Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 4: Answer to the objection of Calvin from chapter 9 of the Institutes, number 40
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).
Now in section 40 Calvin draws an argument from the testimonies of the holy Fathers Leo and Augustine. “Excellently,” he says, “against these sacrileges Leo, bishop of Rome, speaks in epistle 81 to the Palestinians: Although the death of many saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the killing of no innocent was the propitiation of the world. The just received crowns, they did not give them; and from the fortitude of the faithful were born examples of patience, not gifts of justice. For their deaths were single, nor did any one pay another's debt by his own end, since the one Lord Christ stood forth, in whom all were crucified, all died, all were buried, all also were raised again. No less to the point is Saint Augustine, tract 84 on John: Even if we brothers die for brothers, yet the blood of no martyr is shed for the remission of sins, which Christ did for us; nor in this did he confer on us something to imitate, but something to be thankful for. Likewise in the fourth book to Boniface, chapter 4: As the Son of God alone was made the Son of man, that he might make us with him sons of God, so for us he alone took on punishment without evil merits, that through him we might obtain grace without good merits.” This argument of Calvin is no less specious, and no more solid, than the one before. Everything said by the holy Fathers Leo and Augustine is true, but it bears nothing at all on the present matter. For what does Saint Leo say? That the death of Christ alone was the propitiation of the world, and that no part of that propitiation is to be attributed to the deaths of the saints. Most true; for the saints themselves also were once of the world, and, redeemed by the death of Christ, began to go out of the world. Nor do we ascribe this to indulgences, that they reconcile the world to God, but that those who have already been led out of the world through Christ and reconciled to God the Father may be helped, so that they may be more easily freed from the guilt of temporal punishment, if perhaps they are still held bound by any. What besides does Saint Leo say? That the just received crowns, they did not give them; and this we too most gladly confess, for we do not believe that we have through indulgences the merits to which rewards and crowns answer. What does the same Leo add next? That from the fortitude of the faithful were born examples of patience, not gifts of justice. And nothing is truer than this, for no one can give the gifts of justice except he who justifies the ungodly. But no one can justify the ungodly except he “who did no sin,” and whose passion was of infinite price, “of whose fulness we all have received.” He alone, being the head of the body of the Church, procured grace for all his members. Nor has any Catholic ever taught that the gifts of justice are acquired through indulgences, or, what is the same, that anyone is made just from ungodly. What, last, does Saint Leo warn us of? That the deaths of others were single, and that no one paid another's debt by his own end; that Christ is the one in whom all died and all also were raised. But who of us ever denied that? Certainly every man, when he dies, pays his own debt, which he contracted in Adam. Christ alone, who had no debt of dying, “died for all, that by dying he might destroy death, and by rising again restore life.” Nor are these things at odds with one another, that through the death of Christ we have been freed from the debt of death, and yet each of us by dying pays the debt which he contracted in Adam. For the debt of death was not only that we should die, but that we should remain in death for ever. But Christ, who, as the Apostle says in 2 Timothy 1, destroyed death indeed, and brought to light life and incorruption, conferred this on us by his death, that although we die for a time, yet, called back to life, we may live for ever with him. Nor do we attribute any of these things to indulgences, or to the deaths of the saints, as Calvin wished it to be believed. But as we confess that everything Saint Leo set down in the epistle alleged is most true, so he in turn would not have denied, if an occasion of discussing these matters had offered itself to him, that the sufferings of the saints can be applied to other members of the Church for dissolving the guilt of temporal punishment alone. For Saint Leo's purpose in that epistle was to show the necessity of true flesh in Christ against the heresy of Eutyches, which had arisen a little before. And so Saint Leo teaches that there was true flesh in Christ, since without true flesh he could not truly have died. And if Christ had not truly died, we too would not have been redeemed and reconciled to God, since the propitiation of the world could not have been that of any other man, however innocent and holy. This is Saint Leo's reasoning, which is most solid if the matter concerns, as it truly does, redemption from the captivity of the devil, the propitiation of deadly sin, and satisfaction for the guilt and debt of eternal death. But if anyone contends that the same reasoning extends to satisfaction for the guilt of temporal punishment, he will accomplish nothing, and will dispute against Leo himself, who in sermon 1 on the fast of the tenth month, in epistle 79 to Nicetas, 91 to Theodore and 92 to Rusticus often repeats that God is satisfied by good works, that the punishments of sins are redeemed, that God is appeased, and so on; and as Saint Leo does not deny, but rather openly affirms, that everyone can satisfy God by his own works for the guilt of temporal punishment, although the death of Christ alone was the reconciliation of the world, so too he would not deny that, on account of the bond of charity and the communion of saints, the satisfaction of one can be applied to another for the payment of the guilt of temporal punishment; and this alone is what Catholics teach is done through indulgences. Now to the testimonies of Saint Augustine the same answer can be given; for Saint Augustine speaks, as the words themselves cry out, of the remission of sins which we receive in justification, when we come to the grace of God without any good merits of our own; which remission (as we have already often said) no Catholic expects from indulgences or from the saints, but all refer it entirely to Christ alone. What, then, does Calvin have now? He brought forward excellent testimonies, but beat nothing but the air.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Respondetur ad objectionem Calvini ex cap. 9. Instit. num. 40. Jam vero in sectione 40. ducit Calvinus argumentum a testimoniis sanctorum Pa¬ trum, Leonis, et Augustini : « Praeclare, in¬ quit, adversus hsec sacrilegia Leo Episcopus Romanus in epist. 81. ad Palaestinos loqui¬ tur. Quamvis multorum sanctorum in con¬ spectu Domini pretiosa mors fuerit : nullius tamen insontis occisio propitiatio fuit mun¬ di. Accepere justi, non dedere coronas, et de fortitudine fidelium nata sunt exempla patientiae , non dona justitiae . Singulares quippe illorum mortes fuerunt, nec alterius quispiam debitum suo fine persolvit, cum / 64 LIBER I. unus extiterit Dominus Christus, in quo om¬ nes, crucifixi, omnes mortui, omnes sepulti, omnes sunt etiam resuscitati. Nec minus appo¬ site S. Augustinus tract. 84. in Joannem. Et si fratres, inquit, pro fratribus moriamur, nullius tamen sanguis Martyris in remissio¬ nem peccatorum funditur, quod fecit Chri¬ stus pro nobis, neque in hoc quid imitare¬ mur, sed quid gratularemur, contulit nobis. Item lib. iv. ad Bonifacium c. 4. sicut solus filius Dei factus est filius hominis, ut nos se¬ cura filios Dei faceret, ita pro nobis solus suscepit sine malis meritis poenam, ut nos per ipsum sine bonis mej itis consequeremur gratiam ». Hoc argumentum Calvini non minus speciosum, nec magis solidum est, quam superius. Vera sunt omnia, quse a san¬ ctis Patribus, Leone, et Augustino dicuntur : sed ad rem prsesentem nihil omnino faciunt. Quid enim S. Leo dicit? Solius Christi mor¬ tem mundi propitiationem fuisse , neque sanctorum mortibus ullam partem ejus pro¬ pitiationis esse tribuendam. Verissimum est; nam ipsi etiam sancti de mundo aliquando fuerunt, et Christi morte redempti, de mundo exire coeperunt. Neque eos indulgentiis id adscribimus, ut mundum reconcilient Deo, sed ut eos, qui jam de mundo per Christum educti, et Deo Patri reconciliati sunt, juventi ut a reatu pcense temporalis, si quo forte adhuc tenentur obstricti, facilius liberentur. Quid praeterea S . Leo dicit ? Accepisse justos, non dedisse coronas, et hoc nos quo¬ que libentissime confitemur , neque enim merita, quibus praemia , et coronae respon¬ dent, per indulgentias habere nos credimus. Quid postea idem Leo adjungit? Ex fidelium fortitudine nata esse exempla patientiae, non dona justitiae. Et hoc nihil verius, nam dona justitiae non potest dare, nisi qui justificat impium. Impium vero justificare non potest, nisi ille, « qui peccatum non fecit », et cujus passio pretii fuit infiniti, « de cujus plenitu¬ dine nos omnes accepimus ». Solus ipse ca¬ put existens corporis Ecclesiae, suis omnibus membris gratiam comparavit. Neque ullus Catholicorum docuit unquam per indulgen¬ tias acquiri dona justitiae, vel, quod est idem, quemquam ex impio justum fieri. Quid postre¬ mo S. Leo nos monet? Singulares aliorum mortes fuisse, neque quemquam alterius de¬ bitum suo fine solvisse ; unum esse Chi-istum, in quo omnes mortui, omnes sunt etiam sus¬ citati. Id vero quis nostrum unquam nega¬ vit? Certe unusquisque dum moritur, debi¬ tum proprium solvit, quod in Adamo contra¬ xit. Solus Christus, qui debitum moriendi non habuit, « pro omnibus mortuus est, ut mortem moriendo destrueret, et vitam re¬ surgendo repararet ». Neque ista inter se pugnant, quod per Christi mortem a debito mortis liberati sumus, et tamen unusquisque nostrum moriendo debitum solvat, quod in Adamo contraxit. Siquidem mortis debitum non erat solum ut moreremur, sed ut in morte perpetuo maneremus Christus autem, qui ut Apostolus ait II ad Thimoth. i. de¬ struxit quidem mortem, illuminavit autem vitam in incorruptionem, id nobis morte sua contulit, ut licet ad tempus moriamur, tamen ad vitam revocati perpetuo cum ipso vivamus. Neque vero aliquid horum indul¬ gentiis tribuimus, aut sanctorum mortibus, ut Calvinus ci^edi voluit. Sed quemadmodum nos verissima esse fatemur omnia, quse S. Leo in epistola allegata posuit : sic ipse vi- cissim non» negasset, si de his rebus disse¬ rendi illi se occasio obtulisset, sanctorum passiones aliis Ecclesiae membris applicari posse ad solum reatum pcense temporarise dissolvendum. Propositum enim S. Leoni in ea epist. fuit demonstrare necessitatem verse carnis in Christo adversum hseresim Euty- chetis, quse paulo ante suborta fuerat. Itaque docet S. Leo, veram in Christo fuisse car¬ nem, quoniam sine vera carne, vere mori non potuisset. Quod si Christus vere mortuus non esset, nos quoque redempti, 'ac recon- liati Deo non essemus, cum nullius alterius hominis, quamvis innocentis, et sancti, pro¬ pitiatio mundi esse potuerit. Hsec est S. Leonis ratiocinatio, quse solidissima est, si agatur, ut vere agitur, de redemptione a ca¬ ptivitate Diaboli , de propitiatione jpeccati lethalis, et de satisfactione pro reatu, ac de¬ bito mortis seternse. At si quis contendat, eamdem ratiocinalionem extendere ad satis¬ factionem pro reatu pcense temporarise, nihil efficiet, et contra ipsum Leonem disputabit, qui serrn. 1. de jejunio decimi mensis, in epist. 79. ad Nicetam, et 91. ad Theodorum et 92. ad Rusticum ssepe repetit, per opera bona satisfieri Deo, poenas peccatorum re¬ dimi, placari Deum etc., et quemadmodum non negat S. Leo, imo vero palam affirmat, posse unumquemque suis operibus satisface¬ re Deo pro reatu pcense temporalis, quamvis solius Christi mors reconciliatio fuerit mun¬ di : sic etiam non negaret propter vinculum charitatis, et sanctorum communionem, pos- CAMJT V. 65 se unius satisfactionem alteri applicari pro solutione reatus prense temporalis, atque lioc solum est, quod per indulgentias fieri Ca¬ tholici docent. Nunc ad S. Augustini testi¬ monia eadem responsio dari potest ; loquitur enim S. Augustinus, ut verba ipsa clamant, de remissione peccatorum, quam in justifi¬ catione accipimus, cum ad gratiam Dei sine ullis nostris bonis meritis pervenimus; quam remissionem (ut ssepe jam diximus) nemo Catholicorum ab indulgentiis, vel a sanctis exspectat, sed omnes in unum Christum in¬ tegre referunt. Quid igitur jam habet Calvi¬ nus? Optima testimonia protulit, sed nihil nisi aerem verberavit.