Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 13: The third 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).
The third argument of Catholics for indulgences Chemnitz says is gathered from a twofold order of testimonies of divine Scripture. For first, he says, those testimonies are brought forward by which it is proved that after fault is remitted there remains a temporal punishment still to be paid: 2 Kings 12, 2 Kings 24, Exodus 32, Numbers 14 and others. Then those by which it is proved that punishments of this kind can be redeemed by fastings, alms and other good works: Daniel 4, Jonah 3, Numbers 16, 2 Kings 12 and 24 and others. From these, finally, he concludes that the guilt of these punishments can also be taken away through the undue satisfactions of the saints, that is, through the treasury of indulgence. This argument I for my part did not bring forward in the former book, nor have I seen it brought forward by other Catholics except very few, since these things belong properly to the disputations on satisfaction, and in this place are presupposed rather than disputed. But because Chemnitz wished to make mention of this argument, I shall not be reluctant both to set out what he objects against it and to refute his objections.
To the testimonies of the first order he objects that if anyone wishes to gather from them that after the remission of fault there remains a punishment to be paid, one of the following difficulties follows: either the satisfaction of Christ for our sins was halved and imperfect; or God does not remit all sins to believers, and deceives the men to whom he promised that he would no longer remember their iniquities; or what Christ affirmed under oath is false, whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, if God kept part of the vengeance bound; or the ministers of the Church administer the keys of the kingdom of heaven fraudulently and not according to the will of the Lord, if while they loose from sins they retain some part. To this objection I answer that none of these follows. For the first difficulty does not follow, since Christ indeed paid the whole price for the faults and punishments of all men by his obedience and passion; but it pleased his wisdom to apply that price in baptism for expiating all faults and punishments, while in the reconciliation which takes place in the sacrament of penance it pleased the same divine wisdom to apply the same price for fault and everlasting punishment, but not for the guilt of the whole temporal punishment, as has been explained above more than once. Nor does the second difficulty follow. For God always performs what he promised, and so forgives all sins in reconciliation that he no longer remembers the iniquities committed. But as, when a just man sins, God is said no longer to remember his just deeds, because he does not keep his grace for him, even if perhaps he rewards those just deeds with some temporal reward; so also when an ungodly man repents, God is said no longer to remember his sins, since he receives him into his grace and friendship as if he had never sinned, although he exacts a temporal punishment of him. Nor does the third or fourth difficulty follow, for Christ most truly affirmed: whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. For as he himself retains some guilt of temporal punishment in the reconciliation after baptism, so also his ministers do, when they rightly discharge their office. For this is why in the sacrament of penance they impose a fine for satisfaction which they do not impose in the sacrament of baptism, because they know it to be the will of God that those who are first converted from the darkness of ignorance to the light of faith and receive baptism should not be bound to any punishment; but that those who, after obtaining so great a light, and the justification and renewal of baptism, have fallen, when they come to penance, should be altogether bound to a punishment to be paid according to the greatness and quality of the sin.
Chemnitz then applies to those same testimonies which are alleged by Catholics for the guilt of punishment remaining after fault is remitted his own explanation, and says that various chastisements and punishments are indeed inflicted by God on reconciled men, as those Scriptures witness, but that they are inflicted to be mortifications of the flesh, or admonitions to beware of sins, or to impress the greatness of sin, or for the exercise of patience and other virtues, and finally for other wholesome ends, but not to be punishments of past sin, as if God wished to punish a sin already forgiven. But truly the boldness of the heretics is to be wondered at, who admit all other ends of the divine scourges except the one which is expressed by God himself in express words in the Scriptures. For in 2 Kings 12, when God through the prophet had told David that his sin was forgiven on account of his serious penance, and yet wished to chastise him with the scourge of his son's death, he does not say, to mortify the flesh, or as an admonition to beware of sins, or for the exercise of patience, or other ends of that kind, but he says: “Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born to thee shall surely die.” What is clearer for signifying divine vengeance for a sin committed? Thereupon David (as is found in the same chapter) fasted and wept and prayed to turn aside that scourge of God, which he would not have done to hinder those good ends, that is, mortification of the flesh, exercises of patience and the like; but he did it to satisfy God by another way than by the death of his son. Besides, not rarely the scourge of God for a sin committed is the bodily death of him who is scourged, as is clear from 3 Kings 13, where the prophet of the Lord for disobedience is delivered by God to a lion to be slain; and yet before death without doubt his sin was remitted to him as to fault (if perhaps it was deadly), for it is agreed that he, as a holy and just man, was guarded after death by the lion, not harmed, so that he could be honourably buried. But bodily death is a scourge of such a kind that it cannot be inflicted for mortification of the flesh, admonition to beware of sins, exercises of patience and the like, which cease after death, but only for the punishment of a sin committed. Finally (to pass over many other things) in Psalm 98 we read most plainly of Moses and Aaron: “They called upon the Lord, and he heard them: he spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud. Thou didst hear them, O Lord our God: thou wast a merciful God to them, and taking vengeance on all their inventions.” Where David, speaking of their sin at the rock, for which they were punished (as is found in Numbers 20 and 27) so that they died before entering the land of promise, openly witnesses that God was merciful to them, because he remitted the sin as to fault, and yet avenged all their invention, because he exacted a punishment of them, and a very heavy one, in vengeance and satisfaction. And so much for the first order of testimonies, about which Chemnitz vainly boasts that they were so explained by him that one sinew of papal indulgences was cut through by the sword of the Spirit. For that sinew remains whole and sound, no less than if it had been tried by a sword of wood or of paper.
Now in cutting the other sinew, that is, in treating the second order of testimonies, he behaved more cautiously; for having noticed that what Catholics gather from those testimonies cannot in any way be denied, namely, that the scourges of God can sometimes be turned aside by voluntary afflictions, and that God is appeased by the fruits of penance, he objected nothing against this doctrine of Catholics, but only tried to prove that the punishments owed to sins cannot be forgiven through indulgences. This he does by bringing forward a certain division of Luther's. For Luther wrote that there are five kinds of punishments according to Scripture and the tradition of the ancient Church. The first is the punishment of hell. Second, the afflictions which ought to be undertaken willingly to bring forth fruits of penance, which are proofs of the new life. Third, afflictions not unlike the former, for the mortification of the flesh, which is necessary to beware of sins. Fourth, scourges sent by God, such as want, diseases, bereavement and the like. Fifth, finally, the canonical punishment, which was accustomed to be imposed by the ancients for the sake of discipline. Now it is certain that the punishment of hell is not subject to the keys of the Church. Nor is it less certain that the exercises of virtues, the fruits of penance and of the new life, and the mortification of the flesh ought not to be relaxed through indulgences; otherwise indulgences would be harmful and ruinous. Nor is it doubtful that scourges sent by God cannot be driven off through indulgences, as experience itself teaches. There remain only the canonical punishments, which could be relaxed if they were in use, but they have long since ceased to be imposed. No punishment remains, then, which can be remitted through indulgences, except a certain invented guilt of punishment, which is pretended to be expiated in this life or in the next, without any testimony of Scripture or of the ancient Church. We for our part readily acknowledge that the punishment of hell and the scourges sent by God are not subject to the keys of the Church, although those scourges are not rarely turned aside by voluntary afflictions, as is clear from Jonah 3. But of punishments undertaken willingly we answer that they ought not to be relaxed insofar as they are useful for newness of life and mortification of the flesh, but that they can usefully be relaxed insofar as they are punishments owed to sins. For it is useful to be free of that debt, or guilt. But that those punishments are owed to sins is not a device or a fiction of Catholics (as Luther and Chemnitz say), but is the teaching of Scripture and of all antiquity; for this is why those afflictions are called fruits worthy of penance, Luke 3, since they ought to be such as are required of those who do penance worthily. But to do penance worthily is not only to show fruits of new life, or to mortify the lusts of the flesh (for these ought to be done even by those who have not sinned), but is to punish past sins, and to satisfy the Lord, whom we offended by pride, greed and unlawful pleasure, with humility, giving, compunction and voluntary affliction. And in this sense all the ancient Fathers expound those words of the Lord. Saint John Chrysostom, homily 10 on Matthew, explaining what it is to bring forth fruits worthy of penance: “Did you before,” he says, “overflow with delights and drunkenness? Make up for both by fasting and drinking water.” Saint Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 70: “Life,” he says, “is to be changed for the better, and God is to be propitiated by alms for past sins, not bought over so that it may always be lawful to commit them with impunity. For he has given no one licence to sin, although in his mercy he blots out sins already committed, if fitting satisfaction is not neglected.” And on Psalm 50 he thus introduces the penitent speaking with God: “Lord, my sin shall not go unpunished; but for this reason I do not wish thee to punish it, because I punish my sin myself.” Saint Gregory, book 6, chapter 2, on 1 Kings, having taught that three things are required for penance, conversion of mind, confession of mouth, and punishment of sin, proves this third from the words of the Gospel already alleged: “Then,” he says, “we see the sinner well converted, when he strives by the worthy severity of affliction to blot out what by speaking he confesses. Whence John the Baptist says: Bring forth fruits worthy of penance.” Bede on Psalm 4: “Bring forth,” he says, “fruits worthy of penance, afflicting yourselves for each sin as much as worthy penance demands, which will be the sacrifice of justice.” Christian Druthmar on chapter 3 of Matthew: “To bring forth fruit worthy of penance,” he says, “is to punish past evils with tears, and to do good on the contrary, and to redeem evils committed by alms.” Peter Damian, sermon 2 on Saint Andrew: “Do not flatter yourself if a lighter penance is prescribed to a grave sinner by a gentle or a careless man, since whatever you have done too little here must be completed in the fires of purgatory, because the Most High seeks fruits worthy of penance.”
Hence also blessed Paul, in the second epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7, describing the effects of penance, sets among others revenge. “For behold,” he says, “this selfsame thing, that you were made sorrowful according to God, how great carefulness it worketh in you; yea defence, yea indignation, yea fear, yea desire, yea zeal, yea revenge.” But whether this revenge signifies the affliction which the penitent willingly undertakes to punish his sins, or that which the prelate imposes on the penitent, this is certain, that the doing of penance is referred to the punishing of sins. Accordingly what Catholics teach about penance is not a fiction or a device, but an oracle of the Holy Spirit. See much more in the fourth book on penance, where we discuss satisfaction. As to the canonical punishment, which was the last member of Chemnitz's division, it is true indeed that at this time penances are enjoined with less severity than the canons prescribe; yet penances, greater or less, are enjoined according to the variety of crimes, and are not imposed for the sake of discipline alone, but also, as was shown above, for satisfaction or a part of satisfaction. And accordingly the relaxation of the punishment enjoined, through indulgences, has its place in these also. But besides all these punishments there is the punishment of purgatory, which no one can deny does not look to the fruits of new life, nor to the mortification of the flesh, nor to the particular scourges of God, nor to ecclesiastical discipline, but only to the chastisement of past sins, and to the guilt of the punishment remaining after the remission of fault, to be altogether expiated. And that this punishment of purgatory is not a device or fiction of Catholics, but the doctrine of the holy Scriptures and the confession of the whole Church, even the most ancient, was proved by us in the former book on purgatory. Therefore there is no lack of a punishment which may be usefully relaxed through indulgences, and the argument of Catholics, even as it is proposed by Chemnitz, has its force, nor could he with the sword of the Spirit (as he vainly boasted) cut its sinews.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Defenditur III argumentum Catholicorum. Tertium argumentum Catholicorum pro indulgentiis colligi dicit Kemnitius ex du¬ plici ordine testimoniorum Scripturae divinae. Primum enim adferri ait illa testimonia, quibus probatur post remissam culpam re¬ manere poenam temporalem adhuc luen¬ dam, II Reg. xn. II Reg. xxiv. Exod. xxxii. Num. xiv et alia. Deinde illa, quibus pro¬ batur, posse redimi ejusmodi poenas jeju¬ niis, eleemosynis, aliisque operibus bonis, Dati. iv. Jonae m. Num. xvi. II Reg. xn et xxiv et alia. Ex his denique concludit, posse etiam tolli harum poenarum reatum 'per satisfactiones indebitas sanctorum, hoc est, per thesaurum indulgentia}. IIoc vero argumentum ego quidem non attuli in libro superiore, neque ab aliis Catholicis, nisi ad- 84 LIBER II. modum paucis adferri vidi; quoniam ista pertinent proprie ad disputationes de satis¬ factione, et hoc loco prserequiruntiir potius quam disputentur. Quia tamen Kemnitius argumenti hujus mentionem facere voluit, non gravabor et quid ipse contra objiciat exponere, et ipsa ejus objecta refellere. Ad testimonia prioris ordinis objicit, si quis ex illis colligere velit post remissionem culpae remanere poenam luendam , sequi unum ex sequentibus incommodis, vel satis¬ factionem Christi pro peccatis nostris fuisse dimidiatam, et imperfectam : vel Deum credentibus non omnia peccata remit¬ tere , et falleje homines, quibus promisit, se iniquitatum eorum non amplius recorda¬ turum : vel falsum esse, quod Christus sub juramento affirmavit, quajcumque solveritis in terra, erunt soluta et in coelo, si partem vindictae Deus ligatam retineret, vel mini¬ stros Ecclesiae fraudulenter, et non ex vo¬ luntate Domini claves regni coelorum admi¬ nistrare, si dum solvunt a peccatis, partem aliquam retinent. Ad hanc objectionem re¬ spondeo nihil eorum sequi. Nam non sequi¬ tur primum incommodum, quoniam Christus quidem integrum pretium pro culpis et poe¬ nis omnium hominum obedientia sua et pas¬ sione persolvit : sed placuit sapientiae ejus, pretium illud in baptismo applicare pro cul¬ pis, et poenis omnibus expiandis : in recon¬ ciliatione autem, quae fit in sacramento Poe¬ nitentiae , placuit eidem divinae sapientiaj idem pretium applicare pro culpa et poena sempiterna , non autem pro reatu totius poenae temporalis, ut supra non semel expli¬ catum est. Non sequitur etiam alterum in¬ commodum. Nam Deus praestat semper quod promisit; et omnia peccata ita in re¬ conciliatione condonat, ut iniquitatum com¬ missarum non recordetur amplius. Sed quemadmodum, cum justus peccat, di¬ citur Deus justitiarum ejus non recordari amplius, quia non conservat illi gratiam suam etiamsi temporali aliquo praemio eas justitias forte remuneret; Sic etiam cum im¬ pius resipiscit, dicitur Deus non recordari amplius peccatorum ejus, quoniam in gra¬ tiam suam, atque amicitiam eum recipit, •ac si numquam peccasset, quamvis tempo¬ ralem poenam ab illo exigat. Nec sequitur tertium, vel quartum incommodum, Chri¬ stus enim verissime affirmavit : Quaecumque alligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in coelis ; et quaecumque solveritis super terram , erunt soluta et in ccelis. Nam sicut ipse reti¬ net reatum aliquem poenae temporalis in re¬ conciliationem post Baptismum, ita et mini¬ stri ejus faciunt, cum rite funguntur munere' suo. Ea enim de causa in sacramento Poeni¬ tentiae imponunt mulctam pro satisfactione, quam non imponunt in sacramento Ba¬ ptismi, quoniam sciunt eam esse Dei volunta¬ tem, ut qui ab ignorantiae tenebris conver¬ tuntur primum ad lumen fidei, et Baptis¬ mum recipiunt, non ligentur ad ullam poe¬ nam : qui vero post tantum lumen adeptum, et justificationem, ac renovationem Baptismi lapsi sunt, cum ad poenitentiam venerint, ligentur omnino ad poenam pro peccati ma¬ gnitudine, et qualitate solvendam. Adhibet deinde Kemnitius ad illa eadem testimonia, quae a Catholicis allegantur pro reatu poenae, remanente post culpam remis¬ sam, suam explicationem aic dicit, infligi quidem a Deo varias castigationes, et poenas hominibus reconciliatis, ut Scripturae illae testantur, sed infligi, ut sint mortificationes carnis, vel admonitiones ad cavenda pec¬ cata, vel ad insinuandam peccati magnitu¬ dinem, vel ad exercitium patientiae, alia- rumque virtutum, denique ad alios salutares fines, non autem ut sint ultiones peccati praeteriti, quasi Deus punire velit peccatum jam condonatum. Sed profecto admiranda est haereticorum audacia, qui omnes alios fines flagellorum divinorum admittunt, prae¬ tor eum, qui ab ipso Deo in Scripturis di¬ sertis verbis exprimitur. Nam II Reg. xn. cum Deus per Prophetam David dixisset peccatum ipsius ob seriam poenitentiam esse dimissum, et tamen flagello mortis filii, eum castigairc vellet, non ait, ad mortificandam carnem, vel admonitionem ad cavenda pec¬ cata, vel ad exercitium patientiae, vel ailios fines ejusmodi, sed ait : Verumtamen quia blasphemare fecisti inimicos nomen Domini, filius qui natus est tibi morte morietur. Quid clarius ad significandam vindictam divinam pro peccaito commisso? Inde Daivid (ut ha¬ betur in eodem capite) jejunavit et flevit, et oravit, ut averteret flagellum illud Dei, qui tamen non hoc faceret, ut impediret bonos illos fines, id est, mortificationem carnis, exercitia patientiae, et similia ; sed fecit, ut satisfaceret Deo per aliam viam, quam per mortem filii. Praeterea non raro flagellum Dei pro peccato commisso est mors corpo¬ ralis ejus, qui flagellatur, ut perspicuum est ex lib. III Reg. cap. vm. ubi Propheta Do- CAPUT XIII. 85 mini ob inobedientiam traditur a Deo Leoni interimendus ; et tamen ante mortem sine dubio remissum fuit ei peccatum , quoad culpam (si forle lethalis fuit), constat enim eum ut virum sanctum, et justum fuisse post mortem a Leone custoditum, non Ise sum, ut honorifice sepeliri posset. Mors autem cor¬ poralis ejusmodi flagellum est, ut non possit infligi ad mortificationem carnis, admonitio¬ nem ad cavenda peccata, exercitia patientiae, et similia quae post mortem cessant, sed so¬ lum ad ultionem peccati commissi. Denique (ut alia multa praeteream) in Psol. xcviii. apertissime legimus de Mose, et Aarone : Invocabant Dominam , et ipse exaudiebat cos, in columna nubis loquebatur ad eos, Domine Deus noster , tu propitius fuisti eis , et ulciscens in omnes adinventiones eorum (1). Ubiloquens David de peccato eorum ad petram, pro quo puniti sunt (ut habetur Num xx et xxvii.) ut morerentur ante ingressum in terram promissionis ; aperte testatur, Deum fuisse illis propitium, quia remisit peccatum quo ad culpam, et tamen ultum luisse omnem adinventionem eorum, quia poenam ab eis, et quidem gravissimam in vindictam, et sa¬ tisfactionem repetiit. Atque haec de primo ordine testimoniorum , de quibus frustra Kemnitius gloriatur ita a se explicata, ut succisus sit gladio spiritus unus nervus in¬ dulgentiarum pontificiarum. Manet enim nervus ille integer, et sanus, non minus quam si "gladio fameo, vel papiraceo tenta- tus fuisset. Jam vero in succidendo altero nervo, id est, in tractando secundo ordine testimonio¬ rum magis caute se gessit, cum enim ani¬ madvertisset, non posse ullo modo negari, quod ex illis testimoniis Catholici colligunt, videlicet, posse flagella Dei aliquando per voluntarias afflictiones averti, Deumque pla¬ cari fructibus poenitentia?, nihil contra hoc dogma Catholicorum objecit, sed solum pro¬ bare conatus est, non posse per indulgen¬ tias condonari poenas peccatis debitas. Id autem facit adducendo in medium quamdam Lutheri partitionem. Scripsit enim Lutherus, quinque esse genera poenarum secundum Scripturam, et veteris Ecclesia? traditionem. Primum esse poenam gehennae. Secundo af¬ flictiones qua? sponte suscipi debent ad fru¬ ctus poenitentia? faciendos, qui sint argu¬ menta nova? vitae. Tertio afflictiones prioribus non dissimiles ad carnismortificationem, qua? necessaria est ad cavenda peccata. Quarto flagella divinitus immissa, ut penuriam, morbos, orbitatem, et similia. Quinto deni¬ que esse poenam canonicam, quse disciplina? causa a veteribus imponi solebat. Certum est autem poenam gehennae non esse subje¬ ctam clavibus Ecclesia?. Nec minus certum est, non debere relaxari per indulgentias exercitia virtutum,, fructus poenitentia?, et nova? vita?, et carnis mortificationem, alio- qui noxiae, ac perniciosae essent indulgentiae. Neque illud est dubium flagella a Deo im¬ missa non posse per indulgentias repelli, ut vel ipsa experientia docet. Restant sola? poena? canonica?, quae relaxari possunt, si essent in usu, sed jam a longo tempore de¬ sierunt imponi. Nulla igitur restat poena, quae per indulgentias remitti possit , nisi commentitius quidam reatus poenae, qui fin¬ gitur in hac vita, vel in alia expiandus, sine ullo Scripturae, vel antiquae Ecclesia? testi¬ monio. Nos vero libenter agnoscimus poe¬ nam gehennae , et flagella a Deo immissa non subesse clavibus Ecclesiae, quamvis ea flagella non raro per voluntarias afflictiones avertantur, ut perspicuum est ex cap. hi. Jona?. De poenis fiutem sponte susceptis re¬ spondemus, non debere eas relaxari, quate¬ nus utiles sunt ad novitatem vitae, et carnis mortificationem, sed posse utiliter relaxari, quatenus sunt poena? debitae peccatis. Utile enim est carere illo debito, sive reatu. Esse autem eas poenas debitas peccatis non est commentum, nec figmentum Catholicorum (ut Lutherus et Kemnitius dicunt), sed est sententia Scripturae, et totius antiquitatis; ideo enim dicuntur afflictiones illa? fructus digni poenitentia? Luc. iii. quoniam tales esse debent, quales requiruntur ab illis, qui digne poenitentiam agunt. 'Digne autem poeniten¬ tiam agere, non est solum nova? vita? fru¬ ctus ostendere vel carnis concupiscentias mortificare (ista enim ab iis etiam fieri de¬ bent qui non peccaverunt), sed est punire peccata praeterita, et Domino, quem super¬ bia, et cupiditate, atque illicita delectatione offendimus, humilitate, largitione, compun¬ ctione, et afflictione voluntaria satisfacere. Et in hanc sententiam exponunt illa verba Do¬ minica omnes veteres Patres. S. Joannes Chrysostomus hom. 10. in Matthaeum expli¬ cans quid sit facere fructus dignos pceniten- (1) Psalm. XCVIII. 6. 80 LIBER II. tise, « Deliciis, inquit, antea et tumulentia diffluebas? Jejunio, etaqum potu utrumque compensa ». S. Augustinus in Enchiridio c. 70 :« In melius, inquit, est vita mutanda, et per eleemosynas de peccatis praeteritis propitiandus est Deus, non ad hoc emendas, ut ea semper liceat impune committere. Ne¬ mini enim dedit laxamentum peccandi, quam¬ vis miserando deleat jam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur ». Et in Psal. l. sic inducit loquentem pmnitentem cum Deo : « Domine, non erit impunitum peccatum meum, sed ideo nolo ut tu pu¬ nias, quia ego peccatum meum punio ». S. Gregorius lib. vi, cap. 2. in I Reg. cum docuisset tria requiri ad poenitentiam, men¬ tis conversionem, oris confessionem, et pec¬ cati vindictam, hoc tertium probat ex verbis evangelicis jam allegatis. Tunc, inquit, bene conversum peccatorem cernimus cum digna afflictionis austeritate delere nititur, quod loquendo confitetur ». Unde Joannes Bap- ptista ait : Facite fructus dignos poenitentiae. Beda in Psal. iv : « Facite, inquit, dignos fructus poenitentiae, tantum pro singulis pec¬ catis vos affligentes, quanium digna expetit poenitentia, quod erit sacrificium justitiae ». Christianus Druthmarus in cap. m. Matthaei : « Fructum, inquit, dignum poenitentiae fa¬ cere, est praeterita mala fletibus punire, et bona e contrario agere, et male commissa eleemosynis redimere ». Petrus Damiani serm. 2. de S. Andrea: <i Ne tibi blandiaris si graviter peccanti levior poenitentia a man¬ sueto, vel a dissimulante dictatur, cum in purgatoriis ignibus perficiendum sit quicquid hic minus feceris, quia dignos poenitentiae fructus quaerit Altissimus ». Hinc etiam B. Paulus, in epistola poste¬ riore ad Corinthios cap. vii. describens effe¬ ctus poenitentiae, inter alios ponit vindi¬ ctam. « Ecce, inquit, hoc ipsum contristari nos secundum Deum, quantam in vobis operatur sollicitudinem, sed defensionem, sed indignationem, sed timorem, sed desi¬ derium, sed aemulationem, sed vindictam» ; sive autem haec vindicta significet afflictio¬ nem, quam poenitens ad sua peccata punien¬ da sponte suscipit, sive ea, quam poenitenti praelatus imponit, illud est certum, poeni¬ tentiae actionem ad peccata punienda referri. Proinde non est figmentum, vel commen¬ tum, sed Spiritus sancti oraculum, quod ca¬ tholici de poenitentia docent. Vide multo in lib. iv. de poenitentia, ubi de satisfactione disserimus. Quod vero attinet ad poenam canonicam, quod erat ultimum membrum partitionis Kemnitii, verum est quidem mi¬ nori severitate hoc tempore poenitentias in¬ jungi, quam Canones praescribant, tamen injunguntur poenitentia} majores, vel mino¬ res pro criminum varietate, nec imponuntur causa disciplinae solius, sed etiam ut supra demonstratum est, in satisfactionem, vel sa¬ tisfactionis partem. Ac proinde relaxatio poenae injunctae per indulgentias, in his etiam locum suum habet. Sed praeter has omnes poenas, est poena purgatorii, quam nemo negare potest, non spectare ad fructus novae vitae, nec ad carnis mortificationem, neque ad flagella Dei particularia, neque ad ecclesiasticam disciplinam, sed solum ad castigationem peccatorum praeteritorum, et ad reatum poenae remanentis post culpae re¬ missionem omnino expiandum. Non esse au¬ tem hanc poenam purgatorii commentum, vel figmentum Catholicorum, sed dogma Scripturarum sanctarum, et confessionem totius Ecclesiae etiam antiquissimae, proba¬ tum est a nobis in priore libro de purgatorio. Quare non deest poena, quae per indulgen¬ tias utiliter relaxetur, et argumentum Ca¬ tholicorum, etiam ut a Kemnitio proponitur, vim suam habet, n,eque potuit ipse gladio spi¬ ritus (ut frustra gloriabatur) nervos ejus in¬ cidere.