Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 11: Answer to the third head of the disputation of Chemnitz, and the first argument of Catholics is defended
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 third chapter of his disputation Chemnitz brings forward the arguments from the Scriptures which some Catholics are accustomed to make for indulgences, and tries to answer them; and although in his usual way he says nothing by saying much, we shall refute those answers in order.
The first argument of Catholics he says is taken from those words of the Lord in Matthew 16: “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 so on. Against this argument Chemnitz objects, first, that to loose and to bind is nothing else than to remit or retain sins, as is found in John 20. But that remission or retention is exercised in the court of penance and absolution, as the scholastics teach. Therefore this testimony does nothing for indulgences, which the same scholastics separate far and wide from the court of penance and absolution. Answer. To loose and to bind, which is found in Matthew 16, extends much more widely than to remit and retain sins, which is found in John 20. For in this latter place the words are restricted to sins; in the former they are not restricted, but it is said generally, whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind; and it is known that not only is he loosed whose sins are remitted, but also he who is freed from any debt, or law, or pact, and so on. Just as also not only is he bound whose sins are retained, but also he who is constrained by a precept, or oath, or promise, or any other obligation whatever. And so even if Chemnitz had proved that the words of the Lord in John 20 belong to the court of penance alone, he would still not have proved the same of the words of the Lord in Matthew 16; but he did not prove even that. For the scholastics say indeed that the words of the Lord in John 20 belong to the court of penance, but they do not restrict them to that court; for many refer those words also to the remission which takes place in baptism, and others wish them to belong generally to every remission which is made by the ministry of the keys, whether in the sacraments or outside a sacrament. To me indeed it seems very probable that this place belongs only to the power of order, and for that reason I did not bring it forward in the former book for indulgences.
Chemnitz's second objection: “To loose and to bind are so opposed that what is loosed is no longer bound. But the Pontiff on the contrary pretends that what has been loosed on earth in absolution remains in the papal court partly bound, and is to be loosed not by the key of ministry but by the papal traffic in indulgences.” Answer. A great patience indeed is needed by anyone who wishes to answer Chemnitz. For who could bear the impudence of a man who at every third word objects trafficking to those by whom he knows it is most severely forbidden? Then, who would not be weary of wasting time on trifles of this kind? For who ever said that what has been loosed on earth in absolution remains bound in the papal court? But since in the court of penance the loosing is from fault and from the guilt of everlasting punishment, not however from the guilt of the whole temporal punishment, what remained bound in that court we say is relaxed, not by trafficking, but by the key of the papal ministry, through indulgences. Let him refute this, if he can, and not invent for himself arguments to solve.
Third objection: “The ministry of reconciliation so looses sins that it announces to the penitent and believing that all offences are forgiven, Colossians 2; that sins are not imputed, Romans 4 and 5; and that through Christ they have been redeemed from the curse of the law, Galatians 3, which curse is eternal and temporal, Deuteronomy 28. But papal indulgences pretend that sins are still imputed after remission, and that Christ did not redeem believers from the whole curse of the law, but that part of it is to be redeemed from the papal treasury.” Answer. This is the old song, refuted a thousand times. I pass over that error of Chemnitz and the other Lutherans, that to remit sins is to announce them remitted, because it does not belong to this place. That all offences are forgiven us through Christ the Apostle says, and indulgences do not contradict it. For all forgiven must be understood as to the sufficiency of the price paid by Christ; but that price must afterwards be applied, as even the Lutherans confess, if offences are to be effectively forgiven to this man or that. But we think it is applied not by faith alone, but also by other instruments, of which indulgences are one. In like manner the same Apostle says that sins are not imputed to the justified, and indulgences do not contradict it. For we do not pretend that sins are imputed after remission, if they have been remitted as to fault and punishment, as happens in baptism; but if they have been remitted as to fault and eternal punishment, and some guilt of temporal punishment still remains, as ordinarily happens in the second reconciliation, what wonder if they are still imputed in part? What is added about the curse of the law does not belong to the matter; for that deliverance from the curse of the law is not deliverance from the fault or punishment of sin, but is deliverance from the obligation of the ceremonial law of the Hebrews, which is chiefly disputed about in that place. It is also deliverance from the terror of any law whatever, which pressed on the Jews as slaves. For the divine law, moral and evangelical, does indeed oblige the sons of the new testament to observance, but does not terrify them, because charity poured into their hearts fulfils the law not from fear of punishment but from love of justice.
Fourth objection: “What Christ promised to Peter in Matthew 16 when he said, I will give to thee the keys, and so on, he delivered and performed in John 20 when he said, Whose sins you shall forgive, and so on. But these things are said to all the Apostles, and to all ministers to whom the power of absolving is given; therefore the papal authority of conferring indulgences is not gathered from the place in Matthew 16.” Answer. It is false that all that had been promised in Matthew 16 was delivered in John 20. For, as we said above, whatsoever thou shalt loose extends much more widely than whose sins you shall forgive. And so, as it had been said to Peter alone in Matthew 16, I will give to thee the keys, and so on, so it is said to Peter alone in John 21, “Feed my sheep.” And in this place is given what in the other had been promised. Which matter we have set out at length in the first book on the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 12.
Fifth objection: “Christ says to the Apostles in John 20, As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. But he, when in the time of his ministry he remitted sins, at the same time forgave the debt and freed the debtor. For this is the form of his absolution: Be of good heart, thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace, and sin no more, Matthew 9, Luke 7, John 5. And in the parable in Matthew 18 he sent away free the servant who owed him ten thousand talents, and remitted the debt to him; and on the adulteress, John 8, he imposed no punishment. But that Christ ever taught or gave such indulgences as were described above from the tenets of the Papists cannot be proved from Scripture by any sentence, any word, any syllable, any letter.” Answer. On the contrary, all the testimonies alleged cry out that Christ gave indulgences, such as it befitted him to give, who was an absolute Prince. For Christ remitted to all those both fault and punishment, applying his merits outside a sacrament. But the Pontiff, who is Vicar, also remits fault and punishment, applying the merits of Christ; but fault and eternal punishment through the sacraments, because Christ so instituted; temporal punishment outside the sacraments, because Christ so did, and of its own nature the remission of punishment alone does not need a sacrament. But that Christ did not enjoin fastings, or alms, or another pious work on those to whom he bestowed indulgence, which however the Pontiff is accustomed to do, the reason is the same: namely, that Christ, as absolute Prince, could give indulgences at his pleasure; the Pontiff, as Vicar, cannot do the same at his pleasure, but for a just and reasonable cause.
Sixth objection: “Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, without doubt used them, and yet did not give papal indulgences; on the contrary he said to Simon Magus, 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.” Answer. Whether the Apostle Peter gave papal indulgences or did not give them cannot be proved from Scripture, since his acts, except a very few, do not exist in the sacred letters. But Simon Magus was not asking for indulgences when he offered money, but for the power of giving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. But to Chemnitz it is all one to pour out words to the point or beside the point, provided he can slander.
Seventh objection: “As Christ said to Peter in Matthew 16, whatsoever thou shalt loose, so he said to the whole Church in Matthew 18, whatsoever you shall loose, and so on; and yet the Church for a thousand years and more knew nothing of these indulgences.” Answer. The objection proceeds from ignorance of antiquity, or a perverse understanding of ancient history. For we showed in the former book, from Tertullian and Cyprian, most ancient Fathers, and also from the most ancient councils, Ancyra and Nicaea, the use of indulgences; and properly under the name of indulgence we showed the same from Gregory I, Leo III and Sergius II, who all presided over the Church before the year 1000. Nor are there lacking those who think the same is proved from Sylvester I, who sat after the year of the Lord 300, whose arguments, drawn from the records of the churches, are not to be despised.
Eighth objection: “To bind or retain sins is not to reserve some part bound for those doing penance and believing after absolution or remission of sins, or to oblige them to their own satisfactions or to redemptions through indulgences; but sins are to be bound for the impenitent and unbelieving, this sentence of God being declared to them, that their sins remain, John 9, and the wrath of God remains upon them, John 5, and that they shall perish unless they do penance, Luke 13.” Answer. Chemnitz says much but proves nothing, and yet he took on himself the office of proving. But unskilfully, unless perhaps maliciously and fraudulently, he confuses to bind and to retain; for these are not the same, for to retain is not to remit, but to leave in its own state, and in this way our priests retain the sins of the impenitent, not only by declaring to them the sentences of God, but also by denying the benefit of absolution. But to bind is not to not loose, but to add a new bond, unless we wish to abuse words; and in this way priests, having heard the confession of a penitent, bind him to works of satisfaction, which by the ancients was called the doing of penance, as in Saint Augustine, epistle 180 to Honoratus: “Some,” he says, “demanding baptism, others reconciliation, others the doing of penance itself.” And this is the penance which the Pontiffs forgive through indulgences, either wholly or in part. We have, then, the first and principal testimony for indulgences, from chapter 16 of Matthew, which could not be shaken by Chemnitz, although he tried to assault it with eight battering rams.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Respondetur ad tertium caput disputationis Kemnitii , et defenditur primum argumen¬ tum Catholicorum. In tertio capite disputationis suae Kemni- tius profert in medium argumenta ex Scri¬ pturis, quse a nonnullis Catholicorum pio indulgentiis fieri solent : atque ad ea respon¬ dere conatur, quamvis more suo multa dicendo nihil dicat, eas responsiones ordine refutabimus. Primum Catholicorum argumentum sumi dicit ab illis verbis Domini Mattii, xvi. Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum, et q" odeumque solveris super terram erit solutum et in coelis etc. il). Adversus hoc argumentum objicit primo Kemmtius solvere et ligare, nihil est aliud, nisi remittere, vel re.inere peccata, ut habetur Joan. xx. Illa autem remissio, ve[ retentio exercetur in foro poenitentiae, et absolutionis, ut scholastici docent. Igitur ni¬ hil hoc testimonium facit pro indulgentiis, quas iidem scholastici a foro poenitentiae, et absolutionis longe, lateque disjungunt, de¬ sponsio : Solvere et ligare quod habetur Matth. xvi. multo latius patet, quam remit¬ tere, et retinere peccata, quod habetur Joan. xx. Nam in hoc posteriore loco restrin¬ guntur verba ad peccata, in priore non re¬ stringuntur, sed generatim dicitur, quodeum- que solveris, vel ligaveris, et notum est, non solum solvi, qui remittuntur peccata, sed etiam eum, qui liberatur a quocumque de¬ bito, vel lege, vel pacto etc. Quemadmodum etiam non solum ligatur, cui retinentur pec¬ cata, sed etiam qui praecepto, vel juramento, vel promissione, vel alia quacumque obli¬ gatione constringitur. Itaque etiamsi pro- basset Kemnitius verba Domini Joannis xx. pertinere ad solum poenitentiae forum, non tamen probasset hoc idem de verbis Domini, Matth. xvi. sed tamen neque illud probavit. Nam scholastici dicunt quidem, verba Do¬ mini Joan. xx. pertinere ad forum poeniten¬ tia-*, sed non restringunt ad illud forum ; multi enim etiam ad. remissionem, quae fit in Baptismo, ea verba referunt, alii genera¬ tim ad omnem remissionem, quae fit ministe¬ rio clavium, sive in sacramentis, sive extra sacramentum, pertinere volunt. Mihi quidem valde probabile videtur, hunc locum perti¬ nere solum ad potestatem ordinis, et ea de causa non eum protuli in priore libro pro indulgentiis. Secunda objectio Kemnitii. « Solvere, et ligare ita opponuntur, ut quod solutum est, non sit amplius ligatum. Pontifex vero con¬ tra fingit quod in absolutione solutum est super terram, illud in foro pontificio mane¬ re ex parte ligatum, et solvendum esse non clave ministerii, sed Pontificiis indulgentia¬ rum nundinationibus ». Responsio. Ingens profecto patientia ne¬ cessaria est ei, qui Kemriitio respondere ve¬ lit. Quis enim ferat impudentiam hominis, qui tertio quoque verbo nundinationes iis objicit, a quibus severissime prohibitas non ignorat? Deinde quem non pigeat in ejusmo¬ di nugis tempus terere? Quis enim unquam dixit, in foro Pontificio ligatum manere quod in absolutione solutum est super terram? Sed cum in foro poenitentiae solutio fiat a c Ipa et a reatu pomai sempiternae, non autem a reatu totius poenae temporalis, quod in eo for o ligatum mansit, id non nun¬ dinatione, sed clave ministerii Pontificii per indulgentias relaxari dicimus, lioc refellat, si (l) Mat. XVI, 19. 80 LIBER II. potest, et non sibi fingat argumen ta qua; solvat. Tertia objectio. « Ministerium reconcilia¬ tionis ita solvit peccata, ut poenitentibus et credentibus annunciet condonata omnia de¬ licta. Coloss. n. peccata non imputari. Ro¬ mam iv. et v. et per Christum redemptos esse a maledicto legis. Galat. m. quod ma¬ ledictum seternum et temporale est. Deuter. xxviii. Pontificiae vero indulgentia} fingunt peccata etl. m post remissionem imputari, et Christum credentes non a tota maledictio¬ ne legis redemisse, sed partem ejus ex Pon¬ tificio thesauro redimendam esse ». Respon¬ sio. Vetus cantilena luec est, millies refutata. Omitto errorem illum Kemnitii, et aliorum Lutheranorum, quod remittere peccata, sit annunciare remissa, quia ad hunc locum non pertinet. Condonata nobis omnia delicta per Christum, et Apostolus dicit, neque in¬ dulgentiae contradicunt. Nam condonata omnia intelligi debent quoad sufficientiam pretii a Christo persoluti, sed pretium illud applicari postea necesse est, ut etiam Luthc- rani fatentur, si efficaciter lmic, aut illi de¬ licta condonanda sint. Nos autem existima¬ mus non sola fide applicari, sed etiam aliis instrumentis, quorum unum indulgentia; sunt. Pari ratione peccata non imputari ju¬ stificatis, idem Apostolus dicit, et indulgen¬ tia; non contradicunt. Neque enim fingimus peccata imputari post remissionem, si quo ad culpam, et poenam remissa sint, ut fit in Baptismo, sed si remissa sint quoad culpam, et poenam affernam, et adhuc maneat reatus aliquis poena; temporalis, ut ordinarie fit in secunda reconciliatione, quid mirum si adhuc imputentur ex parte? Quod additur de maledicto legis ad rem non pertinet, non enim liberatio illa a maledicto legis est liberatio a culpa, vel pcena peccati, sed est liberatio ab obligatione legis cseremonialis Hebrseorum, de qua potissimum disputatur in eo loco. Est et¬ iam liberatio a terrore legis cujuscumque,qute Judmos ut servos premebat. Filios enim te¬ stamenti novi lex divina, moralis, et evan- gelica obligat quidem ad observantiam, sed non terret, quia charitas diffusa in cordibus non timore poma;, sed amore justititia; im¬ plet legem. Quarta objectio. « Quod Christus promisit Petro Matth. xvi. cum ait : Tibi dabo claves etc. exhibuit, ac pradouit Joan. xx. cum ait. Quorum remiseritis peccata etc. At ista di¬ cuntur omnibus Apostolis, et omnibus mi¬ nistris, quibus datur potestas absolvendi : non igitur ex loco Matth. xvi. colligitur au¬ ctoritas Pontificia indulgentias conferendi ». Responsio. Falsum est id totum fuisse exhi¬ bitum Jo. xx. quod fuerat promissum Mat¬ th. xvi. Nam ut supra diximus multo latius patet, quodeumque solveris, quam, quorum remiseritis peccata. Itaque sicut soli Petro dictum fuerat Matth. xvi. Tibi (labo claves etc., ita soli Petro dicitur Joari. xxi. Pasce oves meas (I). Atque in hoc loco datur, quod in alio fuerat promissum. Quam rem nos copiose exposuimus in i. lib.de Summ. Pon- tif. cap. 12. Quinta objectio. « Christus ait Apostolis Joan. xx. Sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto vos : Ipse autem quando tempore ministerii sui peccata remittebat, simul debitum con¬ donabat, et debitorem liberabat. lla;c enim est forma absolutionis ejus : Confide, remit¬ tuntur tibi peccata tua, vade in pace, et noli amplius peccare. Matth. ix. Luc. vn. Joan. v. Et in parabola Matth. xvm. servum sibi de¬ bentem decem millia talenta, liberum di¬ misit, et debitum remisit ei ; et adultera; Joan. vili, nullam poenam imposuit. Quod autem Christus tales unquam vel docuerit, vel dederit indulgentias, quales ex Pontifici¬ orum placitis supra descripta; sunt, nulla oratione, nulla dictione, nulla syllaba, nulla littera, ex Scriptura probari potest ». Re¬ sponsio. Immo testimonia omnia allegata clamant Christum dedisse indulgentias, qua¬ les ipsum, qui Princeps absolutus erat, dare decebat. Christus enim illis omnibus remisit culpam, et poenam, extra sacramentum ap¬ plicans merita sua. Pontifex autem qui Vi¬ carius est, remittit etiam culpam, et poenam, applicans merita Christi, sed culpam et poe¬ nam seternam per sacramenta, quia ita Chri¬ stus instituit, poenam temporariam extra sa¬ cramenta, quia ita Christus fecit, et ex na¬ tura sua remissio solius poena; sacramento non eget. Quod autem Christus non injun¬ xerit jejunia, vel eleemosynas, aut aliud pium opus iis, quibus indulgentiam largitus est, quod tamen Pontifex facere solet, ea¬ dem est ratio, quia videlicet Christus, ut Princeps absolutus, potuit pro arbitrio indul¬ gentias dare; Pontifex, ut Vicarius, non po¬ test pro arbitrio, sed pro causa justa, et ra¬ tionabili, idem facere. (1) Mat. XVI, 19 ; Joan. XXI, 17- CAPUT XII. 81 Sexta objectio. « Petrus, cui dutm sunt claves regni coelorum, eis sine dubio usus est, et tamen indulgentias pontificias uon dedit ; immo Simoni Mago dixit Act. vm. : Pecunia tua tccum sit in perditionem, quo¬ niam donum Dei existimasti pecuniis com¬ parari ». Responsio. Quod Apostolus Petrus indulgentias pontificiarias dederit, vel non dederit, ex Scriptura probari non potest, quoniam acta ejus, exceptis paucissimis, in sacris litteris non exstant. Simon vero Magus non indulgentias petebat cum pecunias offer¬ ret, sed potestatem dandi Spiritum sanctum per manus impositionem. Sed Kemnitio per¬ inde est, ad rem, vel extra rem verba pro¬ fundere, modo calumniari possit. Septima objectio. « Sicut Christus dixit Petro, Matth. xvr. quodeumque solveris, ita dixit toti Ecclesim, Matth. xvm. qusecumque solveritis etc., et tamen Ecclesia per annos mille et amplius istas indulgentias ignora¬ vit». Responsio. Ex ignorantia antiquitatis, vel perversa intelligentia veteris historiae procedit objectio. Ostendimus enim in libro superiore, ex Tertulliano, et Cypriano vetu¬ stissimis Patribus, necnon ex Conciliis anti¬ quissimis, Ancyrano, et Nicaeno, usum in¬ dulgentiarum, et proprie sui) nomine indul¬ gentiae idem ostendimus ex Grcgorio I Leone III et Sergio II qui omnes ante annum mil¬ lesimum Ecclesiae praefuerunt. Nec desunt, qui idem probari existimant ex Sylvestro !, qui sedit post annilm Domini 300. quorum argumenta ex tabulis Ecclesiarum petita contemnenda non sunt. Octava objectio. «- Ligare seu retinere peccata non est poenitentiam agentibus, et credentibus post absolutionem, seu remissio¬ nem peccatorum, partem aliquam ligatam reservare, vel ad proprias satisfactiones, aut redemptiones per indulgentias obligare : sed impoenitentibus, ct incredulis peccata sunt liganda, denunciata illis hac Dei sen¬ tentia, quod peccata ipsorum maneant. Joan. ix. et ira Dei maneat super ipsis. Joan. v. quodque perituri sunt, nisi poeni¬ tentiam egerint. Luc. xm. » Responsio. Mul¬ ta Kemnitius dicit, sed nihil probat, et tamen probandi officium sibi desumpsit. Imperite autem, nisi forte malitiose, et fraudulenter confundit ligare, et retinere : neque enim ista sunt idem, nam retinere est non remit¬ tere, sed relinquere in suo statu, et hoc mo¬ do sacerdotes nostri retinent peccata impoe¬ nitentibus, non solum denunciando illis Dei sententias, sed etiam negando absolutionis beneficium. At ligare non est non solvere, sed novum vinculum addere, nisi vocabulis abuti velimus, et hoc modo sacerdotes au¬ dita confessione pcenitentis, ligant eum ad opera satisfactionis, qum ab antiquis diceba¬ tur actio pcenitentim, ut apud S. Augusti¬ num in episfc. 180. ad Honoratum : « Aliis, inquit, Baptismum flagitantibus, aliis recon¬ ciliationem, aliis poenitentiae ipsius actio¬ nem ». Atque haec est poenitentia, quam Pontifices per indulgentias, vel totam, vel ex parte condonant. Habemus igitur primum et praecipuum testimonium pro indulgentiis ex cap. xvi. Matthaei, non potuisse a Kemni¬ tio labefactari, quamvis octo arietibus illud impetere conatus sit.