Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 10: Answer to the second head of the disputation of Chemnitz
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).
In the second chapter of his disputation Chemnitz tries to show that indulgences, as Catholics take them, have no foundation in the Scriptures, and indeed conflict with the principal heads of Christian doctrine. First, then, he brings forward many testimonies of Scripture by which he proves that through Christ our sins are remitted. But these need no answer, since they do not conflict with indulgences, nor are they denied by us, and are brought in only to fill pages.
Second, he brings forward negative arguments: namely, that the Scriptures do not say that we can satisfy God by our works; that there are any punishments of purgatory; that there is any treasury of works of supererogation; that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were handed to Peter alone; that the absolving priest ought to impose penances; and that bulls of indulgences ought to be made, and so on. And he adds that these things are so true that Durandus, Antoninus, Rochester and Sylvester confess that indulgences cannot be proved from the Scriptures, but only from the authority of the Roman Church. But the antecedent of this argument is for the most part false, and the consequence altogether bad. It is false that it is not found in the Scriptures that we can satisfy God by our works, since it is written in Daniel 4, “Redeem thou thy sins with alms”; Luke 11, “Give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto you”; Proverbs 16, “By mercy and truth iniquity is redeemed.” It is false that the Scriptures have nothing about the punishments of purgatory, since it is written in 1 Corinthians 3, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire”; and Luke 12, “Thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite”; and Matthew 12, “He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” It is false that nothing is handed down in the Scriptures about works of supererogation, although, as we said above, these works do not belong to indulgences. For what is it that the Lord says in Luke 10, “Whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee”? And does not blessed Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 witness that he could have sought his living from those to whom he preached the gospel, as the other Apostles sought it, and yet preferred to labour with his own hands, which was a work of supererogation by the testimony of all the interpreters? It is false that nothing is said in the Scriptures about the keys handed to Peter alone, since the Lord says in express words, Matthew 16, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” It is false that it is not found in the Scriptures that the absolving priest ought to impose penance. For since in the Scriptures the priest is made a judge, who ought to loose or bind, remit or retain sins, surely he ought also so to absolve the guilty that justice is satisfied, and accordingly to loose from fault and bind to a punishment to be undergone according to the measure of the fault. But we have discussed all these things in their own places. What was said last, about the bulls of indulgences, is indeed not found in the Scriptures in particular, but it is found in general. For while there is given to the Supreme Pontiff the power of binding and loosing whatever he shall judge is to be bound or loosed, there is no doubt that there is also given to the same the power of loosing the guilt of punishment remaining after fault is remitted, and of writing letters about that matter, which are called bulls, in which that grant is contained. But even if none of this were written, still it would not follow that indulgences rest on nothing but the authority of the Roman Church; for they could rest on divine authority, known through the tradition of the Apostles, in the way in which we have not a few other things, and above all the number of the sacred books, and especially of the Gospels, not from any scripture, but from apostolic tradition and the authority of the Church. For the Church did not devise the practice of granting indulgences by herself, but received it from her elders; a sign of which is that the adversaries cannot assign any beginning of this custom. And this is what Durandus, Antoninus, Rochester and Sylvester mean, whom Chemnitz alleges: namely, they affirm that express mention of indulgences is not found in the Scriptures, although foundations are not lacking from which they are plainly gathered; but that the authority of the Church suffices to defend them even under this name, which would not so constantly preach indulgences and approve them in ecumenical councils unless she knew that a power of this kind had been divinely handed to her.
But Chemnitz objects Saint Augustine, who in book 3 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 6, writes thus: “If anyone, about anything whatever that belongs to faith and our life, even if an angel from heaven announce to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the law and the gospel, let him be anathema.” But we shall bring forward the very same Saint Augustine answering. For he himself, in tract 98 on John, writes that that word, besides, does not signify more than, but contrary to. “The Apostle does not say (says Augustine) more than you have received, but besides what you have received. For if he said that, he would prejudge himself, who desired to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was lacking to their faith. But he who supplies what was less adds, he does not take away what was there. But he who goes beyond the rule of faith does not advance on the way, but departs from the way,” and so on. Anathema is not said, then, to those who believe something which is not found expressly written in the sacred letters, but to those who believe something which is repugnant to the sacred letters. For the same Augustine, book 2 on Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 7: “Many things,” he says, “are not found in the letters of the Apostles, nor in the councils of later times, and yet, because they are kept throughout the whole Church, they are believed to have been handed down and commended by none but them.” And book 4, chapter 24: “What the whole Church holds, and was not instituted by councils but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by none but apostolic authority.” Finally, book 1 against Cresconius, chapter 33: “Although,” he says, “no example of this matter is brought forward from the canonical Scriptures, yet the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us even in this matter, when we do what has now pleased the whole Church, which the authority of those Scriptures commends.” Driven, then, from this place, Chemnitz sets out to show that indulgences are repugnant to the Scriptures: “Not by rhetorical declamations,” he says, “but by a bare indication only, simply, head by head, I shall propose for viewing and consideration how indulgences conflict: 1, against the merit and satisfaction of Christ; 2, against the free and plenary remission of God; 3, against the keys of the kingdom of heaven; 4, against faith; 5, against the doctrine of good works; 6, that such trafficking was long ago condemned in Scripture.”
And the first head he proves by a lie alone. For he says that we teach that Christ took upon himself all our fault indeed, but not the whole punishment of our sins. And then he proves this to be false from the Scriptures, Isaiah 53, Galatians 3, Deuteronomy 28. But that it is a manifest lie that Catholics teach that Christ undertook to purge all fault but not all punishment can be understood from this alone, that indulgences in our opinion rest on the treasury of the passion of Christ, who satisfied God the Father most fully for the guilt of fault and of temporal and eternal punishment of all sins. If we say that through indulgences the satisfaction of Christ is applied to us for the guilt of punishment, how could it come into Chemnitz's mind that we say Christ did not satisfy for punishment?
The second head, that indulgences conflict with the free and plenary remission of God, he proves from Scriptures which have nothing to do with our matter. For he brings forward these testimonies: “He that believeth in the Son of God is not judged,” John 3; “and cometh not into judgment,” John 5; “I will not remember his sins,” Ezekiel 18; “he hath cast all our sins into the bottom of the sea,” Micah 7; and the like. For these testimonies prove indeed that the sinner is reconciled to God, but whether the whole punishment owed to sins is always remitted they do not teach. For we have already shown above from 2 Kings 12 that it was said to the penitent David, “The Lord also hath taken away thy sin,” and yet a punishment was exacted of him, the death of his son, which David fasted, prayed and wept to turn aside, and so on. But Chemnitz brings forward a likeness from human custom: “It is certain,” he says, “and manifest that if any private person forgave an offence to his neighbour in such a way that he nevertheless wished to seek some revenge and take some punishment of him, such a one, as not forgiving sins from the heart, would be gravely reproved by Christ. With what faith, then, would we attribute such a remission to God himself? Surely if he has forgiven the fault, that is, the whole debt, he has no cause for exacting punishments.” But the likeness can be turned back on himself. For he who has received an injury, and has been harmed either in his goods, or in his reputation, or in his very person, can, and ordinarily does, forgive the offence and receive into favour the one who harmed him in such a way that he nevertheless wishes the loss to be made good and repaired to him. And although private men sometimes seek no compensation for an injury, the judge nevertheless is accustomed to exact punishment and take vengeance of him who did the injury. So then God, who is not only the offended party but also the judge, remits indeed the fault when he receives penitents into favour, but does not always remit the whole punishment, as we showed by the example of David. Nor is this repugnant to those words of the Lord in Matthew 18, “I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me,” and so on. For by all the debt is understood all fault, not all punishment. For the Lord in that place compares sins with a money debt, and speaks of the remission of offences insofar as they beget enmities. And so by his own example the Lord, who remits sins to penitents so as truly to admit them into his favour and friendship, admonishes men to forgive injuries to their neighbours from the heart, and truly to love them; for that is what this sentence signifies: “So also shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.” By which words, as Saint Jerome teaches in the commentary, every pretence of a feigned peace is overthrown. But nothing hinders, as we said, that he who has been harmed can exact a just satisfaction, even if he wishes to love from the heart the one who harmed him, and not only not to harm him, but henceforth even to protect him.
The third head, that indulgences conflict with the doctrine of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Chemnitz does not prove except by playing with words: “Christ,” he says, “says: Whatsoever you shall loose shall be loosed, and whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven. Roman indulgences contradict him: whatever the keys of Christ loose, this the Roman Pontiff retains with his punishments, and sends bound to punishments to be paid either in this life or in purgatory.” These are not arguments but trifles. But we do not care to play in a serious matter. Further, Christ not only said, whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed, but also, whatsoever thou shalt bind shall be bound. And so the Pontiff does not bind what Christ looses, but as he can loose, so he can bind, and by this power he binds to a punishment to be undergone those whom he absolves from fault. Nor could Chemnitz prove the contrary, nor will he be able to.
The fourth head, that indulgences conflict with justifying faith, Chemnitz does not prove except by this argument, that Scripture in Romans 3, 4 and 11 and Ephesians 2 so requires faith alone in the business of justification that it excludes even the works of the law, which God himself commanded, while indulgences attribute justification to invented works, such as pilgrimages to visit this or that church. But this whole argument consists of ignorance and lies. For, to pass over that good works which are born of faith and the grace of God are not excluded from justification, but only those which are done by the powers of nature alone, as we taught in the books on justification, we do not say that men are justified through indulgences; on the contrary we teach that indulgences are not given except to the justified. Which Chemnitz could have learned even from his patriarch Luther. For Luther assumed that indulgences do not justify, and we admitted it to be true. Besides, since indulgences in the opinion of Catholics do not justify, much less can they attribute justification to invented works. Moreover, those works which are enjoined on those who are to receive indulgences are very rashly called invented by Chemnitz; for pilgrimages to holy places for the sake of prayer are accustomed to be prescribed, to which fastings and alms are ordinarily joined. But all these are commended by many testimonies of the Scriptures, as especially Tobit 12, Matthew 5 and 6, and elsewhere throughout. Finally, we do not attribute to those works themselves the effect of indulgences, which Chemnitz falsely calls justification. For the proper effect of indulgences is the relaxation of temporal punishment, which effect is attributed chiefly to the merits of Christ, as we taught in the former book. Therefore, since nearly all the words of Chemnitz's argument are false, certainly the conclusion cannot in any way be true.
The fifth head, that indulgences conflict with good works, Chemnitz proves from those places of Scripture by which he himself thinks the opinion about works of supererogation is refuted, on which opinion he thinks indulgences are founded. The places are these: Luke 17, “When you shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.” Matthew 25, when the foolish virgins said, “Give us of your oil,” the wise answered, “Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.” But this argument rests on false principles no less than the preceding one. For the foundation of indulgences is not placed by Catholics in the works of supererogation of the saints, but in the satisfactions which were not necessary to them. For even works owed and commanded by God can be satisfactory, and not necessary, in the way of satisfaction, to those by whom they are done. If a tyrant presses, and threatens torments and death unless you deny the faith, it is not a work of supererogation, but plainly owed and necessary, not to deny the faith but to confess it and bear the torment; and yet that work is not only meritorious of glory, but also satisfactory for the guilt of punishment, which guilt it can happen that he who bore those torments did not have. Nor yet could Chemnitz refute works of supererogation except by corrupting the Scriptures. For the Lord does not say in Luke 17, When you shall have done all things, say, We are unprofitable servants. But he says, “When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.” And so those are called unprofitable who do nothing except what is commanded them and what they ought to do. From which it follows that those who do something more than they are bound to, as those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, that is, keep perpetual continence, and those who give everything to the poor, or do other things of that kind not commanded, ought to be called profitable servants. Nor is this my explanation, but Saint Ambrose's, who in the book on Widows, treating this place, says thus: “This the virgin does not say (namely, I am an unprofitable servant); this he does not say who has sold his goods, but he awaits rewards as laid up, as the holy Apostle says: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? For he does not say that he has done what he ought as an unprofitable servant, but as one profitable to the Lord, who multiplied the talents committed to him by the interest sought, well conscious to himself of the reward of faith and virtue, and secure of his merits, he waits.” But that of Matthew 25, “Give us of your oil,” and, “lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you,” does not belong to the exclusion of works of supererogation, nor of the communication of satisfactions, but to the exclusion of the communication of justice and merits. For it is signified by that parable that those in whom the lamp of charity and good works has been put out in this life, and who have departed this life in that state, will in vain implore the merits of the saints. For, as it is said in Ezekiel 18, “the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him”; and Galatians 6, “every one shall bear his own burden”; and Romans 2, “God will render to every man according to his works.” And to signify this, in that parable, when the foolish virgins say, Lord, Lord, open to us, it is answered by the Lord, Amen I say to you, I know you not. Chemnitz brings forward other testimonies to prove that our works are not without sin, but they have nothing to do with the point, and have all been carefully explained by us in the books on justification.
The sixth head, that indulgences are expressly condemned in the holy Scriptures, Chemnitz proves from the second epistle of blessed Peter, chapter 2, “through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you”; likewise, “promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption”; and Acts 8, “Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.” From these two places Chemnitz concludes his argument in these words: “This is the very judgment of the Holy Spirit on papal indulgences.” Which conclusion shows that there was in Chemnitz an incredible lust of slandering, even against his own conscience. For he cannot be ignorant that the abuse of the pardon-sellers, to whom the words of Saint Peter could in some way be accommodated, as Cajetan accommodates them, was always so displeasing to the Roman Pontiffs that they condemned and forbade them by public constitutions. For this same Chemnitz reports word for word the decrees on this matter of Innocent III, Clement V and the Synod of Trent itself. With what conscience, then, with what face, does he not only in this place but throughout the whole disputation attribute to the Roman Pontiffs what he himself witnesses was condemned and forbidden by the Roman Pontiffs? But let Chemnitz see whether the words of Saint Peter in the second epistle do not belong to himself and the other Lutherans. Certainly Saint Augustine, in the book on faith and works, chapter 14, says that this whole epistle, as also the epistles of James and Jude, were written against those who affirmed that men could be saved by faith alone, which at this time is the heresy of the Lutherans; and in the same book, chapter 24, he says that those very words which Chemnitz cites fight against those who promise liberty, that is, security of salvation, provided they believe in Christ, as the same explains in chapter 26. And this perhaps is the reason why the Lutherans, and Chemnitz himself in the examination of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, either deny that this epistle is canonical, or call its authority into doubt, because they see their heresy of faith alone justifying most openly refuted by the testimonies of this epistle. But what Chemnitz adds from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 8, “Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money,” if it is referred to indulgences, is sheer calumny. For Catholics do not think that indulgences are sold or bought for money, but that alms are commanded for some pious work, such as the building of a basilica, the relief of the poor, the redemption of captives, and the like, and that the pious work is the cause of granting the indulgence, as we have often said.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Respondetur ad secundum caput disputationis Kemnitii. in secundo capite disputationis sure Kem- nitius demonstrare conatur, indulgentias, ut a Catholicis accipiuntur, non habere funda¬ mentum in Scripturis, imo pugnare cum prrecipuis capitibus doctrinre Christianre. Primum igitur profert multa Scrip turre testi • monia, quibus probat, per Christum nobis peccata remitti. Sed hrec non egent ulla solutione, cum non pugnent adversus indul¬ gentias, neque a nobis negentur, et solum ad implendas paginas adferantur. Secundo profert argumenta negantia, quod videlicet, Scripturrenon dicant, quod nostris operibus possimus Deo satisfacere, quod sint aliqure pcenre purgatorii, quod sit thesaurus aliquis operum supererogationis, quod soli Petro sint traditae claves regni coelorum, quod sacerdos absolvens debeat imponere poenitentias : et quod bullae indulgentiarum fieri debeant etc. Et addit, adeo hrec esse vera, ut Durandus, Antonius, Roffensis, et Sylvester fateantur, indulgentias non posse probari ex Scripturis, sed ex sola Ecclesiae Romanae auctoritate. Sed hujus argumenti magna ex parte falsum est antecedens, et omnino mala consequentia. Falsum est, in Scripturis non haberi, quod operibus nostris possimus satisfacere Deo, cum scriptum sit Dan. iv. Peccata tua eleemosynis redime. Luc. xi. Date eleemosynam , et ecce omnia muncla sunt vobis. Prov. xvi. Misericordia , et veritate redimitur iniquitas. Falsum est, Scripturas nihil habere de poenis purgatorii, cum scri¬ ptum sit I Cor. in. Ipse autem salvus erit , sic tamen , quasi per ignem , et Luc. xii. Non exies inde, donec reddas novissimum quadrantem , et Matth. xii. Qui dixerit verbum in Spiritum sanctum , non remittetur ei , neque in hoc sx- culo , neque in futuro. Falsum est, nihil in Scripturis tradi de operibus supererogationis, quamvis, ut supra diximus, non pertineant hrec opera ad indulgentias. Quid eriim est, quod ait Dominus, Luc. x. Si quid superero- gaveris, ego , cum rediero, reddam tibi (1). Et nonne B. Paulus I Corinth. ix. testatur se potuisse victum qurerere ab his , quibus evangelizabat, ut Apostoli creteri qurerebant, et tamen maluisse propriis manibus laborare, quod fuit opus supererogationis interpretum omnium testimonio ? Falsum est, in Scri¬ pturis nihil dici de clavibus soli Petro tra¬ ditis cum disertis verbis Dominus dicat Matth. xvi. Beatus es Simon Bar Jona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus , qui in coelis est , et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram xdificabo Ec¬ clesiam meam, et portx inferi non prxvalebunt adversus eam, et tibi dabo claves regni coelo¬ rum, et quodeumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in ccehs , et quodeumque liga¬ veris super terram , erit libatum et in coelis (2). Falsum est in Scripturis non haberi sacer¬ dotem absolventem debere imponere poe¬ nitentiam. Nam cum in Scripturis sacerdos fiat judex, qui debeat solvere vel ligare, remittere vel retinere peccata, certe etiam debet ita reos absolvere ut justitire satisfiat, ac proinde solvere a culpa, et ligare ad poe¬ nam pro modo culpre subeundam. Sed de his omnibus suis locis disseruimus. Quod ul¬ timo dicebatur de bullis indulgentiarum, non habetur quidem in Scripturis in particulari, sed habetur in communi. Dum enim tri»bui- tur Pontifici Maximo potestas ligandi, et sol¬ vendi quicquid ligandum, solvendumve judi¬ caverit, non dubium est, quin sit etiam eidem attributa potestas solvendi reatum pcenre, remanentis post culpam remissam, et ea de re scribendi litteras, qure bullre vo¬ cantur, quibus ea concessio contineatur. Sed etiam si nihil horum scriptum esset, non tamen sequeretur, indulgentias non niti nisi auctoritate Ecclesire Itomanre, possent enim niti auctoritate divina, cognita per traditi¬ onem Apostolorum , quo modo alia non * pauca, et prreter cretera numerum librorum sacrorum, ac prresertim Evangeliorum, non ex aliqua scriptura, sed ex traditione Apo- stolica, et Ecclesire auctoritate habemus. Neqtle enim Ecclesia usum indulgentiarum concedendarum per se excogitavit, sed a majoribus accepit, cujus rei signum est, quod non possunt adversarii hujus consue¬ tudinis ullum assignare principium. Atque hoc sibi volunt DUrandUs, AtltOninus, Roffen- (1) Dan. 1Y, 24 ; Luc. XI, 33 ; Prov. XVI, 6 ; I Cor. III, 15 ; Luc. XII, 59 ; Mat. Xii, 32 ; Luc. X, 35. - (2) Mat. XVI, 17. « 76 LIBER II. sis, et Sylvester, quos Keninitius allegat : nimirum affirmant, non haberi in Scriptu¬ ris expressam mentionem indulgentiarum, quamvis fundamenta non desint, unde per¬ spicue colligantur. Sed sufficere ad eas etiam sub hoc nomine defendendas Ecclesia; au¬ ctoritatem, qua; non tam constanter indul¬ gentias praedicaret, et in conciliis oecume- nicis approbaret, nisi divinitus traditam sibi potestatem hujusmodi non ignoraret. Sed objicit Keninitius S. Augustinum, qui lib. ni. contra litteras Petiliani cap. 6. ita scribit : « Si quis de quacumque re, quae pertinet ad fidem, vitamque nostram, si vel Angelus e coelo vobis annunciaverit praeter quam quod in Scripturis legalibus, et evan- gelicis accepistis, anathema sit » . Nos autem ipsum eumdem S. Augustinum respondentem adducemus. Ipse enim tract. 98. inJoannem scribit, illud, praeter quam, non significare, plus quam, sed contra quam. « Non ait Apostolus (inquit Augustinus) plus quam accepistis, sed praeter quam quod accepistis. Nam si illud diceret, sibi ipsi praejudicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad Thessalonicenses, ut suppleret qua; illorum fidei defuerunt. Sed qui supplet, quod minus erat, addit, non quod inerat tollit. Qui autem praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in via, sed recedit de via etc. ». Non igitur anathema dicitur iis, qui credunt aliquid, quod non invenitur expresse scriptum in sacris litteris, sed iis, qui credunt aliquid, quod repugnat sacris litteris. Nam idem Augustinus lib. it. de Ba¬ ptis. cont. Donat, cap. 7 : « Multa, inquit, non inveniuntur in litteris Apostolorum, ne¬ que in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia custodiuntur per universam Ecclesiam, non¬ nisi ab ipsis tradita, et commendata credun¬ tur ». Et lib. iv. cap. 24. « Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, nonnisi auctoritate a- postolica traditum rectissime creditur » : Denique lib. i. cont. Grescon. cap. 33: « Quamvis, inquit, hujus rei de Scripturis canonicis non proferatur exemplum : earum- dem tamen Scripturarum a nobis etiam in hac re tenetur veritas, cum hoc facimus, quod universa; jam placuit Ecclesia;, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat auctori¬ tas ». Ab hoc igitur loco depulsus Keninitius, aggreditur demonstrare indulgentias repu¬ gnare Scripturis : « Non rhetoricis, inquit, declamationibus, sed nuda tantum indica" tione simpliciter per capita spectandum, et considerandum proponam, quemadmodum indulgentia; pugnent. I. contra meritum, et satisfactionem Christi. II. contra gratuitam, et plenariam remissionem Dei. III. contra claves regni coelorum. IV. contra fidem. V. contra doctrinam de bonis operibus. VI. quod talis nundinatio in Scriptura jamdudum damnata sit ». Ac primum quidem caput solo mendacio probat. Dicit enim nos docere, Christum culpam quidem nostram omnem, sed non totam poenam peccatorum nostrorum in se suscepisse. Ac deinde probat id esso falsum ex Scripturis Isai. liii. Galat. m. Dcuter. xxviii. At mendacium esse manifestum, a Catholicis (doceri, Christum suscepisse pur¬ gandam omnem culpam, sed non omnem poenam, vel ex eo potest iotelligi, quod in¬ dulgentiae ex nostra sententia nituntur the¬ sauro passionis Christi, qui satisfecit Deo Patri plenissime pro reatu culpie, et poena; temporalis, et aeternae omnium peccatorum. Si per indulgentias dicimus applicari nobis satisfactionem Christi pro reatu poenae, quo modo potuit in mentem Kemnitii cadere nos dicere Christum non satisfecisse pro pama? Secundum caput, id est, pugnare indul¬ gentias cum gratuita et plenaria remissione Dei, probat ex Scripturis nihil ad rem no¬ stram facientibus. Adducit enim illa testimo¬ nia : Qui credit in Filium Dei , non judicatur. Joan. m . Et in judicium non venit. Joan. v. Peccatorum ejus non recordabor. Ezecb. xvm. Omnia peccata nostra projecit in profundum maris. Michaeae vir. et similia. Nam ha;c testimonia probant quidem reconciliari pec¬ catorem Deo, sed an tota poena peccatis de¬ bita semper remittatur, non docent. Jam enim supra demonstravimus ex lib. II Reg. cap. xii. dictum esse Davidi pcenit.enti : Do¬ minus transtulit peccatum tuum (1), et tamen expetitam ab eo pomam, mortem filii, quam ut averteret David, jejunavit, oravit, flevit etc. Sed Keninitius adducit similitudinem ab humana consuetudine : « Certum, inquit, et manifestum est, si quis privatus ita dimit¬ teret offensam proximo, ut nihilominus vin¬ dictam aliquam expetere, et supplicium ali¬ quod de ipso sumere vellet, talem ut non ex corde remittentem peccata graviter a Christo reprehendi. Qua fide igitur talem remissio- (1) Joan. Itt, 18; Id. V. 24: Ezech. XVIII. 22; Mieh. VII, 19 ; II Reg. XII. 13. CAPUT X. 77 nem ipsi Deo tribueremus? Certe si culpam, hoc est, debitum omne dimisit, non liabet causam exquirendi poenas. » At similitudo in ipsum retorqueri potest. Nam qui injuriam accepit, et vel in facultate, vel in fama, vel in ipsa persona laesus est, sic potest, ac solet ordinarie offensam dimittere, et in gratiam recipere eum, qui laesit, ut tamen detrimen¬ tum compensari, et resarciri sibi velit. Et quamvis privati homines nullam interdum compensationem inji.ree quaerant, judex ta¬ men poenam ab eo, qui injuriam fecit repe¬ tere, et vindictam sumere solet. Sic igitur Deus, qui non solum pars offensa, sed etiam judex est, remittit quidem culpam, cum poe- nitentes in gratiam recipit, sed poenam totam non semper .remittit, ut exemplo Davidis ostendimus. Neque hoc repugnat illis verbis Domini Matth. xvm : Omne debitum dimisi tibi , quoniam rogasti me etc. (1). Nam per omne debitum , intelligitur omnis culpa, non omnis poena. Comparatenim Dominus eo loco peccata cum debito pecuniario , et loquitur de remissione offensarum, quatenus ea gig¬ nunt inimicitias. Itaque exemplo suo Domi¬ nus, qui poeni tentibus in peccata remittit, ut eos vere in gratiam et amicitiam suam ad¬ mittat, admonet homines, ut ex corde remit¬ tant injurias proximis, eosque vere diligant; id enim significat illa sententia : Sic et Pater meus faciet vobis, si non remiseritis unusquis¬ que fratri suo de cordibus vestris. Quibus ver¬ bis, ut S. Hieronymus in commentario docet, omnis simulatio fictae pacis evertitur. Sed nihil impedit, ut diximus, quo minus satis¬ factionem justam exigere possit, qui hesus est, etiamsi eum qui laesit, ex corde diligere 5 nec solum non 1 sedere, sed etiam protegere deinceps velit. Tertium caput, quod videlicet indulgentia; pugnent cum doctrina de clavibus regni coe¬ lorum, non probat Kemnitius, nisi verbis ludendo : « Christus, inquit, dicit : Quicquid solveritis, erit solutum, et quorum remise¬ ritis peccata, erunt remissa. Romanenses indulgentia; contradicunt, quicquid Christi claves solvunt, hoc Pontifex Romanus suis poenis retinet, et ligatum mittit ad poenas vel in hac vita, vel in purgatorio exsolvendas. » llaec non sunt argumenta, sed nugae. Nobis autem non libet in re seria ludere. Porro Christus non solum dixit, quodeumque solve¬ ris, erit solutum; sed etiam, quicquid ligave¬ ris, erit ligatum. Itaque Pontifex non ligat, quod Christus solvit, sed sicut potest solvere ita potest ligare, et hac potestate ligat ad poenam subeundam, quos a culpa absolvit. Neque contrarium potuit Kemnitius probare, nec poterit. Quartum caput, quod indulgentia; pugnent .contra fidem justificantem, non probat Kem¬ nitius, nisi hoc argumento, quod Scriptura Rom. m. et iv. et xi. et Ephes. ir. ita solam fidem in justificationis negotio requirat, ut excludat etiam opera legis, qua; Deus ipse mandavit, indulgentiae vero justificationem tribuant commentitiis operibus, ut peregri¬ nationibus ad hanc vel illam ecclesiam visi¬ tandam. Sed hoc argumentum totum ex im¬ peritia, et mendaciis constat. Nam ut omit¬ tam, quod non excluduntur a justificatione opera bona, quae nascuntur ex fide, et gratia Dei, sed illa tantum, quae fiunt solis viribus naturae, ut in libris de justificatione docui¬ mus, non dicimus per indulgentias, homines justificari, imo docemus, non dari indulgen¬ tias, nisi justificatis. Id quod vel a suo Patri¬ archa Luthero Kemnitius discere potuisset. Lutherus enim hoc assumpsit, indulgentias non justificare, et nos admisimus esse verum. Praeterea cum indulgentiae ex Catholicorum sententia non justificent, multo minus tri¬ buere possunt justificationem operibus com¬ mentitiis. Adhacc opera illa, qua; accepturis indulgentias injunguntur, valde temere com¬ mentitia a Kemnitio nominantur; peregri¬ nationes enim ad Loca Sacra orationis causa praecipi solent, quibus ordinarie jejunia, et eleemosynae adjunguntur. Ista autem omnia multis Scripturarum testimoniis commendan¬ tur, ut praesertim Tob. xn. Matth. v. et vi. et alibi passim. Denique istis ipsis operibus non tribuimus effectum indulgentiarum, quem falso justificationem appellat Kemni¬ tius. Effectus enim proprius indulgentiarum- est relaxatio poenae temporalis, qui effectus potissimum tribuitur meritis Christi, ut in libro 'superiore docuimus. Quare cum omnia pene verba Kemnitiani argumenti falsa sint, certe non potest ullo modo esse vera con¬ clusio. Quintum caput, quod indulgentia; pugnent cum operibus bonis, probat Kemnitius ex iis lucis Scripturae, quibus ipse censet refelli opi¬ nionem de operibus supererogationis, in qua opinione fundari existimat indulgentias. Loci (1) Matth. XVIII, 32. 78 LIBER II. sunt hi Luc. xvii. Cum omnia feceritis , dicite , servi inutiles sumus , quia quod debuimus , fe¬ cimus. Matth. xxv. dicentibus fatuis virgini¬ bus, date nobis de oleo vestro , responderunt prudentes, ne forte non sufficiat nobis et vo¬ bis, ite potius ad vendentes , et emite vobis (1). Sed hoc argumentum nititur falsis princi¬ piis, non minus, quam praecedens. Neque enim fundamentum indulgentiarum ponitur a Catholicis in operibus supererogationis sanctorum, sed in satisfactionibus, quae ipsis necessariae non sunt. Nam etiam opera de¬ bita et imperata a Deo satisfactoria esse pos¬ sunt, et non necessaria iis, a quibus fiunt, in ratione_ satisfactionis. Si tyrannus instet, ac supplicia, et mortem comminetur, nisi fidem abneges, non est opus supererogationis, sed plane debitum et necessarium, fidem non negare, sed confiteri, et perferre supplicium, et tamen opus illud non solum est merito¬ rium gloriae, sed etiam satisfactorium pro reatu poenae, quem reatum fieri potest, ut non haberet, qui supplicia illa perferebat. Nec tamen Kemnitius refellere potuit opera supererogationis, nisi depravando Scriptu¬ ras. Non enim Dominus ait Luc. xvii. Cum feceritis omnia, dicite servi inutiles sumus. Sed ait : Cum feceritis hsec omnia, quae praecepta sunt vobis , dicite , servi inutiles sumus , quod debuimus facere , fecimus. Itaque illi dicuntur inutiles, qui nihil faciunt, nisi quod eis prae¬ ceptum est, et quod facere debent. Ex quo sequitur, ut qui faciunt aliquid amplius quam teneantur, ut qui se castrant propter regnum coelorum, id est, perpetuam continentiam servant, et qui dant omnia pauperibus, vel alia id genus non imperata faciunt, servi utiles dici debeant. Neque haec mea, sed S. Ambrosii explicatio est, quin in libro de Vi¬ duis tractans hunc locum sic ait : « Hoc virgo non dicit (nimirum servus inutilis sum), hoc non dicit ille, qui bona sua vendidit, sed quasi reposita expectat praemia, sicut san¬ ctus Apostolus ait : Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et secuti sumus te, quid ergo * erit nobis? Non enim quasi inutilis servus quod debuit facere fecisse se dicit, sed quasi utilis Domino, qui commissa sibi talenta quaesitis multiplicavit usuris, mercedem fidei atque virtutis bene sibi conscius , meritorumque securus exspectat ». Illud vero Matthaei xxv. Date nobis de oleo vestro ; et ne forte non suf¬ ficiat nobis, et vobis-, non ad exclusionem operum supererogationis, neque communi¬ cationis satisfactionum pertinet, sed ad ex¬ clusionem communicationis justitiae et meri¬ torum. Significatur enim peream parabolam, eos quibus in hac vita extincta fuerit lampas charitatis, et operum bonorum, et qui in eo statu de vita migraverint, frustra imploratu¬ ros merita sanctorum. Nam ut dicitur Ezech. xyiii. Justitia justi super eum erit , et impietas impii erit super eum , et Gal. vi. Unusquisque onus suum portabit , et Rom. ii. Reddet Deus unicuique secundum opera sua (2). Atque ad hoc significandum in ea parabola dicentibus fatuis virginibus, Domine, Domine, aperi nobis, respondetur a Domino, Arnen dico vobis, ne¬ scio vos. Alia testimonia Kemnitius adducit ad probandum, opera nostra non esse sine peccato, sed ea nihil ad propositum fa¬ ciunt, et sunt a nobis omnia diligenter expli¬ cata in libris de Justificatione. Sextum caput, quod indulgentiae sint ex- expresse damnatae in Scripturis sanctis , probat Kemnitius ex Epist. II B. Peti i cap. ii. In avaritia fictis verbis de vobis negotia¬ buntur. Item libertatem aliis pollicentur , cum ipsi sint servi corruptionis, et Act. vm. Pe¬ cunia tua tecum sit in perditionem , quoniam donum Dei existimasti pecunia parari (3). Ex his duobus locis concludit suum argumen¬ tum in haec verba Kemnitius : « Hoc est ip¬ sissimum judicium Spiritus sancti, de indul¬ gentiis Pontificiis » . Quse conclusio indicat incredibilem fuisse in Kemnitio libidinem maledicendi, etiam adversus propriam con¬ scientiam. Nam ignorare non potest abusum quaestuariorum, quibus utcumque accom¬ modari possent verba S. Petri, ut ea Cajeta- nus accommodat, Romanis Pontificibus adeo semper displicuisse, ut eos publicis consti¬ tutionibus damnaverint, et prohibuerint. Siquidem ipse idem Kemnitius refert ad ver¬ bum decreta de hac re Innocentii III, Cle¬ mentis V et ipsius Synodi Tridentinae. Qua igitur conscientia, qua fronte non solum hoc loco, sed passim in tota disputatione Ro¬ manis Pontificibus tribuit , quae a Roma¬ nis Pontificibus damnata , 'atque interdicta fuisse idem ipse testatur? Videat autem Kemnitius, ne verba S. Petri in n. epist. ad se, et Lutheranos caeteros pertineant. Certe S. Augustinus in lib. de fid. et operib. cap. (1) Luc. XVII, 10; Mat. XXV, S. — (2) Ezech. XVIII, : 0 ; Gal. VI, 5; Rora. II, G. — (3) II Pet. II, 3 ; Act. Vj U, 20. CAPUT XI. 79 14. totam hanc epist. ut etiam epistolam Ja- cobi, et Judae adversus eos scriptas esse di¬ cit, qui affirmabant sola fide homines sal¬ vari posse, quae est hoc tempore hseresis Luth eranorum, et in eodem libro cap. 24, illa ipsa verba, quae Kemuitius citat, contra eos pugnare dicit, qui libertatem pollicentur, id est. securitatem salutis, modo credant in Christum, ut idem explicat cap. 26. Atque hsec fortasse est causa, cur Lutherani, et ipse Kemuitius in examine 4. sess. Concilii Tri- dentini, hanc epistolam aut negent esse ca¬ nonicam, aut ejus auctoritatem in dubium re¬ vocant, quia vident hseresim suam de sola fi¬ de justificante hujus epistola? testimoniis aper¬ tissime refutari. Illud vero quod Kemuitius addit ex Actis Apostolorum c. vm : Pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem , quia existimasti donum Dei pecunia parari, si ad indulgen¬ tias referatur, mera calumnia est. Nam Ca¬ tholici non existimant, indulgentias pecuniis vendi, vel emi : sed eleemosynas imperari ad opus aliquod pium, ut basilicae aedifica¬ tionem, pauperum subventionem, captivo¬ rum redemptionem, et similia, quod opus pium sit causa indulgentiae concedendae, ut scepe diximus.