The 95 Theses of Martin Luther Examined
September 1, 2019
Apprentice Stephen
Potential Apprentice Steve-o, of his own free will, is desirous of exploring the mysteries of the Wonderful World of Occult Research™ under a Master of the Occult Arts and Sciences, and, until that fortuitous time presents itself, is content to commence his apprenticeship under Yours Truly.
Master suggested that I write a commentary on the 95 Theses of Martin Luther and to that end we thought it would be helpful to list certain significant events of Martin Luther’s life [1483-1546] with his approximate age in brackets ([ ]). Additional pertinent historical occurrences are included.
1505 Luther received his master's degree [21-22]
1507 Luther ordained to the priesthood [23-24] 1508 Luther received bachelor's degree in Biblical studies (March, 1508) [24] 1509 Luther received another bachelor's degree [25-26] 1510 Luther traveled to Rome and remained during the winter 1510-11. [26-27] 1512 Luther was awarded his Doctor of Theology (October 19) [28] 1516 Erasmus' Greek “New Teaching” was published (Novum Instrumentum omne) 1517 October 31, Luther posts the 95 Theses on door the Church of All Saints. 1519 Erasmus’ second edition of the New Teaching was retitled as the “New Testament” (Novum Testamentum omne) 1521 Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther 1522 Erasmus’ third edition was published 1522 Luther’s New Testament was published 1523 Luther married Katharina von Bora. (April) 1527 Erasmus’ fourth edition was published 1529 Luther wrote the Large Catechism and the Small Catechism 1534 Luther published the complete Bible, [the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha] 1535 Erasmus’ Fifth edition was published 1546 Council of Trents’ fourth session (April 4, 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the Biblical canon as affirmed by Trent |
Luther visits Rome and two years later was awarded his doctorate and after five additional years issues his 95 theses regarding certain practices of the Roman Church. We note that what Luther saw and experienced in Rome was not traumatic for him to denounce the church practices upon his return to Germany. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the experiences in Rome where no different that in Augsburg.
Although the Council of Florence decreed the Biblical canon on February 4, 1442, as late as the year 1516 Erasmus was unaware of the existence of the New Testament, otherwise the first edition would not have been called the New Teaching. Jean Hardouin [d. 1729] suggested that the canons of the Council of Florence were not written until thirty years later.
The readability scores of the English text of the 95 Theses ranges from the fourth to the eighth grade, however, we were confounded by the difficulty of interpreting the text. On many occasions, we could not understand what Luther was trying to communicate, the simple sentences were, in a word, incoherent. Therefore, we sought commentaries upon the text and we were fortunate to find Luther’s extensive explanations covering over 60 pages of modern text. Our limited commentary can be found in Appendix I.
We began our commentary on the exegesis, but we were again met with frustration, for the style of writing was reminiscence of the seemingly endless and always pedantic style found in the alleged writings of the Church Fathers. After this realization, we knew that the value of the text was not in the exoteric discussion on the validity of indulgences, for Luther could have stated that the authority to grant indulgences was not found in the Church canons and his paper would have been a few pages of lucid reasoning. Instead of appealing to authority of the Church canons alone, Luther appeals to the authority of the canons, of the Church Fathers, of human reasoning, and of Scripture. The end result is that the careful and thoughtful reader will question the respective authority of the church, the canons, the papacy, and tradition. Our aborted commentary can be found in Appendix II.
In conclusion to this part, our final comments are limited to a handful of observations. As Master says:
We began our commentary on the exegesis, but we were again met with frustration, for the style of writing was reminiscence of the seemingly endless and always pedantic style found in the alleged writings of the Church Fathers. After this realization, we knew that the value of the text was not in the exoteric discussion on the validity of indulgences, for Luther could have stated that the authority to grant indulgences was not found in the Church canons and his paper would have been a few pages of lucid reasoning. Instead of appealing to authority of the Church canons alone, Luther appeals to the authority of the canons, of the Church Fathers, of human reasoning, and of Scripture. The end result is that the careful and thoughtful reader will question the respective authority of the church, the canons, the papacy, and tradition. Our aborted commentary can be found in Appendix II.
In conclusion to this part, our final comments are limited to a handful of observations. As Master says:
“The Wonderful World of Occult Research™ could not exist if things were as they seem.”
Luther is not described as a Doctor of Theology in the introduction, but by the lesser title of Master of Sacred Theology. The Latin text has the spelling “Hiesu Christi” indicating that the spelling of Latin, generally, and ecclesiastical Latin, specifically, was not standardized as late as the sixteenth century.
We caution the Gentle Reader that all the dates utilized in our exegesis should be understood as alleged, that is, without proof.
We caution the Gentle Reader that all the dates utilized in our exegesis should be understood as alleged, that is, without proof.
I shall prove my thesis from the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX [d. 1241] where [the chapter] ..., Quod autem, expressly says that remissions which have not been made by a judge are not valid for individuals, since no one can be bound or loosed by his own judgment alone.” 5.3
Interestingly, protestantism teaches that the individual can rely upon his own judgment to know that he is saved, although Luther states that individuals cannot made valid judgements regarding the remission of their sins. This explicit contradiction must be resolved by the Gentle Reader.
For the remission of sin and the gift of grace are not enough; one must also believe that one’s sin has been remitted. 7
The fact that the remission of sins is a fact taught by the church is irrelevant as long as one believes “that one’s sin has been remitted”.
All these stipulations [fasts, watches, labors, pilgrimages] clearly belong to this life and end with death. At death a person passes into an entirely different life, at which time he neither fasts, weeps, eats, nor sleeps, since he no longer has a body. It is for this reason that Jean Gerson [1363 - 1429] dared to condemn indulgences which were bestowed as being valid for many thousands of years. And I cannot help wondering what happened to the inquisitors of heresy that they have not burned this heretic even after his death, for he condemned indulgences which entitled recipients to many thousand years and he spoke out so confidently against the custom of every pilgrimage station in the city [Rome]. He spoke out also against the practice of that squanderer of indulgences, Sixtus IV [reigned from 1471 to 1484], as a result of which the latter warned his prelates that it was their duty to correct and give careful attention to these indulgence practices. He referred to the claims of these indulgences as foolish and superstitious, etc. 8.4
Jean Gerson lived from 1363 to 1429 and Pope Sixtus IV reigned from 1471 to 1484. Luther writes “He spoke out” which can only refer to Gerson. However this statement is an anachronism, as Sixtus did did not reign until 30 years after Gerson’s death.
The first proof is that which perhaps has the greatest offense, namely, that indulgences are necessary only for public crimes such as adultery, homicide, usury, fornication, drunkenness, rebellion, etc. If such sins were kept secret, the canons would not appear to apply to them. First, because the canons establish public penances and the church has no authority to judge publicly concerning secret things. Second, because just as a secret sin ought not to be punished publicly, so it does not need to be remitted publicly. Yet indulgences are public remissions and take place in the presence of the congregation, as is evident. Indeed there are some who think there is a distinction between indulgences by public bulls and those given privately under the judgment of conscience. Third, the church is offended, not by secret sins, but only by public ones. 13.1
We learn that “the church is offended, not by secret sins” and, therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that parishioners, or priests, can sin to their hearts desire in private. However, it their private sins are made public, then public penance must be made.
I say nothing about the fire and place of purgatory, not because I deny them, but because that discussion is another one which I do not undertake to bring up at this time. Furthermore I do not know where the place of purgatory is, even though St. Thomas thinks it is beneath the earth. Meanwhile, I remain in agreement with St. Augustine...that the places of refuge for souls are hidden and so obscure that we know nothing about them. I mention these things in order that the Picard heretic19 may not appear to have drawn from my statement that there is no purgatory because I confess that its location is unknown, or that the Roman church errs because it does not reject the opinion of St. Thomas. I am positive that there is a purgatory, and it does not bother me much what the heretics babble, for St. Augustine, more than eleven hundred years ago, in the ninth book, thirteenth chapter, of his Confessions,20 prayed for his mother and father and requested that intercession be made for them. 15
Luther does not deny the existence of Purgatory.
Luther matter-of-factly states that St. Augustine wrote “more than eleven hundred years ago”, however he could not know this opinion of when, exaclty, St. Augustine lived in the early sixteenth century. Our currently accepted chronology is based upon De emendatione temporum (1583) by Scaliger [d. 1609] and the additional scholarship of Petavius [d.1652]. Therefore, Luther is stating the opinion of when St. Augustine lived that would not be widely accepted for more than a century.
Luther matter-of-factly states that St. Augustine wrote “more than eleven hundred years ago”, however he could not know this opinion of when, exaclty, St. Augustine lived in the early sixteenth century. Our currently accepted chronology is based upon De emendatione temporum (1583) by Scaliger [d. 1609] and the additional scholarship of Petavius [d.1652]. Therefore, Luther is stating the opinion of when St. Augustine lived that would not be widely accepted for more than a century.
But even if there had been no purgatory at the time of the apostles (as the disgusting Picard prides himself in), must, therefore, any credence be given a heretic who was born scarcely fifty years ago? And must it be contended that the faith of so many centuries has been false, Especially since the Picard does nothing more than say, “I do not believe it,” and by that means assumes that he has proved all his assertions and condemned all of ours, as though sticks and stones believe? But these matters pertain to his own work and time. 15
The skeptical reader is invited to believe that the “faith of so many centuries has been false”. We paraphrase modern Christianity: “I do believe it” and this belief proves all assertions .
If there is anyone who does not believe that, ... but we have merely proved that these preachers of indulgences speak with too much audacity about many things of which they know nothing or else doubt. For one ought to believe those who are experienced in these matters rather than those who are inexperienced. 15.5
“We have merely proved that these preachers of modern Christianity speak with too much audacity about many things of which they know nothing or else doubt.”
It is impossible for a created thing to persevere unless it continually receives more and more strength. For that reason certain thinkers say that the preservation of a thing is its continued creation. But to create is always to make new, which is clear even in brooks, rays, heat, and cold, especially when they are beyond their source. Therefore also in the case of spiritual warmth, that is, the love for God, souls must continually be preserved (until they become absorbed into their divine source) and, by the same token,. necessarily grow, even if they perchance have been perfected, although to be outside of God and not to have attained to him and to have been perfected are ideas opposed to each other. 18.5
Luther writes that the souls of the faithful “become absorbed into their divine source”. However, if the soul is absorbed into the divine essence, then that soul loses its individuality, as is taught by the Orthodox Church and various eastern religions. Luther implies that souls originate in the divinity without any argument and are preserved until "absorbed into their divine source".
As the saying goes, "One lie requires seven lies to make it appear true." 26.1
Luther comments both on his explanation of the 95 Theses, generally, and the writings of the Church Fathers, specifically.
My answer is this: First, if anyone wishes to be obstinate about this, he should say, “Prove what you say, Holy Father, especially since it is not for the pope alone to decide upon new articles of faith, but, according to the laws, to make judgments and decisions about questions of faith. This, however, would be a new article of faith. Therefore that decision would be a matter for a general council much more than the doctrine of the conception of the Holy Virgin would be, especially since the latter constitutes no danger, while determining new articles of faith on the part of the pope could be a grave and great danger for people. Otherwise, since the pope is only human and can err in matters of faith and morals, the faith of the whole church would be constantly in danger if it were necessary to believe as true whatever might occur to the pope to be true. 26.4
Luther states that “determining new articles of faith on the part of the pope could be a grave and great danger for people” centuries before the Papal proclamations of the Immaculate Inception (1854), Papal Infallibility (1870), and the Assumption of Mary (1950). Luther continues: “the faith of the whole church would be constantly in danger if it were necessary to believe as true whatever might occur to the [then current] pope to be true.”
Christ himself is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” [John 1:29]. 37
As John says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]. 58.2
Luther distinguishes between quoting the Scriptures and the Mass, in the later he refers to Christ, in the former to John the Baptist. The editor has incorrectly assigned the first quote to the fourth Gospel [John 1:29], where the Gospel text has the singular “sin” [peccatum]. The plural, “sins” [peccata], is found in the Mass.
Man does everything the wrong way. 38
We teach men to trust in the remission of sins in proportion to their feeling of penitence. This means they are taught never to trust in the remission of sins but to strive for despair. 38
No comment.
According to the prophet we ought to place our hope in Christ’s word, not in our penitence. The Psalmist did not say, “Remember my contrition to thy servant, in which thou hast made me hope,” but “Remember thy word…in which thou hast made me hope” [Ps. 119:49]. Again he says, “In thy word [certainly not in our own word] have I placed great hope” [Cf. Ps. 119:81]. In another psalm he says, “My soul is sustained by his word,” etc. [Cf. Ps. 130:5]. And according to the Hebrew he says in Psalm 51[:4], “Against thee, only, have I sinned,…wherefore thou wilt justify me by thy word.” 38
Therefore it is neither the sacrament nor the priest, but faith in the word of Christ spoken through the priest and his office which justifies you. What difference does it make to you, if the Lord should speak through an ass, either male or female, as long as you hear that word by which you may hope and believe? 38
Luther denies that either the sacrament or the priest offers justification, but faith. He then combines infelicity, equating the priest with an ass, with a rhetorical question.
One can see how difficult it is even for the learned to take a middle course between hatred and love of punishments; to teach people to hate them and yet do it in such a manner that the people are persuaded to love them. But since nothing is difficult for the unlearned, there is nothing to prevent this from being easy also. 40
No comment required.
Now I shall prove my argument with the authority of the holy fathers. 58.1
The inexperienced reader may place the utmost esteem in the fact that one can successfully argue from the writings of the Church Fathers. However, the Gentle Reader is aware that commentaries of the Church Fathers are so extensive that one could justify any position, provided it does not touch upon either reality or historical Christianity.
I will do this first by quoting that well-known saying of St. Augustine: “All saints need to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ even though they have done good deeds, for Christ made no exceptions when he taught us to pray.” But surely those who confess their debts have stored up no superabundant merits. St. Jerome, reflecting upon this in his Dialogue Against the Pelagians, says in excellent fashion, “How can he be a saint if he prays for his own ungodliness?” He says again, “If he is ungodly, he is not a saint, etc.” There he [St. Augustine] deals with the question whether or not the saints have completely fulfilled the commandments, and he denies that they have when he says that this takes place by God’s forgiveness rather than by man’s fulfillment. How, therefore, can these saints have superabundant merits for others, when they have not sufficient for themselves? 58.1
Luther states that St. Augustine "denies" that the saints have fulfilled the commandments. From Luther’s arguments, the thoughtful reader may question the veneration of the saints and their intercessions among the living faithful.
First, because, as I have often said, this cannot be proved by any Scripture passages, nor can it be demonstrated by reason. 58.2
When neither proofs nor evidence are forthcoming, it is best to prattle with pendantics.
Furthermore, those who hold this opinion do not prove it but simply state it, as everybody knows. 58.2
Luther comments on modern Christianity.
Moreover, I have said before that to make any assertion in the church without a reason or authority to support it is to expose the church to ridicule by its enemies and by heretics.... 58.2
Luther comments on modern Christianity.
Actually, then, as some say, indulgences would be a wicked deception of the faithful. Such an error arises when we seek to be justified through our own works and righteousness rather than through faith. So either indulgences are not the treasury of the merits of the saints, or it must necessarily follow that one who has obtained indulgences must desist from doing good works for sins, as the gloss referred to maintains. 58.2
The gloss, or marginal notes by unknown scribes, are given the same authority as the text itself.
Yet they [scholastic theologians] are permitted to maintain that God commits sin, that God is the cause of evil ... and many other things do they maintain. But if ... a scholar of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew were to say this, he would be considered the most wicked of all heretics. But they do much more harm. 72
If “a scholar of Greek, Latin” were to say that God “is the cause of evil”, he would be considered a heretic, however we read from Isaiah that the Lord makes “peace” and creates “evil” [45:7-9].
St. Jerome also complained that the Scripture is open to all, not for learning, but for tearing to pieces. 72
Luther refers to St. Jerome and we quote in full: “Only the art of interpreting the Scriptures is claimed by all and sundry: the talkative old woman and the feeble old man, the verbose sophist. In short, all presume to do this. They teach before they learn and so tear the Scriptures to pieces.”
In these words we have almost made ourselves Pelagians in doctrine and Donatists in our method. 72
The view that mankind can avoid sinning and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will [Wikipedia].
Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid [Wikipedia].
Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid [Wikipedia].
Do not assume that these things were published for you, my learned and brilliant reader ..., as though I were afraid these matters might appear Ciceronian to you. You have other things which you may read according to your own inclination. It was necessary for me to discuss with my equals those things which we have in common, that is, crude and barbarian matters. So it has pleased heaven. And I would not have dared to call upon the name of the pope for these notions of mine if I had not seen how greatly my friends relied upon the pope’s power to frighten me and also because it is the official duty of the pope to make himself “a debtor to the wise and to the foolish, to Greeks and to barbarians” [Rom. 1:14]. Farewell.
The thoughtful reader may wonder what, exactly, are the “crude and barbarian matters” under discussion. The Gentle Reader may decide that these “crude and barbarian matters” that Luther and the "learned and brilliant reader" have in common is Christianity, as it is misunderstood by the vast majority of practitioners.
Conclusion
The author of the commentaries [not potential Apprentice Steve-o. GDO] seeks to deceive the unwary and trusting, all too trusting, reader. However, the hoax, or “malicious deception”, is realized when one understands that neither Luther nor anyone else writing early in the sixteenth century could have known that St. Augustine wrote 1,100 years earlier. We conclude that the hoaxer was familiar with the chronological opinions of Scaliger, suggesting a date after 1650 AD.
The explicit purpose of the calendar reform of 1582 ADby Pope Gregory XIII was to regulate the dating of Easter, as it was supposedly at the time of the Council of Nicea [325 AD]. Without being too technical, the Julian calendar used before the reform falls behind the solar year. This difference between the Julian calendar and the solar cycle is one day for every 128.1 years. One reform removed ten days from the calendar, that is, Thursday, October 4 was followed by Friday, October 11. The ten days removed represents the passage of 1,282 years [1 day per 128.2 years multiplied by 10 years= 1,282 years]. Therefore, the reformed calendar was returned near to the supposed time of the Council of Nicea [the year 300 AD].
We conclude the forgeries of the explanation and the 95 Theses occurred relatively early during the acceptance of Scaligerian chronology, where important figures such as St. Augustine would have be placed on the timeline, while minor personalities would be added later. If chronology were organic and not created, that is, if history were recorded as it occurred, as it happened, and not pieced together from fragments centuries after the fact, then anachronisms, such as Jean Gerson being contemporaneous with Sixtus IV, would not occur.
We presume the text of Luther's explanations was published prior to our understanding of Scaligerian history and the obscure reference to an obscure author in an obscure work was not detrimental to the survival of the text.
The value of the 95 Theses and explanation is not found in the discussion of indulgences or papal authority, but in the what the careful reader may discern from proper reasoning, which includes the realization of the existence of contradictions, both implicit and explicit. Otherwise said, “The Wonderful World of Occult Research℠ could not exist if things were as they seem.”
The explicit purpose of the calendar reform of 1582 ADby Pope Gregory XIII was to regulate the dating of Easter, as it was supposedly at the time of the Council of Nicea [325 AD]. Without being too technical, the Julian calendar used before the reform falls behind the solar year. This difference between the Julian calendar and the solar cycle is one day for every 128.1 years. One reform removed ten days from the calendar, that is, Thursday, October 4 was followed by Friday, October 11. The ten days removed represents the passage of 1,282 years [1 day per 128.2 years multiplied by 10 years= 1,282 years]. Therefore, the reformed calendar was returned near to the supposed time of the Council of Nicea [the year 300 AD].
We conclude the forgeries of the explanation and the 95 Theses occurred relatively early during the acceptance of Scaligerian chronology, where important figures such as St. Augustine would have be placed on the timeline, while minor personalities would be added later. If chronology were organic and not created, that is, if history were recorded as it occurred, as it happened, and not pieced together from fragments centuries after the fact, then anachronisms, such as Jean Gerson being contemporaneous with Sixtus IV, would not occur.
We presume the text of Luther's explanations was published prior to our understanding of Scaligerian history and the obscure reference to an obscure author in an obscure work was not detrimental to the survival of the text.
The value of the 95 Theses and explanation is not found in the discussion of indulgences or papal authority, but in the what the careful reader may discern from proper reasoning, which includes the realization of the existence of contradictions, both implicit and explicit. Otherwise said, “The Wonderful World of Occult Research℠ could not exist if things were as they seem.”
By the plenitude of power authorized and granted by the Ancient and Esteemed Order of Hierophants, it is duly proclaimed, declared, and exclaimed that potential Apprentice Steve-o is hereby elevated to the exalted and sublime position of Apprentice and shall henceforth be recognized as Apprentice Stephen to a Master of the Occult Arts and Sciences.
All rights, privileges, and benefits associated with said position, current and future, are hereby solemnly bestowed and conferred upon Apprentice Stephen this first day of September in the year of our Lord and Master two thousand nineteen. So mote it be. G.D.O’Bradovich III |
Appendix I
[http://conradaskland.com/blog/martin-luthers-95-theses-in-latin-and-english/ ]
The 95 Theses
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance. (Mt 4:17),
Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo `Penitentiam agite &c.’ omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit.
“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” -The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 4:17
We are uncertain how Luther concludes that believers should be in a state of perpetual penitence from the Master’s declaration that the kingdom will soon appear.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
Penance cannot be understood as it is taught. There is neither argument nor evidence to support this supposition that the church’s teaching is incorrect historically. As in modern protestantism, words mean what the speaker intends, neither more nor less.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh [operetur varias carnis mortificationes].
According to Luther, penance without works is worthless.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance [id est penitentia vera intus], and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Not only can we cannot determine what “true inward penance” is, but we cannot understand the difference between it and “true penance”, “inward penance”, and “false penance”.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
Regretably, we cannot know what specific canons Luther alludes to in this thesis. Luther seems to deny that the bishops have their authority from Christ and only have authority from church canons. Of course, the exercise of the offices of bishops existed before the canons were promulgated.
However, Jesus tells the disciples that “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” [the Gospel according to Saint John, 20:23] If this authority to remit sins is limited to the Apostles and is not passed to succeeding bishops, then the Roman and Greek Churches are in error.
Jesus, in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew [9:2], said “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven [ἀφίενταί] thee.” The word “aphiēmi” [Strong’s Number 863] is translated in the King James Bible version as “leave”, 52 times, and “forgive”, 47 times. Latin word “remittere” means “to send back, let go back, concede, allow” and is the equivalent of the Greek word aphiemi. However, the Enlgish word “forgive”, [“to stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake”], is not similar in meaning to either aphiemi or remittere.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
Papa non potest remittere ullam culpam nisi declarando, et approbando remissam a Deo aut certe remittendo casus reservatos sibi, quibus contemptis culpa prorsus remaneret.
Luther acknowledges that the Pope, as a bishop, can “send away” sins in the Pope’s capacity as a priest. Of course, Luther is also a priest, having been ordained in the year 1507.
7. God remits [remittit]guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
Luther acknowledges that the priest acts in persona Christ. This fact is not established by the modern versions of the Bible, but by ancient church tradition as taught by both the Roman and Greek churches.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
Luther seems to suggest that eccesicatical law pertaining to penance applies only to the living faithful, not the departed faithful. A reasonable conclusion from this premise is that the authority of the Church Militant no longer applies to the deceased and we agree that this evident, since the souls in Hell cannot be redeemed and the souls in Heaven have been redeemed. However, both the Roman and Greek churches teach that the living faithful, the departed faithful, and the saints are the members of the church.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
Luther appeals to the use of reason, yet the Christian Church is based on Divine Revelation, not human reasoning.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.(Mt 13:25).
Luther suggests the changes in teachings transpired and the bishops were unaware. However, this is unlikely, as the bishops act under the authority of the Pope.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution [absolutionem], as tests of true contrition.
The historical norm is reasonable, as penance is performed first and then the individual receives absolution.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
The faithful departed are exempt from the canons of the church, implying the dead are no longer subject to the authority of the church. The Church has two aspects called the Church Militant, the earthly church, and the Church Triumphant, the heavenly church.
14. The imperfect [Imperfecta]health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15.This fear and horror [timor et horror] is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
Luther states the fear and horror dying is similar to Purgatory, since it is near to the horror of depsair. The souls in Purgatory are unlike the dying of faithful, as the former know that they will be redeemed, while the latter do not know either Purgoatory or their redemption, but only have faith.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
[Videntur infernus, purgaturium, celum differre, sicut desperatio, prope desperatio, securitas differunt.]
Luther describes Purgatory as “imperfect despair”, however, as all souls in Purgatory will be redeemed, we would expect the word “hope” to be used instead of despair. Of course, the presumption is that the souls in Purgatory are aware that they are in Purgatory and from this awareness are assured of salvation.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase
[sicut minni horrorem ita augeri charitatem].
Necessarium videtur animabus in purgatorio sicut minni horrorem ita augeri charitatem.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
Nec probatum videtur ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis, quod sint extra statum meriti seu augende charitatis.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
Igitur papa per remissionem plenariam omnium penarum non simpliciter omnium intelligit, sed a seipso tantummodo impositarum.
Luther seems to forget that Popes are priests and are vicars of Christ. Therefore, the Popes can remit sins, not only those imposed by him.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
We agree that the delegation of apostolic prerogatives is an innovation, yet, we are not in a position to state what authority the Pope may or not delegate.
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
Luther seems to state that “complete remission” is only possible where fewer sins are present.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty
The “multitude” [maiorem partem populi] is, of course, the uneducated and credible. We doubt that Luther is unaware of the distinction between venial and mortal sins, therefore, we are uncertain in what manner the phrase “no manner of distinction is made” is to be understood.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way over purgatory [in purgatorium generaliter], is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way [specialiter], within his own diocese or parish.
We are uncertain of what Luther is attempting to communicate, although we agree with “The power which the pope has...is just like the power which any bishop or curate has... within his own diocese or parish.”
1[26]. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
Optime facit papa, quod non potestate clavis (quam nullam habet) sed per modum suffragii dat animabus remissionem.
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”-the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 16:19
Luther does not believe the Pope has the “keys” and this position casts doubt upon the premise that the priests have the power to “bind” and to “loose”.
2 [27.] They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
“What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence [a claim, especially a false or ambitious one], or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice ... and will rejoice.”- Epistle to the Phillipians, 1: 18
3 [28.] It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
Luther seems to deny that the Church the physical manifestation of God’s authority on earth.
4 [29.] Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
Luther utilizes a rhetorical question and although we cannot know if all the souls in Purgatory want to be redeemed, there is no alternative and what will transpire with individual souls is beyond the control of the departed.
5 [30.] Nobody is sure of having repented sincerely enough; much less can he be sure of having received perfect remission of sins [plenarie remissionis].
No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
It seems that the remission of sins is found in two varieties, perfect [“full”] and imperfect. This fact is that, contrary to modern protestant teachings, no one is sure of “having repented sincerely enough” and, as a result, no one can be sure of having received salvation. If nothing else, Luther creates doubt in the belief of the possiblity of salvation.
6 [31.] Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
Quam rarus est vere penitens, tam rarus est vere indulgentias redimens, i.e. rarissimus.
We agree that most church attendees are “truly penitent”.
“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are…”
-the Gospel according to Saint Luke, 18:11
Hypocrisy is “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform”.
7 [32.] They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
Damnabuntur in eternum cum suis magistris, qui per literas veniarum securos sese credunt de sua salute.
On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe that they are sure of their salvation through “personal faith” and “belief”, as both ecclesitcal history before 1517 and reason are to be rejected in favor of subjective emotional responses.
8 [33.] Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
Beware of those who say that men are sinners, by their existence and not by their actions.
9 [34]. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man [sacramentalis ab homine constitutas].
Luther seems to be unaware that according to church tradition the bishops are successors to the Apostles.
10 [35.] They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
Non christiana predicant, qui docent, quod redempturis animas vel confessionalia non sit necessaria contritio.
Since all souls in Purgatory will be redeemed [1031 “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.”- Roman Catechism], we have always struggled with the existence of indulgences.
11 [36.] Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
Quilibet christianus vere compunctus habet remissionem plenariam a pena et culpa etiam sine literis veniarum sibi debitam.
The feelings of Christians indicate “perfect remission” or full remission [remissionem plenariam].
12 [37.] Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
Every “way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice…” -Epistle to the Phillipians. 1:18
13 [38.] Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said [Thesis 6], the declaration of divine remission.
The Pope’s absolution is a declaration of Divine Absolution.
14 [39.] It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
Luther does not state the reasons why pardons and “true contrition” are difficult to reconcile.
15 [40.] True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
“True repentance” is not explained.
16 [41.] Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
It can be said that mistaken beliefs is the proper description of protestantism.
17 [42.] Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy [esse operibus misericordie].
Luther has an opinion of what “Christians should be taught”.
18 [43.] Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
Again, Luther has an opinion of what “Christians should be taught”.
19 [44.] Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
Luther now wants Christians to “become better” and he believes that charity is the means to achieve this goal.
20 [45.] Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
Luther does explain the reasons between the Pope’s pardons, which are not to be worthy of scorn [vide 38.], and the anger of God.
21 [46.] Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
Luther has opinions on what discrepancy monies can be used to purchase.
22 [47.] Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
We agree with this statement.
23 [48.] Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
Luther has opinions of how the Pope should operate his church.
24 [49.] Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
Christians should be taught that the Old and New Testaments are useful, as far as one does not put donficne in them. Luther utilizes the “fear of God” as a motivating factor.
25 [50.] Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
1 [51.] Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
The Pope [Leo X] did not take a vow of poverty and Luther suggests that he “give his own money”. Per Wikipedia: “On 15 March 1513, he [Leo X] was ordained priest, and consecrated as bishop on 17 March. He was crowned Pope on 19 March 1513 at the age of 37. He was the last non-priest to be elected Pope.”
2 [52.] The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
The assurance of salvation by believing in salvation is vain, even though others were to stake their soul upon it.
3 [53.] They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
Luther believes the “word of God” should be expounded in the church. We suggest this is the origin of the modern protestant practice of sermonizing for the service.
4 [54.] Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
Luther has certain opinions on what sermon topics should be and their duration.
5 [55.] It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
Luther does not explain why an “indulgence” is the “lowest thing” and proceeds to compare indulgences to the Gospel, which is not defined.
6 [56.] The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
Doctor Luther complains that the majority of church attendees are ignorant of church teachings.
7 [57.] That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them [vendors].
8 [58.] Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
We agree that “the merits of Christ and the Saints...always work grace for the inner man”, however, we do not understand what is meant by “the cross, death, and hell” working “for the outward man.” Modern protestantism no longer discusses the merits of the Saint.
9 [59.] St. Lawrence [d. 258] said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
Thesauros ecclesie s. Laurentius dixit esse pauperes ecclesie, sed locutus est usu vocabuli suo tempore.
The philologist Luther states that the understanding of the word “poor” [pauperes] has changed. Alternately, he could be referring to the “treasures” [thesauros].
10 [60.] Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;
11 [61.] For it is clear that for the remission of penalties [ad remissionem penarum] and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
12 [62.] The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
Verus thesaurus ecclesie est sacrosanctum euangelium glorie et gratie dei.
Luther knows that the “true treasure” of the Church is not the poor, but the “Holy Gospel”. However, the meaning of the “Holy Gospel” is not defined.
13 [63.] But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).
“So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.”- Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 20:16
The Gospel is “most hateful”
14 [64.] On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
15 [65.] Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
16 [66.] The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
Luther changes hats again-this time is a humorist.
17 [67.] The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
18 [68.] Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
The phrase “devotion to the Cross” is ambiguous, cf. Cathloic and protestant practices.
19 [69.] Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
20 [70.] But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
21 [71.] He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
22 [72.] But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
“But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher's of ... impudent words.”
23 [73.] The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
The Pope, as elected by the College of Cardinals, is the head of the western church and can excommunicate any individual under his authority.
24 [74.] But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
25 [75.] To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.
This is a theoretical statement meant to
1 [76.] We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins [venialium peccatorum], so far as its guilt is concerned.
Luther does not deny that the Pope, by virtue of being a priest, can remit sins. Whether the Pope can delegate pardons is an issue of the Roman Church.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
Theoretical
3 [78.] We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”- First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12:28
79.To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
5 [80.] The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
6 [81.] This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
Luther compares releasing all souls in Purgatory to the building of new Saint Peter’s church.
8 [83.] Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed [pro redemptis orare]?”
We speculate that Luther is asking why masses are said for the dead who have been released from Purgatory and are in Heaven [“saved”].
84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
The legal mind of Luther suggests if canons are utilized they become “dead” and no longer in force.
86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
Again Luther suggests how others should spend their money.
87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
13 [88.] Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”
Luther inquires about the “greater good”, as though either the Roman church of Luther himself is concerned with the greater good.
89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
15 [90.] To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91.If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
20 [95.] And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace. (Acts 14:22).
M. D. XVII
Commentary
We expected that the reading level of the 95 Theses would be similar to the Book of Leviticus, Spinoza’s Treatise, and Marx’s Capital, that is, ranging from the twelfth grade to the sixteenth grade. However, the reading level ranges from fourth grade to eighth grade, indicating that the intended audience is wide reaching.
Flesch Reading Ease score: 75.8 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: fairly easy to read.
Gunning Fog: 8.9 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: fairly easy to read.
The Coleman-Liau Index: 7 Grade level: Seventh Grade
Linsear Write Formula : 7 Grade level: Seventh Grade.
The SMOG Index: 6.6 Grade level: Seventh Grade
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6 Grade level: Sixth Grade.
Automated Readability Index: 5.1 Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
Although the text is easily read, however, many statements are difficult to interpret and certain statements are illucid. Since we arrived at a contradiction between easily read and difficult to understand, we sought commentaries on the text and we found an explanation of the 95 Theses by Luther published in 1518. Our aborted attempt at a commentary is found in Appendix 1 and our select commentary on the Explanation of the Ninety-five Theses is below.
Appendix II
xxxx
LW 31:79-252
Introduction
Notable throughout the Explanations is Luther’s strong inner conflict, already voiced in his Preface to a German Theology. He writes respectfully of the pope but questions his primacy as bishop of Rome; he quotes the church fathers and canon law but treats the Bible as the primary – but not yet sole – authority in religious matters; he recognizes the ultimate authority of general church councils in matters of faith but opposes the burning of heretics, as was done at the Council of Constance; he still accepts purgatory and “the treasure of the church” but interprets them in an evangelical fashion; he dislikes tumult and disobedience but asks in unmistakable terms for a reformation of the church.
The revised form was finally published toward the end of August, 1518. Luther then sent copies and accompanying letters to his three ecclesiastical superiors, Bishop Schulz [WA, Br, 1,138-140], Vicar Staupitz [WA 1,525-527], and Pope Leo X [WA 1,527-529]. The pope received his copy while initiating the formal process against Luther. Although it in no way altered the pope’s intentions, it greatly clarified the issues at stake in the indulgence controversy.
The Explanations, written in Latin, was first published by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg. The following English translation is based on this copy as edited in WA 1,525-628. It was published in German for the first time in the Leipzig Edition. This translation was included in volume 18, pages 299-533 of Dr. Martin Luther’s sämmtliche Schriften, edited by Johann Georg Walch (24 vols., Halle, 1740-1753), but the one in St.L. 18, 102-269 was made from the Latin in WA. The German translation in MA3 1,142-295 was based on the German in volume 18 of Walch’s edition, but the editor collated it with the Latin in WA and incorporated the corrections in the latter made by Theodor Brieger in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XVII, 175ff. Cf. W. Kohler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit (Leipzig, 1903), and Otto Clemen, “Beitrage zur Lutherforschung,” Festschrift für Theodor Brieger (1912).
Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses or Explanations of the Disputation Concerning the Value of Indulgences
Declaration
Because this is a theological disputation, I shall repeat here the declaration usually made in the schools in order that I may pacify the individuals who, perhaps, are offended by the simple text of the disputation. -Declaration
First, I testify that I desire to say or maintain absolutely nothing except, first of all, what is in the Holy Scriptures and can be maintained from them; and then what is in and from the writings of the church fathers and is accepted by the Roman church and preserved both in the canons and the papal decrees. But if any proposition cannot be proved or disproved from them I shall simply maintain it, for the sake of debate, on the basis of the judgment of reason and experience, always, however, without violating the judgment of any of my superiors in these matters.-Declaration
I add one consideration and insist upon it according to the right of Christian liberty, that is, that I wish to refute or accept, according to my own judgment, the mere opinions of St. Thomas, Bonaventura, or other scholastics or canonists 2 which are maintained without text and proof. I shall do this according to the advice of Paul to “test everything, hold fast to that which is good” [I Thess. 5:21], although I know the feeling of Thomists who want St. Thomas to be approved by the church in everything. The weight of St. Thomas’ authority is known well enough. -Declaration
1 When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
This I assert and in no way doubt.
1. Nevertheless, I shall prove the thesis for the sake of those who are uninformed, first from the Greek word metanoiei=te itself, which means “repent” and could be translated more exactly by the Latin transmentamini, which means “assume another mind and feeling, recover one’s senses, make a transition from one state of mind to another, have a change of spirit”; so that those who hitherto have been aware of earthly matters may now know the spiritual, as the Apostle says in Rom. 12 [:2], “Be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” - 1.1
“He who hates his soul in this life , preserves it for eternal life” [Matt. 10:39]. And again, “He who does not take his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me” [Matt. 10:38]. And in the same chapter, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” [Matt. 10:34]. In Matt. 5[:4], “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” And Paul in Romans 6 and 8 and in many other places …-1.1
2 This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
1.
2. Sacramental penance is only external and presupposes inward penance without which it has no value. But inward penance can exist without the sacramental. -2.2
4.There is no teaching of Christ concerning sacramental penance but it is legally instituted by the popes and the church (at least with respect to its third part, namely satisfaction), and is thereby changeable by the will of the church. But evangelical penance is a divine law, never changeable; for it is unceasingly the sacrifice which is called a contrite and humble heart [Ps. 51:17].-2.4
3 Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.
Thus it follows that the three parts of satisfaction (fasting, prayer, and alms) do not pertain to sacramental penance as far as the essence of the deeds is concerned, since these things are the command of Christ. Prayer includes every pursuit of the soul, in meditation, reading, listening, praying. The giving of alms includes every service toward one’s neighbor. Thus by fasting a Christian may serve himself, by prayer he may serve God, and by the giving of alms he may serve his neighbor. -3
I admit that ... with respect to the intention behind it [penance], and also with respect to the sacrament, that is, satisfaction. And who would deny that hitherto many theologians have been permitted to corrupt almost the whole Scripture with their daring distinctions and double meanings recently fabricated, so that for Paul and Christ we read patchworks of Paul and patchworks of Christ? I have spoken about the true and real significance of the word metanoei=te which Christ intended, or at least the meaning which John the Baptist intended, who himself had no authority to institute the sacrament and yet came preaching a baptism of repentance, saying, “Repent” [Matt. 3:2; 4:7]. -3
Christ is without doubt a divine lawgiver and his doctrine is divine law, which no authority can change or
dispense with. But if the penance taught by Christ signifies sacramental penance (satisfaction), and if the pope can change this and actually does change it according to his own will, then either the pope has divine law under his authority or else he is a most wicked adversary of his God, causing the command of God to be of no effect. If these false theologians dare to assert the former (these men who boast that they speak out on behalf of the revelation of truth and the suppression of errors to the glory of God, the defense of the catholic faith, and the honor of the holy apostolic throne)...-3
4 The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self, that is, true inner repentance, until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
If a person’s whole life is one of repentance and a cross of Christ, not only in voluntary afflictions but also in temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh, and more especially also in persecutions and sufferings, as is clear from what has been said previously, and from the whole of Scripture and from examples of the saint of saints himself and all the martyrs, then it is evident that the cross continues until death and thereby to entrance into the kingdom. -4.1
The cross of repentance must continue until, according to the Apostle, the body of sin is destroyed [Rom. 6:6] and the inveterate first Adam, along with its image, perishes, and the new Adam is perfected in the image of God. But sin remains until death, although it diminishes daily through the renewing of the mind. -4.3
5 The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
The first punishment is eternal punishment, the hell of the damned, with which this thesis is not concerned. This punishment is certainly not in the power of the highest or the lowest bishop, as everybody throughout the whole church believes. God alone remits punishment through the remission of guilt. -5
Meanwhile we accept the belief that purgatory does not come under the power of the pope or of any man.-5
Since, however, this suffering has been commanded by Christ both with respect to the nature of spiritual penance and certainly with respect to the need of salvation, under no circumstances has the priest any power at all to increase or diminish it. For it depends not upon the authority of man but upon grace and the Holy Spirit. -5
Yet I will admit that through the prayers of the church some such punishments could be lifted..., namely, sickness, cares, plagues, and fevers; for St. James taught the elders of the church to bring in and anoint the sick ...[Jas. 5:14-16]. -5
[As] if there should be any doubt in the mind of a Christian that the rod of God can be removed, not by the power of the keys, but by tears and prayers.... Otherwise, if a priest of the church... can remove God’s punishment by the power of the keys, then he also drives away plagues, wars, insurrections, earthquakes, fires, murders, thefts, as well as the Turks, Tartars, and other infidels; none but a poor Christian would fail to recognize in these the lash and rod of God. -5
The fifth punishment which the pope cannot remit is the canonical punishment, which is instituted by the church. -5
More attention must be given to this canonical punishment since the pope, in plenary remission, does not remit all punishments stipulated in canon law. For example, he does not remit either free or forced entrance of persons into a monastery, a punishment not unknown in canon law. Nor does he remit the civil, or rather, the criminal punishments which are imposed by civil law, although his legates may do this wherever they personally are present. -5
For God does not say, “Whatever I shall have bound, you shall loose,” but rather” whatever you loose, shall be loosed, although you shall not loose everything that is bound, but only that which is bound by you, not that which is bound by me” [Cf. Matt. 16:19]. They...understand it to mean, “Whatever you shall have loosed either in heaven or on earth, shall be loosed,” whereas Christ has purposely added the words “on earth” to restrict the power of the keys to earth, for he knew that otherwise they would perforate heaven itself.-5
Therefore this sixth punishment ... cannot be understood as punishment according to civil law, for the pope does not remit this (as I have already said); otherwise the letters of indulgences of the church could remove all gallows and racks. [The] pope does not remit excommunications, interdicts, or other ecclesiastical penalties which have been meted out, as is evident enough from experience. All that remains, therefore, is that which I said I would consider [the punishment that divine justice requires]. But I am absolutely convinced that there is no such punishment. First, because by no authority of Scripture, of teachers, or of the accepted interpretation of the canons can it be taught that there is such punishment; and it is utterly absurd to teach anything in the church for which a basis cannot be found in the Scriptures, in teachers, in the canons, or at least in human reason. -5
Hence I wonder at the negligence of some people, who... say that Christ absolved the adulteress in the Gospel without satisfaction, but that he did not absolve Mary Magdalene without satisfaction, and so the Master must be imitated in the case of Mary, but not in the case of the adulteress, since the sin of no one may be remitted without satisfaction. -5
But concerning the lepers [Luke 17:12-19] I say that they were commanded to show themselves, not for satisfaction, but for testimony; for leprosy was not a sin but simply signified sin. Moreover, ... satisfaction does not consist in showing the sin but in seeking to obtain the judgment of the priest, all of which is well known.-5
But the pope has no power to bind and loose any punishment beyond that of canonical law ... Therefore he does not have any power to loose and remove them... But if they are said to be unequal no one is required to believe it, since it is proved nowhere by the Scripture and canons, and since the text is clear where Christ gives power to bind on earth and loose on earth... -5.2
I shall prove my thesis from the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX [d. 1241] where [the chapter] ..., Quod autem, expressly says that remissions which have not been made by a judge are not valid for individuals, since no one can be bound or loosed by his own judgment alone.” -5.3
Deduction
It follows that satisfaction is not sacramental simply because it makes satisfaction for guilt ..., but because it makes satisfaction for guilt according to the statutes of the church. The greatest satisfaction one makes to God is through a new life, etc. And it must also be proved by Scripture that no other satisfaction is required for sins. -5, Deduction
Has he [Christ] in any way imposed anything here other than the ordinary commands of God [Cf. Luke 3:14]? But if this teacher of repentance, who has been raised up by God for this purpose, does not teach us that we must make satisfaction, doubtless he has deceived us and has not taught us enough about the duty of repentance.- 5, Deduction
The second passage is Ezekiel 18... [Cf. Ezek. 18:21]. Behold, he imposes nothing except justice and righteousness, and these things must be done in every aspect of his life... Has this prophet also deceived us? -5, Deduction
6 The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
The first part of this thesis is so evident that some have even admitted that a figurative manner of speech is employed when it is said that the pope grants remission of guilt. Others admit that they do not understand it. But everyone confesses that the guilt is remitted by God alone, according to the passage in ... John 1[:29], “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” -6
There are many other references of this kind in the Scriptures [Ps. 130:3,4;Ps. 130:7 -8;Ps. 51:10]. And St. Augustine in so many of his writings against the Donatists maintains absolutely that sins are remitted by God alone. -6
“He who rejects you,” Jesus says, “rejects me” [Luke 10:16]. Indeed, God does not remit the guilt of anyone who does not at the same time have respect for the office of the keys. -6
[It] is certain that those cases which the pope looses God also looses, and that no one can be reconciled to God unless he is first reconciled to the church, at least by desire. But it is questionable whether a man is also reconciled to God as soon as he is reconciled to the church. -6
7 God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to his vicar, the priest.
In all these passages [Matt. 5:24; 6:12; 16:19; 22:21] remission is indicated as taking place on earth before it takes place in heaven. One is right in asking how these things can take place before the infusion of grace, that is, before the remission of God, for man cannot have his guilt forgiven or the desire to seek remission without first of all having the grace of God which remits.-7
For neither by his [the sinner] own counsel or his strength will he be able to find peace; in fact, his sadness will finally be turned into despair. -7
For if he is uncertain of the anguish of his conscience..., yet he is constrained to abide by the judgment of another, not at all on account of the prelate himself or his power, but on account of the word of Christ who cannot lie when he says, “Whatever you loose on earth” [Matt. 16:19]. For faith born of this word will bring peace of conscience, for it is according to this word that the priest shall loose. Whoever seeks peace in another way, for example, inwardly through experience, certainly seems to tempt God and desires to have peace in fact, rather than in faith. -7
Thus the question raised above is now clear, namely, that even if the remission of guilt takes place through the infusion of grace before the remission of the priest, this infusion is of such a nature and is so hidden under the form of wrath that man is not sure whether that grace is present or not; ...-7
So as a general rule we are not sure of the remission of guilt, except through the judgment of the priest, and not even through him unless you believe in Christ who has promised,...[Matt. 16:19]. Moreover, as long as we are uncertain, there is no remission, since there is not yet remission for us. Indeed, one would perish woefully unless it should become certain, for he would not believe that remission had taken place for him.-7
And, generally speaking, how could those in the Old Testament have had any confidence in the mercy of God and in the remission of sins, if God had not shown them by revelations, ... and other signs, that whatever they sacrificed was pleasing to him. And he desires to accomplish that same thing now by the word and judgment of the priests.-7
In extolling the power of the pope they [the jurists] placed more value and awe upon the power of the pope than they did respect for the word of Christ in faith.-7
By the same token, why did Christ say, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” [John 20:23], except that they are not forgiven to anyone unless he believes that they are forgiven for him through the remission of the priest? -7
For the remission of sin and the gift of grace are not enough; one must also believe that one’s sin has been remitted. -7
When he [the priest] also administers baptism or the eucharist, your faith receives the full benefit of the sacrament, regardless of whether he should seek money or be in a mood of levity and play. -7
Yet they [our opponents] very wisely conceal this distinction from the people. Otherwise indulgences, rather the money, would decrease if the people should realize that such... [fabricated] punishments were remitted. Then ..., he introduces another obscurity of words and draws another distinction of the keys, namely, among those of authority, superiority, and office. -7
Therefore it is not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament, that justifies. -7
8 The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
Canon laws, like all other man-made laws, are... bound by the circumstances of time, place, and persons, as everybody knows. -8.2
Justice requires that the living be released from the canon laws and that the law be changed when the circumstances back of the law cease or when the law inclines toward injustice. Pope Leo says that the law should not militate against love because it is for the sake of love that the law is established. -8.3
All these stipulations [fasts, watches, labors, pilgrimages] clearly belong to this life and end with death. At death a person passes into an entirely different life, at which time he neither fasts, weeps, eats, nor sleeps, since he no longer has a body. It is for this reason that Jean Gerson10 [1363 - 1429] dared to condemn indulgences which were bestowed as being valid for many thousands of years. And I cannot help wondering what happened to the inquisitors of heresy that they have not burned this heretic even after his death, for he condemned indulgences which entitled recipients to many thousand years and he spoke out so confidently against the custom of every pilgrimage station in the city [Rome]. He spoke out also against the practice of that squanderer of indulgences, Sixtus IV [reigned from 1471 to 1484], as a result of which the latter warned his prelates that it was their duty to correct and give careful attention to these indulgence practices. He referred to the claims of these indulgences as foolish and superstitious, etc.-8.4
There is no reason why some canons should cease because of time, and not all. -8.7
Therefore I contend that the canons are not imposed upon the sick, but upon the healthy and the strong, thus much less upon the dead than upon the living. -8.8
“Suppose some healthy person will have omitted performing the imposed penances and will confess this when he is about to die? In this case it appears that such a person must of necessity pay these penances in purgatory, even if no other penances needed to be imposed or would be imposed.” My answer is: Not at all, for by such an omission he has done nothing more than sin against the precepts of the church, and for that he must grieve. -8.8
Whoever submits to a greater punishment than that which has been imposed upon him, deservedly and by natural right receives remission of lesser punishments, but the one who is about to die submits to the last, the highest, and the greatest punishment of all, namely, death. --8.9
It is therefore useless for the pope to reserve the punishments of canon law until after death. William of Paris [d. 1314] and Gerson shared this opinion, and many rational individuals agree with them. -8.10
Imagine that the sinner might be snatched away and immediately suffer martyrdom because he confesses Christ before he has satisfied the canons. This is said to have happened to the martyr, St. Boniface. Will purgatory then detain such a person, preventing him from being with Christ? Can he then be prayed for in the church as a martyr? But every person who dies voluntarily (..., that is, a Christian) also dies according to the will of God. -8.12
The punishments of canon law cease when a penitent layman changes his position, when... he becomes a priest, or when a priest becomes a bishop ... And if this cessation of canonical punishment takes place in this life, should it not take place when a change is brought about by death? What is more absurd than this? -8.15
The opinion that punishments stipulated by canon law must be satisfied after death has absolutely no authority in Scripture, the canons, or acceptable reason, but appears to have been introduced purely by the slothfulness and negligence of the priests, as have many other superstitions. -8.15
[We] have examples from the ancient fathers, of whom Cyprian [d. 258] is probably the most exacting observer of ecclesiastical censures and disciplines.-8.16
One leaden dagger opposes this eighth thesis, because it is found in the laws that even the dead are excommunicated, as ... the work [of Pope Gregory IX. d. 1241] ...especially proves. The jurists themselves say that excommunication of the dead does no harm to the dead, just as absolution does them no good. But all these things are done to terrorize us, and the church does not pray publicly for one who has been excommunicated. [Nothing] more is contained in them [babbling contradictions] than scholastic opinions which are founded neither on the Scriptures, church fathers, nor church law. -8.16
9 Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10 Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
Certainly there must be many who wonder if the priests really do these things. Since to do this is to place greater value upon obedience to the canons than obedience to the call of God and ... I do not know whether those who hold such an opinion have the right type of faith. -10.1
It is well known ... in the church that if God should reveal his will to a person through a trance or some particular form of enlightenment at the moment that person is doing works of obedience to the church, then that individual is obligated to discontinue the work, relinquish obedience to the church, and “obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. Indeed, our teachers say that in the canonical hours themselves one must violate the command of the church and turn aside from the usual words in the event that heavenly enlightenment or ecstasy should possess him. If... the laws of the church cease to apply in such divine summons, why should they not cease to apply in so great a summons and moment of rapture as that of death? Or perhaps one ought to follow that great multitude of lunatics who ... often put off obvious obedience to God and men and really believe they have done rightly when they have observed ceremonial works only, and neglected obedience to God. -10.2
11 Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept [Matt. 13:25].
[The] popes of the church do not even teach that canonical punishments apply to purgatory, for... there is no canon or statute from which it could be taught. Therefore certain canonists labor in vain if they try to point out by such means how many years and forty-days fasts must be spent in purgatory, since there are actually none, or at least it cannot be proved that there are any. -11
[We] must regard that fabrication and worthless sophistry of the indulgence sellers as an effort to frighten us ... by saying that, since the priest does not know the amount of repentance required for absolution and … perhaps, does not impose as great a satisfaction as divine justice requires, therefore this disparity must be satisfied either by a special work or by indulgences.-11
If the latter is the case, then why does the pope make full absolution, since he likewise does not know the amount of contrition necessary and is not able to make up the contrition that is lacking? Furthermore, perfect contrition does not need his absolution. Nor does he have power of another kind which is different from that of any other priest, but only of another degree. The pope remits everyone’s sins, other priests remit only the sins of some. The amount of satisfaction they remit for some, he is able to remit for all, and nothing more than that, for otherwise the church would be some monster which consists of different types of power. -11.3
Furthermore, the early church did not know the amount of contrition necessary or the importance of personalities; nevertheless it gave plenary remission for sins after penance had been done, although, according to the opinions of these opponents of ours, the church could not know whether the penance was sufficient or not. -11.4
Another fantasy stems from the fact that our opponents base the remission of sins ... upon the work of man who seeks and strives, for they imagine that plenary remission can only be given to those who have perfect contrition, which no one has in this life, yet they concede that plenary remission can be given by the pope, even to those who have imperfect contrition.-11.5
By the same token, that which others say... that canonical punishments are declarations of the punishments required by divine justice. In the first place there is no proof for this opinion. Therefore it may be condemned very easily. -11.8
12 In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
[Canonical] punishments are so temporal that they have absolution itself as their goal. -12
In all these references [five selections from the Church Fathers]we see that at that time sinners did not receive grace and absolution before penances were performed. -12.2
Christ did not pardon Mary Magdalene and the adulteress, until after they had shed tears, anointed him, and chastened themselves most ardently and humbly.-12.3
13 The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
Six types of men ... need no indulgences: first, the dead or those about to die, second, the sick, third, those who have lawful hindrances, fourth, those who have not committed crimes, fifth, those who have not committed public crimes, sixth, those who mend their ways. We shall prove that these need no indulgences and at least make our reasons plausible.-13
The first proof is that which perhaps has the greatest offense, namely, that indulgences are necessary only for public crimes such as adultery, homicide, usury, fornication, drunkenness, rebellion, etc. If such sins were kept secret, the canons would not appear to apply to them. First, because the canons establish public penances and the church has no authority to judge publicly concerning secret things. Second, because just as a secret sin ought not to be punished publicly, so it does not need to be remitted publicly. Yet indulgences are public remissions and take place in the presence of the congregation, as is evident. Indeed there are some who think there is a distinction between indulgences by public bulls and those given privately under the judgment of conscience. Third, the church is offended, not by secret sins, but only by public ones. -13.1
[It] is evident to everyone that canonical punishments are imposed only for crimes. Therefore indulgences (if they are remissions of the canons) apply only to criminals. So those who lead an ordinary life, ... have no need of indulgences, especially since no punishment may be imposed for venial sins; nor is there any obligation even to confess these sins. I add further that it is not necessary to purchase indulgences for every mortal sin ...: No one is sure that he does not always sin mortally because of the most secret vice of pride. If, therefore, canonical punishments should apply to every mortal sin, then the whole life of the faithful, ... would be nothing more than a torture chamber of canonical punishments. Therefore one must continually purchase indulgences and do nothing else. But if this seems absurd, it is clear that indulgences apply only to sins punished by the canons. Yet no sins can be punished by the canons except those which are certain and public crimes, ... at least those which one is sure are crimes..., that is, deeds which are recognized as such publicly. Therefore consent to any mortal sin is not included in canonical punishment, either to be imposed or remitted. -13.2
6. What is true concerning the sick is also true concerning the dead and those who are about to die, of whom I have already spoken.
It is maintained by everyone in the church that in the agony and moment of death every priest ... remits everything for the one who is about to die. And if the priest is absent, certainly the longing of the dying man for the priest is sufficient. For this reason, since the dying man is pardoned for everything ..., the indulgences for the dead seem to confer absolutely nothing, for whatever can be loosed is loosed by death. From this it is likewise evident that the distinction in gradations and laws is to be understood as applying only to the living and those who are in good health. Therefore indulgences evidently apply only to criminals and to the living who are healthy and strong, who have no hindrances and who have no desire to mend their ways. -13.6
“From which punishments, then, are souls released, or what punishments do they suffer in purgatory if they do not suffer anything which is included in the canonical law?” My response is... I am not experienced enough to know what God does with souls who have departed, at least not as experienced as those innumerable redeemers of souls who make such sure pronouncements about everything as though it were impossible for them to be mere men. Added to this difficulty is the fact that there are teachers who think that souls suffer nothing from the fire but only in the fire, so that the fire is not a tormentor but only the prison of souls. Therefore I am dealing here with a matter that is especially doubtful and debatable.... -13.6
14 Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
For in every man, no matter how holy he may be, there are the remains of ... of sin…-14
15 This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near the horror of despair.
I say nothing about the fire and place of purgatory, not because I deny them, but because that discussion is another one which I do not undertake to bring up at this time. Furthermore I do not know where the place of purgatory is, even though St. Thomas thinks it is beneath the earth. Meanwhile, I remain in agreement with St. Augustine...that the places of refuge for souls are hidden and so obscure that we know nothing about them. I mention these things in order that the Picard heretic19 may not appear to have drawn from my statement that there is no purgatory because I confess that its location is unknown, or that the Roman church errs because it does not reject the opinion of St. Thomas. I am positive that there is a purgatory, and it does not bother me much what the heretics babble, for St. Augustine, more than eleven hundred years ago, in the ninth book, thirteenth chapter, of his Confessions,20 prayed for his mother and father and requested that intercession be made for them. -15
But even if there had been no purgatory at the time of the apostles (as the disgusting Picard prides himself in), must, therefore, any credence be given a heretic who was born scarcely fifty years ago? And must it be contended that the faith of so many centuries has been false, Especially since the Picard does nothing more than say, “I do not believe it,” and by that means assumes that he has proved all his assertions and condemned all of ours, as though sticks and stones believe? But these matters pertain to his own work and time. -15
In these ... places in Scripture terror, dread, trembling, fear, and quaking are expressed as the punishment of the wicked… [Ps. 1:4, Ps. 2:5,Proverbs 1:33, Psalm 112:7] -15.2
In the next place, II Thess. 1 [:8-9] states, “Those who do not believe the gospel, will suffer the punishments of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” -15.2
Some individuals have tasted these punishments in this life, especially those of hell. Therefore we must believe even more that they are imposed upon the dead in purgatory. -15.4
For what else does John Tauler [d. 1361] teach in his German sermons than the sufferings of these punishments of which he also cites some examples? -15.5
In this moment [in Purgatory](strange to say) the soul cannot believe that it can ever be redeemed other than that the punishment is not yet completely felt. Yet the soul is eternal and is not able to think of itself as being temporal.. -15.5
If there is anyone who does not believe that, ... but we have merely proved that these preachers of indulgences speak with too much audacity about many things of which they know nothing or else doubt. For one ought to believe those who are experienced in these matters rather than those who are inexperienced. -15.5
In addition to this there is the authority of the church, which chants, “Free them from the lion's mouth, lest hell engulf them” 22 [Ps. 22:21], as well as the words, “from the gate of hell.” These words certainly appear to indicate that souls are ... already at the gate, at the threshold of condemnation and at the entrance of hell, which, as I have said, is near despair. And I do not believe the words of the church are empty words. -16.6
16 Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
Indeed, since we believe... in the light of God, we also believe that in hell despair, grief, and terrible flight rage24 in the realms of outer darkness. It is clear that purgatory is the middle between both extremes, in such a way ... that it is nearer hell than heaven, for in purgatory there is a despair, a longing to escape, dread, and grief. Souls in purgatory have no joy or peace, in fact they share nothing from heaven, since the punishment of purgatory is considered the same as that of hell, differing only in duration. Moreover, the soul, as long as it is in purgatory, feels nothing but despair, not because it despairs, but because it is so disturbed and perplexed with anxiety that it does not feel capable of hope. -16
17 It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
The first type consists of those who have no faith at all (that is, those who are condemned). These individuals must face death with the greatest dread and despair,.. -17.1
The second type consists of those who have complete faith and are perfect (that is, those who are blessed). These individuals must face death with the utmost confidence and joy,...The unjust man finds that which he feared, namely death and punishment. Moreover, he has always feared them. -17.1
No punishment is overcome by running away or by fear. Every punishment is increased and strengthened by the fear of it, and by the same token, it is diminished and weakened by love. -17.2
Furthermore, it is not my understanding that God, who often forgives all punishments in this life for the sake of one work of beginning love, shall never remit in death some punishments for the sake of every work of perfect love. I have, nevertheless, debated these matters because “God is marvelous in his sanctuary” [Ps. 68:35]. We would do better to leave such doubtful matters alone and teach people other things which are more certain. -17.4
If purgatory is only a workshop of punishment, why not call it “punitory” rather than purgatory? For the meaning and force of the term “purgatory” imply a cleansing which can only be understood as pertaining to the remains of the old nature and sin, because of which those persons are unclean who in their affection for earthly things have hindered the purity of faith. But if by the use of a new ambiguity (for they are prompted to make distinctions) they shall say that cleansing here is the same as payment, so that then they are said to be cleansed when the punishments have been paid, I answer: It is refuted as easily as it is proved. But if they shall also despise the idea that the meaning of the term includes the cleansing of faults, let it be so. I do not dispute it. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that both meanings are doubtful. For that reason the first meaning has been scattered abroad among the people in a distorted manner and with the greatest of certainty, especially since the basic meaning of the term does not agree with their opinion. -17.5
The remark of Gregory I [d. 604] in the Decretals (dist. XXV)... says that not only punishments, but guilt, are remitted in the future life, that is, venial sins, as he points out by examples in that text. But the remission of guilt does not take place without the infusion of grace, and the dread of death is for saints a venial sin but not a small one. -17.6
18 Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
Moreover, our opinion rests securely upon that authority which says that without the adding of grace no fear is dispelled, for perfect love alone casts out fear [I John 4:18]. -18.1
However, ... if purgatory is only a workshop for paying punishments and souls are there because of their affection for that which is unclean... and are not cleansed of that evil, then purgatory would become the same as hell, where punishment obtains and guilt remains. For the souls in purgatory there is guilt, namely, the fear of punishment and the lack of love, while... the righteous man should fear nothing except God alone. Therefore they sin continuously as long as they dread punishments and seek rest.And in order to assert something, even among so many thorny problems of this disputation, I confess freely that I don’t believe anyone is redeemed from the punishments of purgatory on account of fear, until, having laid fear aside he begins to love the will of God in such punishment and loves the will of God more than he fears punishment – indeed loves the will of God alone and despises the punishment or even loves it as God’s will. For he must love righteousness before he is saved. -18.1
I prove that the souls in purgatory grow in love. The Apostle says, “To those who love God all things work for good” [Rom 8:28]. This good can only be understood as the increase of the good which one already possesses. Therefore purgatory also increases that good which is love for God, indeed, increases that most of all. And just as “jealousy is cruel as the grave” [Song of Sol. 8:6] and takes delight in such great evils, and just as the furnace proves gold to be gold [Prow. 27:21], just so punishment proves love to be love.-18.2
It is impossible for a created thing to persevere unless it continually receives more and more strength. For that reason certain thinkers say that the preservation of a thing is its continued creation. But to create is always to make new, which is clear even in brooks, rays, heat, and cold, especially when they are beyond their source. Therefore also in the case of spiritual warmth, that is, the love for God, souls must continually be preserved (until they become absorbed into their divine source) and, by the same token,. necessarily grow, even if they perchance have been perfected, although to be outside of God and not to have attained to him and to have been perfected are ideas opposed to each other. -18.5
The first reason is that very well-known saying of St. Augustine: “All merit is acquired in this life; after death no merit is acquired.” 26 Therefore, they say, purgatory is not a place for gaining merit. -18.5
St. Augustine and all other fathers who have spoken in a similar manner speak from the authority and by the use of Scripture, which speaks much more strongly in favor of this opinion. “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” [II Cor. 5:10]. And there are many other passages which together make it appear as if, after death, there is a judgment according to which each one will receive in proportion as one has done, that is, deserved in this life, ... [Eccles. 11:3 ,Galatians 6:7 and 6:10, John 9:4,Rev. 14:13, Heb. 9:27].” -18.5
All these passages in like manner militate against the whole idea of purgatory because they do not establish an intermediary state between the dead who have been condemned and those who are saved. Therefore if purgatory is justly defended in spite of those things, it can also be defended that grace is increased in the souls in purgatory, notwithstanding that which is said, namely, that all merit is acquired in this life. Nothing is said about purgatory, just as the passages cited also say nothing about purgatory but speak only of heaven and hell. So neither side refers to purgatory. Therefore those words of Augustine must not be understood as applying to purgatory. All merit is obtained in this life and not beyond this life, that is, not in heaven or hell. Finally, according to St. Augustine also, the merit by which a man is worthy of being helped by intercession in purgatory is acquired in this life. Otherwise he possesses no merit either in heaven or hell by which he deserves to be helped. There, at least, he has respect for purgatory, here on earth he has none at all. -18.5
However, if a more obstinate person should wish to maintain that the authorities already cited do not deny purgatory in any way and that souls can be saved by holding to a doctrine of a two-fold judgment or two-fold retribution after death, namely, a temporal retribution, which is purgatory, and an eternal retribution, which is hell, and thus one reaps purgatory, the other hell, and likewise the works of one man follow him to purgatory, the other to hell; if anyone should maintain this, I answer that, by speaking ... through such a detestable and arbitrary ambiguity, those authorities are destroyed along with purgatory rather than preserved, since the other side of that ambiguity can never be proved.-18.5
19 Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
We ourselves, because we believe that no man goes to purgatory unless he belongs to the number of those who must be saved, are certain about the salvation of those in purgatory just as we are certain about the salvation of the elect. Although I do not object too much if anyone should assert that they are certain of their salvation, I myself do not say that all are certain. But since every matter concerning the souls in purgatory is most obscure, I support this thesis by persuasion rather than by proof. -19
My thesis holds true... if the punishment of purgatory consists of trembling and dread of condemnation and hell, and every trembling causes the soul to be distressed, uncertain, in need of counsel and help, and that so much more when that trembling and dread is most violent and unexpected. Moreover, it is the strongest and most unexpected trembling for every soul, as I have said before and as Christ says, ªThat day will come upon you suddenly like a snareº [Luke 21:34]. The Apostle says, ªThe day of the Lord will come like a thief in the nightº [I Thess. 5:2; II Pet. 3:10].-19.1
Because of their confusion they probably do not know whether they are damned or saved; indeed they may seem to be already on the way to condemnation and descending to the pit, and, to be sure, even now at the gates of hell, just as Hezekiah says [Isa. 38:10-20].-19.1
Therefore his condition differs very little from death itself. Such seems to be the case in the dread of eternal death, for men feel that they are threatened in every respect with nothing else than eternal death. -19.1
Records of many examples claim that some souls have confessed this uncertainty of their position, for they have appeared, so to speak, going to the judgment to which they have been called, as St. Vincent and others testify.27 -19.2
At this point one might ask: ªWhy is it, therefore, with regard to a particular judgment, and Innocent [IV d. 1254] testified to this,29 that at death the reputation of a man, no matter who he is, is tested, for it seems that by means of this a man is made certain concerning his condition?º I answer that it does not follow that he is made certain even if special judgment is passed. It can happen that a dead man is judged, indeed may be accused, nevertheless the opinion concerning him may be deferred and not revealed to him. In the meantime, however, while conscience accuses, devils wheedle, and the wrath of God threatens, the wretched soul does nothing but tremble with horror at the judgment which may come at any moment, just as it trembles at the prospect of physical death. Deuteronomy 28[:65-67] threatens, ªThe Lord will give you a trembling heart¼and your life shall hang in doubt before you¼ In the morning you shall say, ‘Would that it were evening' and at evening you shall say, ‘Would that it were morning.'º So there also, eternal death shall strike with a similar anxiety and torture the soul with a terrible horror. This interpretation is not far from the truth inasmuch as Christ also says in Matt. 5[:21-26] that the Lord distinguishes between those guilty of judgment, of council, and of hell, that is, between the accused, the convicted, and the condemned.-19.2
But certain authors, distinguished more by knowledge than reputation, dare to say that some souls, on account of the lukewarmness of their life [Rev. 3:16], will be snatched away by death and thus be cast out by God so that until the end of the world they will not know whether they are condemned or saved. If one accepts the story concerning the monk who was about to die and because of the sin of fornication was condemned, having already blasphemed against God, but was then restored to health, then it is evident enough that the judgment and accusation of hell can afflict the soul, even though the final verdict has not been pronounced. This is borne out by a story in one of St. Gregory’s [Gregory I, d. 604] sermons concerning a young man whom a dragon wanted to swallow up in death.-19.2
In positing this as most likely true concerning the whole matter of the punishments of purgatory, I am moved to do so, first of all, because of the nature of dread and anxiety, then because Scripture attributes this punishment to the damned, and, finally, because the whole church says that the punishments of hell and of purgatory are the same. Therefore I believe that this opinion of ours is sufficiently rooted in the Scriptures. Indeed, the trumpeters of indulgences seem to imagine that the punishments of souls are, as it were, inflicted externally and are entirely external, not born from within the conscience, as if God only removed the punishments from souls, and not souls from punishments. As it is written, “He relieved his shoulder of the burden” [Ps. 81:6]. It do es not say, “He removed the burden from his shoulder:”-19.2
And again the Scripture says, “When you walk through fire, the flame shall not harm you” [Cf. Isa. 43:2]. In what manner shall it not do any harm except that God gives courage to the heart, so that the soul does not fear the fire. This does not mean, however, that there is no fire through which the soul must not pass. Therefore freeing the shoulder from burden does not take place except by healing the fear of the soul and by comforting the soul. No punishment is overcome by fear but by love and disdain. Indulgences do not remove fear but increase it as much as they can while giving the impression that they remove punishments like some despicable thing. -19.2
Another objection must be made at this point: “If souls bear punishments willingly, why do we pray for them?” Ianswer: Unless they bore them willingly, they would certainly be condemned. But why shouldn’t they desire prayers said for them, since the Apostle also wanted prayers to be offered for him, that he might be freed from the unbelievers and that a door might be opened to him for the Word [Col. 4:3]. Yet Paul was one who with complete confidence gloried in the fact that he himself despised death. Even if souls would not desire prayers, nevertheless it is up to us to pity them in their fear and to help them with our prayer, just as we would for any others who are suffering. We should do this without making any distinctions, no matter how courageously they suffer. Finally, since souls do not grieve so much over present punishments as over their dread of impending and anticipated destruction, it is not strange if they should desire intercession in order that they might persevere and not falter in faith, since they are uncertain (as I have said) concerning their condition and do not fear so much the punishments of hell as the hatred of God, which is hell, just as Scripture says, “In death there is no remembrance of thee, in hell who can give thee praise” [Cf. Ps. 6:5]. It is evident, therefore, that they suffer, not because of the fear of punishment, but because of their love for righteousness, as I said above, for they are more afraid that they shall not praise and love God (which would actually happen in hell) than that they shall suffer. The whole church does right when it adds as much as it can this most holy and anxious desire of theirs, especially since God also wishes them to be helped through the church. We have finally come to the end of this vague and questionable disputation concerning the punishments of souls. If there are any who can produce better arguments concerning these matters, I shall not be jealous of them. I insist only that the one who does so should base his arguments on better examples of Scripture without veiling himself in the smoky opinions of men. -19.2
20 Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.
I come to the usual argument, which is the strongest of all, when I ask by what authorities they prove that punishments other than the canonical are waived through the power of the keys. In answer they point out to me Antoninus, Peter de Palude, Augustinus de Ancona, Capreolus. Finally, Angelus de Clavassio [d.1496] cites his predecessor, Francisco de Mayronis [d.1327],30 who carried the sale of indulgences so far that he dared to pronounce them meritorious, if it may please Christ. Indeed it is as if those men were of such importance and authority that whatever they think must be immediately counted among the articles of faith. Rather they ought to be reproached for having brought forth these claims to our shame and harm, claims which they have invented in accordance with their pious desire, paying absolutely no attention to that faithful admonition of the Apostle, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” [I Thess. 5:21]. They are far more foolish than the Pythagoreans who assert only those things which Pythagoras has said. These, on the other hand, assert those things which the Pythagoreans doubted. But let us come to the source and fountains of these rivulets, that is SS.Thomas[d.1274] and Bonaventura [d.1274].31 For my opponents have received some of their ideas from them and they have added some of their own. Therefore these men are holy and carry much weight. -19.3
However, since they state these things as their opinions rather than maintain them as certain – for even St. Bonaventura confesses that the matter is most doubtful and entirely uncertain – is it not also clear that nothing can be proved from them? See for yourself whether they cite any [canonical] text or Scripture! It is no wonder that they themselves assert nothing as certain. For since this matter would be an article of faith if it had been settled, therefore it is not up to the teachers to define it, for it must be supported also by the decision of a general council. Nor does the pope have the power heedlessly to decide on matters of faith; only indulgence preachers do. These are permitted to do whatever they wish. They all, however, have a single reason for their opinion, as Panormitanus [d.1445] also points out in book five of Concerning Penance and Remission, in the chapter entitled Quod autem, namely this: If indulgences are said to remit only canonical punishments, this makes indulgences of too little value.32 Therefore in order that indulgences might not be esteemed too lightly, they would rather invent something they know nothing about, since souls would not be endangered in any way if indulgences were worthless, to say nothing of the fact that they are. But it would be a most terrible thing to preach to souls about fictitious things and illusions, even if indulgences were found to be most useful. But before I answer SS. Thomas and Bonaventura, it seems worthwhile to enumerate opinions concerning indulgences lest I appear to be the first or only person to have expressed doubts about them.-19.3
The gloss to the chapter beginning with the words Quod autem, in book five of Concerning Penance and Remission, which deals with the declaration concerning the efficacy and power of indulgences, begins with these words: “The efficacy of such remissions is an old debatable question and one which is still rather doubtful.”-19.3
Others say indulgences are useful with regard to the remission of a penance which has been omitted through neglect. Panormitanus, in condemning this opinion, says that this rewards negligence. But in my judgment this is not altogether false, since actually all punishments are remitted, even those which have been omitted through neglect, provided one is displeased with one’s negligence. Even those punishments are remitted which have not been omitted through neglect and which must still be completed.-19.3
The sixth interpretation of indulgences, which Panormitanus introduces beyond those five established in the aforesaid gloss, is to the effect that they are useful, as the words indicate, both with respect to God and with respect to the penance which is imposed here, and he says this interpretation is held by Gottfried [of Trani; d.1245], Hostiensis [Henry of Segusio; d.1271], and Johannes Andreae [d.1348].34 I myself also hold this as it stands and is conveyed by the words. But I do not follow them in their understanding of all words, especially that phrase “with respect to God.” If these words mean that even punishments imposed by God are remitted, either here or in purgatory, beyond the penances imposed by the church or canon law, I do not believe it is true, except in a qualified sense, since the punishments of purgatory are remitted through contrition alone, without the power of the keys. So if anyone shall have become perfectly contrite, I believe that, as far as God is concerned, he has been absolved from purgatory.-19.3
As far as punishments for deeds done in this life are concerned, however, I say that there is no authority for this, as I have pointed out sufficiently in Thesis 5. For that punishment cannot be identified which is believed to be remitted as far as God is concerned. So I might say that the phrase “with respect to God” should be understood to refer, not to the punishments imposed by God, but to those imposed by the church. The meaning should be that remission of penances imposed by the church pertains as much to God as to the church, because God approves this remission of his church according to that passage, “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:19]. It does not say, “Whatever you shall loose on earth, something else shall be loosed in heaven,” but, “That very same thing which you loose I also shall consider as loosed.” For by this God wishes men to be subject to the priest, something which might not happen unless we knew that God approves the deeds of the priest. You see, therefore, that all these interpretations are based on mere opinions.-19.3
21 Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
If, however, they should say, “We do not say that these punishments are removed by means of indulgences,” I answer, Why do you not explain to the people what you mean by the punishments which you remit? Instead, you shout that all punishments are remitted before God and the church, no matter what punishments a man should pay for his sins. How shall the people know thereby what you are talking about when you speak so vaguely and with such sweeping statements? -21
22 As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
Every temporal punishment is changed into the punishment of death. Indeed, because of the punishment of death every punishment is removed and must be removed. For further proof of this, consider the Roman church as it was at the time of St. Gregory, when it had no jurisdiction over other churches, at least not over the Greek church. It is evident that canonical punishments were not binding upon the Greeks, just as they are not binding now for Christians who are not subject to the pope, as in the case of the Turks, Tartars, and Livonians. For these people, therefore, indulgences are not necessary, but only for those who come under the authority of the Roman church. If, therefore, they are not binding upon those who are living, much less are they binding upon the dead, who are not under the jurisdiction of any church.-22
23 If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
I interpret this to mean all kinds of punishment and declare the same. Undoubtedly enough has been said of the fact that remission of penitential satisfaction can be given to anyone. Indeed, I amend this thesis to read that the remission of all punishments can be granted absolutely to no one, whether he be perfect or imperfect. I prove this in the following way: Even though God should not impose scourges, or the fourth type of punishment, upon the most perfect, at least not for everybody and for all time, nevertheless there still remains the third type, the evangelical punishment, as well as the fourth, namely death and those punishments which are related to death and lead to death. Even if God could make all men perfect by grace, perhaps without punishments, nevertheless he has not decided to do it, but rather has decided that all men should conform to the image of his Son, that is to the cross [Cf. Rom. 8:29]. Why waste so many words? However highly one might extol the remission of punishments, what, I ask, is accomplished for that one who faces death and the fear of death and judgment? If every other remission is preached to a person and it is conceded that punishment is not remitted, I doubt whether this will be any consolation to him. Therefore keep in mind the dread of death and hell, and whether you want to or not, you will care nothing about remissions of other punishments: And so indulgences which do not take away the fear of death are not minimized through my effort but necessarily through what they are.-23
24 For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
For I myself have heard that many understand it in no other way than that they fly to heaven by means of indulgences without any punishment at all. It is no wonder, when preachers of indulgences write, teach, and shout so as to give the impression that if one has obtained indulgences and dies before he falls back into sin, he will straightaway fly to heaven. They say all these things as if there were no sins except actual sins, and as if the tinder [of original sin] which is left is not an impurity, not a hindrance, not a means which would delay entrance to the kingdom of heaven. Unless this [original sin] is healed, it is impossible to enter heaven, even if there is no actual sin present, “For nothing unclean shall enter it” [Rev. 21:27]. Wherefore the very dread of death, since it is an imperfection of the tinder and a sin, even by itself prevents one from entering the kingdom, for he who dies unwillingly obeys God’s summons reluctantly. Insofar as he dies reluctantly he does not, in that case, do the will of God.-24
His sin is therefore as great as his disobedience to the will of God. So he is a very uncommon individual who, after he has obtained all indulgences, does not also sin in death. Those who desire to be released and beg for death are an exception. In order that I may not be entirely at variance with them, I say that if anyone is perfectly contrite, that is, if he hates himself and his life and loves death to the highest degree, he shall immediately go to heaven after his punishments have been remitted. See for yourself how many of these there are.-24
25 That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese or parish.
So I ask my adversaries to bear the grief with which I am afflicted when I hear that these things, which have never been written or established, are preached in the church of Christ. For we read that at one time it seemed most dangerous to the holy fathers to teach anything beyond the heavenly rule, as Hilary says;39 and the holy Spiridion,40 bishop of Cyprus, observed this discipline so strictly that he interrupted a person who only used a Greek word ambiguously, saying “Take up your couch and walk” instead of “Take up your pallet or your bed and walk ,” finding fault with the word he used even though it did not change the meaning at all.41 I think that in the interest of pure justice they owe me forbearance for my grief since, without any question or warming, we are compelled to bear their presumptions which they take a great delight in preaching, and which we suffer by listening to them.-25
An example of what learning and godly zeal could do today has been adequately proved by the unfortunate fate of those most learned and holy men who, under Julius II, desired to reform the church by calling a general council for that purpose.42 There have been, to my knowledge, a few good and learned pontiffs but the example of these is overshadowed by that of the many. “For it is a most evil time,” as the prophet Amos says, “therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time” [Amos 5:13].-25
Finally, we now have a very good pope, Leo X, whose integrity and learning are a delight to all upright persons. But what can this man who is so worthy of our respect do amidst such confusing circumstances? He is worthy of having become pope in better times, or of having better times during his pontificate. In our day we are only worthy of popes like Julius II, Alexander VI, or some other tyrannous Mezentians43 as described by the poets. For today even Rome itself laughs at the good popes, indeed Rome most of all. In what part of the Christian world do they ridicule the popes more freely than in that veritable Babylon, Rome? .-25
I doubt and dispute whether the popes have the power of jurisdiction over purgatory. Meanwhile I speak here concerning the power of energies, not of laws – the power of working, not of commanding – so that the meaning is this: The pope has absolutely no authority over purgatory, nor does any other bishop. If, however, he does have some authority, he certainly has only the same kind in which his subordinates also share.-25
Moreover, this is an authority by which the pope and any Christian who so wishes can intercede, pray for, fast, etc. on behalf of departed souls – the pope in a general way, the bishops in a particular way, and the Christian in an individual way. Therefore it is evident that the thesis is absolutely true. For just as the pope, at one time and with the whole church, may intercede for souls (as is done on All Souls’ Day), so every bishop who wishes may do it with his own diocese (as is done on “Common Days”), 44 also the curate in his own parish (as is done at funerals and anniversaries), and any Christian who wishes in his own private devotion. Either one denies that such aid is an intercession or else concedes that each and every prelate, along with his subordinates, can intercede for souls. I think that these things are not nearly as doubtful as those bold statements of my opponents concerning the jurisdiction of the church over purgatory.-25
26 The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
I do not believe it is necessary again to declare publicly that which I here debate or maintain. However, since in our time the inquisitors of heretical depravity are so zealous that they attempt by force to drive the most orthodox Christians to heresy, it would be best to give an explanation for every single syllable. It is not very clear to me what else Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Lorenzo Valla, Peter of Ravenna, John of Wesel, and very recently Johann Reuchlin and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples 45 did to be considered evil despite their good reputation, unless it is that they failed to explain every single syllable (as I have said). So great is the tyranny of young zealots and effeminate healers in the church today! Therefore I declare once again that I am about to do two things in this thesis, first, to discuss the power of the keys over purgatory and prove that it has no such power, until someone who affirms it shall prove that it does, and second, to inquire into that method and manner of intercession. for the souls of the dead.-26
1. According to that generally accepted reasoning of Henry of Segusio, namely, if the keys themselves should extend to purgatory, they could empty purgatory. Therefore the pope would be cruel if he did not empty purgatory.-26.1
They resolve this argument thus: The pope can, but he must not, empty it unless there is a justifiable and reasonable cause for doing so, lest he act rashly against divine justice. I hardly think that they would advance this cold and careless solution unless they do not care what they say, or unless they think that they are talking to sea calves who are in deepest sleep. So it happens that from one given absurdity many others follow. As the saying goes, ªOne lie requires seven lies to make it appear true.-26.1
2. The very manner in which the pope speaks about imposed penances proves the same thing. Moreover it is evident that he gives only as much as he declares, and that he gives in the manner in which he declares, therefore just as a bishop remits forty days, a cardinal one hundred days of the imposed penances, so the pope remits completely all the days of the penances which have been imposed. Yet no power of the keys has imposed the punishments of purgatory. -26.2
Moreover, that sea of words (it seems to me) of the indulgence preachers has stemmed from a certain neglect to examine the origin of indulgences. For at that time when canonical penances were considered very important, four days was considered a remission of great length. Later they began to grant a hundred days, then a thousand days, finally many thousands of days, then years, then hundreds and thousands of years. So little by little a greater and greater generosity developed with respect to indulgences. After this one-seventh of all sins began to be remitted, then one-third, lately one-half, and thus it has come to plenary remission of all sins, as one can well see even yet in the main churches47 of the city of Rome. But if the imposed penance is understood with reference to the first stages, it must certainly also be understood with reference to plenary remission.-26.2
I do not know with what words I should label this rude and insolent superstition – this brazenness. The author here is worthy of the displeasure and eloquence of a Jerome, so that such a presumptuous violence and corruption of the sacred words of Christ would be avenged. Grammar itself could have taught them that this meaning of theirs could not be maintained according to these words (but they follow a new dialectic rather than correct grammar). It seems as though they knew all along that Christ was afraid that some day some such Peter or pope would arise who even though dead would desire to bind and loose. Thus it would become necessary for him to anticipate such an extraordinary ambition and tyranny of dead popes and to prevent them from binding and loosing except while they were alive and upon earth. (To ridicule in a fitting manner such worthy interpreters of Scripture), perhaps Christ had reason to fear – and not without reason – that some day a dead pope might bind something which his living successor might loose. Then great confusion would arise in heaven and the troubled Christ would not know which of these two works he should approve, since he had rashly permitted the same work to both of them and did not add the words “on earth” in order to restrain the dead pope.-26.4
Why do they try so hard to show that the phrase “on earth” pertains to the one who does the loosing? Behold, indeed, this little golden work of a golden teacher!49 It is a work most worthy of golden letters, and lest there be something about it which is not golden, it must be handed down by golden disciples, namely, by those about whom it is said, “The idols of the nations are silver and gold…They have eyes, but they see not, etc.” [Ps. 135:15 -16]. These people proceed in a straight path against Christ. Christ has added the phrase “on earth” in order that the pope, who cannot be anywhere except on earth, might not presume to bind and loose that which is not on earth. It is as though Christ purposely wanted to anticipate the detestable flatterers of our day and to restrain them when they proceed to hand over to the pope the kingdom of the dead against his will and despite his objection. St. Jerome, because of his zeal, would have called these individuals “theologians,” that is, people through whom God speaks but actually that god who, according to Virgil, inspires his soothsayers to great frenzy.50 Nevertheless we shall discuss this matter in opposition to them.-26.4
Therefore, since everyone denies that the keys have power to bind in purgatory, it must also be denied that they have power to loose, for both of these are equal powers and have been given equally by Christ to his church. -26.4
For just as the term “in heaven” refers undoubtedly to what must be loosed in heaven, so the term “on earth” must refer to what must be loosed on earth. And again, just as the term “in heaven” refers to what is bound, so the term “on earth” must refer to what is bound. Hence Christ purposely has not said, “I shall loose in heaven,” but rather, “it shall be loosed in heaven,” so that, if anyone by the first word, “Whatever you shall loose upon earth,” should try to deduce from it a false interpretation, he would be prevented from doing so by the conclusion. And one would not be permitted to apply this word to him who does the loosing, for the premise “what is loosed in heaven” must certainly be understood to refer to the conclusion “what is loosed upon earth,” and not to the one who does the loosing. Likewise what is bound in heaven must be understood to refer not to the one who does the binding, but to what is bound on earth, or at least to both.-26.4
Rather we should do even more and ask the pope to do away with purgatory and remove it from the realm of nature. For if the keys of the church extend so far, even with regard to that which must be loosed, then the whole of purgatory is under the pope’s authority. I prove this in the following manner: The pope should give plenary remission to all those who are in purgatory; secondly, in a similar manner he should give that same remission to all those Christians who are about to die. Then it would be certain that no one shall remain in purgatory, no one shall enter it, but everybody shall fly to heaven and purgatory shall end. Moreover he is in duty bound to grant plenary remission; and there is a most just reason why he should, namely, love, which must be sought through all things, above all things, and in all things. Nor do we need to fear that divine justice will be offended by love, for it is toward that end that righteousness actually impels us. But if this is done, we shall lay aside the whole “Office of the Dead,” which today is burdensome and neglected enough, and change it into a festival service.-26.4
Without prejudice to my position in any way, I declare that it is not for me to decide what that method of intercession should be; it is a matter for the pope or even perhaps for a church council to decide. It is my intention only to inquire, discuss, and, by citing reasons, to indicate what I understand that method to be or what I do not yet understand it to be.-26.4
The first treasury is that of the church triumphant, which is the merit of Christ and his saints, who have achieved more merit than is necessary for salvation. This treasury has been left to the church to reward and balance out merits here, as my opponents maintain.-26.4
The other is the treasury of the church militant. Such merits are the good works of living Christians which the pope has authority to apply either for the satisfaction of those who do penances, or for intercession on behalf of the dead, or for the praise and glory of God. On a former occasion I have both taught and written that the pope in three different ways has authority over the merits of the church militant: first, to offer these merits to God for the satisfaction of others; second, to use them for intercession of souls; third, for the praise of God. If this is true, I firmly believe that the bishops have this same spiritual power in their dioceses. If I am wrong, let him who can correct me. Otherwise how could those brotherhoods exist without erring in which higher and lower prelates impart to each other their endeavors and good works? The same question applies to monasteries, orders, hospitals, and parishes. All of this only makes sense if in this way the work of one makes satisfaction for the sins of another, intercedes for him before God, and glorifies God.-26.4
First, if the pope presents the works of the living as sacrifices for the living, I do not see how that can be remission out of grace and not true and just satisfaction and payment up to the very last penny. Although he for whom remission is made does nothing, others work and make satisfaction for him. Then that will happen which all constantly deny, namely, that he who grants remission burdens himself to make satisfaction for another. Actually, then, the pope does not remit sins but makes satisfaction through the good works of his subordinates. -26.4
The third reason is that the term “indulgence” contradicts the meaning of the term itself, for the term should mean “to grant,” that is, “to remit,” so that a person does not need to do what he should do. This does not mean to impose something upon another, however, or to declare that it has been so imposed. The indulgence certainly wipes out the debt, but it does not pay the debt through someone else. Therefore it seems to me that the power of the keys alone, without the treasury of the church militant, suffices for indulgences, especially since only the canonical, not the evangelical, satisfaction is remitted. Otherwise one must say again what I have said previously concerning the remission of guilt, that is, that the pope also remits punishments by means of this treasury, that is, he declares that something happens which takes place without the treasury, namely that the church makes satisfaction for the one to whom the punishment is remitted. As St. Augustine says, no one will be raised up except the one whom the unity of the church raises up, which he says is symbolized in the case of the widow.52 But it still holds true, as indicated in the first and second reason, that it is a satisfaction rather than a remission, whether it is declared or granted.-26.4
First, because the pope does not seem to do anything more than what has already actually been done. For the church as a whole actually prays and intercedes for the dead; unless the thought here is that he does it by way of explanation. I do not see how this is any different from what is said concerning the mass, that is, that the mass is more profitable if it is applied by the priest for the benefit of one person than if it is celebrated for all without application to any one particular member. I confess that I believe this is true. But the pope as the highest and general priest of all priests certainly can do nothing more than apply it generally; indeed he is under obligation to do this, even without letters of indulgences.-26.4
Second, since only canonical punishments are remitted through indulgences, I certainly cannot understand what it is that is remitted for souls in purgatory since the canon laws do not bind them. Finally, at death they are freed from canonical punishments, for every priest is a pope in the hour of death. -26.4
I say in the third place: Concerning the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints as applied to the remission of punishments I shall speak later in Thesis 58. You see how obscure and doubtful all these matters are, and therefore how extremely dangerous to teach. I see and say this one thing, that the pope according to the work of Clement, Concerning Penance and Remission, the section beginning with the word Abusionibus,54 seems to condemn the opinion that souls can be redeemed by indulgences. According to Clement, the pope says, “In asserting that they release souls from purgatory, they lie.” Clement’s explanation of the word “lie” says, “Because they are reserved for the judgment of God.” And chapter 25, the section beginning with the word Qualis,55 attests to this, and it seems absolutely right to me. For if souls are redeemed through intercession it does not thereby follow that they immediately fly to heaven. The words “intercede,” “redeem,” and “free” do not have the same meaning. I am discerning enough to see that indulgences and the intercession of the merits of the church are two entirely different things. One can be given without the other and with the other. The power of the keys alone suffices for indulgences without adding the treasury of merits. This treasury can either be added to the power of the keys or applied by itself. The treasury taken by itself can effect participation in good works of the church, as I have said before. If these things are certain and true, it follows that indulgences, insofar as there are such things, are of absolutely no value to people, unless individuals are absolved in the presence of the church, that is, are declared absolved. If they should have any value it would not be because they possess it in their own right but because another gift has been added to them, namely the merits of the church. These merits of the church must, on the other hand, be distinguished from the general application, by which the church through the merits of the saints actually helps people without the application of the pope. One must determine what value these merits of the church have. But the work of inquiring must be left to others who have not yet lost their desire for doing so because of the many doubts that have been raised.-26.4
First, it is frequently claimed that a certain professor in Paris56 maintained in a disputation that the pope has power over purgatory. When the pope learned of this he granted remission to the professor after his death, thereby supporting or, as it were, commending the truth of the man’s assertion.-26.4
There have been many popes who have been pleased not only with errors and vices but even with horrible things. I listen to the pope as pope, that is, when he speaks in and according to the canons, or when he makes a decision in accordance with a general council. I do not listen to him, however, when he speaks his own mind. In this way I am not compelled to say with certain people who hardly know the teaching of Christ that the horrible murders committed by Julius II57 among Christians might have been blessings by which he demonstrated to the flock of Christ that he was a true shepherd.-26.4
The second objection to my argument is this: St. Bonaventura in Book 4, chapter 20, says that one must not resist strenuously if anyone should maintain that the pope has power over purgatory.-26.4
I answer, first, that the authority of St. Bonaventura is not sufficient in this matter. Second, if the pope has maintained this, one must not oppose it. Third, Bonaventura speaks rightly, because he expresses his opinion by adding the words, “only if that claim is supported by the clear authority of the Scriptures or reasonable proof.” So far no clear authority for that claim exists.-26.4
First, Sixtus IV is said to have decided that the method of intercession in no way lessens the overall value of indulgences.58
My answer is this: First, if anyone wishes to be obstinate about this, he should say, “Prove what you say, Holy Father, especially since it is not for the pope alone to decide upon new articles of faith, but, according to the laws, to make judgments and decisions about questions of faith. This, however, would be a new article of faith. Therefore that decision would be a matter for a general council much more than the doctrine of the conception of the Holy Virgin would be, especially since the latter constitutes no danger, while determining new articles of faith on the part of the pope could be a grave and great danger for people. Otherwise, since the pope is only human and can err in matters of faith and morals, the faith of the whole church would be constantly in danger if it were necessary to believe as true whatever might occur to the pope to be true.-26.4
Second, even if the pope along with a large part of the church should feel thus and so, and even if it were true that he does not err, it is still not a sin, nor is it heresy, to take the opposite position, especially in something which is not necessary for salvation, until the one position has been rejected by a general council and the other approved. But, lest I become too involved, let me state that my position is proved in this one instance, namely, that the Roman church along with the general council at Basel and almost with the whole church feels that the Holy Virgin was conceived without sin. Yet those who hold the opposite opinion should not be considered heretics, since their opinion has not been disproved.-26.4
Second: “The method of intercession does not lessen the overall value of indulgences.” This means that, when indulgences are applied for the souls of the dead by the method of intercession, they retain their basic nature, that is, they are plenary indulgences and do not lose that essential nature, though they operate not as indulgences but as intercession. I accept this meaning and add to it the thought: If it is true that intercession does not lessen indulgences in any way, it is also true that the application of intercession does not increase the value of indulgences in any way. It follows from this that souls do not go to heaven by indulgences. And even the words themselves confirm this fact, for the statement does not say, “The method of intercession fully redeems souls,” but rather, “It does not lessen the overall value of indulgences.” Therefore indulgences, of whatever nature they may be, do only as much as intercession can do and no more.-26.4
I am not duty bound to believe firmly that which the pope himself does not dare to pronounce with certainty. Why does he add the words “as far as the keys extend” only here and not elsewhere? Do you not see how vigilant Christ is in his church, that he does not even permit those to err who want to err? If only we would not rush headlong into error by neglecting his warning!-26.4
I say in the third place, as I have said previously, that even if the pope, along with his father confessors, should not err here, those who deny the pope’s meaning or do not believe it are not thereby heretics, until one or other of these opinions will have been accepted or rejected by the judgment of the general council. Even though they adorn the festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary with indulgences as a settled matter of faith, they still do not condemn or bind those who do not seek the release which such indulgences bring. No matter how many indulgences may be granted, it is not necessary to accept that form of apostolic absolution as true until the church decides upon it. You see again how necessary it is to have an official and general council. But I am afraid our generation is not worthy enough to be granted such a boon, but only to be mocked by the works of error [II Thess. 2:11] which we have deserved.-26.4
27 They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
They preach a man-made doctrine,... according to that word of Scripture, “Every man is a liar” [Cf. Ps. 116:11], and that statement, “Every man living is superficial” [Cf. Ps. 39:6]. This thesis needs no proof, in my opinion. Nevertheless it is proven by the following conclusion: “Because the intercession of the church for souls in purgatory is efficacious by virtue of the will of God and dependent on the merit of the soul.” But even if their opinion were true, that souls are benefited by means of intercession, it does not follow that souls immediately fly from purgatory to heaven.-27
It does not follow, first, because it is not the intercession but the favorable hearing of the intercession and the acceptance of it that frees, since souls are set free not by the prayers of the church but by the work of God.-27.1
There is no difference between one who knows he speaks falsehood and one who maintains something as certain which he does not know to be certain. For the one who speaks the truth also lies at times. These men know that those things just stated are uncertain and yet they affirm them with as much certainty as they do the gospel. They cannot prove these words to be certain by any authority of Scripture or by reason.-27.5
Intercession, then, would be better as a service to another, and then only by chance, than for a man’s own benefit, for it is not as profitable for the one who makes intercession as for another on whose behalf it is made. This is a specious claim. For that reason I pass over this, especially since they dare to admit that intercession is not profitable to the one who makes it, but to the soul for whom it is made. I could make a laughing-stock out of these inventions of theirs and ridicule them just as they ridicule the truth by means of them, but I refrain from doing this in order that I may not appear to consider these matters as dogma rather than as a problem for debate.-27.6
28 It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
It is strange that my opponents do not preach the most precious gospel of Christ with as great a desire and loud wailing as they do other things. The fact that they seem to think more of profit than of piety makes me suspicious of this business. Perhaps, however, they may be justifiably excused by the fact that they do not know the gospel of Christ.-28
My first proof of this thesis is that the intercession of the church does not come under the jurisdiction of the pope. And the pope does not have the power to say that the intercession is accepted by God, but only that it can be offered. This is so even if their opinion were correct which is to the effect that souls are redeemed through this intercession.-28.1
According to their interpretation the commonly accepted opinion of St. Augustine60 -28.2
It is contrary to the nature and meaning of the word “intercession” to say that the pope has power to redeem through intercession. For however excellent a work may be, if it is turned into intercession, it operates not as a work but as intercession. It is much rather the favorable hearing of intercession which redeems. Therefore, either they are talking about intercession by the use of other terminology and thereby are deceiving people even more wickedly, or else they are talking about their own opinion of intercession by the use of accepted terminology. In the latter case their opinion does not prevail, since the meaning and concept of “power” cannot be reconciled with the word “intercession.”-28.3
If their interpretation prevailed there would be no difference between intercession and authority except in the words themselves. Actually they would be one and the same thing since they have the same effect without any other requirement except the will of the pope. Why does not the pope keep quiet about intercession and stop compelling us to understand by intercession something else than power?-28.4
29 Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
I have not read any credible account concerning these two men. Yet I have heard it said that they could have been freed by their own merits if they had wished to be satisfied with achieving lesser glory. So they endured purgatory rather than impair the glory of the beatific vision. But in these matters anyone may believe whatever he wants to, it makes no difference to me. I have not denied that souls suffer other punishments in purgatory, as I have said above; but I wanted to show that they would not fly from purgatory to heaven even with these remissions unless they were made perfectly healthy by grace. Nevertheless it is possible that some out of very great love of God do not wish to be freed from purgatory. Thus it is understandable that Paul and Moses could have desired to be anathematized and eternally separated from God [Cf. Rom. 9:3 and Exod. 32:32]. If they were prompted to do such things in this life, it does not appear as though we could deny that the same could also be done by the dead. There is an example in the sermons of Tauler of a certain virgin who did just that.-29
30 No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
In my opinion, however, remission of punishments specified by canon law can be effected with certainty even if a person were neither worthy nor contrite. It is not contrition, much less the certainty of contrition, that is required for the remission of punishments. Remission itself takes place even if it is granted for imaginary punishments, since it is merely a matter of papal authority. But,...if my opponents desire to have punishments other than those for crime remitted, that is to say, for any kind of mortal sins whatever, they make indulgences worthless while magnifying them. Actually indulgences are not indulgences if they are uncertain. Indulgences are indeed uncertain if they depend upon contrition for all mortal sins and not evident crimes only, since no one is sure that he is without mortal sin. Yet he can be sure that he is without crime, that is, without a sin for which he can be accused publicly in the church, as stated above. So I deny that this thesis is true when I speak in my own sense of the term. I have maintained this, however, in order that those who oppose me might see the absurdity of their boastfulness, by means of which they expand indulgences.-30
31 The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
When they cry that indulgences are profitable for so many people and yet confess that there are so few who walk the narrow way, they do not even blush or give attention to what they are saying. But this is not surprising. They have not assumed the office of teaching contrition and the narrow way [Matt. 7:14]. Therefore I advance the opinion that, if only a few are contrite, nevertheless many, indeed everybody in the whole church could be set free from the punishments of the canons, as they actually are now, simply by abolishing the canons.-31
32 Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.61
Secondly, as I have said, letters and indulgences do not confer salvation, but only take away punishments, that is, canonical punishments, and not even all of these. Oh that the earth and all its fulness would cry out and weep with me over the manner in which Christian people are seduced who have no other understanding of indulgences except that they are useful for salvation and for the fruits of the spirit! It is no wonder that this is so, since the plain truth of the matter is not made clear to them.-32
Oh unhappy Christians, who can trust for their salvation neither in their merits nor in their good conscience! They are taught to put their confidence in a signed parchment and sealing wax. Why should I not speak in such a manner? What else, I ask, is conferred by indulgences? Not contrition, not faith, not grace, but only the remission of punishments of the outer man which have been established by the canons.-32
To digress just a little: I myself have heard that there are many who, after their money was given and their letters purchased, placed their complete confidence in these indulgences. For (as they said) either they heard these things about indulgences or else (I believe this to their credit) they must have understood that the preachers of indulgences taught these things. I am not censuring anyone, for I should not do so since I have not heard the indulgence preachers. As far as I am concerned, they may excuse themselves until they become whiter than snow. Surely these people must be reproved for having wax in their ears that they hear only pernicious things when these preachers tell them salutary things. This occurs when these preachers say, for example, “Above all, brothers, believe in Christ, trust in him and repent, take up your cross, follow Christ, mortify your flesh, learn not to be afraid of punishments and death. Above all else, love one another, serve one another even by neglecting indulgences. Minister first to the needs of the poor and the destitute” [I Pet. 4:8 -11]. I say that when they are preaching these and similar pious, religious, and holy matters, the gullible populace, turned aside as it were by a strange miracle, hears entirely different things, namely, things like these: “Oh you senseless and stupid people, almost more like beasts than men, who are not aware of such a great outpouring of grace! See now how heaven is open on all sides! If you do not enter now, when will you ever enter? See how many souls you can redeem! O hard-hearted and indifferent people! For twelve denarii you can release your father from purgatory, and are you so ungrateful that you would not come to the aid of your parent who is in the midst of such great punishment? I myself deserve to be excused at the final judgment, but you stand accused all, the more since you have neglected such great salvation [Cf. Heb. 2:3]. I tell you, that if you had only one tunic, in my judgment you should tear it from your body and sell it piece by piece in order that you might obtain such great favors.” But then when the point has come to discuss those who speak against the grace given through indulgence, while they gush forth with nothing but benedictions, the crowd stands trembling and is afraid that heaven will crash to the ground and that the earth will open up.-32
The people hear that punishments far worse than those of hell threaten them, so that it is probably true that when those preachers curse, God blesses by means of their curses, and when they bless, God curses. For how else could it happen that these preachers speak things that are so different from what the people hear? Who can understand it? Where, I ask, do those hobgoblin words come from?62 I still do not believe all the things which the populace says it has heard here and there. Otherwise I would consider the ideas which they preach heretical, wicked, and blasphemous.-32
I do not believe it is true that one of them prohibits burials of the dead and the invitation of the priests to be made until those who want funeral rites, masses, and festivals for the dead to be conducted drop more money into the chest. The people make up these things also. I do not believe that story which is said to have been brought back by a certain person and embellished with lies, namely, that in a certain place thousands of souls (I don’t know how many; if I remember correctly, it was either three or five thousand) were redeemed by means of these indulgences. Of these thousands of people only three were condemned; and they were condemned because they withheld indulgence money. No one actually said this, but while the preachers were telling the story of Christ’s passion the crowd heard such things, or else they after - wards imagined that they had heard it. I do not believe it is true that these preachers of indulgences indiscriminately grant to coachmen, landlords, and servants indulgences for four, five, or as many souls as they want instead of paying them with money.-32
I do not believe it when the people say that, after the preachers have poured forth their exhortations with violent bellowing from their pulpits that the people put their money in the chest, they shout, “Deposit, deposit, deposit” (for the people imagine that this is the head and the tail [Isa. 9:14], indeed even the very heart, of the sermon and almost the whole sermon itself). And I do not believe that then, in order that the apostolic preachers may teach the message of indulgences not only with words but also by example, they come down from their pulpits, go first of all to the collection box so that everyone can see, all the while stirring up and provoking the simple and foolish people in the hope of sucking out their very marrow, then deposit their own coin in a magnificent gesture with a resounding ring, wonder whether all the others will let their whole lifesavings flow in, smile at those who do deposit their coins, and become indignant at those who refuse to do so. I myself do not say that they have a corner on the soul-market. I am indignant at the people who because of their ignorance not only interpret such pious efforts as an appearance of greed but as a greed that reaches frenzy. Nevertheless it appears to me that the people who accept from these new spirits either a new interpretation or error perhaps deserve to be pardoned, although they have in former times been accustomed to hearing those things which pertain to love and humility.-32
My own opinion is that even if indulgences were enjoined and salutary, nevertheless, because they have now been so terribly abused and reduced to such a scandal, this would be reason enough for abolishing them altogether. If they are permitted to thrive much longer, those who preach them will, because of their love for money, finally become insane. I honestly believe that the indulgence preachers have not said all the things which have been reported about them here and there. But at least they should have set the people right and expressed themselves more clearly, or, better still, they should speak moderately about indulgences in accordance with the wording of the canons.-32
33 Men must especially be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
For what is more impious and heretical than to say that papal indulgences are a means of grace whereby one is reconciled with God? Yet in order to suppress my displeasure, I wish rather to believe that they have spoken or maintained such things, not out of malice or design, but only out of ignorance and for want of learning and ability. Even in this respect it is presumptuous for men who are so ignorant not to take up the work of a herdsman, rather than take upon themselves the work of teaching the people of Christ.-33
After he has divided indulgences into four principal graces and many other lesser graces, he has this to say in his pamphlet: “The first principal grace,” he says, “is the plenary remission of all sins. There is no grace which can be called greater than this. By means of this, one who is a sinner and is deprived of divine grace obtains perfect remission and the grace of God anew.” 63 That is what he says. I ask you, what bilgewater of heresies has ever been spoken so heretically as that? One can see from this how it happens that when the indulgence preachers say they teach the most sacred truths, the people nevertheless take them to mean the most wicked things. Would that we had here someone with the zeal and the eloquence of a St. Jerome! I am ashamed of a presumptuousness so great that this babbler has not hesitated to publish his pamphlet with four outstanding universities in the immediate vicinity, as though the astute minds of the universities were completely turned into stinking mushrooms. It grieves me also that our neighboring heretics, the Picardi,64 finally have an occasion for justly accusing the Roman church, if they should hear that these things are taught in it.-33
Moreover, the fact that this insolent author has spoken not out of malice, perhaps, but out of ignorance, may be seen by this statement of his: “‘Through this (that is, the first grace, plenary remission) man obtains perfect remission.” What does he mean when he says, “Through plenary remission one obtains perfect remission and through the grace of God he obtains the grace of God?” Is he dreaming in the throes of a fever or is he laboring under a madness? Note well this heretical opinion! He wishes to say that nothing can be called greater than this first grace, and that man, deprived of grace, obtains it. It is evident that this cannot be understood to be anything but the justifying grace of the Spirit, and he himself would not have understood it otherwise. Else it would not be true that no grace can be called greater. If, however, he should say other things concerning justifying grace he would speak in a most wicked manner, since it is God alone about whom it can be said that nothing is greater. Unlike the archbishop of Mainz, St. Augustine says that among created gifts nothing is greater than love.65 But here this author, who is capable of such an opinion or error, confuses the grace of God and the grace of the pope in the chaos of a single word.-33
In the same place there follow these words: “Even though, to merit such grace, nothing can be done that is worthy enough to repay it, because the gift and grace of God cannot be appraised, etc…” See how he again calls that which the pope remits the inestimable gift and grace of God. This is the person most capable of teaching the churches, that is, the prostitute of heretics! After he has diligently used these words to garnish this grace for purposes of business and profit, be quickly clothes his Mercury with the garment of Jupiter so that no one may know that he is after money, especially if the person knows no more than he himself. He also permits that grace to be given free to the poor, but only if they have first tried in every way to rake up money from what he calls “good patrons.” In this way even mendicant brothers may obtain money without the authority of their superiors. Like Pseudolus,66 this liar considers the remission of even imaginary punishment far better than salvatory obedience. But since there was no way open for raking in money, in order to obtain (redimant) this grace (that is, “buy it anew”; not that they actually sell it, but the great similarity of terms compels them to misuse the words), this liar goes on to say, “The kingdom of heaven ought to be no more open to the rich than to the poor.” Once again he wants to open heaven by means of indulgences. But I must restrain my pen so that I do not rave against them the way they deserve it. I have done enough by indicating to the faithful that the corruptness of their sermons assumes such remarkable ignorance and crudeness on their part. Once again, the proverb has proven itself to be true: “The cover fits the dish.”-33
34 For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
This is clear enough from the fifth and twentieth theses.
35 They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
Indeed, I believe there is a big difference between redeeming souls and the remission of punishments. In the remissions of punishment one receives good, but in the redemption of souls one does good. Moreover, the wicked man can receive good, but by no means can he do good. And the work of the wicked man cannot be pleasing to God if the man himself is not pleasing to God, as Gen. 4[:4] says: “The Lord had regard for Abel and his offer ing.” It is contrary to Scripture for anyone to pity another rather than his own soul, and for anyone to pluck out the speck from his brother’s eye rather than the beam from his own eye [Matt. 7:3]. And it is altogether contrary to Scripture for a servant of the devil to redeem a child of God and do this even in the name of God himself. It is ridiculous for an enemy to intercede for a friend of the king. What kind of madness is this? To magnify the remission of worthless punishment which is unprofitable for salvation, they play down the importance of sins for which penance alone should be magnified. If this is not heretical, ill-sounding, scandalous, and offensive to pious ears, what other term could be applied to these horrible things? Or are the inquisitors of heretical depravity harassing and wearing down orthodox people and orthodox ideas under these pretexts so that they alone may be permitted to flood the world with heresies without fear of punishment and as they please?-35
The indulgence sellers say, however, that redemption rests not upon the work of him who does the work of redeeming, but upon the merit of the one to be redeemed. My answer is: Who said this? From what source is it proved? Why, therefore, is not the one who must be redeemed freed by his own merit, without the work of him who does the redeeming? But then the money which they covet from the saving of souls would not increase. Why do we not call upon the Turks and Jews to contribute their money with us also, not, you understand, because of our greed, but for the redemption of souls? The fact that they are unbaptized does not pose any obstacle, for only the contributor of money matters, not at all the soul of him who is lost. The effect of the contribution depends only upon the merit of the soul to be redeemed. I believe that even if a jackass deposited gold, he would also redeem souls. If any qualification is required, surely it is grace, since a Christian who is a sinner displeases God more than any infidel. And braying does not distort the jackass as much as wickedness distorts the Christian.-35
Every doctrine of Christ is an exhortation to penitence and points to the fact that men should turn from the devil, the sooner the better. As Ecclesiasticus says, “Do not delay in turning to the Lord” [Sirach 5:8]. The Lord himself says, “Watch, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour” [Cf. Matt. 25:13]. The Apostle Paul says, “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” [Heb. 4:11]. The Apostle Peter says, “Since therefore all these things are to be destroyed, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy and pious behavior, you who hasten toward the coming of the day, etc.” [Cf. II Pe t. 3:11-12]. The apostles taught these things because they were eager to do so, not for the purpose of collecting money, but for saving souls.-35
These false teachers, however, with complete self-confidence granted the people deferment in a miserable manner, and, as far as they were concerned, left them in danger of eternal death. I do not know, therefore, whether or not those who have desired to keep people in such anxiety should be excused from the crime of murdering souls. Surely in this case it is not the salvation of the giver which is sought, but rather his gift, even if he perishes. -35
36 Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even, without indulgence letters.
Otherwise, those who did not have letters of that type would be in danger. This is a false assumption, since these letters are neither commanded nor recommended, but may be freely accepted or rejected. -36
First, they declare, as if by an oracle, that God requires a punishment which makes satisfaction for sins, namely, punishment other than the evangelical cross, that is, fasts, labors, vigils, and other than the punishment of chastisement. They do not understand these as among evangelical punishments, for they cannot deny that such punishments are remitted by God alone.-36
Second, they add ... that the canons only declare punishment which is imposed by God. Therefore the pope uses only declarative power; he never imposes or removes punishment. Otherwise, contrary to the word of Christ, these indulgence sellers would teach us something like this: “Whatsoever I shall bind, you shall loose.”-36
37 Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
It is impossible for one to be a Christian unless he possesses Christ. If he possesses Christ, he possesses at the same time all the benefits of Christ. For the holy Apostle says in Rom. 13[:14], “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” And in Rom. 8[:32] he says, “Will he not also give us all things with him?” And in I Cor. 3[:21 -22] he says, “All things are yours, whether Cephas or Paul, or life or death.” And in I Cor. 12 [Cf. :27] he says, “You are not your own, but individually members of the body.” And in other places, where he describes the church as one body, one bread; we are altogether in Christ, members one of another [Cf. I Cor. 10:17]. And in the Song of Solomon we read, “My beloved is mine and I am his” [Song of Sol. 2:16]. By faith in Christ, a Christian is made one spirit and one body with Christ. “For the two shall be one flesh” [Gen . 2:24]. “This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church” [Eph. 5:31 -32].-37
Therefore, since the spirit of Christ dwells within Christians..., how is it possible for us not to be participants in all the benefits of Christ? Christ himself has all that belongs to him from the same Spirit. So it happens through the inestimable riches of the mercies of God the Father, that a Christian can be glorified with Christ and can with confidence claim all things in Christ. Righteousness, strength, patience, humility, even all the merits of Christ are his through the unity of the Spirit by faith in him. All his sins are no longer his; but through that same unity with Christ everything is swallowed up in him. And this is the confidence that Christians have and our real joy of conscience, that by means of faith our sins become no longer ours but Christ’s upon whom God placed the sins of all of us. He took upon himself our sins [Cf. Isa. 53:12]. Christ himself is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” [John 1:29]. All the righteousness of Christ becomes ours. He places his hand upon us and all is well with us [Cf. Mark 5:23]. He spreads his cloak and covers us [Cf. Ruth 3:9], blessed Savior throughout all ages, Amen. -37
38 Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said [Thesis 6], the proclamation of the divine remission.
I believe that just as a man who has sinned trusts with the greatest difficulty in the mercy of God, so the sin which lies heavily upon him as a burden forces him to despair and he is prone to think much more about the wrath than the mercy of God. On the other hand, before he has sinned he is prone to think much more about mercy than wrath. Man does everything the wrong way. He is afraid when he should not be afraid but hopeful, that is, after he has sinned. Before he has sinned he is confident, when he should not be confident but be afraid.-38
An example of this human perversity has been adequately pointed out in the resurrection of Christ, where Christ needed to give many proofs in order to establish himself again in the hearts of the disciples. The first announcement of his resurrection was made to women, and the disciples looked upon it as an absurdity. Just so the first stage of trust appears effeminate to the sinner and as something which he should consider entirely, or at least almost, incredible. By the same token it is much more difficult for him to believe that he is a participant in the benefits of Christ, that is, indescribable benefits, and “partaker in the divine nature” [II Pet. 1:4], as St. Peter says. The magnitude of these benefits even produces a distrust, which is nourished by the fact that he not only has such great evils remitted, but such great benefits conferred upon him, such as being made a child of God, an heir of the kingdom, a brother of Christ, a companion of the angels, a lord of the world. I ask you, how can one believe that these things are true, when by the gnawing of his sin, indeed overwhelmed by the burden of it, he feels that he is being carried away to hell? In this respect, therefore, the judgment of the keys is necessary, so that a man may not believe in himself, but rather trust in the judgment of the keys of the church, that is, of the priest. And it makes no difference to me if the one who bears the keys is unlearned or flippant. He may believe, not on account of the priest or his authority, but on account of the word of him who said and did not lie, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose etc.” [Matt. 16:19]. For those who believe in that word, the authority of the keys cannot err. The keys err only for those who do not believe that the absolution of the priest is valid.-38
Suppose, by some impossible or accidental circumstances, that someone were not sufficiently penitent or else did not think he was, and yet believed with absolute confidence that he was absolved by the one who does the pardoning. I personally believe this is possible. That man’s very faith causes him to be truly pardoned, for he believes in him who said, “Whatsoever etc.” [M att. 16:19]. Moreover, faith in Christ always justifies, even if an inept, irresponsible, and inexperienced priest baptizes you. Furthermore, even if you do not think you are penitent enough (for you cannot and ought not trust yourself), nevertheless, if you believe in him who said, “He who believes and, is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16], I tell you, faith in that word of Christ makes you truly baptized, whatever feeling you may have about your penitence.-38
You receive as much as you believe. And this is what I understand it to mean when our teachers say that the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, not because of the mere fact that the sacrament is performed but because it is believed, as St. Augustine contends69 and as I have said previously. So also here. Absolution is efficacious, not by the mere fact that it takes place, no matter who finally does it and whether he errs or does not err, but because it is believed. -38
And no reservation of certain cases [by the pope] can hinder this faith from receiving absolution, unless the faith itself should be manifestly undeserving or despise the absolution. So I say that when a man is in sin he is so vexed and disturbed by his conscience that in his own opinion he believes that he is participating in everything that is evil. Such a man is certainly close to justification and has the beginning of grace. Therefore he ought to flee for refuge to the consolation of the keys in order to be quieted by the authority of the priest, obtain peace, and attain the confidence that he is participating in all, the benefits of Christ and the church. But if anyone shall not believe that this man participates in the benefits of Christ and the church through this work of absolution by the priest or should have doubts about it, he is led astray not by an error of the keys but by the error of his own faithlessness, inflicts upon his soul great condemnation, and does to God and his Word both an injustice and the greatest irreverence. So it is much better for him not to go to the absolution at all, if he does not believe that he is absolved, than it is to go without faith. For if he goes without faith he approaches half-heartedly and thereby receives “judgment upon himself” [I Cor. 11:29], as he would if he were to receive baptism or the sacrament of the bread half-heartedly. Therefore penitence is not as necessary as faith. In this respect faith in absolution receives incomparably more benefit than does zeal in penitence.-38
We teach men to trust in the remission of sins in proportion to their feeling of penitence. This means they are taught never to trust in the remission of sins but to strive for despair. According to the prophet we ought to place our hope in Christ’s word, not in our penitence. The Psalmist did not say, “Remember my contrition to thy servant, in which thou hast made me hope,” but “Remember thy word…in which thou hast made me hope” [Ps. 119:49]. Again he says, “In thy word [certainly not in our own word] have I placed great hope” [Cf. Ps. 119:81]. In another psalm he says, “My soul is sustained by his word,” etc. [Cf. Ps. 130:5]. And according to the Hebrew he says in Psalm 51[:4], “Against thee, only, have I s inned,…wherefore thou wilt justify me by thy word.” Therefore it is neither the sacrament nor the priest, but faith in the word of Christ spoken through the priest and his office which justifies you. What difference does it make to you, if the Lord should speak through an ass, either male or female, as long as you hear that word by which you may hope and believe?-38
It will follow from these things which I have said that the three truths of Jean Gerson,71 which for some time now have gotten into all books and ears, must be understood prudently. Take, for example, this statement of his, that a man should not trust himself as being in a state of salvation because he can say that he is sorry for his sins; rather he should direct his attention to whether or not he longs for the sacrament of absolution so much that when he has received it he believes he is absolved. This is what he means by receiving the sacrament with longing, that is, by faith in the word which one actually hears or desires to hear. Take care, therefore, that you do not in any manner trust in your own contrition but completely and alone in the word of your kindest and most faithful Savior, Jesus Christ! Your heart may deceive you, but he will not deceive you, whether you have him or only desire him. If these words are not understood intelligently (and may the Lord God grant that, in the words of the prophet Micah, I may be a man who is without the Spirit and rather speaks lies [Mic. 2:11]), then I am afraid many souls will be lost because of those most unlearned men who babble about works and contrition. They are blunderers, first, because they do not teach faith in the word but rather contrition, and even this superficially. Secondly, because they are so quick to dole out absolutions and to grant participation in the blessings of the church in the same manner, as though everybody everywhere has that faith. And they do not inquire whom they absolve or why.-38
To bring this thesis to a close, I say that I do not believe this opinion of mine lessens the power of the keys, of which I have been accused, but rather restores it from a false honor and tyrannical reverence to a place of worthy and loving esteem. It is no wonder if the keys are held in contempt when they are offered to those who receive them with hollow respect, i.e., with intimidation; yet anyone who knows of their most salutary benefit would be a stone or blockhead if he were not to embrace and kiss them with tears of joy. Why, therefore, do we exalt the pope because of the keys and at the same time think of him as a power-hungry individual? The keys are not his but mine, given to me for my salvation, my consolation, bestowed to grant peace and rest. With respect to the keys, the pope is my servant and minister. As pope he does not need the keys, but I do. These flatterers turn everything over to the popes, thereby extolling, not our need of consolation, but their own power. By so doing, they terrify us by the same power with which we should be consoled. Today everything is completely topsy-turvy, and yet we do not think that these are unhappy times when the best things are so abused as to be turned into the worst things for us. So, as it stands, I do not maintain this thesis in its entirety, but deny a large part of it.-38
39 It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
The reason for this thesis is found in the following thesis.
40 A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them – at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
One can see how difficult it is even for the learned to take a middle course between hatred and love of punishments; to teach people to hate them and yet do it in such a manner that the people are persuaded to love them. But since nothing is difficult for the unlearned, there is nothing to prevent this from being easy also. -40
Those who make pilgrimages do so for many reasons, very seldom for legitimate ones. The first reason for making pilgrimages is the most common of all, namely, the curiosity to see and hear strange and unknown things. This levity proceeds from a loathing for and boredom with the worship services, which have been neglected in the pilgrims’ own church. Otherwise one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the other places put together. Furthermore, he would be closer to Christ and the saints if he were not so foolish as to prefer sticks and stones to the poor and his neighbors whom he should serve out of love. And he would be closer to Christ also if he were to provide for his own family.-50
The second reason for making pilgrimages is bearable, namely, for the sake of indulgences. Since indulgences are voluntary, have not been commanded, and therefore have no merit, surely those who make pilgrimages only for the sake of indulgences merit nothing at all. Moreover, those people are to be justifiably ridiculed who neglect Christ and neighbor at home, in order to spend ten times as much money away from home without having any results and merit to show for it. Therefore he who would remain at home and consider that passage of Scripture, “Love covers a multitude of sins” [I Pet. 4:8], as well as that other passage, “Whatever is lef t over, give as alms, and behold everything is clean for you” (Cf. Luke 11:41], would be doing far better – indeed, he would be doing the only right thing – than if he were to bring home all the indulgences from Jerusalem and Rome. But there is no pleasure in being so wise, so we shall surrender “our hearts to impurity” [Cf. Rom. 1:24].-50
41 Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
I would say this to people: Look, brothers, you ought to know that there are three types of good works which can be done by expending money. The first and foremost consists of giving to the poor or lending to a neighbor who is in need and in general of coming to the aid of anyone who suffers, whatever may be his need. This work ought to be done with such earnestness that even the building of churches must be interrupted and the taking of offerings for the purchase of holy vessels and for the decoration of churches be discontinued. After this has been done and there is no longer anyone who is in need, then should follow the second type, namely, contributing to the building of our churches and hospitals in our country, then to buildings of public service. However, after this has been done, then, finally, if you so desire, you may give, in the third place, for the purchase of indulgences. The first type of good work has been commanded by Christ; there is no divine command for the last type.-41
I say very frankly that whoever teaches people otherwise and reverses this order is not a teacher but a seducer of people, unless people, because of their sins, at times do not deserve to hear the truth rightly preached.-41
42 Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
As I have said I understand the pope as a public person, that is, as he speaks to us through the canons. And there are no canons which preach that the value of indulgences is to be compared to works of mercy.-42
My answer is: I am not speaking about the work, but about the indulgences. Such a work as that could have been done without indulgences, for it is not necessarily bound up with indulgences. Moreover, indulgences which are bestowed without good works confer nothing; they only detract. The work, however, without indulgences does confer something. In the former case we receive benefits for ourselves, in the latter we give them. The former serves the flesh, the latter serves the spirit. Briefly the former satisfies our nature, the latter satisfies the grace of God. Therefore indulgences in themselves are not comparable to a work of mercy.-42
Likewise a work without indulgences is purer than one with indulgences. Indulgences are somewhat of an imperfection of the work, for the work receives its own reward, indeed much more than its own reward. Therefore people would act in a holier manner if they simply made a contribution for a good work and not for the sake of indulgences. It is not that indulgences in themselves are evil and harmful, but that the perverted abuse of indulgences is harmful, since people would not do such a work of mercy if no indulgences were granted for it. So in this type of work the indulgence becomes the end pursued – indeed a man who looks out for his own interests becomes that end. Man ought rather to do a work of mercy freely and for the sake of God. And he ought to accept only those indulgences which are given to him freely, and not as the result of a financial contribution that he has made. Thus a man should not buy indulgences and the church should not sell them. For both it must be a free gift or it will become a clear case of simony75 and a foul transaction. But who explains these things to the people when the indulgence sellers say, “Contribute freely, and I will give the indulgence freely.”-42
At the same time one must fear that by such a perversion of the order of indulgences and works a great idolatry may be perpetrated in the church. If the public is taught to contribute money in order to escape punishment (which I hope does not happen, even though many people probably understand it in this way), then it is evident that they are not contributing for God’s sake, and the fear of punishments, or the punishment itself, is their idol to which they sacrifice. But if such a thing should happen, then such an evil would arise in the church as at one time arose among the pagan Romans when they sacrificed to Febris76 and other little and harmful deities so that no harm could come to them. So we must be ever watchful for the sake of the people and scarcely entrust such doubtful and dangerous matters to the most learned scholars.
43 Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
I state this thesis for the benefit of the ignorant, for it is clear enough from what was said previously. Even when St. Bonaventura and all the others discussed this matter among themselves, and the objection was raised, “Then the other good works must be omitted,” they answer unanimously, “Not at all, for the other good works are more valuable with respect to obtaining the essential reward.” 77 Therefore my thesis holds, since those who say this nevertheless assert that indulgences are a treasury of the merits of Christ and the church.-43
44 Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
Only remission of punishment is granted by indulgences, and these indulgences have no more usefulness, as everyone recognizes, than to take away punishments. But the taking away of punishment does not make one good or better in the exercise of love.-44
45 Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.
Our sophists, however, interpret this need that the Scripture [I John 3:17] mentions as one of extreme necessity, that is, when there is no opportunity given for showing love, or very little opportunity. Yet if these sophists themselves were in superficial need rather than in extreme need, they would want to be helped But they want to help others only after the latter have already given up the spirit.
46 Christians are to be taught that the buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
I have said repeatedly that indulgences belong to the list of those things which are permissible, not, however, to those which are profitable. They are permitted in the same manner as the certificate of divorce [Deut. 24:1-4] and the offering for jealousy [Num. 5:15] were permitted in the Old Testament. Many others would do better to make satisfaction rather than purchase indulgences, since only criminals need to purchase indulgences. -46
47 Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
The Apostle says: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” [I Tim. 5:8]. But there are many who have neither bread nor proper clothing and yet, led astray by the din and noise of the preachers of indulgences, rob themselves and bring about their own poverty in order to increase the wealth of the indulgence sellers.
48 Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
Our masters, the courtiers and accomplices of the Roman Curia, might laugh at this thesis. Nevertheless it is true that before anything else the pope should desire prayer from his subjects, as the Apostle Paul often did from his fellow-Christians. And indeed, all his laws are to be found in the shrine of his heart; but it is questionable whether or not his heart is good, for that must be nourished by prayer. St. Bernard has written about this matter in a most attractive way to Pope Eugenius [III; d. 1153] in his work, Consideration.80
49 Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
Consider the danger of indulgences. They are preached to people directly contrary to the truth of the cross and the fear of God. Through indulgences people are granted freedom from punishments and then assurance of remissions of sins. There is every indication that indulgences, which are preached so boastfully, are not from God, for the people run after them eagerly, accept them, and even look upon them as that holy gospel of God, so that the truth of Scripture is proved which states, “For that which comes from God, the world despises; another comes in his name and the world receives him” [Cf. John 5:43]. Those who teach such fables are the cause of this error. They preach indulgences more zealously and with more pomp than they do the gospel. And the error is due also to the fact that they preach to all people those things which are only for the few. I have made it clear enough previously that pardons are relaxations, liberties, permissions, and clemencies, and they are true indulgences, if we accept the strict meaning of the term, that is, they are permissions given out of softness of heart to delicate, cold, hard Christians, that is, rather to Gibeonites, the water-carriers [Josh. 9:21, 27], and slaves, than to the leaders and children of Israel.
Even the one who does works of love fervently cannot put his trust in those works or feel sure of his salvation because he does them. How much the more should we accept in fear indulgences, which are of incomparably less value than such works, and place less than the least possible confidence, that is, none at all, in them! A saint is afraid that he might work less or suffer less than he should. Where does that put the sinner who has his sin remitted when he does less than he could do? -49.1
50 Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
In my opinion indulgences are the most worthless of all possessions of the church and ought to be granted only to its most worthless members. The pope never intends anything different, although his false interpreters do. Let someone else give vent to his anger; I shall exercise self-restraint. One thing I want to say: Learn at least, dear reader, whether they do not by their pestilential preach-ing make people believe that salvation and the true grace of God depend upon indulgences. Otherwise why would they commend these indulgences so zealously as to make meritorious works and the commands of God useless? Yet until now they are not considered heretics, so they may take pride in being the persecutors of heretics.-50
51 Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
St. Ambrose [d. 397] melted down the sacred vessels to redeem the captives,83 and St. Paulinus of Nola [d. 431]84 handed himself over as a captive for the sake of his own. It is for such a purpose that the church has its gold85 as the decretals, which have taken this from that same Ambrose, show. And now, dear God, how many there arc who carry firewood, even leaves, to the forest and little drops of water to the sea, that is, their pennies to that purse, whose gain, to use the word of Jerome, is the religion of the whole world.-50
52 It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
They dare to expound this monstrous doctrine without shame in order to take away from men the fear of God and through indulgences hand them over to the wrath of God, contrary to the word of that wise one who said, “Do not be without fear concerning the propitiation for sin” [Sirach 5:5], and of the Psalmist, “Who under stands his faults?” [Ps. 19:12]. But the preachers of indulgences say, “We do not take away the fear of God.” If security through indulgences is compatible with the fear of God, then you do not take it away; but the people do, when they receive letters of indulgence which have been extolled with such a noisy taking of oaths. -52
If a person is afraid that the letters of indulgence might not be sufficient before God, how can this glorious promise of security be true? But if a person is confident that they are sufficient, how can he be afraid? In answer to such unrestrained whirl pools of falsehood some have concocted a story which I believe is not completely devoid of truth. A certain dead person arrived at hell with his letters of indulgences and pleaded for freedom by virtue of those letters. The devil came to meet him and, while he was reading the letters before the heat of the fire, it devoured the wax and the parchment in his hands, and he dragged the man along with him to the depths of hell.-52
53 They are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
It is the duty and intention of the pope to desire the Word of God to be preached above everything else, always, and everywhere as he knows he has been commanded by Christ to do. How can we believe, therefore, that he opposes Christ himself? And yet our preachers dare to believe this as well as everything else.
54 Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
This is clear enough from the dignity the Word of God possesses, and the necessity for preaching that Word, while the preaching of indulgences is neither necessary nor of much value.
55 It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
Nothing in the church must be treated with greater care than the holy gospel, since the church has nothing which is more precious and salutary. Therefore it is the only single work which Christ enjoined upon his disciples at so many different times. And Paul says that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel [I Cor. 1:17]. Christ commanded that the sacrament of the Eucharist should be celebrated only in remembrance of him, and Paul says in I Cor. 11[:26], “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death.” It is better to omit the sacrament than not to proclaim the gospel. The church has decided that the mass must not be celebrated without the reading of the gospel. The mass then renews those who are already a part of the body of Christ, but the gospel, the sword of the Spirit, devours the flesh, divides the kingdom of the devil, takes away the possessions of the strong and increases the body of the church. The mass helps only those who have life; the gospel, on the other hand, helps everybody. Hence, in the early church, the demoniacs and catechumens86 were permitted to remain until after the reading of the gospel and only then were dismissed by those who were permitted to eat and drink of the body of Christ in the mass. Even now church law permits those who have been excommunicated to remain at the mass until after the reading of the gospel. As John preceded Christ, so the gospel precedes the mass. The gospel prostrates and humbles, whereas the mass conveys grace to those who are humbled. Therefore it would be better if they forbade the mass [rather than silence the gospel].-55
56 The treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among Christians.
57 That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
Experience makes this quite clear.
58 Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
1. First of all concerning the merits of the saints.
They say that the saints during this life have contributed many more good works than were required for salvation, that is, works of supererogation, which have not yet been rewarded, but have been deposited in the treasury of the church, by means of which, through indulgences, -58.1
Third, no saint has adequately fulfilled God’s commandments in this life. Consequently the saints have done absolutely nothing which is superabundant. Therefore they have left nothing to be allocated through indulgences. I believe that the inference is clear enough. -58.1
Third, Paul says, I Cor. 3[:8], “Each shall receive his wages according to his labor.” He does not say, “according to another’s labor.” Fourth, I adduce Galatians 6, “Everyone must answer for himself” [Cf. Gal. 6:4 -5], as well as the saying, “So that each one may receive…according as he has done in the body” [II Cor. 5:10]. Fifth, every saint is obligated to love God as much as he can, indeed more than he can, but no one has or can do that. Sixth, the saints, in their most perfect work, that is, through death, martyrdom, and suffering, do no more than is required. Indeed they do what is required and scarcely that. Therefore they have done much less than they should in other works. Seventh, although I have produced so many reasons, they, on the other hand, to support their position, have not produced one, but only a recital of the circumstances, speaking without proof from the Scriptures, the teachers of the church, and sound reasons. For that reason we can, indeed we must, com-pletely ignore their opinion. -58.1
Now I shall prove my argument with the authority of the holy fathers. I will do this first by quoting that well-known saying of St. Augustine: “All saints need to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ even though they have done good deeds, for Christ made no exceptions when he taught us to pray.” 88 But surely those who confess their debts have stored up no superabundant merits. St. Jerome, reflecting upon this in his Dialogue Against the Pelagians, says in excellent fashion, “How can he be a saint if he prays for his own ungodliness?” He says again, “If he is ungodly, he is not a saint, etc.” 89 There he [St. Augustine] deals with the question whether or not the saints have completely fulfilled the commandments, and he denies that they have when he says that this takes place by God’s forgiveness rather than by man’s fulfillment. How, therefore, can these saints have superabundant merits for others, when they have not sufficient for themselves?
Fifth, St. Augustine in his second book of Against Julian92 lists ten [only nine are listed here]of the ancient church fathers who were of this same opinion, namely, Hilarius, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Olympius, Rheticius, and Innocent [I] ,93 and he draws his support from their authority, proving that no saint is without sin in this life, according to that saying in I John 1[:8]: “If we say we have no sin, etc.” St. Augustine says the same thing in his work Concerning Nature and Grace.-58.1
From these and from many other references which would take too long to enumerate, I conclude that the saints have no superabundant merits which would help those of us who are lazy. -58.1
Nevertheless, if I were to admit ... that the saints have actually stored up surplus merits, I am not sure whether the church would be doing such a worthy work when it expends such precious merits so cheaply, that is, for the remission of punishments. For the remission of punishment is the cheapest gift the church possesses and deserves to be presented to the most worthless people, as I already said so often. St. Augustine said this much better in his sermon, Concerning Martyrdom, in these words: “The festivals of the martyrs are not remissions but exhortations to martyrdom, so that we should not hesitate to imitate that which we like to celebrate.” -58.1
But the saints did this during their lifetime [merit], and if they were to do it now, it would be accomplished by intercession rather than by the power of the keys. -58.1
“It is true,” they [certain individuals] say, “that the saints were not without sin in this life, but they were only venial sins, and in spite of that the saints were able to do more than was required for salvation.” It is difficult to deal with such exceedingly stupid people in this matter. But even a good work which has been done in the best manner is a venial sin, as cited above from the words of St. Augustine: “The commandments are fulfilled when what is not fulfilled is forgiven.”. Hence St. Bonaventura, who was a holy man, was absolutely wrong when he maintained that a man can exist without venial sin.-58.2
First, because, as I have often said, this cannot be proved by any Scripture passages, nor can it be demonstrated by reason. Furthermore, those who hold this opinion do not prove it but simply state it, as everybody knows. Moreover, I have said before that to make any assertion in the church without a reason or authority to support it is to expose the church to ridicule by its enemies and by heretics, since according to the Apostle Peter we are bound to give a reason for the faith and hope that is in us [I Pet. 3:15].-58.2
Second, all the arguments which are adduced to prove the treasury of the church militant and the merits of the saints have more weight here. First, that indulgences are not really indulgences but rather transfers of the works of some to others, and constitute a true and legitimate satisfaction, since what we do, we do through another. But, as the canon says in book five of Concerning Penance and Remission (Cum ex eo),98 penitential satisfaction is weakened by indulgences. The canon does not say, “it is transferred,” but, “it is weakened.” My second argument also has more weight here, namely, that the keys of the church accomplish nothing and actually are rendered worthless since they do not loose but transfer to someone else that which is bound. As I have already pointed out, the remission of punishment is very cheap.-58.2
Third, let them give me an answer to the following contradiction: St. Thomas and St. Bonaventura and their followers say continually and unanimously that good works are better than indulgences, as I have said often enough previously. Granted that this is true. Likewise the merits of Christ are applied and administered through indulgences.-58.2
In opposing this view, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventura say indulgences are not commanded and are less important than good works. Therefore indulgences are not the works of Christ, yet at the same time and in a certain sense they are the works of Christ.-58.2
But perhaps, since my opponents are so ingenious, they will answer by Aristotelian distinctions in these words: “It is true that the themselves, are better than our works, but as such they are not indulgences, or rather they are not applied to indulgences in such a manner. They are received, however, just as they are in themselves, as satisfactions for punishments, and in this manner will they also be applied.” I reply, Prove what you are saying. What if I do not care to believe your scant statement? I am commanded to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” [I John 4:1]. -58.2
Are such merits, therefore, of so little value as to receive no other reward than that of satisfactions for others who are lazy? If so, I contend that the works of supererogation are the most noble and perfect of all. Do you agree? Yes. And do you mean that merits are not given as a reward to the martyrs and saints, but are granted to snoring sluggards? And is it true that the saints shall be rewarded according to their lesser works and merits while the more perfect works shall be left to others? I ask you, who is so insane as to believe that? Therefore St. Catherine99 [d. C. 284-305] received nothing for her martyrdom and virginity, but left that for the church. Is her reward for prayer, vigils, and other good works sufficient?-58.2
Fourth, I take up again ,the argument which the gloss to the work Concerning Penance and Remission (Quod autem)100 raises, namely, “If indulgences are remissions of all punishments, then man no longer needs to fast or do good deeds.” We must not conclude from this that remission is uncertain, but rather that the keys of the church are blasphemed, even though almost all the scholastic teachers support this opinion of Gregory. The quotation, “Man does not know whether or not he deserves [God’s] love,” 101 by which he proves his position, refers to a future event, for he who believes now does not know whether or not he will continue in faith. But if these passages make the remission of guilt uncertain, how much more uncertain do they make the punishments of guilt. For if guilt remains, punishment also must remain when the sin is completely erased through contrition, rather through faith in the keys. The gloss substantiates this interpretation of “remission.”-58.2
Actually, then, as some say, indulgences would be a wicked deception of the faithful. Such an error arises when we seek to be justified through our own works and righteousness rather than through faith. So either indulgences are not the treasury of the merits of the saints, or it must necessarily follow that one who has obtained indulgences must desist from doing good works for sins, as the gloss referred to maintains.-58.2
The explanation offered by this gloss is wickedness against Christ, for, if by indulgences the merits of Christ are granted to me and I am still in doubt whether my sins are remitted, then I must still work for the remission of those sins. It follows from this, that I doubt whether the merits of Christ which have been applied through indulgences and given to me are sufficient for the remission of sins. What could be more detestable than such a doubt? For if I could obtain one, single work, just one-millionth part of the smallest work of Christ, I would be sure of eternal salvation. Therefore let us stop doing our own works for our sins and only purchase indulgences, for through indulgences we obtain not only one work but all the merits of Christ, and not only his but those of all the saints. -58.2
My first answer is, I am not the only one: the truth is on my side, as are many others, namely, those who have doubted and still doubt the validity of indulgences. They do not sin because of this doubt. Since remissions are only for punishments, a person will be saved whether or not he believes in them and whether he obtains them or not.-58.2
Second, the pope is on my side, for although he grants indulgences, nevertheless he nowhere says that they are taken from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the church. -58.2
Fourth, even if St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and Alexander of Hales are distinguished men along with their disciples Antoninus, Peter of Palude, Augustine of Ancona,103 besides the canonists who agree with them, nevertheless it is only right to give preference to the truth first, and then to the authority of the pope and the church. Furthermore, it is not surprising that such great men have erred in this respect. For, I ask you, in what great respects did not the scholastics contend that even St. Thomas had erred! -58.2
What is more, for more than 300 years now, many universities, and many of the sharpest minds in them, have labored with persistent industry to comprehend Aristotle alone. Yet they not only do not understand Aristotle after all this effort but even disseminate error and a false understanding of him throughout almost the whole church. And even if they should understand him, they would have attained no extraordinary wisdom thereby, particularly not from the Aristotelian books with which they are most familiar. According to his own testimony in the fourth chapter of book twenty by Aulus Gellius [d. 180],104 and according to the testimony of Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon Against the Arians, Aristotle is discovered to be nothing more than a mere sophist and a handier of words.-58.2
If I only had time and leisure to account for this boldness of mine and instill confidence in my words, perhaps I could show that this opinion of mine is not so unfounded. I would not harmonize Aristotle with Plato and others, which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola [d. 1494] attempted, but paint Aristotle in his own colors as he deserves to be painted. He is by profession a master craftsman of words, according to Gregory Nazianzen, and a mocker of brilliant men. Therefore if God permitted such a great cloud and darkness to prevail for so long a time in such outstanding minds, how can we be so confident in our own works instead of looking upon all our efforts with suspicion, as Christians should, in order that Christ alone may become our light, righteousness, truth, wisdom, and our total possession.-58.2
The holy fathers of the church saw how the unlearned and those who did not know Christ held Aristotle in such esteem as an authority, and since they were of such meek disposition, they permitted themselves to be followed in godly innocence. Since they had fallen into error they became to others a cause for so many confusing opinions, doubts, and errors which we see reflected today in the scholastic teachers. -58.2
Sixth, otherwise those who are the worst people in the church would be much happier. For I have said that indulgences are profitable only for criminals, and the treasury of the merits of Christ should be given to them! But it should not be given to children, young women, and the innocent, to whom it especially belongs, indeed, who alone possess it. But that argument counts for little for those who believe that all punishments are removed and that indulgences cannot be conferred upon sinners without contrition, which I do not believe.-58.2
Lastly, this thesis bears its own proof, that is, that the merits of Christ and his saints perform a two-fold work without the pope, to wit, a work characteristic of them, and a work alien to them. Works characteristic of them are grace, righteousness, truth, patience, and gentleness in the spirit of a man who has been predestined. For the righteousness of Christ and his merit justifies and remits sins, as John says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]. And Isaiah says, chapter 43[:24 -25], “You have wearied me with your iniquities and burdened me with your sins. I, I am He who blots out your transgressions…, and I will not remember your sins.” -58.2
From this you can now see how, ever since the scholastic theology – the deceiving theology (for that is the meaning of the word in Greek) – began, the theology of the cross has been abrogated, and everything has been completely turned up-side-down. A theologian of the cross (that is, ones who speaks of the crucified and hidden God), teaches that punishments, crosses, and death are the most precious treasury of all and the most sacred relics which the Lord of this theology himself has consecrated and blessed, not alone by the touch of his most holy flesh but also by the embrace of his exceedingly holy and divine will, and he has left these relics here to be kissed, sought after, and embraced. -58.2
Many make pilgrimages to Rome and to other holy places to see the robe of Christ, the bones of the martyrs, and the places and remains of the saints, which we certainly do not condemn. But we lament the fact that we do not at the same time recognize the true relics, namely, the sufferings and crosses which have sanctified the bones and relics of the martyrs and made them worthy of such great veneration. -58.2
Yet in the meantime they have opened the floodgates of heaven and flooded the treasury of indulgences and the merits of Christ so that by this deluge almost the whole Christian world is ruined, unless my faith deceives me. A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. -58.2
59 St. Laurence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
This is clear enough to those who have read the legend of St. Laurence. But today the word “treasure” has a different meaning so that men no longer speak of the poor as the treasures of the church. With this word we refer to the patrimony of Christ and St. Peter, chaff without grain, as it were, which Constantine has given to the church.-59
60 Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure;
If the merit of Christ were also called the treasure of indulgences, that is to say, the power of the keys, the meaning would be clear. For no one doubts that everything which has been given to the church has been given by the merit of Christ.
61 For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
3.If the above is true, then the distribution of the merits of Christ must be understood to apply to other occasions for binding and loosing as well; for example, when the pope in his priestly capacity excommunicates and absolves, ordains and unfrocks, issues decrees and annuls, commands and prohibits, grants dispensations, changes, or interprets. For all these matters are handled on the strength of that word, “Whatsoever” [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore if a distribution of the merits of Christ is not necessary in those cases, but the power of the keys alone is sufficient, how much more is that true for the remission of canonical punishments, since such a remission is nothing more than an absolution from punishments.-61.3
But nowhere and never is it customary to gather or shut up this treasury, and yet, if there is a loosing and pouring forth then there must also be a shutting up, for both powers are given to the church and they are not given in vain or without purpose. Therefore, just as binding is understood as making one debtor without withholding from the treasury, that is, without actually taking anything away from him, so loosing must be understood as making one free, without actually spending from the treasury.-61.4
62 The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
The gospel of God is something which is not very well known to a large part of the church.-62
Therefore those who are still afraid of punishments have not yet heard Christ or the voice of the gospel, but only the voice of Moses.-62
Therefore the true glory of God springs from this gospel. At the same time we are taught that the law is fulfilled not by our works but by the grace of God who pities us in Christ and that it shall be fulfilled not through works but through faith, not by anything we offer God, but by all we receive from Christ and partake of in him. -62
63 But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last [Matt. 20:16].
The gospel destroys those things which exist, it confounds the strong, it confounds the wise and reduces them to nothingness, to weakness, to foolishness, because it teaches humility and a cross. -63
64 On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
The treasure of indulgences teaches people to tremble before punishments, indeed makes them free from punishment which is due only to the righteous. -64
65 Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
The Apostle said, “I seek not what is yours but you” [II Cor. 12:14]. And Christ said, “I will make you fishers of men” [Matt. 4:19]. This sweet word directs as it attracts the will; i ndeed, it makes a man surrender his will to Christ.
Hence St. Peter, portrayed as a fisherman in the city [of Rome], says, “ For my ship I steer the Church, all the regions of the world are my sea, the Scripture is my net, man is the fish.” 111
66 The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
I believe this is clear from what has been said, for man does not become better through the remissions of punishments, nor is he drawn to God more because of them. Only the word of Christ can do that. Remissions of punishments are words of a man who grants exemption and release rather than of one who “catches” and binds. But if they “catch” anything, surely it is nothing except money, for they do not catch souls. 112 It is not that I condemn this business of contributing money. However, since this drive for funds is least in value among the gifts and offices of the church, nor deserving enough to be crowned in the future life though it brings a modest monetary return in this life, God’s providence will see to it that nothing remains unrewarded. In former times releases were granted free of charge.
67 The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
The brazen ignorance of the indulgence merchants dares to call that which is of least value the greatest; and judgment in these matters, as well as the ability to understand indulgences properly, is left to the people. As a consequence the people mistakenly believe that the grace of God is bestowed when they purchase indulgences. The merchants themselves do not explain indulgences in order that they may not be forced to contradict themselves or be discovered to be liars because they have called that which is the least value the greatest.-67
68 They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
As a matter of fact, compared to the grace of God they are null and void since they work just the opposite of the grace of God. Nevertheless, put up with them for the sake of the sluggards and the indolent, as I have already indicated.
69 Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
This is so because one must yield in reverence to the papal authority in everything. “He who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” [Rom. 13:2]. Thus it develops that even if the pope should hand down unfair judgments, they must be respected, as the Emperor Charles [d. 814 ]113 said, “Whatever has been imposed, however difficult it may be, must be carried out.” -69
Nevertheless this statement must not be understood in such a way that a person develops a false conscience, that is, as if these unfair judgments should be respected because they must be acknowledged as fair by those who are required to respect them. The pope himself decreed that some should be bound by the church, who nevertheless are not bound in the sight of God, and he compels them to endure this binding.-69
70 But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
Then they make us believe that they are, as it were, from heaven, and declare confidently what indulgences are, as a matter of fact, far more than they really are or ever could be, which they say can be proved from their very latest book.115 Therefore the bishops are obligated to prevent these fancies of theirs, lest they permit the wolves to enter the sheepfold of Christ, as it is expressly commanded in book five, Concerning Penance and Remission (Cum ex eo),116 and as Clement commands in the same book, in the chapter entitled Abusionibus.117 So the bishops should permit these indulgence preachers to present nothing to the people except that which is contained in their letters of authorization.-70
71 Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed;
For although the bestowing of indulgences is a small matter compared to the grace of God and in contrast to the loud bellowing of those who preach them, nevertheless he who would raise his voice against it acts arrogantly against [papal] authority. Therefore he deserves to be cursed, since ecclesiastical obedience to the pope is so much more admirable when he gives up his own feeling in lesser things and humbles himself. But whatever may be the truth concerning indulgences enough has been discussed up to this point and still awaits the decision of the church. Whatever may be the final decision about them it is evident that indulgences are only relaxations of temporal punishments. -71
72 But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
For such is today the condition of the widow of Christ,118 the holy church, that everything is permitted to everybody and especially to the scholastic theologians, among whom it is possible to find those who even condemn true opinions for no other reason than that they do not flow forth from their own spring. Yet they are permitted to maintain that God commits sin, that God is the cause of evil and of guilt, and many other things do they maintain. But if a poet or orator (as they are called) or a scholar of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew were to say this, he would be considered the most wicked of all heretics. But they do much more harm. If a Christian should supply weapons to the Turks or waylay pilgrims who journey to Rome, or should forge papal documents, it is such a great crime that authority has never been given to anyone to grant remission for an outrage of that kind even if the fullest authority of the highest plenary indulgence should be granted. But the papal chair reserves that for itself.-72
But if these violations are punished so severely, then with what severity do we feel they should be punished who offer weapons, not to the Turks, but to demons, and supply them, not with any kind of weapons but our own, that is the Word of God, while they contaminate that Word with their fancies and, as Isaiah used to say, melt it down into an idol by their spirit [Cf. Isa. 40:19], so that it is no longer an instrument by which the soul is attracted to God but rather seduced into false opinions? Yet this offense is so generally permitted that one would be considered the most wicked of all men who would not consider it as a virtue and a merit above all merits, no matter who should do it. St. Jerome also complained that the Scripture is open to all, not for learning, but for tearing to pieces.121 [“Only the art of interpreting the Scriptures is claimed by all and sundry: the talkative old woman and the feeble old man, the verbose sophist. In short, all presume to do this. They teach before they learn and so tear the Scriptures to pieces.”] Therefore if those who hinder people from going to Rome sin so greatly, what about those who prevent them from going to heaven, not only by their contemptible doctrines but also by their most corrupt practices? And where are they going who do not violate papal documents but the divine Scriptures? They “have taken away the key of knowledge; they do not enter themselves and they hinder those who are entering” [Cf. Luke 11:52]. Are these abominations not considerably greater and worse than those which are read on Maundy Thursday and reserved for that day?122 But they deserve to be read only in heaven and shall never be remitted. Therefore they are worthy of blessing who strive to purify the Holy Scriptures and lead them out of the darkness of scholastic opinions and human reasoning into the proper light. In these words we have almost made ourselves Pelagians in doctrine and Donatists in our method. But more about this elsewhere.-72
73 Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatsoever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
I say again what I have said before (whatever may be the personal intention of the pope) that one must give in humbly to the authority of the keys, be kindly disposed to it and not struggle rashly against it. The keys are the power of God which, whether it is rightly or wrongly used; should be respected as any other work of God – even more so.
74 But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
However much this power of the keys must be honored, we must not be so dastardly as not to reprove its abuse or resist it. In the same way all the saints have supported and honored the secular power, which the Apostle also calls God’s power [Rom. 13:1-7], even in the midst of punishments and tortures which that authority placed upon them; nevertheless they deprecated its abuse constantly. And the early Christians did not support this authority because the rulers had used the power rightly by persecuting them, but left them to the consciousness of an evil deed, and through their death bore the witness and confession of their innocence, as St. Peter says, “Let none of you suffer as a thief, etc.” [I Pet. 4:15]. -74
75 To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
I am forced to call them foolish who hold such opinions, and we should beg pardon from the holy virgin because we are compelled to say and think such things, yet there is no way open to escape the necessity of saying them. I do not know what diabolical work has caused the people to spread this rumor about papal indulgences everywhere or whether it has really been said by the people or only understood as such by them. -75
True and evangelical preaching is to magnify the sins as much as possible in order that man may develop fear of God and proper repentance.-75
When they dare to shout that murder, robbery, lust of every sort, blasphemies against the virgin Mary and God are insignificant things which may be remitted by these indulgences, is it still surprising that they do not also shout that those lesser things reserved in the bull, In Coena Domini [issued 1363],123 are remitted? “The pope does not remit them.” Therefore watch carefully whether or not he remits, or at least remits with great difficulty, those things which are far more serious than these.-75
76 We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
I would not have made this understatement if it were not that I wanted to make the opinion expressed in the preceding thesis detestable. It is evident, however, that only God can remit guilt. Therefore those great sins are not remitted by authorities of the church but are only declared by them as remitted and the punishment for them is remitted. I say this according to their interpretation. My own opinion, however, has been made clear enough above. But here I should have said more about venial sin because it is valued so lightly today that it is hardly considered a sin at all. -76
77 To say that even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78 We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in 1 Cor. 12[:28].
79 To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers, is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
Are therefore eternal and temporal punishments to be considered of equal value?-79
80 The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
One is afraid of the power of the church and therefore afraid that errors and offenses committed today against the Roman chair will be punished by a two-edged sword. But why must one be thus silenced? “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” [Matt. 10:28]. “Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father” [Matt. 10:32]. Therefore I am anxious to know who first invented the explanation125 that the two swords mean, on the one hand, the spiritual – not spiritual however in the sense that the Apostle speaks of it, namely “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” [Eph. 6:17] – and, on the other hand, the temporal [Peter Damiani d. 1072 Unam Sanctam Bonifce 8th 1302]. This interpretation is used in order to make the pope appear as a man who is armed with a twofold power, not as a loving father to us but, as it were, a great tyrant, in whom we see nothing but power.
A shorter way out of this difficulty appeals to us and that is not by getting rid of the heresies and errors but by burning the heretics and those who are in error. In this respect we are led by the advice of Cato rather than by that of Scipio over the question of the destruction of Carthage.127 By so doing we act contrary to the will of the Spirit, who writes that the Jebusites and Canaanites should remain in the land of promise in order that the children of Israel might learn to fight and develop the habit of fighting [Judg. 3:1-6]. But if St. Jerome does not deceive me, I think that this passage of Scripture speaks figuratively about wars with hereties.128
Surely, however, the Apostle is worthy of trust when he says, “There must be heresies” [I Cor. 11:19]. But we answer, Not at all; the heretics must be burned and thus the root must be torn out with the fruit, indeed the tares along with the wheat [Cf. Matt. 13:28-29]. -80
81 This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity,
Even if my friends have been calling me a heretic, an irreverent person, and a blasphemer for a long time because I do not interpret the church of Christ and the Holy Scriptures in a Catholic sense, nevertheless, relying upon my conscience, I believe that they deceive themselves, but that I cherish the church of Christ and its honor.
82 Such as: ªWhy does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.º
It is not the pope but the treasurers of the Holy See who provoke this question, for, as I have said previously, nowhere can there be found any decree of the popes concerning this matter.
83 Again, ªWhy are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the
withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?º
We have also said that if souls should fly from purgatory to heaven, then the masses said on their behalf should contribute to the praise of God, which happens when children and infants die.
84 Again, ªWhat is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is im pious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?º
85 Again, ªWhy are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?º
86 Again, ªWhy does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one
basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?º
To this and similar questions I say, it is not for us to judge the will of the pope, but only to endure it, even if it should upon occasion be evil, as I have said previously.
87 Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have aright to full remis sion and blessings?”
This question has arisen because many people, even the jurists, say that they do not know what remission of guilt by the keys is, about which I have given my opinion previously.
88 Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”
At this point one hears the most surprising things. Some imagine a common treasury which is increased by indulgences. Therefore if a man obtains plenary remission seven times a day, which can happen in Rome, so many more benefits will he receive.
89 “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”
This disturbs and displeases me most of all and, I confess, to a great degree, for this suspending of earlier letters and indulgences is the only reason that indulgences have become worthless. I cannot deny that everything which the pope does must be endured, but it grieves me that I cannot prove that what he does is best. Although, if I were to discuss the intention of the pope without becoming involved with his mercenary hirelings, I would say, briefly and with confidence, that one must assume the best about him. The church needs a reformation which is not the work of one man, namely, the pope, or of many men, namely the cardinals, both of which the most recent council has demonstrated, but it is the work of the whole world, indeed it is the work of God alone.
90 To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
For while the people are being held in check by fear, a worse evil develops. How much more appropriate it would be if we were taught to understand the wrath of God, to pray for the church, and to endure such trials in the hope of a future reformation, than if we were to stir up an even worse evil by desiring to compel people to look upon such manifest evils as virtues.
91 If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be
readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
92 Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! [Jer. 6:14]
93 Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94 Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their head, through penalties, death, and hell;
95 And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace [Acts 14:22].
Enough has been said previously about cross and punishments. Rarely do you hear a sermon about it today.
TO THE SINCERE AND LEARNED READER
Do not assume that these things were published for you, my learned and brilliant reader (but why is this reminder necessary?), as though I were afraid these matters might appear Ciceronian to you. You have other things which you may read according to your own inclination. It was necessary for me to discuss with my equals those things which we have in common, that is, crude and barbarian matters. So it has pleased heaven. And I would not have dared to call upon the name of the pope for these notions of mine if I had not seen how greatly my friends relied upon the pope’s power to frighten me and also because it is the official duty of the pope to make himself “a debtor to the wise and to the foolish, to Greeks and to barbarians” [Rom. 1:14]. Farewell.
A.D. 1518
1Johann Tetzel.
2Conrad Wimpina.
3Peter Lombard. Migne 192, 519-984. In the fourth book, Lombard discusses eschatological subjects and the sacraments.
4Luther here evidently has in mind Aesop’s familiar fable, The Ass in the Lion Skin.
5Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX Lib v. tit. XXXVII, cap. 4. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, col. 885.
6Cf. Thesis 5.
7That is, scholastic argumentation.
8Peter Lombard, op. cit.
9Ibid., Book 4.
10Cf. p. 282, n. 8.
11Since there were a number of scholastic theologians by this name, we do not know to whom Luther refers.
12Cf. p. 262, n. 8.
13According to Roman doctrine a martyr does not go to purgatory but immediately enters heaven. For this reason he is prayed to immediately, but one does not pray for him.
14This letter of Cyprian was addressed to the presbyters and deacons informing them of the action they should take in re-admitting the lapsed into the church.
15Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX Lib. v. tit. XXXIV, cap. 28. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, cols. 899-900.
16Ecclesiastical History, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff (Oxford and New York, 1890) I, 81-400. A more recent translation is that by Kirsopp Lake in the Loeb Classical Library (2 vols.; London and New York, 1928-1932).
17Historia ecclesiastica vocata tripartita. Migne 9, 879-1214.
18Dionysius the Areopagite, referred to in Acts 17:34, probably was not the author of this work.
19The term “Picard” is derived from the name “Beghard” which refers to a variety of mystical religious movements in Flanders and the Rhineland during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. Luther probably refers to the spiritual descendants of the Picardi in Bohemia, whom the moderate Hussites considered heretics.
20Migne 32, 778-780.
21John Tauler was born at Strassburg about 1300 and died June 18, 1381. Cf. p. 73.
22Cf. Officium et Missae pro Defunctis. Offertorium 2. In Liber usualis Missae et Oficii (Paris, Tornaci, Rome, 1929) p. 1886.
23Ibid. A versicle: Ad Vesperas and Laudes, p. 1149, et al.
24The Latin word in the Weimar edition is servire (to serve). Here I have read it saevire (to rage), with EA 2,182, and CL 1,58.
25Decretum Magistri Gratiani, Prima Pars, dist. XXV, cap. 4. Corpus Iuris Canonici, I, col. 94. Migne 187,148.
26De praedestinatione sanctorum, cap. 12. Migne 44,977; CL 1, 64, note.
27The “Vita Vincentii Ferrerii,” Acta Sanctorum, April, I (Parts and Rome, 1866–), 476-510.
28Cf. the “glossa ordinaria” of Walafrid Strabo (d. 849) on Mark 1:34. In this instance a “gloss” is a marg inal note employed for explanation of biblical passages.
29Innocent IV, Apparatus in quinque libros decretalium, ad. C.V. tit. 38, cap. 14, as cited in MA3 1, 496.
30Antoninus (1389-1459) was archbishop of Florence and a Dominican scholar whose Summary of Moral Theology Luther has in mind; Peter de Palude (1275?-1342) was a teacher at Paris and a well-versed theologian to whose commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences Luther refers; Augustine of Ancona (d. 1328) was an Augustinian Eremite whose Summary of the Power of the Church Luther knew; John Capreolus (d. 1444) was a Dominican who was considered the most able student of Thomas Aquinas in the fifteenth century. Francisco de Mayronis (1280?-1327) is considered one of the most distinguished disciples of Duns Scotus. Angelus de Clavassio (d. 1495) whose Summary of Questions of Conscience (Summa casuum conscientiae) went through thirty editions between 1478 and 1520, was superficial in his treatment of matters relating to indulgences, and his book became the object of Luther's scorn.
31St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Dominican, was the greatest of the scholastic theologians. St. Bonaventura (1221-1274), a general of the Franciscans, was a respected scholastic theologian contemporary with St. Thomas.
32Nicholas of Tudesco, archbishop of Palermo (Panormitanus) was a learned Benedictine scholar. Luther refers to his gloss in Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX v. tit. XXXVIII, cap. 4. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, col. 885.
33Ibid.
34Gottfried of Trani was a thirteenth-century canonist at the Roman Curia. Henry of Segusio also served in the Curia and became cardinal and archbishop of Ostia (thus called Hostiensis). Johannes Andreæ was a canonist who taught at the universities of Bologna and Padua.
35Angelus de Clavassio.
36Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX Lib v. tit. XXXVIII, cap. 14. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, cols. 888-889.
37Ibid.
38Ibid.
39Hilary of Arles (401?-450?) was an ascetic bishop who became involved in a dispute with Pope Leo I about luxurious living.
40Spiridion was an archbishop of Tramathus on Cyprus in the fourth century. He defended the Apostolic faith against the Arians at the Council of Nicaea (325).
41The Latin cubile usually means couch or bed, grabatum a low couch, and lectum a couch of leaves. Virgil in Aeneid iii, 324 speaks of cubile as a marriage bed.
42This reference is evidently to the scandalous Council of Pisa which was called in 1511 by a few French and Spanish cardinals to condemn Pope Julius II; but the cardinals refused. Luther here seems to refer to the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) dominated by Julius II and Leo X.
43The reference here is to Mezentius, king of Caere in Etruria, whose aid was invoked by Turnus against the invading Aeneas. According to the earlier story, told in Cato's Origines, Turnus and Aeneas alike fell in the subsequent conflict, and Mezentius was later killed or forced to submit in single combat with Acanius. Virgil in Aeneid (vii-x) develops Mezentius into a full-blooded, atheistic tyrant, killed by Aeneas after the death, in his defense, of his attractive son Lausus.
44The days in the week following Michaelmas Day (Sept. 29).
45Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) and Lorenzo Valla (1405-1457), Italian humanists; Peter of Ravenna (1448-1518), an Italian jurist who late in life taught at Greifswald and Wittenberg; John Ruchrath of Oberwesel, or Wesel (1410?-1481), an Erfurt theologian and preacher, in Mainz and Worms; Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522), noted German lawyer, statesmen, and humanist; and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples (Faber Stapulensis, 1455 -1536 ), a French humanist. All these were at one time or another tried or threatened by the Inquisition.
46 A German proverb having its origin in law court procedure according to which the testimony of seven persons in favor of the witness could be superseded through the testimony of seven other persons. Cf. Wander, Sprichwörterlexikon, III, 255. MA3 1, 502.
47 Latin is stationibus. The reference is to the seven titular churches of Rome.
48 Op. cit.
49 Refers to the best known book of Hostiensis (Henry of Segusio; d. 1271), entitled Summa super titulis Decretalium, also known as the Summa aurea, or Golden Summary. The author was an Italian canonist who taught at Bologna and Paris and later was made chaplain to the pope. See above, p. 149, n. 34. 50 Cf. Aeneid vi, 1. 12.
51 City of God. Migne 41, 149ff.
52 Exposition of Psalm 145. Migne 37, 1897.
53 Op. cit.
54 Clementis Papae V, Constitutiones v. tit. IX, cap. 2. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, cols. 1190-1191.
55 Op. cit.
56 Clementis Papae V, Constitutiones v. tit. IX, cap. 2. Corpus Iuris Canonici, served as head of the school of his order in Paris. Cf. CL 1, 88, footnote to line 37.
57 Julius II (pope: 1503-1513), the ªwarrior pope,º joined the League of Cambrai against Venice and was attacked for this by many of his contemporaries.
58 In his explanation of the bull of indulgence, Romans pontificis, issued 1477 by Sixtus IV (pope: 1471-1484) for the church at Saintes, the commissary for indulgences, Raimund Peraudi, states: ªThe way of intercession does not detract from the way of authority.º Cf. MA 3 1, 503 and CL 1, 88, footnote to line 24. Cf. also Proceedings at Augsburg, p. 282.
59 WA 1, 584, footnote 37, indicates that all editions read ª Quintoº and suggests that the fourth point of the original manuscript may have been left unprinted by mistake.
60 Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 110. Migne 40, 283.
61 This is one of Luther's most important arguments against indulgences. He was not vehemently opposed to indulgences per se, but to the church and teachers who permitted the ignorant masses to believe that the purchase of indulgences made them sure of salvation and free from guilt before God, instead of free from punishments imposed by the church.
62 CL 1, 96 omits this question from the text.
63 Reference here is to the Summary Instruction of Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, the general commissioner of the indulgence of Leo X, written for the sub-commissioners. Walther Köhler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit (Tübingen, 1934), pp. 104-124. 64 Cf. p. 125, n. 19.
65 Cf. Migne 38, 793, sermon CXLV, where St. Augustine points out that love is greater than the eyes, hands, feet, stomach, and any other member of the body.
66 Pseudolus, meaning liar, is also the title of a comedy by Plautus (254-184 B.C.).
67 Mercury was a Roman god of commerce.
68 This paragraph gives an excellent idea of Luther's conception of the atone ment and justification by faith.
69 Cf. Tract 80, 3, concerning the Gospel according to St. John, in Migne 35, 1840: ªFrom whence does water have such great power that it cleanses the body and purifies the heart except from the word, not because it is spoken but because it is believed?' Cf. also Augsburg Confession, Article XIII. 70 E.g. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica iii. ques. 61, art. 1.
71 Cf. p. 262, n. 8.
72 Cf. Migne 22, 891, epist. 108, cited in CL 1, 108. Paula was a wealthy friend of St. Jerome who lived near him in Bethlehem from 388 A.D. on.
73 St. James of Compostella in Spain.
74 Both became martyrs during the persecution of the Roman Emperor Decius in Sicily ca. A.D. 250.
75 In the Middle Ages simony became a technical term referring to the practice of securing ecclesiastical office or preferment with money. The term is derived from Simon, the Magician, who offered the apostles money for the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24). Gregory VII (pope: 1073-1085) defined as simony acceptance of a clerical appointment from the hands of a layman.
76 Febris was a goddess to whom three temples were erected in Rome. Remedies which had been helpful in cases of fever were placed in these temples.
77Luther's free rendering of Bonaventura s comment on Peter Lombard's Sententiarum iv. dist. XX, cap. 2, ques. 6. Cited in CL 1, 111.
78Theses 46 and 47 are given in inverse order in the Explanations from that in the Ninety-five Theses of 1517.
79Cf. Thesis 20.
80St. Bernard was a great preacher during the crusades of the twelfth century. He heartily approved the election of Eugenius III as pope in 1145. Consideration was St. Bernard's last work, written about 1148 at the pope's request and for his edification and guidance.
81That is, days for buying and selling divine privileges. Cf. also p. 201, n. 75.
82Caesar Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), quoted by Suetonius in his Life of Tiberius (Vita Tiberii), chap. 82.
83Cf. De officiis ministrorum ii. 28. Migne 18, 148-150.
84St. Paulinus (354?-431) was a personal acquaintance of St. Ambrose (340-395), bishop of Milan. After the death of his only child, who died in infancy, he and his wife Therasia entered monastic life. He became bishop of Nola about 409 and held that office until his death in 431. His feast day is June 22.
85When Paulinus made the decision for the ascetic life he turned over his enormous wealth to the church.
86Luther refers to the division of the mass into the missa catechumenorum and missa fidelium which evolved in the course of the second and third centuries of the Christian era. “Catechumens” is the name given those who were being in structed in preparation for baptism, not, as is the custom in many churches today, for confirmation.
87Cf. p. 208, n. 81.
88Concerning Nature and Grace. Migne 40, 266ff.
89Migne 23, 538: “If he is a saint how can he pray for his ungodliness? If he has ungodliness, why is he called a saint?”
90Migne 32, 615.
91Migne 32, 659-868; cf. 778.
92Migne 44, 671-874. Emperor Julian (361-363) turned against Christianity and tried to revive paganism.
93Actually only 9 are listed here.
94Written A.D. 415 against the Pelagians. Cf. p. 9 n. 1, and p. 214 n. 88.
95Sermo 123, chap. 2. Migne 38, 684-685.
96Cf. p. 214, n. 90.
97That is, the opinion that the merits of Christ become a part of the treasury of indulgences.
98Op. cit.
99St. Catherine, one of the most honored saints of the Eastern and Western churches, whose name is linked with many legendary accretions on account of the martyrdom she presumably met at the hands of Maximinus or Maxentius during the Diocletian persecutions (284-305).
100Op. cit.
101MA3 attributes this quotation to Nicholas of Tudesco (Panormitanus). Cf., however, Eccles. 9:1.
102Op. cit. Cf. also Thesis 20.
103For identification, cf. Thesis, 20, p. 148, n. 30.
104Aulus Gellius, a grammarian of the second century A.D., in his Noctes Atticae prepared a digest of conversations with contemporaries concerning writings of great literary men, including Aristotle. Aristotle’s testimony concerning himself is not to be found in the source to which Luther refers. Cf. MA 3 1, 511 and CL 1, 128. The Sermon Against the Arians is in Migne, Patrologiae, Series Graeca, 38, cols. 213-238.
105Held in high esteem as representing youthful chastity and innocence in Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches, St. Agnes was put to death circa 304.
106The patrimony of Christ and St. Peter refers to the Papal States as hereditary territories initially acquired by the pope through Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 321 and greatly expanded thereafter. In the late Middle Ages the Donation of Constantine, a spurious document having its origin in the eighth century, was employed to defend the legal rights of the pope as a temporal sovereign. Upon its incorporation into canon law certain interpolations were made into the Donation by Paucapalea referred to as palea (chaff). Hence Luther’s pla y on words in the phrase, “chaff without grain.”
107Luther employs these phrases which were frequently used in papal decrees.
108Greek sum of money, equivalent in weight to a hundred Attic drachmas.
109Probably the Attic talent that contains 60 minae.
110A Roman silver coin.
111According to CL 1, 133, this may be a reference to Luther’s visit to Rome in the winter of 1510 -1511.
112Cf. Luke 5:10: “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”
113I.e., Charles the Great, or Charlemagne.
114A play on the words papae (popes) and pappi (little seeds floating through the air like flakes).
115The Summary Instruction of the archbishop of Mainz.
116Op. cit.
117Op. cit.
118Rev. 21:2 and 9 describe the church as the bride of Christ. With this metaphor as background in his thinking Luther describes the church when separated from Christ as a widow.
119Reference is to that polycephalous monster that lived in a forest and marsh near Argos, called Lerna. This forest and the stream of the same name which flowed through it was the haunt of the Lernaean Hydra, which Hercules slew with the help of Iolaus. He then drained the marsh.
120Cf. p. 208, n. 81.
121Migne 22 544, epist. LIII: “Only the art of interpreting the Scriptures is claimed by all and sundr y: the talkative old woman and the feeble old man, the verbose sophist. In short, all presume to do this. They teach before they learn and so tear the Scriptures to pieces.
122The bull, In Coena Domini issued by Urban V in 1363, was read in each year on Maundy Thursday, the day of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Among other
matters the bull anathematized all those who by robbery prevented the movement of victuals to Rome by land and sea and those who might attempt by robbery to prevent aluminum being transported to Rome from the papal mines at Tolfa. Cf. MA3 1, 514.
123Ibid.
124Ibid.
125Peter Damiani (1007-1072).
126Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX iii. tit. I, cap. 2. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, col. 449.
127Cato advocated the annihilation of Carthage, Scipio Africanus favored its continued existence once its hostile government had been eliminated.
128Migne 22, 548, epist. LII: “As many princes of the people are named in the book of Job as there are parables.”
129Cf. p. 125, n. 19.
130CL 1, 143 reads surgere (to arise) instead of fugere (to flee).
131CL 1, 144 reads doctoribus. The editors have followed the reading of WA 1, 626: doctioribus.
132The Fifth Lateran Council whose twelve sessions were held at Rome at various intervals from 1512-1517.
xxxx
LW 31:79-252
Introduction
Notable throughout the Explanations is Luther’s strong inner conflict, already voiced in his Preface to a German Theology. He writes respectfully of the pope but questions his primacy as bishop of Rome; he quotes the church fathers and canon law but treats the Bible as the primary – but not yet sole – authority in religious matters; he recognizes the ultimate authority of general church councils in matters of faith but opposes the burning of heretics, as was done at the Council of Constance; he still accepts purgatory and “the treasure of the church” but interprets them in an evangelical fashion; he dislikes tumult and disobedience but asks in unmistakable terms for a reformation of the church.
The revised form was finally published toward the end of August, 1518. Luther then sent copies and accompanying letters to his three ecclesiastical superiors, Bishop Schulz [WA, Br, 1,138-140], Vicar Staupitz [WA 1,525-527], and Pope Leo X [WA 1,527-529]. The pope received his copy while initiating the formal process against Luther. Although it in no way altered the pope’s intentions, it greatly clarified the issues at stake in the indulgence controversy.
The Explanations, written in Latin, was first published by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg. The following English translation is based on this copy as edited in WA 1,525-628. It was published in German for the first time in the Leipzig Edition. This translation was included in volume 18, pages 299-533 of Dr. Martin Luther’s sämmtliche Schriften, edited by Johann Georg Walch (24 vols., Halle, 1740-1753), but the one in St.L. 18, 102-269 was made from the Latin in WA. The German translation in MA3 1,142-295 was based on the German in volume 18 of Walch’s edition, but the editor collated it with the Latin in WA and incorporated the corrections in the latter made by Theodor Brieger in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XVII, 175ff. Cf. W. Kohler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit (Leipzig, 1903), and Otto Clemen, “Beitrage zur Lutherforschung,” Festschrift für Theodor Brieger (1912).
Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses or Explanations of the Disputation Concerning the Value of Indulgences
Declaration
Because this is a theological disputation, I shall repeat here the declaration usually made in the schools in order that I may pacify the individuals who, perhaps, are offended by the simple text of the disputation. -Declaration
First, I testify that I desire to say or maintain absolutely nothing except, first of all, what is in the Holy Scriptures and can be maintained from them; and then what is in and from the writings of the church fathers and is accepted by the Roman church and preserved both in the canons and the papal decrees. But if any proposition cannot be proved or disproved from them I shall simply maintain it, for the sake of debate, on the basis of the judgment of reason and experience, always, however, without violating the judgment of any of my superiors in these matters.-Declaration
I add one consideration and insist upon it according to the right of Christian liberty, that is, that I wish to refute or accept, according to my own judgment, the mere opinions of St. Thomas, Bonaventura, or other scholastics or canonists 2 which are maintained without text and proof. I shall do this according to the advice of Paul to “test everything, hold fast to that which is good” [I Thess. 5:21], although I know the feeling of Thomists who want St. Thomas to be approved by the church in everything. The weight of St. Thomas’ authority is known well enough. -Declaration
1 When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” [Matt. 4:17], he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
This I assert and in no way doubt.
1. Nevertheless, I shall prove the thesis for the sake of those who are uninformed, first from the Greek word metanoiei=te itself, which means “repent” and could be translated more exactly by the Latin transmentamini, which means “assume another mind and feeling, recover one’s senses, make a transition from one state of mind to another, have a change of spirit”; so that those who hitherto have been aware of earthly matters may now know the spiritual, as the Apostle says in Rom. 12 [:2], “Be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” - 1.1
“He who hates his soul in this life , preserves it for eternal life” [Matt. 10:39]. And again, “He who does not take his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me” [Matt. 10:38]. And in the same chapter, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” [Matt. 10:34]. In Matt. 5[:4], “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” And Paul in Romans 6 and 8 and in many other places …-1.1
2 This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
1.
2. Sacramental penance is only external and presupposes inward penance without which it has no value. But inward penance can exist without the sacramental. -2.2
4.There is no teaching of Christ concerning sacramental penance but it is legally instituted by the popes and the church (at least with respect to its third part, namely satisfaction), and is thereby changeable by the will of the church. But evangelical penance is a divine law, never changeable; for it is unceasingly the sacrifice which is called a contrite and humble heart [Ps. 51:17].-2.4
3 Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.
Thus it follows that the three parts of satisfaction (fasting, prayer, and alms) do not pertain to sacramental penance as far as the essence of the deeds is concerned, since these things are the command of Christ. Prayer includes every pursuit of the soul, in meditation, reading, listening, praying. The giving of alms includes every service toward one’s neighbor. Thus by fasting a Christian may serve himself, by prayer he may serve God, and by the giving of alms he may serve his neighbor. -3
I admit that ... with respect to the intention behind it [penance], and also with respect to the sacrament, that is, satisfaction. And who would deny that hitherto many theologians have been permitted to corrupt almost the whole Scripture with their daring distinctions and double meanings recently fabricated, so that for Paul and Christ we read patchworks of Paul and patchworks of Christ? I have spoken about the true and real significance of the word metanoei=te which Christ intended, or at least the meaning which John the Baptist intended, who himself had no authority to institute the sacrament and yet came preaching a baptism of repentance, saying, “Repent” [Matt. 3:2; 4:7]. -3
Christ is without doubt a divine lawgiver and his doctrine is divine law, which no authority can change or
dispense with. But if the penance taught by Christ signifies sacramental penance (satisfaction), and if the pope can change this and actually does change it according to his own will, then either the pope has divine law under his authority or else he is a most wicked adversary of his God, causing the command of God to be of no effect. If these false theologians dare to assert the former (these men who boast that they speak out on behalf of the revelation of truth and the suppression of errors to the glory of God, the defense of the catholic faith, and the honor of the holy apostolic throne)...-3
4 The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self, that is, true inner repentance, until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
If a person’s whole life is one of repentance and a cross of Christ, not only in voluntary afflictions but also in temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh, and more especially also in persecutions and sufferings, as is clear from what has been said previously, and from the whole of Scripture and from examples of the saint of saints himself and all the martyrs, then it is evident that the cross continues until death and thereby to entrance into the kingdom. -4.1
The cross of repentance must continue until, according to the Apostle, the body of sin is destroyed [Rom. 6:6] and the inveterate first Adam, along with its image, perishes, and the new Adam is perfected in the image of God. But sin remains until death, although it diminishes daily through the renewing of the mind. -4.3
5 The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
The first punishment is eternal punishment, the hell of the damned, with which this thesis is not concerned. This punishment is certainly not in the power of the highest or the lowest bishop, as everybody throughout the whole church believes. God alone remits punishment through the remission of guilt. -5
Meanwhile we accept the belief that purgatory does not come under the power of the pope or of any man.-5
Since, however, this suffering has been commanded by Christ both with respect to the nature of spiritual penance and certainly with respect to the need of salvation, under no circumstances has the priest any power at all to increase or diminish it. For it depends not upon the authority of man but upon grace and the Holy Spirit. -5
Yet I will admit that through the prayers of the church some such punishments could be lifted..., namely, sickness, cares, plagues, and fevers; for St. James taught the elders of the church to bring in and anoint the sick ...[Jas. 5:14-16]. -5
[As] if there should be any doubt in the mind of a Christian that the rod of God can be removed, not by the power of the keys, but by tears and prayers.... Otherwise, if a priest of the church... can remove God’s punishment by the power of the keys, then he also drives away plagues, wars, insurrections, earthquakes, fires, murders, thefts, as well as the Turks, Tartars, and other infidels; none but a poor Christian would fail to recognize in these the lash and rod of God. -5
The fifth punishment which the pope cannot remit is the canonical punishment, which is instituted by the church. -5
More attention must be given to this canonical punishment since the pope, in plenary remission, does not remit all punishments stipulated in canon law. For example, he does not remit either free or forced entrance of persons into a monastery, a punishment not unknown in canon law. Nor does he remit the civil, or rather, the criminal punishments which are imposed by civil law, although his legates may do this wherever they personally are present. -5
For God does not say, “Whatever I shall have bound, you shall loose,” but rather” whatever you loose, shall be loosed, although you shall not loose everything that is bound, but only that which is bound by you, not that which is bound by me” [Cf. Matt. 16:19]. They...understand it to mean, “Whatever you shall have loosed either in heaven or on earth, shall be loosed,” whereas Christ has purposely added the words “on earth” to restrict the power of the keys to earth, for he knew that otherwise they would perforate heaven itself.-5
Therefore this sixth punishment ... cannot be understood as punishment according to civil law, for the pope does not remit this (as I have already said); otherwise the letters of indulgences of the church could remove all gallows and racks. [The] pope does not remit excommunications, interdicts, or other ecclesiastical penalties which have been meted out, as is evident enough from experience. All that remains, therefore, is that which I said I would consider [the punishment that divine justice requires]. But I am absolutely convinced that there is no such punishment. First, because by no authority of Scripture, of teachers, or of the accepted interpretation of the canons can it be taught that there is such punishment; and it is utterly absurd to teach anything in the church for which a basis cannot be found in the Scriptures, in teachers, in the canons, or at least in human reason. -5
Hence I wonder at the negligence of some people, who... say that Christ absolved the adulteress in the Gospel without satisfaction, but that he did not absolve Mary Magdalene without satisfaction, and so the Master must be imitated in the case of Mary, but not in the case of the adulteress, since the sin of no one may be remitted without satisfaction. -5
But concerning the lepers [Luke 17:12-19] I say that they were commanded to show themselves, not for satisfaction, but for testimony; for leprosy was not a sin but simply signified sin. Moreover, ... satisfaction does not consist in showing the sin but in seeking to obtain the judgment of the priest, all of which is well known.-5
But the pope has no power to bind and loose any punishment beyond that of canonical law ... Therefore he does not have any power to loose and remove them... But if they are said to be unequal no one is required to believe it, since it is proved nowhere by the Scripture and canons, and since the text is clear where Christ gives power to bind on earth and loose on earth... -5.2
I shall prove my thesis from the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX [d. 1241] where [the chapter] ..., Quod autem, expressly says that remissions which have not been made by a judge are not valid for individuals, since no one can be bound or loosed by his own judgment alone.” -5.3
Deduction
It follows that satisfaction is not sacramental simply because it makes satisfaction for guilt ..., but because it makes satisfaction for guilt according to the statutes of the church. The greatest satisfaction one makes to God is through a new life, etc. And it must also be proved by Scripture that no other satisfaction is required for sins. -5, Deduction
Has he [Christ] in any way imposed anything here other than the ordinary commands of God [Cf. Luke 3:14]? But if this teacher of repentance, who has been raised up by God for this purpose, does not teach us that we must make satisfaction, doubtless he has deceived us and has not taught us enough about the duty of repentance.- 5, Deduction
The second passage is Ezekiel 18... [Cf. Ezek. 18:21]. Behold, he imposes nothing except justice and righteousness, and these things must be done in every aspect of his life... Has this prophet also deceived us? -5, Deduction
6 The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
The first part of this thesis is so evident that some have even admitted that a figurative manner of speech is employed when it is said that the pope grants remission of guilt. Others admit that they do not understand it. But everyone confesses that the guilt is remitted by God alone, according to the passage in ... John 1[:29], “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” -6
There are many other references of this kind in the Scriptures [Ps. 130:3,4;Ps. 130:7 -8;Ps. 51:10]. And St. Augustine in so many of his writings against the Donatists maintains absolutely that sins are remitted by God alone. -6
“He who rejects you,” Jesus says, “rejects me” [Luke 10:16]. Indeed, God does not remit the guilt of anyone who does not at the same time have respect for the office of the keys. -6
[It] is certain that those cases which the pope looses God also looses, and that no one can be reconciled to God unless he is first reconciled to the church, at least by desire. But it is questionable whether a man is also reconciled to God as soon as he is reconciled to the church. -6
7 God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to his vicar, the priest.
In all these passages [Matt. 5:24; 6:12; 16:19; 22:21] remission is indicated as taking place on earth before it takes place in heaven. One is right in asking how these things can take place before the infusion of grace, that is, before the remission of God, for man cannot have his guilt forgiven or the desire to seek remission without first of all having the grace of God which remits.-7
For neither by his [the sinner] own counsel or his strength will he be able to find peace; in fact, his sadness will finally be turned into despair. -7
For if he is uncertain of the anguish of his conscience..., yet he is constrained to abide by the judgment of another, not at all on account of the prelate himself or his power, but on account of the word of Christ who cannot lie when he says, “Whatever you loose on earth” [Matt. 16:19]. For faith born of this word will bring peace of conscience, for it is according to this word that the priest shall loose. Whoever seeks peace in another way, for example, inwardly through experience, certainly seems to tempt God and desires to have peace in fact, rather than in faith. -7
Thus the question raised above is now clear, namely, that even if the remission of guilt takes place through the infusion of grace before the remission of the priest, this infusion is of such a nature and is so hidden under the form of wrath that man is not sure whether that grace is present or not; ...-7
So as a general rule we are not sure of the remission of guilt, except through the judgment of the priest, and not even through him unless you believe in Christ who has promised,...[Matt. 16:19]. Moreover, as long as we are uncertain, there is no remission, since there is not yet remission for us. Indeed, one would perish woefully unless it should become certain, for he would not believe that remission had taken place for him.-7
And, generally speaking, how could those in the Old Testament have had any confidence in the mercy of God and in the remission of sins, if God had not shown them by revelations, ... and other signs, that whatever they sacrificed was pleasing to him. And he desires to accomplish that same thing now by the word and judgment of the priests.-7
In extolling the power of the pope they [the jurists] placed more value and awe upon the power of the pope than they did respect for the word of Christ in faith.-7
By the same token, why did Christ say, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” [John 20:23], except that they are not forgiven to anyone unless he believes that they are forgiven for him through the remission of the priest? -7
For the remission of sin and the gift of grace are not enough; one must also believe that one’s sin has been remitted. -7
When he [the priest] also administers baptism or the eucharist, your faith receives the full benefit of the sacrament, regardless of whether he should seek money or be in a mood of levity and play. -7
Yet they [our opponents] very wisely conceal this distinction from the people. Otherwise indulgences, rather the money, would decrease if the people should realize that such... [fabricated] punishments were remitted. Then ..., he introduces another obscurity of words and draws another distinction of the keys, namely, among those of authority, superiority, and office. -7
Therefore it is not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament, that justifies. -7
8 The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
Canon laws, like all other man-made laws, are... bound by the circumstances of time, place, and persons, as everybody knows. -8.2
Justice requires that the living be released from the canon laws and that the law be changed when the circumstances back of the law cease or when the law inclines toward injustice. Pope Leo says that the law should not militate against love because it is for the sake of love that the law is established. -8.3
All these stipulations [fasts, watches, labors, pilgrimages] clearly belong to this life and end with death. At death a person passes into an entirely different life, at which time he neither fasts, weeps, eats, nor sleeps, since he no longer has a body. It is for this reason that Jean Gerson10 [1363 - 1429] dared to condemn indulgences which were bestowed as being valid for many thousands of years. And I cannot help wondering what happened to the inquisitors of heresy that they have not burned this heretic even after his death, for he condemned indulgences which entitled recipients to many thousand years and he spoke out so confidently against the custom of every pilgrimage station in the city [Rome]. He spoke out also against the practice of that squanderer of indulgences, Sixtus IV [reigned from 1471 to 1484], as a result of which the latter warned his prelates that it was their duty to correct and give careful attention to these indulgence practices. He referred to the claims of these indulgences as foolish and superstitious, etc.-8.4
There is no reason why some canons should cease because of time, and not all. -8.7
Therefore I contend that the canons are not imposed upon the sick, but upon the healthy and the strong, thus much less upon the dead than upon the living. -8.8
“Suppose some healthy person will have omitted performing the imposed penances and will confess this when he is about to die? In this case it appears that such a person must of necessity pay these penances in purgatory, even if no other penances needed to be imposed or would be imposed.” My answer is: Not at all, for by such an omission he has done nothing more than sin against the precepts of the church, and for that he must grieve. -8.8
Whoever submits to a greater punishment than that which has been imposed upon him, deservedly and by natural right receives remission of lesser punishments, but the one who is about to die submits to the last, the highest, and the greatest punishment of all, namely, death. --8.9
It is therefore useless for the pope to reserve the punishments of canon law until after death. William of Paris [d. 1314] and Gerson shared this opinion, and many rational individuals agree with them. -8.10
Imagine that the sinner might be snatched away and immediately suffer martyrdom because he confesses Christ before he has satisfied the canons. This is said to have happened to the martyr, St. Boniface. Will purgatory then detain such a person, preventing him from being with Christ? Can he then be prayed for in the church as a martyr? But every person who dies voluntarily (..., that is, a Christian) also dies according to the will of God. -8.12
The punishments of canon law cease when a penitent layman changes his position, when... he becomes a priest, or when a priest becomes a bishop ... And if this cessation of canonical punishment takes place in this life, should it not take place when a change is brought about by death? What is more absurd than this? -8.15
The opinion that punishments stipulated by canon law must be satisfied after death has absolutely no authority in Scripture, the canons, or acceptable reason, but appears to have been introduced purely by the slothfulness and negligence of the priests, as have many other superstitions. -8.15
[We] have examples from the ancient fathers, of whom Cyprian [d. 258] is probably the most exacting observer of ecclesiastical censures and disciplines.-8.16
One leaden dagger opposes this eighth thesis, because it is found in the laws that even the dead are excommunicated, as ... the work [of Pope Gregory IX. d. 1241] ...especially proves. The jurists themselves say that excommunication of the dead does no harm to the dead, just as absolution does them no good. But all these things are done to terrorize us, and the church does not pray publicly for one who has been excommunicated. [Nothing] more is contained in them [babbling contradictions] than scholastic opinions which are founded neither on the Scriptures, church fathers, nor church law. -8.16
9 Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10 Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
Certainly there must be many who wonder if the priests really do these things. Since to do this is to place greater value upon obedience to the canons than obedience to the call of God and ... I do not know whether those who hold such an opinion have the right type of faith. -10.1
It is well known ... in the church that if God should reveal his will to a person through a trance or some particular form of enlightenment at the moment that person is doing works of obedience to the church, then that individual is obligated to discontinue the work, relinquish obedience to the church, and “obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. Indeed, our teachers say that in the canonical hours themselves one must violate the command of the church and turn aside from the usual words in the event that heavenly enlightenment or ecstasy should possess him. If... the laws of the church cease to apply in such divine summons, why should they not cease to apply in so great a summons and moment of rapture as that of death? Or perhaps one ought to follow that great multitude of lunatics who ... often put off obvious obedience to God and men and really believe they have done rightly when they have observed ceremonial works only, and neglected obedience to God. -10.2
11 Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept [Matt. 13:25].
[The] popes of the church do not even teach that canonical punishments apply to purgatory, for... there is no canon or statute from which it could be taught. Therefore certain canonists labor in vain if they try to point out by such means how many years and forty-days fasts must be spent in purgatory, since there are actually none, or at least it cannot be proved that there are any. -11
[We] must regard that fabrication and worthless sophistry of the indulgence sellers as an effort to frighten us ... by saying that, since the priest does not know the amount of repentance required for absolution and … perhaps, does not impose as great a satisfaction as divine justice requires, therefore this disparity must be satisfied either by a special work or by indulgences.-11
If the latter is the case, then why does the pope make full absolution, since he likewise does not know the amount of contrition necessary and is not able to make up the contrition that is lacking? Furthermore, perfect contrition does not need his absolution. Nor does he have power of another kind which is different from that of any other priest, but only of another degree. The pope remits everyone’s sins, other priests remit only the sins of some. The amount of satisfaction they remit for some, he is able to remit for all, and nothing more than that, for otherwise the church would be some monster which consists of different types of power. -11.3
Furthermore, the early church did not know the amount of contrition necessary or the importance of personalities; nevertheless it gave plenary remission for sins after penance had been done, although, according to the opinions of these opponents of ours, the church could not know whether the penance was sufficient or not. -11.4
Another fantasy stems from the fact that our opponents base the remission of sins ... upon the work of man who seeks and strives, for they imagine that plenary remission can only be given to those who have perfect contrition, which no one has in this life, yet they concede that plenary remission can be given by the pope, even to those who have imperfect contrition.-11.5
By the same token, that which others say... that canonical punishments are declarations of the punishments required by divine justice. In the first place there is no proof for this opinion. Therefore it may be condemned very easily. -11.8
12 In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
[Canonical] punishments are so temporal that they have absolution itself as their goal. -12
In all these references [five selections from the Church Fathers]we see that at that time sinners did not receive grace and absolution before penances were performed. -12.2
Christ did not pardon Mary Magdalene and the adulteress, until after they had shed tears, anointed him, and chastened themselves most ardently and humbly.-12.3
13 The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
Six types of men ... need no indulgences: first, the dead or those about to die, second, the sick, third, those who have lawful hindrances, fourth, those who have not committed crimes, fifth, those who have not committed public crimes, sixth, those who mend their ways. We shall prove that these need no indulgences and at least make our reasons plausible.-13
The first proof is that which perhaps has the greatest offense, namely, that indulgences are necessary only for public crimes such as adultery, homicide, usury, fornication, drunkenness, rebellion, etc. If such sins were kept secret, the canons would not appear to apply to them. First, because the canons establish public penances and the church has no authority to judge publicly concerning secret things. Second, because just as a secret sin ought not to be punished publicly, so it does not need to be remitted publicly. Yet indulgences are public remissions and take place in the presence of the congregation, as is evident. Indeed there are some who think there is a distinction between indulgences by public bulls and those given privately under the judgment of conscience. Third, the church is offended, not by secret sins, but only by public ones. -13.1
[It] is evident to everyone that canonical punishments are imposed only for crimes. Therefore indulgences (if they are remissions of the canons) apply only to criminals. So those who lead an ordinary life, ... have no need of indulgences, especially since no punishment may be imposed for venial sins; nor is there any obligation even to confess these sins. I add further that it is not necessary to purchase indulgences for every mortal sin ...: No one is sure that he does not always sin mortally because of the most secret vice of pride. If, therefore, canonical punishments should apply to every mortal sin, then the whole life of the faithful, ... would be nothing more than a torture chamber of canonical punishments. Therefore one must continually purchase indulgences and do nothing else. But if this seems absurd, it is clear that indulgences apply only to sins punished by the canons. Yet no sins can be punished by the canons except those which are certain and public crimes, ... at least those which one is sure are crimes..., that is, deeds which are recognized as such publicly. Therefore consent to any mortal sin is not included in canonical punishment, either to be imposed or remitted. -13.2
6. What is true concerning the sick is also true concerning the dead and those who are about to die, of whom I have already spoken.
It is maintained by everyone in the church that in the agony and moment of death every priest ... remits everything for the one who is about to die. And if the priest is absent, certainly the longing of the dying man for the priest is sufficient. For this reason, since the dying man is pardoned for everything ..., the indulgences for the dead seem to confer absolutely nothing, for whatever can be loosed is loosed by death. From this it is likewise evident that the distinction in gradations and laws is to be understood as applying only to the living and those who are in good health. Therefore indulgences evidently apply only to criminals and to the living who are healthy and strong, who have no hindrances and who have no desire to mend their ways. -13.6
“From which punishments, then, are souls released, or what punishments do they suffer in purgatory if they do not suffer anything which is included in the canonical law?” My response is... I am not experienced enough to know what God does with souls who have departed, at least not as experienced as those innumerable redeemers of souls who make such sure pronouncements about everything as though it were impossible for them to be mere men. Added to this difficulty is the fact that there are teachers who think that souls suffer nothing from the fire but only in the fire, so that the fire is not a tormentor but only the prison of souls. Therefore I am dealing here with a matter that is especially doubtful and debatable.... -13.6
14 Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
For in every man, no matter how holy he may be, there are the remains of ... of sin…-14
15 This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near the horror of despair.
I say nothing about the fire and place of purgatory, not because I deny them, but because that discussion is another one which I do not undertake to bring up at this time. Furthermore I do not know where the place of purgatory is, even though St. Thomas thinks it is beneath the earth. Meanwhile, I remain in agreement with St. Augustine...that the places of refuge for souls are hidden and so obscure that we know nothing about them. I mention these things in order that the Picard heretic19 may not appear to have drawn from my statement that there is no purgatory because I confess that its location is unknown, or that the Roman church errs because it does not reject the opinion of St. Thomas. I am positive that there is a purgatory, and it does not bother me much what the heretics babble, for St. Augustine, more than eleven hundred years ago, in the ninth book, thirteenth chapter, of his Confessions,20 prayed for his mother and father and requested that intercession be made for them. -15
But even if there had been no purgatory at the time of the apostles (as the disgusting Picard prides himself in), must, therefore, any credence be given a heretic who was born scarcely fifty years ago? And must it be contended that the faith of so many centuries has been false, Especially since the Picard does nothing more than say, “I do not believe it,” and by that means assumes that he has proved all his assertions and condemned all of ours, as though sticks and stones believe? But these matters pertain to his own work and time. -15
In these ... places in Scripture terror, dread, trembling, fear, and quaking are expressed as the punishment of the wicked… [Ps. 1:4, Ps. 2:5,Proverbs 1:33, Psalm 112:7] -15.2
In the next place, II Thess. 1 [:8-9] states, “Those who do not believe the gospel, will suffer the punishments of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” -15.2
Some individuals have tasted these punishments in this life, especially those of hell. Therefore we must believe even more that they are imposed upon the dead in purgatory. -15.4
For what else does John Tauler [d. 1361] teach in his German sermons than the sufferings of these punishments of which he also cites some examples? -15.5
In this moment [in Purgatory](strange to say) the soul cannot believe that it can ever be redeemed other than that the punishment is not yet completely felt. Yet the soul is eternal and is not able to think of itself as being temporal.. -15.5
If there is anyone who does not believe that, ... but we have merely proved that these preachers of indulgences speak with too much audacity about many things of which they know nothing or else doubt. For one ought to believe those who are experienced in these matters rather than those who are inexperienced. -15.5
In addition to this there is the authority of the church, which chants, “Free them from the lion's mouth, lest hell engulf them” 22 [Ps. 22:21], as well as the words, “from the gate of hell.” These words certainly appear to indicate that souls are ... already at the gate, at the threshold of condemnation and at the entrance of hell, which, as I have said, is near despair. And I do not believe the words of the church are empty words. -16.6
16 Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
Indeed, since we believe... in the light of God, we also believe that in hell despair, grief, and terrible flight rage24 in the realms of outer darkness. It is clear that purgatory is the middle between both extremes, in such a way ... that it is nearer hell than heaven, for in purgatory there is a despair, a longing to escape, dread, and grief. Souls in purgatory have no joy or peace, in fact they share nothing from heaven, since the punishment of purgatory is considered the same as that of hell, differing only in duration. Moreover, the soul, as long as it is in purgatory, feels nothing but despair, not because it despairs, but because it is so disturbed and perplexed with anxiety that it does not feel capable of hope. -16
17 It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
The first type consists of those who have no faith at all (that is, those who are condemned). These individuals must face death with the greatest dread and despair,.. -17.1
The second type consists of those who have complete faith and are perfect (that is, those who are blessed). These individuals must face death with the utmost confidence and joy,...The unjust man finds that which he feared, namely death and punishment. Moreover, he has always feared them. -17.1
No punishment is overcome by running away or by fear. Every punishment is increased and strengthened by the fear of it, and by the same token, it is diminished and weakened by love. -17.2
Furthermore, it is not my understanding that God, who often forgives all punishments in this life for the sake of one work of beginning love, shall never remit in death some punishments for the sake of every work of perfect love. I have, nevertheless, debated these matters because “God is marvelous in his sanctuary” [Ps. 68:35]. We would do better to leave such doubtful matters alone and teach people other things which are more certain. -17.4
If purgatory is only a workshop of punishment, why not call it “punitory” rather than purgatory? For the meaning and force of the term “purgatory” imply a cleansing which can only be understood as pertaining to the remains of the old nature and sin, because of which those persons are unclean who in their affection for earthly things have hindered the purity of faith. But if by the use of a new ambiguity (for they are prompted to make distinctions) they shall say that cleansing here is the same as payment, so that then they are said to be cleansed when the punishments have been paid, I answer: It is refuted as easily as it is proved. But if they shall also despise the idea that the meaning of the term includes the cleansing of faults, let it be so. I do not dispute it. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that both meanings are doubtful. For that reason the first meaning has been scattered abroad among the people in a distorted manner and with the greatest of certainty, especially since the basic meaning of the term does not agree with their opinion. -17.5
The remark of Gregory I [d. 604] in the Decretals (dist. XXV)... says that not only punishments, but guilt, are remitted in the future life, that is, venial sins, as he points out by examples in that text. But the remission of guilt does not take place without the infusion of grace, and the dread of death is for saints a venial sin but not a small one. -17.6
18 Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
Moreover, our opinion rests securely upon that authority which says that without the adding of grace no fear is dispelled, for perfect love alone casts out fear [I John 4:18]. -18.1
However, ... if purgatory is only a workshop for paying punishments and souls are there because of their affection for that which is unclean... and are not cleansed of that evil, then purgatory would become the same as hell, where punishment obtains and guilt remains. For the souls in purgatory there is guilt, namely, the fear of punishment and the lack of love, while... the righteous man should fear nothing except God alone. Therefore they sin continuously as long as they dread punishments and seek rest.And in order to assert something, even among so many thorny problems of this disputation, I confess freely that I don’t believe anyone is redeemed from the punishments of purgatory on account of fear, until, having laid fear aside he begins to love the will of God in such punishment and loves the will of God more than he fears punishment – indeed loves the will of God alone and despises the punishment or even loves it as God’s will. For he must love righteousness before he is saved. -18.1
I prove that the souls in purgatory grow in love. The Apostle says, “To those who love God all things work for good” [Rom 8:28]. This good can only be understood as the increase of the good which one already possesses. Therefore purgatory also increases that good which is love for God, indeed, increases that most of all. And just as “jealousy is cruel as the grave” [Song of Sol. 8:6] and takes delight in such great evils, and just as the furnace proves gold to be gold [Prow. 27:21], just so punishment proves love to be love.-18.2
It is impossible for a created thing to persevere unless it continually receives more and more strength. For that reason certain thinkers say that the preservation of a thing is its continued creation. But to create is always to make new, which is clear even in brooks, rays, heat, and cold, especially when they are beyond their source. Therefore also in the case of spiritual warmth, that is, the love for God, souls must continually be preserved (until they become absorbed into their divine source) and, by the same token,. necessarily grow, even if they perchance have been perfected, although to be outside of God and not to have attained to him and to have been perfected are ideas opposed to each other. -18.5
The first reason is that very well-known saying of St. Augustine: “All merit is acquired in this life; after death no merit is acquired.” 26 Therefore, they say, purgatory is not a place for gaining merit. -18.5
St. Augustine and all other fathers who have spoken in a similar manner speak from the authority and by the use of Scripture, which speaks much more strongly in favor of this opinion. “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” [II Cor. 5:10]. And there are many other passages which together make it appear as if, after death, there is a judgment according to which each one will receive in proportion as one has done, that is, deserved in this life, ... [Eccles. 11:3 ,Galatians 6:7 and 6:10, John 9:4,Rev. 14:13, Heb. 9:27].” -18.5
All these passages in like manner militate against the whole idea of purgatory because they do not establish an intermediary state between the dead who have been condemned and those who are saved. Therefore if purgatory is justly defended in spite of those things, it can also be defended that grace is increased in the souls in purgatory, notwithstanding that which is said, namely, that all merit is acquired in this life. Nothing is said about purgatory, just as the passages cited also say nothing about purgatory but speak only of heaven and hell. So neither side refers to purgatory. Therefore those words of Augustine must not be understood as applying to purgatory. All merit is obtained in this life and not beyond this life, that is, not in heaven or hell. Finally, according to St. Augustine also, the merit by which a man is worthy of being helped by intercession in purgatory is acquired in this life. Otherwise he possesses no merit either in heaven or hell by which he deserves to be helped. There, at least, he has respect for purgatory, here on earth he has none at all. -18.5
However, if a more obstinate person should wish to maintain that the authorities already cited do not deny purgatory in any way and that souls can be saved by holding to a doctrine of a two-fold judgment or two-fold retribution after death, namely, a temporal retribution, which is purgatory, and an eternal retribution, which is hell, and thus one reaps purgatory, the other hell, and likewise the works of one man follow him to purgatory, the other to hell; if anyone should maintain this, I answer that, by speaking ... through such a detestable and arbitrary ambiguity, those authorities are destroyed along with purgatory rather than preserved, since the other side of that ambiguity can never be proved.-18.5
19 Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
We ourselves, because we believe that no man goes to purgatory unless he belongs to the number of those who must be saved, are certain about the salvation of those in purgatory just as we are certain about the salvation of the elect. Although I do not object too much if anyone should assert that they are certain of their salvation, I myself do not say that all are certain. But since every matter concerning the souls in purgatory is most obscure, I support this thesis by persuasion rather than by proof. -19
My thesis holds true... if the punishment of purgatory consists of trembling and dread of condemnation and hell, and every trembling causes the soul to be distressed, uncertain, in need of counsel and help, and that so much more when that trembling and dread is most violent and unexpected. Moreover, it is the strongest and most unexpected trembling for every soul, as I have said before and as Christ says, ªThat day will come upon you suddenly like a snareº [Luke 21:34]. The Apostle says, ªThe day of the Lord will come like a thief in the nightº [I Thess. 5:2; II Pet. 3:10].-19.1
Because of their confusion they probably do not know whether they are damned or saved; indeed they may seem to be already on the way to condemnation and descending to the pit, and, to be sure, even now at the gates of hell, just as Hezekiah says [Isa. 38:10-20].-19.1
Therefore his condition differs very little from death itself. Such seems to be the case in the dread of eternal death, for men feel that they are threatened in every respect with nothing else than eternal death. -19.1
Records of many examples claim that some souls have confessed this uncertainty of their position, for they have appeared, so to speak, going to the judgment to which they have been called, as St. Vincent and others testify.27 -19.2
At this point one might ask: ªWhy is it, therefore, with regard to a particular judgment, and Innocent [IV d. 1254] testified to this,29 that at death the reputation of a man, no matter who he is, is tested, for it seems that by means of this a man is made certain concerning his condition?º I answer that it does not follow that he is made certain even if special judgment is passed. It can happen that a dead man is judged, indeed may be accused, nevertheless the opinion concerning him may be deferred and not revealed to him. In the meantime, however, while conscience accuses, devils wheedle, and the wrath of God threatens, the wretched soul does nothing but tremble with horror at the judgment which may come at any moment, just as it trembles at the prospect of physical death. Deuteronomy 28[:65-67] threatens, ªThe Lord will give you a trembling heart¼and your life shall hang in doubt before you¼ In the morning you shall say, ‘Would that it were evening' and at evening you shall say, ‘Would that it were morning.'º So there also, eternal death shall strike with a similar anxiety and torture the soul with a terrible horror. This interpretation is not far from the truth inasmuch as Christ also says in Matt. 5[:21-26] that the Lord distinguishes between those guilty of judgment, of council, and of hell, that is, between the accused, the convicted, and the condemned.-19.2
But certain authors, distinguished more by knowledge than reputation, dare to say that some souls, on account of the lukewarmness of their life [Rev. 3:16], will be snatched away by death and thus be cast out by God so that until the end of the world they will not know whether they are condemned or saved. If one accepts the story concerning the monk who was about to die and because of the sin of fornication was condemned, having already blasphemed against God, but was then restored to health, then it is evident enough that the judgment and accusation of hell can afflict the soul, even though the final verdict has not been pronounced. This is borne out by a story in one of St. Gregory’s [Gregory I, d. 604] sermons concerning a young man whom a dragon wanted to swallow up in death.-19.2
In positing this as most likely true concerning the whole matter of the punishments of purgatory, I am moved to do so, first of all, because of the nature of dread and anxiety, then because Scripture attributes this punishment to the damned, and, finally, because the whole church says that the punishments of hell and of purgatory are the same. Therefore I believe that this opinion of ours is sufficiently rooted in the Scriptures. Indeed, the trumpeters of indulgences seem to imagine that the punishments of souls are, as it were, inflicted externally and are entirely external, not born from within the conscience, as if God only removed the punishments from souls, and not souls from punishments. As it is written, “He relieved his shoulder of the burden” [Ps. 81:6]. It do es not say, “He removed the burden from his shoulder:”-19.2
And again the Scripture says, “When you walk through fire, the flame shall not harm you” [Cf. Isa. 43:2]. In what manner shall it not do any harm except that God gives courage to the heart, so that the soul does not fear the fire. This does not mean, however, that there is no fire through which the soul must not pass. Therefore freeing the shoulder from burden does not take place except by healing the fear of the soul and by comforting the soul. No punishment is overcome by fear but by love and disdain. Indulgences do not remove fear but increase it as much as they can while giving the impression that they remove punishments like some despicable thing. -19.2
Another objection must be made at this point: “If souls bear punishments willingly, why do we pray for them?” Ianswer: Unless they bore them willingly, they would certainly be condemned. But why shouldn’t they desire prayers said for them, since the Apostle also wanted prayers to be offered for him, that he might be freed from the unbelievers and that a door might be opened to him for the Word [Col. 4:3]. Yet Paul was one who with complete confidence gloried in the fact that he himself despised death. Even if souls would not desire prayers, nevertheless it is up to us to pity them in their fear and to help them with our prayer, just as we would for any others who are suffering. We should do this without making any distinctions, no matter how courageously they suffer. Finally, since souls do not grieve so much over present punishments as over their dread of impending and anticipated destruction, it is not strange if they should desire intercession in order that they might persevere and not falter in faith, since they are uncertain (as I have said) concerning their condition and do not fear so much the punishments of hell as the hatred of God, which is hell, just as Scripture says, “In death there is no remembrance of thee, in hell who can give thee praise” [Cf. Ps. 6:5]. It is evident, therefore, that they suffer, not because of the fear of punishment, but because of their love for righteousness, as I said above, for they are more afraid that they shall not praise and love God (which would actually happen in hell) than that they shall suffer. The whole church does right when it adds as much as it can this most holy and anxious desire of theirs, especially since God also wishes them to be helped through the church. We have finally come to the end of this vague and questionable disputation concerning the punishments of souls. If there are any who can produce better arguments concerning these matters, I shall not be jealous of them. I insist only that the one who does so should base his arguments on better examples of Scripture without veiling himself in the smoky opinions of men. -19.2
20 Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by himself.
I come to the usual argument, which is the strongest of all, when I ask by what authorities they prove that punishments other than the canonical are waived through the power of the keys. In answer they point out to me Antoninus, Peter de Palude, Augustinus de Ancona, Capreolus. Finally, Angelus de Clavassio [d.1496] cites his predecessor, Francisco de Mayronis [d.1327],30 who carried the sale of indulgences so far that he dared to pronounce them meritorious, if it may please Christ. Indeed it is as if those men were of such importance and authority that whatever they think must be immediately counted among the articles of faith. Rather they ought to be reproached for having brought forth these claims to our shame and harm, claims which they have invented in accordance with their pious desire, paying absolutely no attention to that faithful admonition of the Apostle, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” [I Thess. 5:21]. They are far more foolish than the Pythagoreans who assert only those things which Pythagoras has said. These, on the other hand, assert those things which the Pythagoreans doubted. But let us come to the source and fountains of these rivulets, that is SS.Thomas[d.1274] and Bonaventura [d.1274].31 For my opponents have received some of their ideas from them and they have added some of their own. Therefore these men are holy and carry much weight. -19.3
However, since they state these things as their opinions rather than maintain them as certain – for even St. Bonaventura confesses that the matter is most doubtful and entirely uncertain – is it not also clear that nothing can be proved from them? See for yourself whether they cite any [canonical] text or Scripture! It is no wonder that they themselves assert nothing as certain. For since this matter would be an article of faith if it had been settled, therefore it is not up to the teachers to define it, for it must be supported also by the decision of a general council. Nor does the pope have the power heedlessly to decide on matters of faith; only indulgence preachers do. These are permitted to do whatever they wish. They all, however, have a single reason for their opinion, as Panormitanus [d.1445] also points out in book five of Concerning Penance and Remission, in the chapter entitled Quod autem, namely this: If indulgences are said to remit only canonical punishments, this makes indulgences of too little value.32 Therefore in order that indulgences might not be esteemed too lightly, they would rather invent something they know nothing about, since souls would not be endangered in any way if indulgences were worthless, to say nothing of the fact that they are. But it would be a most terrible thing to preach to souls about fictitious things and illusions, even if indulgences were found to be most useful. But before I answer SS. Thomas and Bonaventura, it seems worthwhile to enumerate opinions concerning indulgences lest I appear to be the first or only person to have expressed doubts about them.-19.3
The gloss to the chapter beginning with the words Quod autem, in book five of Concerning Penance and Remission, which deals with the declaration concerning the efficacy and power of indulgences, begins with these words: “The efficacy of such remissions is an old debatable question and one which is still rather doubtful.”-19.3
Others say indulgences are useful with regard to the remission of a penance which has been omitted through neglect. Panormitanus, in condemning this opinion, says that this rewards negligence. But in my judgment this is not altogether false, since actually all punishments are remitted, even those which have been omitted through neglect, provided one is displeased with one’s negligence. Even those punishments are remitted which have not been omitted through neglect and which must still be completed.-19.3
The sixth interpretation of indulgences, which Panormitanus introduces beyond those five established in the aforesaid gloss, is to the effect that they are useful, as the words indicate, both with respect to God and with respect to the penance which is imposed here, and he says this interpretation is held by Gottfried [of Trani; d.1245], Hostiensis [Henry of Segusio; d.1271], and Johannes Andreae [d.1348].34 I myself also hold this as it stands and is conveyed by the words. But I do not follow them in their understanding of all words, especially that phrase “with respect to God.” If these words mean that even punishments imposed by God are remitted, either here or in purgatory, beyond the penances imposed by the church or canon law, I do not believe it is true, except in a qualified sense, since the punishments of purgatory are remitted through contrition alone, without the power of the keys. So if anyone shall have become perfectly contrite, I believe that, as far as God is concerned, he has been absolved from purgatory.-19.3
As far as punishments for deeds done in this life are concerned, however, I say that there is no authority for this, as I have pointed out sufficiently in Thesis 5. For that punishment cannot be identified which is believed to be remitted as far as God is concerned. So I might say that the phrase “with respect to God” should be understood to refer, not to the punishments imposed by God, but to those imposed by the church. The meaning should be that remission of penances imposed by the church pertains as much to God as to the church, because God approves this remission of his church according to that passage, “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:19]. It does not say, “Whatever you shall loose on earth, something else shall be loosed in heaven,” but, “That very same thing which you loose I also shall consider as loosed.” For by this God wishes men to be subject to the priest, something which might not happen unless we knew that God approves the deeds of the priest. You see, therefore, that all these interpretations are based on mere opinions.-19.3
21 Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
If, however, they should say, “We do not say that these punishments are removed by means of indulgences,” I answer, Why do you not explain to the people what you mean by the punishments which you remit? Instead, you shout that all punishments are remitted before God and the church, no matter what punishments a man should pay for his sins. How shall the people know thereby what you are talking about when you speak so vaguely and with such sweeping statements? -21
22 As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
Every temporal punishment is changed into the punishment of death. Indeed, because of the punishment of death every punishment is removed and must be removed. For further proof of this, consider the Roman church as it was at the time of St. Gregory, when it had no jurisdiction over other churches, at least not over the Greek church. It is evident that canonical punishments were not binding upon the Greeks, just as they are not binding now for Christians who are not subject to the pope, as in the case of the Turks, Tartars, and Livonians. For these people, therefore, indulgences are not necessary, but only for those who come under the authority of the Roman church. If, therefore, they are not binding upon those who are living, much less are they binding upon the dead, who are not under the jurisdiction of any church.-22
23 If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
I interpret this to mean all kinds of punishment and declare the same. Undoubtedly enough has been said of the fact that remission of penitential satisfaction can be given to anyone. Indeed, I amend this thesis to read that the remission of all punishments can be granted absolutely to no one, whether he be perfect or imperfect. I prove this in the following way: Even though God should not impose scourges, or the fourth type of punishment, upon the most perfect, at least not for everybody and for all time, nevertheless there still remains the third type, the evangelical punishment, as well as the fourth, namely death and those punishments which are related to death and lead to death. Even if God could make all men perfect by grace, perhaps without punishments, nevertheless he has not decided to do it, but rather has decided that all men should conform to the image of his Son, that is to the cross [Cf. Rom. 8:29]. Why waste so many words? However highly one might extol the remission of punishments, what, I ask, is accomplished for that one who faces death and the fear of death and judgment? If every other remission is preached to a person and it is conceded that punishment is not remitted, I doubt whether this will be any consolation to him. Therefore keep in mind the dread of death and hell, and whether you want to or not, you will care nothing about remissions of other punishments: And so indulgences which do not take away the fear of death are not minimized through my effort but necessarily through what they are.-23
24 For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
For I myself have heard that many understand it in no other way than that they fly to heaven by means of indulgences without any punishment at all. It is no wonder, when preachers of indulgences write, teach, and shout so as to give the impression that if one has obtained indulgences and dies before he falls back into sin, he will straightaway fly to heaven. They say all these things as if there were no sins except actual sins, and as if the tinder [of original sin] which is left is not an impurity, not a hindrance, not a means which would delay entrance to the kingdom of heaven. Unless this [original sin] is healed, it is impossible to enter heaven, even if there is no actual sin present, “For nothing unclean shall enter it” [Rev. 21:27]. Wherefore the very dread of death, since it is an imperfection of the tinder and a sin, even by itself prevents one from entering the kingdom, for he who dies unwillingly obeys God’s summons reluctantly. Insofar as he dies reluctantly he does not, in that case, do the will of God.-24
His sin is therefore as great as his disobedience to the will of God. So he is a very uncommon individual who, after he has obtained all indulgences, does not also sin in death. Those who desire to be released and beg for death are an exception. In order that I may not be entirely at variance with them, I say that if anyone is perfectly contrite, that is, if he hates himself and his life and loves death to the highest degree, he shall immediately go to heaven after his punishments have been remitted. See for yourself how many of these there are.-24
25 That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese or parish.
So I ask my adversaries to bear the grief with which I am afflicted when I hear that these things, which have never been written or established, are preached in the church of Christ. For we read that at one time it seemed most dangerous to the holy fathers to teach anything beyond the heavenly rule, as Hilary says;39 and the holy Spiridion,40 bishop of Cyprus, observed this discipline so strictly that he interrupted a person who only used a Greek word ambiguously, saying “Take up your couch and walk” instead of “Take up your pallet or your bed and walk ,” finding fault with the word he used even though it did not change the meaning at all.41 I think that in the interest of pure justice they owe me forbearance for my grief since, without any question or warming, we are compelled to bear their presumptions which they take a great delight in preaching, and which we suffer by listening to them.-25
An example of what learning and godly zeal could do today has been adequately proved by the unfortunate fate of those most learned and holy men who, under Julius II, desired to reform the church by calling a general council for that purpose.42 There have been, to my knowledge, a few good and learned pontiffs but the example of these is overshadowed by that of the many. “For it is a most evil time,” as the prophet Amos says, “therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time” [Amos 5:13].-25
Finally, we now have a very good pope, Leo X, whose integrity and learning are a delight to all upright persons. But what can this man who is so worthy of our respect do amidst such confusing circumstances? He is worthy of having become pope in better times, or of having better times during his pontificate. In our day we are only worthy of popes like Julius II, Alexander VI, or some other tyrannous Mezentians43 as described by the poets. For today even Rome itself laughs at the good popes, indeed Rome most of all. In what part of the Christian world do they ridicule the popes more freely than in that veritable Babylon, Rome? .-25
I doubt and dispute whether the popes have the power of jurisdiction over purgatory. Meanwhile I speak here concerning the power of energies, not of laws – the power of working, not of commanding – so that the meaning is this: The pope has absolutely no authority over purgatory, nor does any other bishop. If, however, he does have some authority, he certainly has only the same kind in which his subordinates also share.-25
Moreover, this is an authority by which the pope and any Christian who so wishes can intercede, pray for, fast, etc. on behalf of departed souls – the pope in a general way, the bishops in a particular way, and the Christian in an individual way. Therefore it is evident that the thesis is absolutely true. For just as the pope, at one time and with the whole church, may intercede for souls (as is done on All Souls’ Day), so every bishop who wishes may do it with his own diocese (as is done on “Common Days”), 44 also the curate in his own parish (as is done at funerals and anniversaries), and any Christian who wishes in his own private devotion. Either one denies that such aid is an intercession or else concedes that each and every prelate, along with his subordinates, can intercede for souls. I think that these things are not nearly as doubtful as those bold statements of my opponents concerning the jurisdiction of the church over purgatory.-25
26 The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
I do not believe it is necessary again to declare publicly that which I here debate or maintain. However, since in our time the inquisitors of heretical depravity are so zealous that they attempt by force to drive the most orthodox Christians to heresy, it would be best to give an explanation for every single syllable. It is not very clear to me what else Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Lorenzo Valla, Peter of Ravenna, John of Wesel, and very recently Johann Reuchlin and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples 45 did to be considered evil despite their good reputation, unless it is that they failed to explain every single syllable (as I have said). So great is the tyranny of young zealots and effeminate healers in the church today! Therefore I declare once again that I am about to do two things in this thesis, first, to discuss the power of the keys over purgatory and prove that it has no such power, until someone who affirms it shall prove that it does, and second, to inquire into that method and manner of intercession. for the souls of the dead.-26
1. According to that generally accepted reasoning of Henry of Segusio, namely, if the keys themselves should extend to purgatory, they could empty purgatory. Therefore the pope would be cruel if he did not empty purgatory.-26.1
They resolve this argument thus: The pope can, but he must not, empty it unless there is a justifiable and reasonable cause for doing so, lest he act rashly against divine justice. I hardly think that they would advance this cold and careless solution unless they do not care what they say, or unless they think that they are talking to sea calves who are in deepest sleep. So it happens that from one given absurdity many others follow. As the saying goes, ªOne lie requires seven lies to make it appear true.-26.1
2. The very manner in which the pope speaks about imposed penances proves the same thing. Moreover it is evident that he gives only as much as he declares, and that he gives in the manner in which he declares, therefore just as a bishop remits forty days, a cardinal one hundred days of the imposed penances, so the pope remits completely all the days of the penances which have been imposed. Yet no power of the keys has imposed the punishments of purgatory. -26.2
Moreover, that sea of words (it seems to me) of the indulgence preachers has stemmed from a certain neglect to examine the origin of indulgences. For at that time when canonical penances were considered very important, four days was considered a remission of great length. Later they began to grant a hundred days, then a thousand days, finally many thousands of days, then years, then hundreds and thousands of years. So little by little a greater and greater generosity developed with respect to indulgences. After this one-seventh of all sins began to be remitted, then one-third, lately one-half, and thus it has come to plenary remission of all sins, as one can well see even yet in the main churches47 of the city of Rome. But if the imposed penance is understood with reference to the first stages, it must certainly also be understood with reference to plenary remission.-26.2
I do not know with what words I should label this rude and insolent superstition – this brazenness. The author here is worthy of the displeasure and eloquence of a Jerome, so that such a presumptuous violence and corruption of the sacred words of Christ would be avenged. Grammar itself could have taught them that this meaning of theirs could not be maintained according to these words (but they follow a new dialectic rather than correct grammar). It seems as though they knew all along that Christ was afraid that some day some such Peter or pope would arise who even though dead would desire to bind and loose. Thus it would become necessary for him to anticipate such an extraordinary ambition and tyranny of dead popes and to prevent them from binding and loosing except while they were alive and upon earth. (To ridicule in a fitting manner such worthy interpreters of Scripture), perhaps Christ had reason to fear – and not without reason – that some day a dead pope might bind something which his living successor might loose. Then great confusion would arise in heaven and the troubled Christ would not know which of these two works he should approve, since he had rashly permitted the same work to both of them and did not add the words “on earth” in order to restrain the dead pope.-26.4
Why do they try so hard to show that the phrase “on earth” pertains to the one who does the loosing? Behold, indeed, this little golden work of a golden teacher!49 It is a work most worthy of golden letters, and lest there be something about it which is not golden, it must be handed down by golden disciples, namely, by those about whom it is said, “The idols of the nations are silver and gold…They have eyes, but they see not, etc.” [Ps. 135:15 -16]. These people proceed in a straight path against Christ. Christ has added the phrase “on earth” in order that the pope, who cannot be anywhere except on earth, might not presume to bind and loose that which is not on earth. It is as though Christ purposely wanted to anticipate the detestable flatterers of our day and to restrain them when they proceed to hand over to the pope the kingdom of the dead against his will and despite his objection. St. Jerome, because of his zeal, would have called these individuals “theologians,” that is, people through whom God speaks but actually that god who, according to Virgil, inspires his soothsayers to great frenzy.50 Nevertheless we shall discuss this matter in opposition to them.-26.4
Therefore, since everyone denies that the keys have power to bind in purgatory, it must also be denied that they have power to loose, for both of these are equal powers and have been given equally by Christ to his church. -26.4
For just as the term “in heaven” refers undoubtedly to what must be loosed in heaven, so the term “on earth” must refer to what must be loosed on earth. And again, just as the term “in heaven” refers to what is bound, so the term “on earth” must refer to what is bound. Hence Christ purposely has not said, “I shall loose in heaven,” but rather, “it shall be loosed in heaven,” so that, if anyone by the first word, “Whatever you shall loose upon earth,” should try to deduce from it a false interpretation, he would be prevented from doing so by the conclusion. And one would not be permitted to apply this word to him who does the loosing, for the premise “what is loosed in heaven” must certainly be understood to refer to the conclusion “what is loosed upon earth,” and not to the one who does the loosing. Likewise what is bound in heaven must be understood to refer not to the one who does the binding, but to what is bound on earth, or at least to both.-26.4
Rather we should do even more and ask the pope to do away with purgatory and remove it from the realm of nature. For if the keys of the church extend so far, even with regard to that which must be loosed, then the whole of purgatory is under the pope’s authority. I prove this in the following manner: The pope should give plenary remission to all those who are in purgatory; secondly, in a similar manner he should give that same remission to all those Christians who are about to die. Then it would be certain that no one shall remain in purgatory, no one shall enter it, but everybody shall fly to heaven and purgatory shall end. Moreover he is in duty bound to grant plenary remission; and there is a most just reason why he should, namely, love, which must be sought through all things, above all things, and in all things. Nor do we need to fear that divine justice will be offended by love, for it is toward that end that righteousness actually impels us. But if this is done, we shall lay aside the whole “Office of the Dead,” which today is burdensome and neglected enough, and change it into a festival service.-26.4
Without prejudice to my position in any way, I declare that it is not for me to decide what that method of intercession should be; it is a matter for the pope or even perhaps for a church council to decide. It is my intention only to inquire, discuss, and, by citing reasons, to indicate what I understand that method to be or what I do not yet understand it to be.-26.4
The first treasury is that of the church triumphant, which is the merit of Christ and his saints, who have achieved more merit than is necessary for salvation. This treasury has been left to the church to reward and balance out merits here, as my opponents maintain.-26.4
The other is the treasury of the church militant. Such merits are the good works of living Christians which the pope has authority to apply either for the satisfaction of those who do penances, or for intercession on behalf of the dead, or for the praise and glory of God. On a former occasion I have both taught and written that the pope in three different ways has authority over the merits of the church militant: first, to offer these merits to God for the satisfaction of others; second, to use them for intercession of souls; third, for the praise of God. If this is true, I firmly believe that the bishops have this same spiritual power in their dioceses. If I am wrong, let him who can correct me. Otherwise how could those brotherhoods exist without erring in which higher and lower prelates impart to each other their endeavors and good works? The same question applies to monasteries, orders, hospitals, and parishes. All of this only makes sense if in this way the work of one makes satisfaction for the sins of another, intercedes for him before God, and glorifies God.-26.4
First, if the pope presents the works of the living as sacrifices for the living, I do not see how that can be remission out of grace and not true and just satisfaction and payment up to the very last penny. Although he for whom remission is made does nothing, others work and make satisfaction for him. Then that will happen which all constantly deny, namely, that he who grants remission burdens himself to make satisfaction for another. Actually, then, the pope does not remit sins but makes satisfaction through the good works of his subordinates. -26.4
The third reason is that the term “indulgence” contradicts the meaning of the term itself, for the term should mean “to grant,” that is, “to remit,” so that a person does not need to do what he should do. This does not mean to impose something upon another, however, or to declare that it has been so imposed. The indulgence certainly wipes out the debt, but it does not pay the debt through someone else. Therefore it seems to me that the power of the keys alone, without the treasury of the church militant, suffices for indulgences, especially since only the canonical, not the evangelical, satisfaction is remitted. Otherwise one must say again what I have said previously concerning the remission of guilt, that is, that the pope also remits punishments by means of this treasury, that is, he declares that something happens which takes place without the treasury, namely that the church makes satisfaction for the one to whom the punishment is remitted. As St. Augustine says, no one will be raised up except the one whom the unity of the church raises up, which he says is symbolized in the case of the widow.52 But it still holds true, as indicated in the first and second reason, that it is a satisfaction rather than a remission, whether it is declared or granted.-26.4
First, because the pope does not seem to do anything more than what has already actually been done. For the church as a whole actually prays and intercedes for the dead; unless the thought here is that he does it by way of explanation. I do not see how this is any different from what is said concerning the mass, that is, that the mass is more profitable if it is applied by the priest for the benefit of one person than if it is celebrated for all without application to any one particular member. I confess that I believe this is true. But the pope as the highest and general priest of all priests certainly can do nothing more than apply it generally; indeed he is under obligation to do this, even without letters of indulgences.-26.4
Second, since only canonical punishments are remitted through indulgences, I certainly cannot understand what it is that is remitted for souls in purgatory since the canon laws do not bind them. Finally, at death they are freed from canonical punishments, for every priest is a pope in the hour of death. -26.4
I say in the third place: Concerning the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints as applied to the remission of punishments I shall speak later in Thesis 58. You see how obscure and doubtful all these matters are, and therefore how extremely dangerous to teach. I see and say this one thing, that the pope according to the work of Clement, Concerning Penance and Remission, the section beginning with the word Abusionibus,54 seems to condemn the opinion that souls can be redeemed by indulgences. According to Clement, the pope says, “In asserting that they release souls from purgatory, they lie.” Clement’s explanation of the word “lie” says, “Because they are reserved for the judgment of God.” And chapter 25, the section beginning with the word Qualis,55 attests to this, and it seems absolutely right to me. For if souls are redeemed through intercession it does not thereby follow that they immediately fly to heaven. The words “intercede,” “redeem,” and “free” do not have the same meaning. I am discerning enough to see that indulgences and the intercession of the merits of the church are two entirely different things. One can be given without the other and with the other. The power of the keys alone suffices for indulgences without adding the treasury of merits. This treasury can either be added to the power of the keys or applied by itself. The treasury taken by itself can effect participation in good works of the church, as I have said before. If these things are certain and true, it follows that indulgences, insofar as there are such things, are of absolutely no value to people, unless individuals are absolved in the presence of the church, that is, are declared absolved. If they should have any value it would not be because they possess it in their own right but because another gift has been added to them, namely the merits of the church. These merits of the church must, on the other hand, be distinguished from the general application, by which the church through the merits of the saints actually helps people without the application of the pope. One must determine what value these merits of the church have. But the work of inquiring must be left to others who have not yet lost their desire for doing so because of the many doubts that have been raised.-26.4
First, it is frequently claimed that a certain professor in Paris56 maintained in a disputation that the pope has power over purgatory. When the pope learned of this he granted remission to the professor after his death, thereby supporting or, as it were, commending the truth of the man’s assertion.-26.4
There have been many popes who have been pleased not only with errors and vices but even with horrible things. I listen to the pope as pope, that is, when he speaks in and according to the canons, or when he makes a decision in accordance with a general council. I do not listen to him, however, when he speaks his own mind. In this way I am not compelled to say with certain people who hardly know the teaching of Christ that the horrible murders committed by Julius II57 among Christians might have been blessings by which he demonstrated to the flock of Christ that he was a true shepherd.-26.4
The second objection to my argument is this: St. Bonaventura in Book 4, chapter 20, says that one must not resist strenuously if anyone should maintain that the pope has power over purgatory.-26.4
I answer, first, that the authority of St. Bonaventura is not sufficient in this matter. Second, if the pope has maintained this, one must not oppose it. Third, Bonaventura speaks rightly, because he expresses his opinion by adding the words, “only if that claim is supported by the clear authority of the Scriptures or reasonable proof.” So far no clear authority for that claim exists.-26.4
First, Sixtus IV is said to have decided that the method of intercession in no way lessens the overall value of indulgences.58
My answer is this: First, if anyone wishes to be obstinate about this, he should say, “Prove what you say, Holy Father, especially since it is not for the pope alone to decide upon new articles of faith, but, according to the laws, to make judgments and decisions about questions of faith. This, however, would be a new article of faith. Therefore that decision would be a matter for a general council much more than the doctrine of the conception of the Holy Virgin would be, especially since the latter constitutes no danger, while determining new articles of faith on the part of the pope could be a grave and great danger for people. Otherwise, since the pope is only human and can err in matters of faith and morals, the faith of the whole church would be constantly in danger if it were necessary to believe as true whatever might occur to the pope to be true.-26.4
Second, even if the pope along with a large part of the church should feel thus and so, and even if it were true that he does not err, it is still not a sin, nor is it heresy, to take the opposite position, especially in something which is not necessary for salvation, until the one position has been rejected by a general council and the other approved. But, lest I become too involved, let me state that my position is proved in this one instance, namely, that the Roman church along with the general council at Basel and almost with the whole church feels that the Holy Virgin was conceived without sin. Yet those who hold the opposite opinion should not be considered heretics, since their opinion has not been disproved.-26.4
Second: “The method of intercession does not lessen the overall value of indulgences.” This means that, when indulgences are applied for the souls of the dead by the method of intercession, they retain their basic nature, that is, they are plenary indulgences and do not lose that essential nature, though they operate not as indulgences but as intercession. I accept this meaning and add to it the thought: If it is true that intercession does not lessen indulgences in any way, it is also true that the application of intercession does not increase the value of indulgences in any way. It follows from this that souls do not go to heaven by indulgences. And even the words themselves confirm this fact, for the statement does not say, “The method of intercession fully redeems souls,” but rather, “It does not lessen the overall value of indulgences.” Therefore indulgences, of whatever nature they may be, do only as much as intercession can do and no more.-26.4
I am not duty bound to believe firmly that which the pope himself does not dare to pronounce with certainty. Why does he add the words “as far as the keys extend” only here and not elsewhere? Do you not see how vigilant Christ is in his church, that he does not even permit those to err who want to err? If only we would not rush headlong into error by neglecting his warning!-26.4
I say in the third place, as I have said previously, that even if the pope, along with his father confessors, should not err here, those who deny the pope’s meaning or do not believe it are not thereby heretics, until one or other of these opinions will have been accepted or rejected by the judgment of the general council. Even though they adorn the festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary with indulgences as a settled matter of faith, they still do not condemn or bind those who do not seek the release which such indulgences bring. No matter how many indulgences may be granted, it is not necessary to accept that form of apostolic absolution as true until the church decides upon it. You see again how necessary it is to have an official and general council. But I am afraid our generation is not worthy enough to be granted such a boon, but only to be mocked by the works of error [II Thess. 2:11] which we have deserved.-26.4
27 They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
They preach a man-made doctrine,... according to that word of Scripture, “Every man is a liar” [Cf. Ps. 116:11], and that statement, “Every man living is superficial” [Cf. Ps. 39:6]. This thesis needs no proof, in my opinion. Nevertheless it is proven by the following conclusion: “Because the intercession of the church for souls in purgatory is efficacious by virtue of the will of God and dependent on the merit of the soul.” But even if their opinion were true, that souls are benefited by means of intercession, it does not follow that souls immediately fly from purgatory to heaven.-27
It does not follow, first, because it is not the intercession but the favorable hearing of the intercession and the acceptance of it that frees, since souls are set free not by the prayers of the church but by the work of God.-27.1
There is no difference between one who knows he speaks falsehood and one who maintains something as certain which he does not know to be certain. For the one who speaks the truth also lies at times. These men know that those things just stated are uncertain and yet they affirm them with as much certainty as they do the gospel. They cannot prove these words to be certain by any authority of Scripture or by reason.-27.5
Intercession, then, would be better as a service to another, and then only by chance, than for a man’s own benefit, for it is not as profitable for the one who makes intercession as for another on whose behalf it is made. This is a specious claim. For that reason I pass over this, especially since they dare to admit that intercession is not profitable to the one who makes it, but to the soul for whom it is made. I could make a laughing-stock out of these inventions of theirs and ridicule them just as they ridicule the truth by means of them, but I refrain from doing this in order that I may not appear to consider these matters as dogma rather than as a problem for debate.-27.6
28 It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
It is strange that my opponents do not preach the most precious gospel of Christ with as great a desire and loud wailing as they do other things. The fact that they seem to think more of profit than of piety makes me suspicious of this business. Perhaps, however, they may be justifiably excused by the fact that they do not know the gospel of Christ.-28
My first proof of this thesis is that the intercession of the church does not come under the jurisdiction of the pope. And the pope does not have the power to say that the intercession is accepted by God, but only that it can be offered. This is so even if their opinion were correct which is to the effect that souls are redeemed through this intercession.-28.1
According to their interpretation the commonly accepted opinion of St. Augustine60 -28.2
It is contrary to the nature and meaning of the word “intercession” to say that the pope has power to redeem through intercession. For however excellent a work may be, if it is turned into intercession, it operates not as a work but as intercession. It is much rather the favorable hearing of intercession which redeems. Therefore, either they are talking about intercession by the use of other terminology and thereby are deceiving people even more wickedly, or else they are talking about their own opinion of intercession by the use of accepted terminology. In the latter case their opinion does not prevail, since the meaning and concept of “power” cannot be reconciled with the word “intercession.”-28.3
If their interpretation prevailed there would be no difference between intercession and authority except in the words themselves. Actually they would be one and the same thing since they have the same effect without any other requirement except the will of the pope. Why does not the pope keep quiet about intercession and stop compelling us to understand by intercession something else than power?-28.4
29 Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
I have not read any credible account concerning these two men. Yet I have heard it said that they could have been freed by their own merits if they had wished to be satisfied with achieving lesser glory. So they endured purgatory rather than impair the glory of the beatific vision. But in these matters anyone may believe whatever he wants to, it makes no difference to me. I have not denied that souls suffer other punishments in purgatory, as I have said above; but I wanted to show that they would not fly from purgatory to heaven even with these remissions unless they were made perfectly healthy by grace. Nevertheless it is possible that some out of very great love of God do not wish to be freed from purgatory. Thus it is understandable that Paul and Moses could have desired to be anathematized and eternally separated from God [Cf. Rom. 9:3 and Exod. 32:32]. If they were prompted to do such things in this life, it does not appear as though we could deny that the same could also be done by the dead. There is an example in the sermons of Tauler of a certain virgin who did just that.-29
30 No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
In my opinion, however, remission of punishments specified by canon law can be effected with certainty even if a person were neither worthy nor contrite. It is not contrition, much less the certainty of contrition, that is required for the remission of punishments. Remission itself takes place even if it is granted for imaginary punishments, since it is merely a matter of papal authority. But,...if my opponents desire to have punishments other than those for crime remitted, that is to say, for any kind of mortal sins whatever, they make indulgences worthless while magnifying them. Actually indulgences are not indulgences if they are uncertain. Indulgences are indeed uncertain if they depend upon contrition for all mortal sins and not evident crimes only, since no one is sure that he is without mortal sin. Yet he can be sure that he is without crime, that is, without a sin for which he can be accused publicly in the church, as stated above. So I deny that this thesis is true when I speak in my own sense of the term. I have maintained this, however, in order that those who oppose me might see the absurdity of their boastfulness, by means of which they expand indulgences.-30
31 The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
When they cry that indulgences are profitable for so many people and yet confess that there are so few who walk the narrow way, they do not even blush or give attention to what they are saying. But this is not surprising. They have not assumed the office of teaching contrition and the narrow way [Matt. 7:14]. Therefore I advance the opinion that, if only a few are contrite, nevertheless many, indeed everybody in the whole church could be set free from the punishments of the canons, as they actually are now, simply by abolishing the canons.-31
32 Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.61
Secondly, as I have said, letters and indulgences do not confer salvation, but only take away punishments, that is, canonical punishments, and not even all of these. Oh that the earth and all its fulness would cry out and weep with me over the manner in which Christian people are seduced who have no other understanding of indulgences except that they are useful for salvation and for the fruits of the spirit! It is no wonder that this is so, since the plain truth of the matter is not made clear to them.-32
Oh unhappy Christians, who can trust for their salvation neither in their merits nor in their good conscience! They are taught to put their confidence in a signed parchment and sealing wax. Why should I not speak in such a manner? What else, I ask, is conferred by indulgences? Not contrition, not faith, not grace, but only the remission of punishments of the outer man which have been established by the canons.-32
To digress just a little: I myself have heard that there are many who, after their money was given and their letters purchased, placed their complete confidence in these indulgences. For (as they said) either they heard these things about indulgences or else (I believe this to their credit) they must have understood that the preachers of indulgences taught these things. I am not censuring anyone, for I should not do so since I have not heard the indulgence preachers. As far as I am concerned, they may excuse themselves until they become whiter than snow. Surely these people must be reproved for having wax in their ears that they hear only pernicious things when these preachers tell them salutary things. This occurs when these preachers say, for example, “Above all, brothers, believe in Christ, trust in him and repent, take up your cross, follow Christ, mortify your flesh, learn not to be afraid of punishments and death. Above all else, love one another, serve one another even by neglecting indulgences. Minister first to the needs of the poor and the destitute” [I Pet. 4:8 -11]. I say that when they are preaching these and similar pious, religious, and holy matters, the gullible populace, turned aside as it were by a strange miracle, hears entirely different things, namely, things like these: “Oh you senseless and stupid people, almost more like beasts than men, who are not aware of such a great outpouring of grace! See now how heaven is open on all sides! If you do not enter now, when will you ever enter? See how many souls you can redeem! O hard-hearted and indifferent people! For twelve denarii you can release your father from purgatory, and are you so ungrateful that you would not come to the aid of your parent who is in the midst of such great punishment? I myself deserve to be excused at the final judgment, but you stand accused all, the more since you have neglected such great salvation [Cf. Heb. 2:3]. I tell you, that if you had only one tunic, in my judgment you should tear it from your body and sell it piece by piece in order that you might obtain such great favors.” But then when the point has come to discuss those who speak against the grace given through indulgence, while they gush forth with nothing but benedictions, the crowd stands trembling and is afraid that heaven will crash to the ground and that the earth will open up.-32
The people hear that punishments far worse than those of hell threaten them, so that it is probably true that when those preachers curse, God blesses by means of their curses, and when they bless, God curses. For how else could it happen that these preachers speak things that are so different from what the people hear? Who can understand it? Where, I ask, do those hobgoblin words come from?62 I still do not believe all the things which the populace says it has heard here and there. Otherwise I would consider the ideas which they preach heretical, wicked, and blasphemous.-32
I do not believe it is true that one of them prohibits burials of the dead and the invitation of the priests to be made until those who want funeral rites, masses, and festivals for the dead to be conducted drop more money into the chest. The people make up these things also. I do not believe that story which is said to have been brought back by a certain person and embellished with lies, namely, that in a certain place thousands of souls (I don’t know how many; if I remember correctly, it was either three or five thousand) were redeemed by means of these indulgences. Of these thousands of people only three were condemned; and they were condemned because they withheld indulgence money. No one actually said this, but while the preachers were telling the story of Christ’s passion the crowd heard such things, or else they after - wards imagined that they had heard it. I do not believe it is true that these preachers of indulgences indiscriminately grant to coachmen, landlords, and servants indulgences for four, five, or as many souls as they want instead of paying them with money.-32
I do not believe it when the people say that, after the preachers have poured forth their exhortations with violent bellowing from their pulpits that the people put their money in the chest, they shout, “Deposit, deposit, deposit” (for the people imagine that this is the head and the tail [Isa. 9:14], indeed even the very heart, of the sermon and almost the whole sermon itself). And I do not believe that then, in order that the apostolic preachers may teach the message of indulgences not only with words but also by example, they come down from their pulpits, go first of all to the collection box so that everyone can see, all the while stirring up and provoking the simple and foolish people in the hope of sucking out their very marrow, then deposit their own coin in a magnificent gesture with a resounding ring, wonder whether all the others will let their whole lifesavings flow in, smile at those who do deposit their coins, and become indignant at those who refuse to do so. I myself do not say that they have a corner on the soul-market. I am indignant at the people who because of their ignorance not only interpret such pious efforts as an appearance of greed but as a greed that reaches frenzy. Nevertheless it appears to me that the people who accept from these new spirits either a new interpretation or error perhaps deserve to be pardoned, although they have in former times been accustomed to hearing those things which pertain to love and humility.-32
My own opinion is that even if indulgences were enjoined and salutary, nevertheless, because they have now been so terribly abused and reduced to such a scandal, this would be reason enough for abolishing them altogether. If they are permitted to thrive much longer, those who preach them will, because of their love for money, finally become insane. I honestly believe that the indulgence preachers have not said all the things which have been reported about them here and there. But at least they should have set the people right and expressed themselves more clearly, or, better still, they should speak moderately about indulgences in accordance with the wording of the canons.-32
33 Men must especially be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
For what is more impious and heretical than to say that papal indulgences are a means of grace whereby one is reconciled with God? Yet in order to suppress my displeasure, I wish rather to believe that they have spoken or maintained such things, not out of malice or design, but only out of ignorance and for want of learning and ability. Even in this respect it is presumptuous for men who are so ignorant not to take up the work of a herdsman, rather than take upon themselves the work of teaching the people of Christ.-33
After he has divided indulgences into four principal graces and many other lesser graces, he has this to say in his pamphlet: “The first principal grace,” he says, “is the plenary remission of all sins. There is no grace which can be called greater than this. By means of this, one who is a sinner and is deprived of divine grace obtains perfect remission and the grace of God anew.” 63 That is what he says. I ask you, what bilgewater of heresies has ever been spoken so heretically as that? One can see from this how it happens that when the indulgence preachers say they teach the most sacred truths, the people nevertheless take them to mean the most wicked things. Would that we had here someone with the zeal and the eloquence of a St. Jerome! I am ashamed of a presumptuousness so great that this babbler has not hesitated to publish his pamphlet with four outstanding universities in the immediate vicinity, as though the astute minds of the universities were completely turned into stinking mushrooms. It grieves me also that our neighboring heretics, the Picardi,64 finally have an occasion for justly accusing the Roman church, if they should hear that these things are taught in it.-33
Moreover, the fact that this insolent author has spoken not out of malice, perhaps, but out of ignorance, may be seen by this statement of his: “‘Through this (that is, the first grace, plenary remission) man obtains perfect remission.” What does he mean when he says, “Through plenary remission one obtains perfect remission and through the grace of God he obtains the grace of God?” Is he dreaming in the throes of a fever or is he laboring under a madness? Note well this heretical opinion! He wishes to say that nothing can be called greater than this first grace, and that man, deprived of grace, obtains it. It is evident that this cannot be understood to be anything but the justifying grace of the Spirit, and he himself would not have understood it otherwise. Else it would not be true that no grace can be called greater. If, however, he should say other things concerning justifying grace he would speak in a most wicked manner, since it is God alone about whom it can be said that nothing is greater. Unlike the archbishop of Mainz, St. Augustine says that among created gifts nothing is greater than love.65 But here this author, who is capable of such an opinion or error, confuses the grace of God and the grace of the pope in the chaos of a single word.-33
In the same place there follow these words: “Even though, to merit such grace, nothing can be done that is worthy enough to repay it, because the gift and grace of God cannot be appraised, etc…” See how he again calls that which the pope remits the inestimable gift and grace of God. This is the person most capable of teaching the churches, that is, the prostitute of heretics! After he has diligently used these words to garnish this grace for purposes of business and profit, be quickly clothes his Mercury with the garment of Jupiter so that no one may know that he is after money, especially if the person knows no more than he himself. He also permits that grace to be given free to the poor, but only if they have first tried in every way to rake up money from what he calls “good patrons.” In this way even mendicant brothers may obtain money without the authority of their superiors. Like Pseudolus,66 this liar considers the remission of even imaginary punishment far better than salvatory obedience. But since there was no way open for raking in money, in order to obtain (redimant) this grace (that is, “buy it anew”; not that they actually sell it, but the great similarity of terms compels them to misuse the words), this liar goes on to say, “The kingdom of heaven ought to be no more open to the rich than to the poor.” Once again he wants to open heaven by means of indulgences. But I must restrain my pen so that I do not rave against them the way they deserve it. I have done enough by indicating to the faithful that the corruptness of their sermons assumes such remarkable ignorance and crudeness on their part. Once again, the proverb has proven itself to be true: “The cover fits the dish.”-33
34 For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
This is clear enough from the fifth and twentieth theses.
35 They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
Indeed, I believe there is a big difference between redeeming souls and the remission of punishments. In the remissions of punishment one receives good, but in the redemption of souls one does good. Moreover, the wicked man can receive good, but by no means can he do good. And the work of the wicked man cannot be pleasing to God if the man himself is not pleasing to God, as Gen. 4[:4] says: “The Lord had regard for Abel and his offer ing.” It is contrary to Scripture for anyone to pity another rather than his own soul, and for anyone to pluck out the speck from his brother’s eye rather than the beam from his own eye [Matt. 7:3]. And it is altogether contrary to Scripture for a servant of the devil to redeem a child of God and do this even in the name of God himself. It is ridiculous for an enemy to intercede for a friend of the king. What kind of madness is this? To magnify the remission of worthless punishment which is unprofitable for salvation, they play down the importance of sins for which penance alone should be magnified. If this is not heretical, ill-sounding, scandalous, and offensive to pious ears, what other term could be applied to these horrible things? Or are the inquisitors of heretical depravity harassing and wearing down orthodox people and orthodox ideas under these pretexts so that they alone may be permitted to flood the world with heresies without fear of punishment and as they please?-35
The indulgence sellers say, however, that redemption rests not upon the work of him who does the work of redeeming, but upon the merit of the one to be redeemed. My answer is: Who said this? From what source is it proved? Why, therefore, is not the one who must be redeemed freed by his own merit, without the work of him who does the redeeming? But then the money which they covet from the saving of souls would not increase. Why do we not call upon the Turks and Jews to contribute their money with us also, not, you understand, because of our greed, but for the redemption of souls? The fact that they are unbaptized does not pose any obstacle, for only the contributor of money matters, not at all the soul of him who is lost. The effect of the contribution depends only upon the merit of the soul to be redeemed. I believe that even if a jackass deposited gold, he would also redeem souls. If any qualification is required, surely it is grace, since a Christian who is a sinner displeases God more than any infidel. And braying does not distort the jackass as much as wickedness distorts the Christian.-35
Every doctrine of Christ is an exhortation to penitence and points to the fact that men should turn from the devil, the sooner the better. As Ecclesiasticus says, “Do not delay in turning to the Lord” [Sirach 5:8]. The Lord himself says, “Watch, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour” [Cf. Matt. 25:13]. The Apostle Paul says, “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” [Heb. 4:11]. The Apostle Peter says, “Since therefore all these things are to be destroyed, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy and pious behavior, you who hasten toward the coming of the day, etc.” [Cf. II Pe t. 3:11-12]. The apostles taught these things because they were eager to do so, not for the purpose of collecting money, but for saving souls.-35
These false teachers, however, with complete self-confidence granted the people deferment in a miserable manner, and, as far as they were concerned, left them in danger of eternal death. I do not know, therefore, whether or not those who have desired to keep people in such anxiety should be excused from the crime of murdering souls. Surely in this case it is not the salvation of the giver which is sought, but rather his gift, even if he perishes. -35
36 Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even, without indulgence letters.
Otherwise, those who did not have letters of that type would be in danger. This is a false assumption, since these letters are neither commanded nor recommended, but may be freely accepted or rejected. -36
First, they declare, as if by an oracle, that God requires a punishment which makes satisfaction for sins, namely, punishment other than the evangelical cross, that is, fasts, labors, vigils, and other than the punishment of chastisement. They do not understand these as among evangelical punishments, for they cannot deny that such punishments are remitted by God alone.-36
Second, they add ... that the canons only declare punishment which is imposed by God. Therefore the pope uses only declarative power; he never imposes or removes punishment. Otherwise, contrary to the word of Christ, these indulgence sellers would teach us something like this: “Whatsoever I shall bind, you shall loose.”-36
37 Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
It is impossible for one to be a Christian unless he possesses Christ. If he possesses Christ, he possesses at the same time all the benefits of Christ. For the holy Apostle says in Rom. 13[:14], “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” And in Rom. 8[:32] he says, “Will he not also give us all things with him?” And in I Cor. 3[:21 -22] he says, “All things are yours, whether Cephas or Paul, or life or death.” And in I Cor. 12 [Cf. :27] he says, “You are not your own, but individually members of the body.” And in other places, where he describes the church as one body, one bread; we are altogether in Christ, members one of another [Cf. I Cor. 10:17]. And in the Song of Solomon we read, “My beloved is mine and I am his” [Song of Sol. 2:16]. By faith in Christ, a Christian is made one spirit and one body with Christ. “For the two shall be one flesh” [Gen . 2:24]. “This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church” [Eph. 5:31 -32].-37
Therefore, since the spirit of Christ dwells within Christians..., how is it possible for us not to be participants in all the benefits of Christ? Christ himself has all that belongs to him from the same Spirit. So it happens through the inestimable riches of the mercies of God the Father, that a Christian can be glorified with Christ and can with confidence claim all things in Christ. Righteousness, strength, patience, humility, even all the merits of Christ are his through the unity of the Spirit by faith in him. All his sins are no longer his; but through that same unity with Christ everything is swallowed up in him. And this is the confidence that Christians have and our real joy of conscience, that by means of faith our sins become no longer ours but Christ’s upon whom God placed the sins of all of us. He took upon himself our sins [Cf. Isa. 53:12]. Christ himself is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” [John 1:29]. All the righteousness of Christ becomes ours. He places his hand upon us and all is well with us [Cf. Mark 5:23]. He spreads his cloak and covers us [Cf. Ruth 3:9], blessed Savior throughout all ages, Amen. -37
38 Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said [Thesis 6], the proclamation of the divine remission.
I believe that just as a man who has sinned trusts with the greatest difficulty in the mercy of God, so the sin which lies heavily upon him as a burden forces him to despair and he is prone to think much more about the wrath than the mercy of God. On the other hand, before he has sinned he is prone to think much more about mercy than wrath. Man does everything the wrong way. He is afraid when he should not be afraid but hopeful, that is, after he has sinned. Before he has sinned he is confident, when he should not be confident but be afraid.-38
An example of this human perversity has been adequately pointed out in the resurrection of Christ, where Christ needed to give many proofs in order to establish himself again in the hearts of the disciples. The first announcement of his resurrection was made to women, and the disciples looked upon it as an absurdity. Just so the first stage of trust appears effeminate to the sinner and as something which he should consider entirely, or at least almost, incredible. By the same token it is much more difficult for him to believe that he is a participant in the benefits of Christ, that is, indescribable benefits, and “partaker in the divine nature” [II Pet. 1:4], as St. Peter says. The magnitude of these benefits even produces a distrust, which is nourished by the fact that he not only has such great evils remitted, but such great benefits conferred upon him, such as being made a child of God, an heir of the kingdom, a brother of Christ, a companion of the angels, a lord of the world. I ask you, how can one believe that these things are true, when by the gnawing of his sin, indeed overwhelmed by the burden of it, he feels that he is being carried away to hell? In this respect, therefore, the judgment of the keys is necessary, so that a man may not believe in himself, but rather trust in the judgment of the keys of the church, that is, of the priest. And it makes no difference to me if the one who bears the keys is unlearned or flippant. He may believe, not on account of the priest or his authority, but on account of the word of him who said and did not lie, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose etc.” [Matt. 16:19]. For those who believe in that word, the authority of the keys cannot err. The keys err only for those who do not believe that the absolution of the priest is valid.-38
Suppose, by some impossible or accidental circumstances, that someone were not sufficiently penitent or else did not think he was, and yet believed with absolute confidence that he was absolved by the one who does the pardoning. I personally believe this is possible. That man’s very faith causes him to be truly pardoned, for he believes in him who said, “Whatsoever etc.” [M att. 16:19]. Moreover, faith in Christ always justifies, even if an inept, irresponsible, and inexperienced priest baptizes you. Furthermore, even if you do not think you are penitent enough (for you cannot and ought not trust yourself), nevertheless, if you believe in him who said, “He who believes and, is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16], I tell you, faith in that word of Christ makes you truly baptized, whatever feeling you may have about your penitence.-38
You receive as much as you believe. And this is what I understand it to mean when our teachers say that the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, not because of the mere fact that the sacrament is performed but because it is believed, as St. Augustine contends69 and as I have said previously. So also here. Absolution is efficacious, not by the mere fact that it takes place, no matter who finally does it and whether he errs or does not err, but because it is believed. -38
And no reservation of certain cases [by the pope] can hinder this faith from receiving absolution, unless the faith itself should be manifestly undeserving or despise the absolution. So I say that when a man is in sin he is so vexed and disturbed by his conscience that in his own opinion he believes that he is participating in everything that is evil. Such a man is certainly close to justification and has the beginning of grace. Therefore he ought to flee for refuge to the consolation of the keys in order to be quieted by the authority of the priest, obtain peace, and attain the confidence that he is participating in all, the benefits of Christ and the church. But if anyone shall not believe that this man participates in the benefits of Christ and the church through this work of absolution by the priest or should have doubts about it, he is led astray not by an error of the keys but by the error of his own faithlessness, inflicts upon his soul great condemnation, and does to God and his Word both an injustice and the greatest irreverence. So it is much better for him not to go to the absolution at all, if he does not believe that he is absolved, than it is to go without faith. For if he goes without faith he approaches half-heartedly and thereby receives “judgment upon himself” [I Cor. 11:29], as he would if he were to receive baptism or the sacrament of the bread half-heartedly. Therefore penitence is not as necessary as faith. In this respect faith in absolution receives incomparably more benefit than does zeal in penitence.-38
We teach men to trust in the remission of sins in proportion to their feeling of penitence. This means they are taught never to trust in the remission of sins but to strive for despair. According to the prophet we ought to place our hope in Christ’s word, not in our penitence. The Psalmist did not say, “Remember my contrition to thy servant, in which thou hast made me hope,” but “Remember thy word…in which thou hast made me hope” [Ps. 119:49]. Again he says, “In thy word [certainly not in our own word] have I placed great hope” [Cf. Ps. 119:81]. In another psalm he says, “My soul is sustained by his word,” etc. [Cf. Ps. 130:5]. And according to the Hebrew he says in Psalm 51[:4], “Against thee, only, have I s inned,…wherefore thou wilt justify me by thy word.” Therefore it is neither the sacrament nor the priest, but faith in the word of Christ spoken through the priest and his office which justifies you. What difference does it make to you, if the Lord should speak through an ass, either male or female, as long as you hear that word by which you may hope and believe?-38
It will follow from these things which I have said that the three truths of Jean Gerson,71 which for some time now have gotten into all books and ears, must be understood prudently. Take, for example, this statement of his, that a man should not trust himself as being in a state of salvation because he can say that he is sorry for his sins; rather he should direct his attention to whether or not he longs for the sacrament of absolution so much that when he has received it he believes he is absolved. This is what he means by receiving the sacrament with longing, that is, by faith in the word which one actually hears or desires to hear. Take care, therefore, that you do not in any manner trust in your own contrition but completely and alone in the word of your kindest and most faithful Savior, Jesus Christ! Your heart may deceive you, but he will not deceive you, whether you have him or only desire him. If these words are not understood intelligently (and may the Lord God grant that, in the words of the prophet Micah, I may be a man who is without the Spirit and rather speaks lies [Mic. 2:11]), then I am afraid many souls will be lost because of those most unlearned men who babble about works and contrition. They are blunderers, first, because they do not teach faith in the word but rather contrition, and even this superficially. Secondly, because they are so quick to dole out absolutions and to grant participation in the blessings of the church in the same manner, as though everybody everywhere has that faith. And they do not inquire whom they absolve or why.-38
To bring this thesis to a close, I say that I do not believe this opinion of mine lessens the power of the keys, of which I have been accused, but rather restores it from a false honor and tyrannical reverence to a place of worthy and loving esteem. It is no wonder if the keys are held in contempt when they are offered to those who receive them with hollow respect, i.e., with intimidation; yet anyone who knows of their most salutary benefit would be a stone or blockhead if he were not to embrace and kiss them with tears of joy. Why, therefore, do we exalt the pope because of the keys and at the same time think of him as a power-hungry individual? The keys are not his but mine, given to me for my salvation, my consolation, bestowed to grant peace and rest. With respect to the keys, the pope is my servant and minister. As pope he does not need the keys, but I do. These flatterers turn everything over to the popes, thereby extolling, not our need of consolation, but their own power. By so doing, they terrify us by the same power with which we should be consoled. Today everything is completely topsy-turvy, and yet we do not think that these are unhappy times when the best things are so abused as to be turned into the worst things for us. So, as it stands, I do not maintain this thesis in its entirety, but deny a large part of it.-38
39 It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
The reason for this thesis is found in the following thesis.
40 A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them – at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
One can see how difficult it is even for the learned to take a middle course between hatred and love of punishments; to teach people to hate them and yet do it in such a manner that the people are persuaded to love them. But since nothing is difficult for the unlearned, there is nothing to prevent this from being easy also. -40
Those who make pilgrimages do so for many reasons, very seldom for legitimate ones. The first reason for making pilgrimages is the most common of all, namely, the curiosity to see and hear strange and unknown things. This levity proceeds from a loathing for and boredom with the worship services, which have been neglected in the pilgrims’ own church. Otherwise one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the other places put together. Furthermore, he would be closer to Christ and the saints if he were not so foolish as to prefer sticks and stones to the poor and his neighbors whom he should serve out of love. And he would be closer to Christ also if he were to provide for his own family.-50
The second reason for making pilgrimages is bearable, namely, for the sake of indulgences. Since indulgences are voluntary, have not been commanded, and therefore have no merit, surely those who make pilgrimages only for the sake of indulgences merit nothing at all. Moreover, those people are to be justifiably ridiculed who neglect Christ and neighbor at home, in order to spend ten times as much money away from home without having any results and merit to show for it. Therefore he who would remain at home and consider that passage of Scripture, “Love covers a multitude of sins” [I Pet. 4:8], as well as that other passage, “Whatever is lef t over, give as alms, and behold everything is clean for you” (Cf. Luke 11:41], would be doing far better – indeed, he would be doing the only right thing – than if he were to bring home all the indulgences from Jerusalem and Rome. But there is no pleasure in being so wise, so we shall surrender “our hearts to impurity” [Cf. Rom. 1:24].-50
41 Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
I would say this to people: Look, brothers, you ought to know that there are three types of good works which can be done by expending money. The first and foremost consists of giving to the poor or lending to a neighbor who is in need and in general of coming to the aid of anyone who suffers, whatever may be his need. This work ought to be done with such earnestness that even the building of churches must be interrupted and the taking of offerings for the purchase of holy vessels and for the decoration of churches be discontinued. After this has been done and there is no longer anyone who is in need, then should follow the second type, namely, contributing to the building of our churches and hospitals in our country, then to buildings of public service. However, after this has been done, then, finally, if you so desire, you may give, in the third place, for the purchase of indulgences. The first type of good work has been commanded by Christ; there is no divine command for the last type.-41
I say very frankly that whoever teaches people otherwise and reverses this order is not a teacher but a seducer of people, unless people, because of their sins, at times do not deserve to hear the truth rightly preached.-41
42 Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
As I have said I understand the pope as a public person, that is, as he speaks to us through the canons. And there are no canons which preach that the value of indulgences is to be compared to works of mercy.-42
My answer is: I am not speaking about the work, but about the indulgences. Such a work as that could have been done without indulgences, for it is not necessarily bound up with indulgences. Moreover, indulgences which are bestowed without good works confer nothing; they only detract. The work, however, without indulgences does confer something. In the former case we receive benefits for ourselves, in the latter we give them. The former serves the flesh, the latter serves the spirit. Briefly the former satisfies our nature, the latter satisfies the grace of God. Therefore indulgences in themselves are not comparable to a work of mercy.-42
Likewise a work without indulgences is purer than one with indulgences. Indulgences are somewhat of an imperfection of the work, for the work receives its own reward, indeed much more than its own reward. Therefore people would act in a holier manner if they simply made a contribution for a good work and not for the sake of indulgences. It is not that indulgences in themselves are evil and harmful, but that the perverted abuse of indulgences is harmful, since people would not do such a work of mercy if no indulgences were granted for it. So in this type of work the indulgence becomes the end pursued – indeed a man who looks out for his own interests becomes that end. Man ought rather to do a work of mercy freely and for the sake of God. And he ought to accept only those indulgences which are given to him freely, and not as the result of a financial contribution that he has made. Thus a man should not buy indulgences and the church should not sell them. For both it must be a free gift or it will become a clear case of simony75 and a foul transaction. But who explains these things to the people when the indulgence sellers say, “Contribute freely, and I will give the indulgence freely.”-42
At the same time one must fear that by such a perversion of the order of indulgences and works a great idolatry may be perpetrated in the church. If the public is taught to contribute money in order to escape punishment (which I hope does not happen, even though many people probably understand it in this way), then it is evident that they are not contributing for God’s sake, and the fear of punishments, or the punishment itself, is their idol to which they sacrifice. But if such a thing should happen, then such an evil would arise in the church as at one time arose among the pagan Romans when they sacrificed to Febris76 and other little and harmful deities so that no harm could come to them. So we must be ever watchful for the sake of the people and scarcely entrust such doubtful and dangerous matters to the most learned scholars.
43 Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
I state this thesis for the benefit of the ignorant, for it is clear enough from what was said previously. Even when St. Bonaventura and all the others discussed this matter among themselves, and the objection was raised, “Then the other good works must be omitted,” they answer unanimously, “Not at all, for the other good works are more valuable with respect to obtaining the essential reward.” 77 Therefore my thesis holds, since those who say this nevertheless assert that indulgences are a treasury of the merits of Christ and the church.-43
44 Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
Only remission of punishment is granted by indulgences, and these indulgences have no more usefulness, as everyone recognizes, than to take away punishments. But the taking away of punishment does not make one good or better in the exercise of love.-44
45 Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.
Our sophists, however, interpret this need that the Scripture [I John 3:17] mentions as one of extreme necessity, that is, when there is no opportunity given for showing love, or very little opportunity. Yet if these sophists themselves were in superficial need rather than in extreme need, they would want to be helped But they want to help others only after the latter have already given up the spirit.
46 Christians are to be taught that the buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
I have said repeatedly that indulgences belong to the list of those things which are permissible, not, however, to those which are profitable. They are permitted in the same manner as the certificate of divorce [Deut. 24:1-4] and the offering for jealousy [Num. 5:15] were permitted in the Old Testament. Many others would do better to make satisfaction rather than purchase indulgences, since only criminals need to purchase indulgences. -46
47 Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
The Apostle says: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” [I Tim. 5:8]. But there are many who have neither bread nor proper clothing and yet, led astray by the din and noise of the preachers of indulgences, rob themselves and bring about their own poverty in order to increase the wealth of the indulgence sellers.
48 Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
Our masters, the courtiers and accomplices of the Roman Curia, might laugh at this thesis. Nevertheless it is true that before anything else the pope should desire prayer from his subjects, as the Apostle Paul often did from his fellow-Christians. And indeed, all his laws are to be found in the shrine of his heart; but it is questionable whether or not his heart is good, for that must be nourished by prayer. St. Bernard has written about this matter in a most attractive way to Pope Eugenius [III; d. 1153] in his work, Consideration.80
49 Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
Consider the danger of indulgences. They are preached to people directly contrary to the truth of the cross and the fear of God. Through indulgences people are granted freedom from punishments and then assurance of remissions of sins. There is every indication that indulgences, which are preached so boastfully, are not from God, for the people run after them eagerly, accept them, and even look upon them as that holy gospel of God, so that the truth of Scripture is proved which states, “For that which comes from God, the world despises; another comes in his name and the world receives him” [Cf. John 5:43]. Those who teach such fables are the cause of this error. They preach indulgences more zealously and with more pomp than they do the gospel. And the error is due also to the fact that they preach to all people those things which are only for the few. I have made it clear enough previously that pardons are relaxations, liberties, permissions, and clemencies, and they are true indulgences, if we accept the strict meaning of the term, that is, they are permissions given out of softness of heart to delicate, cold, hard Christians, that is, rather to Gibeonites, the water-carriers [Josh. 9:21, 27], and slaves, than to the leaders and children of Israel.
Even the one who does works of love fervently cannot put his trust in those works or feel sure of his salvation because he does them. How much the more should we accept in fear indulgences, which are of incomparably less value than such works, and place less than the least possible confidence, that is, none at all, in them! A saint is afraid that he might work less or suffer less than he should. Where does that put the sinner who has his sin remitted when he does less than he could do? -49.1
50 Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
In my opinion indulgences are the most worthless of all possessions of the church and ought to be granted only to its most worthless members. The pope never intends anything different, although his false interpreters do. Let someone else give vent to his anger; I shall exercise self-restraint. One thing I want to say: Learn at least, dear reader, whether they do not by their pestilential preach-ing make people believe that salvation and the true grace of God depend upon indulgences. Otherwise why would they commend these indulgences so zealously as to make meritorious works and the commands of God useless? Yet until now they are not considered heretics, so they may take pride in being the persecutors of heretics.-50
51 Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
St. Ambrose [d. 397] melted down the sacred vessels to redeem the captives,83 and St. Paulinus of Nola [d. 431]84 handed himself over as a captive for the sake of his own. It is for such a purpose that the church has its gold85 as the decretals, which have taken this from that same Ambrose, show. And now, dear God, how many there arc who carry firewood, even leaves, to the forest and little drops of water to the sea, that is, their pennies to that purse, whose gain, to use the word of Jerome, is the religion of the whole world.-50
52 It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
They dare to expound this monstrous doctrine without shame in order to take away from men the fear of God and through indulgences hand them over to the wrath of God, contrary to the word of that wise one who said, “Do not be without fear concerning the propitiation for sin” [Sirach 5:5], and of the Psalmist, “Who under stands his faults?” [Ps. 19:12]. But the preachers of indulgences say, “We do not take away the fear of God.” If security through indulgences is compatible with the fear of God, then you do not take it away; but the people do, when they receive letters of indulgence which have been extolled with such a noisy taking of oaths. -52
If a person is afraid that the letters of indulgence might not be sufficient before God, how can this glorious promise of security be true? But if a person is confident that they are sufficient, how can he be afraid? In answer to such unrestrained whirl pools of falsehood some have concocted a story which I believe is not completely devoid of truth. A certain dead person arrived at hell with his letters of indulgences and pleaded for freedom by virtue of those letters. The devil came to meet him and, while he was reading the letters before the heat of the fire, it devoured the wax and the parchment in his hands, and he dragged the man along with him to the depths of hell.-52
53 They are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
It is the duty and intention of the pope to desire the Word of God to be preached above everything else, always, and everywhere as he knows he has been commanded by Christ to do. How can we believe, therefore, that he opposes Christ himself? And yet our preachers dare to believe this as well as everything else.
54 Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
This is clear enough from the dignity the Word of God possesses, and the necessity for preaching that Word, while the preaching of indulgences is neither necessary nor of much value.
55 It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
Nothing in the church must be treated with greater care than the holy gospel, since the church has nothing which is more precious and salutary. Therefore it is the only single work which Christ enjoined upon his disciples at so many different times. And Paul says that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel [I Cor. 1:17]. Christ commanded that the sacrament of the Eucharist should be celebrated only in remembrance of him, and Paul says in I Cor. 11[:26], “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death.” It is better to omit the sacrament than not to proclaim the gospel. The church has decided that the mass must not be celebrated without the reading of the gospel. The mass then renews those who are already a part of the body of Christ, but the gospel, the sword of the Spirit, devours the flesh, divides the kingdom of the devil, takes away the possessions of the strong and increases the body of the church. The mass helps only those who have life; the gospel, on the other hand, helps everybody. Hence, in the early church, the demoniacs and catechumens86 were permitted to remain until after the reading of the gospel and only then were dismissed by those who were permitted to eat and drink of the body of Christ in the mass. Even now church law permits those who have been excommunicated to remain at the mass until after the reading of the gospel. As John preceded Christ, so the gospel precedes the mass. The gospel prostrates and humbles, whereas the mass conveys grace to those who are humbled. Therefore it would be better if they forbade the mass [rather than silence the gospel].-55
56 The treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among Christians.
57 That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
Experience makes this quite clear.
58 Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
1. First of all concerning the merits of the saints.
They say that the saints during this life have contributed many more good works than were required for salvation, that is, works of supererogation, which have not yet been rewarded, but have been deposited in the treasury of the church, by means of which, through indulgences, -58.1
Third, no saint has adequately fulfilled God’s commandments in this life. Consequently the saints have done absolutely nothing which is superabundant. Therefore they have left nothing to be allocated through indulgences. I believe that the inference is clear enough. -58.1
Third, Paul says, I Cor. 3[:8], “Each shall receive his wages according to his labor.” He does not say, “according to another’s labor.” Fourth, I adduce Galatians 6, “Everyone must answer for himself” [Cf. Gal. 6:4 -5], as well as the saying, “So that each one may receive…according as he has done in the body” [II Cor. 5:10]. Fifth, every saint is obligated to love God as much as he can, indeed more than he can, but no one has or can do that. Sixth, the saints, in their most perfect work, that is, through death, martyrdom, and suffering, do no more than is required. Indeed they do what is required and scarcely that. Therefore they have done much less than they should in other works. Seventh, although I have produced so many reasons, they, on the other hand, to support their position, have not produced one, but only a recital of the circumstances, speaking without proof from the Scriptures, the teachers of the church, and sound reasons. For that reason we can, indeed we must, com-pletely ignore their opinion. -58.1
Now I shall prove my argument with the authority of the holy fathers. I will do this first by quoting that well-known saying of St. Augustine: “All saints need to pray, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ even though they have done good deeds, for Christ made no exceptions when he taught us to pray.” 88 But surely those who confess their debts have stored up no superabundant merits. St. Jerome, reflecting upon this in his Dialogue Against the Pelagians, says in excellent fashion, “How can he be a saint if he prays for his own ungodliness?” He says again, “If he is ungodly, he is not a saint, etc.” 89 There he [St. Augustine] deals with the question whether or not the saints have completely fulfilled the commandments, and he denies that they have when he says that this takes place by God’s forgiveness rather than by man’s fulfillment. How, therefore, can these saints have superabundant merits for others, when they have not sufficient for themselves?
Fifth, St. Augustine in his second book of Against Julian92 lists ten [only nine are listed here]of the ancient church fathers who were of this same opinion, namely, Hilarius, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Olympius, Rheticius, and Innocent [I] ,93 and he draws his support from their authority, proving that no saint is without sin in this life, according to that saying in I John 1[:8]: “If we say we have no sin, etc.” St. Augustine says the same thing in his work Concerning Nature and Grace.-58.1
From these and from many other references which would take too long to enumerate, I conclude that the saints have no superabundant merits which would help those of us who are lazy. -58.1
Nevertheless, if I were to admit ... that the saints have actually stored up surplus merits, I am not sure whether the church would be doing such a worthy work when it expends such precious merits so cheaply, that is, for the remission of punishments. For the remission of punishment is the cheapest gift the church possesses and deserves to be presented to the most worthless people, as I already said so often. St. Augustine said this much better in his sermon, Concerning Martyrdom, in these words: “The festivals of the martyrs are not remissions but exhortations to martyrdom, so that we should not hesitate to imitate that which we like to celebrate.” -58.1
But the saints did this during their lifetime [merit], and if they were to do it now, it would be accomplished by intercession rather than by the power of the keys. -58.1
“It is true,” they [certain individuals] say, “that the saints were not without sin in this life, but they were only venial sins, and in spite of that the saints were able to do more than was required for salvation.” It is difficult to deal with such exceedingly stupid people in this matter. But even a good work which has been done in the best manner is a venial sin, as cited above from the words of St. Augustine: “The commandments are fulfilled when what is not fulfilled is forgiven.”. Hence St. Bonaventura, who was a holy man, was absolutely wrong when he maintained that a man can exist without venial sin.-58.2
First, because, as I have often said, this cannot be proved by any Scripture passages, nor can it be demonstrated by reason. Furthermore, those who hold this opinion do not prove it but simply state it, as everybody knows. Moreover, I have said before that to make any assertion in the church without a reason or authority to support it is to expose the church to ridicule by its enemies and by heretics, since according to the Apostle Peter we are bound to give a reason for the faith and hope that is in us [I Pet. 3:15].-58.2
Second, all the arguments which are adduced to prove the treasury of the church militant and the merits of the saints have more weight here. First, that indulgences are not really indulgences but rather transfers of the works of some to others, and constitute a true and legitimate satisfaction, since what we do, we do through another. But, as the canon says in book five of Concerning Penance and Remission (Cum ex eo),98 penitential satisfaction is weakened by indulgences. The canon does not say, “it is transferred,” but, “it is weakened.” My second argument also has more weight here, namely, that the keys of the church accomplish nothing and actually are rendered worthless since they do not loose but transfer to someone else that which is bound. As I have already pointed out, the remission of punishment is very cheap.-58.2
Third, let them give me an answer to the following contradiction: St. Thomas and St. Bonaventura and their followers say continually and unanimously that good works are better than indulgences, as I have said often enough previously. Granted that this is true. Likewise the merits of Christ are applied and administered through indulgences.-58.2
In opposing this view, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventura say indulgences are not commanded and are less important than good works. Therefore indulgences are not the works of Christ, yet at the same time and in a certain sense they are the works of Christ.-58.2
But perhaps, since my opponents are so ingenious, they will answer by Aristotelian distinctions in these words: “It is true that the themselves, are better than our works, but as such they are not indulgences, or rather they are not applied to indulgences in such a manner. They are received, however, just as they are in themselves, as satisfactions for punishments, and in this manner will they also be applied.” I reply, Prove what you are saying. What if I do not care to believe your scant statement? I am commanded to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” [I John 4:1]. -58.2
Are such merits, therefore, of so little value as to receive no other reward than that of satisfactions for others who are lazy? If so, I contend that the works of supererogation are the most noble and perfect of all. Do you agree? Yes. And do you mean that merits are not given as a reward to the martyrs and saints, but are granted to snoring sluggards? And is it true that the saints shall be rewarded according to their lesser works and merits while the more perfect works shall be left to others? I ask you, who is so insane as to believe that? Therefore St. Catherine99 [d. C. 284-305] received nothing for her martyrdom and virginity, but left that for the church. Is her reward for prayer, vigils, and other good works sufficient?-58.2
Fourth, I take up again ,the argument which the gloss to the work Concerning Penance and Remission (Quod autem)100 raises, namely, “If indulgences are remissions of all punishments, then man no longer needs to fast or do good deeds.” We must not conclude from this that remission is uncertain, but rather that the keys of the church are blasphemed, even though almost all the scholastic teachers support this opinion of Gregory. The quotation, “Man does not know whether or not he deserves [God’s] love,” 101 by which he proves his position, refers to a future event, for he who believes now does not know whether or not he will continue in faith. But if these passages make the remission of guilt uncertain, how much more uncertain do they make the punishments of guilt. For if guilt remains, punishment also must remain when the sin is completely erased through contrition, rather through faith in the keys. The gloss substantiates this interpretation of “remission.”-58.2
Actually, then, as some say, indulgences would be a wicked deception of the faithful. Such an error arises when we seek to be justified through our own works and righteousness rather than through faith. So either indulgences are not the treasury of the merits of the saints, or it must necessarily follow that one who has obtained indulgences must desist from doing good works for sins, as the gloss referred to maintains.-58.2
The explanation offered by this gloss is wickedness against Christ, for, if by indulgences the merits of Christ are granted to me and I am still in doubt whether my sins are remitted, then I must still work for the remission of those sins. It follows from this, that I doubt whether the merits of Christ which have been applied through indulgences and given to me are sufficient for the remission of sins. What could be more detestable than such a doubt? For if I could obtain one, single work, just one-millionth part of the smallest work of Christ, I would be sure of eternal salvation. Therefore let us stop doing our own works for our sins and only purchase indulgences, for through indulgences we obtain not only one work but all the merits of Christ, and not only his but those of all the saints. -58.2
My first answer is, I am not the only one: the truth is on my side, as are many others, namely, those who have doubted and still doubt the validity of indulgences. They do not sin because of this doubt. Since remissions are only for punishments, a person will be saved whether or not he believes in them and whether he obtains them or not.-58.2
Second, the pope is on my side, for although he grants indulgences, nevertheless he nowhere says that they are taken from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the church. -58.2
Fourth, even if St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and Alexander of Hales are distinguished men along with their disciples Antoninus, Peter of Palude, Augustine of Ancona,103 besides the canonists who agree with them, nevertheless it is only right to give preference to the truth first, and then to the authority of the pope and the church. Furthermore, it is not surprising that such great men have erred in this respect. For, I ask you, in what great respects did not the scholastics contend that even St. Thomas had erred! -58.2
What is more, for more than 300 years now, many universities, and many of the sharpest minds in them, have labored with persistent industry to comprehend Aristotle alone. Yet they not only do not understand Aristotle after all this effort but even disseminate error and a false understanding of him throughout almost the whole church. And even if they should understand him, they would have attained no extraordinary wisdom thereby, particularly not from the Aristotelian books with which they are most familiar. According to his own testimony in the fourth chapter of book twenty by Aulus Gellius [d. 180],104 and according to the testimony of Gregory Nazianzen in his Sermon Against the Arians, Aristotle is discovered to be nothing more than a mere sophist and a handier of words.-58.2
If I only had time and leisure to account for this boldness of mine and instill confidence in my words, perhaps I could show that this opinion of mine is not so unfounded. I would not harmonize Aristotle with Plato and others, which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola [d. 1494] attempted, but paint Aristotle in his own colors as he deserves to be painted. He is by profession a master craftsman of words, according to Gregory Nazianzen, and a mocker of brilliant men. Therefore if God permitted such a great cloud and darkness to prevail for so long a time in such outstanding minds, how can we be so confident in our own works instead of looking upon all our efforts with suspicion, as Christians should, in order that Christ alone may become our light, righteousness, truth, wisdom, and our total possession.-58.2
The holy fathers of the church saw how the unlearned and those who did not know Christ held Aristotle in such esteem as an authority, and since they were of such meek disposition, they permitted themselves to be followed in godly innocence. Since they had fallen into error they became to others a cause for so many confusing opinions, doubts, and errors which we see reflected today in the scholastic teachers. -58.2
Sixth, otherwise those who are the worst people in the church would be much happier. For I have said that indulgences are profitable only for criminals, and the treasury of the merits of Christ should be given to them! But it should not be given to children, young women, and the innocent, to whom it especially belongs, indeed, who alone possess it. But that argument counts for little for those who believe that all punishments are removed and that indulgences cannot be conferred upon sinners without contrition, which I do not believe.-58.2
Lastly, this thesis bears its own proof, that is, that the merits of Christ and his saints perform a two-fold work without the pope, to wit, a work characteristic of them, and a work alien to them. Works characteristic of them are grace, righteousness, truth, patience, and gentleness in the spirit of a man who has been predestined. For the righteousness of Christ and his merit justifies and remits sins, as John says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]. And Isaiah says, chapter 43[:24 -25], “You have wearied me with your iniquities and burdened me with your sins. I, I am He who blots out your transgressions…, and I will not remember your sins.” -58.2
From this you can now see how, ever since the scholastic theology – the deceiving theology (for that is the meaning of the word in Greek) – began, the theology of the cross has been abrogated, and everything has been completely turned up-side-down. A theologian of the cross (that is, ones who speaks of the crucified and hidden God), teaches that punishments, crosses, and death are the most precious treasury of all and the most sacred relics which the Lord of this theology himself has consecrated and blessed, not alone by the touch of his most holy flesh but also by the embrace of his exceedingly holy and divine will, and he has left these relics here to be kissed, sought after, and embraced. -58.2
Many make pilgrimages to Rome and to other holy places to see the robe of Christ, the bones of the martyrs, and the places and remains of the saints, which we certainly do not condemn. But we lament the fact that we do not at the same time recognize the true relics, namely, the sufferings and crosses which have sanctified the bones and relics of the martyrs and made them worthy of such great veneration. -58.2
Yet in the meantime they have opened the floodgates of heaven and flooded the treasury of indulgences and the merits of Christ so that by this deluge almost the whole Christian world is ruined, unless my faith deceives me. A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. -58.2
59 St. Laurence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
This is clear enough to those who have read the legend of St. Laurence. But today the word “treasure” has a different meaning so that men no longer speak of the poor as the treasures of the church. With this word we refer to the patrimony of Christ and St. Peter, chaff without grain, as it were, which Constantine has given to the church.-59
60 Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure;
If the merit of Christ were also called the treasure of indulgences, that is to say, the power of the keys, the meaning would be clear. For no one doubts that everything which has been given to the church has been given by the merit of Christ.
61 For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
3.If the above is true, then the distribution of the merits of Christ must be understood to apply to other occasions for binding and loosing as well; for example, when the pope in his priestly capacity excommunicates and absolves, ordains and unfrocks, issues decrees and annuls, commands and prohibits, grants dispensations, changes, or interprets. For all these matters are handled on the strength of that word, “Whatsoever” [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore if a distribution of the merits of Christ is not necessary in those cases, but the power of the keys alone is sufficient, how much more is that true for the remission of canonical punishments, since such a remission is nothing more than an absolution from punishments.-61.3
But nowhere and never is it customary to gather or shut up this treasury, and yet, if there is a loosing and pouring forth then there must also be a shutting up, for both powers are given to the church and they are not given in vain or without purpose. Therefore, just as binding is understood as making one debtor without withholding from the treasury, that is, without actually taking anything away from him, so loosing must be understood as making one free, without actually spending from the treasury.-61.4
62 The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
The gospel of God is something which is not very well known to a large part of the church.-62
Therefore those who are still afraid of punishments have not yet heard Christ or the voice of the gospel, but only the voice of Moses.-62
Therefore the true glory of God springs from this gospel. At the same time we are taught that the law is fulfilled not by our works but by the grace of God who pities us in Christ and that it shall be fulfilled not through works but through faith, not by anything we offer God, but by all we receive from Christ and partake of in him. -62
63 But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last [Matt. 20:16].
The gospel destroys those things which exist, it confounds the strong, it confounds the wise and reduces them to nothingness, to weakness, to foolishness, because it teaches humility and a cross. -63
64 On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
The treasure of indulgences teaches people to tremble before punishments, indeed makes them free from punishment which is due only to the righteous. -64
65 Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
The Apostle said, “I seek not what is yours but you” [II Cor. 12:14]. And Christ said, “I will make you fishers of men” [Matt. 4:19]. This sweet word directs as it attracts the will; i ndeed, it makes a man surrender his will to Christ.
Hence St. Peter, portrayed as a fisherman in the city [of Rome], says, “ For my ship I steer the Church, all the regions of the world are my sea, the Scripture is my net, man is the fish.” 111
66 The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
I believe this is clear from what has been said, for man does not become better through the remissions of punishments, nor is he drawn to God more because of them. Only the word of Christ can do that. Remissions of punishments are words of a man who grants exemption and release rather than of one who “catches” and binds. But if they “catch” anything, surely it is nothing except money, for they do not catch souls. 112 It is not that I condemn this business of contributing money. However, since this drive for funds is least in value among the gifts and offices of the church, nor deserving enough to be crowned in the future life though it brings a modest monetary return in this life, God’s providence will see to it that nothing remains unrewarded. In former times releases were granted free of charge.
67 The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
The brazen ignorance of the indulgence merchants dares to call that which is of least value the greatest; and judgment in these matters, as well as the ability to understand indulgences properly, is left to the people. As a consequence the people mistakenly believe that the grace of God is bestowed when they purchase indulgences. The merchants themselves do not explain indulgences in order that they may not be forced to contradict themselves or be discovered to be liars because they have called that which is the least value the greatest.-67
68 They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
As a matter of fact, compared to the grace of God they are null and void since they work just the opposite of the grace of God. Nevertheless, put up with them for the sake of the sluggards and the indolent, as I have already indicated.
69 Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
This is so because one must yield in reverence to the papal authority in everything. “He who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” [Rom. 13:2]. Thus it develops that even if the pope should hand down unfair judgments, they must be respected, as the Emperor Charles [d. 814 ]113 said, “Whatever has been imposed, however difficult it may be, must be carried out.” -69
Nevertheless this statement must not be understood in such a way that a person develops a false conscience, that is, as if these unfair judgments should be respected because they must be acknowledged as fair by those who are required to respect them. The pope himself decreed that some should be bound by the church, who nevertheless are not bound in the sight of God, and he compels them to endure this binding.-69
70 But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
Then they make us believe that they are, as it were, from heaven, and declare confidently what indulgences are, as a matter of fact, far more than they really are or ever could be, which they say can be proved from their very latest book.115 Therefore the bishops are obligated to prevent these fancies of theirs, lest they permit the wolves to enter the sheepfold of Christ, as it is expressly commanded in book five, Concerning Penance and Remission (Cum ex eo),116 and as Clement commands in the same book, in the chapter entitled Abusionibus.117 So the bishops should permit these indulgence preachers to present nothing to the people except that which is contained in their letters of authorization.-70
71 Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed;
For although the bestowing of indulgences is a small matter compared to the grace of God and in contrast to the loud bellowing of those who preach them, nevertheless he who would raise his voice against it acts arrogantly against [papal] authority. Therefore he deserves to be cursed, since ecclesiastical obedience to the pope is so much more admirable when he gives up his own feeling in lesser things and humbles himself. But whatever may be the truth concerning indulgences enough has been discussed up to this point and still awaits the decision of the church. Whatever may be the final decision about them it is evident that indulgences are only relaxations of temporal punishments. -71
72 But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
For such is today the condition of the widow of Christ,118 the holy church, that everything is permitted to everybody and especially to the scholastic theologians, among whom it is possible to find those who even condemn true opinions for no other reason than that they do not flow forth from their own spring. Yet they are permitted to maintain that God commits sin, that God is the cause of evil and of guilt, and many other things do they maintain. But if a poet or orator (as they are called) or a scholar of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew were to say this, he would be considered the most wicked of all heretics. But they do much more harm. If a Christian should supply weapons to the Turks or waylay pilgrims who journey to Rome, or should forge papal documents, it is such a great crime that authority has never been given to anyone to grant remission for an outrage of that kind even if the fullest authority of the highest plenary indulgence should be granted. But the papal chair reserves that for itself.-72
But if these violations are punished so severely, then with what severity do we feel they should be punished who offer weapons, not to the Turks, but to demons, and supply them, not with any kind of weapons but our own, that is the Word of God, while they contaminate that Word with their fancies and, as Isaiah used to say, melt it down into an idol by their spirit [Cf. Isa. 40:19], so that it is no longer an instrument by which the soul is attracted to God but rather seduced into false opinions? Yet this offense is so generally permitted that one would be considered the most wicked of all men who would not consider it as a virtue and a merit above all merits, no matter who should do it. St. Jerome also complained that the Scripture is open to all, not for learning, but for tearing to pieces.121 [“Only the art of interpreting the Scriptures is claimed by all and sundry: the talkative old woman and the feeble old man, the verbose sophist. In short, all presume to do this. They teach before they learn and so tear the Scriptures to pieces.”] Therefore if those who hinder people from going to Rome sin so greatly, what about those who prevent them from going to heaven, not only by their contemptible doctrines but also by their most corrupt practices? And where are they going who do not violate papal documents but the divine Scriptures? They “have taken away the key of knowledge; they do not enter themselves and they hinder those who are entering” [Cf. Luke 11:52]. Are these abominations not considerably greater and worse than those which are read on Maundy Thursday and reserved for that day?122 But they deserve to be read only in heaven and shall never be remitted. Therefore they are worthy of blessing who strive to purify the Holy Scriptures and lead them out of the darkness of scholastic opinions and human reasoning into the proper light. In these words we have almost made ourselves Pelagians in doctrine and Donatists in our method. But more about this elsewhere.-72
73 Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatsoever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
I say again what I have said before (whatever may be the personal intention of the pope) that one must give in humbly to the authority of the keys, be kindly disposed to it and not struggle rashly against it. The keys are the power of God which, whether it is rightly or wrongly used; should be respected as any other work of God – even more so.
74 But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
However much this power of the keys must be honored, we must not be so dastardly as not to reprove its abuse or resist it. In the same way all the saints have supported and honored the secular power, which the Apostle also calls God’s power [Rom. 13:1-7], even in the midst of punishments and tortures which that authority placed upon them; nevertheless they deprecated its abuse constantly. And the early Christians did not support this authority because the rulers had used the power rightly by persecuting them, but left them to the consciousness of an evil deed, and through their death bore the witness and confession of their innocence, as St. Peter says, “Let none of you suffer as a thief, etc.” [I Pet. 4:15]. -74
75 To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
I am forced to call them foolish who hold such opinions, and we should beg pardon from the holy virgin because we are compelled to say and think such things, yet there is no way open to escape the necessity of saying them. I do not know what diabolical work has caused the people to spread this rumor about papal indulgences everywhere or whether it has really been said by the people or only understood as such by them. -75
True and evangelical preaching is to magnify the sins as much as possible in order that man may develop fear of God and proper repentance.-75
When they dare to shout that murder, robbery, lust of every sort, blasphemies against the virgin Mary and God are insignificant things which may be remitted by these indulgences, is it still surprising that they do not also shout that those lesser things reserved in the bull, In Coena Domini [issued 1363],123 are remitted? “The pope does not remit them.” Therefore watch carefully whether or not he remits, or at least remits with great difficulty, those things which are far more serious than these.-75
76 We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
I would not have made this understatement if it were not that I wanted to make the opinion expressed in the preceding thesis detestable. It is evident, however, that only God can remit guilt. Therefore those great sins are not remitted by authorities of the church but are only declared by them as remitted and the punishment for them is remitted. I say this according to their interpretation. My own opinion, however, has been made clear enough above. But here I should have said more about venial sin because it is valued so lightly today that it is hardly considered a sin at all. -76
77 To say that even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78 We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in 1 Cor. 12[:28].
79 To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers, is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
Are therefore eternal and temporal punishments to be considered of equal value?-79
80 The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
One is afraid of the power of the church and therefore afraid that errors and offenses committed today against the Roman chair will be punished by a two-edged sword. But why must one be thus silenced? “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” [Matt. 10:28]. “Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father” [Matt. 10:32]. Therefore I am anxious to know who first invented the explanation125 that the two swords mean, on the one hand, the spiritual – not spiritual however in the sense that the Apostle speaks of it, namely “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” [Eph. 6:17] – and, on the other hand, the temporal [Peter Damiani d. 1072 Unam Sanctam Bonifce 8th 1302]. This interpretation is used in order to make the pope appear as a man who is armed with a twofold power, not as a loving father to us but, as it were, a great tyrant, in whom we see nothing but power.
A shorter way out of this difficulty appeals to us and that is not by getting rid of the heresies and errors but by burning the heretics and those who are in error. In this respect we are led by the advice of Cato rather than by that of Scipio over the question of the destruction of Carthage.127 By so doing we act contrary to the will of the Spirit, who writes that the Jebusites and Canaanites should remain in the land of promise in order that the children of Israel might learn to fight and develop the habit of fighting [Judg. 3:1-6]. But if St. Jerome does not deceive me, I think that this passage of Scripture speaks figuratively about wars with hereties.128
Surely, however, the Apostle is worthy of trust when he says, “There must be heresies” [I Cor. 11:19]. But we answer, Not at all; the heretics must be burned and thus the root must be torn out with the fruit, indeed the tares along with the wheat [Cf. Matt. 13:28-29]. -80
81 This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity,
Even if my friends have been calling me a heretic, an irreverent person, and a blasphemer for a long time because I do not interpret the church of Christ and the Holy Scriptures in a Catholic sense, nevertheless, relying upon my conscience, I believe that they deceive themselves, but that I cherish the church of Christ and its honor.
82 Such as: ªWhy does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.º
It is not the pope but the treasurers of the Holy See who provoke this question, for, as I have said previously, nowhere can there be found any decree of the popes concerning this matter.
83 Again, ªWhy are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the
withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?º
We have also said that if souls should fly from purgatory to heaven, then the masses said on their behalf should contribute to the praise of God, which happens when children and infants die.
84 Again, ªWhat is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is im pious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?º
85 Again, ªWhy are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?º
86 Again, ªWhy does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one
basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?º
To this and similar questions I say, it is not for us to judge the will of the pope, but only to endure it, even if it should upon occasion be evil, as I have said previously.
87 Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have aright to full remis sion and blessings?”
This question has arisen because many people, even the jurists, say that they do not know what remission of guilt by the keys is, about which I have given my opinion previously.
88 Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?”
At this point one hears the most surprising things. Some imagine a common treasury which is increased by indulgences. Therefore if a man obtains plenary remission seven times a day, which can happen in Rome, so many more benefits will he receive.
89 “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?”
This disturbs and displeases me most of all and, I confess, to a great degree, for this suspending of earlier letters and indulgences is the only reason that indulgences have become worthless. I cannot deny that everything which the pope does must be endured, but it grieves me that I cannot prove that what he does is best. Although, if I were to discuss the intention of the pope without becoming involved with his mercenary hirelings, I would say, briefly and with confidence, that one must assume the best about him. The church needs a reformation which is not the work of one man, namely, the pope, or of many men, namely the cardinals, both of which the most recent council has demonstrated, but it is the work of the whole world, indeed it is the work of God alone.
90 To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
For while the people are being held in check by fear, a worse evil develops. How much more appropriate it would be if we were taught to understand the wrath of God, to pray for the church, and to endure such trials in the hope of a future reformation, than if we were to stir up an even worse evil by desiring to compel people to look upon such manifest evils as virtues.
91 If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be
readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
92 Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! [Jer. 6:14]
93 Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94 Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their head, through penalties, death, and hell;
95 And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace [Acts 14:22].
Enough has been said previously about cross and punishments. Rarely do you hear a sermon about it today.
TO THE SINCERE AND LEARNED READER
Do not assume that these things were published for you, my learned and brilliant reader (but why is this reminder necessary?), as though I were afraid these matters might appear Ciceronian to you. You have other things which you may read according to your own inclination. It was necessary for me to discuss with my equals those things which we have in common, that is, crude and barbarian matters. So it has pleased heaven. And I would not have dared to call upon the name of the pope for these notions of mine if I had not seen how greatly my friends relied upon the pope’s power to frighten me and also because it is the official duty of the pope to make himself “a debtor to the wise and to the foolish, to Greeks and to barbarians” [Rom. 1:14]. Farewell.
A.D. 1518
1Johann Tetzel.
2Conrad Wimpina.
3Peter Lombard. Migne 192, 519-984. In the fourth book, Lombard discusses eschatological subjects and the sacraments.
4Luther here evidently has in mind Aesop’s familiar fable, The Ass in the Lion Skin.
5Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX Lib v. tit. XXXVII, cap. 4. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, col. 885.
6Cf. Thesis 5.
7That is, scholastic argumentation.
8Peter Lombard, op. cit.
9Ibid., Book 4.
10Cf. p. 282, n. 8.
11Since there were a number of scholastic theologians by this name, we do not know to whom Luther refers.
12Cf. p. 262, n. 8.
13According to Roman doctrine a martyr does not go to purgatory but immediately enters heaven. For this reason he is prayed to immediately, but one does not pray for him.
14This letter of Cyprian was addressed to the presbyters and deacons informing them of the action they should take in re-admitting the lapsed into the church.
15Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX Lib. v. tit. XXXIV, cap. 28. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, cols. 899-900.
16Ecclesiastical History, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff (Oxford and New York, 1890) I, 81-400. A more recent translation is that by Kirsopp Lake in the Loeb Classical Library (2 vols.; London and New York, 1928-1932).
17Historia ecclesiastica vocata tripartita. Migne 9, 879-1214.
18Dionysius the Areopagite, referred to in Acts 17:34, probably was not the author of this work.
19The term “Picard” is derived from the name “Beghard” which refers to a variety of mystical religious movements in Flanders and the Rhineland during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. Luther probably refers to the spiritual descendants of the Picardi in Bohemia, whom the moderate Hussites considered heretics.
20Migne 32, 778-780.
21John Tauler was born at Strassburg about 1300 and died June 18, 1381. Cf. p. 73.
22Cf. Officium et Missae pro Defunctis. Offertorium 2. In Liber usualis Missae et Oficii (Paris, Tornaci, Rome, 1929) p. 1886.
23Ibid. A versicle: Ad Vesperas and Laudes, p. 1149, et al.
24The Latin word in the Weimar edition is servire (to serve). Here I have read it saevire (to rage), with EA 2,182, and CL 1,58.
25Decretum Magistri Gratiani, Prima Pars, dist. XXV, cap. 4. Corpus Iuris Canonici, I, col. 94. Migne 187,148.
26De praedestinatione sanctorum, cap. 12. Migne 44,977; CL 1, 64, note.
27The “Vita Vincentii Ferrerii,” Acta Sanctorum, April, I (Parts and Rome, 1866–), 476-510.
28Cf. the “glossa ordinaria” of Walafrid Strabo (d. 849) on Mark 1:34. In this instance a “gloss” is a marg inal note employed for explanation of biblical passages.
29Innocent IV, Apparatus in quinque libros decretalium, ad. C.V. tit. 38, cap. 14, as cited in MA3 1, 496.
30Antoninus (1389-1459) was archbishop of Florence and a Dominican scholar whose Summary of Moral Theology Luther has in mind; Peter de Palude (1275?-1342) was a teacher at Paris and a well-versed theologian to whose commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences Luther refers; Augustine of Ancona (d. 1328) was an Augustinian Eremite whose Summary of the Power of the Church Luther knew; John Capreolus (d. 1444) was a Dominican who was considered the most able student of Thomas Aquinas in the fifteenth century. Francisco de Mayronis (1280?-1327) is considered one of the most distinguished disciples of Duns Scotus. Angelus de Clavassio (d. 1495) whose Summary of Questions of Conscience (Summa casuum conscientiae) went through thirty editions between 1478 and 1520, was superficial in his treatment of matters relating to indulgences, and his book became the object of Luther's scorn.
31St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Dominican, was the greatest of the scholastic theologians. St. Bonaventura (1221-1274), a general of the Franciscans, was a respected scholastic theologian contemporary with St. Thomas.
32Nicholas of Tudesco, archbishop of Palermo (Panormitanus) was a learned Benedictine scholar. Luther refers to his gloss in Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX v. tit. XXXVIII, cap. 4. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, col. 885.
33Ibid.
34Gottfried of Trani was a thirteenth-century canonist at the Roman Curia. Henry of Segusio also served in the Curia and became cardinal and archbishop of Ostia (thus called Hostiensis). Johannes Andreæ was a canonist who taught at the universities of Bologna and Padua.
35Angelus de Clavassio.
36Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX Lib v. tit. XXXVIII, cap. 14. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, cols. 888-889.
37Ibid.
38Ibid.
39Hilary of Arles (401?-450?) was an ascetic bishop who became involved in a dispute with Pope Leo I about luxurious living.
40Spiridion was an archbishop of Tramathus on Cyprus in the fourth century. He defended the Apostolic faith against the Arians at the Council of Nicaea (325).
41The Latin cubile usually means couch or bed, grabatum a low couch, and lectum a couch of leaves. Virgil in Aeneid iii, 324 speaks of cubile as a marriage bed.
42This reference is evidently to the scandalous Council of Pisa which was called in 1511 by a few French and Spanish cardinals to condemn Pope Julius II; but the cardinals refused. Luther here seems to refer to the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) dominated by Julius II and Leo X.
43The reference here is to Mezentius, king of Caere in Etruria, whose aid was invoked by Turnus against the invading Aeneas. According to the earlier story, told in Cato's Origines, Turnus and Aeneas alike fell in the subsequent conflict, and Mezentius was later killed or forced to submit in single combat with Acanius. Virgil in Aeneid (vii-x) develops Mezentius into a full-blooded, atheistic tyrant, killed by Aeneas after the death, in his defense, of his attractive son Lausus.
44The days in the week following Michaelmas Day (Sept. 29).
45Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) and Lorenzo Valla (1405-1457), Italian humanists; Peter of Ravenna (1448-1518), an Italian jurist who late in life taught at Greifswald and Wittenberg; John Ruchrath of Oberwesel, or Wesel (1410?-1481), an Erfurt theologian and preacher, in Mainz and Worms; Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522), noted German lawyer, statesmen, and humanist; and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples (Faber Stapulensis, 1455 -1536 ), a French humanist. All these were at one time or another tried or threatened by the Inquisition.
46 A German proverb having its origin in law court procedure according to which the testimony of seven persons in favor of the witness could be superseded through the testimony of seven other persons. Cf. Wander, Sprichwörterlexikon, III, 255. MA3 1, 502.
47 Latin is stationibus. The reference is to the seven titular churches of Rome.
48 Op. cit.
49 Refers to the best known book of Hostiensis (Henry of Segusio; d. 1271), entitled Summa super titulis Decretalium, also known as the Summa aurea, or Golden Summary. The author was an Italian canonist who taught at Bologna and Paris and later was made chaplain to the pope. See above, p. 149, n. 34. 50 Cf. Aeneid vi, 1. 12.
51 City of God. Migne 41, 149ff.
52 Exposition of Psalm 145. Migne 37, 1897.
53 Op. cit.
54 Clementis Papae V, Constitutiones v. tit. IX, cap. 2. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, cols. 1190-1191.
55 Op. cit.
56 Clementis Papae V, Constitutiones v. tit. IX, cap. 2. Corpus Iuris Canonici, served as head of the school of his order in Paris. Cf. CL 1, 88, footnote to line 37.
57 Julius II (pope: 1503-1513), the ªwarrior pope,º joined the League of Cambrai against Venice and was attacked for this by many of his contemporaries.
58 In his explanation of the bull of indulgence, Romans pontificis, issued 1477 by Sixtus IV (pope: 1471-1484) for the church at Saintes, the commissary for indulgences, Raimund Peraudi, states: ªThe way of intercession does not detract from the way of authority.º Cf. MA 3 1, 503 and CL 1, 88, footnote to line 24. Cf. also Proceedings at Augsburg, p. 282.
59 WA 1, 584, footnote 37, indicates that all editions read ª Quintoº and suggests that the fourth point of the original manuscript may have been left unprinted by mistake.
60 Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 110. Migne 40, 283.
61 This is one of Luther's most important arguments against indulgences. He was not vehemently opposed to indulgences per se, but to the church and teachers who permitted the ignorant masses to believe that the purchase of indulgences made them sure of salvation and free from guilt before God, instead of free from punishments imposed by the church.
62 CL 1, 96 omits this question from the text.
63 Reference here is to the Summary Instruction of Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, the general commissioner of the indulgence of Leo X, written for the sub-commissioners. Walther Köhler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit (Tübingen, 1934), pp. 104-124. 64 Cf. p. 125, n. 19.
65 Cf. Migne 38, 793, sermon CXLV, where St. Augustine points out that love is greater than the eyes, hands, feet, stomach, and any other member of the body.
66 Pseudolus, meaning liar, is also the title of a comedy by Plautus (254-184 B.C.).
67 Mercury was a Roman god of commerce.
68 This paragraph gives an excellent idea of Luther's conception of the atone ment and justification by faith.
69 Cf. Tract 80, 3, concerning the Gospel according to St. John, in Migne 35, 1840: ªFrom whence does water have such great power that it cleanses the body and purifies the heart except from the word, not because it is spoken but because it is believed?' Cf. also Augsburg Confession, Article XIII. 70 E.g. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica iii. ques. 61, art. 1.
71 Cf. p. 262, n. 8.
72 Cf. Migne 22, 891, epist. 108, cited in CL 1, 108. Paula was a wealthy friend of St. Jerome who lived near him in Bethlehem from 388 A.D. on.
73 St. James of Compostella in Spain.
74 Both became martyrs during the persecution of the Roman Emperor Decius in Sicily ca. A.D. 250.
75 In the Middle Ages simony became a technical term referring to the practice of securing ecclesiastical office or preferment with money. The term is derived from Simon, the Magician, who offered the apostles money for the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24). Gregory VII (pope: 1073-1085) defined as simony acceptance of a clerical appointment from the hands of a layman.
76 Febris was a goddess to whom three temples were erected in Rome. Remedies which had been helpful in cases of fever were placed in these temples.
77Luther's free rendering of Bonaventura s comment on Peter Lombard's Sententiarum iv. dist. XX, cap. 2, ques. 6. Cited in CL 1, 111.
78Theses 46 and 47 are given in inverse order in the Explanations from that in the Ninety-five Theses of 1517.
79Cf. Thesis 20.
80St. Bernard was a great preacher during the crusades of the twelfth century. He heartily approved the election of Eugenius III as pope in 1145. Consideration was St. Bernard's last work, written about 1148 at the pope's request and for his edification and guidance.
81That is, days for buying and selling divine privileges. Cf. also p. 201, n. 75.
82Caesar Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), quoted by Suetonius in his Life of Tiberius (Vita Tiberii), chap. 82.
83Cf. De officiis ministrorum ii. 28. Migne 18, 148-150.
84St. Paulinus (354?-431) was a personal acquaintance of St. Ambrose (340-395), bishop of Milan. After the death of his only child, who died in infancy, he and his wife Therasia entered monastic life. He became bishop of Nola about 409 and held that office until his death in 431. His feast day is June 22.
85When Paulinus made the decision for the ascetic life he turned over his enormous wealth to the church.
86Luther refers to the division of the mass into the missa catechumenorum and missa fidelium which evolved in the course of the second and third centuries of the Christian era. “Catechumens” is the name given those who were being in structed in preparation for baptism, not, as is the custom in many churches today, for confirmation.
87Cf. p. 208, n. 81.
88Concerning Nature and Grace. Migne 40, 266ff.
89Migne 23, 538: “If he is a saint how can he pray for his ungodliness? If he has ungodliness, why is he called a saint?”
90Migne 32, 615.
91Migne 32, 659-868; cf. 778.
92Migne 44, 671-874. Emperor Julian (361-363) turned against Christianity and tried to revive paganism.
93Actually only 9 are listed here.
94Written A.D. 415 against the Pelagians. Cf. p. 9 n. 1, and p. 214 n. 88.
95Sermo 123, chap. 2. Migne 38, 684-685.
96Cf. p. 214, n. 90.
97That is, the opinion that the merits of Christ become a part of the treasury of indulgences.
98Op. cit.
99St. Catherine, one of the most honored saints of the Eastern and Western churches, whose name is linked with many legendary accretions on account of the martyrdom she presumably met at the hands of Maximinus or Maxentius during the Diocletian persecutions (284-305).
100Op. cit.
101MA3 attributes this quotation to Nicholas of Tudesco (Panormitanus). Cf., however, Eccles. 9:1.
102Op. cit. Cf. also Thesis 20.
103For identification, cf. Thesis, 20, p. 148, n. 30.
104Aulus Gellius, a grammarian of the second century A.D., in his Noctes Atticae prepared a digest of conversations with contemporaries concerning writings of great literary men, including Aristotle. Aristotle’s testimony concerning himself is not to be found in the source to which Luther refers. Cf. MA 3 1, 511 and CL 1, 128. The Sermon Against the Arians is in Migne, Patrologiae, Series Graeca, 38, cols. 213-238.
105Held in high esteem as representing youthful chastity and innocence in Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches, St. Agnes was put to death circa 304.
106The patrimony of Christ and St. Peter refers to the Papal States as hereditary territories initially acquired by the pope through Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 321 and greatly expanded thereafter. In the late Middle Ages the Donation of Constantine, a spurious document having its origin in the eighth century, was employed to defend the legal rights of the pope as a temporal sovereign. Upon its incorporation into canon law certain interpolations were made into the Donation by Paucapalea referred to as palea (chaff). Hence Luther’s pla y on words in the phrase, “chaff without grain.”
107Luther employs these phrases which were frequently used in papal decrees.
108Greek sum of money, equivalent in weight to a hundred Attic drachmas.
109Probably the Attic talent that contains 60 minae.
110A Roman silver coin.
111According to CL 1, 133, this may be a reference to Luther’s visit to Rome in the winter of 1510 -1511.
112Cf. Luke 5:10: “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”
113I.e., Charles the Great, or Charlemagne.
114A play on the words papae (popes) and pappi (little seeds floating through the air like flakes).
115The Summary Instruction of the archbishop of Mainz.
116Op. cit.
117Op. cit.
118Rev. 21:2 and 9 describe the church as the bride of Christ. With this metaphor as background in his thinking Luther describes the church when separated from Christ as a widow.
119Reference is to that polycephalous monster that lived in a forest and marsh near Argos, called Lerna. This forest and the stream of the same name which flowed through it was the haunt of the Lernaean Hydra, which Hercules slew with the help of Iolaus. He then drained the marsh.
120Cf. p. 208, n. 81.
121Migne 22 544, epist. LIII: “Only the art of interpreting the Scriptures is claimed by all and sundr y: the talkative old woman and the feeble old man, the verbose sophist. In short, all presume to do this. They teach before they learn and so tear the Scriptures to pieces.
122The bull, In Coena Domini issued by Urban V in 1363, was read in each year on Maundy Thursday, the day of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Among other
matters the bull anathematized all those who by robbery prevented the movement of victuals to Rome by land and sea and those who might attempt by robbery to prevent aluminum being transported to Rome from the papal mines at Tolfa. Cf. MA3 1, 514.
123Ibid.
124Ibid.
125Peter Damiani (1007-1072).
126Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX iii. tit. I, cap. 2. Corpus Iuris Canonici, II, col. 449.
127Cato advocated the annihilation of Carthage, Scipio Africanus favored its continued existence once its hostile government had been eliminated.
128Migne 22, 548, epist. LII: “As many princes of the people are named in the book of Job as there are parables.”
129Cf. p. 125, n. 19.
130CL 1, 143 reads surgere (to arise) instead of fugere (to flee).
131CL 1, 144 reads doctoribus. The editors have followed the reading of WA 1, 626: doctioribus.
132The Fifth Lateran Council whose twelve sessions were held at Rome at various intervals from 1512-1517.