Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 20: Answer to the third 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).
The last part of the history contains those times in which Chemnitz tries to show that the indulgences which are now received in use had their origin. And first he confesses, what is most true, and an argument of the highest antiquity, that it is nowhere recorded at what time indulgences began. Then he tries to refute what Catholics say, that in the time of Saint Gregory, that is, in the year of the Lord 600, indulgences were already in use in the Church, since ancient tradition holds that indulgences were added to the stations by Saint Gregory himself. Chemnitz refutes that opinion of Catholics by this argument alone, that nothing about this matter is found in the writings of Saint Gregory or in the histories of those times. But the argument has no force, since it is agreed that grants of this kind are preserved not by books but by use and custom. For even of the indulgences established by Leo III in so many places in Germany nothing exists in his epistles, of which he wrote a good many, nor in the universal histories of those times; and if the occasion had not arisen for Saint Ludger to undertake writing the life of Saint Swithbert, we would know indeed that indulgences granted by Leo III are held at Aachen and Cologne, but we could prove it by no certain witness. In the same way, if Saint Innocent I had not had the necessity of writing back to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio, who asked whether a bishop ought to confer the sacrament of extreme unction, or only a priest, we certainly would have no testimony of any author of that time for that sacrament. For of those things which are in the common use of the faithful the Fathers did not write unless forced by heretics, or by some other similar necessity. And so, to prove that indulgences were joined to the stations by Saint Gregory, the affirmation of Saint Thomas and of William of Auxerre, most weighty men, ought to avail much more than the silence of all others. For that something is true, even if it is not written by many, can easily be believed. But that what is affirmed by most weighty men, and most worthy of trust, is false ought not easily to be believed. In passing, Chemnitz, having named the stations, wished to add what the meaning of that word is; and because, he says, standing they heard the word and made prayers, they were called stations. But he strays far from the truth. For stations were so called by a military word, being certain spiritual watches of the Church, in which, either on account of an imminent persecution or for another cause, she persevered in fastings and prayer until the ninth hour of the day, or even until evening; for the fast and the station were ended together. And as soldiers keeping guard on watch are said to be on station, whether they stand, or sit, or walk about, so too Christians were said to keep a station when they persevered in prayer and fasting all day, whether standing, or prostrate on the ground, or on their knees, or praying to the Lord in any other way. On which matter see Tertullian in the book on flight in persecution, in the book on fasting, and in the book on prayer, and what we wrote in book 2 on good works in particular, chapter 22.
Then Chemnitz adds that nothing about indulgences is found in the writings of Burchard, Gratian and Peter Lombard, and from this concludes that indulgences had their rise around the year of the Lord 1200; to which argument we answered above, in chapter 17, where we showed from certain witnesses that indulgences are much older. And that you may see, reader, how true the proverb is that a liar must have a good memory: Chemnitz wrote above, page 274, these words: “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.” And he repeats the same on page 275, affirming that no author wrote about indulgences before the year of the Lord 1200; and yet on page 332 Chemnitz writes that Pope Alexander III, around the year of the Lord 1170, wrote about the indulgences which were given at the dedications of churches, or to those contributing something to the building of bridges. Nor did Alexander then institute indulgences, but he speaks of a thing known, customary and most frequent; and below, page 375, the same Chemnitz counts the Waldensians among those who rejected and attacked indulgences such as the Church now has; but it is agreed that the Waldensians began to preach their errors around the same year 1170. But how do these things hang together, that the origin of indulgences is to be referred (on Chemnitz's authority) to the year 1200, and yet on the same authority in the year 1170 Alexander III issues rescripts about indulgences long since introduced, and the Waldensian heretics condemn and reject indulgences formerly received in the Church? Therefore not only by the witnesses produced by us in chapter 17, but also on the witness of Chemnitz himself, the opinion of the same Chemnitz about the novelty of indulgences is most openly refuted.
These things handled, Chemnitz sets out on a very long narration about the questions of the scholastics concerning indulgences, about the jubilees accustomed to be celebrated in the Church, about the indulgences of the several churches of the city of Rome, and finally about the contention of Luther and Tetzel over indulgences; which need no refutation, but only a noting of the lies and calumnies. So on page 340, after Chemnitz had recited the decree of the Council of Vienne against the abuses of the pardon-sellers, he added these words: “But the Pontiffs at once, by the very fact, added an interpretation, that these are damnable abuses, to be abolished, if they are done by the collectors of hospitals; but if such indulgences are granted by the Roman Pontiffs, and in that manner, it is a most pious work.” But that this is a manifest lie anyone who cares to read that constitution will understand from the constitution itself. For that constitution contains three paragraphs: in the first it is provided that collectors be not admitted unless they show letters of the Apostolic See or of the diocesan bishop. In the second the abuses of the collectors are narrated, and simply condemned and forbidden, nor is any declaration added that if such indulgences, and in that manner, are granted by the Pontiff it is a most pious work. In the third, penalties are decreed for collectors who have not obeyed the command of their superior; nor in this place either is any such declaration added as Chemnitz invented. Those words of Chemnitz, then: “And indeed those abuses in indulgences might seem to be generally censured, condemned and abolished by that Clementine. But the Pontiffs at once, by the very fact, added an interpretation, that these are damnable abuses, to be abolished, if they are done by the collectors of hospitals; but if such indulgences are granted by the Roman Pontiffs, and in that manner, it is a most pious work,” contain a lie and a most open imposture; for nowhere is such an interpretation found in that whole constitution, nor can it be found, because it would without doubt contradict the constitution itself, in which not only are those abuses absolutely and simply abolished, but also all privileges granted in any way to collectors concerning the matter of those abuses are revoked, so that none of the things in which the abuses consist was lawful for them to practise, not even under the pretext of apostolic letters. But what is said at the beginning of the constitution, that collectors be not admitted unless they have shown letters of the Apostolic See or of their own bishop, is not what Chemnitz reproves; both because this was not added after the abuses were condemned, but set before the condemnation, and because in this part the matter is not abuses, but the simple proposing of indulgences and the asking of charitable aid, as the constitution itself puts it.
The same Chemnitz, page 353, says many things about the sale of indulgences in the time of Paul II and Sixtus IV, and adds, lest he seem to have invented them out of his own head: “These things exist in the extravagants of Paul II and Sixtus IV.” But I, reading and rereading those extravagants again and again, find not even any trace of those sales. But whoever is versed in the writings of Chemnitz, and knows how boldly and without any shame he is accustomed to lie, will not wonder that in this matter, hateful beyond all others among the Lutherans, he altogether loosened the reins of the impudence of lying.
Again, page 362, he writes down the narration of the indulgence divinely granted at the prayers of Saint Francis to those going to the church of Saint Mary of the Angels, which he himself calls a most impudent fable; and truly it is in part a fable, namely as to those things which Chemnitz himself mixed in. For among other things he writes that Saint Francis said to Honorius the Supreme Pontiff that the seals of the bull of that indulgence were his stigmata. But no author reports this except Chemnitz, and it is not only not true but not even likely, both because Saint Francis had not yet had the stigmata when that indulgence was granted, and because even if he had, a man of the utmost humility would not in any way have boasted of them. Further, to discredit that narration Chemnitz brings forward nothing at all except his own judgment; but to confirm it there are witnesses of that time who wrote the history, as can be learned from the beginning of the second book of the Chronicles of the Order of Saint Francis; there is besides the testimony of Saint Bernardine, volume 1, sermon 9, which is on the Gospel of the first Sunday of Lent, a man most famous for holiness, learning and miracles. There is the testimony of Saint Antoninus, part 3 of the historical Summa, title 24, chapter 14, paragraph 3, who was also a learned and most holy man. There is the most crowded concourse of peoples to that church on the first of August, on which day alone the divinely granted indulgence can be obtained. There are, finally, not a few signs and prodigies, which the chronicle already cited witnesses were wrought to establish the truth of that indulgence. But not without cause does Chemnitz wish this history to be held false and fabulous, since by that history three Catholic doctrines are confirmed: one about indulgences, another about the Supreme Pontiff, the third about confession. For at the prayers of Saint Francis Christ himself gave a plenary indulgence, but gave it only through the ministry of his Vicar the Supreme Pontiff, and gave it only to those cleansed from fault through contrition and confession and visiting that church.
The same Chemnitz, page 364, begins to narrate the various indulgences which are held in the churches of the city of Rome, which he himself, from uncertain authors and obscure little books, reckons to amount to many hundreds of thousands of years; and since it is well enough agreed that neither purgatory nor the world itself will last so long, he says that in his German simplicity he cannot follow the reckoning of the papal calculation, and asks the Romanists not to be reluctant to explain this mystery. But first he must be warned that if he desires to know the true histories of the Roman indulgences he should seek them not from enemies of the Church, such as was that Wessel whom he cites so often, nor from certain obscure little books, one of which he says he saw printed at Nuremberg, written in German, enlarged about the indulgences of the Roman stations, whereas earlier it had been published at Rome in Latin and more briefly; but from the diplomas of the Pontiffs, or from the authentic records of the churches, or at least from certain, weighty, learned, approved authors. For it cannot be doubted that many things either corrupted or invented are read in little books of that kind, uncertain and anonymous, such as that Pope Gregory, when he dedicated the Lateran church a second time, gave indulgences of as many days as drops fall if it rains continuously for three days and nights. For this fable, as Chemnitz reported it on page 367, he could easily by himself have judged to be truly a fable, since it is not written down which Gregory that was, when he dedicated that church, who is the witness of those things; nor in certain and approved histories does any trace of that dedication or indulgence exist. But if perhaps it could be proved (for that, as I said, I have not read in approved authors) that many thousands of days or years of indulgence were sometimes granted, let him read what we wrote above in the former book, chapter 9, and he will understand the mystery of that calculation which he asks to have explained to him.
The same Chemnitz, page 372, promises that he will show that in all times there were some who contradicted the impostures of indulgences; and first indeed he brings forward the general councils of the Lateran and of Vienne, by which the abuses and frauds of the pardon-sellers are condemned. But because he understood that in these councils the frauds and abuses are so condemned that the true and lawful use of indulgences is confirmed and approved, he passes to those who altogether despised or reproved indulgences. He brings forward the Waldensian heretics, John Wycliffe the heresiarch, the Ruthenian schismatics, John Hus and Jerome of Prague, Wycliffe's disciples, Wessel and Wesel, likewise heretics and enemies of the Church; to whom he falsely joins Jerome Savonarola, since the authors of the histories of that time, such as first of all Jacopo Nardi, report nothing of the kind about him; and finally Luther, the father and prince of all the heretics of our time. But what wonder is it if the enemies of the Church, who reprove so many other doctrines of the faith, do the same in indulgences? For this has been constant with heretics from the very beginning of the Church, to reprove Catholic doctrine. Certainly if Chemnitz wished to accomplish anything, he ought to have brought forward such reprovers of indulgences as, on account of wisdom and probity and communion with the Catholic Church, deserved undoubted trust. But he neither did this, nor could do it. We on the contrary can bring forward many praisers and preachers of papal indulgences who have proved both their wisdom by published books and their holiness by the greatest miracles, such as Saint Bernardine, Saint Antoninus, Saint Vincent, Bonaventure, Saint Thomas, blessed Peter Martyr, Saint Anthony of Padua, Saint Francis, Saint Dominic, and even Saint Bernard himself, whom even the Lutherans are compelled to admire and to call a saint.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Respondetur ad tertiam partem argumenti historici contra indulgentias. Postrema historia; pars continet ea tem¬ pora, quibus Kemnitius conatur ostendere originem habuisse indulgentias, qua} nunc sunt usu recepta}. Ac primum fatetur, quod estverissimum, summse antiquitatis argumen¬ tum, non esse usquam annotatum, quo tem¬ pore coeperint indulgentiae. Deinde refellere conatur, quod Catholici dicunt, tempore S. Gregorii, id est, anno Domini sexcentesimo, jam fuisse in usu Ecclesiae indulgentias, cum traditio antiqua habeat, ab ipso S. Gre- gorio additas fuisse stationibus indulgentias. Refellit Kemnitius eam Catholicorum senten¬ tiam , illo solum argumento , quia nihil de hac re in scriptis S. Gregorii, vel in histo¬ riis eorum temporum inveniatur. Sed argu¬ mentum nullas habet vires, cum constet ejusmodi concessiones non libris, sed usu, et consuetudine conservari. Nam etiam de indulgentiis a Leone III in tot locis Germa¬ nice constitutis, nihil exstat in ejus epistolis, quas satis multas scripsit, neque in historiis universalibus eorum temporum ; et nisi inci¬ disset occasio ut S. Ludgerus vitam S. Sui- berti scribendam susciperet, sciremus qui¬ dem Aquisgradi, et Colonice indulgentias a Leone 111 concessas haberi, sed nullo certo teste id probare possemus. Quo modo etiam nisi S. Innocentius primus necessitatem ha¬ buisset rescribendi Decentio episcopo Eugu- bino, sic sciscitanti, an Episcopus deberet conferre sacramentum Unctionis Extremae, an solus presbyter, certe non haberemus testimonium ullius auctoris illius temporis pro sacramento illo. Siquidem de iis rebus, qua} sunt in usu communi fidelium, non scribebant Patres, nisi coacti ab haereticis, aut alia simili necessitate. Itaque ad pro- bandum a S. Gregorio indulgentias statio¬ nibus adjunctas fuisse, multo amplius valere debet S. Thomse, et Gulielmi Altisiodorensis gravissimorum virorum affirmatio , quam silentium omnium aliorum. Quod enim ali¬ quid verum sit, etiamsi a multis scriptum non sit, facile credi potest. At falsum esse, quod a viris gravissimis, ac fide dignissimis affirmatur, non facile credi debet. Obiter autem Kemnitius cum stationes nominasset, addere voluit, qme sit notio ejus vocis ; et quia stantes, inquit, verbum audiebant, et orationes faciebant, dictie sunt stationes. Sed longe aberrat a vero. Stationes enim dictie sunt militari vocabulo, vigilia} queedam spirituales Ecclesia;, qua} vel ob imminen¬ tem persecutionem, vel alia de causa in jeju¬ niis et oratione perseverabat, usque ad ho¬ ram diei nonam, aut etiam usque ad vespe¬ ram : simul enim jejunium et statio solve¬ bantur. Et quemadmodum milites in excubiis vigilantes in statione esse dicuntur, sive stent, sive sedeant, sive obambulent, sic etiam Christiani stationem celebrare dice¬ bantur, cum in oratione, et jejunio tota die perseverarent, sive stando, sive prostrati ad terram, sive genibus positis, sive alio quo¬ vis modo Dominum precarentur. De qua re vide Tertullian. in lib. de fuga in persecu¬ tione, in lib. de jejunio, et in lib. de ora¬ tione, et qua} nos scripsimus in lib. ir. de bonis operibus in particulari cap. 22. Deinde Kemnitius addit nihil de indul¬ gentiis inveniri in scriptis Burchardi, Gra¬ tiani, et Petri Lombardi, atque inde conclu¬ dit, indulgentias ortum habuisse circa an¬ num Domini 1200. cui argumento nos supra respondimus, capite 17. ubi ostendimus ex testibus certis, indulgentias multo esse anti¬ quiores, ac ut videas, lector, quam verum sit proverbium, mendacem memorem esse debere : scripsit Kemnitius supra pag. 27 L ha}c verba : « In hac de indulgentiis dispu¬ tatione non possunt vel ulla Patrum testi¬ monia, vel ulla veteris Ecclesiee exempla proferre, quod talis, vel doctrina, vel usus talium indulgentiarum ullo unquam tempore ad annos post natum Christum 1200. in ve¬ teri Ecclesia fuerit ». Et idem repetit pag. 275. affirmans nullum auctorem scripsisse de indulgentiis ante annum Domini 1200. et tamen pag. 332. scribit Kemnitius Alexan¬ drum III Pontificem circa annum Domini 1170. scripsisse de indulgentiis, qiue fiebant 97 cAi>r. in dedicationibus Ecclesiarum, aut confe¬ rentibus aliquid ad aedificationem pontium. Neque Alexander tunc indulgentias instituit, sed loquitur de re nota et usitata, et fre- qucntissima ; et infra pag. 375. numerat idem Kemnitius Yaldenscs inter eos , qui indulgentias, quales nunc habet Ecclesia, rejecerunt, et oppugnarunt : constat autem Valdenscs circa eumdem annum 1170. erro¬ res suos praedicare coepisse. At quomodo ista cohaerent, ut indulgentiarum origo refe¬ renda sit (auctore Kemnitio) ad annum 1200. et tamen eodem auctore anno 1170. Alexander III de indulgentiis, jamdudum introductis rescripta edat, et Yaldenscs hae¬ retici indulgentias, in Ecclesia oliin rece¬ ptas, damnent, atque rejiciant? Igitur non solum testibus a nobis productis cap. 17. sed etiam ipso Kemnitio teste, sententia ejus¬ dem Kemnitii de indulgentiarum novitate apertissime refutatur. His tractatis, Kemnitius aggreditur lon¬ gissimam narrationem de quaestionibus scho¬ lasticorum circa indulgentias, de jubilaeis in Ecclesia celebrari solitis, de indulgentiis sin¬ gularum Ecclesiarum urbis Romae, ac de¬ mum de contentione Lutheri , et Teccelii circa indulgentias : quae non egent refuta¬ tione, sed sola mendaciorum, et calumnia¬ rum annotatione. Igitur pag. 340. posteaquam recitavit Kemnitius decretum concilii Viennensis con¬ tra quaestuariorum abusus , addidit haec verba : « Sed Pontifices ipso facto mox addi¬ derunt interpretationem, quod sint abusio¬ nes damnabiles , et abolendae, si fiant a quaestoribus hospitalium : si vero a Roma¬ nis Pontificibus tales indulgentiae, et eo modo concedantur, esse opus maxime pium » . Hoc autem esse mendacium manifestum ex ipsa constitutione intelliget quicumque cara legere voluerit. Continet enim ea constitutio tres paragraphos ; in primo cavetur , ne quaestores admittantur, nisi Apostolicae Sedis vel dioecesani Episcopi litteras ostenderint. In secundo narrantur abusus quaestorum, et simpliciter damnantur et prohibentur, neque ulla additur declaratio, quod si tailcs indul¬ gentiae, et eo modo a Pontifice concedantur, sit opus maxime pium. In tertio decernun¬ tur poeuee quaestoribus, -qui superioris man¬ dato non paruerint; neque etiam hoc loco additur ulla tadis declaratio, qualem finxit Kemnitius. Illa igitur verba Kemnitii : « Et videri sane possent abusiones illae in indul- Tom. VII. r XX. genti is generaliter taxari, damnari, et abo¬ leri per Clemcntinam illam. Sed Pontifices ipso facto mox addiderunt interpretationem quod sint abusiones damnabiles, et abo¬ lendae, si fiant a quaestoribus hospitalium : si autem a Romanis Pontificibus tales indul¬ gentiae, et eo modo concedantur, esse opus maxime pium ». Mendacium, et imposturam apertissimam continet, nusquam enim talis interpretatio in tota illa constitutione reperitur, neque reperiri potest, quia ipsi constitutioni sine dubio repugnaret, in qua non solum abusio¬ nes illae absolute ct simpliciter abolentur, sed etiam revocantur omnia privilegia, quaestoribus quoquo modo concessa, circa materiam abusionum illarum, ita ut nihil eorum, in quibus abusiones consistunt, ne praetextu quidem litterarum Apostolicarum illis actitare licuerit. Quod vero initio con¬ stitutionis dicitur, ut quaestores non admit¬ tantur, nisi litteras Apostolicae Sedis, vel Episcopi proprii demonstraverint : non est id quod Kemnitius reprehendit; tum quia > hoc non est additum post abusiones damna¬ tas, sed praemissum ante damnationem; tum quia in hac parte non agitur de abusionibus, sed de simplici propositione indulgentiarum, et charitativi postulatione subsidii, ut ipsa constitutio loquitur. Idem Kemnitius pag. 353. multa dicit de venditione indulgentiarum tempore Pauli II et Sixti IV et addit, ne videatur eu ex capite suo finxisse : « Exstant haec in extravaganti- bus Pauli II et Sixti IV ». At ego iterum, atque iterum legens, ac relegens eas extra- vagantes, ne vestigium quidem ullum ea¬ rum venditionum reperio. Sed qui versatus est in scriptis Kemnitii, et novit, quam is au¬ dacter, ct sine ulla verecundia mentiri soli- 7 _ | tus sit, non mirabitur cum in hac materia praeter omnes alias apud Lutheranos odio¬ sa, impudentiae mentiendi omnino fraena la¬ xasse. Rursus pag. 3G2. adseribit narrationem de indulgentia divinitus concessa ad preces S. Francisci adeuntibus Ecclesiam S. Mariae de Angelis; quam ipse vocat impudentissi- mam fabulam, et vere ex parte fabula es f, quoad ea videlicet, quae ipse Kemnitius admiscuit. Nain praeter alia scribit, S. Fran- ciscum Honorio Summo Pontifici dixisse, si¬ gilla bullae indulgentiae illius esse stigmata sua. At nullus auctor hoc refert, praeter Kemnitium, et non solum non esh verum, 7 98 LIBER II. sgd nec verisimile, tum quia nondum S. Franciscus stigmata habuerat, cum illa in¬ dulgentia concessa est; tum quia etiamsi habuisset, non ea vir summae humilitatis ulla ratione jactasset. Porro ad eam narra¬ tionem intimandam nihil omnino Kemnitius adfert, nisi judicium suum : ad confirman¬ dam autem adsunt testes illius temporis, qui historiam conscripserunt, ut cognosci po¬ test ex initio secundi libri Chronicorum Or¬ dinis S. Francisci ; adest praeterea testimo¬ nium S. Bernardini tom. 1. serm. 9. qui est in Evangelium Dominicae primae Quadrage¬ simae, qui vir sanctitate, doctrina, et mira¬ culis clarissimus fuit. Adest testimonium S. Antonini 3. par. Summae hist. tit. 24. cap. 14. §. 3. qui etiam vir doctus, et sanctissi¬ mus fuit. Adest concursus populorum fre- quentissimus ad eam Ecclesiam kalendis Augusti, quo solo die indulgentia divinitus concessa obtineri potest. Adsunt denique si¬ gna et prodigia non pauca, quae ad illius indulgentiae veritatem astruendam edita fuisse chronica jam citata testatur. Sed non sine causa Kemnitius hanc historiam falsam, et fabulosam haberi cupit, quoniam per eam historiam tria Catholica dogmata confir¬ mantur, unum de indulgentiis, a’terum de Pontifice Maximo, tertium de confessione. Siquidem ad preces S. Francisci Christus ipse plenariam indulgentiam dedit, sed non nisi per ministerium Vicarii sui Pontificis Maximi dedit, nec nisi per contritionem et confessionem a culpa expiatis, et eam Eccle¬ siam visitantibus dedit. Idem Kemnitius pag. 364. incipit narrare varias indulgentias, quae habentur in Eccle¬ siis urbis Romae, quas ipse ex insertis aucto¬ ribus, et obscuris libellis colligit ascendere ad multa centena annorum millia ; et quo¬ niam satis constat, non tam diu purgato¬ rium, neque ipsum mundum esse duratu¬ rum, dicit se pro Germanica simplicitate assequi non posse rationem calculi Ponti¬ ficii; rogatque Romanenses, ut hoc myste¬ rium explicare non graventur. Sed primum admonendus est, ut si nosse cupit veras historias de indulgentiis Romanis, non eas petat vel ab hostibus Ecclesiae, qualis fuit Vesellus ille, quem saepissime citat, neque ab obscuris quibusdam libellis, qualemunum se vidisse dicit editum Norimbergae, Germa¬ nice scriptum, amplificatum de stationum Romanarum indulgentiis, cum antea latine, et brevius editus Romae fuisset: sed a Ponti¬ ficum diplomatibus, vel ab authenticis Eccle¬ siarum tabulis, aut certe ab auctoribus cer¬ tis, gravibus, doctis, probatis. Neque enim dubitari potest, quin multa vel depravata, vel conficta in ejusmodi libellis incertis et nnonymis legantur, quale illud est, quod Gregorius Papa cum Lateranensem Eccle¬ siam iterum dedicaret, tot dierum indulgen¬ tias dederit, quot guttae cadunt, si per tres dies et noctes continue pluat. Hanc enim fabulam Kemnitius sicut eam retulit pag. 367. ita per se facile potuisset dijudicare vere fabulam esse, cum neque adseribatur quis ille Gregorius fuerit, quando Ecclesiam illam dedicaverit, quis earum rerum testis sit : neque in certis et probatis historiis ul¬ lum ejus dedicationis, vel indulgentiae vesti¬ gium exstet. Quod si forte probari possit (id enim, ut dixi, in probatis auctoribus non legi) concessa fuisse aliquando multa millia die¬ rum, vel annorum indulgentiae : legat quae supra scripsimus libro superiore cap. 9. et intelliget mysterium calculi illius, quod sibi explicari petit. Idem Kemnitius pag. 372. pollicetur se demonstraturum, omnibus temporibus fuisse aliquos, qui imposturis indulgentiarum con¬ tradixerint ; et primum quidem profert con¬ cilia generalia Lateranense , et Viennense, quibus damnantur abusus et fraudes quae¬ stuariorum. Sed quia intelligebat, in his conciliis ita damnari fraudes et abusus, ut verus et legitimus usus indulgentiarum con¬ firmaretur et probaretur, transit ad eos, qui omnino indulgentias contempserunt, vel re¬ prehenderunt . Adducit autem Valdenses haereticos, Joan. Vicleffum haeresiarcham, Ruthenos schismaticos; Joan. Hus, et Hiero¬ nymum de Praga, Vicleffi discipulos, Ve- sellum, et Vesalium, similiter haereticos, at¬ que Ecclesiae hostes; quibus falso adjungit Hieronymum Savonarolam , cum nihil tale de eo referant auctores historiarum istius temporis, qualis in primis est Jacobus Nar- dius ; denique Lutherum nostri temporis haereticorum omnium Patrem, et principem. Quid autem mirum est, si hostes Ecclesiae qui tam multa alia fidei dogmata reprehen¬ dunt, idem, in indulgentiis faciant? Id enim perpetuum haereticis fuit , ab ipso initio Ecclesiae , ut doctrinam Catholicam repre¬ henderent. Certe si Kemnitius aliquid effi cere volebat, debebat tales proferre repre¬ hensores indulgentiarum, qui ob sapientiam et probitatem, et cum Ecclesia Catholica CAPUT XX. 99 communionem, fidem indubitatam mereren¬ tur. Sed ille id nec fecit, nec facere potuit. Nos autem contra, multos proferre possumus indulgentiarum Pontificiarum laudatores, et praedicatores, qui et libris editis sapientiam, et miraculis maximis sanctitatem suam pro¬ baverint , quales sunt S. Bernardinus, S. An- toninus, S. Yincentius, Bonavent. S. Tho- mas, b. Pelrus Martyr, S. Antonius Padua- nus, S. Franciscus, S. Dominicus, et ipse etiam S. Bernardus, quem etiam Lutherani admirari, et sanctum appellare coguntur. / JUDICIUM ROBERTI BELLARMINI POLITIANI S. J. THEOLOGI