Delivered at Frankfurt a. d. Gder to obtain the degree of licentiate of theology, January 21, 1518.
Translated from Latin.
In order that the truth may be revealed and the errors suppressed, as well as the objections against the Catholic truth be resolved by evidence, Brother Johannes Tetzel of the Order of Preachers, the holy theologian Baccalaureus and inquisitor of heresy, will uphold the following theses at the flourishing University of Frankfurt an der Oder: to the praise of God, for the defense of the Catholic faith, and in honor of the Holy Apostolic See.
1. our Lord Jesus Christ, who wanted to bind all to the sacraments of the new law after his suffering and resurrection,
2. also wanted to teach them all before his suffering by his most fitting sermon.
(3) Whoever, then, says that Christ, when he preached, "Repent," intended such inward repentance and mortification of the flesh,
4 That he could not also teach or understand the sacrament of penance and its parts, confession and atonement, as obligatory, is mistaken. Yes, it is of no use now, even if the inner chastisement has an effect on the outer mortification, if confession and atonement are not present with the deed or desire.
5 This satisfaction (since God does not allow any offense to be without punishment) is done by a punishment or by something equal to it when God accepts someone.
6. this is imposed either by the priests at their discretion or according to the canon, or it is also sometimes required by divine justice to be paid here or in purgatory.
(7) Just as no one is obliged to repeat a confession of the same sins, except in a few cases.
8. and however very useful this would be, neither a religious nor even the pope himself can require anyone to perform it again -:
9 Therefore, even he who is once absolved is not guilty of bearing the external punishment of atonement again for the same sins after it has once been properly fulfilled - to command the opposite is to err;
(10) Although he is guilty, as long as he lives, of suffering inwardly, by deed or conduct, and of always cursing the forgiven sin, also of never being without fear in regard to the atonement of sins.
II. this punishment, imposed for the sake of repented and confessed sins, can be totally remitted by the pope through indulgences,
(12) It may be imposed by him or at the priest's discretion or by a canon, or it may be required by divine justice. To contradict it is to err.
013 But though by indulgence all the punishment due for sins, as it is laid up to avenge them, is remitted in those who are sent for it,
(14) He who thinks that the punishment, which is healing and preventive, is abolished, is mistaken, since the Jubilee year is not ordered by it.
(15) Therefore, no matter how much one is truly and completely loosed through indulgences, and whoever denies that this can happen to those who are sent for it, is mistaken:
(16) Nevertheless, as long as he lives, he must by no means omit the works of atonement, insofar as they serve and are meritorious for the healing of the remnants of sin and the prevention of future sins.
17) Just as the Mosaic sacraments are powerless elements that neither cancel guilt nor give righteousness:
(18) So also the Jewish priests have neither keys nor signs, and therefore they cannot remit guilt.
19. but the sacraments of the Christians work
*The two disputations of Tetzel, namely this and the next one, were included in all of Luther's complete editions, namely in Latin in the Wittenberg (toin. I, toi. 93), Jena (tom. I, toi. 12) and Erlangen editions (oxx. tat. varii arZ. I, 296). They appeared in German in the Wittenberg (vol. IX, toi. 13), Jena (vol. I, toi. 7), Altenburg (vol. I, p. 18), and Leipzig collections (vol. XVII, p. 20); they are also found in Latin in Löscher's Reformation Acta (vol. I, p. 504) and in German in Vogel's Leben Tetzels (p. 233).
the grace they signify, and therefore make those who receive them righteous;
(20) And the Christian priests have the true sign and key by which they can also cancel the debt,
21 Not only by confirming and explaining what the priests of the old law and the Aronites did with the lepers,
22. but also by being servants and instruments and distributing it through the sacrament.
(23) Yes, just as God has the keys of authority, Christ has the keys of excellence, so a Christian priest has the keys of ministry.
(24) Therefore, anyone who says that the pope or even the least priest has no authority over guilt except by confirmation and declaration is mistaken.
(25) Yea, he that believeth not that the least Christian priest hath more power over sin than all the synagogue of the Jews did in time past, is mistaken.
(26) Yes, even he who believes that Christ, according to the excellence of his key, by which he did not bind his power to the sacraments, is mistaken,
27. sins cannot be forgiven and men be saved without priestly confession, confirmation or explanation. -
Although true contempt, or whatever may be declared, prevents the Sacrament, which not infrequently happens with those who repent too late;
29. and although neither unforeseen death, nor adversity, will save us from the extremely severe revenge that follows -:
(30) Yet one must not despair of such; for the least remorse, which may still occur at the end of life,
31. Suffices for the forgiveness of sins and the conversion of eternal punishment into temporal punishment.
But when, because of the lack of time, the most dreadful punishments sometimes befall those who have died in this way,
33. which should be quickly mitigated by the most plenary indulgence, such people act foolishly who advise against the solution of confessionals.
34. those who have been excommunicated for laying hands on a clergyman, as well as arsonists and incestuous persons, are still subject to punishment not only after absolution, but sometimes also after death:
35 An oath to the latter that they will not do it again, and satisfaction to the latter. Those who deny that this can happen are mistaken.
36. not by the sleeping bishops, but by the statutes of spiritual law, the priests are commanded to be lenient and affectionate, so that the confessor may rather be punished with little,
37. which he willingly accepts is sent to purgatory, than that by rejecting this punishment he is sent to hell. Therefore, whoever calls this weed is mistaken.
38. heretics, schismatics and majesty criminals are excommunicated, condemned and dug up after death.
39 Therefore, anyone who says that the dying pay for everything through death and are no longer bound by the laws of the canons is mistaken.
40. of the souls to be purified, who pass away in the grace and love that distinguishes the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition, and therefore even more from those of despair,
41. To say that they are close to despair is a mistake. Rather, they are in the firm hope of attaining salvation.
(42) Whoever says that it is not proven by any evidence, by reason or by Scripture, that the souls in Purgatory are out of the state of merit, is mistaken.
(43) He who also says that it is not proven that they are sure and certain of their blessedness is mistaken. Likewise, when he says,
44. the souls to be purified are not more certain of their bliss than we are, and we are quite certain of it, he is mistaken.
(45) Whoever says that by plenary indulgence the pope does not mean the remission of all penalties of pardon, but only of those imposed by himself, is mistaken.
(46) That the preachers of indulgences are mistaken when they preach that through the pope's indulgence man can be released from all punishment and become blessed is an error.
It is an error to say that the pope does not remit any punishment to the souls in purgatory that they would have had to atone for in this life according to the canons.
(48) Whoever says that only the most perfect can obtain indulgences and not also the perfect, even those who begin to be more perfect and increase, is mistaken.
(49) Yea, that not only they who have perfect contrition, but also they who have contrition only for fear of punishment, and have atoned by confession, should obtain indulgence, he is mistaken.
50. whoever believes that this is only the case with quite who-
The first is that the people who do what the Jubilee year requires are mistaken.
51) To claim that the pope has no greater or more effective power over purgatory when he distributes the Jubilee year in general, through the way of intercession,
52) It is a misconception that a bishop or pastor has them in particular in his parish or parish according to type and size.
53 Although the pope does not have the key power over purgatory, he still has the power to turn the Jubilee year to them through the way of intercession.
To deny this power over purgatory, under the figure of the keys, to the pope is to contradict the truth and to err.
The fact that the purified soul goes out means that it takes possession of the vision of God, which cannot be hindered by any interruption.
(56) Therefore, anyone who says that the soul cannot come out faster than the penny on the bottom of the box can ring is mistaken.
It is a mistake that in the published intercessions profit and avarice are sought, and that the effect of purification does not follow.
(58) To doubt whether all souls will be redeemed and whether the redeemed will want to go out of purgatory is a manifest error.
(59) That no one can be certain of obtaining indulgences after a presumed certainty, as far as human weakness allows, even if he has done all that the Jubilee year requires, is an error.
(60) That there are only very few, and not even very many, who obtain indulgences when they act according to the way of the Jubilee year is an error.
(61) That he who is absolved by a plenary indulgence, according to the form of the exhortation, namely, he who has made confession and repented in the right way 2c, cannot be certain of his blessedness, is an error.
(62) It is an error that a person is not reconciled with God through the papal indulgence, if it is obtained correctly according to all forms, namely, if he has true repentance and has made confession.
(63) It is an error to say that the pardon of indulgences is directed only to the penalties of satisfaction imposed by men, and not also to those imposed by the canon or by divine justice.
64) That it is not a Christian doctrine that those who want to buy confessionals for their friends or the Jubilee Year for the souls in Purgatory can do so without repentance is an error.
(65) That any Christian who is truly broken should have complete forgiveness of guilt and punishment quickly and completely without indulgence is an error.
(66) That every Christian, living or dead, has a share in all goods, insofar as the lawful remission of punishments is concerned, is an error.
(67) That the participation in all goods through love is the same as that which is obtained through the power of the one with whom the bestowal stands is an error.
Again, that the participation in all goods for merit and for the increase of merit is the same as the participation in all goods for satisfaction is an error. The first is that the first is that the second is that the third is that the third is that the fourth is that of the third.
(69) It is a mistake to think that the pope's bequest and bestowal are not to be despised merely because they are a declaration of the divine bequest.
(70) That it is easy for the most learned theologians alone, and not also for the moderately experienced, to extol the great riches of indulgences and at the same time true repentance, is a mistake.
(71) For in place of the sufficient punishments which repentance seeks for the sins remitted, indulgences substitute the sufficient punishments of Christ; but since these do not remit the curative punishments, repentance also has these punishments, which it loves to continue throughout life; he who does not know this is mistaken.
The works of love are more able to merit, but plenary indulgence is more able to do quickly enough and to remit completely. He who does not know or believe this, and teaches the people the one and conceals the other, errs.
The power of plenary indulgences lies more in the fact that they are sufficient, and that they are completely expeditious and individual; but the power of works of charity lies more in the fact that they earn merit and increase grace and glory. Whoever does not believe that the pope wants to have taught the people in this way is mistaken.
(74) Yes, since, according to excess and deficiency, plenary indulgences and the piecemeal (as they are wont to be) works of mercy are different, anyone who teaches the people that the pope did not in any way compare plenary indulgences with the piecemeal (as they are wont to be) works of mercy must be extraordinarily presumptuous and mistaken.
(75) He who gives to the poor and lends to the needy does better in terms of the increase of merit; but he who redeems indulgences does better in terms of the increase of merit.
Reference to the quicker satisfaction. He who teaches the people otherwise deceives them, and he who thinks that the redemption of indulgences is not also a work of mercy.
(76) Although man first becomes freer from punishment through indulgences, he also becomes better through them, since the work by which indulgences are granted is a work of love, in that he releases them out of inward devotion. Whoever teaches the people otherwise is doubly mistaken.
The spiritual alms are more excellent than the corporal ones, and, since they are done to oneself, better in order; therefore, if someone were in need of indulgences, and he could not help a poor person who was not in extreme need, he would do far better by paying indulgences than by coming to the aid of the poor person (as has been said). He who teaches the opposite is wrong.
(78) According to the difficulty of the works and the sincerity of the love, the merit and the greatness of the merits are usually counted. Therefore he deserves more indulgence who does something out of his necessities than he who does something out of his abundance. Therefore, whoever says that he who earns something in this way sins is doubly mistaken.
(79) Although the solution of indulgences is not commanded, it is nevertheless highly advisable to those who need it; therefore, anyone who says one thing and conceals another deceives the people and errs.
That Leo needs prayer for his person more than others is called guessing; rather, we are required to pray for Pope Leo according to the duty of natural, human and divine law.
And since this is a necessity, he who says that the pope must therefore give indulgences is mistaken.
If one has no faith, devotion, or even trust in indulgences, they are of no use, and indulgences are useless. Anyone who says the opposite is seriously mistaken.
Since what is demanded for indulgences under Leo is quite small in comparison to his predecessors, anyone who claims that Pope Leo built St. Peter's Cathedral with the flesh, skin and bones of his sheep is quite ungodly.
(84) To him who does what is in him, and according to the contents of the bulls, indulgences are useful. And however much one may bark against it, one is mistaken.
(85) Therefore, to say that the trust to be blessed by letters of indulgence is null and void, even if the pope pledged his own soul for them, is to err quite shamefully.
If the least bishop, in case he wants to preach himself or to have preached before him, can impose silence on others,
Thus, to claim that the pope is an enemy of the cross is to err very badly when he wants to proclaim the Jubilee in a similar way.
If the legends of the saints can be read longer than the Gospel on their feasts without injustice, then the preaching of indulgences can continue for a time equal to or longer than the read Gospel. To claim the opposite is to err twice.
It is an error that the pope thinks that if the indulgence is celebrated with one bell, with simple pomp and ceremonies, the gospel should be honored with a hundred bells, a hundred pomps and ceremonies.
It is a misconception that the treasure of the church, from which the pope grants indulgences, is not sufficiently named nor known.
(91) That the treasure of Christ is not the merits of Christ and the saints is an error.
92 And that they worked a completely remitted, that is, abundant, quick and complete satisfaction on the part of God, without the papal grant, is an error.
It is a misconception that the treasure of the Church at the time of St. Lawrence was the poor in the Church.
94) That the treasure of the church is only the keys of the church, which are given by the merit of Christ, is an error.
(95) That the power of the pope alone is sufficient for the forgiveness of punishments, without a contribution of the treasure of the church, that is, the merits of Christ, is an error.
The gospel, the gift of healing, and the sacraments of forgiveness all have the word grace in common, so to elevate one and degrade the other is to err completely.
(97) That the indulgence which preachers proclaim to be the greatest of all is such in truth, inasmuch as it promotes profit, is an error.
Yes, that the treasures of indulgence are nets through which one now sishes the riches of the people is the most ungodly error.
99. and since the sin committed against the mother of Christ (however heinous it may be) is less than if it were committed against the Son, which according to Christ's express testimony can be forgiven:
(100) Therefore, whoever says that such a sin could not be resolved by indulgence in those who truly repent, is contrary to the text.
of the gospel and Christ Himself furious, mad and erroneous.
But to charge the sub-commissaries, as well as the preachers of indulgences, that they could absolve, by virtue of indulgences, the one who (speaking impossibly) would have weakened the ever-virgin Mother of God, is clearer than the sun, that he who thus charges against the revealed truth is driven by hatred and thirsts for the blood of his brethren. 1)
(102) To assert in public theses that the preachers of indulgences, whom one has never heard, speak before the people out of their own conceit and spend more time preaching indulgences than interpreting the gospel, is to spread lies heard from others and fiction as truth, and thereby prove themselves to be gullible and frivolous, and to be perniciously mistaken.
Finally, to state in public theses that the frivolous preaching of the preachers of indulgences has brought things to such a point that it is not easy even for learned men to save their reverence for the pope from the questions of subtle laymen, is to flatter the pope after he has first been disgraced, and to state publicly that all other people are peaceful and that he alone causes confusion, and is thus to err violently.
104. to cancel guilt belongs to grace in an essential way; to God in an effective and causal way; to a mere man in a distributive way, even if insufficient; to Christ in an effective and causal way.
1) Roman Catholic defenders of Tetzel, such as Gröne (p. 88), wanted to understand this thesis as if Tetzel said that he and other preachers of indulgences had not led the blasphemous speech about the Holy Virgin, which Luther attacks in his 75th thesis. Only if this 101st thesis stood alone, or if it was torn out of its connection with the two preceding ones, could it give this meaning. From Tetzel's 99th and 100th theses it is irrefutably evident that he does not deny this speech, since in them he asserts anew that a sin against the holy virgin, however heinous, is less than that against the Son and can therefore be forgiven according to Christ's explicit testimony. Whoever therefore denies that such a sin can be taken away by indulgences is furious, mad, and erroneous against the text of the Gospel and Christ Himself. Whoever therefore, he continues in the 101st thesis, contrary to the revealed truth (of the Gospel and of Christ), wants to charge (insuxor) the preachers of indulgences with the injustice that they could absolve the defiler of the holy virgin by virtue of indulgences, is obviously driven by hatred and thirsts for the blood of his brothers, the preachers of indulgences, by portraying them as liars and deceivers and thus inflaming the people to murderous lust against them. - We believe that Tetzel deliberately spoke inaccurately and ambiguously.
enough; the sacraments as instruments. Therefore, anyone who says that in this way the pope cannot solve the slightest venial sin in relation to guilt is mistaken.
Whoever denies that Peter's authority is the same as that of all the governors, and whoever believes that Peter has more authority over indulgences than Leo, does more than err, he blasphemes.
(106) Just as he who worships the cross of Christ, or any other image, as a thing, and not as a sign, by worship, errs: so, although the cross of Christ is in the forefront of many other things, as objects of worship, and is more to be worshipped, yet he who worships it with another worship, and not with the same, as the cross adorned with the papal emblem, commits idolatry, and errs.
The following theses are found only in the Latin Wittenberg edition (Tom. I, col. 95), from which Löscher took them over into his Reformation Acta (1,514 ff.). In the other editions they have been omitted because of their paltry content. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, Vorr. p. 39 and IÄ1. vor. urZ. Vol. I, 295.
To think that bad questions and old wives' conclusions cannot be easily refuted by reasons, but that they must be kept in check by force, is the most unladylike error.
Because they are refuted and quite easily:
Namely, if Christ, according to the unanimous confession of all teachers, cannot use mercy in such a way that he would completely impose his justice, then his governor can do this even less. But this would have to happen as soon as purgatory was to be emptied, without any satisfaction or anything like it having been made beforehand at the time of divine acceptance. No wonder, then, if the pope is not able to do this in an orderly way. But disorderly things are not permissible in the government of the church.
And since the annual feasts of the dead (anniversaria) are not useful, at least not for the discharge of the benefactors, nor are they instituted to be continued after the latter are discharged, but rather they are useful for the consolation of other souls, for the increase of the merit of the living, and for the exaltation of divine honor: who would doubt that even according to the wills of the benefactors the feasts of the dead and days of remembrance must not be interrupted, although the most perfect estate has been obtained for the deceased?
And if the indulgence obtained for the souls in purgatory, by the way of intercession, has its power not at all from the nature of the one who obtains it, but from the devotion of the one who has the power to do so, as well as from the love of the deceased while he was alive, it is a nonsensical question why this is granted to the enemy and not to the soul itself, since the souls in purgatory cannot perform that for which the indulgence is granted.
And since a sufficient repentance, for which the guilt and all punishment is remitted at the same time and completely, is quite rare, but even if it were, the gift for indulgence would not be useless, but would serve to increase the grace of merit and glory: So the fourth question is unreasonable, since even those who are in repentance are given a share in all goods in order to merit through the fellowship of love, but not for the quick, and at the same time complete, satisfaction that comes through the legal grant.
And since the work of pardon based on indulgences (all things being equal) is better than other good works, the one who would buy indulgences a hundred times would not act in vain; rather, he would be saved by the first time, and by the other ninety-nine times, increase in merit, grace and glory would be acquired; to another needy person, it would increase the treasure, and so on. He who does not believe it is a fool; he who does not know it is mistaken.
Even if the canons have been abolished to some extent because of the weakness of penitents, people have by no means obtained greater impunity for sins; indeed, they are joined to the penalties remitted by indulgences: in order to solve this, and not for the sake of the canons, alms are usefully given for the pious work of building St. Peter's Church.
The fact that the pope does not build the church of St. Peter from his own resources is piety, not meagreness, among those who interpret it correctly, so that he can bestow indulgences on those who take part in it because of this pious work, redeem them from punishment and make them blessed. It is also right that the church, which is common to all Christians, should be built up at common expense.
Here you see how these wretched reasons are refuted with easy effort, without any force being used. To think the opposite shows a layman or at least an impudent man. For if the
should be considered a great art to throw out even almost foolish questions, who should not be able to ask easily:
Why God had his own son hanged because of the bite into an apple, since the rights permit this only because of a theft of five ducats? 1)
Why does he who created all things by a word not make us all blessed by a word, even without merit, since he is most merciful and we are most needy?
Why does he allow so much strife, death and murder among Turks, Christians and Jews for the sake of the faith, when he could prevent all mobs, heresies and apostasy with a single wave and word? 2)
Why did he not preserve Adam in the state of innocence, that we might have been so free from all injury in peace, and afterwards in glory, since no harm would have come to him?
Who doubts that such and similar questions could not be raised by any fool, which all the wise men in the world could not answer? E.G.:
Why do the monasteries receive every year from the believers of Christ more than a thousand times a thousand that they obtain from God a salutary state and betterment of the whole world. Yet, the world is not getting better in anything, but worse and worse, and the Christian state is continuously devastated and diminished by the Turks. Or, to go over to more common examples:
Why are the Mieth mules called martyrs for the travelers in Italy and not confessors, since they often bend the knees, kiss the earth', fast and mortify the flesh so that they barely hang on the bones?
Therefore, those who have made confession and are freed through indulgence and repentance are at peace through the removal of all penalties of atonement. To contradict this is to err.
1) Löscher remarks on this: "Shamefully, the most weighty main pieces of religion are made equal to human trifles and trifles here."
2) Walch remarks: "It is necessary to note here, because such questions are asked all too often by simple-minded people, that in such a case God would have to deal with people as with cattle, and would only have to pull them all around with bridle and bit, so to speak: which, however, would be an obstacle to the freedom of a reasonable creature and innumerable other most wise intentions of God, and to all those ways by which men must be prepared for a future world for the exercise of their faith and their virtues, and must long for the same: in short, heaven would have to be seen from the world before time, and God's judgments always here on earth."
But there still remain remnants of sins, the propensity and ease to relapse, to heal them, so that they do not break out in sins, not 1) require healing punishments, cross and chastisements.
So when indulgence has been obtained in the right way, there is peace, peace from the past penalties of pardon, but there still remains the cross, the cross to prevent the future ones. He who denies this has no understanding, but is mistaken and mad.
1) Walch's comment: You would think so.
End.
Finally, based on the truth, he submits everything above to the Holy Apostolic See, the supreme judge in matters of faith, the ordinaries of every place and the inquisitors of the heresy court. And so that this submission is not suspicious, he also submits it to the judgment of the four most distinguished high schools of Italy, France and Germany, yes, also to all unsuspected high schools of the German nation, ready to suffer and take upon themselves the judgment of them in any case.