Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 18: Answer to the first part of the historical argument against indulgences
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 last chapter of his disputation Chemnitz weaves a very long history, to show that the origin of indulgences, such as are defended by Catholics, is new. That history contains three periods: one from the beginning of the Church to about the year 900; another from the year 900 to 1200; the third from the year 1200 to the year 1517, at which time Chemnitz boasts that indulgences were extinguished by Luther. And in the first period he contends that indulgences were nothing else than relaxations of public penance, but that those relaxations have nothing in common with papal indulgences, about which the controversy is set. But before he comes to the matter proposed, in a very long digression he relates many things about the rites of public penance, about its causes, and finally about the penitential canons, where he copies out word for word the canons of the councils of Nicaea and Ancyra, and also those which are found in Burchard and Gratian. For since Luther long ago publicly burned the canon law, and rites and laws of this kind have fallen not only out of the practice but also out of the memory and books of the Lutherans, Chemnitz wished, by the recital of these things, to vend a recondite and abstruse learning, so that he might be held more diligent and more learned than the rest. And although there are not lacking in this digression many things which could have been convicted of falsehood, yet because they do not bear on the present matter I have not thought that time should be spent in recounting or refuting them. This one thing I cannot pass over, that Chemnitz, in turning over the writings of the ancients, not rarely found what he least wanted. For although he with the other Lutherans contends that the penances of the ancients were instituted for the sake of discipline, not of satisfaction before God and the redemption or expiation of sins, yet he confesses that he has not rarely read this last too in the Fathers; and with his usual modesty and reverence toward the most ancient Fathers he reproves them not obscurely. For he speaks thus on page 308: “Nor am I unaware that the ancients sometimes commend that canonical discipline too generously and in too magnificent words: as when Tertullian says that by those satisfactions sins are expiated; Cyprian says that by them sins are redeemed, washed away, healed, and the judge appeased; Augustine that by them God is propitiated for past sins. These are such as, saving the faith (the Lutheran faith, that is), neither can nor ought to be taken and understood as they sound.” So he. But surely it was more just to correct the new errors of the Lutherans by the doctrine of the ancient Fathers than to judge of the doctrine and opinions of the ancient Fathers by those new errors. Further, that digression at last dispatched, on page 318 he sets out to prove that indulgences were formerly nothing else than moderations, relaxations and remissions of the canonical fines which were then customary in public penance. This he proves from the canons of the councils of Ancyra, Nicaea and Agde, and at length concludes in these words: “These were the relaxations, or indulgences, of the ancient Church, from which how far papal indulgences differ through every kind of cause is manifest from this narration and from the description of indulgences set out at the beginning, if a comparison be made. And therefore I set down only a bare recital, leaving to the reader the comparison of the difference.” I answer that the relaxations of canonical penance agree through every kind of cause with those indulgences which Catholics defend, and which Chemnitz above explained not faithfully but with lies mixed in. For the efficient cause, so to speak, of indulgences, according to the opinion of all Catholics, is the bishops, and above all the Roman bishop, whom Tertullian in the book on Modesty named the bishop of bishops. But it is agreed that both the ancient relaxations and the more recent indulgences are not accustomed, nor able, to be given by any but bishops. The formal cause is the deliverance itself, or judicial absolution through the ministry of the keys, from the punishments owed in the penitential court. And there is no doubt that this whole thing fits both remissions, the ancient as well as the recent. The material cause, whether it be the penitents themselves who are absolved, or the punishments about which the absolution is concerned, will be found altogether the same in both. For both the ancient and the more recent bishops grant indulgences to none but penitents, and relax no punishments but those owed in the penitential court. But that then the punishments enjoined were relaxed, while now both those enjoined and those to be enjoined, the reason is that then more severe penances were enjoined, which were often equal to the offences, while now milder ones are enjoined, which are unequal to the offences. But whether equal or unequal ones are enjoined, altogether equal ones must be borne, in this life or in the next, unless they are mercifully relaxed. And to prove this we brought forward above, in chapter 13, the testimony of Saint Cyprian, who in epistle 2 of book 4 to Antonianus writes most openly that those who have not fully satisfied in this life are to be amended and tormented by the fire of purgatory in the other life until they pay the last farthing. And so as not to repeat so many things which we have said elsewhere, I shall be content with one or two testimonies of Saint Augustine alone. For this author above the rest even the heretics of our time hold in high esteem. Saint Augustine, then, on Psalm 37, on those words, “Rebuke me not, O Lord, in thy indignation; nor chastise me in thy wrath,” says that those are rebuked in indignation to whom it is said, Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire; but those are chastised in wrath who are amended by the purgatorial fire. “Nor,” he says, “amend me in thy wrath, so that thou mayest purge me in this life, and render me such that I have no further need of the amending fire, on account of those who will be saved, yet so as by fire.” And a little after: “Why does this man ask not to be rebuked in indignation, nor amended in wrath, as if saying to God, since these things which I suffer are many and great, I beg that they may suffice; and he begins to count them up, satisfying God, offering the things he suffers, lest he suffer worse.” Do you hear, Chemnitz, that satisfaction is made to God by the punishments of this life patiently borne? Do you hear that those who are not fully purged here are to be amended in the other life by the purgatorial fire? And the reason for all this the same Augustine gives on Psalm 10, when he says: “Thou hast loved truth, since thou hast not let go unpunished the sins even of those whom thou pardonest; thou hast so extended mercy as to keep truth also. Thou pardonest the one confessing, thou pardonest, but the one punishing himself. So mercy and truth are kept.” What could be said more clearly by any scholastic Doctor? And this is also the reason why in the former book we said that both to the ancient relaxations and to the more recent indulgences the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and of the saints had to be applied, since mercy must be joined with justice in every relaxation. And so in this matter too the old indulgences and the new are alike. There remains the final cause, which at least in general was always the same: the glory of God and the benefit of the Church. For the ancients relaxed penances either when it was necessary to prepare the lapsed for martyrdom through communion and the sacraments; or when they feared that penitents would fail under the burden; or when they desired to kindle the more negligent to the pursuit of penance by this reward, as it were, of relaxation, which was offered to the more diligent; or when they wished to honour the martyrs who asked the bishops on behalf of penitents, and in that way to stir the rest of the faithful to the glory of martyrdom. In short, a reasonable cause was never lacking why those holy Fathers judged that penances enjoined should be moderated or remitted. In later times also the cause of granting an indulgence was always either the recovery of the Holy Land, or the relief of the poor, or the stirring of the faithful to prayers and works of penance, or something else similarly reasonable and pious. Nor will Chemnitz be able, however many fables invented by his own people he recites, to produce any one papal diploma where indulgences are granted for money to be counted out to the Pontiff himself, or for any other cause, whether base, or profane, or light. We have, then, that every kind of cause was the same in the ancient indulgences and the new. One difference could be brought forward, that those ancient bishops relaxed punishments to individual penitents, while now for the most part they are relaxed in common to all who have performed certain works enjoined on them. But neither is this an essential difference; nor were common indulgences of this kind lacking in ancient times. For we brought forward above certain testimonies of common indulgences granted by Sergius II, Leo III and Gregory I, who all sat before the year 1000. Nor are there lacking probable conjectures of indulgences proposed in common by Paschal I and Sylvester I.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. Respondetur ad primam partem argumenti historici contra indulgentias. In ultimo capite disputationis suae Keinni- tius historiam longissimam texit, ut origi¬ nem indulgentiarum, quales a Catholicis defunduntur, novam esse demonstret. Con¬ tinet autem ea historia tria tempora, unum ab initio Ecclesia) usque ad annum circiter 90. alterum ab anno 90. ad 1203. ab anno 1200. ad annum 1517. quo tempore, auctore Luthero extinctas indulgentias Kemnitius gloriatur. Ac primo quidem tempore indul¬ gentias nihil aliud fuisse contendit, nisi rela¬ xationes publica) poenitentia), sed eas relaxa¬ tiones nihil habere commune cum indulgen¬ tiis pontificiis, de quibus instituta, contro¬ versia est. Sed antequam ad rem propositam veniat, longissima digressione refert multa de ritibus publica) poenitentiae, de causis ejusdem, ac demum de canonibus poeniten- tialibus, ubi ad verbum describit canones conciliorum Nicaeni et Ancyrani necnon eos, qui habentur apud Burchardum et Grati¬ anum. Quoniam enim jamdudum Lutherus jus canonicum publice exussit, et ejusmodi ritus, et leges non solum de moribus, sed etiam de memoria et libris Lutheranorum exciderunt, voluit Kemnitius commemora¬ tione harum rerum doctrinam reconditam, et abstrusam venditare, ut caeleris diligen- tior, ac doctior haberetur. Et quamvis non desint in hac digressione multa, quae falsita- tis coargui potuissent, tamen quia ad rem praesentem non faciunt, -non existimavi tem¬ pus esse in his commemorandis, vel refel¬ lendis conterendum. Illud unum praeterire non possum, Kemnitium inter scripta vete¬ rum revolvenda, non raro invenisse quod minime volebat. Nam cum ipse cum Luthe- ranis caeleris contendat, poenitentias veterum disciplinae causa, non autem satisfactionis coram Deo, et redemptionis, vel expiationis peccatorum institutas, tamen fatetur se hoc etiam postremum apud Patres non raro le¬ gisse, ac pro sua modestia, et adversus anti¬ quissimos Patres reverentia, eos non obscu¬ re reprehendit. Sic enim loquitur pag. 308. « Nec vero nescius sum, veteres aliquando nimis largiter, et verbis nimium, magnificis disciplinam illam canonicam commendare : ut quod Tertullianus dicit, satisfactionibus illis peccata expiari : Cyprianus illis dicit peccata redimi, ablui, sanari, et judicem placari : Augustinus Deum illis de peccatis praeteritis propitiari. Ea talia sunt, qua) sal¬ va, fide (Lutherana videlicet) nec possunt, nec debent, sicut sonant, accipi, et intelli - gi ». Haec ille. Sed profecto justius erat no¬ vos Lutheranorum errores ex doctrina vete¬ rum Patrum corrigere, quam ex novis istis erroribus de veterum Patrum doctrina, et sententiis judicare. Porro digressione illa aliquando expedita pag. 318. aggreditur ad probandum,- indulgentias olim nihil aliud fuisse , nisi moderationes , relaxationes , et remissiones muletarum canonicarum, quae in publica poenitentia usitata) tunc erant. Id vero probat ex canonibus conciliorum An¬ cyrani, Nicaeni, et Agatheosis, et tandem his verbis concludit : « 17 ae fuerunt veteres Ec¬ clesiae, sive relaxationes, sive indulgentiae, a quibus quemadmodum pontificiae indulgen¬ tiae per omnia genera causarum diversae sint, ex hac narratione, et ex descriptione indul¬ gentiarum in principio exposita, si fiat colla¬ tio manifestum est. Atque ideo nudam tan¬ tum pono recitationem, relinquens lectori collationem diversitatis » . Respondeo : Rela¬ tiones poenitentiae canonicae per omnia ge¬ nera causarum cum iis indulgentiis conveni¬ re, quas Catholici defendunt, et quas Kem¬ nitius supra non fideliter, sed admixtis men¬ daciis explicavit. Causa enim voluti efficiens indulgentiarum juxta Catholicorum omnium sententiam, Episcopi sunt, ac potissimum Romanus Episcopus, quem Episcopum Epi¬ scoporum Tertullianus in libro de Pudicitia nominavit. Constat autem tum veteres rela¬ xationes, tum recentiores indulgentias non ab aliis quam ab Episcopis dari solere, vel posse. Causa formulis est ipsa liberatio, sive judicialis absolutio per ministerium clavium a pcenis in foro pcenitentiario debitis. Quod totum in utrasque remissiones tam veteres, quam recentes convenire non dubium est. Causa materialis, sive sint ipsi poenitentes, qui absolvuntur, sive poenae circa quas ver¬ satur absolutio , eadem omnino utrobique reperietur. Nam et veteres, ct recentiores Episcopi, nonaliis quam poenitentibus indul¬ gentias tribuunt, nec alias poenas, quam in foro pcenitentiario debitas relaxant. Quod autem tunc relaxarentur poena) injunctae , nunc autem tum injunctae, tum injungenda1, ratio est, quondam tunc injungebantur seve¬ riores poenitentia), qua) saepe delictis aequales 94 LIBER II. erant, nunc autem injunguntur mitiores, quae delictis impares sunt. Sed sive pares, sive impares injungantur, omnino pares in hac vita, vel in alia perferendae sunt , nisi mise¬ ricorditer relaxentur. Atque ad hoc proban¬ dum adduximus supra cap. 13. testimonium S. Cypriani qui in epist 2. lib. iv, ad Anto¬ nianum, apertissime scribit, eos, qui in hac vita non plene satisfecerunt, emendandos et cruciandos igne purgatorii in alia vita, donec reddant novissimum quadrantem. Ac ut non repetam tam multa, quae alibi diximus, unius S. Augustini uno vel altero testimonio conten¬ tus ero. Hunc enim auctorem praeter caete- ros, etiam haeretici nostri temporis magni faciunt. Igitur S. Augustinus in Psal xxxvii. in illa verba: Domine , ne in furore tuo arguas me , neque in ira tua corripias me, illos dicit argui in furore, quibus dicitur : Ite maledi¬ cti in ignem aeternum ; illos autem corripi in ira, qui emendantur igne purgatorio. «Ne¬ que, inquit, in ira tua emendes me, ut in hac vita purges me, et talem me reddas, cui jam emendatorio igne non opus sit, propter illos, qui salvi erunt, sic tamen quasi per ignem». Et paulo post : « Quare petit iste, ne in indi¬ gnatione arguatur, neque in ira emendetur, tamquam dicens Deo, quoniam ista, quse patior, multa sunt, magna sunt, quseso ut sufficiant, et incipit illa numerare satisfaciens Deo, offerens illa, quae patitur, ne pejora patiatur ». Audisne, Kemniti, per poenas hujus vitae patienter toleratas satisfieri Deo? Audis, eos, qui hic non plene purgantur in alia vita igne purgatorio emendandos ? et rationem horum omnium idem Augustinus reddit in Psal. x. cum ait : « Veritatem di- lexisti, quoniam impunita peccata etiam eo¬ rum, quibus ignoscis, non dimisisti ; sic pro¬ rogasti misericordiam, ut servares et verita¬ tem. Ignoscis confitenti, ignoscis, sed se ipsum punienti. Sic servatur misericordia, et veritas ». Quid clarius dici potuit ab ullo scholastico Docto re ? Atque haec est etiam causa, cur in priore libro dixerimus, tum ad veteres relaxationes, tum ad recentiores in¬ dulgentias thesaurum satisfactionum Christi, et sanctorum applicandum fuisse, quoniam misericordia cum justitia in omnium relaxa¬ tione conjungenda est. Itaque etiam in hac re similes sunt indulgentiae veteres, et novae. Restat causa finalis, quae saltem in genere semper eadem fuit, gloria Dei, et utilitas Ecclesiae. Nam antiqui poenitentias relaxa¬ bant , vel quando necesse erat lapsos ad Martyrium per communionem et sacramenta praeparare, vel quando timebant, ne pceni- tentes sub onere deficerent : vel quando ne- gligentiores ad studium poenitentiae accen¬ dere cupiebant, hoc veluti praemio relaxa¬ tionis, quod diligentioribus praebebatur, vel quando martyres, qui pro poenitentibus Epi¬ scopos rogabant, honorare, et eo modo reli¬ quos fideles ad martyrii gloriam provocare volebant. Denique numquam deerat rationa¬ bilis causa cur sancti illi Patres poenitentias injunctas moderandas, vel remittendas judi¬ carent. Posterioribus quoque temporibus semper causa indulgentiae concedendae, vel fuit recuperatio terrae sanctae, vel subventio pauperum, vel excitatio fidelium ad preces, et opera poenitentiae, vel alia similis rationa¬ bilis, et pia. Neque poterit Kemnitius, quam¬ vis multas fabulas a suis confictas recitet, producere unum aliquod pontificium diplo¬ ma, ubi pro pecunia ipsi Pontifici numeran¬ da ;/vel alia, sive turpi, sive profana, sive levi causa indulgentiae concedantur. Habe¬ mus igitur omnia genera causarum eadem fuisse in indulgentiis antiquis et novis. Unum discrimen in medium adferri posset, quod veteres illi Episcopi singulis poenitentibus poenas relaxabant, nunc autem plerumque in communi omnibus relaxantur, qui certa opera sibi injuncta praestiterint. Sed neque est hoc essentiale discrimen ; neque ejusmo¬ di communes indulgentiae antiquis tempori¬ bus defuerunt. Attulimus enim supra certa testimonia de indulgentiis communibus a Sergio II, Leone III, et Gregorio I concessis ; qui omnes ante annuin millesimum sederunt. Nec desunt probabiles conjecturae de indul¬ gentiis a Paschali l, et Sylvestro I in com¬ mune propositis. i