Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 17: Answer to chapter 4 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 fourth chapter of his disputation Chemnitz sets out to prove that papal indulgences were unknown to the ancient Church for 1200 years. This he proves, first, by the testimony of Durandus, Saint Antoninus and Rochester, who confess it. Next, because no mention of indulgences is found in Anselm, Rupert, Bernard, Peter Lombard and Gratian, who immediately preceded the year 1200. Last, because the ancient Fathers, Chrysostom, Nyssen, Augustine, Bernard and Peter Lombard, confuted in their writings indulgences not yet born. But to begin from the first: indulgences are not therefore not ancient because two or three Catholics did not read of them in the books of the ancients. Nor do those three authors deny that indulgences were known in the time of Anselm, Bernard, Rupert, Peter Lombard and Gratian, as Chemnitz says, but in the time of Jerome and Augustine and the other ancients who flourished in the first five hundred years. And so that all may understand that Chemnitz openly lies: Alexander, the third of that name, Supreme Pontiff, began to sit in the year of the Lord 1159. That Pontiff, writing in an epistle to the Archbishop of Canterbury, answers a question put to him, whether those who are not subject to a certain bishop can gain the indulgences granted by that bishop; and he says they cannot, because no one can be bound or loosed except by his own judge; and this rescript is found in the law, chapter Quod autem, on penances and remissions. But we see in this place mention of indulgence as of a thing not then first instituted, but customary and received. Therefore Chemnitz lies on page 274 when he speaks thus: “In this disputation on indulgences they can bring forward neither any testimonies of the Fathers nor any examples of the ancient Church, that such a doctrine or such a use of such indulgences ever existed at any time in the ancient Church up to 1200 years after the birth of Christ.” Pope Eugene III began to sit in the year 1145. He by general letters granted an indulgence to those taking the Cross and setting out for the holy war, and enjoined on Saint Bernard to preach those indulgences to the peoples and to kindle them to that war. Saint Bernard obeyed the Pontiff, and confirmed his preaching with innumerable and very great miracles, as he himself modestly indicates at the beginning of book 2 on Consideration; but the author of his life narrates the whole matter at length in book 3, chapter 4. Therefore Chemnitz lies both when he says that indulgences were not known before the year 1200, and when he asserts that no mention of this matter exists in Bernard; and since Peter Lombard and Gratian flourished in the same century, it cannot be but that they too knew of indulgences. Pope Paschal II began to sit in the year 1099, and in a certain Lateran council held in the year 1116 granted an indulgence of forty days to those who had visited the thresholds of the Apostles, as Conrad, Abbot of Ursperg, witnesses in his Chronicle; and since at that time Rupert, Abbot of Deutz, flourished, Chemnitz lies who says that in Rupert's time papal indulgences had not yet begun to become known to the world, nor became known before the year 1200. Pope Urban II began to sit in the year 1088, and in his time Saint Anselm flourished. But the same Conrad, Abbot of Ursperg, writes in the Chronicle of the year 1099 that the said Urban in the council of Clermont granted an indulgence to all who of their own accord took up arms against the eastern infidels, of which matter many others make mention. Chemnitz lies, then, when he so boldly writes that in the time of Saint Anselm, and before the year 1200, indulgences were not known. Why should we now add Gregory VII, who began to sit in the year 1073, and in his epistles very frequently grants indulgences; Sergius II, who began to sit in the year 844, and gave an indulgence to those going to the church of Saint Martin in the Hills, the memorial of which exists cut in a marble stone in most ancient letters; and Leo III, who began to sit in the year 796, and established various indulgences in many places in Germany itself, as Saint Ludger witnesses in the life of Saint Swithbert? Is not Chemnitz evidently convicted of lying, who wishes to seem to have read all the ancient histories, and yet is not afraid to affirm that before the year 1200 papal indulgences were unknown to the world? Nor ought it to seem strange if we do not have many older authors who make mention of these things, since there are very many things in the Church which are preserved by use alone, without writings. Yet there exist at Rome in the most ancient churches memorials of indulgences granted by many Pontiffs, and even by Saint Sylvester himself, who flourished 1200 years ago. But what we have said seems to suffice for confuting the lies of Chemnitz.
I come now to the testimonies of ancient writers which Chemnitz brings forward against indulgences not yet born. First, then, he brings forward Peter Lombard, who in book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 18, says that God then covers the sins of penitents when he does not reserve them for punishment, but remits the debt of punishment; and he proves it from Augustine's sentence in the explanation of Psalm 32. But in the same place is the solution of this objection. For Peter Lombard signifies that what is said, that God covers sins when he does not reserve them for punishment, is to be understood of eternal punishment. “And therefore,” he says, “as inwardly by his grace he enlightens the soul, so at the same time he releases the debt of eternal death. For he himself, through himself, covers the sins of penitents; and then he covers them, when he does not reserve them for punishment.” And a little below: “So then,” he says, “he says they are covered by God, so that God does not see them, that is, punish them eternally.” But that temporal punishment remains after fault is remitted, to be paid in this life or in purgatory, Peter Lombard teaches in distinction 20, letter B, in these words: “Those,” he says, “who depart before the completion of penance will feel the purgatorial fire, and will be punished more heavily than if they had completed their penance here. For it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For God, since he is merciful and just, out of mercy pardons the penitent, not reserving the sin for eternal punishment; but out of justice he does not let the offence go unpunished; for either man punishes or God,” and so on. And a little after, letter D, he teaches that the penitent, especially after death, can be helped by the satisfactions of others through prayers and alms. And so Peter Lombard affirms in express words all those things which Chemnitz confesses are the foundations of indulgences: namely purgatory, the guilt of punishment after fault is remitted, and the communication of another's satisfaction.
In the second place Chemnitz brings forward Chrysostom, homily 1 on the epistle to Philemon, where we read that to obtain pardon for our sins there is no need either to spend money or to travel by pilgrimage to distant places. Augustine has the same sentiment in the sermon on the Martyrs: “God did not say, go into the East and seek justice, sail as far as the West that you may receive indulgence; forgive your enemy, and it shall be forgiven you,” and so on. Bernard also, sermon 1 on Advent: “You need not, O man, cross the seas, nor pierce the clouds, nor pass the Alps; no long road is shown you; go to meet your God as far as your own self.” But these testimonies accomplish nothing. For first, they speak of the justification of the ungodly and the remission of fault, not of the guilt of punishment alone, of which we speak. Then, they only prove that neither pilgrimage nor alms is absolutely necessary for the remission of sins, for otherwise the poor and the sick would lack all hope; and we know well enough that a man can, by inward conversion to God, be so vehemently kindled to the love of God and to sorrow for his sins, with the purpose of confession, that he at once receives the remission of all faults and punishments. But pilgrimages and alms are not therefore useless, and this alone we contend against the heretics. And to pass over speaking of alms, of whose usefulness for redeeming sins the books of the Fathers are full, and especially of Chrysostom and Augustine, as we showed in the book on almsgiving, which is the last in our Controversies: certainly the same Chrysostom wonderfully praises pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs in homily 66 to the people of Antioch. Saint Augustine also, in epistle 137 to the clergy and people of Hippo, writes that he was the author of certain persons undertaking a pilgrimage to holy places. Finally Saint Bernard confuted the Petrobrusian heretics, who among other errors had this one too, that they censured the pilgrimages of the faithful to holy places. See the life of Saint Bernard, book 3, chapter 3.
Third, Chemnitz brings forward Chrysostom, homily 38 on Matthew, where he says that those make the temple of God a den of thieves who pursue earthly gains, and that Christ daily enters the temple of God and casts out all who sell the grace of God. But to what end do these things tend? Do all who censure greed in priests at once also censure indulgences? Have we not most often repeated that those who in any way make a trade of indulgences are not only not approved by the Supreme Pontiffs, but most greatly disapproved, condemned and punished?
Chemnitz adds last that he has shown in another place that Gregory of Nyssa set a whole oration against the persuasion of pilgrimages to the places of Jerusalem. To whom we answer that we too in another place, that is, book 3 on the veneration of the saints, chapter 8, have shown by testimonies of Scripture and of the ancient Fathers, and by other arguments besides, that pilgrimages to holy places are pious, pleasing to God, and most useful to us; and that Gregory of Nyssa does not censure pilgrimages absolutely, but teaches that they are not suitable for certain persons, such as monks and nuns, since quiet and solitude suit their purpose better; although it is also not altogether certain whether that oration is Gregory's.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Respondetur ad cap. 4. disputationis Kemnitii. In quarto capite disputationis suae Kemni¬ tius probare aggreditur indulgentias pontifi¬ cias veteri Ecclesiae per annos 1200. fuisse incognitas. Id vero probat primo testimonio Durandi. S. Antonini, et Roffensis, qui id fa¬ tentur. Deinde quia nulla invenitur mentio indulgentiarum apud Anselmum, Rupertum, Bernardum, Petrum Lombardum, et Gra¬ tianum, qui proxime praecesserunt annum (3) Psal. CXLIX. 7. CAPUT XVII. 91 millesimum ducentessimum. Postremo, quia veteres Patres, Chrysostomus, Nysssenus, Augustinus, Bernardus, et Petrus Lombar- dus, indulgentias, nondum natas scriptis su¬ is confutarunt. Sed ut a primo incipiamus, non ideo indulgentiae non sunt antiquae, quia duo, vel tres ex Catholicis id non legerunt in veterum libris. Neque tres isti auctores negant indulgentias fuisse cognitas tempore Anselmi, Bernardi, Ruperti, Petri Lombardi, et Gratiani, ut Kemnitius dicit, sed tempore Hieronymi, et Augustini, et aliorum veterum, qui primis quingentis annis floruerunt. Ac ut omnes intelligant Kernnitium aperte mentiri, Alexander ejus nominis tertius, Pontifex Maximus, sedere coepit anno Domini 1159. Is vero Pontifex in epist. ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem scribens, respondet quaestio¬ ni sibi propositae, an indulgentias ab aliquo Episcopo concessas, lucrari possint ii, qui non sunt eidem Episcopo subjecti : -ac dicit non posse, quia nemo potest nisi a suo judice ligari, vel solvi, et habetur hoc rescriptum in Jure, cap. Quod autem, de poenit. etremiss. Videmus autem hoc loco mentionem indul¬ gentiae, ut rei non tunc primum institutae, sed usitatae, et receptae. Igitur mentitur Kem¬ nitius pag. 274. cum sic loquitur : « In hac de indulgentiis disputatione non possunt vel ulla Patrum testimonia, vel ulla veteris Ec¬ clesiae exempla proferre, quod talis vel do¬ ctrina, vel usus talium indulgentiarum ullo unquam tempore usque ad annos post natum Christum mille ducentos in veteri Ecclesia fuerit ». Euge nius 111 Pontifex sedere coepit anno 1145. Is autem per litteras generales concessit indulgentiam accipientibus Cru¬ cem, et proficiscentibus ad bellum sacrum ; et S. Bernardo injunxit, ut eas indulgentias praedicaret populis, eosque ad bellum illud accenderet. Paruit S. Bernardus Pontifici, et praedicationem suam innumerabilibus, et maximis miraculis confirmavit ut ipse mo¬ deste indicat initio libri n. de Considerat, sed copiosus rem totam narrat auctor vitse ipsius lib. in. cap. 4. Ergo mentitur Kemni¬ tius tum cum ait ante annum 1200. non fuisse notas indulgentias, tum cum apud Ber- nardum nullam hujus rei mentionem exstare confirmat, et cum Petrus Lombardus, et Gratianus eodem sseculo floruerint, fieri non potest, quin ipsi quoque indulgentias nove¬ rint. Paschalis II Pontifex sedere empit an¬ no 1099. et in concilio quodam Lateranensi anno 1116. celebrato, indulgentias quadra¬ ginta dierum concessit iis, qui limina Apo¬ stolorum visitaverant, ut Conradus Abbas Urspergensis in Chronico suo testatur ; et quoniam eo tempore florebat Rupertus Ab¬ bas Tuitiensis : mentitur Kemnitius, qui dicit, tempore Ruperti nondum indulgentias Pon¬ tificias orbi terrarum innotescere coepisse, nec ante annum 1200. innotuisse. Urbanus II Pontifex sedere coepit anno 1088. et ejus tempore S. Anselmus floruit. Scribit autem idem Conradus Abbas Urspergensis in Chro¬ nico anni 1099. praedictum Urbanum incon¬ cilio Claramontano indulgentiam concessisse omnibus, qui sponte adversus infideles Ori¬ entales arma sumebant, cujus rei multi alii meminerunt. Mentitur igitur Kemnitius, cum tam audacter scribit, tempore S. Anselmi, et ante annum 1200. indulgentias cognitas non fuisse. Quid nunc addamus Gregorium VII qui sedere coepit arino 1073, et in Epi¬ stolis suis frequentissime concedit indulgen¬ tias. Sergium II qui sedere coepit anno 844, et indulgentiam tribuit adeuntibus Ecclesiam S. Martini in montibus, cujus memoria ex¬ stat incisa in lapide marmoreo litteris vetus¬ tissimis : et Leonem III qui sedere coepit an¬ no 796. et indulgentias varias multis in locis in ipsa Germania constituit, teste S. Ludgero in vita S. Suiberti? An non evidenter men¬ dacii Kemnitius convincitur, qui veteres om¬ nes historias legisse videri vult ; et tamen affirmare non veretur ante annum 1200. isno- O tas fuisse orbi terrarum indulgentias Ponti¬ ficias? Neque mirum videri debet, si aucto¬ res antiquiores non multos habemus, qui ha¬ rum rerum mentionem faciant, quoniam plu¬ rima sunt in Ecclesia, quae solo usu, sine lit¬ teris conservantur. Exstant tamen Romae in antiquissimis Ecclesiis memoriae indulgentia¬ rum, a multis Pontificibus, et ab ipso etiam S. Sylvestro, qui ante annos 1200. floruit, concessarum. Sed ea, quae dicimus ad men¬ dacia Kemnitii confutanda sufficere viden¬ tur. Venio nunc ad testimonia veterum scripto¬ rum, quse profert Kemnitius adversus indul¬ gentias nondum natas. Primo igitur adducit Petrum Lombardum, qui lib. iv. sent. dist. 18. dicit Deum tunc tegere pcenitentium pec¬ cata, quando ad poenam non reservat; sed debitum poenae remittit, idque probat ex Au¬ gustini sententia in explicatione psalmi xxxii. Sed in eodem loco solutio est hujus objectionis. Significat enim Petrus Lombar¬ dus de poena aeterna intelligendum esse, quod 92 UBER II. dicitur, Deum tegere peccata, cum ea non reservat ad poenam. « Et ideo, inquit, sicut interius gratia sua animam illuminat, ita et simul debitum aeternae mortis relaxat. Ipse enim per seipsum peccata p oenitentium te¬ git; et tunc tegit, quando ad poenam non reservat. » Et paulo infra: « Ita ergo, inquit, dicit a Deo tecta, ut Deus non videat, id est, aeternaliter puniat » . Quod autem poena tem¬ poralis remaneat post remissam culpam, in hac vita, vel in purgatorio luenda, docet Pe¬ trus Lombardus dist. 20. Iit. B, his verbis: « Qui, inquit, ante expletionem poenitentiae discesserint, ignem purgatorium sentient, et gravius punientur, quam si hic implessent poenitentiam. Horrendum enim est incidere in manus Dei viventis. Deus enim cum sit misericors'et justus, ex misericordia pceni- tenti ignoscit, non reservans peccatum ad poenam aeternam: ex justitia vero impuni¬ tum non dimittit delictum, aut enim punit homo aut Deus etc. » Et paulo post lit. D, docet posse pcenitentem, praesertim post mortem juvari aliorum satisfactionibus per orationes et eleemosynas. Itaque Petrus Lombardus illa omnia disertis verbis affirmat, quae fundamenta esse indulgentiarum Kem- nifcius fatetur : videlicet purgatorium, poenae reatum post culpam remissam, et communi¬ cationem satisfactionis alienae. Secundo loco adducit Kemnitius Ghryso- stomum homil. 1 in epist. ad Philemonem, ubi legimus, ad impetrandam peccatis no¬ stris veniam, non opus esse vel pecunias impendere, vel peregrinando ad loca lon¬ ginqua transire. Eamdem sententiam habet Augustinus in serm. de Martyribus : « Non dixit Deus, vade in Orientem et quaero justi¬ tiam, naviga usque in Occidentem, ut acci¬ pias indulgentiam; dimitte inimico tuo, et dimittetur tibi, etc. » Bernardus etiam serm. 1. de Adventu : « Non te oportet, o homo, maria transfretare, non penetrare nubes, non transalpinare necesse est, non grandis tibi ostenditur via, usque ad temetipsum occurre Deo tuo » . Sed haec testimonia nihil efficiunt. Primum enim loquuntur de justi¬ ficatione impii, ac remissione culpae, non de solo reatu peenai de quo nos loquimur. Deinde solum probant, non esse absolute necessariam ad remissionem peccatorum vel peregrinationem, vel eleemosynam, alioqui enim pauperes et aegrotantes spe omni care¬ rent ; et satis novimus, posse hominem per internam conversionem ad Deum ita vehe¬ menter accendi in amorem Dei, et de pec¬ catis suis dolorem, cum proposito confessio¬ nis, ut continuo recipiat remissionem om¬ nium culparum, et poenarum. Sed non ideo sunt inutiles peregrinationes, et eleemosynae, et hoc solum contendimus adversus haereti¬ cos. Ac ut omittam de eleemosynis dicere, de quorum utilitate ad redimenda peccata pleni. sunt libri Patrum, ac praesertim Chry- sostomi, et Augustini, et nos ostendimus in lib. de eleemosyna, qui est postremus in controversiis nostris. Certe idem Chrysosto- mus mirifice laudat peregrinationes ad se¬ pulcra Martyrum in homil. G6. ad populum Antiochenum. Sanctus etiam Augustinus in epist. 137. ad Clerum et populum Hippo¬ nensem scribit, se auctorem fuisse, ut qui¬ dam ad loca sancta peregrinationem susci¬ perent. Denique S. Bernardus Petrobrusia- nos haereticos confutavit, qui praeter alios errores, hunc etiam habebant, ut peregrina¬ tiones fidelium ad Loca Sancta reprehende¬ rent. Yide vitam S. Bernardi lib. m. cap. 3. Tertio Kemnitius adducit Chrysostomum hom. 38. in Matthaeum, ubi dicit, eos de templo Dei speluncam latronum facere, qui lucra terrena sectantur : et Christum quoti¬ die intrare templum Der, et ejicere omnes vendentes gratiam Dei. Sed quorsum haec tendunt ? An torte omnes, qui avaritiam in sacerdotibus reprehendunt, continuo etiam indulgentias reprehendunt ? An non saepis¬ sime repetivimus, non solum non probari. Summis Pontificibus eos, qui quoquomodo ex indulgentiis negotiationem faciunt, sed maxime improbari, damnari, puniri. Addit ultimo Kemnitius, se alio in loco demonstrasse, Gregorium Nyssenum inte¬ gram orationem opposuisse persuasioni de peregrinationibus ad loca Hierosolymitana. Cui respondemus, nos quoque alio in loco, id est, lib. m. de cultu Sanctorum cap 8. demonstrasse testimoniis Scripturae et vete¬ rum Patrum necnon argumentis aliis pere¬ grinationes ad loca sancta pias et Deo gra¬ tias, et nobis utilissimas esse, Gregorium vero Nyssenum non reprehendere peregri¬ nationes absolute sed docere quibusdam per¬ sonis, ut monachis et sanctimonialibus, non convenire, cum eorum proposito magis con¬ veniat quies et solitudo ; quamvis etiam non sit omnino certum, an ea oratio Gregorii sit. CAPUT XVIII. 93