Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 14: The fourth 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 fourth argument of Catholics Chemnitz says is taken from chapter 1 of Colossians, where these words are read: “I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” But in order to refute this argument conveniently Chemnitz mixes in two lies. For he writes in this way: “This sentence of Paul they both understand, and wish to be understood, to mean that to the sufferings of Christ, by which he expiated our sins and took away the wages of sin, redeeming us from the curse of the law, something was wanting, so that it could not be a full, perfect, consummated and sufficient satisfaction for our sins.” This is the first lie, so impudent and gross that nothing more impudent or gross can be invented. Nor out of so great a number of writers, old and recent, who have written on indulgences, will he be able to cite one who says what he pretends we say. On the contrary, Catholic writers with the utmost agreement teach, with Pope Clement VI in the constitution which begins Unigenitus, that the satisfaction of Christ was of infinite price, and not only appeased God fully and perfectly for our sins, but could also have appeased him for the sins of an infinite multitude of men, if so many had been going to exist. Chemnitz indeed brings forward Bonaventure, as if he said “that the satisfactions of the saints are applied as some price of payment for sins, for the reason that something was wanting to the price of Christ.” But those last words (for the reason that something was wanting to the price of Christ) are not found in Bonaventure. Let the reader consult the place itself, which is on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 20, part 2, article 1, question 2, to the third. Chemnitz adds another lie in the same place in these words: “But that defect of the passion of Christ they say is to be supplied by the sufferings of the saints.” Ask who among Catholics says this, and you will find none. Catholics do say, with Pope Clement, that the sufferings of the saints are added to the heap of the treasury; but that they are added to supply a defect of the passion of Christ, which they confess to be of infinite price, no one says. With these lies of his, as if they were our doctrines, he is thereafter occupied in refuting, and proves what no one denies, that the mediator had to be God and man, and so on. He comes afterwards to the explaining of the place of blessed Paul itself, and repeats what Calvin brought forward, and what we answered above, which we have not thought fit to repeat in this place. There is only one place in this whole disputation brought forward by Chemnitz which I do not remember to have been explained thus far. It is in Psalm 48, where David denies that a brother can be redeemed by a brother, or pay to God the price of his redemption; from which he thinks it is proved that the satisfactions of the saints cannot be applied to expiate the guilt of punishment for others. But the answer is easy. For that sentence can be, and is accustomed to be, explained in three ways. The first explanation, which agrees with the rabbis of the Jews, is that David affirms that no one can be freed from the death of the body by his own strength, or by the power of friends or kinsmen. For he reproves those who trust (as is found in the verse above) in their own strength, or in the multitude of their riches, and says: “No brother can redeem, nor shall man redeem”; that is, a brother, who is most closely joined and most friendly, cannot redeem his brother from death, because no one can escape death; what other man, then, is there who can redeem him? And in the same sense it is added that no one can appease God with gifts, nor redeem life at any price. And this sense indeed does not help Chemnitz at all, because it does not bear on the matter we are treating. The second exposition is that of Saint Basil in the commentary on this place, who expounds these sentences of redemption from the death of the soul, that is, from sin and hell, so that the sense is this: a brother does not redeem, and much less any other man, because all have sinned and need the glory of God; all are captives, all are to be redeemed. Therefore God sent the Redeemer Christ, who is not a brother, nor a man like the rest, but is God and man, just and free, who neither needs redemption and can free all. This explanation also does not help Chemnitz at all, since we do not deny, rather all Catholics assert, that we could not be redeemed from the death of the soul and from hell through the satisfactions of the saints, but of Christ alone, “who of God is made unto us justice and redemption,” as the Apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 1. The third explanation is that of Saint Augustine in the first discourse on the said psalm, who interprets thus: “A brother does not redeem, shall a man redeem?” that is, if Christ, who deigned to become our brother, does not redeem you, do you expect another man to redeem you? He will not give to God his appeasement, nor the price of the redemption of his soul, who trusts in his own strength and in the multitude of his riches. And thus far the exposition of Saint Augustine; it helps neither Chemnitz's cause nor ours. For he speaks of the deliverance of the ungodly from the captivity of sin, and says that the ungodly man who trusts in his own strength cannot be freed either by himself or by another, since he has not been freed by Christ; not by any defect of Christ, who died for all, but by the defect of the ungodly man, who did not wish the redemption to be applied to himself. But we, in the disputation on indulgences, do not speak of the deliverance of the ungodly, but of the deliverance of the justified man from the guilt of temporal punishment, of which deliverance Saint Augustine speaks in the following words, which words manifestly refute Chemnitz's heresy. For Augustine adds: “Who are they that give the price of the redemption of their soul? Those to whom the Lord says, make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity, that they also may receive you into everlasting dwellings. They give the price of their soul who do not cease to give alms. Therefore the Apostle would not have those whom he admonishes through Timothy be proud, lest they glory in the abundance of riches. Finally, what they possessed he would not have grow old with them, but something be made from it, that it might be the price of the redemption of their soul. Let them lay up for themselves, he says, a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life; so they will give the price of the redemption of their soul.” So he. And so Saint Augustine is not afraid to say, and to repeat three times, that just men, redeemed by Christ from the death of the soul, give through alms the price of the redemption of their soul, according to that, Redeem thy sins with alms; which redemption cannot be understood otherwise than from the guilt of punishment remaining after the redemption of the sin as to fault. And if, on Augustine's witness, anyone can give the price of the redemption of his soul without any injury to Christ the Redeemer of all, it ought not to seem strange if we say that the holy martyrs can give some price of redemption for the guilt of punishment alone of other believers; not because the price of Christ does not suffice, but so that in this way also the sufferings and merits of the martyrs may be honoured.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Defenditur IV argumentum Catholicorum. Quartum Catholicorum argumentum de¬ sumi dicit Kemnitius ex cap. i. ad Coloss. ubi leguntur illa verba . Adimpleo quae de¬ sunt passionum Christi in carne mea pro cor¬ pore ejus, quod ex Ecclesia (1). Ut autem hoc argumentum commode refellat Kemni¬ tius duo mendacia admiscet. Scribit enim hoc modo : « Hanc Pauli sententiam ita et intelligunt, et intelligi volunt, quod passioni¬ bus Christi, quibus peccata nostra expiavit, et stipendium peccati sustulit, redimens nos a maledicto legis, aliquid defuerit, quo mi¬ nus plena, perfecta, consummata, et suffi¬ ciens satisfactio esse possit pro peccatis no¬ stris». Hoc est primum mendacium, tam (t) Coi. I. ?4. CAPUT XI Y, 87 impudens et crassum, ut nihil impudentius, vel crassius fingi queat. Neque ex tanto numero criptorum veterum, et recentiorum, qui de indulgentiis scripserunt, unum alle¬ gare poterit, qui dicat, quod ipse fingit nos dicere. Imo summa consensione scriptores Catholici cum Clemente Yi Pontifice in Constitutione quee incipit, Unigenitus, docent satisfactionem Christi fuisse infiniti pretii, et non solum plene, et perfecte pro peccatis nostris Deum placasse, sed etiam placare potuisse pro peccatis infinite multitudinis hominum, si tot futuri fuissent. Adducit qui¬ dem Kemnitius Bonaventuram, quasi is dicat, « satisfactiones sanctorum applicari ad pre¬ tium aliquod solutionis pro peccatis, ideo quia pretio Christi aliquid defuerit». Sed illa verba postrema, (ideo quia pretio Christi aliquid defuerit) non habentur apud Bona¬ venturam. Consulat lector locum ipsum, qui est in 4. sent. dist. 20. parte 2. art. 1 . qusest 2. ad 3. Alterum mendacium addit ibidem Kemnitius his verbis :« illum vero defectum passionis Christi, supplendum esse dicunt passionibus sanctorum ». Quaere quis hoc dicat ex Catholicis, et nullum invenies. Dicunt quidem Catholici cum Clemente Pontifice, ad cumulum the¬ sauri accedere passiones sanctorum, sed ad supplendum defectum passionis Christi, quam infiniti pretii esse fatentur, nemo di¬ cit. His mendaciis suis, quasi nostra essent dogmata, refellendis deinceps occupatur, et probat, quod nemo negat, ideo mediatorem debuisse esse Deum, et hominem etc. Acce¬ dit postea ad locum ipsum B. Pauli expli¬ candum, et repetit quae Calvinus attulit, et ad quae nos supra respondimus ; quae hoc loco repetenda non duximus. Unus tantum est locus in tota hac disputatione a Kemni- tio adductus, quem hactenus explicatum non memini. Is est in Ps. xlviii. ubi negat David, posse fratrem a fratre redimi, aut pretium redemptionis ejus Deo persolvere, ex quo probari existimat, non posse satisfa¬ ctiones sanctorum applicari ad reatum poenae pro aliis expiandum. Sed facilis est respon¬ sio. Nam tribus modis explicari potest, et solet ea sententia. Prima explicatio, eaque conformis Rabbinis Judaeorum est, quod affirmet David, neminem posse liberari a morte corporis propria virtute,- vel potentia amicorum, aut consanguineorum. Reprehen¬ dit enim illos, qui confidunt (ut habetur in versu superiore) in virtute sua, aut in multi¬ tudine divitiarum suarum ; et ait : Frater non redimit , redimet homo , id est, Frater, qui conjunctissimus, et amicissimus est, non potest fratrem redimere a morte, quia mor¬ tem nemo potest effugere, quis igitur alius homo est, qui eum redimere possit ? et in eumdem sensum additur, neminem posse muneribus Deum placare, nec vitam ullo pretio redimere. Atque hic quidem sensus, nihil Kemnifium juvat, quia non facit ad rem, de qua agimus. Altera expositio est S. Basilii in commentario hujus loci, qui ex¬ ponit has sententias de redemptione a morte animas, id est, a peccsto , et gehenna, ut hic sit sensus : Frater non redimit, ac multo minus quivis a'ius homo, quia omnes pecca¬ verunt, et egent gloria Dei, omnes sunt captivi, omnes redimendi. Ideo misit Deus Redemptorem Christum, qui non est frater, nec homo sicut caeteri, sed est Deus homo justus, et liter, qui neque redemptione in¬ diget, et liberare omnes potest. Itec exp'ica~ tio nihil etiam juvat Kemnitium, quoniam non negamus, in mo asserimus omnes Ca¬ tholici, non potuisse nos redimi a morte ani¬ mae et gehenna per satisfactiones sancto¬ rum, sed Christi solius, qui factus est nobis a Deo justitia , et redemptio (1), ut Apostolus loquitur in priore epistola ad Corinthios cap. i. Tertia explicatio est S. Augustini in prima concione in psalmum praedictum, qui ita interpretatur : « Frater non redimit, re¬ dimet homo », id est, si Christus, qui frater noster fieri dignatus est, non te redimit, ex- pectas ut te redimat alius homo ? Non dabit Deo placationem suam, nec pretium redem¬ ptionis animae suae, ille qui confidit in vir¬ tute sua, et in multitudine divitiarum sua¬ rum. Atque hucusque expositio S. Augustini; neque causam Kemnitii, neque nostram ju¬ vat. Loquitur enim de liberatione impii a captivitate peccati, et dicit, non posse im¬ pium, qui in sua virtute confidit liberari nec a se, nec ab alio, cum a Chi isto liberatus non fuerit, non defectu Christi, qui pro om¬ nibus mortuus est, sed defectu impii, qui re¬ demptionem sibi applicari noluit. Nos autem in disputatione de indulgentiis non loquimur de liberatione impii, sed de liberatione ho¬ minis justificati a reatu poenae temporalis, de qua liberatione loquitur in sequentibus (1) l Cor. I. 30, 8 3 verbis S. Augustinus, qmc verba hfcresim Kemnitii manifeste refellunt. Addit enim Augustinus : « Qui sunt qui dant pretium redemptionis animae sute ? Quibus ait Domi¬ nus, facite vobis amicos de mammona ini¬ quitatis ut et ipsi recipiant vos in Eeterna ta¬ bernacula. Illi dant pretium animEe suEe, qui non cessant eleemosynas facere. Ideo illos, quos monet per Timotheum Apostolus noluit esse superbos, ne in abundantia divitia¬ rum glorientur. Denique quod possidebant, noluit apud illos veterascere, sed aliquid ex eo fieri, ut esset pretium redemptionis ani¬ mEe illorum. Thesaurizent, inquit, sibi fun¬ damentum bonum in futurum, ut apprehen¬ dant veram vitam, sic dabunt pretium re¬ demptionis animae suec. » IIebc ille. Itaque S. Augustinus non timet dicere, et ter re¬ petere, homines' justos a Christo redemptos a morte animae, dare per eleemosynas pre¬ tium redemptionis animae suae, juxta illud, Peccata tua eleemosynis redime ; quae redem¬ ptio non potest alia intelligi nisi a reatu poe¬ nae remanente post redemptionem peccati, quoad culpam. Etsi Augustino teste potest quisque dare pretium redemptionis animae suae sine ulla injuria Christi Redemptoris omnium, non debet videri mirum, si nos di¬ camus, posse sanctos Martyres dare pretium aliquod redemptionis pro solo poenae reatu aliorum fidelium : non quod Christi pretium non sufficiat, sed ut hac etiam ratione Mar¬ tyrum passiones et merita honorentur.