Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 16: The sixth 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 sixth argument, which is the last in Chemnitz, is taken from the article of the Creed on the communion of saints. For Catholics gather from this communion that the satisfactions which were left over to the saints, that is, which they themselves did not need for purging their own sins, can be applied to other believers for whom their own do not suffice. Against this argument Chemnitz brings nothing solid. For first he fastens on us a most odious explanation of that article: “The communion of saints,” he says, “they interpret more broadly and most widely of the merits of works of supererogation, which are not proper to the doers alone, but common to all believers, brought into a common treasury of the Church as it were, to which the Pope alone has the keys, and from which for money given he sells to anyone as much as he sees fit.” So he. Where after his manner he slanders us as speaking of merits of supererogation simply, whereas we speak only of satisfactions, or of merits as they are taken for satisfactions to expiate the guilt of punishment, not as they are taken properly for merits of grace or glory. Then, we have already often said that not only are the satisfactions of the saints not sold by the Pontiffs, but every appearance of such sales is most severely forbidden and punished; which not even Chemnitz himself is ignorant of, who saw and read the decrees of the Pontiffs and councils on these matters, and transferred them into his own book to make it fuller. Then Chemnitz adds that the communion of saints, of which mention is made in the Creed, signifies three things. First, that the Church is a certain society of those who are sanctified by the Spirit of Christ, and members of one mystical body. Second, that in the Church certain goods divinely bestowed are common to all believers, such as faith, baptism, the remission of sins and eternal life. Third, that among believers the offices of charity ought to be common, as Paul shows by the example of the members of the human body, Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. Having set these out, he concludes that that article of faith does not speak of papal indulgences, nor of merits of supererogation, and therefore that papal indulgences are thrust into that article by a notable corruption. But neither do we say that that article of faith speaks in particular of works of supererogation or of indulgences; but we gather from the general property of the Church that one member can be helped by another, which Chemnitz himself also acknowledges in the third signification of the communion of saints. For if the offices of charity ought to be common among believers, as they are among the members of the same body, what, I ask, forbids that one should share his satisfaction with another? According to the Apostle's sentence in Galatians 6, on account of the communion of the members of the Church, one can bear another's burden; why can one not satisfy for the punishment owed by another? According to the sentence of Saint Augustine, epistle 23 and book 3 on Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 18, one can believe for another, as happens in the baptism of infants; why can one not suffer for another? But hear the same Augustine, tract 32 on John, discoursing on the communion of saints: “The eye alone,” he says, “sees in the body, but does the eye see for itself alone? It sees for the hand, and sees for the foot, and sees for the other members. For if some blow comes at the foot, the eye does not turn away so as not to look out for it. Again, the hand alone works in the body, but does it work for itself alone? It works for the eye too. For if some blow comes not at the hand but only at the face, does the hand say, I do not move, because it is not aimed at me? So the foot by walking serves all the members. The other members are silent, and the tongue speaks for all.” So he. And if these things are applied to believers, who are signified by those members of the body, it will without doubt be allowed to say that he who fasts, who gives alms, who prays, who patiently bears a persecution laid on him, who suffers chains, stripes, death for the faith of Christ, does or suffers these things not for himself alone but also for others, especially if he himself has no sins to purge by those sufferings.
Chemnitz adds in passing three other testimonies of Scripture which he affirms are wrongly brought forward by Catholics. One is Psalm 118, “I am a partaker with all them that fear thee”; and he says that word, partaker, signifies in the Hebrew and Greek a companion, and that the sense of those words is that David by public confession showed himself the companion and friend of the other godly who fear God; but that some unlearned men, I know not who, have made from it a pontifical partnership, to prove that through the trafficking in indulgences a part of the money is received from the clergy, a part from the people, a part from both. But there is no Catholic who has so expounded it as to refer that, I am a partaker, to the Pontiff who grants indulgences. For all refer it to the believers themselves, who, since they are companions and friends of the other godly believers, share also in their goods, since all things are common among companions and friends, as Saint Augustine beautifully shows in tract 32 on John, where he goes so far as to say that all things are common to godly believers, so that all can say they speak with all tongues, as those spoke of old who visibly received the Holy Spirit; since the tongues of all believers, scattered through the whole world, are common to each through the charity by which we are all one in Christ. And so he who said, “I am the companion and friend of all them that fear thee,” consequently also said, “I am a partaker of all the goods with which all who fear thee are endowed.” The second testimony is in Psalm 121, “Jerusalem, which is built as a city, which is compact together.” This testimony he says is wrongly alleged by Lindanus for the communion of saints and the treasury of indulgences, since it is agreed from the following words that the sense of those words is that Jerusalem is so built as to be a city in which there is such a joining, or association, that thither the tribes of the Lord go up, to the testimony of the Lord and to judgments. But this is an excessive lust of contradicting. For the psalm does not say that there is in Jerusalem a partaking, or association, only for going up to the testimonies of the Lord and to judgments; but it says that Jerusalem, that is, the Church, is built after the manner of a most peaceful and most harmonious city, in which there is a partaking together, that is, a partaking of all at once in one, so that all things are of all. And this the psalm proves, because thither go up the tribes of the Lord, that is, various tribes, various peoples and nations converted to the Lord, and although they are so many and so various, yet they meet in the same confession of faith and in the same laws and judgments, and so on. The third testimony he says is that of Psalm 149: “To execute vengeance upon the nations, to bind their kings with fetters,” and so on. But he ought to have written down where he read this testimony cited for indulgences. For I have read nearly all who among Catholics have written on indulgences, and have not found this place brought forward among others in any chapter; but nothing is easier than to refute arguments invented by oneself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Defenditur argumentum sextum Catholicorum. Argumentum sextum, quod est postremum apud Kemnitium, sumitur ab articulo sym¬ boli de communione sanctorum. Catholici enimexhac communione colligunt, posse sa¬ tisfactiones, quae sanctis superfuerunt, id est, quibus ipsi, ad sua peccata purganda non eguerunt, applicari aliis fidelibus, quibus propriae non sufficiunt. Adversus hoc argu¬ mentum Kemnitius nihil solidi adfert. Pri¬ mum enim explicationem odiosissimam ejus articuli nobis affingit : « Communionem, in¬ quit, sanctorum largius et latissime interpre¬ tantur de meritis operum supererogationis, quae non solis factoribus propria, sed com- V. munia sint omnibus fidelibus, collata in com¬ mune quasi Ecclesiae aerarium, ad quod solus Papa claves habeat, et pro data pecunia inde cuilibet vendat, quantum visum fuerit ». Haec ille. Ubi pro suo more calumniatur nos loqui de meritis supererogationis simpliciter, cum non loquamur nisi de satisfactionibus, sive de meritis ut accipiuntur pro satisfactio¬ nibus ad reatum poenae expiandum, non ut accipiantur proprie pro meritis gratiae vel gloriae. Deinde jam saepe diximus, non solum non vendi a Pontificibus satisfactiones san¬ ctorum, sed etiam severissime prohiberi, et puniri omnem speciem similium venditionum, quod ne ipse quidem Kemnitius ignorat, qui decreta Pontificum et conciliorum de his re¬ bus vidit, et legit, et in suum librum, ut eum pleniorem faceret, transtulit. Deinde addit Kemnitius communionem sanctorum, de qua in Symbolo fit mentio, tria significare. Pri¬ mo quod Ecclesia sit societas quaedam eo¬ rum, qui spiritu Christi sanctificantur, et membra unius corporis mystici. Secundo quod in Ecclesia sint omnibus fidelibus com¬ munia bona quaedam divinitus collata, ut fi¬ des, Baptismus, remissio peccatorum, et vi¬ ta aeterna. Tertio, quod inter fideles, debe¬ ant esse communia officia charitatis, sicut exemplo membrorum corporis humani Pau¬ lus ostendit Rom. xii. et I Cor. xn. His ex¬ positis concludit, articulum illum fidei non loqui de indulgentiis pontificiis, nec de meri¬ tis supererogationis, et ideo insigni deprava¬ tione pontificias indulgentias in illum articu¬ lum intrudi. At neque nos dicimus, articu¬ lum illum fidei, loqui in specie de operibus supererogationis. vel de indulgentiis, sed col¬ ligimus ex generali proprietate Ecclesiae pos¬ se unum membrum ab alio juvari, quod ip¬ se etiam Kemnitius agnoscit in tertia signifi¬ catione communionis sanctorum. Nam si debent officia charitatis inter fideles esse communia, ut sunt inter membra ejusdem corporis, quid, quaeso, prohibet, cur non pos¬ sit unus alteri satisfactionem suam commu¬ nicare? Potest ex Apostoli sententia ad Ga- lat vt. propter communionem membrorum Ecclesiae, alter alterius onus portare : cur non poterit alter pro poena alteri debita sa¬ tisfacere ? Potest ex sententia S. Augustini epist. 23. et lib. in. de Baptismo contra Do- natistascap. 18 unus pro alio credere ut sit in Baptismo parvulorum, cur non poterit (1) Cor. !, 3 ; II id. VIII, 7, 90 UBER II. unus pro alio pati? Sed audi eumdem Augu¬ stinum tract. 33. in Joannem de communio¬ ne sanctorum disserentem: « Oculus, inquit, solus videt in corpore, sed numquid soli sibi oculus videt; et manui videt, et pedi videt, et caeteris membris videt. Non enim si ali¬ quis ictus in pedem veniat, avertit se oculus inde ut non praecaveat. Rursus sola manus operatur in corpore, sed numquid sibi soli operatur? et oculo operatur. Nam si ictus aliquis veniens nori eat in manum, sed tan¬ tum in faciem, numquid dicit manus, non me moveo, quia non tendit ad me ? sic pes ambulando omnibus membris militat. Mem¬ bra caetera tacent, et lingua omnibus loqui¬ tur. » Haec ille. Quae sj applicentur ad fide¬ les, qui membris illis corporis significantur, licebit sine dubio dicere, eum qui jejunat, qui facit eleemosynam, qui orat, qui perse¬ cutionem injunctam patienter tolerat, qui vincula, qui verbera, qui mortem pro Chris¬ ti fide patitur, non sibi soli hsec agere vel pa¬ ti, sed etiam aliis, praesertim si ipse non habeat peccata, .quae istis passionibus pur¬ get. Adjungit obiter. Kemnitius tria alia Scri¬ pturae testimonia, quae perperam a Catholicis adduci affirmat. Unum est Ps. cx\m. Parti¬ ceps ego sum omnium timentium te (1) ; et dicit illud, particeps , significare voce bebraica, et graeca [socium) et sensum eorum verborum es¬ se, Davidem publica confessione ostendisse se socium et amicum aliorum piorum timentium Dei. Sed indoctos nescio quos inde fecisse pon¬ tificale participium, ad probandum per indul¬ gentiarum nundinationem partem pecunia¬ rum accipere a clero, partem a populo, partem ab utroque. Sed nullus Catholicus est, qui ita exposuerit ut illud particeps ego sum retulerit ad Pontificem, qui tribuit indulgentias? Om¬ nes enim referunt ad ipsos fideles, qui cum socii et amici sint aliorum fidelium piorum, participant etiam ipsorum bona, quoniam sociorum et amicorum omnia sunt commu¬ nia, ut pulchre S. Augustinus ostendit tract. 33. in Joan., ubi adeo dicit omnia esse com¬ munia piis fidelibus, ut omnes dicere possint se loqui omnibus linguis, sicut loquebantur olim, qui visibiliter accipiebant Spiritum sanctum : quoniam linguae omnium fidelium, toto terrarum orbe dispersorum, singulis sunt communes per charitatem, qua sumus om¬ nes unum in Christo. Itaque qui dixit: ((So¬ ft) Psalm. CXV1II. 63. - (2) Psalm. CXXI. 3. ■ cius et amicus sum omnium timentium te », consequenter etiam dixit : « particeps sum omnium bonorum, quibus praediti sunt om¬ nes qui timent te ». Alterum testimonium est in Ps. cxxi. Hierusalem, quae aedificatur ut ci¬ vitas , cujus participatio ejus in idipsum (2). Iloc testimonium perperam allegari dici a Lindano pro communione sanctorum, etthe- sauro indulgentiarum; cum tamen constet ex verbis sequentibus, sensum illorum ver¬ borum esse, Hierusalem ita aedificari ut sit civitas, in qua sit conjunctio, seu consociatio talis, ut illuc ascendant tribus Domini ad testi¬ monium Domini , et ad judicia. Sed haec est nimia contradicendi libido. Non enim psal¬ mus dicit esse inHierusalem participationem, sive consociationem solum ad ascendendum Od testimonia Domini, et ad judicia : sed di¬ cit, Hierusalem, id est, Ecclesiam aedificari instar civitatis pacatissimae, et concordissi¬ mae, in qua sit participatio in idipsum, id est, participatio simul omnium in unum, ut sint omnia omnium. Id vero probat psalmus, quia illuc ascendunt tribus Domini, id est, variae tribus, variae gentes, et nationes con¬ versae ad Dominum, et licet sint tam multae et tam variae, tamen conveniant in eadem confessione fidei et in iisdem legibus, et ju¬ diciis etc. Tertium testimonium dicit esse il¬ lud Ps. cxlix : Ad faciendam vindiciam in na¬ tionibus , ad alligandos reges eorum in compe¬ dibus etc. (3). Sed adscribere debuisset, ubi legerit hoc testimonium pro indulgentiis ci¬ tatum. Ego enim legi fere omnes, qui inter Catho icos de indulgentiis scripserunt, nec caput ullum inveni hunc locum inter alios adductum; nihil autem facilius est, quam ar¬ gumenta a se conficta refutare.