Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 1: The arguments of Luther against indulgences are refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo, Book II, 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).
Preface to the second book. We have discussed indulgences thus far in the manner of the schools, both to satisfy Catholics and to lay the foundations of the disputation to come. We wished to separate the scholastic questions from the disputation against the heretics, so that neither Catholics nor heretics should be forced to read everything, but each should be free to choose what he wished. We shall therefore answer first the things which Martin Luther wrote against indulgences in the assertion of his articles; and in this we shall be brief, since all of it has been most diligently confuted by John of Rochester, a man of blessed memory. Next we shall examine what John Calvin, in his Institutes, objected to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. Third, we shall briefly refute the trifles of Tilmann Heshusius. Last, we shall answer Martin Chemnitz, who beyond the others argued at length about indulgences in his examination of the last session of the Council of Trent.
Martin Luther, the heresiarch of our age, began his sect from the censure of indulgences, and, what may seem strange, climbed by certain steps to the height of impiety in such a way that he did not notice he had opened a door to a greater licence than that for the repression of which he began to contend and quarrel with the Catholic Doctors, both in books and in sermons. For when Albert, Cardinal and Archbishop of Mainz, had been set by Leo X, Supreme Pontiff, over the preaching of certain indulgences through Germany, Luther wrote him a letter in which he noted the error of those who trusted in indulgences so far as to judge themselves secure of everlasting salvation if they had thrown a silver coin into the chest according to the prescription of the indulgence. And he refuted this excessive confidence chiefly by this argument, that not even the habit of justifying grace itself, infused by God into our hearts, can make us certain of obtaining eternal salvation, since the Apostle bids us work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Then a little later, going further, he published resolutions on indulgences, and soon a little book in defence of the same resolutions, in which he taught that indulgences are pious frauds of Mother Church, who by the promise of indulgences stirs her sons to good works, while yet indulgences do not remit the punishment owed in the judgment of God, but only in the ecclesiastical judgment; and at the same time he added that the treasury of the merits of Christ is not in the power of the Pontiffs, nor to be spent on a matter so cheap as is expiation from temporal punishment. So he went on from the censure of abuses to the censure of indulgences. But he did not stop here. For when Pope Leo X had condemned this new doctrine of Luther, he at once wrote the book on the Babylonian Captivity, at the beginning of which he taught that indulgences are not pious frauds of Mother Church, but sheer impostures of the Pontiffs. He soon added another book, in which he asserted and defended all the articles condemned by Leo X. And in that book he affirmed that indulgences are nothing, and if they were anything, they would not be useful but ruinous, since they free men from good works; that they are not necessary or to be sought except by public sinners, idle and slothful, on whom public penance had been imposed which they were unwilling to carry out. Finally he asserted that there is no purgatory, that no satisfaction is required after the fault is remitted, that men are justified by faith alone and freed from every debt of fault and punishment. And so he fell into the abuse which he censured at the beginning, or rather into another far greater. For at the beginning he took it ill that men, having thrown a silver coin into the chest and received the indulgence, trusted themselves secure of eternal salvation. But he himself, even without the silver coin, made all men secure of justification and salvation. Nor did anyone ever promulgate so ample an indulgence as Luther, who without any labour of penance, without any good works, remitted all faults and punishments by faith alone; if indeed that is to be called an indulgence, and not rather licence, and a truly impious fraud and imposture. But the things he brings forward to establish his teaching, in the assertion of article 17 and the following, are so foolish and so little connected with one another that they can scarcely be brought back to the form of an argument.
The first objection, then, is of this kind. The merits of Christ are sacred and living things, since they justify hearts; but indulgences do not justify, but are only said to remit the debt of temporal punishment; therefore indulgences cannot be founded on the treasury of the merits of Christ. Answer. The merits of Christ are living and sacred things, but they do not only justify hearts; they are also satisfactory for the guilt of punishment, both everlasting and temporal. Therefore it is no wonder if on the merits of Christ can be founded not only the sacraments, which by justifying wash away the stains of fault, but also indulgences, which by applying the satisfaction of Christ expiate the guilt of punishment. Further, that the merits of Christ, or rather the passion of Christ, was not only meritorious but also satisfactory, we prove from what Isaiah wrote in chapter 53, “Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows,” and Saint John in the first epistle, chapter 2, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” But Luther did not prove that the passion of Christ is not satisfactory, which yet he ought to have proved if he wished to accomplish anything.
Second objection. It is blasphemy to place a thing so sacred as the merits of Christ in the filthy work of death. But temporal punishment is a filthy work of death; therefore it is blasphemy to set the merits of Christ in the expiation of temporal punishment. Answer. Why Luther calls temporal punishment a filthy work of death I could not easily guess, unless perhaps, because the guilt of punishment is the fruit of sin, which is the death of the soul, he chose so to name it. But whatever the cause of this name, surely it is not filthy but glorious to free a man from a filthy work of death. For what is filthier and worse than sin? And yet it is not filthy for Christ, but greatly honourable, to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world; far less, then, will it be filthy to expiate the guilt of punishment, since it is not filthy to expiate the guilt of fault. Therefore it is not blasphemy but glorious preaching to say that the most holy merits of Christ are of such virtue that they can wash away and expiate all sins and all guilt of sins.
Third objection. The merits of Christ are necessary to all for salvation, and therefore all are bound to seek that those merits be applied to them. But indulgences are not necessary for salvation, nor are Christians bound by any precept to receive them; therefore indulgences are not founded on the merits of Christ. Answer. The merits of Christ are partly necessary to all, partly not necessary but useful, and in the latter way they belong to the foundation of indulgences. For as regards obtaining the grace of justification, without which no one can be saved, the merits of Christ are necessary to all, and therefore all are bound by divine precept to take care that those merits be applied to them through baptism, or, if after baptism they have fallen from the grace of God, through the sacrament of penance; and in this way we confess that the merits of Christ do not belong to the foundation of indulgence. But if someone, after obtaining the grace of reconciliation, is still liable to pay a temporal punishment, he does not necessarily need the merits of Christ in order that that guilt be simply forgiven through them; not that the guilt of punishment could be simply forgiven without the merits of Christ, but because he will be able not to require so great a liberality, being content himself to satisfy God by his own labours and pains, either in this life or in purgatory, the merit and grace of Christ always cooperating. Yet it will be most useful to him if the merits of Christ are so applied to him through indulgences that, without his own satisfaction, that guilt is at once paid; and in this way it cannot be denied that the merits of Christ belong to the treasury and foundation of indulgences; although, as no one is forced to receive indulgences, so no one is forced to take pains that the debt of temporal punishment be made good by the passion and merits of Christ without his own labour.
Fourth objection. The treasury of indulgences can be proved by no testimonies of holy Scripture, but only by the constitution of Clement VI which begins Unigenitus. Therefore what is handed down about indulgences is not firm enough. Answer. We have already shown above, in the former book, that the treasury of indulgences does not lack foundation in the holy Scriptures. But even if we had no testimonies of the Scriptures, we would not on that account rest on the constitution of Clement alone. For Clement did not devise the treasury out of his own head; but from ancient tradition, from the sense of the Church, from the common doctrine of the theologians and the custom of the ancient Pontiffs he learned what he taught about the treasury, and confirmed it by apostolic authority. Finally, even if we had nothing certain about the treasury of indulgences before the constitution of Clement (which however we by no means concede), we would still be made certain enough of the truth of this treasury by the declaration of Clement, the Supreme Pontiff. For we know that he was given by God to the whole Church as master and teacher, since he holds the seat of him to whom properly it was said, “Feed my sheep,” John 21. But on this matter enough has been written in our other books, and especially in the fourth book on the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 3, which is not to be repeated here.
Fifth objection. The punishments which follow sin cannot in any way be remitted, but must be borne whether we will or not; therefore indulgences, which are said to be remissions of punishments, are nothing at all. Luther proves the antecedent of this argument from this, that the punishment of sin inflicted on Adam and on the whole human race is labour and death, which punishment it is certain cannot be taken away by indulgences. So too God says in Psalm 88, “If his children forsake my law, I will visit their iniquities with a rod.” But the Pope cannot turn aside this rod by indulgences. So the Apostle says in Hebrews 12 that we receive discipline from God, and in 1 Corinthians 11 that we are judged and chastised by God, that we be not condemned with this world. But indulgences do not take away that discipline and chastisement. Answer. In the former book we showed that by indulgences natural punishments are not remitted, that is, those which follow original sin and are common to the whole human race, but only the punishments which follow personal sins, and not all of these, but only those of which we are guilty in the penitential court, not those which we owe in the external court. Now the punishments of which mention is made in Psalm 88 and in the epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews belong to the external court, for they are inflicted by God as Judge, in the external and criminal court. For if an indulgence cannot take away the punishment with which a praetor has fined someone for theft or murder, how much less can it take away that which God himself has decreed for someone? What punishment, then, you will say, does an indulgence take away? That which is inflicted in the penitential court, which is fulfilled voluntarily, to the fulfilling of which we are not forced except by the fear of God and the goad of conscience. For this is the punishment by which we satisfy the Lord, and in whose place, unless the Lord is satisfied in the present, comes the punishment of purgatory. Although this too ought not to be denied, that God is satisfied also by the scourges sent by him, when they are borne with a willing mind; as also sometimes by a punishment undertaken of our own accord we forestall the hand of God and turn aside his scourges, as the example of the Ninevites teaches, which is found in the prophet Jonah, the last chapter.
Sixth objection. Indulgences are said to remit the penances enjoined; but these are good works, namely fastings, alms, prayers and the like; therefore indulgences are harmful, not wholesome, since they hinder us from good works. Answer. Indulgences remit the penances enjoined, not insofar as they are works, but insofar as the debt of fulfilling them would delay our entry into eternal life, if perhaps it should happen that we departed this life before their fulfilment. And so the Church, when she bestows indulgences, does not forbid the pursuit of penance; on the contrary she exhorts and stirs us to it; but she frees us from that guilt by which, as we said, we can be hindered from obtaining the kingdom of heaven the sooner. Accordingly indulgences are to be called truly wholesome, and in no way harmful. And this is the sum of Luther's objections; for Rochester answered each of his words accurately enough, so that there is no need to add anything.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
LIBER SECUNDUS Disseruimus hactenus cie indulgentiis scholastico more, tum ut Catholicis sa¬ tisfaceremus, tum ut futuras disputationis fundamenta jaceremus. Voluimus autem quaestiones scholasticas a disputatione adversus haereticos separare, ne cogerentur Catholici, aut haeretici omnia legere, sed liberum esset unicuique quod vellet eligere. Igitur respondebimus primum iis, quae Martinus Lutherus adver¬ sus indulgentias in assertione articulorum suorum scripsit. In qua re breviores erimus, quoniam sunt ea omnia a Joanne Rotfensi, beate memoriae viro, dili¬ gentissime confutata. Deinde excutiemus ea, quae Joannes Calvinus in Institu¬ tione sua, doctrinae Catholicae de indulgentiis objecit. Tertio breviter refutabimus nugas Tilmanni Heshusii. Ad extremum respondebimus Martino Kemnitio, qui praeter caeteros copiose de indulgentiis Concilii Tridentini. CAPUT PRIMUM. Refutantur argumenta Lutheri contra indulgentias. Martinus Lutherus haeresiarcha nostri sae¬ culi a reprehensione indulgentiarum sectam suam auspicatus est, et quod mirum videri poterit, ita per quosdam gradus ad sum¬ mum impietatis ascendit, ut non animad¬ verterit majori se licentiee aditum patefe¬ cisse, quam ea esset, oh cujus repressionem cum Catholicis Doctoribus contendere atque altercari, et libris, et sermonibus coepit. Nam cum Albertus Card. et Archiepiscopus Moguntinus praepositus esset a Leone X Pontifice Maximo indulgentiis quibusdam per Germaniam praedicandis, scripsit ad eum Lutherus epistolam, in qua notabat errorem illorum, qui usque adeo indulgentiis confi¬ debant, ut securos se de salute sempiterna esse 'arbitrarentur, si nummum argenteum in arcem , juxta praescriptum indulgentiae conjecissent. Refellit autem hanc nimiam disputavit 111 examine postremae sessionis confidentiam eo potissimum argumento, quod ne ipse quidem habitus gratiae justifi¬ cantis a Deo cordibus nostris infusus certos nos reddere possit de salute aeterna obti¬ nenda, cum Apostolus jubeat, ut cum timore et tremore salutem nostram operemur. Deinde paulo post longius progressus, edi¬ dit resolutiones de indulgentiis, et mox li¬ bellum pro iisdem resolutionibus, in quibus docuit, indulgentias esse pias fraudes Matris Ecclesiae, quae promissione indulgentiarum excitat filios suos ad opera bona, cum tamen indulgentiae non remittant poenam debitam in judicio Dei, sed solum in judicio eccle¬ siastico, et simul addidit, thesaurum meri¬ torum Christi non esse in potestate Pontifi¬ cum, neque expendendum in re tam vili, ut est expiatio a poena temporaria. Ita progres¬ sus est a reprehensione abusuum ad repre¬ hensionem indulgentiarum. Sed neque hic substitit. Nam cum Leo X Pontifex hanc novam Lutheri doctrinam improbasset, scri¬ psit ille continuo librum de captivitate Baby¬ lonica, in cujus libri principio docuit indul¬ gentias non esse pias fraudes Matris Eccle- 58 LIBER II. siso, sed meras Pontificum imposturas. Ad¬ didit etiam mox librum alium, in quo asseruit, ac defendit omnes articulos a Leone X im¬ probatos. Atque in eo libro affirmavit, indul¬ gentias nihil esse, et si quid essent, non fore utiles, sed perniciosas, cum liberent homi- mines ab operibus bonis ; non esse necessa¬ rias, vel expetendas, nisi publicis peccato¬ ribus, inertibus et desidiosis, quibus publica poenitentia esset imposita, quam peragere nollent. Denique asseruit nullum esse purga¬ torium, nullam requiri satisfactionem post culpam remissam, sola fide homines justifi¬ cari et liberari ab omni debito culpae et poenae. Itaque incidit in eum abusum, quem initio reprehendit, vel potius in alium longe majorem. /Egre ferebat enim initio, quod homines injecto in arcam argenteo nummo, et indulgentia suscepta, securos se de salute aeterna esse confiderent. Ipse autem etiam sine nummo argenteo securos omnes reddi¬ dit de justificatione et salute. Neque ullus unquam tam amplam indulgentiam promul¬ gavit, quam Lutherus, qui sine ullo poeni¬ tentiae labore, sine ullis operibus bonis, culpas omnes, et poenas sola fide remisit : si tamen ea indulgentia, et non potius licentia, et vere impia fraus, et impostura dicenda est. Ea vero quae profert ad suum dogma stabiliendum in assertione articuli 17. et se¬ quentium, tam sunt inepta, et parum inter se connexa, ut vix ad argumenti formam re¬ vocari possint. Prima igitur objectio ejusmodi est. Merita Christi sunt res sacrae, et vivae, cum corda justificent; indulgentiae autem non justifi¬ cant, sed solum remittere dicuntur debitum pcenae temporalis : igitur indulgentiae non possunt fundari in thesauro meritorum Chri¬ sti. Responsio. Merita Christi sunt res vivae, et sacrae, sed non .solum justificant corda, verum etiam satisfactoria sunt pro reatu pcenae tum sempiternae, tum temporariae. Quocirca non est mirum, si in meritis Chri¬ sti fundari possint non solum sacramenta quae justificando abluunt maculas culpae, sed etiam indulgentiae, quae applicando satisfa¬ ctionem Christi, expiant reatum pcenae. Porro Christi merita, seu potius Christi passionem, non solum fuisse meritoriam, sed etiam* sa- tisfactoriam probamus ex eo quod scripsit Isai. cap. liii. (Vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavit,) et S. Joannes in priore epist. cap. ii. (Ijise est propitiatio prOvpeccatis nostris, non pro no¬ stris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi.) Lutherus vero non probavit, Christi passionem non esse satisfactoriara, quod ta¬ men probare debuit, si quid efficere voluit. Secunda objectio. Blasphemia est, rem tam sacram, ut sunt merita Christi, in sordi¬ dum opus mortis ponere. At poena tempora¬ lis, est sordidum opus mortis ; igitur blas¬ phemia est, Christi merita collocare in ex¬ piatione pcenee temporalis. Responsio. Quare Lutherus vocet sordidum mortis opus tem¬ poralem poenam, non facile divinarem, nisi forte, quia reatus pcenae fructus est peccati, quod est mors animae, ita nominare placue¬ rit. Sed quaecumque sit causa hujus appella¬ tionis, certe non est sordidum, sed glorio¬ sum liberare hominem a sordido mortis opere. Nam quid sordidius, et deterius pec¬ cato? et tamen non est sordidum Christo, sed valde honorificum esse agnum Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi, multo igitur minus sordidum erit expiare reatum poenae, cum non sit sordidum expiare reatum culpae. Quare non est blasphemia, sed gloriosa prae¬ dicatio dicere : Christi merita sacrosancta ejus esse virtutis, ut omnia peccata, et pec¬ catorum reatus omnes eluere, et expiare va¬ leant. Tertia objectio. Merita Christi sunt omnibus necessaria ad sal utem, et ideo tenentur omnes quaerere, ut sibi ea merita applicentur. At indulgentiae non sunt necessariae ad salutem, neque tenentur Christiani ullo praecepto ad eas suscipiendas : non igitur fundantur in¬ dulgentiae in meritis Christi. Responsio. Me¬ rita Christi partim sunt omnibus necessaria, partim non necessaria, sed utilia, atque po¬ steriore modo ad fundamentum indulgentia¬ rum pertinent. Nam quod attinet ad gratiam justificationis obtinendam, sine qua nemo sal¬ vus esse potest, sunt Christi merita omnibus necessaria, et ideo tenentur omnes divino praecepto curare, ut sibi ea merita per Baptis¬ mum, vel, si post Baptismum a gratia Dei exciderint, per sacramentum Poenitentiae ap¬ plicentur, ct'hoc modo fatemur non pertinere ad fundamentum indulgentiae Christi merita. At si quis post gratiam reconciliationis adep¬ tam adhuc sit reus luendae pcenae temporalis, is non necessario eget meritis Christi, ut per ea reatus ille simpliciter condonetur, non quod sine meritis Christi possit reatus poenae simpliciter condonari, sed quia poterit ipse non requirere tantam liberalitatem, conten¬ tus ipse suis laboribus, et poenis, vel in hac CAPUT I. 59 vita, vel in purgatorio satisfacere Deo, coo- perante semper Christi merito, et gratia, ta¬ men utilissimum illi erit, si Christi merita ita sibi per indulgentias applicentur, ut sine propria satisfactione continuo reatus ille sol¬ vatur, et hoc modo negari non potest, quin merita Christi pertineant ad thesaurum, et fundamentum indulgentiarum : quamvis ut nemo cogitur suscipere indulgentias , ita nemo cogatur dare operam, ut debitum tem¬ poralis poenae, Christi passione et meritis sine labore proprio compensetur. Quarta objectio. Nullis Scripturae sacrae testimoniis thesaurus indulgentiarum com¬ probari potest, sed sola constitutione Cle¬ mentis YI, quae incipit, Unigenitus. Non igi¬ tur satis firma sunt quae de indulgentiis tra¬ duntur. Responsio. Jam supra ostendimus in priore libro indulgentiarum thesaurum non carere fundamento Scripturarum sancta¬ rum. Sed quamvis nulla testimonia Scriptu¬ rarum haberemus, non propterea sola Cle¬ mentis constitutione niteremur. Neque enim Clemens ex proprio capite thesaurum exco¬ gitavit : sed ex antiqua traditione, ex Eccle¬ sias sensu , ex Theologorum communi do¬ ctrina, et consuetudine veterum Pontificum didicit, quod de thesauro docuit, et auctori¬ tate apostolica confirmavit. Denique etiamsi nihil certi de thesauro indulgentiarum (quod tamen minime concedimus) ante constitutio¬ nem Clementis habuissemus , satis tamen certi redderemur de thesauri hujus veritate ex Clementis Pont. Maximi declaratione.. Ipsum enim toti Ecclesiae datum a Deo ma¬ gistrum et doctorem esse scimus, cum illius sedem teneat, cui proprie dictum est : Pasce oves meas (1), Joan. xxi. Sed de hac re satis multa in aliis nostris libris, ac praesertim lib. iv. de Summo Pontifice cap. 3. scripta exstant, quse hoc loco repetenda non sunt. Quinta objectio. Poenae, quae peccatum sequuntur, non possunt ullo modo remitti, sed velimus,' nolimus, tolerandae sunt : igi¬ tur indulgentiae, quae dicuntur esse remis¬ siones pcenarum, nihil omnino sunt. Probat Lutherus antecedens hujus argumenti ex eo, quod poena peccati Adamo, et toti generi humano inflicta, est labor, et mors ; quam poenam certum est per indulgentias tolli non posse. Sic etiam Deus in Psalm. lxxxyiii. dicit : Si peccaverint filii tui , visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum (2). At Papa hanc virgam per indulgentias avertere non potest. Sic Apostolus ad Hebr. xn. dicit, nos a Deo, disciplinam accipere, et I Corinth. xi. dicit, nos a Deo judicari, et corripi, ut non cum hoc mundo damnemur. Istam vero discipli¬ nam, et correptionem indulgentiae non tol¬ lunt. Responsio. In libro superiore demon¬ stravimus, per indulgentias non remitti poe¬ nas naturales, id est, quae sequuntur origi¬ nale peccatum, et toti generi humano sunt communes : sed poenas dumtaxat, quae se¬ quuntur peccata personalia, et eas non om¬ nes, sed eas tantum, quarum sumus rei in foro poenitentiario, non autem eas, quas de¬ bemus in foro externo. Porro poenae, qua¬ rum fit mentio in Psalm. lxxxviii, et in epist. ad Corinth. et ad Hebr., ad forum ex¬ ternum pertinent, infliguntur enim a Deo tamquam Judice, in externo, et criminali foro. Nam si non potest Indulgentia tollere poenam, qua praeter aliquem mulctavit ob furtum, vel homicidium, quanto minus tol¬ lere poterit eam, quam Deus ipse alicui de¬ crevit? Quam igitur, inquies poenam tollit indulgentia? Illam quae inforo poenitentia¬ rio infligitur, quae voluntarie adimpletur, ad quam implendam non cogimur nisi timore Dei, et stimulo conscientiae'. Haec enim est, per quam Domino satisfacimus, et cui suc¬ cedit, nisi in praesenti Domino satisfiat, pur¬ gatorii poena. Quamvis illud etiam negari non debeat, satisfieri quoque Deo per flagella ab ipso immissa, quando libenti animo tole¬ rantur, sicut etiam interdum per poenam sponte susceptam praevenimus manum Dei, et flagella ejus avertimus, ut exemplum Ni¬ nivitarum docet, quod habetur apud Jonam prophetam cap. ultimo. Sexta objectio. Indulgentiae dicuntur re¬ mittere poenitentias injunctas; at illae sunt opera bona, videlicet jejunia, eleemosynae, preces, et similia : igitur indulgentiae noxiae sunt, non salutares, cum a bonis operibus nos impediant. Responsio. Indulgentiae re¬ mittunt poenitentias injunctas, non quatenus sunt opera, sed quatenus debitum eas im¬ plendi retardaret nostrum ingressum in vi¬ tam aeternam, si forte ante illorum imple- tionem de vita nos exire contingeret. Itaque Ecclesia dum largitur indulgentias, non pro¬ hibet studium poenitentiae, immo ad illud nos hortatur et excitat, sed a reatu illo nos liberat, quo, ut diximus, impediri possumus (1) Joan, XXI, 17. - (2) Psalm. LXXXVIII, 33. 60 LIBER II. a regno coelorum citius obtinendo. Proinde vere salutares, et nullo modo noxiae dicendae sunt indulgentiae. Atque haec est summa ob¬ jectionum Lutheri ; nam ad singula ejus verba satis accurate Roffensis respondit, ut non sit opus aliquid addere.