisfactionis sure modum, et id agat, quod non solum illi prosit ad reci¬ piendam salutem, sed etiam caeteris ad exemplum. » Et cap. 13 : « Non sufficit, in¬ quit, mores in melius mutare, nisi etiam de iis, quae facta sunt satisfiat Deo per poeni¬ tentiae dolorem, per humilitatis gemitum, per contriti cordis sacrificium, cooperantibus eleemosynis». Petrus Damiani in serm. 2 de S. Andrea : « Ne tibi, inquit, blandiaris, si graviter peccanti levior poenitentia a mansueto, vel dissimulante dictatur, cum in (l) Mat. XVI, 19 ; Mat. XVIII, 18. CAPUT VII. 35 purgatoriis ignibus perficiendum sit, quic- quid hic minus feceris ». Ex his testimoniis manifeste colligimus, per injunctas poenitentias satisfieri Deo, ac per hoc indulgentias, quae ab ejusmodi poenitentiis absolvunt, expiare poenae tem¬ poralis reatum etiam coram Deo. Multa pos¬ sent alia testimonia veterum adduci, sed non sunt omnia ubique repetenda. Tertio proba¬ tur ratione ducta a simili. Poenitentiae si¬ quidem a sacerdotibus impositae, et ea quae sponte assumuntur, sunt omnino similes ; constant enim ex iisdem rebus, oratione vi¬ delicet, jejuniis, et eleemosynis, et ad eum- dem finem tendunt, et alise alias juvant, immo sacerdotes cum poenitentias impo¬ nunt, hortantur poenitentes, ut ipsi etiam sponte assumant alias, cum credibile sit, impositas non esse aequales criminibus, et Cypriamus dicat in serm. de lapsis, « poeni¬ tentia crimine minor non sit ». Quod idem alii Patres docent. Certum autem est, per poenitentias sponte assumptas satisfieri Deo, ut perspicuum est ex eo, quod occultae esse solent, juxta illud Psal. vi. Lavabo per singulas noctes lectum meum , lacrymis meis stratum meum rigabo (1). Igitur et poenitentiae a sa¬ cerdotibus non solum exempli, vel disciplinae causa, sed etiam ad satisfaciendum Deo im¬ poni solebant. Praeterea, poenitentiae pro oc¬ cultis criminibus occulte injungebantur, sic¬ ut et ipsa confessio secreta esse debebat, ut patet ex epistola. S. Leonis I ad Episcopos Campaniae : non igitur sernper injunge¬ bantur exempli, vel disciplinae causa. Deni¬ que omnia argumenta, quibus in i lib. de Purgatorio, demonstravimus post hanc vitam exstare loca poenalia, in quibus exerceantur animae illorum, qui dum viverent, pro suis peccatis non integre satisfecerunt Deo ; pro¬ bant etiam indulgentias liberare homines a reatu poenae non solum coram Ecclesia, sed etiam coram Deo. Nam nec ipsi Lutherani indulgentias negarent, si Purgatorium cre¬ derent. Est tamen hoc loco animadverten¬ dum, indulgentias quae conceduntur in hac vita immediate, et principaliter liberare a debito poenae subeundae in hac vita, mediate vero, et quasi secundario a debito poenae subeundae in purgatorio. Quemadmodum enim poena purgatorii succedit poenae, quae non est in hac vita integre expiata : sic etiam indulgentia liberans a debito totius poenae temporalis, quae in hac vita persol¬ venda fuisset : consequenter liberat a poena purgatorii, quae illi forte successisset. Quinta propositio : « Cum in forma indul¬ gentiae palam exprimitur concedi remis¬ sionem poenitentiae injunctae, non intelligitur concedi remissio nisi ejus poenitentiae, quam sacerdos in sacramento Confessionis in¬ junxit. » Est haec propositio adversus non¬ nullos, qui per injunctam poenitentiam in- telligi volunt omnem omnino poenitentiam, quoniam ut ipsi existimant, omnis poenitentia peccatis debita, injuncta dici potest, vel a sacerdote, vel a canone pcenitentiali, vel certe a Deo. Ita docuit quidam Thomas Elysius in Clypeo piorum Catholicorum qu. 44. art. 7. sed contra sentiunt plerique omnes viri docti, ut D. Thomas, Cajetanus tract. 15. cap. 7. Dominicus a Soto in 4. dist. 21. q. 2. art. 2. conci. 3. Martinus Ledesmius in. 3. sent. par. 2. q. 27. art. 2. Navarrus in tract. de Jubilaeo, et Indulgen¬ tiis, Notab. 11. num. 12. Antonius Cordu¬ bensis de Indulg. qu. 9. proposit. 3. Syl- vester, verbo, Indulgentia, qu. 8. num. 12. et quaest. 10. num. 11. Gabriel in Supple¬ mento, lib. iv. sent. dist. 41.quaest. 3. art. 2. propos. 10. ac praeterea Petrus Paludanus, Adrianus, Petrus a Soto, et alii nominandi in sequenti propositione. Et certe res non videtur esse dubia. Nam poenitentia non di¬ citur proprie injungi, nisi a sacerdote, qui in particulari obligat praecepto suo pceni- tentem ad certa opera poenalia peragenda. Canones enim poenitentiales exprimunt qui¬ dem generatim, quae poenitentia quibus pec¬ catis conveniat, sed quoniam non satis est ad justam poenitentiam imponendam scire quid congruat peccato secundum se, nisi simul attendantur varise circumstantise, maxime circa personam poenitentis ; ideo non potest a canone pcenitentiali poenitentia absolute injungi; neque ullus tenetur ad eam poenitentiam subeundam, quae notatur in canone pcenitentiali, nisi ab aliquo judice injungatur. Pari ratione Deus non dicitur proprie injungere poenitentiam, sed exigere eam, quae sequitur ex natura rei, ad peccati gravitatem. Accedit prseterea, quod cum indulgentiae concessio secundum jura sit res odiosa, quippe quae relaxat poenitentiae ri¬ gorem, ut recte docet et probat Navarrus in tract. de Jubilaeo notab. 9. num. 9. non de- (1) Psalm. VJ, 7. 36 LIBER I. bent extendi verba litterarum Pontificiarum ad poenitentias injunctas largo modo, et im¬ proprie, sed restringi ad injunctas proprie, quales non sunt nisi ese, quse a sacerdotibus in sacramento Poenitentiae injunguntur. Quse enim definiuntur in canonibus, vel exiguntur, non possunt dici injuncta, nisi largo modo, et improprie. Sexta conclusio : « Cum non fit mentio injunctarum poenitentiarum, sed absolute conceduntur indulgentiae, intelligendum est, condonari omnes poenitentias, sive injunctae sint, sive injungi potuerint». Hsec propo¬ sitio est adversus graves auctores. Alexan¬ drum Alensem in summa Theologica par. 4. qusest. 23. memb. 2. Durandum et Paluda- num in 4. sentent. dist. 20. qu. 4. Adria- num VI. in 4. sentent. qusest. de indulgen¬ tiis, §. Sed ex hoc petes ulterius, Petrum a Soto lect. 2. de indulgent. prope fin. et Card. Cajetan. tract. 13. cap. 7. qui docent indulgentias numquam dari, nisi de in¬ junctis. Sed tamen habemus nostrse senten- tise patronos alios auctores, nec pauciores, nec minus graves, sanctum Thomam in 4. dist. 20. qusest. 1. art. 3. Joannem Majorem in 4. distinet. 20. qusest. 2. §. Dubitatur; Sylvestrum, verbo Indulgentia, q. 2. num. i. Dominicum a Soto in 4. dist. 21. qusest. 1. artic. 1. Michaelem Medinamdisp. 4. de in¬ dulgent. Ledesinium in 2. par. 4. qusest. 27. art. 2. Antonium Corduben. qusest. 9 de in¬ dulgent. Navamini tract. de Jubilseo No- tab. 11. num. 18. et ex veteribus Canonistis Panormitanum, et Joan. Andream in cap. Quod autem, de poenit.etremiss. Denique fa¬ tetur Cajetanus hanc esse communem sen¬ tentiam, nec immerito. Nam illi quoque, quos pro ipso citavimus, excepto Petro a Soto, non tam aperte loquuntur, ut certum sit eos ejusdem esse sententiae, quamvis in eam propendere videantur. Probatur igitur nostra propositio, primo ex constitutione extravagante Bonifacii VIII, quse incipit, Antiquorum : in qua legimus, indulgentiam datam, esse plenam, largiorem, et plenissi¬ mam. At certe si non concederetur indul¬ gentia, nisi de injunctis poenitentiis, satis fuisset dicere concedi plenam, sive plena¬ riam. Quid igitur sibi vult plenior et plenis¬ sima? Adde quod auctor Glossae in hanc extravagantem scribit, Bonifacium de hac re interrogatum respondisse, per plenissi¬ mam indulgentiam se intellexisse illam om~ pem indulgentiam, ad quam se claves Ec- clesise possunt extendere. Non pot«st autem dubitari, ut etiam Cajetanus, et Petrus a Soto fatentur, quin claves Ecclesiae ad in- dulgendas poenitentias non injunctas, sed tamen debitas in judicio Dei possint extendi. Adde praeterea, quod Paludanus loco notato testatur, ab eodem Bonifacio fuisse prohibi¬ tum pcenitentiarium, ne confitentibus pec¬ cata anno illo jubilaei satisfactiones injun¬ geret. Non igitur dubitari potest, quin Pon¬ tifex Bonifacius indulgentias de non injun¬ ctis dare voluerit. Simile est, quod de Pio V Pontifice Maximo et optimo testatur Bartho- lomaeus ab Angelo, in libro italico, qui in¬ scribitur « Consolatione de pcenitenti », lib. i. cap. 4. pag. 13. scribit enim hic auc¬ tor, Pium V, privatim interrogatum, affir¬ masse, indulgentias absolute pronuntiatas, non restringi ad poenitentias injunctas, sed extendi etiam ad non injunctas. Et quamvis duo isti Pontifices non ediderint publicam hujus qusestionis explicationem per rescri¬ ptum aliquod Pontificium, tamen non estlevis momenti tantorum virorum etiam privata sententia. Secundo probatur ex consuetu¬ dine nostrorum temporum. Nunc enim vix unquam injunguntur poenitentise multorum annorum, et tamen Pontifices, qui hoc non ignorant, adhuc promulgant indulgentias septem, vel decem annorum, atque alias si¬ miles ; igitur non volunt Pontifices, hoc sal¬ tem tempore, indulgentias restringere ad poenitentias injunctas, sed extendunt etiam ad eas, qum merito injungi possent si poeni¬ tentiae criminibus aequales injungerentur. Praeterea, ut supra diximus, hoc tempore qui se parant ad indulgentias consequendas, confiteri solent peccata sacerdoti, et injunc¬ tam satisfactionem implere ; non igitur existimant, sibi tantum injunctas poenitentias condonari, sed alias longe majores : quod si haec populorum existimatio non esset vera, manifeste falleretur populus, et hujus de¬ ceptionis causa in Praelatos Ecclesiae referri posset. Denique in litteris indulgentiarum aliquando ponitur, ut sacerdotes imponant salutares poenitentias iis, qui indulgentias consecuturi sunt ; non igitur indulgentia earum litterarum ad injunctas poenitentias sed non injunctas pertinet. Neque enim Pontifices, relaxare intendunt poenitentias illas salutares, quas jubent imponi. CAPUT VIII. 37