Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 8: Other objections of the same Tilmann Heshusius 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).
I come to the second head of Heshusius's argument. He goes on thus: “The Papists,” he says, “obscure the necessary doctrine of penance by the trade in indulgences. For when they teach that men can satisfy for their sins either in this life or in the next, or even redeem the satisfactions imposed with money, they lessen the greatness of sin, they make light of the judgment of God against sin, they instil security into men's minds, and so overturn the foundations of true contrition.” So he, who without doubt would be saying something if we said that satisfaction can be made by us to the Lord for fault and everlasting punishment. But we do not say that; and for this reason our theologians argue that the incarnation of the Son of God was necessary, since the greatness of sin is such that no mere creature could, by the rigour of justice, satisfy God for the sins of men. This alone, then, we teach: that after fault is remitted, a man justified by the grace of God can satisfy God for the guilt of temporal punishment only; which not only does not lessen, but wonderfully magnifies both the greatness of sin and the judgment of God against sin. For who would not marvel at the severity of the divine judgment, and the weight of sin itself, if he considers that God even from his own sons and friends, justified and reconciled by the blood of Christ, still exacts punishments for their offences, either in this life or in the next? But who are they that object to us that we lessen the gravity of sin and make light of the judgment of God? The Lutherans, of course, who lessen sin and despise the judgments of God so far that they think nothing is required for expiating sins except that men believe they are not imputed to them by God. Which, then, lessen sin more and hold God's judgments cheaper: Catholics, who teach that besides faith, contrition, confession and satisfaction are necessary for purging sins; or Lutherans, who contend that sins are purged by faith alone, without any labour of penance? The same holds for what Heshusius adds about security. For if Catholics said that through satisfaction or indulgences men are made secure of eternal salvation, even if they have no contrition for their sins and do not wish to be converted from sins to God, Heshusius would most rightly say that by that empty security the foundations of contrition and penance are overturned. But we do not say this; rather, with blessed Augustine in book 21 of the City of God, chapter 27, we count among the most pernicious errors the opinion of those who said that alms and similar good works suffice for salvation without true conversion and penance; and all our theologians teach in express words that satisfaction and indulgences profit none but those who, justified through true contrition and reconciliation, have been received by God into grace. Nor even then do we promise security of salvation through an indulgence except on condition: namely, if there is authority in the one granting, the state of grace in the one receiving, and piety and reasonableness, so to speak, in the cause. Absolutely, we promise good hope and confidence, according to that of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 3: “For they that have ministered well shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” But it is very strange that Heshusius should object security to us, when otherwise the Lutherans for the most part reproach us because we persuade our people to doubt and fear, while they on the contrary teach theirs to believe with the utmost certainty that they are just and will be saved, and wish this very faith about their own justice to be the justifying and Catholic faith.
There remains the third head of Heshusius's argument, which he pursues in these words: “They also bury,” he says, “the doctrine of faith, or trust in the Mediator Jesus Christ; for if the remission of punishments can be bought with money, it is not necessary to believe in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. But the whole Scripture cries out: he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, John 3.” This, then, is that unanswerable demonstration on account of which Heshusius so boasts and triumphs. And indeed indulgences not only do not bury the doctrine of true faith and trust in Christ, but make it shine out and stand forth. For they have their foundation in the treasury of the merits of Christ, and they profit none but true believers, justified through a true and living faith. Therefore that inference is absurd and foolish: sins are redeemed, through indulgences or through satisfactory works such as alms of money, by those who believe in Christ and rest on his merits and satisfaction; therefore it is not necessary to believe in Christ the Son of God. I confess, however, that through satisfactions and indulgences the doctrine of faith alone, or justifying trust, is truly buried. Which faith, or trust, we have shown elsewhere to be empty and false, and not so much justifying as deluding and seducing souls under the hope of justification. But what Heshusius says, that in the opinion of Catholics the remission of punishments is redeemed with money, is true in the sense in which Daniel admonished a certain king: “redeem thou thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor,” Daniel 4. We think, namely, that through alms, as also through fastings and other pious works, especially laborious and penal ones, the temporal punishments are remitted which remain after fault is remitted, as has already often been said.
The fourth head of the argument, by which it was to be proved that through satisfactions and indulgences the doctrine of the power of the keys is undermined, Heshusius did not write down; whether from forgetfulness or for some other reason is uncertain. But he made good this loss with a better compensation. For he added something against indulgences for the dead: “What they pretend,” he says, “that indulgences avail for the dead by way of suffrage, conflicts with the saying of Christ, He that doth not believe in the Son is already judged, John 3. Likewise: We must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things he did in the body, whether good or evil, 2 Corinthians 5. Likewise: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, Revelation 14. Unhappy, therefore, and such as no indulgences profit, are they who do not die in the Lord; to trust in the merits of the saints is blasphemous and insulting to the Son of God.” A wonderful dialectic indeed, that of Heshusius, by which without a middle term anything may be inferred from anything. He that believeth not in the Son of God is already judged; therefore indulgences cannot avail the dead by way of suffrage. Is he sane, or does he rave, who infers so? We confess that indulgences in no way profit those who departed without faith in Christ, who according to the word of the Lord are judged, that is, condemned. But it does not follow from this that they do not profit those who departed with faith, hope and charity, and yet still dwell in the places of purgation, of whom Saint Augustine speaks thus in homily 16 of the fifty Homilies: “Those who have done things deserving temporal punishments will pass through a certain purgatorial fire, of which the Apostle says: he shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” But, says Heshusius, we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things he did in the body, whether good or evil; therefore indulgences or other suffrages profit the dead nothing. I answer that the dead receive indeed only what they did in the body; but those who persevered in faith, hope and charity to the end did this in the body, that after death they could be helped by suffrages and indulgences; while on the contrary those who remained in deadly sins until death did this in the body, that after death neither indulgences nor any suffrages should profit them. For so Saint Augustine speaks in the Enchiridion, chapter 109: “Nor is it to be denied that the souls of the dead are relieved by the piety of their living kin, when the sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or alms are given in the Church. But these things profit those who, while they lived, merited that they might profit them. For there is a certain manner of living, neither so good that it does not require these things, nor so bad that these things do not profit it after death.” And below: “These things, then, which the Church practises for commending the dead are not contrary to that apostolic saying in which it is said: we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive according to the things he did through the body, whether good or evil; because each one also procured this merit for himself, while he lived in the body, that these things could profit him; for they do not profit all, and why do they not profit all, except because of the difference of the life which each led in the body?” So he. To the place in Revelation we answer that those who die in the Lord in every respect, such as the martyrs, whom the Apostle John chiefly consoles in that place, are plainly blessed, and do not need indulgences or other suffrages; and of these Saint Ambrose, Haymo, Ansbert and Richard of Saint Victor expound this place. But those who in no respect die in the Lord, such as lost men, who depart without the grace of God and justification, are altogether unhappy and wretched, and neither indulgences nor any other suffrages profit them. But between these there are certain middle ones, as we learned a little before from Augustine, who die partly in the Lord and partly not in the Lord: in the Lord, because they depart this life with faith, hope and charity; not in the Lord, because venial stains or the guilt of temporal punishment cling to them, on account of which they need purging and expiation. These, then, are neither so perfect that they rest at once from their labours and have no need of the suffrages of the Church or of indulgences, nor so imperfect that they do not look for rest from punishments and labours, or cannot be relieved by indulgences, alms and other suffrages. Nor will anyone wonder that we say some die partly in the Lord and partly not in the Lord, who has read in Saint Augustine, book 3 to Boniface, chapter 3, that the same men, on account of the grace of God which they have, are sons of God, and on account of the venial sins which they are not free of, are sons of this world. Finally, that last conclusion of Heshusius, that to trust in the merits of the saints is blasphemous and insulting to the Son of God, I altogether fail to see whence it is drawn. For it neither arises from the words immediately preceding, nor bears in any way on the matter proposed. But it has already been said that according to Heshusius's new logic anything can be inferred from anything. And so far is trusting in the merits of the saints from being either blasphemous or insulting to the Son of God, that it is most honourable and glorious to the Son of God. For what are the saints but fruitful branches of that most noble vine, which says in the Gospel, “I am the vine; you the branches”? And since the branches draw all their virtue from the vine, surely all the glory of the branches flows back to the vine. And so when we trust in the merits of the saints, we trust in Christ, without whom they can do nothing. Nor do we so trust in the merits of the saints as to expect grace or glory from them, but only, as we have often said, that through their satisfactions communicated to us we may be freed from the guilt of temporal punishment, or by their intercession obtain various benefits from God through Christ.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Refelluntur aliae objectiones ejusdem Tilmanni Heshusii. Venio ad secundum caput argumenti Heshusiani. Sic igitur ille pergit : « Obscu¬ rant, inquit, Pontificii necessariam doctri¬ nam de poenitentia commerito indulgentia¬ rum. Cum enim docent homines pro suis peccatis vel in hac, vel in futura vita satis¬ facere, aut etiam impositas satisfactiones pecunia redimere posse, extenuant peccati magnitudinem, parvi faciunt judicium Dei adversus peccatum, instillant animis homi¬ num securitatem, atque ita verre contritionis fundamenta evertunt ». Haec ille, qui sine dubio aliquid diceret, si nos diceremus, pro culpa, et poena sempiterna, posse nobis Domino satisfieri. Id vero non dicimus, atque ea de causa Theologi nostri disputant, ne¬ cessariam fuisse incarnationem Filii Dei, quoniam tanta est magnitudo peccati, ut non potuerit ulla pura creatura ex rigore justitiae pro peccatis hominum satisfacere Deo. Id igitur solum docemus, post culpam remis¬ sam posse hominem justificatum per gratiam Dei, satisfacere Deo pro reatu pue.nae tempo¬ ralis tantum : quod non solum non extenuat, sed etiam amplificat mirum in modum tum peccati magnitudinem, tum judicium Dei adversus peccatum. Quis enim non miretur divini judicii severitatem, et ipsius peccati molem, si cogitet Deum ab ipsis etiam filiis suis, et amicis, Christi sanguino justificatis, et reconciliatis adhuc repetere poenas pro delictis, vel in hajc vita, vel in futura? Sed qui sunt, qui nobis objiciunt, quod peccati gravitatem extenuemus, etjudicium Dei par¬ vi faciamus ? Nempe Lutherani, qui usque adeo peccatum extenuant, judiciaque Dei contemnunt, ut nihil ad expianda peccata exigi arbitrentur, nisi ut credant ea sibi a Deo non imputari. Utri igitur magis pecca¬ tum extenuant, et Dei judicia parvi pendunt; Catholici, qui preeter fidem, contritionem, (i) I Tim.IIl, 13. confessionem, et satisfactionem necessariam esse docent ad peccata purganda ; an Luthe¬ rani, qui sola fide, sine ullo poenitentiae la¬ bore purgari peccata contendunt ? Simile est, quod de securitate addit Feshusius.Nam si Catholici dicerent, per satisfactionem, vel indulgent.as homines reddi securos de salu¬ te aeterna, etiamsi contritionem de peccatis nullam habeant, neque a peccatis ad Deum converti velint, rectissime diceret Heshusius, per inanem istam securitatem everti funda¬ menta contritionis, et poenitentiae. At non hoc dicimus, sed cum B. Augustino in lib. XXI. de Civit. Dei cap. 27. inter errores'per- niciosissimos numeramus sententiam illo¬ rum, qui dicebant, eleemosynas, et similia bona opera sine vera conversione, et poeni¬ tentia ‘-'ufficere ad salutem, et verbis diser¬ tis omnes Theologi nostri tradunt, satisfa¬ ctionem, et indulgentias non prodesse nisi iis, qui per veram contritionem, et reconci¬ liationem justificati in gratiam a Deo recepti sunt. Neque etiam tunc securitatem salutis pollicemur per indulgentiam, nisi sub condi¬ tione, si videlicet adsit auctoritas in conce¬ dente, gratim status in suscipiente, et pietas, atque rationabilitas, ut sic loquamur, in causa.. Absolute autem spem bonam, et fi¬ duciam pollicemur, juxta illud Apostoli I Timot. ut. Qui bene ministraverit t , gradum bonum sibi acquirent , et multam fiduciam in fide , quae est in Christo Jesu (I). Est autem valde mirum, quod Heshusius securitatem nobis objiciat, cum alioqui nos ut plurimum reprehendant Lutherani, quod dubitationem, et metum persuadeamus nostris, cum ipsi contra doceant suos, ut certissime credant, se justos esse, et salvos fore, atqUe hanc ip¬ sam fidem de propria justitia, fidem justifi¬ cantem et Catholicam esse velint. Superest tertium caput argumenti Heshu¬ sii, quod his verbis ipse persequitur : « Se¬ peliunt quoque doctrinam, inquit, de fide, seu fiducia in Mediatorem Jesum Christum, si enim remissio poenarum pecunia emi po¬ test, non est necesse credere in filium Dei Jesum Christum. At tota Scriptura clamat : qui non credit in Filium, vitam non videbit, sed ira Dei manet super eum, Joan. m. ». Haic videlicet est illa insolubilis demon¬ stratio, ob quam ita se jactat, et' triumphat Heshusius. Et quidem doctrinam de vera fi¬ de et fiducia in Christum non solum non se- 72 LIBER II. peliunt, sed etiam enitescere, atque eminere faciunt indulgenti® . Siquidem fundamentum habent in thesauro meritorum Christi, et non prosunt nisi veris fidelibus, et per fidem ve¬ ram ac vivam justificatis. Quare absurda, et inepta est illa consequentia, per indulgen¬ tias, vel per opera satisfactoria, quales sunt eleemosyn® pecuniari®, redimuntur pecca¬ ta ab iis, qui credunt in Christum, et meritis ipsius, ac satisfactione nituntur, igitur non est necesse credere in Christum Filium Dei. Fateor tamen per satisfactiones, et indul¬ gentias vere sepeliri doctrinam de sola fide, seu fiducia justificante. Quam fidem, seu fi¬ duciam inanem, et falsam, et non tam justi¬ ficantem, quam sub spe justificationis ani¬ mas deludentem, ac seducentem esse, alibi demonstravimus. Quod autem Heshusius di¬ cit, pecunia redimi poenarum remissionem ex Catholicorum sententia, verum est in eo sensu, quo Daniel Regem quemdam admo¬ nuit, peccata tua eleemosynis redime , et ini¬ quitates tuas misericordiis pauperum (1), Da- niel. iv. Nimirum existimamus, per eleemo¬ synas, ut etiam per jejunia, aliaque pia ope¬ ra, pr®sertim laboriosa, et poenalia, remitti poenas temporales, qu® remanent post cul¬ pam remissam, ut jam s®pe dictum est. Quartum caput argumenti, quo proban¬ dum erat per satisfactiones, et indulgentias labefactari doctrinam de potestate clavium, Heshusius non adscripsit : An oblivione, an alia de causa, incertum est. Sed hanc jactu¬ ram meliori compensatione resarcivit. Ad¬ junxit enim aliquid adversus indulgentias pro defunctis, a Quod fingunt, inquit, indul¬ gentias per modum suffragii valere pro mor¬ tuis, pugnat cum dicto Christi, Qui non credit in Filium, jam judicatus est », Joan. m. Item : « Omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque ea, qu® gessit in corpore, sive bonum, sive malum, II Corinth. v. Item : « Beati mor¬ tui, qui in Domino moriuntur», Apocal. xiv. «Infelices ergo, et quibus null® indulgenti® prosunt, qui in Domino non moriuntur, sanctorum meritis confidere, blasphemum, et contumeliosum est in Filium Dei » . Mirabilis sane dialectica Heshusii, per quam sine medio termino quidlibet ex quo¬ libet licet colligere. Qui non credit in Filium Dei, jam judicatus est. Igitur indulgenti® per modum suffragii defunctis valere non possunt. Sanusne Cst, an delirat, qui ita colligit ? Fatemur indulgentias nullo modo prodesse iis, qui sine fide in Christum de¬ cesserunt, qui- juxta verbum Domini judicati, id est, condemnati sunt. At non inde sequi¬ tur, non prodesse iis, qui cum fide, spe, et charitate migrarunt, et adhuc tamen in lo- cis*purgatoriis degunt, de quibus sic loqui¬ tur S. Augustinus hom. 16. ex lib. l. Ilomi- liarum : « Qui temporalibus poenis digna gesserunt, per ignem quemdam purgatorium transibunt, de quo Apostolus inquit : Salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem » . At, inquit Heshusius , omnes stabimus ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque ea, qu® ges¬ sit in corpore, sive bonum, sive malum : non igitur mortuis aliquid prosunt indulgenti®, aliave suffragia. Respondeo, mortuos quidem ea tantum recipere, qu® gesserunt in corpo¬ re, sed eos, qui in fide, spe, et charitate us¬ que ad finem perseverarunt, id egisse in corpore, ut post mortem suffragiis, atque indulgentiis juvari possent. Contra autem eos, qui in peccatis lethalibus usque ad mortem permanserunt, id egisse in corpore, ut eis post mortem, neque indulgenti®, ne¬ que suffragia ulla prodessent. Sic enim lo¬ quitur S. Augustinus in Enchir. cap. 109 : (( Neque negandum est, defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur, vel elee- mosyn® in Ecclesia fiunt. Sed eis h®c pro¬ sunt, qui cum viverent* ut h®c sibi prodesse possent, meruerunt. Est enim quidam vi¬ vendi modus, nec tam bonus, ut non requi¬ rat ista, nec tam malus, ut ei non prosint ista post mortem. » Et infra : « Non igitur ista, qu® pro defunctis commendandis fre¬ quentat Ecclesia, illi Apostolic® sunt adversa sententi®, qua dictum est: omnes astabimus ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque secundum ea, qu® per corpus gessit, sive bonum, sive malum; quia etiam hoc meri¬ tum sibi quisque, cum in corpore viverent comparavit, ut ei possent ista prodesse, non enim omnibus prosunt, et quare non omnibus prosunt, nisi propter differentiam vit® ; quam quisque gessit in corpore? » H®c ille. Ad lo¬ cum autem Apocalypsis respondemus, eos, qui in Domino omni ex parte moriuntur, quales sunt Martyres, quos eo loco pr®cipue Joan- nes Apostolus consolatur, plane beatos esse, neque indulgentiis, aliisve suffragiis indigere, (.1) Dan. IV, 24. CAPUT IX. 73 ac de his hunc locum exponunt S. Ambro¬ sius, Haymo, Hansbertus, et Richardus de S. Victore; eos autem qui nulla ex parte in Domino moriuntur, quales sunt homines perditi, qui sine gratia Dei, et justificatione decedunt, infelices omnino, ac miseros esse, neque indulgentias abave ulla suffragia eis prodesse. Sed inter hos quidam sunt medii, ut paulo ante ex Aug'ustino didicimus, qui partim in Domino, partim non in Domino moriuntur, in Domino quidem, quia cum fide, spe, etcharitate de hac vita discedunt, non in Domino, quia maculse veniales, vel reatus pocnse temporalis illis adimerent, ob quae purgatione, atque expiatione indigeant. Isti igitur nec tam perfecti sunt, ut continuo requiescant a laboribus suis, neque suffragiis Ecclesiffi, vel indulgentiis opus habeant : nec tam sunt imperfecti, ut requiem a poenis, et laboribus non expectent, vel ut indulgentiis, et eleemosynis, aliisque suffragiis relevari non possint. Neque mirabitur, nos dicere aliquos mori partim in Domi no,_p arti m non in Domino, qui apud S. Augustinum lib. m. ad Bonifacium cap. 3. legerit, homines eos¬ dem propter gratiam Dei , quam habent , esse filios Dei, propter peccata venialia, qui¬ bus non carent, esse filios hujus steculi. Illa denique Heshusii postrema conclusio, bla- sphemum, et contumeliosum esse in Filium Dei, sanctorum meritis fidere, unde colli¬ gatur, omnino non video. Nam neque ex proximis superioribus verbis nascitur, neque ad rem propositam ullo modo facit. Sed jam dictum est, secundum novam Heshusii logi¬ cam, quidlibet ex quolibet colligi posse. Tan¬ tum autem abest, ut fidere sanctorum me¬ ritis, sit vel blasphemum, vel contumeliosum in Filium Dei, ut sit Filio Dei perhonorificum, et gloriosum : Quid enim sunt sancti, nisi palmites fructuosi , ejus nobilissimae vitis, quee dicit in Evangelio : Ego sum vitis , et vos palmites ? et quoniam palmites omnem virtutem suam ex vite trahunt, certe omnis palmitum gloria in vitam redundat. Itaque cum sanctorum meritis confidimus, Christo confidimus, sine quo illi nihil facere possunt. Neque ita confidimus sanctorum meritis, ut ab illis gratiam, vel gloriam expectcmus, sed solum, ut saepe diximus, ut per eorum satisfactiones, nobis communicatas, a reatu poenae temporalis liberemur, vel eorum in¬ tercessione a Deo per Christum varia bene¬ ficia consequamur.