Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book I: That Indulgences Exist, and What They Are
Chapter 13: On the disposition of the one receiving indulgences
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo, Book I, a treatise of the Controversies. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
In him who truly desires to take fruit from indulgences we said that two things are required: that he be in the state of grace, and that he complete what has been enjoined for the indulgence. And indeed that the state of grace is required the theologians commonly teach on the fourth book, distinction 20, and the reason is most plain, since an indulgence, as it remits the guilt of temporal punishment left after the remission of fault, without doubt requires that the fault be already remitted, and thereby that the man have been transferred, through the infusion of grace and charity, from the state of sin into the state of the sons of God. Moreover, no reason allows that punishment be remitted to him who still sticks in fault, or that a debt be forgiven in the name of God to him who is still turned away from God, and an enemy and a foe. Finally, the very name of indulgence, as we said at the beginning, sounds a fatherly easiness toward sons, which ought not to be shared with slaves, above all runaway slaves, such as are all who, having deserted God, follow the devil. In the same way it is agreed among all that it is required that the work enjoined be completed, as appears from Saint Thomas on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 1, article 5, little question 3, and from others. But these things being laid down as certain and established, many questions remain.
The first is whether the state of grace is required only at the time when the indulgence is received, or also when the works enjoined are completed, or even when the indulgences are first proclaimed or their letters received. For Cajetan, tract 10, question 2, and tract 13, chapter 9; Peter Soto, lecture 3 on indulgences; and others contend that the state of grace is not required when the indulgences are published or the letters of indulgence received, unless perhaps the time of publication and of reception is the same, as when in the papal chapel indulgences are given to all who have been present at the divine offices in that place; but that the state of grace is required not only when the indulgence is received but also when the work enjoined is completed. The reason for this opinion is both that in the papal letters themselves it is for the most part expressed that indulgences are granted to those who, truly penitent, have visited a church or done such and such a work; and also that an indulgence is not acquired except through living works truly meritorious and satisfactory, such as are only those which are done in the state of grace. But other very weighty authors, as Peter Paludanus on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, article 3, conclusion 1; Saint Antoninus, part 1, title 10, chapter 3, paragraph 5, at the end; Antonio of Cordoba, question 24 on indulgences; and others think the contrary: that the state of grace is not required except when the indulgence itself is to be received. The reason for this second opinion is that the indulgence does not rest on our satisfaction but on Christ's, and therefore it does not seem necessary that the work enjoined be a living and satisfactory work. Then, that Boniface VIII in the Extravagant Antiquorum says that he grants the indulgence to those who will visit the churches penitent and confessed, or who will repent and confess. Of these opinions the first is without doubt the safer, as Saint Antoninus also noted. It is also certain when the work enjoined is expressly ordered in the papal letters to be completed in the state of grace, as in the Extravagant Unigenitus, on penances and remissions; likewise in the Constitutions for the proclamation of the jubilee of Clement VII, Julius III and Gregory XIII it is expressly laid down that those who wish to obtain the indulgence, truly penitent and confessed, visit the churches, pray, and so on. Finally it seems to me the truer, even if this is not expressed in the papal letters, when the work enjoined is such that it does not contribute to the end unless it is done in the state of grace; as if the end of the indulgence is to appease God for the Christian people, and therefore prayers, fastings, alms, visits to churches and the like are enjoined. Since God is not appeased by dead works, it seems necessary that those works be done in the state of grace; otherwise they contribute nothing to the end, and accordingly it is not the intention of the one granting that those gain the indulgence who do those works in the state of sin. But the second opinion seems true when the work enjoined is useful for the end for which the indulgence is given, even if it is not done in the state of grace. As for example, if the end of the indulgence is the building of a basilica, or the relief of the poor, or the recovery of Jerusalem, and on account of these indulgences are given to those contributing money or arms; since that money or those arms conduce no less to the end if they are given by a sinful man than by a just one, it is probable that those works profit even if they were done in the state of sin, provided that he who did them is in the state of grace when he actually receives the indulgence.
The second question is whether not only the state of grace is required for obtaining an indulgence, but also freedom from all venial fault. But the answer is easy if we use a distinction. For either the question is about the time when the works enjoined are completed, or about the time when the fruit of the indulgence is received. If the question is about the former time, another distinction is again needed; for either the venial sin vitiates the good work enjoined, as if someone prays or fasts out of vainglory, or it does not vitiate it but is joined to it by accident, as if someone, while giving alms or visiting a church, speaks some idle word. If the good work is not vitiated, it is certain that the fruit of the indulgence is not hindered; but if the good work is vitiated, so that it is itself made a venial sin, then without doubt the fruit of the indulgence is hindered, if that work was to be done for appeasing God or making satisfaction for sin; for God is not appeased by venial sin, nor is satisfaction made to God. And this is the opinion of Adrian on the fourth book, tract on indulgences, conclusion 4, and of Peter Soto, lecture 3 on indulgences. But if the work was to be done not for appeasing God nor for making satisfaction, but only for the relief of the poor, or some other end which can be obtained even if the work is not done in the state of grace, then the fruit of the indulgence is not hindered, although the work was vitiated by venial sin. But if the question is about the latter time, it must be answered that the fruit of the indulgence is not hindered if someone at that time has or commits a venial sin, except as regards the remission of the punishment owed on account of that venial fault; for punishment is not dismissed unless the fault has first been dismissed. But there is no reason why the fruit of the indulgence cannot be received as regards the remission of punishment owed on account of other faults, whether mortal or venial, already remitted, even if some venial fault still sticks in the soul. For venial sin does not hinder the state of grace, which is required in order that a man be capable of an indulgence.
The third question is concerning confession, which is for the most part required as part of the work enjoined, whether it is always required in fact, or whether it suffices in purpose. The answer is easy. For when in the form of the indulgence it is expressly laid down that those who desire to gain it confess their sins within so many days, then without doubt confession in fact is required, since it is laid down in the form of the indulgence as a certain condition, or as part of the work enjoined, and not only for this, that the man be transferred from the state of sin to the state of grace. But when in the form of the indulgence the work of confession is not expressly enjoined, but it is simply said that the indulgence is granted to those truly penitent and confessed, then confession does not seem to be required as part of the work enjoined, but only that the man be in the state of grace; and therefore if someone has no mortal sins he will not necessarily be bound to confess, and if he has mortal sins it is probable that contrition with the purpose of confessing suffices for him, for through these he will attain the state of grace. So teach Paludanus on the fourth book, distinction 20, question 4, article 2; Sylvester under the word Indulgentia, number 20; Panormitanus on the chapter Omnis utriusque, on penances and remissions; Felinus in the sermon on indulgences, number 12; and others. Yet it seems safer and more probable that confession in fact is required, and not only in desire, whenever it is said that the indulgence is granted to those penitent and confessed, as Saint Antoninus teaches, part 1, title 10, chapter 3; Adrian on the fourth book of the Sentences, tract on indulgences; Cajetan, tract 15 on indulgences, chapter 10; Navarrus on the Jubilee, notable 18, number 1; and the Gloss on the Extravagant Antiquorum, on penances and remissions.
The fourth question is whether he receives the indulgence who does not complete all the works enjoined but only some, hindered by poverty, or sickness, or another just cause. The common answer, of Saint Thomas, Durandus and others on the fourth book, distinction 20, is that the indulgence is not received except by those who complete all the works enjoined entirely; for a conditional grant is not valid unless the condition is fulfilled. And for this opinion too that common saying is usually alleged: indulgences are worth as much as they sound. For the Supreme Pontiffs, when they wish the indulgence to be received by those who, lawfully hindered, do not complete all the works enjoined, are accustomed to add that confessors commute the works enjoined into other pious works, or explain in express words that the indulgence is obtained by those who began the works enjoined and could not complete them, as is found in the Extravagant Unigenitus and in others like it in which the year of jubilee is published.
The fifth question is whether any other disposition is required in the one receiving indulgences besides the state of grace and the fulfilment of the works enjoined. For Cardinal Cajetan, in tract 10, which is on those receiving indulgences, question 1, teaches that a third condition is required, namely that he who wishes to obtain indulgences have the purpose of making satisfaction to God by his own labours as far as he can; and to those who are unwilling to make satisfaction for themselves when they can, he denies that indulgences profit. From which he also gathers that very few in truth enjoy papal indulgences out of so great a number as go to the churches at the times of the stations and of other similar indulgences. Which opinion is useful and pious, but perhaps not true, especially since it is contrary to the common doctrine of the others, as Cajetan himself also confesses; nor have I read any author who follows Cajetan except Bartholomew Fumus in the Summa which is called Armilla, under the word Indulgentia, number 13. Nor do I see how the Supreme Pontiffs would not deceive the peoples if they wished to propose indulgences with a condition which they never explained. Nor are Cajetan's arguments such that they cannot be solved. For he reasons thus. He who is unwilling to make satisfaction to God by himself when he can is unworthy that another's satisfaction be applied to him; but the Church does not intend to confer this benefit of indulgence on the unworthy; therefore indulgences do not profit those who are unwilling to make satisfaction by themselves when they can. The major of the argument Cajetan proves by these reasons: first, because it is not fitting to ask a friend to make satisfaction for you when you yourself can make satisfaction by yourself. Second, because in a well-ordered commonwealth common goods are not to be dispensed for freeing from debt those citizens who can pay off their own debt by themselves. Third, because in the form of the indulgence it is usually added that indulgences are granted to the truly penitent; but they are not truly penitent who refuse to bring forth fruits worthy of penance. Fourth, because indulgences are given of penances enjoined by the priest; either, then, he who received the enjoined penance did so with the intention of completing it, and so we have what we want, or with the intention of deceiving, and he is most unworthy who should carry off gain from his own deceit. We answer that he who is unwilling to make satisfaction by himself when he can is not unworthy, but only not worthy, that another's satisfaction be applied to him. And the Church does not intend to confer this benefit on the unworthy, but she can well wish to confer it on the not worthy, since an indulgence is given out of mercy and liberality, not out of justice and merits. To the first reason we answer that no injury is done to the friend, because his satisfaction is not asked from justice but from grace, and a satisfaction is asked which is not necessary to him, but altogether superfluous. To the second I answer that the dispenser of common goods in a well-ordered commonwealth does not without cause pay off the debt of those citizens who are able to pay by themselves; yet a cause can be given why it is useful to the commonwealth to pay from the common treasury the debts of those who could have paid them by themselves. To the third I answer that those are called truly penitent who have contrition with the purpose of making satisfaction unless satisfaction is made for them from elsewhere. To the fourth I answer that indulgences are for the most part given of penances not enjoined, as we proved above, and that those who seek indulgences wish to complete the enjoined penance, but are unwilling to undertake other labour voluntarily for expiating the remaining punishment if they can be freed from it through indulgences. I add also that if indulgences were not given except of enjoined penances, men could receive the enjoined penance with the intention of completing it unless they can be freed from that guilt in another way.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. De dispositione suscipientis indulgentias. In eo, qui cupit revera fructum ex indul¬ gentiis capere, duo requiri diximus, ut sit in statu gratiae, et ut perficiat quod pro indul¬ gentia fuerit injunctum. Et quidem exigi statum gratiae docent communiter Theologi in 4. dist. 20. et ratio est apertissima, quo¬ niam indulgentia cum remittat reatum poenae temporalis relictum post remissionem culpae, sine dubio requirit, ut culpa sit jam remissa, ac per hoc translatus sit homo per infusio¬ nem gratiae, et charitatis de statu peccati in statum filiorum Dei. Praeterea nulla ratio patitur, ut poena remittatur ei, qui adhuc haeret in culpa ; vel debitum illi condonetur nomine Dei, qui adhuc est aversus a Deo, et hostis, ac inimicus. Denique nomen ipsum indulgentiae, ut initio diximus, sonat pater¬ nam facilitatem in filios, quae non debet esse communis cum servis, maxime fugiti¬ vis, quales sunt omnes, qui Deo deserto dia¬ bolum sequuntur. Pari ratione exigi, ut opus injunctum perficiatur, convenit inter omnes ut patet ex S. Thoma in 4. dist. 20. quaest. t. art. S. quaestiuncula 3. et ex aliis. Sed his positis tamquam certis et exploratis multae supersunt quaestiones. Prima est, an requi¬ ratur status gratiae solum eo tempore quo percipitur indulgentia ; an etiam cum per¬ ficiuntur opera injuncta, vel etiam cum primum indulgentiae pronuntiantur, aut ea¬ rum litterae recipiuntur. Nam Cajetanus tract. 10. quaest. 2. et tract. 13. cap. 9. Pe¬ trus de Soto lecfc. 3. de Indulg. et alii con¬ tendunt non requiri statum gratiae, cum in¬ dulgentiae publicantur, vel litterae indulgen¬ tiarum recipiuntur, nisi forte idem sit tem¬ pus publicationis et perceptionis : ut cum in sacello Pontificio dantur indulgentiae omni¬ bus, qui divinis officiis in eo loco interfue¬ runt, tamen requiri statum gratiae non so¬ lum, cum indulgentia percipitur, sed etiam cum perficitur opus injunctum. Ratio hujus sententiae est, tum quia in ipsis litteris pon¬ tificiis, ut plurimum exprimitur, indulgen¬ tias concedi iis, qui vere pcenitentes eccle¬ siam visitaverint, aut tale, vel tale opus fe¬ cerint ; tum etiam quia indulgentia non ac¬ quiritur, nisi per opera viva vere meritoria, et satisfactoria, qualia non sunt, nisi ea, quae fiunt in statu gratiae. Alii tamen gravissimi auctores, ut Petrus Paludanus in 4. distinet. 20. quaest. 4. artic. 3. conci. 1. S. Antoninus 1. part. tit. 10. cap. 3. §. 5. in fine, et Antonius Corduben¬ sis, quaest. 24. de Indulgent. et alii contra sentiunt. Non requiri statum gratiae, nisi cum ipsa indulgentia percipienda est. Ratio posterioris hujus sententiae est, quia indul¬ gentia non nititur nostra satisfactione, sed Christi, et ideo non videtur necessarium, ut opus injunctum sit opus vivum, et satisfa- ctorium. Deinde quia Bonifacius VIII in ex- travaganti, Antiquorum, dicit, se concedere indulgentiam iis, qui visitabunt ecclesias pcenitentes, et confessi, vel qui pienitebunt et confitebuntur. Ex his sententiis prior sine dubio tutior est, ut S. Antoninus etiam no¬ tavit. Est etiam certa, quando opus injun¬ ctum in litteris pontificiis expresse jubetur perfici in statu gratia?, ut cum in extrava- ganti. Unigenitus, de pcenitent. et remiss. Item in Constitutionibus de indictione jubi¬ laei Clementis VII, Julii III et Gregorii XIII expresse habetur, ut qui indulgentiam con¬ sequi volunt, vere pcenitentes et confessi vi¬ sitent ecclesias, orent etc. Denique verior mihi esse videtur, etiamsi in litteris pontifi¬ ciis id non exprimatur, quando opus injun¬ ctum tale est, ut non conferat ad finem, nisi fiat in statu gratiae : ut si finis indulgentiae sit placare Deum Christiano populo, et ideo injungantur preces, jejunia, eleemosynae, visitationes ecclesiarum , et similia. Cum Deus non placetur per opera mortua, neces¬ sarium esse videtur, ut opera illa flant in statu gratiae, alioqui nihil conferunt ad fi¬ nem, et proinde non est intentio conceden¬ tis, ut indulgentiam lucrentur, qui in statu peccati illa opera faciunt. At posterior opinio vera esse videtur, quando opus injunctum utile est ad finem, pro quo datur indulgen¬ tia, etiamsi non fiat in statu gratiae. Ut ex¬ empli gratia, si finis indulgentiae sit aedifica¬ tio basilicae, vel subventio pauperum, aut recuperatio Hierosolyma?, et propter ista dentur indulgentiae contribuentibus pecunias, vel arma ; quia non minus ad finem condu¬ cunt pecuniae illae, vel arma, si dentur ab CAPUT XIII. 49 homine peccatore, quam a justo ; probabile est, prodesse illa opera, etiamsi facta sint in statu peccati, modo is, qui ea fecit sit in statu gratise, quando reipsa percipit indul¬ gentiam. Altera quaestio est, utrum non solum re¬ quiratur status gratiae ad indulgentiam obti¬ nendam, sed etiam carentia omnis culpae venialis. Sed facilis responsio est, si distin¬ ctione utamur. Nam vel quaestio est de tem¬ pore, quo perficiuntur opera injuncta, vel de tempore, quo percipitur fructus indul¬ gentiae. Si de priore tempore quaestio sit, rursus alia distinctione opus est, nam vel peccatum veniale vitiat opus bonum injun¬ ctum, ut si quis oret, vel jejunet ex vana glo¬ ria : vel non vitiat, sed per accidens ei con¬ jungitur, ut si quis dum eleemosynam facit, vel ecclesiam visitat, loquatur verbum ali¬ quod otiosum. Quod si bonum opus non vi¬ tietur, certum est non impediri fructum in¬ dulgentiae, si vero bonum opus vitietur, ita ut ipsum efficiatur veniale peccatum, tum sine dubio impeditur fructus indulgentiae, si opus illud erat faciendum ad placandum Deum, vel satisfaciendum pro peccato : non enim per peccatum veniale placatur Deus, neque satisfit Deo. Et haec est sententia Adriani in 4. tract. de indulg. conclus. 4. et Petri de Soto lect. 3 de indulg. quod si opus faciendum non erat ad placandum Deum, neque ad satisfaciendum, sed solum ad subventionem pauperum, vel alium fi¬ nem, qui potest obtineri, etiamsi opus non fiat in statu gratiae, tunc non impeditur fru¬ ctus indulgentiae, quamvis opus peccato ve¬ niali fuerit vitiatum. At si de posteriore tempore quaestio sit, respondendum erit, non impediri fructum indulgentiae, si quis eo tempore habeat, vel committat veniale peccatum, nisi quoad re¬ missionem poenae debitae propter illam cul¬ pam venialem : non enim dimittitur poena, nisi prius dimissa fuerit culpa. Nulla autem ratio est, cur non possit percipi fructus in¬ dulgentiae quoad remissionem poenae debitae propter alias culpas sive lethales, sive venia¬ les jam remissas, etiamsi culpa aliqua ve¬ nialis adhuc haereat in anima. Nam pecca¬ tum veniale non impedit statum gratiae, qui requiritur ad hoc ut homo sit capax indul¬ gentiae. Tertia quaestio est de confessione, quae ut plurimum requiritur, ut pars operis injun¬ cti, an exigatur semper in re, an vero suf- Tqm. VII. ficiat in proposito. Responsio facilis est. Nam quando in forma indulgentiae diserte ponitur, ut qui eam lucrari cupiunt, confi¬ teantur peccata sua intra tot dies, tunc sine dubio exigitur confessio in re, quoniam po¬ nitur in forma indulgentiae, ut conditio quae¬ dam, sive ut pars operis injuncti, et non so¬ lum, ad hoc, ut homo transferatur de statu peccati ad statum gratiae. Quando autem in forma indulgentiae non injungitur expresse opus confessionis, sed simpliciter dicitur concedi indulgentiam vere pcenitentibus et confessis : tunc non videtur requiri confessio, ut pars operis injuncti, sed solum ut homo sit in statu gratiae, et ideo si quis non habeat peccata lethalia, non necessario confiteri te¬ nebitur, et si habeat peccata lethalia, proba¬ bile est, sufficere illi contritionem cum pro¬ posito confitendi : nam per haec adipiscetur statum gratiae. Ita docent Paludanus in 4. dist. 20. quaest. 4. art. 2. Silvester verbo Indulgentia nura. 20. Panormitanus in cap. Omnis utriusque, de pcenit. et remiss. Feli¬ nus in serm. de Indulgentiis num. 12. et alii. Tamen tutius et probabilius videtur requiri confessionem in re, et non solum in voto, quotiescumque dicitur, indulgentiam con¬ cedi pcenitentibus et confessis, ut docent S. Antoninus 1. par. tit. 10. cap. 3. Adria- nus in 4. sentent. tract. de Indulgent. Caje- tanus tract. 15. de Indulgent. cap. 10. Na- varrus de Jubilaeo notab. 18. numero 1. et Glossa in extravagantem Antiquorum, de pcenit. et remiss. Quarta quaestio est, an percipiat indulgen¬ tiam, qui non perficit omnia opera injuncta, sed aliqua tantum, ob inopiam, vel morbum, vel alia justa causa impeditus. Responsio communis est, S. Thomae, Durandi et alio¬ rum in 4. dist. 20. non percipi indulgentiam, nisi ab iis, qui integre omnia opera injuncta perficiunt, concessio enim conditionata non valet, nisi conditio impleatur. Atque in hanc quoque sententiam allegari solet dictum illud commune : indulgentiae tantum valent, quantum sonant. Nam Summi Pontifices, quando volunt percipi indulgentiam ab iis, qui legitime impediti non perficiunt omnia opera injuncta, addere solent, ut confessarii commutent opera injuncta in alia pia ope¬ ra, vel disertis verbis explicant, obtineri indulgentiam ab iis, qui inchoarunt opera injuncta, et perficere non potuerunt, ut ha¬ betur in extravaganti Unigenitus, et in aliis similibus, in quibus annus jubileei publicatur. 4 80 LIBER I. Quinta quaestio est, an requiratur alia dis¬ positio in suscipiente indulgentias, praeter statum gratiae, ' et adimpletionem operum injunctorum. Nam Cardin. Cajetanus in tract. 10. qui est de suscipientibus indul¬ gentias qusest. I. docet requiri tertiam con¬ ditionem, ut videlicet qui vult consequi in¬ dulgentias, habeat propositum satisfaciendi Deo propriis laboribus quoad poterit : iis autem, qui nolunt pro se ipsis satisfacere, cum possint, negat prodesse indulgentias. Ex quo etiam colligit, paucos admodum re¬ vera frui pontificiis indulgentus ex tanto nu¬ mero adeuntium Ecclesias temporibus sta¬ tionum, aliarumque similium indulgentia¬ rum. Quae sententia utilis est, et pia, sed fortasse non vera, praesertim cum sit con¬ traria communi aliorum doctrinae, ut ipse etiam Cajetanus fatetur : nec enim legi ul¬ lum auctorem, qui Cajetanum sequatur, praeter Bartholomaeum Fumum in Summa, quae Armilla dicitur ; verbo Indulgent. num. 13. Nec video quemadmodum Summi Pon¬ tifices non deciperent populos, si indulgen¬ tias cum ea conditione proponere vellent, quam numquam explicarent. Neque argu¬ menta Cajetani talia sunt, ut solvi non pos¬ sint. Ille enim sic ratiocinatur. Qui non vult satisfacere Deo per se, cum possit, indignus est, cui applicetur aliena satisfactio : at non intendit Ecclesia conferre hoc beneficium indulgentiae in indignos, igitur non prosunt indulgentiae iis, qui nolunt per se satisfa¬ cere^ cum possint. Propositionem argumenti probat Cajetanus his rationibus; primo, quia non decet ab amico petere, ut pro te satis¬ faciat, cum ipse possis per te satisfacere. Secundo quia in Republica bene instituta non sunt dispensanda bona communia pro liberandis illis civibus aere alieno, qui per se suum aes alienum dissolvere possunt. Tertia quia in forma indulgentiae addi solet, vere pcenitentibus indulgentias tribui : non sunt autem vere poenitentes, qui recusant facere fructus dignos poenitentiae. Quarto quia dan¬ tur indulgentiae de injunctis poenitentiis a sacerdote : vel igitur qui injunctam poeni¬ tentiam accepit, id fecit animo eam perfi¬ ciendi, et sic habemus quod volumus, vel animo fallendi ; et indignissimus est, qui ex fallacia sua lucrum reportet. Respondemus, eum qui non vult per se satisfacere cum possit, non esse indignum, sed tantum non dignum, cui aliena satisfactio applicetur. Ecclesia autem non intendit conferre hoc beneficium in indignos : sed bene potest velle conferre in non dignos, quoniam in¬ dulgentia ex misericordia , et liberalitate datur, non ex justitia et meritis. Ad primam rationem respondemus, non fieri injuriam amico, quia non petitur ejus satisfactio ex justitia, sed ex gratia, et petitur satisfactio, quae non est ei necessaria, sed omnino su¬ pervacanea. Ad secundam respondeo, dis¬ pensatorem bonorum communium in repu- blica instituta, non dissolvere sine causa aes alienum eorum civium , qui solvendo sunt per se : tamen posse dari causam, cur utile sit reipubliese, ex communi serario solvere debita eorum, qui per se illa solvere potuis¬ sent. Ad tertiam respondeo, vere poenitentes dici eos, qui contritionem habent cum pro¬ posito satisfaciendi, nisi aliunde pro eis sa¬ tisfiat. Ad quartam respondeo, plerumque indulgentias dari de non injunctis ut supra probavimus, et eos qui indulgentias quae- runt, velle perficere poenitentiam injunctam, sed nolle alium laborem sponte sumere pro reliqua poena expianda, si possint per indul¬ gentias ab ea liberari. Addo etiam, ‘quod si indulgentiae non darentur nisi de injunctis, possent homines injunctam poenitentiam ac¬ cipere animo perficiendi, nisi possint alia ratione ab eo reatu liberari. v