1st thesis.
Since our Master and Lord Jesus Christ says: Repent 2c, he wants the whole life of his believers on earth to be a constant or unceasing repentance.
I assert this thesis and do not doubt it at all.
But I prove it for the sake of the unlearned: first, from the Greek word itself: that is, repent, which, however, could be translated quite accurately: transmentamini, that is, take on another mind and opinion, become wise again, make a change in the mind and form of the spirit, namely, that you are now heavenly minded, who would have been earthly minded until now; as the apostle speaks, Rom. 12:2, "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." And it is through this renewing that the transgressor goes into himself and hates his sin. But it is
It is certain that this reawakening or hatred of oneself must take place throughout one's life, according to the saying [John 12:25]: "Whoever hates his life in this world will receive it for eternal life"; and again [Matth. 10:38]: "Whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me"; and again [Matth. 10:34]:. "I have not come to send peace, but a sword"; Match. 5, 4. "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." And Paul to the Romans on the 6th and 8th, as well as in many other places, is called to put to death the flesh as well as the members that are on earth; and Gal. 5:24. he teaches- to crucify the flesh with its vents and desires; and 2 Cor. 6:4, 5. he says, "Let us prove ourselves in great patience, in much fasting. "2c I bring this forward as broadly as if I were dealing with such as do not know our cause.
Therefore I prove the same secondly also
printed it again. It was then first included in the small collection of Luther's Latin writings published by Frobenius in Basel in 1518 and later on several times, and from there it passed with all the attributions into all the complete editions of Luther's writings, namely in Latin into the Wittenbergische (tona. I, toi. 98) and the Jenaische (tom. I, toi. 72), then, without the attribution to Scultetus, into the Erlangen (opp. varii arZ. II, p. 122) and into the Weimar critical edition (vol. I, p. 525); in addition, it is also published in Latin by Löscher in his Reformation Acta (vol. II, p. 183), as well as in a special print that appeared as a jubilee publication of the 200th anniversary of the Reformation in Hamburg in 1717. The Leipzig edition first published it in German after Greif's translation (Vol. XVII, p. 29; the letters at the end of the text, p. 144, after the old translation), from which it passed into Walch's collection (the letters in Vol. XV, pp. 498, 507; the resolutions themselves in this Vol. XVIII). Vol.). The letters alone, without the scripture, are found in Latin in all of Luther's collections of letters, such as Aurifaber (I, 63 f.), de Wette (1,112 f.), Erl, Briefwechsel (1,148 f.); in German in the Wittenberg (vol. IX, toi. 20), Jena (vol. I, toi. 52), and Altenburg editions (vol. I, p. 63). - In the present edition, the new translation is based on the text of the krit. In the current edition, the new translation is based on the text of the critical Weimar edition.
104 A. V. a. II, 137-139. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 292-293. 105
through reason. Since Christ is the teacher of the spirit, not of the letter, and his words are spirit and life, he must necessarily teach such repentance, which is done in the spirit and in truth, but not one that even the most arrogant hypocrites can do outwardly, by disguising their faces during fasting, praying at the corners and trumpeting their alms before them [Matth. 6, 16]. Such, I say, must Christ teach, which can be practiced in every condition of life; which the king in his purple, the priest in his purity, the prince in his dignity, can do no less than the monk in his customs, and the beggar in his poverty; even as Daniel and his comrades did in the midst of Babylon; for the doctrine of Christ must suit all men and every condition.
Third, we pray and must pray throughout our lives, "Forgive us our trespasses"; consequently, we repent and are displeased with ourselves throughout our lives; unless someone were so foolish as to think that he had to ask for forgiveness of debts only as a pretense. For it is true and not contemptible debts for which we are commanded to pray; for even if they were only venial, we could not be saved if they were not forgiven.
2nd thesis.
And such a word may not yet be understood of the sacrament of penance, that is, of confession and satisfaction, as practiced by the priest's office.
I also claim and prove these:
First, because sacramental penance occurs only at certain times and cannot be done at every moment; otherwise one would have to talk to the priest all the time and do nothing but confess one's sins and perform the penance imposed. Therefore, it cannot be that cross which Christ commands to be taken up; nor is it a mortification of the lusts of the flesh.
Secondly, sacramental penance is only external and presupposes the internal one without
But this is internal and can be without the sacramental one.
Thirdly: The sacramental one can be hypocritical; but this one can only be true and sincere, for if it were not sincere, it would be a hypocritical penance and not the one Christ teaches.
Fourth, sacramental penance has no commandment of Christ, but is established by the popes and the church (at least with respect to its third part, namely, atonement); therefore it can be changed again at the discretion of the church. But the evangelical repentance is divine law, not changeable at any hour, because it is that everlasting sacrifice, which is called a troubled and bruised heart [Ps. 51, 19].
Fifth: Here it belongs that the scholastic teachers unanimously distinguish the penitential penance from the sacramental penance, placing the penitential penance as the matter or subject of the sacramental penance.
3rd thesis.
However, he does not want to understand inward repentance alone; indeed, inward repentance is null and void and no repentance if it does not outwardly work all kinds of mortification of the flesh.
I also claim and prove these:
First of all: Rom. 12, 1. the apostle commands us to offer our bodies as a sacrifice that is alive, holy and pleasing to God. And how this is to be done, he explains clearly and extensively in the following, by teaching to be down to the lowly, to serve and love one another, to persevere in prayer, to have patience 2c; as he also 2 Cor. 6, 4. 5. says, "Let us prove ourselves with much patience, in fasting and watching. "2c But Christ also teaches, Matt. 5 and 6, to fast, pray and give alms properly; likewise elsewhere [Luc. 11:41], "But give alms of that which is, behold, all is clean unto you."
From this it follows that those three parts of satisfaction: fasting, praying and almsgiving, do not belong to sacramental penance as far as the nature of the acts is concerned, for they are
They are not part of Christ's commandment, but belong to it in relation to the specific manner and time according to which the church has ordered them, namely, how long one should pray, fast and give, as well as how much and what one should pray, how much and what one should not eat, how much and what one should give. But in so far as they belong to evangelical penance, fasting includes all mortifications of the flesh, without choice of food or variety of clothing; prayer, however, every exercise of the soul, with contemplation, reading, listening and praying; almsgiving, however, every service owed to one's neighbor; That by fasting man may serve himself, by prayer God, and by almsgiving his neighbor; by the first he may overcome carnality and live soberly and chastely, by the second the hope of life and live godly, by the third the lust of the eyes and live righteously in this world. Therefore, all the mortifications [of the flesh] that the contrite man inflicts upon himself come from inward repentance and are, as it were, its fruit, whether it be watchfulness, labor, want, study, prayer, or avoidance of carnality and pleasures, insofar as they serve to promote the spirit.
Secondly, this is what the Lord himself did, and all his saints with him. So at last he commanded [Matt. 5:16], "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works." For without doubt, good works are outwardly fruits of repentance and of the Spirit, since the Spirit only gives forth the voice of a turtledove, that is, the groaning of the heart, the root of all good works.
Against these three theses of mine, a certain one, walking in anger and under the lion's skin, has stated and chattered that it is an error to deny that the word penance is also to be understood by the sacrament of penance. First of all, it is not my intention to refute all his statements, which are written in such a silly and ignorant way that it is impossible for me to believe that they are understood both by the one under whose title they are presented [Johannes Tetzel] and by the one who put them together.
has [Conrad Wimpina], which is also immediately clear to everyone who is only somewhat talented and experienced in the Scriptures. However, in order to show them their ignorance (if they can grasp it), I will illuminate this first thesis. I admit that by the name repentance can also be understood the repentance of Judas, also a repentance of God, also a painted one and', as the logicians are wont to say, a repentance taken according to its essence and secondly according to its intention, and therefore also the sacrament [of repentance], that is, the satisfaction. Or who denies that not a few theologians have hitherto permitted themselves to falsify almost the whole of Scripture with its brazen distinctions and double meanings, which have only recently been invented, so that we must now read Paulocentonas and Christocentonas 1) for Paul and Christ? But I have spoken here of the original and proper meaning of the word, as Christ gave to this word, or at least John the Baptist, who had no power to institute a sacrament, and yet came to preach the baptism of repentance, when he said, "Thuet Buße" [Matth. 3, 2.; 4, 17.]. And this word Christ repeated, and so, I believe, it is evident that he did not speak of the Sacrament. But even if their dream were true, let us see what follows from it.
Christ is undoubtedly a divine lawgiver and his teaching is divine law, that is, a law that no power can change or abrogate. But if the repentance taught by Christ in this passage means sacramental repentance, that is, satisfaction, and if the pope can change it and indeed does change it according to his will, then the pope either has divine law in his power, or else he is the most godless adversary against his God, because he nullifies the commandment of God. If those dare to claim this, who for the praise of God, and for the defense of the Catholic faith, and for the honor of the Holy Apostolic See, and for the revelation of the
1) Perhaps instead of centonas - centones is to be read. Then the sentence would read: that we now have to read for Paul and Christ Paul's lappework and Christ's lappework.
108 D- v. n. 141-143. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvin, 293-301. 109
truth and for the suppression of errors; finally, if those who want to boast of the frightening and inordinately 1) (I would soon have said void) vaunted title of inquisitors of heretical malice, honor the church and defend the faith in this way, what, I ask, is left for the most insane heretics, with which they could blaspheme and revile the pope and the apostolic see? I did not want to declare such people as exorcists 2), but publicly as collectors of heresy. Almost all the theses that the so patient and innocent paper carries around now and then, which is subjected to vanity without its will, are of this kind and so intelligently written. If I wanted to refute them all, an enormous book would be necessary, and almost the entire confusion of the fourth book of the Sentences would have to be dispersed with all those who have written about it. But you, reader, be free and sincere, that you may learn from this one thesis all the others.
4. thesis.
Therefore, repentance and sorrow, that is, true repentance, last as long as a person is displeased with himself, that is, until the entrance out of this life into eternal life.
I also claim and present these:
First: This thesis follows as a sure inference, as it were a corollary thesis, from what has been said; for, if the whole fief is a penance and cross of Christ, not only in the voluntary mortifications, but also in the temptations of the devil, of the world, and of the flesh, yea, even in the persecutions and sufferings, as is evident from what has been said before, from all Scripture, from the example of the Blessed Sacrament itself, and of all the martyrs, it is certain that this cross endureth unto death, and therefore unto the entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Secondly: This can be seen in other saints as well. St. Augustine had the
1) In Latin: immaniter-innniter, a play on words which cannot be rendered well in German. Approximately: important - void.
2) Here is a similar play on words as before: incMsitores - insitores.
He prayed and contemplated them with tears and said: even if a bishop has lived so righteously, he must not leave this world without repentance. So St. Bernard also cried out in his death throes: I have lived shamefully, for I have wasted time; I have nothing but that I know that you, O God, will not despise a troubled and bruised heart. [Ps. 51, 19sals
Third: By reason. This cross of repentance must last as long as the apostle speaks, until the sinful body is destroyed [Rom. 6, 6.], and the old of the first Adam perishes with his image, and the new Adam is perfected after the image of God; but sin remains until death, even though it is diminished daily by the renewing of the spirit from day to day.
Fourth: At least the punishment of death remains in all, as well as the fear of death, which is certainly the highest punishment and with most even more severe than death; not to mention the fear of judgment and hell, as well as the anguish of conscience etc.
5. thesis.
The pope does not want nor can not issue some other chastisements, outside of those that he has imposed of his liking, or according to the canonum, that is, papal statutes.
I dispute this thesis and humbly request instruction; and as I have asked in the preface, I still ask that whoever can reach out to me and consider my motives.
First, let's put together the different types of punishments that believers can suffer:
The first is the eternal, the hell of the damned; this does not belong here. For it is certain that this is neither in the power of the highest nor in the power of the lowest bishop, as all in the whole Church hold, since it alone God remits through the forgiveness of guilt.
The second punishment is that of the sweeping fire. We will see about this below in the thesis that deals with it; meanwhile, we assume that it is neither in the authority of the pope nor of any man.
110 L. V. E. II, 143-145. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 301-303. 111
The third is the voluntary and evangelical one, of which it is said above that spiritual repentance works it according to that saying, 1 Cor. II, 31: "If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged" by the Lord. It is that cross and mortification through suffering, as in the third thesis above. But since this is commanded by Christ and belongs to the essence of spiritual repentance and is absolutely necessary for salvation, it is in no way in the power of any priest either to increase it or to diminish it. For it does not depend on the will of a man, but on grace and the Spirit; indeed, this punishment is less in the power of the pope than all other punishments, be they called what they will. Even if he can take away the eternal, purifying, chastening at least by prayer to God, as he can obtain justifying grace for the sinner, he cannot take it away, not even by prayer. Rather, he must procure and impose it on the sinner, that is, proclaim it to him as imposed, no less than he also procures grace for him; Otherwise he would destroy the cross of Christ, and marry the remnant of the Canaanites to his sons and daughters, and not kill the enemies of God, that is, the sinners, so that they would be eradicated, unless he saw that some, out of too great zeal, were mortifying themselves more than would be beneficial to their salvation and the need of others. In that case, however, he must not let up alone, but must forbid, just as St. Paul says to Timothy: "Drink no more water" 2c (1 Ep. 5, 23.).
The fourth punishment is the chastening and chastening rod of God, of which the 89th Psalm says (v. 31. ff.): "But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my statutes, I will punish their sin with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues." But that this punishment is beyond the power of the popes, who doubts it? because, as he says, he [the Lord] inflicts it even on the innocent, Jer. 49:12: "Behold, those who were not guilty of drinking the cup must drink, and thou shalt go unpunished? Thou shalt not go unpunished, but thou must drink also." And by the same prophet
it says Cap. 25, 29. "Behold, in the city which is called by my name I begin to afflict, and ye shall go unpunished? Ye shall not go unpunished." Therefore also St. Peter says in his 1st Epistle, 4, 17.: "It is time for judgment to begin on the house of God; but if first on us, what end will it come to those who do not believe the Gospel of God?" But in the Revelation of John it says [3, 19.]: "Whom I love I punish and chastise"; and Hebr. 12', 6.: "But He chastises every son whom He receives." But if the pope wanted to remit this punishment, or if the sinner believed that it would be remitted to him, he would certainly become whoremongers and bastards, as it says in Heb. 12:8: "But if ye be without chastening, which they all have received, then are ye bastards, and not children." For John the Baptist and the greatest saints also suffered this punishment.
But I would admit that some of these punishments for the weak can be lifted by the prayer of the church, such as sickness, indisposition, pestilence, fever; just as St. Jacob taught that one should call the elders of the church and anoint the sick, so that the Lord may cure such a sick person for the sake of the prayer of faith [Jac. 5, 14. f.]. But why should I persevere long? as if it were doubtful to any Christian that the chastening rod of God could be lifted not by the power of the keys, but only by tears and prayer, and more by the infliction of other punishments than by indulgence; just as the Ninivites, by their penances with which they humbly chastened themselves, deserved to have the rod of doom threatened to them turned away from them. Otherwise, if a priest of the church, whether the highest or the lowest, could remove this punishment by the power of the keys, then let him drive out plague, war, riot, earthquake, conflagration, murder, robbery, as well as Turks and Tartars and other unbelievers, who, as everyone who is not a bad Christian knows, are God's scourge and rod. -For thus says Isaiah, Cap. 10:5: "O woe to Assyria, who is the rod of my wrath, and the hand of the Assyrians is the hand of my fury!
112 D. V. a. II, 145-117. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 304-307. 113
The Turks are in the dark." Although now many, even the great ones in the church, dream of nothing else than war against the Turks; they want to wage war, not against iniquity, but against the rod of iniquity, and thus resist God, who through this rod, as he says, wants to visit even our iniquities, because we do not visit them.
The fifth penalty is the canonical one, that is, the one imposed by the Church. That this is rightfully in the hands of the pope, there is no doubt, but in such a way that (as they say) there is a just cause for its remission and the key does not err. But I would not (according to my presumption) take that just cause so strictly as many are wont to do. For the pious intention of the pope seems to be sufficient, and this should be a sufficiently just cause; nor do I see how an error of the key could occur in this bequest, or, if one occurs, what harm it should do, since the soul is saved after all, even if such penalties were not remitted for error.
More attention should be paid to the fact that the pope does not even remit all canonical punishments in the case of the plenary indulgence, which is clear because he does not remit the entering or forcible entry of certain persons into a monastery, a punishment which is not so rare in the canons; but also no civil or even criminal punishments imposed by civil law, although the legates do this in some places where they are personally present. He therefore seems to remit only those which are imposed in respect of fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and other troubles and exertions, some for seven years, others for more or less. Under this punishment I also understand those which the priest imposes on the church as he sees fit. Now, therefore, watch and instruct me if you can. The first four he cannot remit; what other does he remit than the canonical and arbitrary?
Here the one in the lion's skin again offers me: the punishment is remitted, which is demanded by divine justice or is to be atoned for in purgatory. To this I reply that it is quite shameful to
think that the pope has any power to change divine law and to enact what divine justice has imposed. For he [God] does not say, "All that I shall bind, you shall loose," but, "All that you shall loose, you shall loose," not, however, all that is bound, you shall loose, but certainly only what is bound by you, not what is bound by me. But they understand it like this: Everything that you loose, whether in heaven or on earth, shall be loosed; whereas Christ added "on earth" in order to limit the key to the earth with diligence, since he knew that it would happen that they would break through all heavens otherwise.
The sixth punishment, which I want to imagine until I am instructed otherwise, is that of which those say that it is necessary according to divine justice, in order to do divine justice enough. But if this punishment is other than the third and fifth (as it must be if it is to be the sixth), it cannot be imagined otherwise than that, where the third and fifth were not sufficient, this very one would be imposed, namely, still more prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; and so it would be different only in degree of extension from the fifth and third. For by it cannot be understood the civil punishment, for this (as has been said) he does not remit, otherwise the letters of indulgence would abolish all the gallows and places of execution by the church. Nor can the canonical punishment be meant, which is actually imposed by the judgment of a court in litigation; for he does not remit the ban, jnterdict, or any ecclesiastical punishments imposed, as experience amply testifies. So there remains only the one of which I said that I only wanted to imagine it. But that such a punishment cannot exist, I am sure of myself: First, it cannot be taught by any testimony, neither from Scripture, nor from the teachers, nor from the canons, nor even by acceptable reason, that such a punishment exists; and it is very inconsistent to teach something in the church, for which neither Scripture, nor canons, nor at least reason can be given.
Secondly, even if there really were such a penalty, its remission could not be due to the pope, since it is arbitrary and imposed beyond the canons; indeed, not imposed at all, but voluntarily taken upon himself; for it is another than that which is imposed, as was said above in the case of the fifth penalty.
But if you want to say: how then can divine justice be satisfied if the canonical or priestly [punishments] are not sufficient in some way, I answer: it is gratuitously satisfied by the third and fourth according to the measure that God knows. Nor does one read anywhere that God ever demanded another than the third, sometimes also the fourth, as in the case of David and the children of Israel in the book of Judges and Kings; but almost always He is satisfied with a contrite heart and a punishment of the third kind. And therefore I am surprised at the carelessness of certain people who, in order to get satisfaction, say that Christ absolved that adulteress in the Gospel without satisfaction, but not Mary Magdalene without satisfaction, and therefore one must follow the Lord in this, as he did with Mary, but not as he did with the adulteress; so that without satisfaction no one may be forgiven sin. For he did not even cleanse the lepers without enjoining them to comply with the law and to present themselves to the priest. This, then, is the punishment that divine justice demands for those already mentioned. But I answer this: This adulteress suffered (in my opinion) more punishment and did more satisfaction than Mary Magdalene. For she already suffered death, seeing nothing but the severest judgment; therefore she was tormented in an extraordinary way and suffered far more than Mary, who did not face the judgment of death. Therefore her punishment was of the fourth and third kind, for she bore the agony of death in her contrite heart. Mary Magdalene, however, atoned for the punishments of the third kind; therefore it cannot be taught that her punishment was of another kind, as is clear. But of the lepers I say that they were commanded.
to show himself, not for satisfaction, but for testimony; for the leprosy was not sin, but signified sin; but the showing of sin is not satisfaction, but only seeks the priest's judgment, as is well known.
Secondly, I prove the thesis as follows: To bind and to loose are two equal powers, and refer to the same object; but the pope has no power to bind and to inflict punishment except the canonical or fifth: consequently he can neither loose nor abolish any of them; or we should have to say that these two powers are of unequal extent. Though this be said, yet no man is bound to believe it, for it is not proved by any scripture or canon; whereas here the plain text is, that Christ gave the power to bind on earth, and to loose on earth, measuring and extending both equally.
Thirdly, the Extravagante Quod autem, in the title de poen. et rem, in the fifth book, expressly says that the decree has no validity at all for those to whom it is not given by their own judge, "because no one can be bound or loosed by one who is not his judge." But it is certain that man is not under the jurisdiction of the pope in the penalties of the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth kinds, but only in the fifth, as is clear and will become clearer below.
Inference.
From this it follows that atonement is called sacramental not because it is sufficient for guilt (for the third and fourth punishments are sufficient for guilt), but because it is sufficient for guilt according to the ordinances of the church. For God is most satisfied by a new life etc. But also by the Scriptures it shall be proved that no satisfaction is required for sins. Here is John the Baptist, who was sent to preach repentance according to God's purpose and counsel, who also said: "Repent" [Matth. 3, 2], and again [Luc. 3, 8]: "See to it, do righteous fruits of repentance.
Repentance"; words which he himself interpreted when the multitudes of the people asked him what they should do, answering them [V. III: "He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, do likewise." Do you not see there that he imposed as repentance nothing else than the fulfillment of God's commandments, and therefore by repentance he did not want to be understood anything else than conversion and change to the new life? But even more clearly [v. 12: "Behold, there came also the publicans . . and said: Master, what shall we do? And he said, Nothing more, but whatsoever is appointed for you, that do." Did he perhaps say to them here, "You must do enough for past sins"? Likewise he said to the men of war [v. 14], "Do neither violence nor injustice to any man, and be content with your pay." Did he here impose anything other than the ordinary commandments of God? But if this teacher of repentance, who was appointed by God for this very purpose, did not teach us anything about repentance, then he must have deceived us and did not adequately teach us the duty of repentance.
The second passage is Ezk 18:21: "If the wicked turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do right and well, he shall live, and not die." Behold, here he lays nothing upon him but that he do right and well, which must be done throughout life, according to that other saying [Ps. 106:3], "Blessed are they that keep the commandment, and do right for ever." Has God deceived us here as well?
The third passage is Micah 6:8: "It is told thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee, to keep the word of God, and to love, and to be humble before thy God." Here you see what God demands of man as satisfaction; indeed, in the preceding He mocks those who want to satisfy by works, saying jM. 6. 7.ft "With what shall I propitiate the Lord? Shall I propitiate him with burnt offerings and calves of the year? Do you think the Lord is pleased with many thousands of rams? Or shall I give my first son for my transgression? or the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" as if to say:
No; for God requires nothing of the kind for sin, but righteousness and mercy and fear, as has been said, that is, a new life.
6. thesis.
The pope cannot forgive guilt, except by declaring and confirming what has been forgiven by God, or by doing so in the cases he has reserved for him. Which cases, if they were disregarded, the guilt would remain entirely unremitted or abandoned. 2)
The first part is so obvious that some have admitted that it is an improper way of speaking that the pope forgives guilt; others, however, said that they do not understand it. But all confess that the guilt is forgiven by God alone, according to that saying of Isa. 43, 25: "I will blot out thy transgression for my own sake, and will not remember thy sins"; and Joh. 1, 29: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God, which bareth the sin of the world"; and Ps. 130, 3. 4: "If thou wilt, O Lord, impute sin; O Lord, who shall stand? For with thee is forgiveness"; and further on (v. 7. 8.), "With the Lord is grace; and much redemption with him; and he will redeem Israel from olleu his sins"; and Ps. 51, 12. "Create in me, O God, a clean heart" 2c; as well as many other sayings in Scripture. Also, St. Augustine does not act differently against the Donatists in so many works, except that sins are forgiven by God alone.
The second part is equally clear enough, for he who despises the reserved cases would certainly not be forgiven any debt. "He who despises you," he says, "despises me"; indeed, no one receives forgiveness from God who does not at the same time have reverence for the keys.
Since this thesis is admitted as true by all, it is not necessary to confirm it by my assertion. However, I want to indicate here what moves me, and again I want to confess my ignorance, whether someone might be willing to instruct me and to illuminate this matter more clearly.
1) I.e. omitted.
First of all, in regard to the first part, this way of speaking or this opinion seems to be inauthentic and does not correspond to the evangelical text, since it is said that the pope solves, that is, he declares the debt to be solved or confirms it; for the text does not say: Everything that I will solve in heaven, you shall solve on earth; but on the contrary: Everything that you will solve on earth, I will solve in heaven, or shall be solved in heaven; where the meaning is more that God confirms the solution of the priest, than vice versa. Second, regarding the second part, it is certain that whatever cases the pope solves, God also solves; and no one can be reconciled with God who is not first reconciled, at least in desire, with the Church; nor is the offense to God taken away as long as the offense to the Church remains. But the question is, once one is reconciled to the Church, is he also reconciled to God? The text, however, has it that everything that is solved in the Church should also be solved in heaven; but it does not seem to follow from this that therefore also everything is badly solved in heaven, but certainly only that which is solved in the Church. These two questions are, in my opinion, not of little weight, which is why I will perhaps open my judgment on them a little more expansively in the following thesis.
7. thesis.
God does not forgive anyone's guilt whom He does not at the same time, well humbled, submit to the priest, His governor.
This thesis I assert; also it needs no discussion or proof, since it is confirmed by so large agreement of all. But I still have some doubts about its reasoning; and, first of all, to say my opinion as a fool: because this thesis with the previous one asserts that God does not forgive any guilt before it is forgiven by the priest, at least before the priestly forgiveness is there, or at least desired, as the text clearly reads [Matth. 16, 19.]: "All that you will bind" 2c; and that saying [Matth. 5, 24.): "Go first and be reconciled with your Lord.
n brother; and then come and offer your gift"; as well as that [Matth. 22, 21.): "Pray to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"; and as it is said in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." In all these sayings forgiveness on earth is first indicated before that in heaven: so it is rightly asked: how this can be possible before the infusion of grace, that is, before the forgiveness of God, since, before the grace of God has first remitted the guilt, man cannot even have a desire to seek remission and forgiveness? Here I say and hold for it: When God begins to justify man, He first condemns him; and whom He wants to build up, He destroys; whom He wants to heal, He strikes; whom He wants to make alive, He kills; as He 1 Sam. 2, 6. 7. and 5 Mos. 32, 39. says, "I kill, and I make alive. "2c But this he does when he smites man, and humbles and terrifies him in the knowledge of himself and his sins, so that he, a wretched sinner, must say [Ps. 38:4], "There is nothing wholesome in my body before thy woe, and there is no peace in my bones before my sin." For thus the mountains melt before the face of the Lord; "thus he shooteth his beams, and scattereth them: from thy rebuke, O Lord, from the breath and snort of thy nose" [Ps. 18:15, 16.); thus sinners are turned to hell, and their faces are covered with shame. Such consternation and crushing was often experienced by David, as he confesses with sighs in various psalms.
But salvation begins with this anxiety and fear of conscience; for "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" [Ps. 111, 10.]. Here the Lord (as Nahum, Cap. 1, 3., says), when he purifies, leaves no one innocent, and in the weather and storm are his ways, and under his feet is thick dust; here his lightnings shine, the earth sees it and trembles [Ps. 97, 4.); here his arrows drive and strike, and the voice of his thunder rolls [Ps. 77, 19. 17.]; the waters see it and tremble; in short, here God works a strange work to work his work
[Is. 28, 21.], that is, the true contrition of heart and humiliation of spirit, the sacrifice most pleasing to God [Ps. 51, 19.]; here is the sacrifice, cut in pieces and the skin flayed off, kindled into a burnt offering And here grace (as they say) is poured in, as Isaiah, Cap. 41, 3., says: "he pursues them, and passes through with peace", and 66, 2.: "I look upon the wretched, and the brokenhearted, and the fearful of my word", mid Hezekiah, Is. 38, 16.: "O Lord, of this I live, and the life of my spirit is all in this: for thou hast caused me to sleep, and hast made me to live." But then man knows so little of his justification that he believes himself to be very close to damnation and considers this not a retraction of grace but an outpouring of God's wrath upon him. But blessed is he if he suffers this affliction; for after he has thought himself consumed, he will rise like the morning star. But as long as this miserable consternation of his conscience is present, he has neither peace nor consolation, unless he flees to the power of the church and demands consolation and medicine for his sins and misery, which are uncovered by confession: for he is unable to give himself rest by his own prudence and help; indeed, the sadness would finally be consumed in despair. Here the priest, seeing such humiliation and contrition, trusting in his power given to him to do mercy, should have the most complete confidence, and solve him and declare him solved, and thus give him peace of conscience. The absolver, however, should be careful not to doubt that his sins are forgiven by God, and should be confident about this in his heart; for even if he is uncertain because of the consternation of his conscience (as it usually must be if the repentance is true), he is nevertheless required to calm himself at the pronouncement of the other, not at all because of the dignitary or his authority, but for the sake of the word of Christ, who cannot lie, since he says [Matth. 16, 19.]: "Everything you will solve on earth" 2c; for faith in this word
will give him the peace of conscience, because according to this word the priest solves. But whoever seeks peace in another way, such as inwardly through experience, certainly seems to be tempting God and wants to have peace in a matter and not in faith. For you will have peace only as far as you believe the word of Him who promised, "All things you will solve. "2c For our peace is Christ, but in faith. But if someone does not believe this word, he may be absolved a million times by the pope himself and confess to the whole world, but he will never come to peace.
This, then, is that exceedingly sweet power for which we must give God our greatest thanks from the bottom of our hearts, that he has given such power to men, which is the only consolation for sinners and wretched consciences, if only they will believe that what Christ promised is true. From this it is now clear what was put forward as a question above, namely, even if the forgiveness of guilt through the infusion of grace takes place before the forgiveness of the priest, this infusion of grace is of such a nature and so hidden under the form of wrath (namely, when "one does not feel his foot," Ps. 77, 20., and "the path under his feet is not visible," Isa. 41, 3. [according to the Vulgate]), that man is more uncertain about grace, when it is now there, than when it was not there. Therefore, in the usual order, all forgiveness of guilt is only certain to us through the judgment of the priest; and not even through this, if you do not believe Christ, who promised: "All things you will redeem. 2c But as long as it is still uncertain to us, it is also no forgiveness, because it is not yet forgiveness for us; yes, man would have to perish even worse if it were not certain, because he does not believe that forgiveness has been granted to him. Thus Christ said of Mary Magdalene to Simon the leper (Luc. 7:47): "Her sins are forgiven," by which he certainly indicated that grace had already been poured into her; but she did not yet recognize this infusion, there was not yet peace in her bones before her sin.
(Ps. 38:4.) until he turned to her and said, "Your sins are forgiven you, your faith has helped you," namely [the faith] in which she believed Him who forgave her; therefore follows: "Go in peace." Also that adulteress (Joh. 8, 3. ff.) had her sins forgiven before Christ arose. But she did not yet realize it, because so many accusers stood around her, until she heard the voice of the bridegroom saying, "Woman, hath no man condemned thee? neither do I condemn thee." - And when David had sinned and had been punished by Nathan the prophet on behalf of God s2 Sam. 12, 13.), he would certainly have died on the spot when he exclaimed under the justifying grace working in him, "I have sinned!" (for this is the voice of the righteous who first accuse themselves), ivenn not immediately Nathan, absolving him, as it were, had said, "So also the Lord hath taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die." For why does he add, "thou shalt not die," but for the sole reason that he saw him crushed and utterly perishing in terror of his sins? Hezekiah also [Isa. 38:4. ff.), when he heard that he was to die, would have died, had he not again received comfort from Isaiah, and the sign to go into the temple [v. 22.]. He believed this, and at the same time obtained peace and forgiveness of sins, as he said [v. 17.], "Thou hast put all my sins behind thee." And how could the confidence in the mercy of God and the forgiveness of sins have existed among those in the Old Testament, if God had not made it known to them, soon by appearances, soon by inspirations, soon by consuming sacrifices with fire, soon by letting a mist appear and other signs, that all their intentions were pleasing to Him? This is what He now wants to make known through the word and judgment of the priests.
Therefore, God's forgiveness works grace, but the priest's forgiveness works peace, which is also a grace and gift of God, because it is faith in forgiveness and present grace. And of this, in my opinion, I would say it is the one of which our teachers say it will be
This is not the first justifying grace, which must be present in adults before the sacrament, but, as Rom. 1:17 says, "faith in faith," for he who is added must believe. But the baptized must also believe that he has believed rightly and has gone rightly, or he will never have the peace that one can have only from faith. Peter therefore does not solve earlier than Christ, but he only explains and shows the solution; whoever then believes this with confidence, has truly attained peace and forgiveness with God (that is, he becomes certain that he is absolved) not with the certainty of a thing, but with the certainty of faith for the sake of the infallible word of the one who mercifully promised: "All that you will solve" 2c It is also said in Rom. 5, 1: "Now that we have been justified freely by His grace, we have peace with God", by faith, not at all by a thing 2c
Now if this is my opinion right and true, it is not wrong nor improper to say (as those want) that the pope remits guilt; indeed, the remitting of guilt is incomparably better than the remitting of any punishments, although the latter alone is now preached in such a way that they have made the remitting of guilt in the church none at all; while it is just the other way around: For where a man, through the remission of guilt (which he cannot give himself, since no one may believe himself, unless he would rather make two out of one confusion), has come to peace through the given faith in absolution, to him all punishment is no punishment at all. For only the fear of conscience makes punishment burdensome, but the joy of conscience makes punishment desirable.
And we see that this understanding of the key power is still abundant among the people, who seek and accept absolution in simple-minded faith. Some scholars, however, try to give themselves peace through repentance, works and confession, and in doing so do nothing other than fall from one restlessness to another, because they are only concerned about themselves.
and their actions, whereas if they felt uneasiness of conscience, they should believe Christ, who says: "2c But the newer theologians contribute all too much to this anxiety of conscience by treating and teaching the sacrament of penance in such a way that the people learn to trust that they can redeem their sins by their repentance and satisfaction, and this quite vain conceit can have no other effect than to make things worse and worse for the people with the bloody woman in the Gospel, who had spent all her fortune on the physicians. First of all, they should have been taught to believe in Christ, who gives forgiveness for free, and to despair of their own repentance and satisfaction, so that, strengthened by the confidence and joy of the heart over Christ's mercy, they would finally have happily hated sin and been brought to repentance and satisfaction.
But the jurists have also diligently given rise to this torment of conscience by exalting the power of the pope with too much zeal, and have thus brought about that people have held the power of the pope higher and have marveled at it more than they have honored the word of Christ in faith: Whereas the people should have been taught that they should learn not to put their trust in the power of the pope, but in the word of Christ, who gave the promise to the pope, if they wished to be at rest in their consciences. For it is not because the pope gives it that you have something, but if you believe that you will receive it, you have it; you have only as much as you believe because of the promise of Christ.
But if the power of the keys had no such effect on the peace of heart and the forgiveness of guilt, then the indulgence (as some say) would in truth be made small; for what great thing is remitted by the mere remission of punishments, since it behooves Christians to despise even death?
Likewise, why did Christ say [John 20:23], "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them," but because they are not remitted unto any that believe not that they are remitted unto them by the remission of the priest?
are remitted? Therefore in the words, "To whom ye remit the sins," the power is given, but in the words, "to whom they are remitted," the sinner is called upon to believe in forgiveness; just as also in the words, "All that thou shalt loose," the power is given, but in the words, "shall be loosed," our faith is awakened. For he could have said, "To whom ye remit the punishments or chastisements," if he had wished this to be understood; but he knew that the conscience, already justified by grace, would, in its fear, repel grace again, if he were not helped by faith in the presence of grace through the ministry of the priest; yea, the sin would remain, if he did not believe it was remitted. The forgiveness of sin and the bestowal of grace is not enough, but one must also believe that it is forgiven, and this is the testimony that the Spirit of God gives to our spirit [Rom. 8:16], that we are children of God; for to be a child of God is something so mysterious (since one imagines oneself to be an enemy of God) that it cannot be where one does not believe that it is so. Thus the Lord does it wonderfully with his saints, that no one would tolerate the hand of the one who makes him righteous and healthy, if he did not believe that this one made him righteous and healthy; just as a sick person would not believe that the physical physician cuts the sick person with the intention of making him healthy, if good friends did not persuade him.
Therefore, the priest may be the cause without which no forgiveness takes place, or any other, it is all the same to me, if only somehow the truth is established that the priest remits sin and guilt; just as the friends of the sick person are in truth credited with his health, because they brought it about by their persuasion that the sick person believed the cutting physician.
Nor must we think here, "How if the priest were mistaken?" for forgiveness is not based on the priest, but on the word of Christ; therefore, if the priest does it for gain or honor, only ask for forgiveness without hypocrisy and believe.
Christ, who promises; even if he absolves you only out of frivolity, yet you receive peace from your faith; just as he gives baptism or the Lord's Supper, whether he does it for gain, or out of frivolity, or out of playfulness; your faith receives it completely. Such a great thing is the word of Christ and faith in it.
For we read in the history of the martyrs that a certain actor wanted to be baptized as a joke, even to mock baptism, and while being baptized he was converted and truly baptized by his pagan fellow actors and immediately crowned with martyrdom by them. Similarly, St. Athanasius, as a boy, baptized other boys, whom the Bishop of Alexandria subsequently declared baptized, as can be read in the history of the Church. And St. Cyprian, while rebuking the peace [absolution] given by a certain Bishop Therapius as one given hastily, nevertheless declared it valid. Therefore, it is by faith that we are justified, and it is by faith that we are brought to peace, not by works, penances, or confession.
Regarding this sixth and seventh thesis, our donkey in the lion's skin triumphs with joy; Yes, even before the victory he sings a song of victory over me and brings out of that puddle of dung [scholastic] opinions another distinction between a sufficing and avenging punishment and between a healing and ameliorating punishment, just as if one should believe them who dream of such things, although they wisely conceal this distinction from the people, lest the indulgence, or rather the profit, be nullified when the people realize that only such minor and empty avenging (i.e. invented) punishments would sleep.Such small and empty avenging (that is, invented) punishments would be extinguished. Then, in order to show everyone that he does not know what the old or new priesthood is, he again makes an eclipse with words and therefore makes a distinction of the key power into that of authority, primacy and office. Thus even
1) In the continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius written by Tyrannius (Toranus) Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410), I. (10th) book, 14th cap.
not even our excellent magisters, the inquisitors of the heretic court and defenders of the Catholic faith, have learned, than what they have sucked from the far-fetched and overriding questions of the fourth book of the sentences. Perhaps they want to say that what Christ will solve in heaven with the keys of supremacy (for on earth he does not solve it himself), that should also be solved in heaven above with God; again, in order for the Pope also to be God, another, higher God must be invented, with whom that is solved which he solved in heaven above with the keys of power. But away with these folly; we know only One kind of keys, namely those given on earth.
That they now introduce: Consequently, whoever says that the priest of the New Testament solves only by confirmation and explanation (for this was the office of the Jewish priesthood) is mistaken. O astuteness of mind and tremendous weight of learning! These are men quite worthy to ferret out heretics and defend the Catholic faith, but against stone and wood! How much more correctly the apostle Paul asserts that the ancient priesthood consisted in judging lepers, in administering justice and cleansing the flesh, in food and drink and clothing and holidays 2c! Thereby the justification in the spirit and the cleansing of the hearts was signified as by an example, which Christ works through the service of the new priesthood in the church. Although, therefore, I have not put forward the sixth thesis from the heart, as I also said there, but because others have the opinion: however, because even the adversaries with all their masters to this day cannot indicate how the priest remits guilt, if they do not want to put forward the heretical but common opinion, according to which it is said: The sacraments of the new law give the justifying grace to those who do not put a bar, since it is impossible that the sacrament can be conferred salutary, except to those who are already faithful, just and worthy (for: "He who goes to the sacrament must believe", and: "Not the sacrament, but faith in the sacra-.
128 v. L. n, 160-162. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 327-330. 129
Therefore, even if the sophists may prattle on as they please, it is more likely that the priest of the new law only declares and confirms (i.e. indicates) God's solution, and with this declaration and his judgment he gives the sinner's conscience peace, and he is guilty of believing his judgment and having peace; just as the priest of the old law is guilty of believing his judgment and having peace. and with this declaration and his judgment he gives rest to the conscience of the sinner, and he is guilty of believing his judgment and having peace; just as the priest of the old law gave rest to those whom he declared clean in body or clothing, while he himself could not make anyone clean, not even himself. For what the former does to the body, the latter does to the conscience, and so the spirit corresponds to the letter and the truth to the example. And now I expect these defenders of the Catholic faith to show how they can explain the power of the keys differently without heretical malice.
8. thesis.
Canones poenitentiales, that is, the statutes on how to confess and atone, are imposed only on the living and, according to the same statutes, are not to be imposed on the now dying 1).
I dispute this thesis, although there are many who wonder that it should be doubtful.
First, it is proved by the saying Rom. 7, 1: "The law rules over man as long as he lives. "2c Since the apostle interprets this of the divine law, much more is it true of the human law, of which it is said there [v. 2]: "If the man dies, the woman is free from the law of the man." Much more, if he has died, he is free from the law of the living woman. For the apostle concludes from the lesser [to the greater: if the living man is loosed by the death of another, much more the dead man himself, from whom the living man is loosed!
Secondly: Spiritual law, like all other given laws, is bound to the various circumstances of time, place, and persons, dist. XXIX, 2) as everyone be-
1) I.e. those who are already dying.
2) In the first part of Gratian's decree.
is known. For of the word of Christ alone it is said [Ps. 119, 89. f.], "Lord, thy word endureth for ever; thy truth endureth for ever"; and [Ps. 111, 3.], "His righteousness endureth for ever." But the word and the righteousness of men last but for a time. Therefore, if the circumstances change, the laws also cease; if one does not want to say that after the devastation of a city, the devastated place still owes to do everything that the city did before; which is inconsistent.
Thirdly: If the law compels to dispense and change the law even in the case of the living, if the condition of the law ceases or turns to evil, because (as Pope Leo says) what has been set for the sake of love must not dispute against love, so also certainly [must cease] what begins to dispute against unity, peace 2c: much more are the laws for the deceased to be abrogated, since here not only the condition of the law ceases, but also the person himself for whom and according to whose circumstances they have been set.
Fourthly, from the words of the law itself, in which are clearly indicated the days and years, the fasting, the vigil, the exercises, the pilgrimages 2c, which obviously belong to this life and have an end through death, where man wanders into a completely different life, since he neither fasts, nor weeps, nor eats, nor sleeps, since he has no body. Therefore, John Gerson dares to condemn the indulgence, which was granted for many thousands of years; so that it is a wonder to me what may have happened to the inquisitors of the heresy court that they did not burn it, even if only after his death, which was against the custom of all courts sstationum] in Rome, but then especially against the practice of Sixtus IV, who granted indulgences so abundantly, so confidently that he himself reminded the prelates of their duty to correct and prevent this, calling such indulgences stupid and superstitious.
Fifth: [I prove the thesis] by reference to the intention of the legislator of the Canons, who certainly did not even think that such laws would affect the dying on-
should be put. For imagine if one asked the pope who would give such a law: What kind of people, holy father, do you understand in your law, the living or the dead? What could he answer but: The living, of course; for what can I do with the dead, who are beyond my jurisdiction?
Sixth, a priest of Christ would act quite cruelly if he did not set his brother free as he wished to be done to him; nor is there any reason why he should not do so, since it is in his power.
To the seventh: If the canons remain in regard to penance for the deceased, then, for the same reason, so do all the others. Thus they must keep holidays, feasts, fasts, and vigils, pray the horas canonicas [ecclesiastical times of day], eat no eggs, milk, or meat on certain days, but only oil, fish, fruits, vegetables, let them put on black or white garments according to the difference of the days, and other exceedingly heavy burdens with which now the so miserable, but once exceedingly free church of Christ is pressed. For there is no reason at all why only some canons should cease for the sake of time, and not all. If those cease which are good and meritorious for life, why not much more those which hurt, are useless and obstructive? Or do we perhaps want to invent a transformation here, that as they suffer other punishments that are just as valid, so they also do other works that are just as valid, so that one could nevertheless say of them that they read the horas canonicas?
Eighth: In fact, for the physically sick, even if they are not dying, the canons are suspended, both those concerning penance and those concerning morals. For a sick priest is not required to pray and worship, any more than others are required to fast, keep vigil, or abstain from meat, eggs, and milk; and they are not only free, but even forbidden, to do all that they were previously commanded to do in their health. For otherwise they would, 1) since they already have the
1) I.e., those who impose the canons on the sick.
When the hand of the Lord has touched you, you say: "Why do you persecute me, as well as God, and cannot be satisfied with my flesh (that is, with my sickness)? [Job 19:22.] Therefore I conclude: the canons are not imposed on the sick, but on the healthy and strong: consequently much less on the deceased, but on the living. Or if the dying or the dead are not free from them, why are not the sick also oppressed and tormented with them? Finally, they are not required to make up for what they have omitted in sickness after they have recovered health; how can it be believed that the canons must be made up for or performed even after death?
But here some say: How, if a healthy person omits the penances imposed on him and confesses it later on his deathbed? Here it seems that such a one must necessarily pay these penances in purgatory, even if no others may or would be imposed on him? I answer: By no means. For by such an omission nothing more has happened than that he has sinned against the commandment of the church, for which he must repent, but not make up for it again and fulfill it for the past, but only for the future. "If the transgression of any commandment were to be made up for, so that none remained, this would have to be done above all with the commandments of God. But it is impossible that e.g. an adultery would not remain such a deed by which one has lost chastity.
Ninth: Any one who undergoes a greater punishment than is inflicted upon him shall, according to equity and the right of nature, be remitted the lesser; but the dying man undergoes the last, heaviest, and greatest of all punishments, that of death: consequently, in view of death, every other punishment must be revoked, since scarcely anyone is strong enough for this One punishment. And again, imagine that before a legislator a dying man voluntarily offered himself for death, would not the legislator immediately withdraw his punishments?
To the tenth: Thus certain doctors, famous in the church, say that a Christian is the richest man, because by a willing death he can pay for everything and immediately fly [to heaven]; for nothing is greater than a death willingly taken from oneself for God's sake: consequently the canons are reserved in vain in regard to this [that is, to death]. This opinion is held by William of Paris and Gerson, and they are followed by a crowd that is by no means without understanding.
Eleventh: If death were not sufficient punishment, unless the deceased also suffered the punishments which the canons impose, the punishment of the canons must be greater than the punishment of death, because it lasts beyond death, and thereby injustice must be done to the death of the Christian, of whom it is said [Ps. 116:15], "The death of his saints is held worthy before the Lord."
Twelfth: Imagine that a sinner is carried away and, confessing Christ, is martyred before he has satisfied the canons (as we read of the holy martyr Bonifacius), can purgatory stop him from being with Christ? And it would then happen that one would have to pray for a martyr in the church. 1) But every willingly dying person (because we are talking about such a person, i.e. a Christian) also dies according to God's will.
To the thirteenth: Why do not civil laws also remain in force after death, since they too are binding before God and in heaven, not by their own power, but by the power of Christ [Matth. 22, 21.], and of the apostles Peter [1. Ep. 2, 13. ff.) and Paul [Rom. 13, 1. ff.], who teach that one must be subject to them from the heart and for the sake of conscience, because it is thus the will of God?
To the fourteenth: The canons cease when a penitent layman changes his state, for example, when he becomes a priest, or when a priest becomes a bishop or a monk; and this
1) According to the doctrine of the Roman Church, a martyr does not first go to purgatory, but immediately to heaven; therefore, one immediately calls for his intercession, but does not intercede for him.
Cessation happens in this life and should not occur at the change of death? What could be more incongruous?
Fifteenth: Such an opinion, that the canons must be satisfied even after death, has not a single scripture, not a single saying of the canons, nor any acceptable reason in itself, but seems to have arisen solely through the indolence and negligence of the priests, like so many other superstitious things.
To the sixteenth: In addition, we have examples from the ancient fathers, and certainly one Cyprian, probably the strictest observer of church discipline and discipline, who in the 171 letter of the 3rd book, commands that one must give peace to those who are in danger of death, so that they may come to the Lord in peace, after they have made their confession to a priest or deacon, as he says there. But this granting of peace is nothing other than what is now called perfect forgiveness, as is obvious to anyone who looks at it.
Therefore we can conclude that the canons may be imposed only on the living, and even among them only on the healthy and strong, indeed, only on the indolent, who of their own accord do not want to do the better. I would certainly not have elaborated on this so extensively if I did not know that certain people quite stubbornly assert the opposite, which they can in no way prove; for if I had wanted to act with understanding and scholars, I would have been better silent than speaking.
But here someone would like to say: To say so is to make indulgences too small, if only the canonical punishments, and not even all and only for this life, are remitted. Answer: It is better that indulgences be made small than that the cross of Christ be nullified, and it is better that indulgences be considered small than that something be taught in the church that could be accused of fraud to the shame of the church. However, I freely confess and solemnly declare that I care little for indulgences as a remission of punishments (of which those alone boast highly), but exceedingly venerate them as a remission of guilt according to my sense explained above,
I accept and esteem those who consider them nothing at all.
This eighth thesis is countered with a single leaden dagger, namely, that one finds in the laws that also deceased persons were banished, as it is especially testified by the chapter A nobis in the Extravagante de sent. exeom. [of the judgment of the ban] testifies. How afraid I was that they might also say that they had found that the deceased were subject to severe punishments and pardons! But it is good that they only said that the deceased are excommunicated; so no one denies that even the deceased are absolved. But what has this absolution to do with the remission of punishments? Is this the so astute dialectic, without which, according to their doctrine, no one can become a theologian? Perhaps it contains in a fifth figure 1) the following conclusion: "Someone is absolved from the ban, consequently the punishments are remitted to him, with which he should have done enough." Why, then, do they still grant indulgences so abundantly back and forth, if the one absolved of sin also has the remission of the punishments immediately? But if there is still a satisfaction left for the absolver, how can the absolution be of use to the deceased or take away the punishment? Therefore, this conclusion is worthless, that just as the ban extends to the deceased, so does the remission of punishments. Yes, as the jurists themselves say: "The excommunication of the deceased brings no harm to the deceased, just as absolution brings him no benefit, but all this happens only to frighten us; only that one does not pray for such a one in public. Therefore, such a person suffers no more from such an excommunication than a house or garment suffers if it were excommunicated; and again, nothing more is helped by absolution. But I will finally stop refuting such drivel, which contradicts itself, especially since there is nothing in it but scholastic opinions, which are neither found in Scripture nor in the
1) This is an impossible one, because in logic there are only four figures, i.e. types of conclusion.
Church Fathers, nor are they founded in the Canons. For he [Tetzel] always presupposes as proven what he must first prove, or, if he does not do so, then he babbles these words like an evil woman: He is mistaken; he is racing; he is out of his mind; it is an error; that is to err. For in these words he wants to reveal wherein lies the epitome of his wisdom and learning.
9. thesis.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit does us good in the pope, that the pope always excludes in his decrees or rights the article of death and extreme necessity.
This thesis is more a proof of the previous one. For it is certain that if the pope wants to exclude cases of temporal need, he wants this much more in the case of eternal need, which man faces through death, while the sick or lawfully incapacitated person is only held by a temporal incapacity. Yes, even if the pope did not exclude necessity, it would still have to be understood as exempted, since necessity has no command. But death is the most extreme necessity and the last and greatest obstacle of all.
10. thesis.
The priests act imprudently and wickedly, who save and keep the penance imposed on dying people in purgatory, where they have enough to do.
This thesis also obviously follows from the eighth thesis; and there are certainly some who are surprised that such things happen by priests. But it does happen. Since this is as much as obeying the canons more than the call of God, and preferring the inferior works of the canons to the value of the death of Christians, which is held to be exceedingly worthy, I do not know whether those who are biased by such an opinion have the right guide of faith.
Secondly: It is well known and frequently occurs with excellent teachers in the Church: when God Himself has a man in the middle of the
If the works of ecclesiastical obedience lead to rapture or special enlightenment, then the person is obliged to refrain from the work, to abandon obedience to the church and to obey God more than men [Apost. 5, 29]. Yes, they even say that in the horis canonicis one must, against the commandment of the church, let go of the attention to the words, if one would be granted a heavenly enlightenment and movement. If, therefore, the laws of the church are already suspended in such a call, how much more must this not take place in such a great call and rapture, namely, death? Or should one follow the great multitude of fools who are so attached to their ceremonial works that for their sake they often put aside the obvious obedience to God and man and still believe to have done right, if they only performed those, but never the others.
Thirdly: Then the Church would certainly be quite ungodly against God, if she were to retain in her lower jurisdiction the one whom God already calls before His supreme court. Or when does the pope tolerate that a defendant should be detained by the law and the rights of the lower court of a bishop or prelate, after he has already been demanded to stand before his court? or does he demand from his subordinates what he as a man does not concede to his God, who is above him? So a man closes his hand to God, and a man should not be able to close it to another? That is far away. But certainly, if he imposes the canons on the dying, it is clear that he judges and punishes him according to his jurisdiction.
These, therefore, are almost twenty reasons which have induced me, (as I hope) not presumptuously, to doubt this object of canonical punishments, while on the opposing side no scripture, no canon, no reason, not even the general custom of the Church, but only the abuse of some is found.
11. thesis.
This weed, that the penance or satisfaction, so by the canons or statutes
The first seed was sown while the bishops were asleep, and the second seed was sown while the bishops were asleep.
Here I ask that no one may believe that I am slandering the reverend bishops by saying that they have slept. These are not my words, but the words of the Gospel, except that the name "bishops" is not written there, but "people" [Matth. 13, 25]. But it is certain that by "people" the superiors and leaders of the church are meant, because one would have to take by a figurative way of speaking of each spirit and mind over his body 1). Therefore, at least the popes of the Church do not teach this, because (as I said) we have no canon about this, no provision from them, from which this could be taught. Therefore, some teachers of canon law labor in vain when they endeavor to show of what kind those years, days, and quadragens in purgatory are, since in truth there are none, or at least it cannot be proved; but the error comes from this, they pay no attention to the fact that the canons are given only for the time of this life and bind only on earth; just as someone who changes the city, thereby also changes the city rights at the same time. But if he still has obligations, he is compelled to satisfy them before any change is made. Therefore, nothing may be imposed on the dying, nor may they be sent to purgatory with the rest of their penance (as Gerson claims in one place), but they should rather be instructed (as he teaches more correctly in another place) to submit to death steadfastly and willingly according to God's will.
Here we must also pay attention to that fiction and reprehensible sophistry, so that they, like little children with larvae, want to frighten us, since they say: because the priest does not know the measure of repentance necessary for absolution, and therefore perhaps does not impose such a great satisfaction as divine justice requires: therefore it is necessary-
1) In Latin: super eorpus suuru. The meaning may be well: more than his body.
The Lord's will is necessary to do enough for this too, either through his own work or through indulgences.
First of all, we see here how their mere words are oracles without any proof, while the prophet says [Amos 3:7]: "The Lord does nothing, but reveals his secret to the prophets, his servants." Nor is it credible, since he is our God who teaches us what is useful, as he speaks through the prophet, that he should not have revealed this demand of his justice to us anywhere.
On the other hand, I do not know whether those who speak in this way want to make God into a usurer or a merchant who will not let us off anything for nothing unless, as it were, he is given satisfaction as a price for it. Or do they perhaps want us to bargain with the justice of God over our sins, before which no man is justified?
Thirdly: If this is really so, why does the pope absolve completely, since he neither knows the measure of repentance, nor can he himself complete the imperfection of repentance, but perfect repentance does not need his absolution? Nor has he any power of a different kind from that of another priest, but only of a different extent, in that he absolves the sins of all, but the others only of some; and as much absolution as these can absolve of some, so much can he absolve of all; and nothing more: otherwise the church would be a thing consisting of powers of different kinds.
Fourthly, the first church did not know the measure of repentance and the weight of spirits, but nevertheless it completely remitted sins after the completion of repentance, which, according to our opponents, it could not know if it was sufficient.
Fifthly, another dream comes from the fact that they base the forgiveness of sins not on faith and the word of the merciful Christ, but on the work of the running man; for they invent that a perfect remission can be given only to those who have perfect repentance, of which there is none in this life, and yet they concede to the pope that he can give it also to those who have only imperfect repentance.
Sixth: If the justice of God demands something, it is already beyond the power of the church, which has nothing to change in what God wants or imposes. For still the saying stands firm [Is. 46, 10.]: "My counsel standeth, and I do all that I please."
In the same way, what others say that the canonical punishments are an explanation of the punishments required by divine justice is refuted. For in the first place this is not proved, consequently it can just as easily be despised. If he declares sGOtt], it is impossible for the Church to remit them, for she did not impose them; but declares that they are imposed by God, or they are forced to say that the word of Christ must be so placed: All that I shall bind, thou shalt loose.
12. thesis.
In ancient times, canonicae poenae, that is, penance or satisfaction for sins committed, were imposed not after, but before absolution, checking whether the repentance and sorrow would be righteous.
This 12th thesis again proves the 8th thesis, for the canonical punishments are so temporal that they have absolution itself at their end. But since every dying person must be absolved (under the same conditions), it is clear that not only may no [punishments] be imposed, but also that those imposed, as well as those which should be imposed, must be remitted. If this ancient custom of the Church had been maintained hitherto, this error would not have arisen. Now, however, when absolution precedes punishment, they have come to the point where, to disgrace absolution, they send people to death without absolving them, and commit a kind of monstrosity by not absolving by absolving and binding the absolved again with the same word.
First of all, this thesis is proved precisely from the custom of solemn penance, as described in the Canons, and of which one still has an example or a remaining trace in the penance in the case of the homicide.
140 L. v. Ä. II, I7I-I73. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 344-347. 141
For why do they absolve the living from punishment here and not refer him to other penances to be made in his life, while they are so strict with the dying?
On the other hand, St. Jerome wrote that his Fabiola was absolved; St. Ambrose absolved his Theodosius; and finally, this is read more frequently in none other than in the glorious martyr Cyprian in the third book of his letters; likewise in the history of the church and in the historia tripartita. Likewise, in Dionysius1) , in his Constitution of the Church, the state of the penitents and energumenes is described2) . In all of these we see that sinners were not accepted for grace and absolution until after they had done penance.
Thirdly: Christ also did not absolve Mary Magdalene and the adulteress until after tears, anointing, and an exceedingly violent and humble affliction.
Fourthly, we read in Genesis 44 that Joseph attacked his brothers with many tests to find out whether their attitude toward him and Benjamin was sincere; when he had found this out, he made himself known to them and received them with favor.
13. thesis.
The dying do enough for everything by their death or decease, and are dead to the right of the canonum or statutes, and thus are fairly released from the same obligation.
This thesis forms the conclusion of the preceding and is clear enough. For it would be a rather strange thing if the dying were to be detached from all works, things, laws, people, and also from the laws of God Himself, namely, where almsgiving, prayer, fasting, the cross, work are commanded, and everything that can be done with the body; finally, from the works of holy love towards the neighbor (which alone never comes to an end), and it should only be from all things the canons, of which
1) the Areopagite; cf. Walch, St. Louis ed,
2) The possessed recommended to the church for intercession.
it could not be solved! Then a Christian would be more miserable than all the heathen, because even in death the laws of the living would still torment him, while he is rather of such a nature that he must be free even among the dead through Christ in whom he lives.
Let us then sum up the conclusion to see how many [people] are remitted punishments by indulgences. Six kinds of people seem to me to be excluded from needing indulgences: 1) the dead or dying; 2) the sick; 3) the lawfully prevented; 4) those who have not committed serious crimes; 5) those who have committed crimes, but not public ones; 6) those who do something better. Let us now also prove this and make it at least probable.
First, what may be most striking, namely, that indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, such as adultery, murder, usury, fornication, drunkenness, sedition, 2c; for if such sinners remained secret, they would not seem to belong under the canons. First, because the canons require public penances, and the church has no right to judge secret things externally. Secondly, because a secret sin, as it may not be punished publicly, so it need not be remitted publicly; but indulgences are public indulgences, and, as is clear, are given in view of the Church; indeed, there are some who believe that there is some difference between indulgences given in public penalties and those given privately in the court of conscience. Thirdly, by secret sins the Church is not offended, but only by public ones; therefore they are not urged to public penance, to make good the aversions, and to rebuild what they have pulled down. Fourth, even now the jurists do not condemn those who are public criminals, but only those who are known by law, while they tolerate those who are known by deed. And this opinion I certainly do not reject, and it does not seem to me to be erroneous; since it is not lawful for anyone to judge, condemn, or condemn another, however he may have sinned.
If he has no power or right to judge him, lest it be said to him [Rom. 14:4], "Who art thou to judge a strange servant?" Nevertheless, the neglect of love is to be blamed, both in the prelates and in the subordinates, that they let those who are known by deed so freely, and do not see to it that they are also known by right, according to that commandment of Christ, "Tell it to the church; if he does not hear the church," 2c [Matt. 18:17.]
Secondly: I believe that it is obvious to all that canonical punishments are imposed only for crimes: consequently, the indulgence (if it is remission of the canons) is useful only to criminals. Therefore, those who lead an ordinary life, which is not led without venial sins, have no need of indulgences, especially because no punishment may be imposed for venial sins, indeed, people are not even required to confess them: much less do they need to buy indulgences. Otherwise, the canonical penalties would necessarily have to be borne by all at all times, since no one (as said) lives without venial sin.
And I want to say even more: not even for every mortal sin one needs to redeem indulgences. This I prove thus: No one is sure whether he is not always living in mortal sins because of the very secret vice of pride; if, therefore, canonical punishments stood for every mortal sin, the whole life of the faithful, above the evangelical cross, would be nothing else but also a torture with the canonical punishments; therefore, one would have to continually redeem indulgences and do nothing else. If this is not true, it is obvious that indulgences are only for sins that are punished by the canons; but no sins can be punished by the canons except certain and manifest crimes, or, if I am pressed hard, at least only those that are certain to be grave mortal sins, as I have said about adultery, theft, murder 2c, i.e. publicly known works. Therefore, consent to any mortal sin does not belong among the canonical punishments, neither to impute it nor to exempt it, nor a word of mouth,
if it does not become the occasion for the future work, as is also clear from the words of the Canons.
Thirdly: Nor are the canons so laid down for crimes that they should not cease if someone does a better work, for example, if he enters a monastery, or devotes himself to the service of the poor and sick, or suffers for the sake of Christ, or dies according to God's will, or does something of the sort or greater than this. It is clear that for such people the canonical punishments cease and that even indulgences are of no use to them. Therefore, they are imposed only on the lazy who repent coldly, that is, on the tender sinners; therefore, it seems that indulgences are actually granted only to the hard and to those who do not want to suffer.
Fourthly, in the case of those who, for a just cause, are prevented from bearing the penalties, there is no doubt that they are to be understood as if they were not imposed upon them. For example, if a person is imprisoned by the Turks or infidels, or is a slave of some lord whom he is bound to obey according to the precepts of the Gospel, or to perform the service he owes, or to serve his wife and children by working with his hands and earning a living, he who is prevented by such things is not guilty of letting them go; rather, he is guilty of doing them, and of omitting the canons and obeying God. Therefore, he does not need the remission of them, because he was not in a position that they could have been imposed on him.
Fifthly: The Canons do not impose anything on the sick, therefore only the healthy person is considered and the one who does not belong to the number of those who say: "The hand of the Lord has touched me" [Job 19:21], because these do not deserve the imposition of punishments, but to be visited and comforted, according to Christ's saying: "I have been sick and you have not visited me" [Matth. 25:43]. Otherwise it would have to be said also to the popes, "For they persecute whom thou hast smitten, and increase still the pain of my wounds" [Ps. 69, 27. according to the Vulgate); and as it is said in Job [19, 22.]
means: "Why do you persecute me as God does?) Consequently, the indulgence is not necessary for them either.
Sixthly, it is finally the same with those who have died and are now dying, of whom it has already been said.
So you see how many Christians there are for whom indulgences are neither necessary nor useful. However, in order to finally conclude this matter and to put it to rest with its own sword, I will return to the thesis.
It is certain among all in the church that in the struggle for death and at the occurrence of death every priest is the pope, and consequently also absolves the dying of everything, and even if a priest is lacking, the desire of the dying is certainly sufficient; therefore he is also absolved of everything in which he can be absolved by the pope: consequently the indulgence seems to confer nothing at all on the dead, since everything that can be absolved is absolved in death. From this it is at the same time evident that the difference in the gradations and laws is to be understood only by the living and the healthy. Therefore, indulgences are only useful to obviously criminal people who are not hindered in living, healthy and strong, and who do not want to do better works. If I am in error here, refer me to whoever can and should know.
But if you ask: From what punishments, then, are the souls redeemed, or what punishments do they suffer in purgatory, if they do not suffer anything that corresponds to that which is ordered in the spiritual right? then I answer: If I knew that, what need did I have to dispute and ask? I am not so experienced that I know what God does with the departed souls, like those abundant soul redeemers who say everything with such certainty as if it were impossible that they were human. To this difficulty is added 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 the
1) The preachers of indulgences put these sayings into the mouths of the souls in purgatory against their living relatives who did not pay indulgences for them.
Souls is. Therefore, here again I get into an extremely doubtful and controversial matter and present what I have understood of it.
14. thesis.
Imperfect piety or imperfect love on the part of the one who is now to die necessarily brings with it great fear; indeed, how much less the love is, so much the greater is the fear.
This is clear from the saying 1 John 4:18: "Fear is not in love, but perfect love casteth out fear: for fear hath torment." If then perfect love casts out fear, it is necessary that imperfect love should not cast out fear, and therefore there should be fear in imperfect love. But where is this perfect love? and (to digress a little) who is without fear of death, judgment and hell? because even in a still so holy man there are remnants of the old man and of sin, and the children of Israel cannot completely destroy the Jebusites, Cananites and other heathens in this time, there still remains the trace of the old Adam. But this old nature is error, evil desire, wrath, fear, wavering [spes], despair, evil conscience, terror of death 2c; for these are pieces of the old and carnal man; but they decrease more and more in the new man, but are not entirely eradicated until he also is eradicated by death; as the apostle says [2 Cor. 4:16.], "Though our outward man decay, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." Therefore these evils of the remnants of the old nature are not taken away by indulgence, nor even by the repentance begun, but only the beginning is made with them, and by increasing they are taken away more and more. This is the health of the spirit, nothing other than faith or love in Christ.
Having thus presented this, the thesis is sufficiently clear; for if a man is precipitated by death before he has perfect love, which casts out fear, he necessarily dies with fear and terror until
love becomes perfect and casts out that fear. But this fear is precisely the evil conscience that trembles because of the lack of faith. For no conscience is more afraid than that which either lacks faith or is imperfect. For so also saith the apostle [Heb. 9:14], that the blood of Christ cleanseth our conscience from dead works; and again, Heb. 10:22: "Sprinkled in our hearts, and loosed from an evil conscience in full faith."
In short, if I can prove that the cause of terror and fear is unbelief, and that faith, on the other hand, is the cause of security, then I think it is proven at the same time that the one who dies in an imperfect faith is necessarily afraid and terrified. But that unbelief is really the cause of terror, despair and condemnation, we read several times in the Gospel: first, when Peter calls the Lord to depart from him, he says: "For I am a sinful man" [Luc. 5, 8]; second, when he began to sink in the sea because of his little faith [Matth. 14:30]; thirdly, when the disciples wanted to cry out in consternation, because they thought Christ was a ghost when He walked on the sea; fourthly, when they were quite disturbed and thought they saw a ghost when Christ entered them with the doors closed. In all these cases it is shown that unbelief is the cause of fear and terror; consequently, all consternation comes from unbelief, all certainty from trust in God, and trust from love; for it is necessary that the one in whom you put your trust should please you.
15. thesis.
This fear and terror is in itself and only that I am silent about another thing is enough for it to cause the purgatory torment and agony, because it is very close to the fear of despair.
I speak nothing of the fire and of the place of the sweep-fire; not because I deny it, but because it is another disputation, and not begun by me now; next, because I know not where the place of the sweep-fire is, though
St. Thomas believes that he is under the earth. However, I stick to the opinion of St. Augustine, namely, that the whereabouts of the souls are hidden and far from our knowledge. This I say, lest the heretic Picardus think that he has obtained from me [the concession] that there is no purgatory, because I confess that its place is unknown; or that the Roman Church is mistaken, because it does not reject the opinion of St. Thomas. I am quite sure that there is a purgatory; and I do not care much what the heretics may say, since already a thousand and some hundred years ago St. Augustine, in the 9th book of his Confessions, prays and asks for intercession for his father and mother, and also his holy mother (as he writes there), when she was dying, wished that she might be remembered at the altar of the Lord; but he reports that this was also done by St. Ambrose. Even if there had been no purgatory in the time of the apostles (as the disgusting Picardus haughtily boasts), is it necessary to believe a heretic who was born only recently, barely fifty years ago, and to claim that the faith of so many centuries has been false? especially since he himself does nothing but say: I do not believe it; and has thus proved all his things and refuted all our things, as if wood and stone did not believe either. But this in its place and time.
Therefore, it is admitted that there is terror in souls; now I prove that this very thing is a punishment, and the greatest punishment of the purgatory.
First, all admit that the punishments of purgatory and hell are the same, and only differ as to eternity. But the Scriptures describe as the punishments of hell: consternation, terror, horror, flight, as it is said in the 1st Psalm, v. 4. "But such are not the wicked; but as chaff which the wind scattereth." But also in Job and Isaiah, and in many other passages, the wicked are compared to chaff and dust, swept away and scattered by the whirlwind, by which Scripture, of course, describes the terrifying flight of the damned
148 v- a- n, 178-180. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 355-358. 149
is the term used. Likewise in the 2nd Psalm, v. 5: "He will speak to them in his wrath, and with his fury he will terrify them"; and Isaiah 28:16: "He who trusts in him will not be put to shame," that is, he will not hurry, nor be dismayed, nor flee in dismay and fear; by which he means that those who do not believe will be put to shame and tremble. Prov. 1, 33: "He who obeys me will remain safe and have enough and will fear no evil." And Ps. 112:7: "If a plague will come, he will not fear." For in these and other passages of Holy Scripture, terror, horror, fear, trembling are called the punishment of the wicked, insuring the opposite of the pious. Finally also St. Jacob, 2, 19. speaks that the devils believe and tremble; and 5 Mos. 28, 65. f. clearly states that the punishment of the ungodly is horror, saying: "The Lord will give you a trembling heart" 2c For if this horror were not, neither death nor hell nor any punishment would be burdensome, just as it is said in the Song of Songs [8, 6.], "Love is strong as death, and zeal is firm as hell"; which was abundantly shown in the martyrs, so much so that the Holy Spirit says of the wicked in the 14th Psalm, v. 5. "There they trembled with fear, because there was no fear" [according to the Vulgate]; and Prov. 28, 1. "The wicked flieth, and no man hunteth him: but the righteous is confident as a young lion," and will be without terror. For why else does one man fear death and be grieved, and another despise it, but because he who has no confidence in righteousness in his heart fears where he ought not to fear?
On the other hand: 2 Thess. 1, 8. f. it says: "Those who do not believe in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will suffer pain, eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from His glorious power"; because God alone with the face of His power torments and tortures them, since He is unbearable to them: therefore they will flee, but not escape, but will be seized under fear. Thus it is also said in the Book of Wisdom [6, 6.]: "It will come upon you very horribly and shortly"; and in the
21st Psalm [v. 10]: "You will make them like a furnace of fire when you look into it." Where else would that word [Hos. 10:8] come from: "O mountains, fall upon us, and ye hills, cover us"? and that Is. 2:10: "Go into the rock, and hide thyself in the earth from the fear of the Lord, and from his glorious majesty"? and that in Job [14:13]: "Oh that thou wouldest cover me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath be turned away"? It is clear, therefore, that from the face of the Lord comes their greatest punishment, in that they are put to shame by their exceedingly vile uncleanness, in comparison with such great purity.
Thirdly: The Church also sings and groans in the person of souls in the 6th Psalm [v. 3. f.], "My bones are troubled, and my soul is greatly afraid"; and in the 116th Psalm [v. 3.], "Ropes of death had encompassed me, and fear of hell had struck me." That is why the most common prayer is that we wish them rest, understanding that they are restless. But the punishments do not cause restlessness, as is evident among the martyrs and steadfast men; but the terror and flight from the punishments, which comes from the weakness of trust in God. As each one believes, so happens to him; and the punishments and everything else occur to him just as he himself is. Therefore, nothing upsets the righteous, whatever happens to him, as it says in Prov. 12, 21; and again, the wicked are frightened by a rushing leaf [Deut. 26, 36Z; and Isa. 57, 20. f. it says: "The wicked are like an impetuous sea that cannot be still and whose waves throw up muck and mire. The wicked have no peace, says God the Lord."
Fourthly: Some have already tasted these punishments, namely hell, in this life: consequently, one must assume all the more that they will be imposed on the deceased in purgatory. For David speaks from experience [Ps. 94, 17]: "If the Lord had not helped me, my soul would have been in hell," and again [Ps. 88, 4]: "My soul is full of sorrow, and my life is near hell.
whose passage [Ps. 141, 7.]: "Our bones are scattered unto hell"; and [Ps. 28, 1.]: "I am like them that go to hell"; and again [Ps. 71, 20.]: "Thou sufferest me to know many and great fears, and makest me alive again, and bringest me up out of the depth of the earth." But Hezekiah says [Isa. 38, 10.]: "In the half of my days I must go to the gates of hell"; and further on [Isa. 38, 13.]: "Like a lion he broke all my bones", which surely can only be understood as caused by an unbearable terror.
Fifth: How many are there who still today taste these punishments! For even Johannes Tauler in his German sermons, what does he teach but the sufferings of such punishments, of which he also gives several examples? I know that this teacher is unknown to the theological schools and therefore perhaps despised; but I have found in him (although he is written entirely in the language of the Germans) more solid and pure theology than is or can be found in all scholastic teachers of all universities in their sentences.
But also I know a man who affirmed to have suffered these punishments often, indeed only for a very short period, but nevertheless so great and infernal that no tongue can pronounce them, no pen describe them, nor anyone who has not experienced them can believe them; so that if they had been brought to completion or had lasted for half an hour, yes, even only the tenth part of an hour, he would have had to perish completely and all his bones would have been turned into ashes. Here God appears terribly angry and with him also the whole creature at the same time. There is no escape, no comfort, neither inwardly nor outwardly, but accusation in all things. Then one cries the verse [Ps. 31, 23.], "I am cast out of thy sight"; and dare not even speak [Ps. 6, 2.], "O Lord, punish me not in thy wrath." At such a moment the soul (strange to say) cannot believe that it could ever be redeemed; it only feels that the punishment is not yet full. However, it [the soul] is eternal and it cannot consider it temporal; there remains only a mere desire for
There is nothing left for her but a frightening groan, but she does not know where to get help. Here the soul is stretched out with Christ so that one would like to count all its bones, and there is not a corner in it that is not filled with the most bitter bitterness, with terror, trembling and sadness, and all this of eternal duration. And to give an example to some extent: When a sphere passes over a straight line, although every point of the line which is touched bears the whole sphere, yet it does not embrace the whole sphere: so also the soul in its point, when it is touched by the eternal overflow which passes over, feels and drinks nothing but eternal punishment; but it is not lasting; for it passes over again. If, therefore, this punishment of hell already befalls the living, that is, this unbearable horror against which no consolation can be found, how much more does the punishment of the souls in purgatory seem to be such a punishment, but a lasting one! And this is the inner fire, which is much more terrible than the outer. But if anyone should not believe this, we will not argue about it; but this at least we have proved, that those preachers of indulgences speak too boldly of many things, which they either do not know, or of which they doubt. For in this, those who have experienced it are more to be believed than those who are inexperienced.
Sixthly, there is the image of the Church, which sings: "Deliver them from the lion's mouth, lest hell devour them"; 1) likewise: "From the gate of hell"; 2) by these words it certainly seems to be indicated that the souls are already, as it were, in the gate and entrance of damnation and in the beginning of hell, which I have called being close to despair; and I believe the words of the Church are not in vain.
16. thesis.
Hell, purgatory and heaven seem to be equally distinguished [from each other], as right despair, imperfect or near despair and safety are distinguished from each other.
1) From the so-called Offertory Chant in the Mass of the Dead.
2) From the funeral rite.
Whoever believes the two previous theses to be true, easily admits this one as well; Yes, since we believe that in heaven there is peace, joy, and security in the light of God, while in hell there is despair, pain, and frightful escape in the utter darkness, 1) but purgatory may be the middle between the two, so that it is closer to hell than to heaven (because they do not have joy and peace, nay, enjoy anything of heaven, since it is assumed that the punishment is the same as that of hell, only different in duration): it is sufficiently clear from this that also in purgatory there is despair, escape, terror and pain. But when I mentioned despair, I added "near", because this despair once comes to an end. Otherwise, the soul really feels nothing but despair as long as it is in it; not that it despairs, but because it is in such confusion and consternation of horror that it does not feel that it hopes. But the Spirit helps there, as much as possible, her weakness by representing her with inexpressible groaning [Rom. 8, 26.]. So it also happens with those who are challenged in this life that they do not know whether they hope or despair; indeed, it seems to them as if they despaired, only a sighing for help remains. From this sign, not they themselves, but others recognize that they still hope. But I do not want to speak more extensively about this matter, which is completely hidden, lest the indulgence sellers also reproach me for speaking without proof, although I do not, like them, assert what I do not know, but only dispute and ask, and maintain that their imagined certainty is doubtful, even null and void.
17. thesis.
It seems as if in purgatory, just as fear and terror decrease in the souls, so love must also grow and increase in them.
This thesis, too, is based on the three preceding theses; however, we shall
1) Here the Weimar edition, probably erroneously, offers ssrvirs instead of 8L6vir6, as the Erl. Ausg. has.
and (as we have begun) set three kinds of departing souls. The first kind are those who are completely empty of faith (that is, the damned): these must necessarily be seized with the greatest terror and despair at death, according to the saying [Ps. 140:12]: "Evil will seize the godless man at his fall" [according to the Vulgate); and again [Ps. 34:22]: "The sinner's death is exceedingly evil"; namely, because they have no trust in God, wrath seizes them. The second kind are those souls who are completely and perfectly in faith (that is, the blessed): these must necessarily be placed in the highest security and joy at death according to the saying [Ps. 37:24.), "If the righteous fall, he perisheth not, for the Lord putteth His hand under him"; and again [Ps. 116:15.], "The death of His saints is held worthy in the sight of the Lord"; and again [Wis. 4:7.], "The righteous, when he is hurried over by death, is in rest." The reason of both is because the wicked finds what he feared; but he always feared death and punishment. But the righteous, having had enough of this life, longed most of all to be dissolved, therefore he also receives what he desired. The former did not bring his days to the half [Ps. 55, 24]; the latter still extends his living beyond the set goal; therefore what the former abhors, the latter seeks, both are animated by a completely different striving; what is the greatest abhorrence to the one, that is the highest joy and profit to the other. The third kind of souls are those who are imperfect in faith and differ in many ways between perfect faith and no faith. I believe that no one denies that some souls depart in imperfect faith; nevertheless, we will prove it more extensively later. Therefore, since the imperfection of faith is nothing other than the imperfect new life in the spirit, while there is still a remnant of the old life in the flesh and of the old Adam (for if he were perfect, he would not fear punishment, nor would he reluctantly die or depart with earthly love for this life), it seems clear that it is necessary for the souls to not only have the
The first thing is to take away the punishments, but also to add the perfection of the new life and to take away the remnant of the old man (that is, the love of life and the fear of death and judgment); for the punishment (if it were possible), however much might be taken away, the soul would not be made whole by this removal, just as in this life no one becomes better by the removal of the punishments alone, but by the bestowal of grace and the removal of sin; therefore sin, that is, the imperfection of faith, hope, and love, must also first be taken away.
Secondly: No punishment is overcome by fleeing or fearing it; for the proverb is true, "He that feareth hell shall enter into it"; yea, even "He that is afraid of the hoar frost, upon him shall the snow fall," Job 6:16.; that is, it shall befall him even more than he feared. Every punishment is only increased and strengthened by the fear of it, just as it is diminished and weakened by love. But if the punishment is overcome, if one loves it and gladly takes it upon himself, then no punishment is burdensome as long as it is overcome: therefore punishments and death are not burdensome to him who loves them, but sweet, for they are overcome by love and the spirit; on the other hand, they are burdensome to him who fears them, for they prevail over him by fear and the letter. Therefore, if purgatory torments souls and terror is burdensome to them, it is evident that they lack love and the spirit of freedom, while the letter and fear are there; and this lack of love I call the imperfect health of the spirit. But since no one will enter the kingdom of heaven without perfect health, I finally conclude that it is necessary for them that love and health be increased, as that fear be diminished.
Should anyone deny or disbelieve this, and claim that the souls there are perfect in the life of the spirit and only atone for what they owed in punishments from before, I answer first: Let them also prove their opinion, which I also deny;
and I am sure that they will prove their case either by none, or by all too weak reasons. On the other hand: I ask whether they deny the above-mentioned threefold kind of departing souls. If they admit the third kind, let them reply to the foregoing, how the pusillanimity of spirit and fear can be taken away, since the perfect man, like God his Father, fears nothing, is able to do everything, tolerates everything, delights and delights in everything. - If they do not admit it, but think that faith is completed in death, and that only the penalties remain to be paid, and that this is the whole of purgatory, namely, the accounting for the penalties owed, then I will continue to recommend my opinion in addition to the very strong and indissoluble reason for proof that I have already given, namely, that they cannot prove their opinion by any scriptural passage, by any reason. For this is also the practice of those who are presumptuous and adhere to other opinions.
To the first: To what does God want to condemn the perfect in spirit? To satisfaction? On the contrary: above all satisfaction is the satisfaction of love; for even God Himself does not aim at anything else with the punishments than that love may become perfect. For love (if the apostle is not lying) covers the multitude of sins. But it was presupposed that those already have the perfect love.
On the other hand: God is most satisfied by the will, where he does not find the ability, as the whole church holds with St. Augustine. But those who have perfect love necessarily have such a will, and yet, for lack of life, they do not have the ability, therefore they necessarily do abundantly enough by the mere will.
Thirdly: Such perfected ones give to God all that they owe, because they owe nothing more than that they give themselves completely with the innermost will: for God demands nothing more from man than that he give himself completely, as he says [Prov. 23, 26.]: "Give me, my son, your heart"; yes, by the punishments he forces man that he give himself completely to
present. When this is done, how do punishments remain? What do they force you to do?
Fourth: Imagine a soul that has perfect faith and love in death, which perhaps should have fasted for seven more days or atoned for some other canonical punishment. Here, then, God is so cruel that He would forgive a soul that thirsts for Him in the highest love and loves Him most fiercely above all else, that has completely forgiven its neighbor for everything and has most strongly desired that everything be forgiven for it as well, who therefore deserves forgiveness from God and from men (for this is the nature of the soul that dies in healthy love): here, I say, does not God remit those seven days because of the highest love and humility towards Him and the neighbor, which is the highest among all alms; since He speaks in the Gospel [Luc. 11, 41.], all things are forgiven and are pure to those who do not give alms from their heart but only from their abundance, and to the servant [Matth. 18, 26. ff.], who only asked and did nothing but promise, the Lord forgave the whole debt by also freely giving the promise: and God does not even consider in this matter that He is yet so willing to grant such to the living who are not in danger of death, but with those who are dying and are beset by the highest danger, is He so hard to forgive such small things of such great love? who will believe this? or in what way will they persuade us of this? Therefore let them either desist from preaching their things so confidently, or give them better reasons and refute this [what I have said]. In the meantime, let us hold that the souls in purgatory suffer in punishment not for the sake of mere punishment, but rather because of the lack of love, because here they have not wanted to make an effort to reach perfection; or, if they are perfect, that through love all punishments are overcome and they are free from them. Nor do I have such thoughts about the goodness of God that, in view of perfect and eternal love, he should not remit a punishment of very short duration to some, who, even for the sake of a little love, remits eternal punishment to all without distinction, and that he who often in life, for the sake of a work, should not suffer the punishment of eternal punishment.
He will forgive all punishments because of the love he has begun, but he should not remit some punishments once in death for the sake of all the works of perfected love. But this is disputable; for "God is wonderful in His saints" [Ps. 68:36]. We would do better to leave such doubtful things and present other more certain teachings to the people. God has the power over them that he need not act according to this or that opinion; for they are not subject to our, but to his judgment, because he can punish even there without cause, in order to show thereby the glory of his grace, as he did to Job and Paul.
Fifthly, I argue for the thesis: If purgatory is only a place of punishment, why is it not called "punishment fire" instead of purgatory? Because the nature and meaning of the word necessarily implies a certain purification, which can only be understood by the remnants of the old nature and sin, whereby those are impure who have prevented the purity of faith by the inclination to the earthly. But should they (as they are ready to make distinctions) also here use a new double meaning, and say that purification is here the same as payment, so that the souls are then called purified when the penalties are paid; then I answer: this is as easily despised as it is proved. If they also do not want to consider that the meaning of the word extends to the cleansing of faults, then that may be, I do not want to argue; but that is shown that both are doubtful, which is why one of these meanings is spread among the people in a wrong way with so much certainty, especially since not even the nature of the word agrees with their opinion.
The sixth: Gregory's statement in the chapter Qualis in the 25th Distinction also refers to this, where it says that in the future life not only punishments, but also debts, namely venial debts, will be remitted, as he gives examples there. But the redemption of the debt does not take place without the confiscation of grace, and the terror of death is a venial sin among the saints, but not a small one.
18. thesis.
It also seems to be unproven, either by good causes or by Scripture, that the souls in Purgatory are out of the state of merit or increase in love.
This is my strongest evidence against the opposite opinion, namely that it is taught without any proof. Ours, on the other hand, is certainly based at least on the scriptural saying that no fear is cast out without the addition of grace, which alone is cast out by perfect love [1 John 4:18]. But this thesis precedes the grounds of proof of those who might say against me, "they are out of the state of merit, therefore the three preceding theses are false." But I, to continue, as I have begun to say and dispute my opinion without asserting anything, say: If purgatory is only a place for the payment of punishments, and the souls therein are impure in their disposition (as I think), nor are they purified from this fault, then purgatory would be the same as hell; for hell is where punishment is with a lasting guilt; but in the souls of purgatory there is guilt, namely fear of punishment and want of love, whereas the righteous, according to Isa. 8, 13. should fear nothing but God alone: consequently they sin without ceasing as long as they shun punishment and seek rest. I prove this by saying that they seek their own more than the will of God, which is contrary to love. If they love God, they love Him with the love of lust (that is, with a faulty love), while even in their punishments they should love and glorify God and steadfastly endure. And in order to assert something for once among the many thorns of controversy, I freely confess that I believe no soul will be delivered from the punishments of purgatory for the sake of its fear until it casts off fear and begins to love the will of God in such punishment, and loves the will of God more than it fears the punishment; yes, even loves the will of God alone, but holds the punishment in low esteem, or even loves it in the will of God. For one must love righteousness before one can be blessed; but the
Justice is God, who works this punishment. Furthermore, there is the saying of Christ [Matth. 10, 38]: "Whoever does not take up his cross (that is, carries it willingly and gladly) and follows me, is not worthy of me"; but the cross of the souls is that punishment. Since this is so, and I believe it to be quite true, let anyone who is able tell me how this love of punishment can be exchanged for fear without a new infusion of grace. I confess that I do not know, for it would be said that purgatory has no fear of punishment and is not similar to hell in this respect; but then we pray in vain for those of whom we hear that they want and love their punishment without fear.
Secondly, I prove that love increases in them. The apostle says [Rom. 8, 28]: "To those who love God, all things serve for the best"; but by this best can only be understood the increase of the good, which they already possess: consequently also purgatory increases the good of love for God. Yes, it increases it most of all, because just as "zeal is firm as hell" [Hell 8:6], so it still loves even in such great adversity; just as the furnace proves gold [Prov. 27:21], so also punishment proves love.
Thirdly, "Virtue is made perfect in weakness" [2 Cor. 12:9]. For all punishment, when love is present, is wholesome and useful; for the most delicious and fruitful love suffers nothing unfruitful in itself; but in purgatory is the greatest weakness: consequently it most perfects love.
Fourthly: On the way there cannot possibly be a standstill; but the way of God is the love striving towards God: consequently the souls must necessarily either go forward, as is evident, or go backward from the love of God, since they are not yet at the goal and in the seeing.
Fifth: Any persistence of the creature is impossible if it does not continually receive more and more; hence also some astute people say that the preservation of a thing is a continual creation of it. But to create means: to make perpetually new, as is also the case with the streams, the rays, and the
It is obvious in the warmth and the cold, especially when they are outside their origin. Therefore, the spiritual warmth, that is, the love for God, in the souls also requires constant preservation (until they are swallowed up in their divine origin) and thus also an increase, even if it were true that they were perfect, although being outside of God and not yet having come to Him and being perfect are contradictory things.
But it is worth the effort to see by what motives they are led to deny the souls the state of merit, or by what they want to prove this denial.
The first is the common saying of St. Augustine: "Here all merit is earned, after death none": consequently, they say, purgatory is not a place where one can earn anything.
I answer: St. Augustine and the other fathers, who have said similar things, speak on the basis and according to the use of Scripture, which expresses itself much more strongly in this sense; e.g. Gal. 6, 10: "Let us do good while we have time"; and Christ speaks, Joh. 9:4: "The night cometh, when no man can work"; and the apostle [Revelation 14:13]: "Their works follow them"; and the clearest passage is Heb. 9:27: "It is appointed unto all men once to die, and after this the judgment"; and then the end. Gal. 6:7: "What a man has sown, that shall he also reap." Likewise [2 Cor. 5:10], "We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that every man may receive after he hath done in life, whether it be good or bad"; and many others, which are quite as if after death there were only judgment at all, to receive after one hath done, that is, deserved, according to the saying of Ecclesiastes [11:3], "Whithersoever the tree falleth, there shall it lie."
But all this is equally opposed to the whole of purgatory, for it puts no middle state between the dead who are damned and those who are blessed. If, therefore, notwithstanding this, purgatory is justly defended, it may also be defended that grace is multiplied to them, and that not
The fact that it is said that merit is acquired only here is contrary to this, because he does not speak of purgatory, just as those sayings speak nothing of purgatory, but only of heaven and hell: consequently, purgatory is omitted in both cases. Therefore, those words of Augustine are not to be referred to purgatory: All merit is here, not there, that is, not in heaven or in hell. Finally, according to St. Augustine, merit is also accomplished here, by which man is worthy to be helped in purgatory through intercession. Otherwise he has no merit either in heaven or in hell, by which he deserves to be helped there. But there he had purgatory in mind, but here not at all.
If, however, any disputant should wish to assert that the scriptural passages just quoted are not at all opposed to purgatory, because they could be maintained by the assumption of a double judgment - that of a double retribution after death, namely, a temporal one, which belongs to purgatory, and an eternal one, which belongs to hell, and thus the one reaps purgatory, the other hell, just as the one's works follow him into purgatory, the other into hell: I answer to this: If one speaks in this way, these sayings, together with purgatory, are rather destroyed than saved by such a violent and arbitrary double meaning, since one part of the double meaning can never be proven. Also, in my judgment, I consider it unlawful and a thoroughly reprehensible custom, as it has been held by some, to divide the simple meaning of the Scriptures into a double meaning and doubtful meaning. For it is more correct to say: this passage does not speak of this; than that one makes the attempt to understand it of two things, and thereby leaves it in no respect certain; for "the covering is too short," says Isaiah [28, 20.], it cannot cover on both sides, and, as one usually says: one should not adorn one altar by exposing another. Therefore it must be said: that man reaps there what he has sown here is to be understood of the present and future life. The word "harvest
The only thing we can do is to leave it in the meaning in which Scripture uses it, namely in the meaning of the future and general judgment, without attaching a double meaning to it according to our arbitrariness and distorting it. And so these passages of Scripture dispute in nothing against purgatory, not by the subtlety of the double meaning, but by the opinion that they abolish it altogether. In the same way it is with that, "Here is all merit, there none." How else would I have had to rack my brains, if I had also wanted to take the merit in a double sense, namely, after death there is no merit of this time, but one makes oneself well deserved in that state, and Augustine speaks of the former: but I have not wanted.
But what do they say to the saying of Ecclesiastes [11:3]: "If the tree falls, let it fall at noon or at midnight, on which place it falls, there it will lie"? if they understand death differently by the fall. If, then, midnight is hell and noon is heaven, where do those who enter purgatory fall? Towards noon, they will say, but ambiguously. But what do they want to say to this: "there he will lie", "there he will stay"? so they will never come out of purgatory? Is the abiding here also supposed to be ambiguous, temporal and eternal? It is therefore clear that this saying goes precisely against purgatory, yes, even by assuming a double sense one would make hell out of purgatory. It cannot therefore be resolved, unless one says (as I have said) that it does not speak of purgatory at all, as little as the: "This is the book of the birth of Jesus Christ" [Matth. 1, 1].
19. thesis.
This also seems to be unproven, that the souls in purgatory are at least all certain and unconcerned about their blessedness, although we are already quite certain about it.
For we, believing that no soul will enter purgatory unless it is among the number to be saved, are certain of its blessedness, as we are certain of the salvation of the
The elect are certain. Although I do not want to argue too much if one should claim that they are certain, I say that they are not all certain, but because the whole business of the souls in purgatory is very hidden, I explain this thesis more by indicating my opinion than by proving it.
First, from the foregoing: If the punishment of the purgatory is that horror and dread of damnation and hell, but all horror makes the heart dismayed, uncertain, helpless and helpless, and all the more so the more violent and unconscionable it is (but the horror of souls is exceedingly violent and quite unconscionable, as is said above, and Christ says [Luc. 21, 35.]: "Like a snare that day will come,"' and the apostle [2 Petr. 3, 10.; 1 Thess. 5, 2.]: "The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night"): therefore it is very probable that they do not know from dismay in which state they are, whether damned or blessed; yes, it seems to them as if they were already going to damnation and leading to hell [Ps. 28, 1.], and as if they were already in the gates of hell, as Hezekiah says [Isa. 38, 10.]. But also 1 Sam. 2, 6. says: "The Lord leads to hell and out again." Therefore they feel nothing else than that their damnation is imminent, only that they do not yet feel that the gates of hell are closed behind them, and they do not yet cease to ask for help and to long for it, even though it is nowhere in sight. For this is how those speak who have experienced it. Let us take a simile. If someone were to enter the judgment of death without courage, for example, if he were to fall into the hands of murderers who threaten him with death from all sides, although they have decided only to frighten him, not to kill him: they are sure that he will remain alive, but he himself sees nothing but instant death, and for this very reason is already in death. Only this is left to him, that he is not yet dead, and can still be delivered from death; but he does not know whence (for he sees that they can, but will not), so he differs almost in nothing from a dead man: so it seems to be also with the horror of eternal death, because they feel that from all sides nothing else can be done for them.
than the threat of eternal death. Thus the church sings for them: "From the gates of hell snatch their souls and deliver them from the lion's jaws, lest hell devour them." 2c They have only so much knowledge that God could redeem them, but it seems to them as if He does not want to. The damned, on the other hand, immediately add blasphemies to this evil, but those only lamentations and inexpressible sighing, because the spirit helps them up. For here the spirit floats on the water, since it is dark on the deep [Gen. 1, 2]. But this has been dealt with in more detail above.
Secondly: One reads many examples in which one finds that some souls have confessed this uncertainty of their state, for they appeared as going to the judgment before which they were summoned, as is said by St. Vincent etc. Again, one reads many examples in which they confessed their certainty. To this I say: First, I have asserted that not all of them are certain. Secondly, according to the foregoing, it is perhaps better to say that they were not certain, but out of too great a longing for help, as if they were certain, demanded that they should be helped more quickly; so that they wished it more, and fearfully presupposed that they were certain, than that they knew it; as it is also said of the devils in the Gospel, that they knew that he was the Christian [Ma2c. 5, 7]; that is, they strongly suspected it, as the gloss 1) says. For so it happens naturally with every fear and fright that one strongly assumes that things could get better with us again, while there is more a desire to get better than a hope or knowledge; just as in the devils it was more a desire to know than knowledge. For the knowledge of blessedness is not frightened and trembles, but trusts and endures everything most steadfastly.
Here they say:
But how is it then with the special dishes, of which one says and Inno-
1) This refers to the Glossa ordinaria In Vivlia, a short continuous commentary on the entire Holy Scripture, the general manual of exegesis in the following Middle Ages, by Walafried Strabo, Scholasticus at Fulda, since 842 Abbot at Reichenau, died 849.
centius testifies that everyone has to pass it at his death? For man seems to become certain of his fate by the same. I answer: It does not follow that he becomes certain, even if there is a special judgment. It can happen that the deceased man is judged, even accused, and yet the verdict is postponed and not revealed to him. But the wretched soul, under the accusation of the conscience, the assault of the devils and the threatening wrath of God, would do nothing else but tremble before the judgment, which it awaits with horror every moment, as it also does at bodily death and is threatened in the 5th book of Moses, 28, 65 ff. and your life will float before you ... In the morning you will say: Oh, that I would live to see the evening! In the evening thou shalt say, Oh that I might live to see the morning!" So there, too, eternal death will rage with similar terror and torment the soul with dreadful horror. This opinion is not at all contrary to the truth, because the Lord makes a distinction between one who is guilty of judgment, one who is guilty of counsel, and one who is guilty of hell, that is, between the accused, the convicted, and the condemned. But even excellent teachers dare to say, more from knowledge than from hearsay, that some souls, trembling for their lives, have been carried away by God through death and have been so rejected that they do not know until the end of the world whether they are damned or will be saved. And if the story of that monk is true, who was dying and, since he was condemned for the sin of fornication, already blasphemed God, but then recovered, then it is sufficiently clear that the judgment and the accusation of hell can torment the soul without the final verdict having already been pronounced. Here also belongs what St. Gregory tells in a homily about a young man whom a dragon wanted to devour in death.
This therefore, from the whole trade of the punishments of the purgatory, I set up as probable, for this moved first of all by the
The second is that the Scriptures assign this punishment to the damned; the third is that the whole Church says that the punishments of purgatory are the same as those of hell; and so I believe that this opinion of ours is well founded in the Scriptures. But the expounders of indulgences seem to imagine the punishments of souls as if they were inflicted from without and were entirely external, but did not arise from within the conscience; as if God only took away the punishments from them, while the opposite is more correct, that He rather takes away the souls from the punishments, as it is written [Ps. 81, 7.]: "He relieved their shoulder from the burden"; He does not say: He relieved the burden from their shoulder. And again [Isa. 43:2.], "If thou pass through the fire, the flame shall not hurt thee." In what way can it not harm? Only in such a way that it gives confidence and trust to the heart, so that it is not afraid of the fire; but not that there is no fire when he has to go through it. Therefore, the discharge of the back from' the burden only happens in such a way that the fear of the soul is healed and it is comforted, as it is also said above that no punishment is overcome by the fear of it, but by love and contempt. But the indulgence does not abolish the fear, yes, it causes it, as much as there is in it, by putting the punishments to be abated as a hateful thing, as it were. God, however, intended to have children who would be fearless, secure and excellent for all eternity and in a perfect way, who should absolutely fear nothing, but by trusting in His grace overcome and despise everything, even considering punishment and death as a game. He hates the other cowards, who are disturbed by the fear of all things, even by the rustling of a flying leaf.
Again, one objects:
If souls gladly bear their punishments, why do we pray for them? I answer: If they did not gladly bear them, they would certainly be damned; but should they not therefore desire prayers for themselves? since the apostle also desired [Col. 4:3] to be prayed for, that he might be saved from the unbelievers.
We are not afraid to pray for the souls, even if they do not wish to be prayed for, but it would be our duty to pity them and help them with prayer, just as we help everyone else, even if they do not wish to be prayed for. Even if the souls did not wish for prayers, it would still be our duty to have pity on their distress and to come to their aid with prayer, as well as to anyone else, no matter how steadfastly he bore his suffering. Then, since the souls are not so much tormented by the present punishment as by the horror of the impending and threatening destruction, it is not to be wondered at if they desire intercession, that they may persevere and not slacken in their trust, since they are (as said) uncertain about their condition and fear not so much the punishments of hell as the hatred of God which is in hell, as it is said [Ps. 6, 6.], "In death thou art not remembered: who will thank thee in hell?" And so it is clear that they suffer not for fear of punishment, but for love of righteousness, as said above. For they fear more that they should not praise and love God more (which would happen in hell) than that they should suffer. And to this so holy, but also very fearful desire, the whole Church rightly comes to their aid as much as it is able, especially since God also wants them to
would be helped by the church.
And here we will finally conclude this so dark and doubtful discussion about the punishments of souls. If someone can come up with something better than this, I do not envy him; only let him do it based on better passages of the Holy Scriptures, not clouded by the smoke of human opinions.
20. thesis.
Therefore, by these words "perfect forgiveness of all chastisements," the pope does not mean that all chastisements are forgiven in general, but means only the chastisements that he himself has inflicted.
I dispute about this thesis, but I do not assert it stubbornly yet. My reasons are these:
The first is taken from what was said in the 5th thesis: that through the key-
168 a. ii, 196-198. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 384-387. 169
Therefore, this thesis is a consequence of that one, and with the denial of that one, this one is also denied.
The second reason is taken from the language of the pope himself, since he says: "From the imposed penances we graciously exempt"; consequently, he does not exempt those that are not imposed by him or by the canons. Nor, I believe, should we be much concerned here with the arbitrary fiction of some who say that if the pope does not add this clause concerning the penances imposed, it is simply to be understood as the remission of all penalties. I could say: And if it is not added, it is added as a necessary clause that belongs to the essence of the wording, or let them prove what they say by some text.
The third reason: I now come to a very common, but the strongest reason for proof and ask: With which teachers do you want to prove that through the keys also other than the canonical punishments are taken away? Then they show me Antoninus, Petrus de Palude, Augustinus of Ancona and Capreolus. Then, too, the summist Angelus cites his Franciscus of Mayron, who exalts the release of indulgences so highly that he does not hesitate to call it even meritorious, if it pleased Christ: just as if these men were of the kind and so great that what occurs to them should immediately be counted among the articles of faith. But those are more to be blamed who, to our shame and unjustly to those, put forward as assertions what those in their pious striving only suppose, disregarding altogether the apostle's faithful admonition, "Test all things, keep the best" [1 Thess. 5:21]; much more foolish than the Pythagoreans: for these asserted only what Pythagoras had said; but these also what those doubted. But we want to go back to the origin and source of these little streams, namely to St. Thomas and Bonaventure; for from these they have partly taken theirs, partly added from theirs. So these are holy men and quite important in reputation! But since
they also assume more than they assert, for St. Bonaventure also confesses that it is a thoroughly doubtful and quite uncertain matter: is it not clear then that nothing can be proven from them either? See for yourself if they cite any text or scripture? Nor is it any wonder that they assert nothing. For since this matter would be an article of faith if it were decided, it is not for the teachers to decide anything in it, but his article of faith must even be left undecided until it is decided by the judgment of a general council alone, and not even the pope has the right to presumptuously determine anything certain in matters concerning the faith, but only the preachers of indulgences. They are allowed to do whatever they want. But they all have one reason for their opinion, which Panormitanus also gives in the chapter Quod autem, in the 5th book de poenit. et remiss, namely this: To say that the indulgence only remits the canonical punishments would be to degrade the indulgence too much. So, in order that indulgences should not be held in low esteem, one would rather invent what one does not know, whereas there would be no danger to souls if indulgences were nothing, let alone little, whereas it is the greatest misery to preach inventions and illusions to souls, even if indulgences were very useful. So much consideration is not given to the salvation of souls; but only so that it may not appear that we have not taught the best, we labor more for the honor of our word, though it is an unnecessary one, than for the faith of the simple people entrusted to us, which alone is necessary.
But before answering St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, it seems to me worth the trouble to enumerate the various opinions about indulgences, lest it appear that I am the first or only one who has doubted them.
The gloss on the chapter Quod autem, book 5. de poenit. et remiss. which gives an explanation of the efficacy and power of indulgences, begins thus: "What value such indulgences have is an old complaint and still quite doubtful."
Some say that it is useful in relation to God, but not in relation to the Church; because if a man dies without mortal sin, when penance has not yet been done, he feels the penalties of purgatory less according to the measure of the indulgence he has received; but the Church does not remit satisfaction to a living man for this reason. This opinion is condemned by Panormitanus there, and I consider his condemnation right.
Others say that it is useful with regard to penance, inasmuch as it is imposed here too much and out of prudence, that is, only with regard to punishments, which he [the pope] has not imposed according to measure, but out of prudence more than the sin deserved. This opinion is to be condemned even more than the former.
Others say that it is useful in relation to God and the church, but the one who slackens complains with the satisfaction for him. This too is inconsistent.
Others say that it is used for the remission of the penance that was omitted due to negligence. Panormitanus, condemning this opinion, says that it rewards negligence. But in my judgment this opinion is not entirely false, for in truth all penances are remitted, even those omitted through negligence, if one is only displeased with the negligence; indeed, penances not omitted through negligence and those yet to be paid are also remitted.
Others say that it works in relation to the remission of the penance imposed, if only the priest who imposed the penance permits the substitution of the penance with the indulgence. This opinion is good and, as far as the matter is concerned, true; only that it limits the power of the one who grants the indulgence. For it is true that the indulgence remits the penances imposed, but it does not require the consent of him who imposed them.
The sixth opinion which Panormitanus adduces, besides the five set forth in the aforesaid gloss, is that it is useful, as the words read, both in relation to God and in relation to the penance here imposed, an opinion which, he says, is also held by Gottfried, Hostiensis, and John Andrew.
I also share it, as it lies and reads in the words. But I do not follow everyone's understanding, especially because of the word "in relation to God". If by this they understand that punishments imposed by God are also remitted, whether here or in Purgatory, besides those imposed by the Church or the Canons, I do not consider them to be true, except with the restriction that the punishments of Purgatory, without the power of the keys, are remitted by mere repentance. Therefore, if someone is completely contrite, I believe that he is absolved from purgatory with respect to God, but with respect to the punishments of this time I say that this has no validity, as has been said above in the 5th thesis. For one cannot even name the punishment that is to be believed to be absolved in relation to God. Therefore, I would say that this "in relation to God" is not to be understood of penalties imposed by God, but of those imposed by the Church, so that the opinion is: this remission of penances imposed by the Church is valid before God as well as before the Church, therefore that God confirms this remission to His Church according to the saying: "All that thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." He does not say: Everything that you will solve on earth, other things shall be solved in heaven; but: The very things that you solve, I will also consider solved. For with this, God wants to subject people to the priest, which would not happen if we did not know that God approves of what is done by the priest.
So you can see that everything is still based on opinions. But then, as for what Angelus states in his Francis Mayron, that indulgences also work for the increase of grace and glory, he does not take into account that indulgences are not the performance of good works, but the remission of good works for the sake of another lesser work. For though a good work for the sake of which indulgence is given is meritorious, yet indulgence is not meritorious, since a work done by itself would be no less meritorious, perhaps more. The indulgence, however, taken by itself, is much more deserving of the forgiveness.
172 D. v. L. ii, 20Ü-202. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 390-393. 173
The reason for this is that it is a remittal of good works. Therefore, since in any questionable matter anyone is allowed to dispute and contradict, I also say that in this matter I differ from St. Thomas and Bonaventure until they prove theirs better and resolve ours. For, apart from opinions, I see nothing that they prove, not even a canon; while I have cited so many scriptural sayings for my part in the 5th thesis above. And now, that I also do not speak without canons, see here.
The fourth reason is: In the chapter Cum ex eo, 33 Book 5, de poenit. et remiss. it is said: "By indulgences, penitential satisfaction is deprived of its power." Even if the pope said this word more out of pain than out of favor, the teachers of canon law take it as it reads. Consequently, if penitential satisfaction is deprived of its force, it is clear that only canonical punishment is remitted, since penitential satisfaction is nothing other than the third part of ecclesiastical or sacramental penance. For as far as the evangelical atonement is concerned, it is none of the church's business, as shown above.
If anyone should object to me that the pope does not deny that other punishments also lose their force, but only asserts and does not speak in such a way that he excludes when he says: The satisfaction in penance loses its force, then I answer: So prove that he also remits others and does not speak in an exclusionary way. If you do not do this, then I prove with the chapter Cum ex eo that he speaks in an exclusionary way. For in it he says that the alms-givers are not allowed to present anything to the people other than what is contained in their letters. But in no apostolic epistle is anything else contained than the remission of sacramental pardon, as the pope himself says: "The pardon in penance loses its power by indulgence, if it is dispensed without distinction and superfluously." Yes, with this word the pope restricts indulgences even more strictly; for if mere superfluous indulgences deprive sacramental pardon of its power, then the modest and just indulgence loses its power.
The same is true of the indulgence, which does not even have the force of penitential satisfaction, much less of any other punishment. But this is not my business nor my office, let the teachers of canon law see to it.
21. thesis.
Therefore, the preachers of indulgences are mistaken who say that through the pope's indulgence man is freed from all torment and becomes blessed.
I certainly assert and prove this thesis.
For there remains at least the third, that is, the evangelical punishment, yes, also the fifth, namely, death and sickness, and for many the very greatest punishment, namely, horror of death, anguish of conscience, weakness of faith, and pusillanimity of spirit: punishments which, compared with those remitted by indulgence, are like reality against the shadow. But it is also not the will of the pope that they should speak their fables so sacrilegiously and with impunity, as is evident from the chapter Cum ex eo.
But if they should say: We also do not say that these punishments are taken away by the indulgence; then I answer: Why then do you not instruct the people so that they know which punishments you remit, but shout that all punishments are remitted, which one is only obliged to atone for his sins before God and the church? How can the people know from themselves what you speak so darkly and liberally?
22. thesis.
Yes, the pope does not inflict any chastisement on the souls in purgatory, which they should have atoned for and paid for in this life, according to the Canonum.
This I assert no further than the eighth, from which it flows as a corollary, because the canons concerning penance do not extend over into the other life. For every temporal punishment is transformed into the punishment of death; nay, it is annulled for the sake of the punishment of death, and must be annulled. Yes, imagine (to speak more broadly of this) the Roman
If the canonical punishments were as they were at the time of St. Gregory, when they were not yet above other churches, at least not above those of Greece, then it would be quite obvious that the canonical punishments did not obligate the Greeks, just as they do not now obligate those who, as Christians, are not subject to the pope, as in Turkey, Tartary and Livonia. Therefore, they do not need an indulgence from these [punishments set in the Canons], but only those who belong to the sphere of the Roman Church. So if they do not oblige these living, how much less the dead, who are under no church!
23. thesis.
Yes, if any forgiveness of all chastisement can be given to anyone, it is certain that it will be given only to the most perfect, that is, to the very few.
This thesis I understand from the punishments of all kinds and so I assert it. For there is no doubt that the remission of penance can be given to anyone, as has been well said. Yes, I intensify this thesis and say: the remission of all punishments can by no means be given to anyone, be he the most perfect or imperfect. This I prove: for even if God does not give the most perfect the chastisement, or the fourth kind of punishment, at least to all and always, there still remains the third, namely the evangelical one; yes, also the fourth, namely death and the punishments that lead to and belong to death. For even if God could make all perfect in grace, perhaps without punishment, He has not decided to do so, but He wants to conform all to the image of His Son, that is, to the cross [Rom. 8:29]. But what need is there of many words? However gloriously one may exalt the remission of punishments. Dear, what can this do for him who has death and the horror of death and judgment before his eyes? If every other remission were preached to him, and yet it were not granted that these should be remitted, I do not know whether he would receive the slightest comfort. Therefore
Only notice the horror of death and hell, and you will not care for any remission of punishment, whether you like it or not. And so the indulgence becomes worthless not by our effort, but by the necessity of the thing, because it does not take away the fear of death.
24. thesis.
Therefore the greater part of the people must be deceived by the splendid promise without any distinction, imagined to the common man by paid chastisement.
I also maintain this thesis and know that it is true. For I myself have heard many say that they had no other understanding than that they lead to heaven through indulgences without any punishment. No wonder, when they write, read and shout in such a way that one immediately goes to heaven when he has obtained indulgence and dies before he falls into sin again. All this they speak as if there were only real sins, as if the tinder left behind were no uncleanness, no hindrance, no means to stop his entrance into the kingdom of heaven; whereas if he is not healthy himself, it is impossible to enter heaven, even if there were no iniquity; for nothing unclean will enter there [Revelation 21:27]. Therefore the horror of death, because it is a defect of tinder and sin, in itself prevents entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For he who does not like to die obeys the call of God only reluctantly, and in so far he does not do the will of God, as he does not like to die. But so great is the sin he commits, so great is his disobedience to the will of God. Therefore, such a one who, after all indulgences, does not still sin in death, is very rare; except for those who desire to be dissolved, and desire death. Therefore, in order not to disagree with them completely, I say: if someone has perfect repentance, that is, hates himself and his life and loves death most, he will immediately go to heaven after the punishments have been remitted to him; but how many this will be, just see.
2S. Thesis.
The same power as the pope has over purgatory, absolutely and in general; so also have every bishop and pastor, in his diocese and parish, in particular, or among his own.
This is the blasphemy for which I am considered a thousand times worthy of death, namely according to the judgment of the indulgence preachers, not to say money cutters. But before I proceed to the proof of this thesis, I want to say a few words about my intention.
First of all, I say again that I am disputing here, not with regard to the opinion I intend by these words (for this I maintain steadfastly because the whole church holds it), but with regard to the words themselves. Then I also ask my opponents to have patience with my pain, by which I am tormented, since I hear that what is never written and established is preached in the church of Christ. For we read that formerly it seemed very dangerous to the fathers to teach anything beyond the heavenly prescription, as Hilarius says. And St. Spiridion, bishop of Cyprus, held so strictly to this rule, that he interrupted the speech of him who had used but one ambiguous Greek word, "Lift up thy bed of sleep, and go home," which he had said, instead of, "Lift up thy bed of rest, or bed, and go home" [Matt. 9:6.]; rebuking him in a matter which yet had not changed the sense. And I believe that they owe me, with the greatest right, the indulgence of my pain, since, without ever being asked or reminded of it, we are forced to endure their presumption, according to which it gives them pleasure to preach what torments us when we hear it.
I do not say or act this because I would be so impudently presumptuous as to believe that I should be counted among the scholars of the church, much less among those to whom it belongs to decide or reject this. Oh, that I would be worthy to become the last member of the church! but that is the only thing I have to deal with: Since there are men in the church who are both very learned and very holy, the wickedness of our time is so great.
that even such great men cannot come to the aid of the Church. For what scholarship and godly zeal can do today has been sufficiently demonstrated by the unhappy end 1) of these most learned and holy men, who under Julius II strove to reform the Church through a concilium called together for this emergency. There are others here and there, of whom I know, very good and learned bishops; but the example of a few silences very many. "It is a very evil time" (as the prophet Amos [5, 13.] says), "therefore the wise man must be silent at the same time." Finally, we have just now a very good pope, Leo X, whose sincerity and erudition are a joy to all the righteous who hear of it. But what can this one so amiable man do in so great a confusion of things? He would truly be worthy to have become pope in a better time, or to have had better times for his papal government. In our time we are worthy to have such people as Julius II and Alexander VI as popes, or some other cruel people like Mezentius, as the poets have invented them. For today even Rome itself, yes, Rome of all laughs at the good ones the most; for in which part of the Christian world does one play one's game against the popes more ruthlessly than in this true Babel, in Rome? But enough of that. Since the church, in addition to innumerable private persons, also has the most learned people on its chairs, I, too, should have preferred to remain silent if I had wanted to be considered wise according to their example. But it is better that the truth should be told even by fools, by children, by drunkards, than that it should be entirely concealed, so that the confidence of the learned and wise may be more lively when they hear that at last we, the ignorant rabble, are crying out because of the too great mischief, as Christ says [Luc. 19:40.], "Where these shall hold their peace, the stones shall cry out."
Having said this, I come to the thesis, and will treat the same, first according to their opinion, and secondly according to the words or opinion of others.
1) Here Savonarola will be meant mainly.
So I do not speak in this thesis of the judicial power, which I deny below in the soon following thesis and have already denied above in the 22nd and 8th thesis. For they have taken this violence from these words; a violence of which I say, as I have said: the church only establishes the first part of this question, and I will very gladly follow. In the meantime, the sacrilegious claimants of their dreams may desist. I doubt and dispute whether they have a judicial power over purgatory. And as far as I read and see so far, I hold the negative opinion and am ready to hold the affirmative one after the church has so decided.
But here I speak of the power of property, not of right; of the power to act, not to command; so that the meaning is: The pope has no power over purgatory, as also no other bishop; but if he has one, then he certainly has such a power, in which also those who are under him take part. But this is the one according to which the pope and every individual Christian can intercede, pray, fast 2c for the departed souls, the pope in general, a bishop in particular, a Christian for his own person. Therefore, it is evident that the thesis is quite true. For just as the pope prays for souls together with the whole church (as is done on All Souls' Day), so can any bishop do the same with his diocese (as is done on the so-called common days), and a pastor in his parish (as is done at funeral services and on anniversaries), and any Christian in his devotions. Either, then, one denies that intercession is a help [intercessionem] for souls, or one admits that any ecclesiastical dignitary can intercede with his subjects for souls. I therefore do not consider this as doubtful as those brazen speeches about the jurisdiction of the Church over Purgatory.
26. thesis.
The pope does very well that he does not give forgiveness to the souls by force of the key (which he does not have), but by help, or intercession.
I do not consider it necessary to explain again what I am disputing or what I am claiming; but since in our time the heretics are so enraged that they try to make even the most Christian orthodox heretics by force, it will be advisable to give an explanation of every single syllable. For I cannot easily see what John Pico of Mirandola, Laurentius Valla, Peter of Ravenna, John Vesalia, and lately John Reuchlin and Jacob of Staples have done otherwise, that in their good opinion they have been forced against their will to have an evil opinion, except that perhaps (as I said) they have omitted to attach an explanation to the individual syllables: so great is the tyranny of children and wimps in the church today. Therefore, I declare anew that I will do two things in this thesis, namely: first, dispute about the key power over purgatory and prove the negative opinion, until another better proves the affirmative one; and second, make inquiries about that way of intercession.
I prove the first one like this:
First, with that well-known reason of proof of Hostiensis, namely: if the keys extended to Purgatory, they could make Purgatory empty, and the pope would be cruel if he did not make Purgatory empty.
They resolve this proof thus: The pope can, but must not make it empty unless there is a just and reasonable cause, lest he act sacrilegiously against divine justice. This cold and sleepy excuse they would hardly make, I think, if they did not either not even pay attention to what they are talking about, or thought they were talking among sea calves snoring in the deepest sleep. Thus it happens that from one silly sentence several follow immediately; and, as the saying goes: A lie needs seven lies to appear as true.
Therefore, this reason for proof could hardly have been more strongly corroborated than by such an objection. For, we ask, what has this reasonable cause for a na-.
Who? But it is known that indulgences are given for the war against the unbelievers, or for the building of a church, or otherwise because of a general need of this life. But none of these causes is so great that love is not greater, more just, and more reasonable. If, therefore, divine justice is not offended when, for the sake of the bodies or goods of the faithful, or for the sake of inanimate buildings, or for the sake of some short use of this transitory life, as many indulgences are given as one wills (even if you include all in this number, so that purgatory would also be emptied in this way), how much more can it not be offended if, for the sake of holy love, all were redeemed! Divine justice would have to be inequitable or even melancholy to be more favorable to the love shown to the body and money of the living than to the love shown to so needy souls; especially since it is such a great thing to help souls that the faithful, for their sake, would rather serve the Turks and allow themselves to be physically killed than that the souls should not be redeemed. Now, if the pope redeems countless souls for the sake of the lesser, and thereby perhaps all souls, why not also for the sake of the greater, that is, for the sake of love? Here, however, because they are so cornered, I would like to advise them to say that there can be no reasonable cause, so that they can safely escape this objection. And so the pope could do it, as far as he is concerned, but he cannot do it, as far as the cause is concerned, because there cannot be one.
Secondly: The manner of speaking of the pope himself proves the same; for therein is spoken of imposed penances. But it is evident that he gives only as much as he expresses, and in the manner in which he expresses it; so that as a bishop remits forty, a cardinal a hundred days of the penances imposed, so the pope completely remits all the days of these imposed penances; but no key has imposed penalties of purgatory. But here a very fond dreamer fo: when the pope says: "We give indulgence from all sins with regard to the penances imposed", the penances imposed by the priest is
But if he says, "We give indulgence from all sins repented of and confessed," the forgotten or unconscious ones are not remitted; but if he says, "We give indulgence from all sins," the soul flies to heaven when he dies: and so it is in the hand of the pope to make blessed whom he will. O frenzy! Behold this great speaker, how he asserts so surely, as if he were making a divine pronouncement! If I say to him, I pray thee, how shall I prove it, when I am called to give an account of this faith? Perhaps he will invent other new lies to corroborate these former great lies with still greater ones. O unhappy Christians, who are forced to listen to everything that even the silliest people like to talk about! as if we did not have the Scriptures themselves, which according to Christ's commandment we should teach the people in order to give them their measure of wheat, but not a mixture of burdocks and thistles. Among other frightful things which this lovely writer invents here is also this, that he dares to persuade us that it is in the hand of the pope to remit or not to remit the unconscious or forgotten sins; as if the whole church did not know that after every solution of the pope nevertheless every believer must say [Ps. 19, 13.]: "Who can realize how often he falls short? forgive me the hidden shortcomings"; and that we must also fear with Job [9, 28.] for our good works, lest they be found out with God as terrible sins. But the Key of the Church does not know whether good works are evil before God or not, nor does he judge them, much less remit them. Secondly, his dream arises from the troublesome and useless art of confession, even of plunging souls into despair and ruin, by which we have been taught until now to count the sands, that is, to investigate, collect and weigh the individual sins in order to bring about repentance. When we do this, it happens that by considering the past we stir up the old lusts or hatreds again, and while we repent of the past we sin anew. Or
At least, if the best repentance arises, it is only a violent, sad, and merely made-up one, which is only feigned out of fear of the punishments. For in this way, we are taught, sins would be repented of, that is, we would be urged to do something impossible or even worse; since true repentance must begin with the goodness and benefits of God, especially with the wounds of Christ, so that man first comes to the realization of his ingratitude in view of the goodness of God, and from this to the hatred of himself and the love of the goodness of God: Then the tears will flow and he will hate himself from the heart, but without despair; then he will also hate sin, not for the sake of punishment, but by looking at the goodness of God. When he looks at that, he is saved from despair and is brought to hate himself ardently, yet with joy. If there is true repentance for one sin, it will be for all of them at the same time. Thus it is said in Rom. 2:4: "Knowest thou not that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" O how many do not know this, St. Paul, even the teachers of others! Thus we read 4 Mos. [21, 9.] that the children of Israel were not delivered from the fiery serpents by the sight of them and the terror of them, but rather that they turned their eyes away from them and directed them to the brazen serpent, that is, Christ. In the same way [Ex. 14, 10. 22.], when they saw the Egyptians, they were terrified; but when they turned their backs on them and went through the sea, they were saved. So also our sins are to be considered more in the wounded Christ than in our conscience. For there they are dead, here they are alive. Otherwise, if one had to keep their torture chamber, it would happen that if someone were suddenly surprised by death, he could not be saved, because he would not have time to collect all his sins. But they do have something they say here.
Therefore, in the words of that inventor, in every papal decree, especially those that are made publicly and before the Church (as is the case with indulgences), this clause "must be accepted by the people who are on
The sins, whether forgotten or unconscious, must be understood in the context of the "penances" imposed. Because these do not belong before the court of the church.
But this sea of speeches (as it seems to me) arose from a certain carelessness with which one regarded the origin of indulgences. For at the time when the penitential canons were still in force, it was a great thing to give four days; later they began to give a hundred, then a thousand days, finally many thousands of days and years, yes, hundreds and thousands of years. For in this way, with the indulgence, the generosity gradually became greater and greater. Then one began to remit the seventh part of all sins, then the third part, in more recent times half, and so one came to the complete remission of all sins; as can still be seen from the stations of the city of Rome 1). Now if in the first stages the imposed penance is understood, the same must certainly be understood in the case of the perfect remission.
Thirdly, again, the manner of speaking of the pope, when he says: "intercessionally." For the way of intercession must be different from the way of power. If, then, we are to believe the pope (as we must) more than those and ourselves, it is clear that it is intercession, not power, that can do something about purgatory. It is safer for me to keep it with the pope than with those. The pope, however, does not arrogate to himself the power, but ascribes to himself the intercession. And I am very surprised at the audacity with which they presume to preach more of the indulgence than is contained in the letter of the pope, contrary to the express prohibition of the chapter Cum ex eo, since only the manner of intercession is contained therein. But if they understand it in this way, then the pope has
1) The seven main churches of Rome were called the stations, because during pilgrimages and processions people stopped there to pray for a while. Through this stop at each of these churches, one obtained an indulgence (station indulgence, iuciulMutius swtiouurius). The station indulgence was finally granted by the popes without the need to come to Rome, because the pope dispensed with the pilgrimage to Rome and changed the prayer to be performed at the station into a simple prayer that could be prayed in his parish church or at home.
184 D. v. L. ii, 211-213. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 407-410. 185
Although he does not have the power of jurisdiction over purgatory, he does have the power of the keys to turn intercessions to it. Here I also say that no one denies this; the power to direct intercessions, to grant pardons, to offer sacrifices of praise to God is definitely in the hands of the pope. But whether this power belongs to the pope alone in such a way that the other bishops do not also possess it, as stated in the previous thesis, or what I do not yet understand in this kind of granting, I will say in the second part of this thesis. However, let us continue with the first part.
Fourthly, and most powerfully, Christ speaks not in ambiguous, but in clear, manifest, round words [Matt. 16:19.], "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He did not add "on earth" for nothing. Otherwise, if he had not wished to limit the power of the keys, it would have been sufficient if he had said, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed." Either, then, Christ must have used superfluous words like a babbler, or else the power of the keys applies only on earth. But, dear God, how the superstition of some is at hand, who in these words want to ascribe a power to the Pope without his knowledge and will, where he himself only ascribes an intercession! And when they noticed that these words of Christ strongly opposed them and refuted their error, they did not cease to protect their error and set up their opinion according to the unadulterated words of Christ; but on the contrary, they adapt his words to their corrupt sense and pervert them by saying: This "on earth" can be referred in two ways: in one way to him who solves; in the other way to that which is solved; and in the first way Christ must be understood, namely, thus: All that Peter solved while he was on earth shall also be solved in heaven. Probably they wanted that if he would also solve the devil (provided that he was on earth as the solver), then he should also be solved in heaven.
be solved. For he who says "all that" and adds nothing to restrict it, surely indicates that everything can be solved. I do not know with what words I should counter this crude and senseless superstition, yes, this Vermeffenheit. The one who has raised this would be worthy of having a man like Jerome vent his displeasure and eloquence on him, so that such an impudent violence and falsification of the holy words of Christ would be duly punished. And, to pass over grammar altogether, which alone could have instructed them that this opinion of theirs could not stand by these words (but they follow more a new dialectic than the right grammar): they seem to have gone so far in their cleverness as to think that Christ might have feared that one day such a Peter or pope would arise who, even if he were dead, would still want to bind and loose, and therefore he would have been moved into the necessity of forestalling such an outlandish ambition and tyranny of deceased popes and preventing them from wanting to bind or loose when they were no longer alive and on earth. And perhaps (that we also mock such worthy interpreters of the Scriptures) Christ also feared, not without cause, that it might happen one day that a dead pope would bind something that his living successor would loose. Then a great confusion could arise in heaven and Christ would not know from fear whose office of these two he should confirm, since he would have presumptuously entrusted both with the same office, without adding: "on earth", so that the dead one would be kept in check. For if this is not their prudence, what do they heat up, what do they labor to prove that the "on earth" refers to the solver? Behold! o indeed a golden work of a golden teacher, and worthy of golden letters altogether, and, lest anything be not golden, it must be taught to golden disciples, namely, to such of whom it is said [Ps. 135:15 f.], "The idols of the heathen are silver and gold; they have eyes, and see not. "2c Straightway they walk contrary to Christ. For Christ therefore added "on earth".
so that the pope, who can only be on earth, does not take the liberty of binding or loosening that which is not on earth; as if he had wanted to forestall, as it were with diligence, the despicable flatterers of our time and put a stop to them, since they begin to hand over the kingdom of the dead to the pope against his will, yes, despite his resistance. Such would have been called theologians by St. Jerome in his zeal, that is, people out of whom God speaks, namely such a [God] of whom Virgil tells that he gives the soothsayers a great frenzy. But still we want to act against them.
First of all, if in this sense the keys loosen the deceased, then they also bind, for to both words is added "on earth," since it says: "All that you will bind on earth." Consequently, here too we must distinguish with the same diligence and acuteness as in the case of loosing, and refer to "on earth" in two ways: first, that it belongs to him who binds, and secondly, to that which is bound; so that they must make us conclude that the pope can bind under the earth in purgatory, only we must see to it (with the help of physicians, of course) that he does this during his lifetime and while he is still on earth; for as a deceased he could not bind. Since this first part of the words of Christ does not tolerate such a distortion and violent mockery, as they themselves claim, as much as they lack judgment, with what forehead do they then dare to do such violence to the other part, since this is written in all parts according to the same pattern [schemate]? Unless, perhaps, they should be allowed, according to their habit, to speak unambiguously and ambiguously, to conclude ambiguously and fraudulently, as and where they please. So they may say that "on earth" in the first part refers to what is to be bound, but in the second part to what is to be loosed, since according to their praiseworthy habit they have done even greater wondrous things against the holy scriptures.
Therefore, since all deny that the keys can bind in purgatory, it is necessary to deny that they can loosen, since these keys can be used to bind.
Both powers are equal and given by Christ to his church in the same way. This opinion is held by some, who are not the worst jurists; but whether they are more understanding than the others, let them see.
Secondly: This opinion is also refuted by the contrast itself. For just as "in heaven" refers to that which is to be loosed in heaven, so "on earth" must refer to that which is to be loosed on earth; and again, if "in heaven" refers to that which is bound, so "on earth" must also refer to that which is bound. Therefore Christ did not say, as it were, with diligence, "I will loose it in heaven," but "it shall be loosed in heaven"; so that if any one by the first word, viz: "All that thou shalt loose on earth" should seek to bring out an unfounded false understanding, he would hereafter be silenced, and not permitted to refer these words to that which is to be loosed; for what is loosed in heaven must certainly be understood to be loosed on earth, not by the person loosing it; and so also what is bound in heaven must be understood, not by the person binding it, but by that which is bound on earth, or at least by both.
Thirdly, if the key extends to purgatory, why do they struggle in vain and not take away the word intercession? Why do they not persuade the priest to say that he loosens and binds by virtue of his power and authority rather than by intercession? For all that he will loosen (only he must be careful that he is not dead) shall be loosed. Why then does he hold the word intercession against us, by which no man understands a power, but all understand by it a mediation? Yes, we should do even more and ask the pope to remove purgatory completely from the world. For if the keys of the church extend so far, even only with regard to loosening, then the whole of purgatory is in his hands. I prove it thus: He gives a perfect release to all who are in it, secondly, he gives the same release to all dying Christians, and it will be certain that no one will remain in it, no one will enter it.
188 L. v. a. ii, 215-2i7. 11, Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 413-iie. 189
but all will go out and purgatory will cease. But he may do this, and there is the most just cause, namely love, which is to be sought through everything, over everything, in everything. Nor need we fear that divine justice will take offense at love, to which it rather urges us itself. When this is done, let us do away with the whole service for the deceased, which nowadays is only very tiresome and neglected, and turn it into festive services.
Fourth and last: If the punishment of the sweeping fire is a chastening and punishing one, as shown above in the 5th thesis, then it is certain that it cannot be solved by the power of the keys; but that it is no other, I believe, is sufficiently clear from the sufficient classification of the punishments.
Therefore, the first part of this thesis is clear and thus the whole thesis is confirmed as sufficiently probable, that not jurisdiction but intercession enters Purgatory.
The second, namely the manner of intercession, was not established by me, so that it should be investigated, nor is it necessary for my theses to know what and how it is: but, in order to avoid the appearance of wanting to hide in a corner, I want to declare myself voluntarily about it, although I could have justifiably passed it over; but always with the reservation of my protestation that it is not my business, but that of the pope, yes, perhaps of an ecclesiastical council, to determine what manner this is. It is only my business to investigate and dispute, and to indicate by reasons given what I understand or do not yet understand.
Thus intercession is offered to the souls in a twofold way: First, through the deed itself and through the present death ministry, as it takes place when the priest prays with the people, fasts, sacrifices and does other named works for named souls. About this intercession there is no doubt that it has a great benefit and redeems the souls according to what God thinks good and they deserve, as St. Augustine says. I have spoken of this above in the previous
The thesis that a bishop in particular has such a power as the pope has in general, that is, not to have jurisdiction, but to intercede in relation to purgatory. It is not about this way here, as is known.
Secondly, it is bestowed without a service or work, but it is pronounced by mere judicial pronouncement in writing or orally; and this also from two treasures.
The first is the treasure of the triumphant church, that is, the merit of Christ and his saints, who have earned more than they owed; and this, they say, is left to the church to be rewarded and balanced here.
The second is the treasure of the contending Church, as there are the merits, the good works of the living Christians, which the pope should have in his hand in order to dispose of them, be it for the satisfaction of the penitent, be it for the intercession for the deceased, or also for the praise and glorification of God. Thus, I have also taught and written in the past that the pope has in his power the merits of the contending church in three ways: first, to offer them up to God for the satisfaction of others; second, for the intercession of souls; third, for the glorification of God. And of this spiritual power, if it is true, I firmly believe that the bishops also have it in their dioceses; or if I am mistaken, set me right whoever can. How else could those brotherhoods exist without error, in which higher and lower prelates communicate their works and labors to one another? Likewise also the monasteries and orders, the hospitals and parishes. For this can only be understood as true if in such a way the work of one is sufficient for the other, intercedes and glorifies God.
That's why I say:
Although I do not see how these merits of the contending church are in the hands of the pope, in the meantime I will respectfully believe this until his own Gordius unties this knot. But the reasons why I do not understand it are these:
First, if he sacrifices the works of the living for the living, I do not see how it can be a remission by grace and not rather a real and proper satisfaction and payment to the last penny. For even if he to whom the indulgence is granted does not work, others work for him and do enough. For then that will happen which everyone persistently denies, namely that the bestower of indulgences burdens himself with the pardon; for in reality the pope would then not indulge, but do enough, namely through his subordinates.
Secondly, the keys of the church would not do anything other than what is already done in the church, even without the keys. For according to the law of love, each one is obliged to pray for each one; and the apostle says [Gal. 6:2], "Bear one another's burdens, and you will fulfill the law of Christ."
Thirdly, the name indulgence contradicts this opinion; for it must necessarily denote a remission, that is, a forbearance, that one need not do what one is supposed to do, but not impose it on another, or declare it to be imposed; so that the indulgence extinguishes the debt altogether, but does not pay it through another. Therefore, it seems to me that the mere power of the keys without this treasure is sufficient for the indulgence; especially since only the canonical, but not the evangelical pardon is remitted; or one would have to say here again what is said above about the remission of the debt, namely, that he [the pope] also thus remits the penalties through this treasure, that is, he declares that it happens what already happens anyway, namely, that the church is sufficient for him to whom the penalty is remitted. In this way, St. Augustine says that no one is awakened except those whom the unity of the Church awakens, as he says is exemplified in the widow. But there still remains the first and second reason, that it is then rather a satisfaction than a bequest, it is declared or given.
Fourth, this treasure of the contending church works more the grace of the Spirit than remission of the penalties, and seems even to be treated disdainfully when it is used to remission of the
The remittance of punishments is the least of the gifts in the Church, which can also be given to the wicked and by the mere force of the keys, as is evident.
I say to the other:
I do not see how or what happens when the pope applies this treasure to intercede for the deceased. The causes are these:
First: He again does not seem to do more than what already happens in reality. For the entire church already prays and prays for the deceased; unless one assumes here again that he does this in an explanatory manner. Nor do I see how what is said about the Mass, that it is more useful when it is celebrated for one person by the priest than when it is celebrated for all without any attention, stands in the way of this. I confess that I believe this to be true. But the pope, as the supreme and universal priest of all, can certainly administer only in general; indeed, he must do so, even without a letter of indulgence.
Secondly: Since only canonical punishments are remitted by indulgences, I cannot see what should be remitted to the souls, since the canons do not bind them. Finally, in death they are absolved from them, since at the hour of death every priest is a pope. Likewise, no soul suffers in purgatory for crimes and mortal sins, but only for venial sins, as the chapter Qualis in the 25th Distinction testifies. But the canons are not imposed for venial, even for secret mortal sins, but only for known crimes, as said above. Now tell me, who can, how the indulgence comes to their aid, that is, the remission of the canons? Unless not only indulgences are granted, but even given to them for superfluous prudence (as the deceased tend to be absolved in the presence of the Church), and in addition to the indulgences they also receive the grant of the merits of the Church. But then, surely, the indulgence does not become an intercession, but it is given to the souls with the intercession, as it were, as a second gift, that is, it is declared to be given, or bestowed.
192 D- v. L. ii, 219-221. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 410-422. 193
I say for the third:
I will talk about the treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints, which is used for the remission of punishments, in the 58th thesis below.
So you see how everything is very dark and doubtful, and therefore very dangerous to teach. Only one thing I say and see, that the pope in the Clementines, Cap. Abusionibus, de poen. 'et remiss, seems to condemn this opinion that souls may be saved by indulgences, when he says: "They draw souls, as they mendaciously affirm, out of purgatory"; where the interpretation to the word "mendaciously" says: "for they are reserved to the judgment of God," and for this the Cap. Qualis in the 25th Distinction; and it seems to me to be quite right. For when souls are redeemed through intercession, it does not necessarily follow that they immediately depart; it is not one and the same: to intercede and to redeem or to liberate. Therefore I have right insight in so far as I see that indulgences and intercession through the merits of the church are two quite different things, which can be given one without the other, and one with the other. For the indulgence, the mere power of the keys is sufficient without the addition of that treasure, which, however, can also be added or given alone. The treasure, given alone, makes the goods partaker, as has been said above. If this were true and certain, it would follow that indulgences, in so far as they are indulgences, are of no use to souls except that they are absolved before the church, that is, they are declared absolved; or, if they were useful, it would not be by their own power, but by another gift attached to them, namely, the merits of the church. This donation is again to be distinguished from the general donation, by which in fact the church already comes to the aid of souls with the same [the merits] without the pope's donation; and one must see what value it has. But one must also leave the effort to others to investigate, who have not yet tired themselves in such great doubtful things.
Now one objects:
First, it is said that a magister in Paris, in his disputation, held that the pope had power over purgatory, and that the pope, when he learned of it, gave him, after his death, the decree which he had asserted, recommending it, as it were.
I answer: I do not care what the pope likes or dislikes. He is a human being like others. There have been many popes who have liked not only errors and vices, but even the most hideous things. I hear the pope as pope, that is, as he speaks in the canons and speaks according to the canons or makes a decision with a concilium; but not when he speaks according to his head, so that I am not perhaps forced to say, with some who recognize Christ badly, that the horrible blood deeds of Julius the Second against the Christian people were good deeds that he, as a faithful shepherd, did for the sheep of Christ.
On the other hand: St. Bonaventure, in the 20th Distinction of the 4th Book, says that one should not resist impetuously if someone claims that the Pope has power over Purgatory.
I answer: first, the reputation of St. Bonaventure is not enough for me in this matter; secondly, if the pope has assured it, it is not necessary to resist him; thirdly, Bonaventure says right, because, explaining himself, he adds: "if only it is established by a clear saying of Scripture or by a reasonable proof": alone this evident proof is not yet present.
Here, however, one objects:
First, Sixtus IV is said to have determined that that manner of intercession in no way diminishes the perfection of indulgences.
I answer: First, if someone wanted to be stubborn, he could say: Prove what you say, best father! especially since it is not up to the pope alone to issue new articles of faith, but only to judge according to the established ones and to decide questions of faith. Here, however, would be a new article of faith: consequently, the decision belongs to
The pope is much more concerned about it before a general council than about the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, especially since there is no danger for the souls here, but a great danger there. Otherwise, the faith of the whole church, since the pope is a man and can err in faith and morals, would be in constant danger if it were necessary to believe as true everything that seemed good to him.
Secondly, even if the pope were to hold with a large part of the church in one way or another, and even if he were not mistaken, it is not yet a sin or heresy to hold the opposite, especially in a matter that is not necessary to salvation, until a general council has rejected the one and confirmed the other. This is proved, not to mention many things, by the fact that the Roman Church, even with the general council of Basle and almost the whole Church, assumes that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin; and yet those who hold the opposite are not heretics, because the other part has not yet been rejected.
Thirdly, I say that I have not yet found this decision of Sixtus good; but this I have found good, that the indulgences are given intercessionally to the deceased; from which it does not yet follow that therefore also the souls lead out to whom this way is given.
Fourth: I cannot be the interpreter of someone else's statement, much less of the pope's. Therefore, until he interprets himself, we want to have our opinion by defending such an unknown statement for the sake of honor. It can be understood in two ways. First, the manner of intercession does not diminish the perfection of the indulgence, that is, although the indulgence may be given not by the manner of indulgence but by the manner of intercession, nevertheless, by such intercession and use, the souls for whom it is used are led out completely; and so they go out not by being loosed but by being used for them. I do not hold this opinion, but those hold that it is said so. Secondly: The way of intercession does not diminish the perfection of indulgence, that is, the granting of indulgences.
The way indulgences are granted through intercession allows them to be what they are, namely, plenary indulgences, and does not deprive them of what they are by nature; only they do not act as indulgences, but as intercessions. And this opinion I admit and add: If this intercessory grant diminishes nothing in the indulgence, much less does it increase it in anything. From this it follows that souls do not go out by this way. And so are the words; for it is not said, This way of intercession perfectly redeems the souls; but, It does not diminish the perfection of the indulgence, namely, that the indulgence, though perfect, yet works only as much as the intercession can work, and no more.
Again, one objects:
The apostolic formula of absolution is: "By remitting to you the penalties of purgatory, insofar as the keys of the Holy Mother, the Church, extend"; and this formula is observed by the confessors [poenitentiari] of the pope, even in Rome.
I answer: First, this is not pertinent, because it is a formula of absolution for the living and the dying, but not a formula for granting indulgences to those who have already died.
Secondly: Nevertheless, in order to seek the truth, I say: that since these words are put darkly and doubtfully, he cannot err in faith who holds the opposite of what is thought to be understood. For why is this formula so fearfully put? Why does it say, as if doubting, "insofar as the keys extend"? This fearful appendage is suspicious to me. I am not guilty of firmly believing what he himself does not dare to say firmly. Why does he only add here and not elsewhere: "insofar as the keys extend"? Do we not yet see here how vigilant Christ is in his church, that he does not allow even those who want to err to err? If only we ourselves would not fall into error by not heeding his admonition!
Thirdly, I say, as before, that even if the pope were not mistaken here with his confessors, they are not heretics,
who deny or disbelieve his understanding, until either party is confirmed or rejected by the verdict of a general council. For thus, although they have adorned the feast of the Conception with indulgences, as if it were a fixed matter of faith, they do not condemn or bind those who do not seek the solution by such indulgences. Therefore, however much indulgences may be given, it is not necessary to believe this formula to be true until the church decides it. And here you see again how necessary a legitimate and universal concilium is. But I fear that our time is not worth giving us such, but rather that God sends us strong errors [2 Thess. 2, 11], by which we are deceived as we deserve.
27. thesis.
They preach humanity, pretending that as soon as the penny is thrown into the box, the soul will leave purgatory.
They preach humanity, that is, nothingness and lies according to that saying [Ps. 116:11]: "All men are liars"; and again [Ps. 39:6]: "As nothing are all men." And this sentence, in my opinion, does not need proof; but it is proved by the following thesis; for the intercession of the Church accomplishes something only according to the will of God and the merit of the soul. Therefore, even if their opinion were true that it benefits by the way of intercession, it does not follow that they go out immediately.
First, it is not the intercession, but the hearing of the intercession and its acceptance that liberates, since they are not liberated by the prayer of the Church, but by the action of God.
Secondly, by nature God acts in such a way that He hears quickly, but hesitates to give, as is evident from the prayers and teachings of all the saints, so that He may test their constancy. Therefore, intercession and the answer and fulfillment of it are far from each other.
Thirdly, this very thing is said in a new way, against the prohibition of the Canon, that nothing should be said beyond what is contained in the letter. That is why they do not speak.
what is God's and the Church's, that is, truth, but their own, that is, lies.
Fourth, 1): There is no difference between one who knowingly speaks falsely and one who asserts something as certain which he does not know as certain. For even he who speaks the truth sometimes lies. But they know that what they have already said is uncertain to them, and yet they affirm it to be as certain as a gospel; for they cannot prove by any saying or reason that it is certain.
Fifthly: Then that intercession would be better at the service of a stranger, and that accidentally, than of themselves; since it does not benefit him who does it so much as the other for whom it is done; yes, that is peripatetic: I therefore pass it over; especially since they do not dispense with admitting that the intercession benefits not the one who works, but the soul. 2c I, too, could ridicule and mock these fables, just as they also mock the truth with them; but I refrain from doing so, in order to avoid the appearance of wanting to set up a doctrine of faith rather than a matter of dispute.
28. thesis.
It is certain, as soon as the penny rings in the box, that greed and avarice will come, increase and grow; but the help or the intercession of the church stands alone in God's will and good pleasure.
It is strange that they do not also preach with such zeal and clamor the exceeding salvific gospel of Christ. This circumstance makes the trade suspicious, that they seem to think more of gain than of godliness; unless perhaps they might be justly excused by not knowing the gospel of Christ. Therefore, since indulgences have no godliness, no merit, no commandment, but only a certain undue liberty, though the work by which they are discharged is a godly one, they are not to be suspected.
1) Here have all the expenses: Fifth and in the following § Sixth. The Weimar krit. The Weimar critical edition notes that a section of the manuscript may have been omitted by mistake when the first edition was printed.
It seems to promote profit rather than godliness, since it is practiced so excessively and alone that the gospel, as a lesser thing, is hardly read.
This I prove firstly: because the intercession of the Church is not the jurisdiction of the Pope, nor is it in his hands that it be accepted by God, but only that he may offer it; even if their opinion that souls are saved by it were correct. .
-On the other hand: It would be false the generally accepted opinion of St. Augustine that the intercessions benefit only those who deserve to be benefited by them; because they would benefit the one whom they should benefit only by the power of the pope, but not by the merit of the soul.
Third, it is contrary to the nature and meaning of the word to say that it is in the power of the pope to redeem through intercession. For no matter how excellent a work may be, if it is transformed into intercession, it no longer works as a work, but as intercession. Rather, the hearing of intercession redeems. Either they speak of the thing itself with other names, and then they deceive even worse, or they speak of their thing with the actual word, then their opinion cannot exist, because the word intercession contradicts the meaning and the understanding of a force.
Fourthly, then there would be no difference between intercession and force but in the word; in reality they would be the same; for they work the same without any other requirement than the will of the pope. Why, then, does one not keep silent about intercession and stop urging us to understand something different by intercession than by force?
Here, dear reader, I declare once again that I speak of such intercession as if there really was such a thing; for I have already stated my opinion above that I doubt, even do not see, whether and how there is or can be such a thing. I say this so that no one may imagine that I am contradicting myself by asserting here, as it were, the intercession that I almost denied before.
29. thesis.
Who knows if all the souls in Purgatory will be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severino and Paschali?
I have not read any credible scripture about these two. But I have heard that they could have been liberated by their merits if they had wanted to be content with a lesser glory; therefore, they would rather endure than have the glory of seeing diminished. But in this each one believes what he wants; I do not care. For I have not denied that the souls in purgatory also suffer other punishments than those mentioned above. But I did not want them to be led out, even after their remission, until they had also been made completely healthy in grace; however, it could be the case that some did not want to be redeemed out of excessive love for God. From this it becomes probable that Paul and Moses could have wanted them to be banished and separated from God for eternity [Rom. 9, 3; 2 Mos. 32, 32]. If they were willing to do such a thing in life, it seems impossible to deny that it could also happen to the deceased, about which one can see in Tauler's sermons an example of a virgin who did the same.
30. thesis.
No one is certain that he has true repentance and sorrow enough; much less can he be certain that he has received complete forgiveness of sins.
This I say according to the opinion of those who want you to believe that repentance is necessary for the remission of punishments, and do not see how much they make everything uncertain. And the thesis is quite evident: for the first part they all assert; but the second is a necessary consequence. In my judgment, however, a certain remission of the penalties, namely, the canonical ones, can take place even if someone were not worthy nor had remorse; for remorse, much less the certainty of remorse, is not required for the remission of the penalties; because the remission takes place even if the penalties are not due.
200 D. v. ii, 227 f. II. explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 431-431. 201
It would be granted for fictitious things, since it is based on the mere power of the pope. But if they wish, as has been said above, to remit other punishments than for crimes, namely, for all and every mortal sin, they bring about, by intending to make the indulgence exceedingly great, that there is no indulgence. For if it is uncertain, it is not even indulgence; but it is uncertain if it is based on the conscience of him who is to be absolved, and not on the power of the keys, and especially if it is based on repentance of all mortal sins, and not only of the manifest crimes, since no one is certain that he is without mortal sin. But he can be certain that he is without crime, that is, without a sin for which he could be accused before the Church, as said above. Therefore, I deny that this thesis is true if I speak according to my sense. But I have set it up to show those the insipidness of their grandiloquence with which they magnify indulgences.
31. thesis.
Just as it is rare for one to have true repentance and sorrow, it is also rare for one to have true indulgences, that is, it is very rare to find one.
Again, I speak here in their opinion, so that they may see the presumption, yes, the contradiction of their unbridled preaching. For while they cry out that indulgences benefit so many, and yet confess that there are only a few who walk on the narrow way, they do not even blush and pay no attention to what they say. But it is no wonder. For they have not taken upon themselves the office of teaching repentance and the narrow way. I therefore state my opinion that although only a few have repented, yet many, yes, all in the whole church can be free from the penalties of the canons by abrogation of these canons, as they are now in truth.
32. thesis.
They will go to the devil together with their masters who think that they can be sure of their salvation through letters of indulgence.
I assert and prove this thesis.
Thus it is said in Jer. 17:5: "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and taketh flesh for his arm." For we have no other assurance of our salvation than in Jesus Christ alone, "Neither is there any other name given among men, whereby we must be saved," Apost. 15, 11. [4, 12.]. Therefore, away with the confidence in dead letters, in the name of indulgence, in the name of intercession.
Secondly, as I have said, the letters and indulgences confer nothing at all of beatitude, but take away only the penalties, and only the canonical ones, and not even all of them. Oh, that the earth and all that is on it would sigh and weep with me over the deception of the Christian people, who everywhere regard indulgences as nothing other than salutary and useful for the fruit of the Spirit! And no wonder, since the obvious truth of the matter is not presented to them. O wretched Christians, who cannot be assured of their blessedness either in their merits or in their good conscience! They are taught to put their trust in written paper and sealing wax! Why should I not speak thus? I ask, what more is bestowed there? No repentance, no faith, no grace, but only penalties of the external man set up by the canons. And to digress a little: I myself have heard many who, having paid money and solved a letter, put all their trust in it. For so they must have either heard it (as they said), or (as I honorably believe) they must have understood that the preachers of indulgences so teach. I do not blame here, as I am not allowed to, since I have not heard the indulgence preachers. They may wash themselves whiter than snow; for all I care, they can do it. In any case, the ears of the people, which are so unwashed, are to be punished that they hear what they say as bringing salvation only as bringing destruction, for they say: "First of all, dear brethren, believe in Christ and trust in him, and repent, take up your cross, follow Christ, put to death your members, learn not to be afraid of punishment and death; but above all, have love among one another.
Serve one another even if indulgences are not granted, come to the aid of the poor and needy first. So when they recite such and similar godly, god-fearing and holy things to them, the unintelligent people, perverted by a new miracle, hear quite different things, namely the following: "O you unintelligent and unfeeling people, almost similar to animals, who do not accept such a great wealth of graces! Behold, heaven is now open everywhere! If you do not enter now, when will you ever enter? Behold, so many souls you can redeem! O hard, hard and careless people! For twelve pennies you can pull out your father, and you are so ungrateful that you do not come to the aid of your father in such great chastisement? I am truly excused on the day of judgment, but you are the more accused for neglecting such a great salvation. I tell you, if you had only One skirt, you should take it off and sell it to obtain such great graces." But then, when one comes to those who speak against grace, since those preach only loud blessings and even overflow with them: the people stand trembling, fearing that the heavens will fall and the earth will open up, and hearing that punishments worse than the infernal ones are threatened to them, so that it may be true that where those curse, God blesses by their cursing, and where they bless, God curses. For how else could it happen that those speak such entirely different things than these hear? Who can understand this? Dear, whence this false appearance in the words? But I do not believe everything that the people say they have heard here and there, otherwise I would have to consider the sermons of those heretical, godless and blasphemous. I do not believe that it is true that one of them forbade the solemn burial of the deceased and the invitation of the priests to it, but rather that they should put in the box if they wanted to hold funerals, masses and death festivals. The people also invented this. I do not believe that fairy tale full of lies that has been told by anyone, namely, that in one place, I do not know how many thousands (if I remember correctly, three or five
thousand) souls had been redeemed by this indulgence, among which only three had been condemned because they had deducted something from the indulgence tax. No one said this, but while they were reciting the passion of Christ, the people heard such things, or later fabricated that they had heard them. I do not believe it to be true that here and there they gave the carters or innkeepers or others who served them four, five or as many souls as they liked instead of payment. I do not believe that they should have shouted in the pulpits, after they had poured out their exhortations with a fierce roar that the people should put in: Put in, put in, put in! (for this word, the people fictionalized, was the head, tail, indeed, body, and almost the whole sermon); then, in order that the apostolic preachers may teach the matter not only by words but also by their example, they descend and go first to the box in the sight of all, teasing and enticing the simple-minded and foolish people, so as to suck out their marrow completely; they therefore insert with solemn gesture and loud ringing, and are then surprised if all the others do not rain all their money into it, smiling at those who insert, being displeased at those who fail to do so.. I do not say that this is a fair with souls and a privileged trade. I am only displeased with the people who, in their crudeness, interpret such godly endeavors not as a sham [of avarice] but as greed driven to frenzy. But it seems to me that the people would like to be excused, since they had to receive from these new spirits either a new attitude or an error, since they were formerly more accustomed to hearing what belongs to love and humility. But if I wanted to make a list of all the frightening rumors, a new volume would be necessary. In my opinion, however, even if indulgences were necessary and salutary, because they have now become such a great abuse and offence, this alone would be sufficient reason for their complete abolition, lest, if they were allowed to remain in force any longer, the preachers of them should at last be destroyed by love.
204 V- a- H' 231 f. 11. Explanations d. Disp.'von d. Kraft d. Ablasses. W. XVIII, 437-140. 205
to the money still come completely from senses. I really believe that they did not say everything that is said from time to time; but at least they should have punished the people in this and expressed themselves more clearly, or, what would have been even better, they should have spoken modestly about the indulgence according to the canons.
33. thesis.
One should be very careful and cautious of those who say that the pope's indulgence is the highest and most valuable grace or gift of God, through which man is reconciled with God.
I should have called them pernicious heretics. For what is more ungodly and heretical than to say that the indulgence of the pope is the grace of reconciliation with God? But in order to suppress my displeasure, I rather want to think that they did not say or establish such things out of malice or with will, but out of mere ignorance and lack of learned education and understanding; although there is also presumption in this, that as such unlearned people they did not rather do the work of an ox-servant than take on the business of instructing the souls of Christ. Let us now hear this ox-servant grunt his words, for so it is said in his booklet, 1) after dividing indulgences into four principal graces and many other lesser ones: "The first principal grace is the perfect remission of all sins, above which grace nothing greater can be called, so that through it sinful man, deprived of divine grace, obtains perfect remission and God's grace anew." So far that one. I pray you, what scum of heretics ever spoke so heretically? From this passage alone learn how it is that the people hear such ungodly things, while those say that they teach the most holy things. Oh, if only the zeal and eloquence of St. Jerome were here! I am ashamed of such a great presumption, that this washer should
1) The summary instruction of the Archbishop of Mainz as Commissary General of Indulgences. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, 370 ff. 383 ff.
has not shied away from publishing such a booklet in the face of four famous and nearby universities, as if the clever minds there had been completely turned into stinking mushrooms. I am deceived that our neighboring heretics, the Picards, have finally got an opportunity to justly accuse the Roman Church when they hear that such things are taught in it. But that the silly author of the booklet did not say this out of malice, but only out of ignorance, can be seen from the fact that he says: "By it (that is, the first grace, the complete remission) man obtains complete remission." What then does this mean, "By complete remission he obtains complete remission, and by the grace of God he obtains the grace of God"? Is he then dreaming in a fever or is he suffering from madness? But pay attention to the heretical sense. He wants to say of this first grace that nothing greater can be called than it, and that man who is deprived of grace attains it. It is clear that this can only be understood by the justifying grace of the Spirit, and that he himself did not understand it otherwise. Otherwise this would not have taken place, that nothing greater can be called. But even if he spoke differently of the justifying grace, he would speak ungodly enough, since God alone is that beyond which nothing greater can be called. For St. Augustine does not speak as the latter does, but among the created gifts, he says, there is nothing greater than love. But here he mixes the grace of God and the grace of the pope in one word into one lump, as a writer worthy of such an opinion or such an error.
It follows in the same book: "By this remission of sins, the punishments which he would have to atone for in purgatory because of insulting the divine majesty are also completely remitted to him, and the punishments of the aforementioned purgatory are completely erased. Here we have heard a Delphic oracle saying that he who does not know everything is absolutely uncertain about nothing: of the power of the keys over purgatory he makes a certain statement. But we have dealt with enough of this above.
It follows there: "And even if, in order to deserve such a grace, nothing worthy enough can be raised to repay it, therefore, because God's gift and grace cannot be estimated" etc. There you see how he again calls that a gift And inestimable grace of God, which the pope enacts! This man is worthy to teach the churches, that is, the whorehouses of the heretics. After he had carefully dressed up this grace for trade and fair with these words, he immediately dresses his Mercurius again in the garb of Jupiter, so that no one would notice that he was seeking profit, unless he had no more sense than himself. He allows him to give it to the poor for free, but only if they have first tried everywhere to collect the money from good patrons (as he says), so that the begging brothers can get money without the permission of their superiors; for with this master of lies 1) the remission of self-invented punishment is much better than salutary obedience. But since nowhere a way was open to scrape money together to redeem that grace (that is, to buy [redimsro] anew, not as if those were selling, but because the all too great similarity of the matter compels them to misuse the word): only then does he say: "for the kingdom of heaven shall not be more open to the rich than to the poor"; again, he wants heaven to be open through indulgence. But I restrain my pen, lest it rage against them according to merit. Let it be enough that I have indicated to the faithful that the perverseness of their speeches is connected with such outstanding ignorance and clumsiness (as is befitting) that the lid fits the vessel very well.
34. thesis.
For the grace of indulgence looks only at the chastisement of satisfaction, which has been imposed by men.
This thesis is exceedingly clear from the 5th and 20th theses.
1)?86li6o1u8 in a comedy by Plautus.
35. thesis.
Those teach unchristianly who pretend that those who want to release souls from purgatory or confessional letters do not need repentance or suffering.
Dear, why do they give people this delay to their danger? And what is the use of preaching such things to them, but to seek money and not the salvation of souls, even if it were true? but now that it is ungodly and false, it is much more to be rejected. However, I have also admitted above that the punishments could also be remitted to those who are without repentance, which they deny. Here again I believe that what those claim must be denied. And indeed I have the same judgment of the letters of confession as of the penalties, namely, that for both no repentance is necessary, either as to the solution of them or as to their use, which they deny, and likewise also as to the remission of the penalties, since the remission of the penalties forms a part of the letter of confession. But with regard to the redemption of souls, I am of a completely different opinion, and demand that they prove their statements. I at least believe that I must see something quite different in the redemption of souls than in the remission of punishments, since man receives good in the remission of punishments, but does good in the redemption of souls. But the wicked can receive good, but in no way do good; and God cannot please the work of him who does not please himself, as it is said in Genesis 4:4. "The Lord looked graciously on Abel and his sacrifice." Then it is contrary to the Scriptures for a man to have mercy on another's soul first, and first to take the mote out of his brother's eye as the beam out of his own; and altogether for a slave of the devil to redeem a daughter of God, and that by God Himself. It is ridiculous that an enemy should use himself for a friend of the King. I ask, what is this madness? In order to make great the remission of a very small punishment, which is useless for salvation, they diminish the sins whose atonement alone would make great. If this is not heretical, ill-sounding, annoying, offensive to godly ears, what else is there that can be done with this monstrous
208 a. ii, 234-236. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 443-446. 209
What could be called by the name of the heretic? Or do the inquisitors of heretic wickedness want to persecute and tire the orthodox and orthodox opinions under this pretext, so that they alone are free to introduce heaps of heresies with impunity and arbitrarily?
But they say that this solution is not based on the work of the solver, but on the merit of the one to be redeemed. Answer: Who said this? How do you prove it? Why then is not the soul to be redeemed freed by its own merit without the work of a redeemer? But then the desired money would not grow for the salvation of souls. Why, then, do we not call upon Turks and Jews to put in their money with us also, not, of course, for the sake of our avarice, but for the salvation of souls? For the fact that they are not baptized does not seem to stand in the way, since here only the money of the one who gives is needed, but by no means the soul of the one who is lost. For this giving is based only on the soul to be saved. I believe that if even a donkey put in gold, he could also redeem; for if any ability were required, grace would necessarily be required, since a Christian who is a sinner displeases God more than any unbeliever, and even the donkey's clumsy nature does not disgrace him as much as the Christian's ungodliness.
Secondly: I have said that it is possible to give letters of confession to sinners, as well as remissions of punishments, but I have not said this, that they should be encouraged, nor even that they should be permitted to redeem such, as they teach ungodly and cruel. This I prove: -
First, every teaching of Christ is an exhortation to repentance, and is intended that men should turn from the devil the sooner the better, as Jesus Sirach says [5:8], "Do not delay to turn to the Lord"; and the Lord himself [Matth. 25, 13]: "Watch, for you know neither the day nor the hour"; and Paul [Heb. 4, 11]: "Let us hasten to enter into this rest"; and Peter [2. Ep. 3, 11. f.]: "If then all these things shall pass away, how shall ye be skillful with holy
walk and be godly, that ye may hasten to the future of the day?" 2c But this they taught, because they were anxious, not how to gather money, but how to make souls blessed. But those, as if they were quite sure, grant them a miserable delay and leave them, as much as is in them, in danger of eternal death; so that I do not know whether they can be acquitted of the murder of souls by such a beginning. For it is not the blessedness of him who gives that is sought here, but the gift of him who is lost; since, if they were good shepherds of souls and true Christians, they should strive with all diligence to lead the sinner to the fear of God, to the fright of sin, and should not desist with weeping, supplications, admonitions, punishments, until they had won the soul of the brother. If he who would remain wicked continued to give money, they should hurl it in his face and say with the apostle [2 Cor. 12:14], "I seek not thine own, but thee"; and again [Acts 8:20], "That thou mayest be damned with thy money," and should turn from him in disgust. Thus, thus they would act rightly.
But let this be far from our Mercurius: "Rather this we will do; if sinners come trusting in able mediators (that is, in money) even against the command of Christ and all the apostles, let them be like one of us, as being able to do all that we can, even to save souls, though they perish without delay, and we also laugh at them and rejoice surely in their gift. This is love for Christ's people and our brothers. Thus we care for their souls, that they may know that we have the last, that is, no pity at all, over their sins."
36. thesis.
Every Christian who has true repentance and sorrow for his sins has complete forgiveness of pain and guilt, which belongs to him even without letters of indulgence.
Otherwise, those who did not have such a letter would be in danger, which is wrong, since the indulgence
The covenants are neither commanded nor advised, but are free. Also, those who do not care about them do not sin and are therefore not in danger for their salvation. This is evident from the fact that such people are already on the path of God's commandments, and in case such a dispensation would not be given to them, it would still be due to them, as the pope says. But here comes the hair-trigger mind of some who say: this would be true if the canons were punishments imposed only by the pope; but now they are explanations of the punishments imposed by God. Thus it behooves those to speak who have once resolved to pursue the truth with unceasing hatred.
First of all, they proclaim, as if from divine revelation, that God requires a punishment for sins that is sufficient, namely, a punishment other than the evangelical cross (that is, fasting, work, vigilance), also other than the chastening one: for they do not understand these punishments by it, because they cannot deny that these are remitted only by God.
On the other hand, they add to this monstrosity a greater one, namely, that the canons declare that the punishment is imposed. Consequently, the pope has only to declare, but never to interpret, nor to remit. Otherwise, contrary to the words of Christ, they would teach us thus: "All things that I shall bind, thou shalt loose."
37. thesis.
Every true Christian, living or dead, is a partaker of all the goods of Christ and the Church, from God's gift, even without letters of indulgence.
It is impossible to be a Christian without having Christ; but if a man has Christ, he has with him all things that are Christ's. For thus saith the holy apostle, Rom. 13:14: "Draw ye on the Lord Jesus Christ"; and Rom. 8:32: "How shall he not with him give us all things?" and 1 Cor. 3:21 ff."All things are yours, whether it be Cephas or Paul, whether it be life or death"; and 1 Cor. 12:27: "Ye are members, every man according to his part"; and in other places [1 Cor. 10:17], where he describes that we should
that all in Christ are one body, one bread, one member of another. And in the Song of Songs it says [2:16]: "My friend is mine and I am his"; for through faith in Christ the Christian becomes One Spirit and One with Christ. For [Gen. 2:24], "Two shall be one flesh," which is a great mystery in Christ and the church [Eph. 5:31 ff]. Since, then, the Spirit of Christ is in Christians, through whom they become brothers, joint heirs, members of the body and fellow citizens of Christ, how would it be possible that there should be no participation in all the goods of Christ? for Christ, too, has all that is His from the same Spirit. Thus it is through the inestimable riches of the mercy of God the Father that the Christian can boast and confidently assume all things in Christ; namely, that righteousness, power, patience, humility, and all the merits of Christ are also his through the unity of the Spirit out of faith in him; again, that all his sins are already no longer his, but Christ's through the same unity, in which all will also be swallowed up. And this is the certain confidence of Christians and the joyfulness of our conscience, that through faith our sins become no longer ours, but Christ's, on whom God cast the sins of us all [Isa. 53:12], and who bore all our sins [Isa. 53:6]; he is the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world [John 1:29]; again, that all righteousness of Christ becomes ours. For he lays his hand upon us, and it is well with us; and he spreadeth out his mantle, and covereth us, as the most blessed Redeemer for ever and ever, Amen.
But since this so sweet participation and this pleasant exchange is only through faith, which man can neither give nor take away, I think it is sufficiently clear that this participation is not given by the power of the keys or by the granting of a letter of indulgence, but rather that it is given before and without it by God alone; just as the remission before the remission, the absolution before the absolution: so the participation before the participation.
What is it, then, that the pope, by his bestowal, is making part of? I answer:
212 v. a. 11,238-240. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 449-452. 213
Those should say, as is said above in the 6th thesis of the decree, that it makes partial in a declarative way. For I confess, how they can say otherwise, I cannot see. I will state my opinion in the following thesis.
38. thesis.
But the pope's forgiveness and healing is not to be despised. For, as I have said, his forgiveness is a declaration of divine forgiveness.
Not as if this explanation, which takes place through the public letters of indulgence, were necessary (for that which takes place in private confession is sufficient), but that it is not to be despised, for through it the privately made explanation is also made known and confirmed to the church. For in this way, I believe, it must be understood; whoever has something better, let him say it. For I do not see what this public announcement is supposed to accomplish. But, although I do not deny that this thesis, as I believe, has been accepted by all, I have said above in the 6th thesis that I do not like this way of speaking, that the pope does nothing else than that he declares or confirms the divine decree or dispensation. For, first, this makes the keys of the church all too small; indeed, it to a certain extent nullifies the word of Christ, where he says [Matt. 16:19], "All that thou shalt redeem," 2c; for a "declaration" is all too little said. Secondly, because everything will be uncertain to the one to whom the declaration is given, although his redemption and reconciliation will be certain to others, or to the church, outwardly, before his eyes.
Therefore, as I have said above about the remission of guilt, so I will say about the sharing of goods, until I am taught better, namely: just as the sinner after sin trusts only with great difficulty in the mercy of God, so much does the sin that weighs heavily on him by its burden force him to despair, and he thinks much more easily of the wrath of God than of his mercy; so before sin he thinks more easily of mercy than of wrath. For man does everything wrong: he fears, since there is nothing to fear.
He is presumptuous, since he should not be presumptuous, but fearful, namely, of sin. An example of this is shown to us superfluously in the resurrection of Christ, where it took many reasons of proof for him to resurrect himself in the hearts of his disciples. After all, the first proclamation was made by women and was considered by them to be a madness; so the first trust also seems soft to the sinner, and he thinks that he cannot believe it, or that he can hardly believe it. So it is much more difficult to have confidence that one is partaker of the goods of Christ, that is, unspeakable goods, so that one is partaker of the divine nature, as St. Peter speaks [2 Ep. 1, 4]. The greatness of the goods also causes distrust, namely, that not only such great evils are remitted, but also such great goods are bestowed, that he should be a child of God, an heir of the kingdom of heaven, a brother of Christ, a comrade of angels, a lord of the world. I pray you, how can he believe this to be true who, crushed by the bite of his sin, even by the burden of it, is carried away to hell? Here, then, the judgment of the keys is necessary, so that man may not believe himself, but rather believe the key, that is, the priest. And it is all the same to me whether he who holds the key is unlearned or reckless. For I believe not for the priest's sake, nor for his power, but for the word of him that said, and is not a liar, "All things thou shalt loose. "2c For the key cannot err with those who believe this word; but it errs only with those who do not believe that this absolution is strong. For just imagine (even if it were impossible or happened by chance): if someone does not have sufficient repentance, or if he thinks he does not have it, and yet believes with all confidence the one who absolves him that he is absolved (I mean in this way according to my confidence), then this very belief causes him to be absolved in truth, because he believes in the one who said: "All things thou shalt solve. "2c But faith in Christ always justifies, just as if a clumsy, careless, or ignorant priest baptized you. To this comes
Even if you do not consider yourself sufficiently repentant (for you cannot and should not rely on yourself), but if you nevertheless believe him who said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," I tell you that this faith in his word causes you to be baptized in truth, whatever your repentance may be. Therefore faith is necessary everywhere. You have as much as you believe. And so I understand what our teachers say, that the sacraments are effective signs of grace, not because they happen (as St. Augustine says), but because they are believed, as above. So also here: absolution is effective, not because it happens, it may be given by whom it will, he errs or errs not; but because it is believed. And this faith cannot be hindered even by the reservation of cases, because it would be obvious and despised. Therefore I say that a man, when he is in sin, is so tormented and troubled by his conscience that he rather believes, in his own opinion, that he is guilty of all evil; and such a man is certainly nearest to justification and has the beginning of grace. Therefore, he must go to the consolation of the keys, so that he may be calmed by the priest's sentence, obtain peace, and gain the confidence of sharing in all the goods of Christ and the church. But if someone does not believe that this participation has come to him through the office of the priest, or if he doubts it, he will be deceived not by the error of the key, but by his unbelief, and will do great harm to his soul, and do injustice and the greatest dishonor to God and his word. Therefore it would be much better for him not to go to absolution if he does not believe that he will be absolved, than to go without faith; for he only goes hypocritically and gets judgment, just as if he received baptism or the sacrament of bread hypocritically. Therefore repentance is not as necessary as faith. For faith in absolution receives incomparably more than the fervency of repentance.
And we let go of this faith, and most of us just struggle with how to make repentance right in order to make people
To teach them to be confident that their sins are forgiven when they feel that they are completely broken, that is, never to be confident, but to work more and more toward despair, while according to the prophet we are not to hope in our repentance, but in his word; for he does not say, "Remember me, your servant, my repentance, in which you let me hope"; but, "Remember your word, in which you let me hope" [Ps. 119, 49.]; and again [v. 81.], "I hope in thy word" (worse, not in our work), and again, "My soul waiteth, and I hope in his word," 2c [Ps. 130, 5.]; and as it is Ps. 51, 6. according to the Hebrew, "In thee only have I sinned, therefore thou wilt justify me by thy word." Therefore neither sacrament nor priest justifies you, but faith in the word of Christ through the priest and his office. What is it to you if the Lord should speak through an ass or a donkey, if you only hear his word, on which you can hope and believe?
This is how I would understand what our scholastic teachers say, that the sacraments of the church are given to us for practice, that is, as priceless gifts, so to speak, in which we have a reason to believe and become righteous. For once the word of the Lord was precious in the days of Saul [1 Sam. 3:1], but now his word resounds to you even through the most careless, wicked and unlearned men. Look at the word and let go of the person's shell; if he errs here or does not err, you do not err if you believe. If I err here and speak without understanding, lead me in the right way who understands.
From this it will follow that the well-known three truths of John Gerson, which have long since passed into all books and ears, must be wisely understood, namely, that a man should not trust that he is in the state of blessedness because he can say that he has repented of his sins, but rather look at whether he desires the sacrament of absolution in such a way that he believes he is absolved when he has received it. For this means receiving the sacrament in desire, that is, in faith in the word,
that you either really hear or long to hear. Beware, therefore, that you do not even trust in any way in your repentance, but only in the mere word of your best and most faithful Savior JEsu Christ; your heart can deceive you, He cannot deceive you, you may now have or demand Him. Since this is the case (and may God grant that I am not a false spirit and false preacher with the prophet Micah [Mich. 2, 11.]), it is to be feared that many souls will be lost through those completely unlearned criers of works and repentance: First, because they do not teach faith in the Word, but only repentance, and this is still quite weak; Second, because they are so easily willing to give absolutions and make such appointments, as if everyone everywhere had this faith, and do not examine whom or why they absolve.
Therefore, when absolving, it is not so necessary to say, "Are you sorry for your sins?" as it is to say, "Do you believe that you can be absolved by me?" as Christ said to the blind, "Do you believe that I can do these things to you?" "All things are possible to him that believeth" [Marc. 9, 23.]. For this faith certainly proves itself most in those who, driven by terrors of conscience, rather feel their unbelief; but in those who do not feel such misery, I do not know whether the keys are comforting to them, since only those deserve to be comforted who bear sorrow, and only he deserves to be encouraged to believe that his sins are forgiven him, who trembles for fear that they may be kept from him.
And that I finally put an end to it, this opinion of mine (I believe) does not diminish the power of the keys, as I am accused of doing, but brings them back from a false honor and tyrannical reverence to the reverence due to them, which is connected with love. For it is no wonder that the keys come into contempt when they are offered with false honors, that is, only with terror, if they are to accept them; whereas, recognizing their exceedingly salutary benefits, he would have to be a stone or block who does not accept them with
tears to kiss and embrace him. Why then do we magnify the pope for their sake and present him as a frightening man? The keys are not his, but rather mine, given to me, for my salvation, for my comfort, given to me for peace and rest! The pope is a servant and my servant in regard to the keys; he does not need them as pope, but I do. But the flatterers turn everything on the popes, raise in it not our comfort, but only their power, and frighten us with the very thing with which they should comfort us most. So much is everything wrong nowadays, and we do not yet believe that these times are unhappy, in which such an abuse is of the best things that have been turned into the worst for us. Therefore, I do not entirely uphold this thesis as it stands, but largely deny it.
39. thesis.
It is extremely difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to praise the great wealth of indulgences at the same time as true repentance and suffering before the people.
The reason for this thesis lies in the following thesis.
40. thesis.
True repentance and sorrow seek and love punishment; but the weariness 1) of indulgence absolves one from punishment, and that one becomes grudging to it, least of all when occasion arises.
Take a truly penitent and you will see that he seeks revenge on himself so eagerly because he has offended God that he compels you to have pity on him, yes, that it becomes necessary to resist him, lest he corrupt himself, as we have often read and seen happen. And St. Jerome writes that his Paula was like that; and he also writes it of himself. No punishment is enough for such people, so that they call heaven and earth and God Himself against themselves with the lost son,
1) I. e. the abundant communication.
as did David when he said [2 Sam. 24, 17]: I pray thee, "let thine hand be against me and against my father's house. Therefore, I believe I was right in saying that canonical penances are imposed only on those who, either as lazy people, did not want to do better, or at least so that the sincerity of their repentance might be investigated. Therefore it is evident how difficult it is even for the learned to find the middle road between hatred and love of punishments, that they teach to hate them in such a way that they nevertheless persuade people to love the punishments above all. But for the unlearned, since nothing is difficult for them, there is nothing to prevent that even this should not be easy for them. The gospel, it is true, teaches neither to flee nor to abate punishments, but to seek and to love them; for it teaches the spirit of liberty and the fear of God to the contempt of all punishments. But it is much more profitable and beneficial for the purse of the indulgence merchants that the people fear the punishments and create the spirit of the world and fear in the letter and in bondage, hearing that it is such a terrible thing about some canonical punishments that they are taught that they can only be avoided with such great zeal, with such great effort, with such great pomp, with such great ceremonies, as it is not even taught that the gospel must be loved.
One objects:
What do you say about the pilgrimages to Rome, Jerusalem, St. James, Aachen, Trier and many other regions and places for indulgences, as well as those granted at the dedications of churches?
I answer:
These pilgrimages happen for many reasons, but rarely for the right reason.
The first is the most common, which is the curiosity to see and hear the strange and unknown. This frivolity comes from the disgust and sluggishness in worship, which is neglected in one's own church. Otherwise, one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the places already mentioned together; one would also have Christ and the saints closer, if one did not so foolishly
would be to prefer wood and stone to the poor and to one's neighbor, whom one should serve in love or also provide for one's [own] family.
The second cause is bearable, namely, for the sake of indulgence. For since indulgences are free, not commanded, and therefore of no merit, those who really go on pilgrimage only for the sake of indulgences deserve nothing at all. But they are justly made fools of, because they miss Christ and their neighbor at home, in order to consume ten times more outside, without fruit or merit. Therefore, whoever stays at home and thinks about the saying: "Love also covers the multitude of sins" [1 Petr. 4:8], and those others: "But give alms from that which is there; behold, all is clean for you" [Luc. 11:41], would do far better, yes, even better, than if he brought home all the indulgences from Jerusalem and Rome. But it is not pleasing to be so wise, therefore we are also given over to the lusts of our hearts.
The third cause is that of woe and toil for his sin; but of this I believe it seldom occurs, at least by itself. For he could also grieve and work himself off at home, if he only sought trouble; but if he does it, it is nothing bad, indeed, something good.
The fourth cause is honorable, namely, when it is done out of special devotion for the honor of the saints, for the glorification of God and for his own edification; as St. Lucia went on pilgrimage to St. Agatha, and many holy fathers visited Rome; the outcome has proved that they did not do it out of presumption.
Therefore, it pleases me that in these bestowals also the vows of such pilgrimages are transformed into other good works, and oh that it were done without remuneration!
41. thesis.
The papal indulgence should be preached carefully, so that the common man does not mistakenly think that it is preferred to the other works of charity, or that it is better respected.
I would speak thus to the people: Behold, dear brethren, you must know that there are three ar-.
220 L. V. a. II, 246-248. II. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 461-463. 221
There are many good works that can be done by spending money. First and foremost, when someone gives to the poor or lends to his neighbor in need, and in general comes to the aid of those who suffer in any need. This work is to be done in such a way that church buildings are to be interrupted and sacrifices to sacred vessels and church decorations are to be omitted. When this has been done and there are no more needy people, the second thing to do is to contribute first to the construction of our churches, hospitals and buildings for the general benefit. But when this has also been done, only then can you give in the third place, if you wish, also for the solution of indulgences; for to the first work we have the commandment of Christ, but to the last no commandment.
Do you say: By such preaching little money would be collected by indulgences; I answer, I think so. But why should this be surprising, since the popes do not seek money through indulgences, but rather the salvation of souls, as is evident from the [indulgences] they give at the dedication of churches and altars? Therefore, with their indulgences, they by no means want to prevent better things, but rather to promote love.
I freely say that whoever teaches the people otherwise and perverts this order is not a teacher but a deceiver of the people; only that the people, for their sins, sometimes deserve not to hear the truth preached rightly.
42. thesis.
Christians should be taught that it is not the mind and opinion of the pope that indulgences should be compared to any work of mercy.
I understand the Pope as I said above, as it reads, as a public person, that is, as he speaks to us through the canons. For there are no canons that state that the dignity of indulgences is to be compared with the works of mercy.
But the thesis is clear: because a commandment of God is infinitely higher in dignity than that,
1) I.e. in something.
which is also permitted by a man and is not offered in any way; since there is merit, but here none. .
Here one objects: But the indulgence is redeemed by a godly work, namely by a contribution to a church building or to the redemption of the prisoners: consequently it is meritorious.
I answer: I am not speaking of the work, but of the indulgence; for that work could have been done without the indulgence, for it is not necessarily bound to the indulgence. But the indulgence, which is given without work, gives nothing, but only takes away; but the work without indulgence gives something; for there we receive what is ours, here we give. And therefore the flesh is served there, the spirit here; and, in short, nature is satisfied there, grace here; therefore indulgences, taken by themselves, are not to be compared with a work of mercy. Likewise, a work without indulgence is much purer than with indulgence; and indulgence is a kind of fault in the work, because it receives its reward, nay, more than its reward. Therefore, people would act more holy if they merely gave contributions, and not for the sake of indulgences, not because indulgences are bad and harmful, but because the perverse abuse is harmful; in that they would not do such a work if the indulgence were not, and so the purpose of such a work becomes the indulgence, indeed, man himself, who seeks what is his, while he should do the work for God's sake and for nothing, and not accept the indulgence otherwise than it is given to him for nothing, not for his contribution, so that he may not buy the indulgence and those may not sell it: For it must be a gratuitous gift on both sides, or it is manifest simony and the most shameful bargaining. But who says this to the people? when is it said: Put in for nothing and I will lend you for nothing?
Likewise, it is to be feared that by that perversion of order a great idolatry will be nourished in the church. For if the people are taught that they should put in to escape the penalties (which I hope does not happen, though perhaps many understand it that way), then it is clear that they are
not contribute for the sake of God, and the fear of punishment or punishment itself is their idol to which they sacrifice. But if it should happen in this way, then such an evil would, as it were, arise in the church as was once the case with the pagan Romans, when they sacrificed to fever and other disfavored and harming deities, so that they would not suffer harm. Therefore, one should watch for the people here and hardly entrust such doubtful and dangerous dealings to the most learned men.
43. thesis.
Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does better than to redeem indulgences.
I state this thesis for the sake of the unintelligent, because it is sufficiently obvious from the foregoing. But I am not the first or only one who holds this thesis with its two preceding and following ones, but all and the whole church hold it, only that the people never get to hear it. Perhaps they fear that they will be too quick to understand such a revelatory and thorough truth. For even St. Bonaventure and all the others, when in discussing this subject they make to themselves the objection, "consequently the other good works are to be omitted," answer unanimously: Not at all; but the other good works are better with regard to the attainment of the essential reward. So the thesis is clear, since this is said by those who claim that indulgences are a treasure of the merits of Christ and the Church.
44. thesis.
For by the work of love, love grows and man becomes more devout; but by indulgences he does not become better, but only more secure and free from chastisement or punishment.
This is clear. For here only a remission of the punishments is given, and the indulgence is not able to do more than that it takes away the punishments, as also all admit. But the removal of the punishment does not make good or better in love.
45. thesis.
Christians are to be taught that he who sees his neighbor suffer and, despite this, obtains indulgences, does not obtain the pope's indulgences, but incurs God's displeasure.
For he perverts the order given above, and John acts against it [1 Ep. 3:17]: "If a man see his brother die, and shut up his heart against him, how doth the love of God abide with him?" Our sophists, however, interpret this "dying" from the extreme case of need, namely, never or only very seldom to give love the opportunity to show itself active; while they, however, if they were in need, wanted to be helped, not in the extreme need, but in the first need; but they want to help others when they have already exhaled their souls. Truly beautiful theologians and Christians who do not do to people what they would like to be done to them.
46. thesis. 1)
Christians should be taught that indulgence is a free thing, and not commanded.
I have said enough above about the fact that indulgences belong to the number of things that are permitted, but not to those that are pious, as also in the Old Covenant the letter of parting [Deut. 24, 1. ff.], the sacrifice of zeal [Deut. 5, 15.], and in the New Covenant the disputes and court cases for the sake of the weak, yes, "for the sake of your hardness of heart", as Christ speaks [Matth. 19, 8.]. And everyone who does this is more tolerated than praised; indeed, as the gloss says in the 5th book of poen. et rem.: Quod autem also many others would do better to make amends themselves and not to redeem indulgences; since only criminals need to redeem such indulgences.
47. thesis.
Christians should be taught that if they are not rich, they should keep what they need for their house and not waste it on indulgences.
1) In these explanations, Luther rearranged the 46th and 47th thesis. In the 95 Theses, the one counted here as the 46th thesis is the 47th; and vice versa.
224 D- V- a- II. 250-282. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 466-469. 225
For the apostle says [1 Tim. 5:8], "If any man provide not for his own, especially for his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than a heathen." But there are many who have neither bread to eat nor a good garment to put on, and yet, seduced by the noise and clamor of the preachers of indulgences, deceive themselves and throw themselves into extreme poverty in order to increase the wealth of those.
48. thesis.
Christians should be taught that as much as the pope needs devout prayer, he desires it more than money when he grants indulgences.
Our masters, the courtesans of the Roman court, who know well how things are, would laugh at this thesis; but it is certain that above all the pope must desire prayer from his subjects, as St. Paul often desired it from his own. And this is a much more just cause for granting indulgences than if a thousand magnificent churches were built, so that the pope, besieged rather than surrounded by so many monsters of devils and godless men, can only err to the greatest detriment of the whole church; especially when he likes to hear that pernicious voice of his sirens: "It is not to be supposed that the highest of the high is mistaken"; or also that saying: "All given rights lie in the shrine of his heart." - It is indeed assumed that he does not err, but it is questioned whether this assumption is good; and it is indeed in the shrine of his heart that all his rights lie, but it is questioned whether this heart is also good. For it is precisely for this that one should take care through prayer. But this is what St. Bernard wrote most gloriously to Pope Eugenius in his booklet "On Contemplation".
49. thesis.
Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgence is good, as long as one does not put one's trust in it; on the other hand, there is nothing more harmful than losing the fear of God through it.
Therefore, look at the danger: indulgences are preached to the people precisely against the
Truth of the cross and fear of God; for they are granted freedom from punishment, then certainty of forgiveness of sins. And it seems to be an obvious sign that the indulgences preached with such boastfulness are not from God, because the people are more willing to accept and observe them than even the holy gospel of God, so that the truth is proven: What comes from God, the world dislikes; another comes in his own name, and it accepts him [John 5:43]. And the cause of the error is the teachers of such fables themselves, who preach them more diligently and with more pomp than the gospel; further, that they preach to all what is only for a few. For, as has been made abundantly clear above, indulgence is remission, deliverance, concession and indulgence, and true letting go (if we take the strict meaning of the word), that is, soft concessions for pampered, cold, hard Christians, that is, more for Gibeonites, water-carriers and slaves than for princes and children of Israel.
But I prove the thesis:
If the works of love for those who do them diligently are of such a nature that no one can trust or be sure of them (since even the exceedingly holy Job fears for all his works [Job 9:28], and [Ps. 112:1]: "Blessed is he who fears the Lord," likewise [Prov. 28:14]: "Blessed is he that feareth all things"): how much more is the indulgence, as incomparably inferior to these works, more than to be received with fear, and in it we are to put less than the least confidence, that is, absolutely none! The saint fears to work and suffer less than he ought; and where will there be a sinner who is remitted to do less than he could do? And as far as I know our preachers of the pandemonium and disturbers of the senses, they make of the work of indulgences a trade that creeps in darkness [Ps. 91:6], and a powerful effect of error [2 Thess. 2:11], in that by means of it they persuade all men to trust in it, when it belongs to only a few, namely (as I have said) to the cold and weak. See here, whether it is not afterwards due to the infusion of the Holy Spirit.
The reason for this is that they call it by their own testimony "a trade of St. Peter", "a trade of the Holy Spirit", in order to confess themselves, as it were, that they are traders and hold simonistic fairs.
But that I have said he is good, I understand thus, not to all, but only to the old man and the snoring workers; therefore, because it is better that the punishments should be remitted to them than that they should bear them unwillingly. But if, in order to prevent a greater evil, their will has been granted to them, let them not surely enjoy it, nor trust in it, but grieve and fear all the more that they are such as must be left in a lesser evil for the sake of a greater evil; seeing how even those fear who in the most zealous way advance in good. That is why I have said that indulgences are quite harmful when people rejoice without fear in such unboundedness.
50. thesis.
Christians should be taught that the pope, knowing the drudgery of the indulgence preachers, would rather that St. Peter's Cathedral should be discredited to powder than that it should be built with the skin, flesh and bone of his sheep.
For so our mighty hunters, after they have imposed a sum of money on every Christian class, finally also teach the women to go begging, even against the will of their husbands, and call the beggar brothers to gather money from somewhere, even against the will of their superiors; so that there is no one at all who still has a penny left who does not give it here. Finally it has come to the point that they ask the people to sell their skirts themselves or to borrow money from somewhere, which is said to have really happened. But I am of the opinion, because indulgences are the very worst of all goods of the church and should only be given to the very worst people in the church, then neither meritorious nor useful, but mostly quite harmful, if people do not stand in fear: that such a teaching is worth cursing and that it is contrary to the commandments of God. For the woman must
The religious must be under the control of the man and do nothing without his will, even if it would be meritorious, much less go begging for indulgences, which she may not even need. Furthermore, the religious must keep their obedience, even if they could attain the crown of martyrdom elsewhere; and the pope never intends the opposite, but his false interpreters. Another may vent his displeasure, I hold back. Only this I say: My dear reader, notice at least from this whether they do not seek with their pernicious sermons that they want to make the people believe as if in indulgences the blessedness and true grace of God exists. How else could they recommend it so urgently that they nullify all meritorious works and the commandments of God for its sake? And yet they are so few heretics that they pride themselves on being persecutors of heretics.
Is this what the pope wants, that for the sake of stone and wood the people entrusted to his care are flayed to the skin; yes, that they are slaughtered by these murderers and thieves (as Christ says [Jn. 10:1]) through pernicious teachings and plunged into ruin? Then it would be still better to have that emperor who said, "It behooves a good shepherd to shear his sheep, but not to pull the wool over their ears." 1) But these do not merely pull the skin over their ears, but devour them body and soul. Verily, "an open grave is their throat, with their tongues. "2c [Ps. 5:10.]
51. thesis.
Christians should be taught that the pope, as he owes, would also hand out his own money to the people, even if St. Peter's Cathedral were to be sold for this purpose, which some preachers of indulgences are now depriving themselves of money.
Thus St. Ambrose had the chalices melted down to ransom the prisoners, and St. Paulinus of Nola gave himself up as a prisoner for his own; and just for this purpose
1) Emperor Tiberius. Sueton. Tib. 32. (Weim. A.)
228 v-ii, 284-256. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xviii, 472-475. 229
the Church has the gold, as it is taken in the decrees from the same Ambrose. But now, dear God, how many are those who carry trees, yes, leaves into the forest and drops into the sea, that is, their pennies into that money bag, which draws its profit, that I use the words of St. Jerome, from the religion of the whole world.
52. thesis.
To be blessed by letters of indulgence is a vain and untruthful thing, even if the commissary (or bailiff of indulgences), or even the pope himself, wanted to pledge his soul for it.
Also this monstrous doctrine they dare to present without all shyness, in order to take away the fear of God from men and to bring them to the wrath of God through indulgences, against the saying of the wise man [Sir. 5, 5.]: "Do not be so sure whether your sin is not yet punished"; and again [Ps. 19, 13.]: "Who can realize how often he falls short?" Yet they say, "We by no means abrogate the fear of God." If security obtained by indulgences can stand with the fear of God, then in truth you do not abrogate it, but the people who take the letters of indulgence, which you extol with such great oaths. If it fears that the letter will not be sufficient before God, how can this boastful promise of security stand as true? But if it has confidence that it is sufficient, how can it be afraid? Cursed be all such speech in eternity, which persuades to safety and confidence on or by any other thing than the mere mercy of God, which is Christ! All the saints not only fear, but also say with trepidation, "Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant" [Ps. 143, 2.]; and thou wilt bring them into his judgment as sure men by thy letters? Therefore I believe that the fairy tale that has been invented against their unbridled abyss of lies is not entirely without truth, namely: a deceased man once came to hell with a letter of indulgence and demanded freedom by virtue of it. Then a devil came and while he was reading it,
wax and paper had been consumed under his hands (before the great heat of the fire) and he had dragged him with him into the abyss.
53. thesis.
These are enemies of Christ and the Pope who, because of the preaching of indulgences, completely forbid the preaching of the Word of God in other churches.
For it is the office and the attitude of the pope that he wants above all, always and everywhere, that the word of God be preached; as he knows that it is commanded to him by Christ. So how can we believe that he contradicts Christ and himself? But our preachers of indulgences are subject to this, as well as to everything.
54. thesis.
It does injustice to the word of God if one spends as much or more time preaching indulgences in a sermon than on the word of God.
This is sufficiently evident from the dignity of the Word of God, indeed, from its necessity, while the word of indulgence is neither necessary nor of much use.
55. thesis.
The Pabst's opinion cannot be otherwise than that if the indulgence (which is the least) is celebrated with one bell, one pomp and ceremonies, that, on the other hand, and much more, the gospel (which is the greatest) should be honored and praised with a hundred bells, a hundred pomps and ceremonies.
For in the church nothing should be handled with greater care than the holy gospel, since the church has nothing more precious and more salvific. That is why it is the only work which the Lord has so often repeated to his disciples. Paul also says [1 Cor. 1:17] that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Finally, Christ commands that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper should only be celebrated in remembrance of Him [Luc. 22, 19]; and Paul says [1 Cor. 11, 26]: "As often as I have been baptized, I have been baptized.
When ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord. For it is better to omit the Sacrament than not to proclaim the Gospel; and the Church has decreed that no Mass may be celebrated without the Gospel being read. Therefore, with God the Gospel is of higher value than the Mass, for without the Gospel man does not live in the spirit, but he does live without the Mass. For man lives by every word that goes through the mouth of God [Matth. 4, 4], as the Lord Himself teaches more extensively in John 6. Then the mass refreshes those who are already in the body of Christ; but the gospel is the sword of the Spirit, consumes the flesh, divides the behemoth, takes away the armor of the strong, and increases the body of the church. The Mass benefits only those who are already alive, but the Gospel benefits all. Therefore, in the first church, those who were possessed and those who had been instructed in the beginnings of Christianity were allowed to remain until after the Gospel, whereupon they were dismissed by those who belonged to the mass and enjoyed the body there; and even now, the laws allow the banished to remain in the mass until after the Gospel. Just as John went before Christ, so the Gospel goes before the Mass. The Gospel bows down and humbles; the Mass gives grace to the humbled. They would do better, therefore, if they forbade the mass.
But what a glorious spectacle do you think it must be for the devils when sometimes the givers of indulgences who are themselves most in need of indulgences (namely, as Simonists and those addicted to the Canons) give indulgences to those who have no need of indulgences at all?
56. thesis.
The treasures of the church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the church of Christ.
Thus I have deserved death for the second time. Therefore, after I have long asserted many things that are so obvious that there is no need for protest.
so now once again we have to dispute, and therefore I have to protest with this last protestation in this disputation. So I dispute here and seek the truth, let it be witness, reader, let it be witness, listener, let it be witness even the inquisitor of the heretic court.
57. thesis.
For it is evident that these are not temporal goods, so that many preachers do not easily give them away, but gather them up alone.
That is clear enough from experience.
58. thesis.
Nor are the merits of Christ and the saints: for these always work, without the help of the pope, grace to the inward man, and the cross, death and hell to the outward man.
The subject of this thesis is all too deeply ingrained in almost all teachers, and sits in their innermost being; therefore I must prove my thesis all the more widely and strongly, and this I will do confidently:
First of all, of the merits of the saints.
They say, in fact, that the saints have worked in this life beyond their due, namely, superfluous works, which have not yet been rewarded, but have flowed into the treasury of the Church, with which now, through indulgences, a worthy compensation takes place 2c And so they pretend that the saints have done enough for us. Against this I conclude as follows:
To the first: Consequently indulgences are not indulgences; which I prove by this, because they are not a gracious remission, but the granting of an alien satisfaction, and here all that has been explained above with regard to the treasure of the contending church takes place; for then by the power of the keys only a certain transmission of works is effected, but nothing is redeemed which is contrary to the word of Christ: "All things that thou shalt redeem.
For if there really are works of the saints in the church in such a way, the Holy Spirit certainly does not allow them to lie idle, but they actually come to the aid of all those whom they can help.
Secondly: No works of the saints have gone unrewarded, for, as all think, God rewards abundantly; and Paul says [Rom. 8:18], "Sufferings for this time are not worthy of the glory that is to be revealed in us. "2c
Thirdly: No saint has sufficiently fulfilled the commandments of God in this life, therefore they have done nothing superfluous. Therefore, they have also left nothing that could be distributed as indulgences. The conclusion, I believe, is sufficiently clear; but I prove the upper proposition in such a way that it cannot be doubted, but must be believed in such a way that its antithesis is heretical. First, by the saying of Christ [Luc. 17:10], "When ye have done all that ye are commanded, say, We are unprofitable servants." But by a useless servant is understood one who has done under, not over, his duty; unless one follows the dreams of certain people in bad taste, who gossip that Christ said this of his own out of humility, but not in truth, thereby making Christ a liar, so that they may remain truthful. Secondly, by Matt. 25:9, because the wise virgins did not want to share any of their oil for fear that it would break. Third, Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:8, "Each one will receive his reward according to his work"; he does not say "according to someone else's work. Fourth, Gal. 6:4 f., it is said, Every man must give account for himself; and again [2 Cor. 5:10], "That every man may receive after he hath acted in the life of his body." Fifth, every saint is a debtor to God to love Him as much as he can, yes, more than he can; but none has done this, nor can do it. Sixth, the saints, with their most perfect works, namely, death, martyrdom, and suffering, do no more than they owe; indeed, they do what they owe, and even that they hardly do; consequently they have much
less in other works than they were guilty of. Seventh, since I provide so many reasons for proof, but they do not provide one either for their opinion, but rather mere talk, without scripture, without teachers or reasons of reason, we can, indeed, must completely deviate from their opinion. But these may be my proofs.
Now I prove the same with sayings of the holy fathers. First, with the well-known saying of St. Augustine: "All saints need to pray: Forgive us our trespasses; even if they have done good, because Christ exempted no one when he taught us to pray"; but those who confess their trespasses certainly have nothing superfluous. Secondly, by Psalm 32:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity;" and further on (v. 6.), "For this shall all the saints pray thee." Jerome, in his Dialogue against the Pelagians, interprets this verse splendidly, saying, "How can he be a saint who prays for his ungodliness? Again, but if he be ungodly, he is not holy 2c Therefore the saints, by prayer and confession of their ungodliness, merit that sin be not imputed to them." Third, St. Augustine, in the 1st book of his Retractations, says: "All commandments are fulfilled when that which is not fulfilled is forgiven." In fact, there he treats the question: whether the saints have perfectly fulfilled the commandments, and he denies this, saying that it happens more by forgiveness of God than by fulfillment on the part of man. Fourth, he says in the 9th book of his Confessions: "Woe to the life of men, however praiseworthy, if it is judged with the exclusion of mercy." Behold, even the saints need mercy in their whole life! Here also belongs what Job says [9, 15.], "Though I be right, yet must I plead with my judge." How, then, can those have superfluity for others who have not enough for themselves? Fifth, St. Augustine, in the 2nd book against Julian, lists ten ancient church fathers for this opinion, namely Hilarius, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Olympius,
Rheticius, Innocenz, and relies on their reputation, proving that no saint is without sin in this life, according to 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin" 2c Likewise also in his book "Of Nature and Grace."
From this and from many other things that would be too much to enumerate here, I conclude that the saints have no merits that are superfluous to them, with which they could come to the aid of us lazy ones; and to be bold for once, I solemnly declare that I have no doubt about what I have now said, but am ready to suffer fire and death for it, and claim that everyone is a heretic who holds the opposite.
But even if I were to admit the impossible, namely, that the saints really had superfluous merits, I do not know whether the church would be doing a worthy work by using such precious merits so badly, namely, for the solution of punishments; since the solution of punishments is the worst gift the church has and should be given only to the worst, as has often been said. But the punishments of the martyrs and saints should rather be an example that one should bear the punishments. For so we pray when we celebrate their feasts, "that we may also imitate the virtue of suffering." Likewise, the church as a mother does not seem to act godly when she indulges, but when she chastises and restrains, as is clear in the case of banishment and church punishments, which punishments she does not indulge in at all, but rather imposes, especially when she is most concerned for her children. But if she does remit them, she does so, as it were, because she despairs and fears that something worse might come of it. Since, then, the remission of punishments is such a poor gift, and the violence of the keys alone is sufficient for it, it would certainly not seem to be done with slight disrespect to the so glorious efforts of the saints, if it were assigned to the snorers. St. Augustine spoke much better about it in his sermon on the martyrs: "The feasts of the martyrs are (not decrees, but) calls to the
Sufferings of martyrdom, that we may not be displeased to imitate that which we delight to celebrate."
Now this part proves that the merits of the saints cannot be a treasure for us, since they are only a lack for the saints themselves; unless someone would believe that they are a treasure for us in that way, not because they are superfluous, but because it is the communion of the saints, each one working for the other, as one member for the other; but this they did in their lifetime, and if they did it now, it would be by intercession for us, rather than by the power of the keys.
But here I hear from afar the perceptive objection of certain people: It is true, they say, the saints have not been without sin in this life, but these were venial sins; nevertheless they have done more than they were guilty of. It is indeed difficult to deal with these exceedingly stupid people in this matter; but I say briefly: this is their venial sin, that they do less than they are guilty of; but not that which they alone invent as a venial sin, namely laughter, a frivolous word or thought. This is indeed a venial sin, but a great venial one. But a good work, done in the best way, is also a venial sin, as stated above from St. Augustine: Then the commandments are fulfilled, if what is not fulfilled is forgiven, which happens in every good work, because there too, as the Lord's Prayer teaches, forgiveness is always to be asked. But this requires another disputation, about which will be dealt with elsewhere. Therefore, St. Bonaventure, when he claimed that man can be without venial sin, was badly mistaken, the holy man.
Of the second, namely, of the merit of Christ.
That this is not the treasure of indulgences, I dispute; but that it is a treasure of the church, only a heretic can deny, since Christ is the ransom and the redeemer of the world, and therefore really and only the one treasure of the church. But that it is also the treasure of indulgences, I deny, until I have
236 D.V.L. II, 262-264. II. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 484-487. 237
I will be proven wrong, and the reasons why I deny it are as follows:
To the first: This cannot be proved (as I have often said) by any scriptural passages, nor can it be shown by rational reasons, and even those who are of this opinion do not prove it, but simply tell it, as is known to all. But I have said before that if one makes an assertion in the church for which one can give neither a reason nor a sentence, this exposes the church to ridicule by its enemies and heretics, since according to the apostle Peter we are required to give account to everyone who demands a reason for the hope that is in us [1 Pet. 3:15]; and Paul wants a bishop to be powerful also to punish the gainsayers through sound doctrine [Tit. 1:9]. Here, however, there is so little evidence that, if today the Roman Church were to decide in favor of the asserting part, the same danger would remain, namely, that no other reason could be given than because it so pleased the pope and the Roman Church. But what is the use of this reason if we are urged by those who do not follow the Roman Church, as by the heretics, the Picards? They will not ask whether it is the will of the pope and the Roman church, but according to sayings or probable reasons; and at least I have almost my only intention in this whole matter.
Secondly: All the reasons of proof that have been given of the treasure of the contending Church and the merits of the saints apply here in a higher degree, namely: First, that then the indulgence is not an indulgence, but a transfer of other people's works to others and a real and legitimate pardon; because we do what we do through another. But by indulgences (as the Canon says in the 5th book de poen..et rem. ©ap. Cum ex eo) "the pardon required in penance is invalidated"; he does not say "is transferred," but "is invalidated." Secondly, that then the keys of the church do nothing, and are in truth made small, because they do not loose, but transfer what is bound to another. But it is ungodly,
To say that the key does not solve; but if it solves, it takes away the whole. Thirdly, that the merits of Christ in fact work the same without the key; for they cannot be idle. Fourthly, that then a very great disrespect would be shown to the merits of Christ if they were used only for the remission of a punishment, since through them he himself has become an example for all martyrs. It would therefore be contrary to the nature of Christ's merits that they should serve the lazy and indolent, since they also spur on the zealous. For, as has already been said, the remission of punishment is the least of all.
Thirdly, you are to answer the contradiction: St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, and those who follow them, consistently and unanimously say that good works are better than indulgences, as has been well said above. Let this then be true. Likewise, through indulgences the merits of Christ are bestowed and presented. Let this also be true, because all teachers also constantly maintain this opinion. Likewise, the merits of Christ are incomparably better than our good works: indeed, they alone are good. Let this also be true.
Here I conclude and make the conclusion: Blessed is he who does not abandon his good works and seeks only the works of Christ, that is, indulgences, since it would be the ultimate thesis of all blasphemies to prefer his good works to the works of Christ. So either the works of Christ are not the treasure of indulgences, or he is arrogant as a wretched man who does not abandon all commandments, even the divine ones, and seeks indulgences alone, that is, the merits of Christ. But against this, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure say that indulgences are not commanded, even worse than good works: therefore, indulgences are not the works of Christ, and yet they are at the same time and once for all the works of Christ.
But they will perhaps answer me, perceptive as they are, with Aristotelian distinctions: It is true, the merits of Christ, taken in a simple way, are better than our works; but so they are not indulgences, or rather, they are not so conferred by indulgences; but they are so con-
They are taken as they are alone, as those who do enough for the punishments, and in this way they are also applied. 1) I answer: Prove what you say. How? if I did not want to believe you, since you are telling unproven things? I am commanded to test the spirits whether they are of God (1 John 4:1). Secondly, where is what was said above: that the merits would be distributed through indulgences because they were not yet rewarded, but because they had done something that they did not owe? Are such merits, then, so small that they should receive no other reward than that they should be satisfactions for other lazy people? Then I conclude thus: The superfluous works are the noblest and most perfect of all. Do you admit this? Yes. And such are not rewarded to the martyrs or saints, but given to the lazy and snoring? And so the saints are rewarded according to their lesser works and merits, because they leave the more perfect ones to others? I pray thee, who can be so senseless? So Saint Catherine did not receive anything for her martyrdom and virginity, but left it to the Church and was content with the reward of her prayer, vigilance and other good works? But if you say that they were rewarded for this and at the same time also left it to them, where then is what was said that there were certain merits which were not yet rewarded? Seest thou not that it is nothing, to speak without ground of proof, and to counsel in darkness?
If it is ungodly to say that the superfluous works, or what the saints have done more than they owed, are so small and not rewarded to them, how much more is it ungodly to make the works of Christ, which are all superfluous, so small! Therefore to exalt indulgences in this way, and yet to lower them again below our works, is to blaspheme Christ and his saints in their merits; unless it be done erroneously and not willingly.
To the fourth: I take again the reason of proof which the gloss de poem. st rsm. gives in the chapter Quod autem, namely: If.
1) Cf. Löscher, Reformation Acta II, 476.
indulgence is the remission of all punishments, man no longer needs to fast or do good. This is not refuted by the fact that this remission is uncertain, but rather the keys of the church are blasphemed, although almost all scholastic teachers come to its aid for this opinion. But the saying, "Man knows not whether he is worthy of love or hate," is to be understood of the future end; for he who believes now knows not whether he will persevere in faith to the end. Therefore, Ecclesiastes 9:2 immediately adds: "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy to love or to hate, but all things are uncertain for the future" [according to the Vulgate]; for he said in the preceding: "There are the righteous and their works in God's hand. "2c But do they make the remission of guilt uncertain, much more also that of punishment; for if guilt remains, punishment must necessarily remain also; as the same gloss says that by remission is understood when through repentance (rather through faith in the keys) sin is entirely blotted out. What then is the indulgence? an uncertain gift? Let it be far, far from the Church of Christ, indeed from the keys, that such an ungodly deception should take place. For then, in truth, indulgences would be (as some say) an ungodly deception of the faithful. One comes to such an error if one wants to be justified more by his works and his righteousness than by faith. That is why we teach only about repentance, when we teach best, but nothing about faith in the keys, which should be taught most of all. But this has been spoken of more extensively above. Either, then, indulgences are not the treasure of the saints' merits, or it follows very well that he who has obtained indulgences must rest from his good works for sins.
Secondly, this refutation is ungodly against Christ, because if Christ's merits are granted to me through indulgence, and I still consider it uncertain whether my sins are forgiven, I must therefore still work for their remission. Then it follows that I doubt whether the merits of Christ, which are granted to me by the indulgence of Christ, can be forgiven.
are sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. What is more curse-worthy than such doubt? But if I do not doubt, but believe that they are sufficient, I act completely ungodly if I consider my works better than the indulgence, that is, than the works of Christ given to me. For if I could receive only one work, yes, only the millionth part of the smallest work of Christ alone, I am sure of eternal redemption. Let us, therefore, cease to work our works for our sins, and let us do nothing but redeem indulgences, for in them we obtain not one work, but all the merits of Christ, and not only his, but also those of all the saints. Since, therefore, the merits of Christ cannot be compared with ours in any respect of excellence, either they are not the treasure of indulgences, or indulgences must be preferred to all the works of all the commandments of God; or else the greatest dishonor and blasphemy would befall the merits of Christ. Then see what it is that they add to this treasure, as if the merits of Christ alone were not enough, the merits of the saints, as well as the merits of the church in conflict.
But you say, "Did St. Thomas err so much with the others? Is the pope and the whole church, which thinks so, in error? Or do you alone, as the first and only one, have the right opinion?
I answer, first of all, that I am not the only one, but the truth is with me, as well as many other men, namely, those who have doubted and still doubt what the indulgence is worth; nor do they sin with this doubt, since it is only remission of punishments, without which someone can nevertheless be saved, whether he believes them or not, whether he obtains them or not.
Secondly, the pope is also for me; for although he grants indulgences, he nowhere says that they are from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the Church; indeed, since he declares himself in the 5th book äs poen. st rsm. in chapter 6um sx so, he says that they are mitigation of the satisfaction in penance; but a mitigation is not a granting of the pardon.
service of Christ, but only a taking away of punishment.
Thirdly: And the whole church is for me, because the church is absolutely of the same opinion with the pope and holds for it, like the pope. But what opinion the pope has, has already been said.
Fourth: And though St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales are excellent men, with their pupils Antoninus, Peter de Palude, Augustine of Ancona, besides the teachers of ecclesiastical law, who all follow them, yet it is right to prefer to them first the truth and then the prestige of the pope and the church. Nor is it to be wondered at that so great men have erred in this. For, tell me dear, in how many ways do even the scholastics accuse St. Thomas of having erred! Yes, what is more, how many universities, how many of the most perceptive minds in them, how many of the most strenuous efforts of gifted people have been working on the One Aristotle for more than 300 years now, and yet they still not only do not understand Aristotle, but they scatter an erroneous and fictitious understanding of him almost throughout the whole Church; although, even if they understood him, they would not have gained anything of special glorious wisdom, especially in the books of Aristotle, which they use most, in which he himself, according to his own testimony in Aulus Gellius in 4. Cap. of the 20th book and that of Gregory of Nazianzus in his sermon against the Arians he is only invented as a mere word artist and word brawler. I might be considered impudent, impudent and presumptuous here; and oh, that I only had time and leisure, so that I could give an account of this presumption of mine and make my words credible! perhaps I could bring about that mau would not regard this opinion of mine as unfounded. I would not try to bring Aristotle into agreement with Plato and others, which John Pico of Mirandola undertook, but paint Aristotle with his own colors, as is rightly painted by one who is a word artist by profession (as Gregory of Nazianzus says), and a verse artist by profession.
mocking gifted people. If, then, God allowed such a fog and darkness to prevail for such a long time among such high learned people, how can we still so surely have pleasure in ourselves, and not rather (as befits Christians) consider everything that is ours to be suspect, so that Christ alone may be the light, the righteousness, the truth, the wisdom, and all our good?
Since those holy men saw how unlearned or such people who had not recognized Christ held Aristotle in such high esteem and esteem, they, as they were of humble disposition, also followed out of pious simplicity and, since they had fallen into error, they became a cause of so many confusions, opinions, questions and errors for others, as we now see them before our eyes in the scholastic teachers. And we were worthy, because we forsook Christ, that he also forsook us and gave us up even through his elect into the danger of error and endless toil, as he says in Ezekiel, 14, 9.And there [v. 4]: "If he comes to the prophet to ask me through him, then I, the Lord, will answer him as he deserves with his great idolatry. Therefore everything is to be read and received with fear and judgment, also what is taught by great and holy men, according to the saying of the apostle [1 Thess. 5, 21.]: "Test everything and keep what is good"; and that of John [1 Ep. 4, 1.]: "Test the spirits, whether they are of God." But he who disregards such counsel and relies on men, like those who say, "I would rather err with such great men than be right with you"; he is worthy to be disregarded and left in the lurch by the counsel [consilmw] also. For he who despises the counsel of the spirit, why should he not rightly be despised by the spirit of the counsel? This is what happened with the indulgences. When the holy people saw how the mob exalted the indulgence so high (as the mob is always in the habit of judging Paris and Midas), and did not want to believe that it was so small, they began to make even an honorable
and precious foundation for him to invent, since they found no other, nor was there one anywhere.
Let us therefore return to the matter in hand and examine the merit of Christ and prove that it is not the treasure of indulgences. Now follows as a foundation for this
Fifthly, no one is given the grace of repentance without at the same time being given the merits of Christ. Consequently, before indulgence he already has the treasure of Christ's merits; and if he did not have it, indulgence would be of no use to him either, according to their own opinion (for such high thoughts they have of the remission of punishments). For through repentance man enters again into grace with Christ, 1) just as the prodigal son came again into grace with his father, who says [Luc. 15:31], "All that is mine is thine"; and as it is said in Isa. 9:6, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given"; and again, Rom. 8:32, "How shall he not with him give us all things?"
Sixth, otherwise those who are worse would be the more blessed in the church. For it has already been said that indulgences are of use only to criminals, and to them should the treasure of Christ's merits be given? But it should not be given to children, virgins, and innocents, to whom it is most due, indeed, who alone have it? But this reason of proof is of little value to those who believe that all punishments are taken away, even that no indulgence can be given to sinners without repentance, which I do not believe.
Lastly, a proof that the thesis itself brings, namely: the merits of Christ and his saints work their double work, namely their own and foreign, even without the pope. The own, which is grace, righteousness, truth, patience, gentleness in the spirit of a chosen man, because the righteousness of Christ and his merit justifies and remits sins, like John
1) In Latin: kioutLIinsproäiZnsenmOtirikto xatrs sno, qui dioit. The words enm OUristo will probably be disguised. We have taken it as if it said: rsdit in Aratinm "um OUristo, sieut etc..
says [1, 29.]: "Behold, this is God's Lamb, who bears the sin of the world"; and Isa. 43, 24. s. it is said: "Thou hast made me labor in thy sins, and hast given me trouble in thy iniquities; I, I blot out thy transgression for my own sake, and remember not thy sin." But he blots them out by the merit of his suffering; and in such a way I would admit that the merits of Christ are, as it were, a treasure, not of the Church, but of God the Father; for he obtains for us remission of the debt by effectual intercession with God. Thus he speaks figuratively in Job, "Him will I look upon"; and the apostle says Heb. 12:24, that the blood of Christ speaks better than Abel's; for Abel's blood cries out for vengeance and wrath, but the blood of Christ cries out for mercy and represents us. The foreign work (for that is what Isaiah 28:21 calls it) is the cross, toil, all kinds of punishments, and finally death and hell in the flesh, so that the sinful body may cease, here members who are on earth may be killed, and sinners may be turned to hell. For every one that is baptized and regenerated in Christ is prepared for punishment, for the cross, for death many times over, that he may be esteemed as a sheep for the slaughter, and be slain daily [Ps. 44:23.], even as the Psalm saith [Ps. 38:18.], "For I am made for sorrows, and my pain is ever before me." Thus, we must be conformed to the image of the Son of God, so that whoever does not take up his cross and follow Him is not worthy of it, even if he were full of all indulgences.
From this, then, see if not, since the scholastic, that is, the fooling (for this is the meaning of the word in Greek) theology has taken its beginning, the theology of the cross has been destroyed and everything has been completely reversed? A theologian of the cross (that is, one who speaks of the crucified and hidden God) teaches that punishment, the cross and death are the most precious treasure of all and the most holy relics, which the Lord Himself has consecrated and blessed to this theology not only by touching it with His most holy flesh, but also by embracing it with His above all holy and divine will, and has left it here for us, as the one that in truth is to be
are to be kissed, sought and embraced. Yes, blessed and blessed is he whom God deems worthy to be given such relic treasures of Christ; or rather, who recognizes that they are given to him. For to whom are they not presented? As St. James says [1, 2.], "My dear brethren, consider it vain joy when ye fall into many a temptation." For not all have this grace and honor of receiving these treasures, but only the most elect children of God. Many go on pilgrimages to Rome and other holy places to see the skirt of Christ, the bones of martyrs, the places and traces of saints, which we do not want to condemn, but which we blaspheme, that we do not see the true relics, namely the Cross and the Passion, which sanctified the bones and relics of the martyrs and made them worthy of such great veneration, so that not only, when they are offered to us at home, we do not want to accept them, but also reject them with all our strength and pursue them from place to place; while with the greatest thirst and constant tears we should ask God that such delicious relics of Christ, which are the holiest of all, be given to us, as it were as a gift of God's chosen children. Thus also the 16th Psalm in Hebrew has the superscription Michtham, by which one can understand, as it were, an excellent golden small gift, because in it only the suffering of Christ is sung about; and the 80th Psalm is headed: A testimony of Assaph, by which the scholars rather want to understand an amusement of Assaph, or a delightful gift of Assaph; and yet a song of the cross sounds in it.
Yes, so sacred are such relics and so precious are these treasures that, while the others can be kept in earthen vessels or most honorably in gold, silver, precious stone and silk, these, on the other hand, can only be kept in heavenly, living, sensible, immortal, pure, holy containers, that is, in the hearts of the faithful, which are incomparably more precious than all gold and precious stone. But now the people lack so much faith in which to venerate such relics.
The fact that even some popes have been the authors and leaders not only to reject these relics, but even to persecute them, so much so that they wanted to devour the Turks, and afterwards even to banish (excommunicare) the Christians to a worse damnation than that of hell, than to slacken only a farthing of their circulation, let alone to suffer any injustice to their name or body. And yet they have nevertheless opened the floodgates of heaven and flooded down treasures of indulgences and merits of Christ, so that also by this flood of sin the whole Christian world is almost ruined, if my faith does not deceive me. But a theologian of glory (that is, one who does not know the crucified and hidden God with the apostle alone, but with the pagans sees and speaks of the glorious God, the invisible essence of him out of visible things, how he is omnipresent and omnipotent) learns from Aristotle that the object of the will is good, and that good is lovable, but evil is hateful, therefore God is the highest good and is to be loved in the highest degree. And therefore he deviates from a theologian of the cross and declares that the treasure of Christ is a redemption and solution of punishments, as the worst and most hateful things. On the other hand, the theologian of the cross, the treasure of Christ is the imposition of punishments and the obligation to the same, as the best and most lovable things. And yet the latter still takes money for his treasure; this, although it is offered for free, is not worthy of a glance, but is still pursued at last.
But who shall be judge between these two, that we may know whom to hear? Behold, thus says Isaiah 66:4: "Therefore I will choose that which they mock"; and 1 Cor. 1:27. it says: "What is weak in the sight of the world, that God has chosen to put to shame what is strong." 2c If we accept this judgment as true, it only remains for us to confess that, if we want to speak the truth, the treasures of indulgences are the greatest harm of all, if they are understood in the way they are trumpeted, namely, that they are the remission of all punishments, not the remission of the punishments of the world.
merely canonical; since there is no greater harm than that the image of the Son of God should be taken away from men and they should be deprived of priceless treasures, of which St. Agnes boasted in joyful and blessed exaltation, calling them beautiful, gleaming gems and ornaments, precious jewels 2c
59. thesis.
St. Lawrence called the poor, who are members of the Church, the protectors of the Church; but he took the word as it was customary in his time.
This is sufficiently clear to those who have seen the legend of St. Lawrence. Then the word is not in use now to refer to the poor people as the treasures of the Church, but it is called the patrimony of Christ and St. Peter, which a certain chaff, 1) but without kernel, of Constantine gave to the Church. Therefore, where God speaks to Christ in the 2nd Psalm [v. 8]: "Cry unto me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the end of the world for thy possession," the cities and the land from morning till evening must be understood. Otherwise, if someone should speak differently in our time about things of the church and spiritual things, he would seem to us like someone who speaks a foreign language, even though St. Laurence called this property of the church wealth, but not the only one.
60. thesis.
We say with good reason, without sacrilege or levity, that this treasure are the keys of the Church, given to the Church through the merit of Christ.
If this merit were also called the treasure of indulgences, namely the power of the keys, the mind would be clear. For no one doubts that what is given to the Church is given to her through the merit of Christ.
1) Probably an allusion to the 96th Distinction of ecclesiastical law, Cap. 14, OouZtuutluus, which deals with the false donation of Constantius. The same has the superscription palea - chaff. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2486.
248 D V. a. II. 273-275. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 501-504. 249
61. thesis.
For it is clear that for the remission of the chastisement, and reserved cases, only the pope's power is enough.
This is proven by the way the pope himself speaks, in that he never thought of the merits of Christ when binding or loosing, but he only speaks: out of the fullness of power, according to certain knowledge and on his own initiative.
Secondly, from the common opinion of all who prove that indulgences are given by virtue of words, since Christ says: "All that thou shalt redeem. "2 This word, they think, would be without power if it did not grant power. Therefore they also hold that power alone is sufficient, but they do not prove the treasure by any saying, but rather cite this saying as sufficient, which is, after all, of mere power, but not of a grant of merit.
Thirdly: Otherwise, a grant of merit would also have to be assumed in the case of other bonds and solutions, namely when, by virtue of his priestly office, he excommunicates, absolves, ordains, expels from the order, makes laws, abolishes laws, enjoins, forbids, exempts from the law, converts it, interprets it. For in all these things action is taken by virtue of this word: "All that thou shalt redeem. "2c If, therefore, no grant of merit is necessary in this, but the mere power of the keys is sufficient, how much more in the remission of canonical penalties! since such a remission is nothing else than an absolution of penalties. Indeed, if anywhere a conferral of Christ's merits takes place, it must happen most of all in the absolution of a banished person; for there the sinner is reconciled to the Church and again declared to be partaker of the goods of Christ and the Church. There is, therefore, no reason at all why the word, "All that thou shalt redeem," 2c, should include the treasure of Christ in indulgences, and not also in all other solutions, since it is the same saying, the same words, and the same sense in it.
Fourth: If the loosening by the key at the conferring of indulgence is a
If there is an opening and abundant distribution of the treasure of the church, then, by virtue of the opposition, binding must entail a gathering and enclosure of this treasure; for opposing powers also have opposing works. But nowhere and never is it customary to collect or enclose this treasure; and yet, if there is a solution and rich distribution, it is necessary that there should also be a collection, since both are given to the church, and not given in vain or in a void manner. Consequently, just as by binding is understood: to make one a debtor without collecting the treasure, without really taking anything from him, so also by redeeming must be understood: to make one free without really distributing a treasure,
62. thesis.
The right true treasure of the Church is the holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
The Gospel of God is unknown to a large part of the Church, therefore we must speak of it more broadly. For Christ left nothing in the world but his gospel alone. That is why he gave his appointed servants nothing but pounds, cents, money, and pennies, so that by these words, which mean treasures, he might show that it [the gospel] was the real true treasure. And Paul says that he gathers treasures for his children [2 Cor. 12:14]; and Christ calls it a treasure hidden in the field [Matt. 13:44]; and the very fact that it is hidden makes it at the same time despised.
But the gospel according to the apostle, Rom. 1, 1. 3. f., is a sermon about the Son of God, who became man, who was given to us without our merit for salvation and peace. It is the word of salvation, the word of grace, the word of comfort, the word of joy, the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, the good word, the word of peace, as Isaiah 52:7 says: "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messengers who proclaim peace, preach good, proclaim salvation." But the law is
the word of destruction, the word of wrath, the word of sorrow, the word of pain, the voice of the judge and the accused, the word of trouble, the word of cursing. For according to the apostle, the law is the power of sin [1 Cor. 15:56,1, the law only inflicts wrath [Rom. 4:15.], it is a law of death [Rom. 7:13.]; for from the law we have nothing but an evil conscience, a troubled heart, a quivering breast at the sight of our sins, which the law shows and yet does not take away, and which even we cannot take away. Thus to the captives, the sorrowful, and the utterly despairing, the light of the gospel comes, saying, "Fear not" [Isa. 35:4]; "Comfort, comfort my people" [Isa. 40:1]; "Comfort the fainthearted" [1 Thess. 5:14]; "Behold, there is your God!" [Isa. 40, 9.]; "Behold, this is God's Lamb, which bareth the sin of the world" [Jn. 1, 29.]; behold, he alone hath fulfilled the law for you, "whom of God is made unto you for righteousness, for sanctification, for wisdom, and for redemption" to all them that believe on him [1 Cor. 1, 30.]. When the sinful conscience hears this sweetest tidings, it revives and rejoices in joyful leaping and full of confidence, and. it is no longer frightened either by death, or by the many punishments related to death, or by hell. Therefore, those who are still afraid of the punishments have not yet heard Christ, nor the voice of the gospel, but rather the voice of Moses.
Therefore, the true glory of God flows from this gospel, in that we are taught that the law is fulfilled and will be fulfilled not by our works, but by the grace of God who has mercy on us in Christ, not by works, but by faith, not by giving something to God, but by receiving everything from Christ and becoming partakers of it, in the fullness of which we all participate and receive. But more about this elsewhere.
63. thesis.
This treasure is cheaply the most hostile and most detestable. For it makes the first become the last.
For the gospel destroys all that is anything; it puts to shame that which is strong, it puts to shame that which is wise, and makes them nothing, weak, foolish; for it teaches humility and cross. Thus it is said in the 9th Psalm [v. 6.], "Thou reproachest the heathen, and destroyest the wicked; their name thou destroyest for ever and ever." But before this guideline of the cross all those shrink back who have pleasure in earthly things and in their own, and say, "This is a hard saying" [John 6:60]. Therefore it is no wonder that this speech of Christ is completely hated by those who want to be something, who want to be wise and powerful in front of themselves and the people and think themselves to be the first.
64. thesis.
But the treasure of indulgences is the most acceptable, because it makes the first from the last.
He teaches us to be afraid of punishments; indeed, he makes us free from punishments, which is only due to the righteous. For no one needs indulgence but a servant of punishments, that is, one who does not trample them underfoot, ruling over them in proud contempt, but is oppressed by them and flees from them as a child from the shadows of night and darkness; and yet they are set free, while even the righteous are subject to many a punishment.
65. thesis.
Therefore, the treasures of the gospel are nets, where the rich wealthy people were fished in the past.
For thus saith the apostle [2 Cor. 12:14], "I seek not yours, but you"; and Christ [Matt. 4:19], "I will make you fishers of men." For the sweet word attracts the will; yea, it makes man surrender his will to Christ. That is why St. Peter speaks as he is depicted as a fisherman in Rome:
Ecclesain pro rmvs rsAo, midi ellmLtL wuuäi 8unt inure, 8eripturue retiu, pisei8 üoino.
(In German: I steer the church instead of my ship, the countries of the world are my sea, the Scriptures are my net, the fish is man).
252 n. 277-279. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, so7-sio. 253
66. thesis.
But the treasures of indulgence are the nets with which the riches of men are fished at this time.
This, I believe, is clear from what has been said; for by the remission of punishments man is not made better, nor is he drawn more to God (for this is done by the word of Christ alone), since there are more words of a man who gives deliverance and indulgence than of one who catches and binds. For if they catch anything, it is certainly only the money, but souls they do not catch. Not as if I wanted to condemn this business of raising money; indeed, in my judgment, God's providence in this business seems to provide that at least in this life he still rewards it with some money, so that nothing remains unrewarded; since it is the least among the gifts and offices of the church and not worthy to be crowned in the life to come. But in the past, the decrees were in vain.
67. thesis.
The indulgence that preachers proclaim to be the greatest grace is certainly to be considered a great grace, for it bears great profit and enjoyment.
For this is how bold ignorance subjects itself, that it calls the greatest what is the least, and then the judgment and the ability to understand it rightly is left to the people, so that they should believe out of error that God's grace is given here. For they do not explain it, lest they be compelled to contradict themselves, or lest they be found liars, because they have called that which is small great.
68. thesis.
And yet, such indulgences are truly the least of graces, when compared to the grace of God and the blessedness of the cross.
Yes, compared to the grace of God it is null and void, since it is rather the opposite of the grace of God.
The grace of God works in part; nevertheless, he was borne for the sake of the indolent and lazy, as this is evident from what has been said.
69. thesis.
It is the duty of bishops and pastors to admit commissaries of apostolic indulgences with all reverence.
Because one has to give way to the papal reputation in everything with reverence. For [Rom. 13, 2.] "Whoever sets himself against the authorities resists God's order, but those who resist (God) will receive judgment upon themselves." And the Lord himself says [Luc. 10, 16.], "He that despiseth you despiseth me." Therefore, in small things no less than in great, one must give way to violence. Hence it is that even if the pope passes unjust judgments, one must nevertheless fear them and, as Emperor Carl says, "bear all that he imposes, however heavy it may be"; as we also see from experience that this is also done by the church, which today is certainly pressed by innumerable burdens and yet bears them godly and humbly, calmly. But this is to be understood in such a way that no one gets a false conscience, as if the unjust decisions were to be feared because they had to be recognized as just by those who have to fear them, since the pope himself says that some are bound by the church who are not bound before God, and he forces them to bear this binding. However, such binding does not harm them, because it is only a punishment and must be feared, but it should not give rise to conscience concerns; just as we must also fear God in every other, even worldly, act of violence, and not resist it out of contempt. In the same way, burdens are to be borne, not because they are rightly imposed or are to be approved of, but as a discipline imposed on us by God, which is to be humbly borne. Therefore, unjust decisions and burdens are to be feared not because of this word: "All that you will bind," but because of the general commandment: "Be willing to your adversary while you are still with him on the way.
are" [Matth. 5, 25. [Matth. 5, 25]; and that other one: "If someone gives you a stroke on your right cheek, offer him the other one as well" [Matth. 5, 39]; and Rom. 12, 19: "Do not avenge yourselves" 2c For if this were only a counsel (as many even among the theologians seem to assume erroneously), then it would also be allowed to resist the pope in his burdens and unjust decisions with the same freedom as the Turk or other adversaries. But one may by no means oppose anyone, even if one may not approve of their work, lest there be error in the conscience. But this subject, which is very necessary, requires another time and work.
70. thesis.
But much more they owe to watch with eyes and ears that these same commissaries do not preach their own dreams instead of papal command.
It is a very well-established rule of the jurists, namely: The pope acts in all bestowals in such a way that he does not interfere with any other, except where he expressly mentions this and does so from the fullness of his power; as this is also taught by the usage and the manner of speaking of the Roman court. Therefore it is quite certain that when he gives indulgences, they are only indulgences, and are to be of no more value than what they are by their nature; but he allows them to be of what value they are, satisfied that he has given them: for nowhere does he declare their value. This is the order of the pope. But our preachers of indulgences go further, and not only boast publicly in the pulpit that they are popes, while others more properly consider them to be seed-crowns, 1) but also connect with the name the office both of the pope and of the church, and determine us as if from heaven, and proclaim with confidence what indulgences are, yes, very far beyond what they really are and ever could be, as is proved from their own latest book 2).
1) pappos --- the woolly seedlings flying around in autumn, e.g. of the dandelion.
2) The summary instruction of the Archbishop of Mainz.
can. The dreams of the same are therefore the bishops guilty to forbid, so that they do not let the wolves enter the sheepfold of Christ, as it is expressly commanded in the 5th book de poen. et rem. Cap. Emu sx so, as well as in the same book in the chapter Abusiouibus in the Clementines, that they should not let the people hear anything but what is contained in their letters.
71. thesis.
Whoever speaks against the truth of the papal indulgence is a curse and malediction.
For although the granting of indulgences is something small in comparison with the grace of God and against the great clamor of those who preach it, yet he acts arrogantly against authority who contradicts. For this reason he is justly condemned; since ecclesiastical obedience is all the more admirable in the lesser matters in which he departs from his senses and humbles himself. But what is the truth concerning indulgences has been discussed enough and is still awaiting the decision of the church; only this is certain, that it is only the remission of temporal punishments, whoever wants it. The remission of penalties, however, is (as I have said) a very small gift that the Church can give, especially when it gives it to those whom it has remitted the debt. But the remission of sins, together with the holy gospel, is the greatest of all; but they do not care so much about it, or at least it is unknown to them.
72. thesis.
But whoever cares or worries against the preacher of indulgences' wanton and insolent words, let him be reproved. .
For such is the condition of Christ's widow, the Holy Church, today, that everything is permitted to all, and especially to the scholastic theologians, among whom one can find those who condemn even true opinions, for no other reason than because they have not flowed from their source; yet they are permitted to assert that God does sin, that God is the cause of evil, of guilt,
and many other things. If any poet or orator (as they are called) or any scholar in Greek, Latin or Hebrew would say this, he would have to be the worst of all heretics. But that is a greater pity. If a Christian supplied arms to the Turks, or hindered those traveling to Rome, or violated an apostolic letter, this is so great a crime that no authority is ever given to remit it, though [otherwise] the utmost authority should be given; but the apostolic see reserves it to itself. So holy did the Church act at that time that, after first observing the commandments of God, she would punish even such small things with such great severity. For at that time there was not yet in the church that many-headed monster and that hell of simony, lust, ostentation, murder and the other abominations.
But if these things are punished so severely, with what severity, we believe, must those be punished who sacrifice not to the Turks, but to the devils, and who do not surrender any weapons, but our own, that is, the word of God, since they defile it with their dreams and (as Isaiah is wont to speak) melt it into an idol by their spirit, so that it is not an instrument by which the soul is enticed, but is seduced to false opinions? But this vice is now everywhere so permitted that he must be the most vicious man who does not consider it a virtue and a merit above all merits, it may happen to whom it may. So also St. Jerome complains that the Holy Scriptures are open to all, not for learning, but for tearing. Then, if those who prevent the people going to Rome sin so much, what do those who prevent the people going to heaven do, not only by their corrupt doctrines, but also by their completely corrupt customs? And where will those go who violate not apostolic [i.e. papal] but divine scriptures? They have the key of knowledge; they themselves do not enter and resist those who want to enter [Luc. 11, 52]. Are these not greater and worse abominations than those which were read on Maundy Thursday and read in the presence of the Holy Spirit?
be kept? 1) But they are to be read only in heaven and never enacted.
Therefore, those are worthy of blessing who strive to purify the Holy Scriptures and illuminate them from the darkness of opinion and human reason, by which we have almost become Pelagians in opinion and Donatists in deed. But about this another time.
73. thesis.
How the pope justly strikes with disfavor and banishment those who act in some way to the detriment of indulgences:
Again I say here, as before (whatever the personal attitude of the pope may be): one must humbly yield to the power of the keys and be favorable to it, but in no way presumptuously strive against it; for it is God's power, which, whether it is used rightly or abusively, must be feared like every other work of God; but it even more so.
74. thesis.
So much more does he seek to heap disgrace and banishment on people who, under the pretense of indulgence, act to the detriment of holy love and truth.
For however much authority is to be honored, we must not be so cowardly that we should not reject or resist its abuse. For all saints have also upheld the temporal power, which the apostle [Rom. 13, 1. ff.] also calls God's power, even in the midst of the punishments and torments it inflicted upon them; but nevertheless they persistently detested its abuse, and did not maintain it because those had used the power rightly through persecution, but left them the conscience of the evil deed, and through death drew the testimony and confession of their innocence; as also St. Peter says [1 Ep. 4, 15.]: "No one suffers as a thief" 2c So also
1) In äis 606NL6 - on Green Thursday; which are included in the Night Meal Bull and condemned as heresies therein. (Weimar edition)
anyone whom the church or the pope deprives of the fellowship of the faithful without cause must tolerate this and not condemn the violence; but he must not fear it in such a way that he approves of it as if it were benevolent, but rather die in banishment. For he is banished only by an error of the key; but if he would approve this error by desiring absolution, he would err still worse. He honors and carries the key, but does not approve of the error.
Therefore, those who preach indulgences in such a way that they want them to be regarded as God's grace are to be banished, for this is contrary to truth and love, in which alone this grace consists. And it would be much better if there were no indulgences anywhere, than that such opinions were sown among the people; since without indulgences we can be Christians, but with such opinions we can only be heretics. It is certain, however, that the pope believes or must want that mutual love and mercy are first among the people, and that the other commandments of God are on his mind, and so he grants indulgences. But now he is deceived, because love and mercy and faith are almost extinct, not merely cold among us. For if he knew this, he would leave the indulgences in place, and thus ensure that the people would first return to mutual love. Thus I testify by the Lord Jesus that the people for the most part (others think universally) do not know that the works of love are better than indulgences; rather, they believe that they can do nothing better than to redeem indulgences; and with this heretical and pernicious opinion, they have no one to punish them or to instruct them faithfully, but rather, through these ostentatious praises, they are virtually induced to do so.
75. thesis.
To think that the pope's indulgence is so great that it can absolve one from sins, even if (to speak impossibly) it has weakened the Mother of God, is to be furious and nonsensical.
I am compelled to call those who put forward such an opinion nonsensical, and we must ask the Holy Virgin for forgiveness.
1) that we are forced to say and think such things; but there was no other way open to avoid this necessity. I do not know on what devil's impulse it happened that the people everywhere spread such a rumor, may it really have been said that way, or may it have been understood that way by the people. I, however, although it was steadfastly asserted by many and respected people that it was preached in this way in many places, rather wondered about it than believed it, but thought that they must have heard it wrong. Therefore, in this thesis I did not want to rebuke any preacher, but to admonish the people who have begun to take such things into their heads, which perhaps no one would have said; for whether they have said it or not, I am not interested in it until I have certainty about it. But that quite abominable opinion, may it come from where it will, had to be rejected and condemned with disgust. But it was no wonder that something like that was understood by the people, since they heard how, for the sake of the greatness of the graces, great and quite horrible sins are, as it were, regarded as quite small.
The right and evangelical preaching is to make the sins as great as possible, so that man may come to fear and to a right repentance. Finally, what is the use of thundering about with such exaggerations for the sake of a very small remission of punishments, of raising indulgences, and of scarcely protesting for the sake of the most salutary wisdom of the cross? Yes, how should this not harm the simple-minded people, who are accustomed to value the word only according to how great a gesture and effort it is preached with? But the gospel is preached with no pomp and circumstance, and indulgences with all possible pomp and circumstance, so that the people may think the gospel is nothing and indulgences everything.
It is to be wondered at, while they presume to cry out murder, robbery, pleasure of all kinds, blasphemies against the Virgin Mary and God as trifling things that could be remitted by this indulgence, why they do not also cry out that those
1) This is still papistic.
260 V. a. II. 284-286. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, SI8-S2I. 261
lesser things would be enacted that are reserved in the Bull of the Supper? "The pope does not remit them." See, then, if he does not also remit, or at least does not remit so easily, those things which are much more serious than these.
76. thesis.
On the other hand, we say that the pope's indulgence cannot take away the slightest daily sin, as far as the guilt of it is concerned.
I would not have needed this diminution if I had not wanted to make the opinion in the previous thesis detestable. It is obvious, however, that no guilt is remitted except by God. Therefore, even those great sins are not remitted by conferred powers (facultates), but only declared to be remitted, and the punishment for them remitted; I say this according to their view, but mine is stated clearly enough above. But here I should have dwelt on venial sin, which is nowadays so little esteemed as if it were almost no sin at all, and I fear to the great ruin of many who snore securely in their sins and do not see that they are committing gross sins. I must confess: as long as I have read the scholastic teachers, I have never understood what and how great a venial sin would be; whether they themselves understand it, I do not know. This I say briefly: whoever does not constantly fear and act as if he were full of mortal sins will hardly ever be blessed; for the Scripture says [Ps. 143:2], "O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant." For not merely venial sins, as they are now everywhere called, but even good works cannot bear God's judgment, but need pardoning mercy, for it is not said, Go not into judgment with thine enemy; but, With thy servant and thy child that serveth thee. This fear, then, should teach us to sigh for and trust in the mercy of God; where it is lacking, we begin to trust more in our conscience than in God's mercy, not being aware of any gross sin that we should have committed; and such will fall into a terrible judgment.
77. thesis.
To say that St. Peter, if he were now pope, would not be able to give greater indulgences is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. thesis.
Against this we say that also this and every pope has greater indulgences, namely the gospel, powers, gifts to make well 2c 1 Cor. 12, 6. 9.
For under the power and obedience of the pope are all those who have such gifts in the church, whom he can send wherever he pleases, if he himself did not personally have these gifts; not to say that the Bull Coena Domini has not yet been abated with its cases. The pope's grace would be even greater if he gave all these gifts free of charge to Christians in need of them; then, if by abolishing the burdensome canons he restored the freedom of the Christian people and nullified the tyranny of those in offices and of the extortioners of money. But this is perhaps not in his power; "for the enemy has gained the upper hand" [Klagel. 1, 16.], "and she who was a queen in the lands must now serve" [Klagel. 1, 1.]. The right of the Lord will keep the victory [Ps. 118, 16], if we are worthy to gain it.
79. thesis.
To say that the cross, gloriously emblazoned with the pope's emblem, can do as much as the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
Who does not see here how impudent these people are? What should they not dare to do, who dare to do such things? Should the souls redeemed with the blood of Christ be entrusted to them? The cross of Christ makes the whole world alive by killing sin, this cross with the emblem grants the remission of some punishments; and so the eternal and the temporal punishments are the same? But what shall I go through all the abominations that follow from such speeches, which even heaven could not bear to see brought forward?
80. thesis.
The bishops, pastors and theologians who allow such words to be spoken before the common man will have to give an account for it.
But one is afraid of the power of the church; moreover, nowadays, the sight and insults against the Roman see are punished with a twofold sword: but may one keep silent about it? "Fear not them which kill the body, and may not kill the soul" [Matt. 10:28]. "Whoever confesses me before men, I will confess him before my heavenly Father" [Matth. 10, 32]. But about this I have to wonder exceedingly, who may have invented this gloss first, that the two swords mean, the one a spiritual (but not, as the apostle calls it, namely, the sword of the spirit, the word of God [Eph. 6,17.]), the other one a material one [i.e. an iron one], in order to make the pope as one armed with twofold violence not a kind father, but as it were a terrible tyrant, in whom we see nothing but violence on all sides.
And this is the so faithful gloss on the decrees of the Fathers, in which weapons are so strictly forbidden to the clergy. Here, see if the angry God, seeing how we preferred to understand an iron instead of the sword of the Spirit and the Gospel, did not do us justice by giving us the sword we wanted and taking away the one we did not want, so that nowhere in the world has the slaughter of war been more cruel than among the Christians, again hardly neglecting the Holy Scriptures more than among the Christians. Behold, there thou hast the sword which thou hast willed! O a gloss worthy of hell! And yet we are so of stone that we do not notice the wrath of God. Dear, why does not this exceedingly amiable clever head also interpret the two keys with equal perspicacity, that the one gives the riches of the world, but the other the riches of heaven? and indeed of the one the opinion is clear enough, for, as the preachers of indulgences say, it continually opens the
But he could not understand the other in this way, for he knew that the gorge in the church was all too eager for riches. It is not beneficial to the church and the inheritance of Christ to squander the riches of the world with the same generosity as the riches of heaven. Therefore, the one key must be the key of knowledge, if it were added to this: The one sword is the sword of knowledge, one would speak apostolically. "In all this the wrath of the Lord is not yet abated, his hand is still stretched out" [Isa. 9, 21.], namely, because it is a wonderfully burdensome thing to meditate on the holy Scriptures, wherewith, if we were equipped with them, we could (as the apostle says) "disturb the suggestions and every high thing that rises up against the knowledge of God" [2 Cor. 10, 5.A shorter way for this trouble pleases us, that we do not destroy the heresies or errors, but burn the heretics and erring ones, namely, guided by the better advice of Cato than that of Scipio, when it was about the destruction of Carthage; yes, we do this against the will of the Spirit, who writes that in the land of promise therefore Jebusites and Cananites remained, so that the children of Israel might learn to wage war and have training in warfare. If St. Jerome does not deceive me, I believe that this is exemplified by the battles with the heretics; but surely the apostle must be credible where he says [1 Cor. 11:19.], "There must be bands." But we, "By no means; but the heretics must be burned, and so the root with the fruit, yea, the tares with the wheat be rooted out." What do we say to this? We can only say with tears to the Lord (Ps. 119, 137.]: "Lord, you are just and right is your judgment!" For what else do we deserve? And I mention this also for this reason, lest the Picards, our neighbors, the heretics, an unfortunate people who rejoice in the Roman stench, like the Pharisee over the publican, but do not bear compassion, - lest, I say, these should think that we do not know our vices and stains, and inordinately pride themselves against our
264 D- ii> Ws-290. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 524-527. 265
We would have raised ourselves to misery if we had seemed to conceal and approve of it. We know, alas, our case and grieve over it; but we do not flee, as the heretics do, and leave the half-dead lying, as if we feared to defile ourselves in foreign sins. In this nonsensical fear, they are so afraid that they are not ashamed to boast about it, they flee because of it, lest they be defiled. That is how great their love is. But we stand by the church all the more faithfully, the more miserable it lies, and hasten to it with weeping, pleading, exhorting and imploring. For this is what love wants, that one should bear another's burdens, not as the love of heretics does, which only seeks another's advantage in order to be borne and to endure nothing burdensome from the sins of others. If Christ and his saints had wanted to act this way, who would have been saved?
81. thesis.
Such insolent and impudent preaching and glorying in indulgences makes it difficult even for scholars to defend the pope's honor and dignity from the same slander, or even from the sharp, cunning questions of the common man.
Although my friends have long been calling me a heretic, ungodly and blasphemer, because I do not accept the Church of Christ and the Holy Scriptures in the Catholic sense, I believe, based on my conscience, that they are wrong, but that I love the Church of Christ and its adornment. "But it is the Lord who judges me, whether I am aware of anything" [1 Cor. 4:4], and therefore I have been impelled to expose all these theses, because I saw that some were infected by false opinions, others laughed at them in the taverns, and had the holy priesthood of the church in open derision, prompted by the insolence, so great beyond measure, with which indulgences were preached. The lay people should not have been further provoked to hate the priests, since for many years now they have been annoyed by our avarice and exceedingly shameful customs, and have honored the clergy (alas! only out of fear of punishment).
82. thesis.
Why does the pope not release all souls from purgatory at the same time, for the sake of the most holy love and because of the highest need of souls, as the most just cause; when he redeems countless souls for the sake of the most perishable money, for the building of St. Peter's Cathedral, than for the most unjust cause?
This question is not raised by the pope, but by the indulgence-seekers; for, as said above, nowhere does one read a decree of the pope on this matter; therefore let those answer to this question who have raised it. I would answer all such questions in one word, as far as it can be done to the honor of the popes, namely: that no one instructs them about the true facts, and it often happens that they also make evil concessions to those whom they report evil.
83. thesis.
Item: Why do the funerals and anniversaries of the deceased remain, and why does he not restore, or grant to be taken again, the benefices or benefices endowed to the dead, so that it is now unjust to pray for the redeemed?
I know that many have labored with me over this question and, though we made many excuses, we labored in vain. We also said that when souls come out, the death ministries established for this purpose are now for the glorification of God, as it happens when children and infants die. Everyone tried to explain it differently, but no one was satisfied. At last I began to argue about it and to deny the truth of their speeches in order to find out from scholars what the answer should be.
Item: What is this new holiness of God and the Pope, that they grant the ungodly and the enemy for the sake of money to redeem a God-fearing soul that is loved by God, and yet they do not want rather, for the sake of
For the sake of the great need of that God-fearing and beloved soul, redeem it in vain out of love?
85. thesis.
Item: Why the Canones poenitentiales, that is, the statutes of repentance, have long since been in themselves, by deed and by disuse, done and dead, nor redeemed with money, by favor of indulgence, as if they were still quite vigorous and alive?
86. thesis.
Item: Why does the pope not prefer to build St. Peter's Cathedral with his own money rather than with the money of poor Christians, since his wealth is greater than that of any rich Crassi?
To these and similar questions I say: It is not our business to judge the will of the pope, but only to bear it, even if it were sometimes quite unreasonable, as I have said above. But he and the preachers of indulgences should be reminded that the people should not be given such an open opportunity to speak, as Eli the priest once did, when the people blasphemed the Lord's grain offering because of his sons [1 Sam. 2:17]. If, however, it was ever the pope's intention to build St. Peter's Church with so much money, and not rather the intention of those who abuse his benevolence for their own gain, then it is not necessary to indicate in writing what people everywhere are saying about this building. God grant that I [not] 1) lie: this extortion cannot continue well for much longer.
87. thesis.
Item: What does the pope grant or share his indulgences with those who are already entitled to a plenary pardon and indulgence through perfect contrition?
This question comes from the fact that many, even legal scholars, say they do not know what the forgiveness of guilt through the keys is; about which I gave my opinion above.
1) In the original: Ilt msntiar. Probably it should be called ut no" rnsntlnr after all.
88. thesis.
Item: What more good could happen to the Church than if the Pope, as he does only once, so a hundred times a day gave this forgiveness and indulgence to every believer?
Here come wonderful things. Some invent a common treasure, which is increased by indulgences; and therefore, if a man receives plenary indulgences seven times a day, as can happen in Rome, the more goods he will obtain. These contradict themselves, since according to them indulgences are the expenditure of treasure, and therefore not collection. Others again think that the sins are remitted, as it can happen with the division of a coherent [body] into infinity, as the wood is divided into still divisible pieces. Thus the sins are remitted and are still further remittable, although they become smaller and smaller. I confess that I do not know what to say.
89. thesis.
Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls more through indulgences than money, why does he cancel and destroy the letters and indulgences that he gave before, if they are equally powerful?
This burns and displeases most of all, and I confess, with a great deal of pretense; for this abrogation is the only cause why indulgences are held in low esteem. Therefore, although I cannot deny that everything the pope does is to be borne, it pains me that I cannot prove that it is the best; although if I had to speak in regard to the pope's disposition without the income of the wage-servants, I would say that one must assume the best about the same, and would speak briefly and with confidence. The Church needs a reformation, which is not the work of one man, the Pope, nor of many, the Cardinals, as both the last Concilium proved, but of the whole world, yes, of God alone. But the time for this reformation knows only
2) In Jonas' German: "durchs". Cf. note 2, col. 79.
268 V- ru II, 292 f. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 539-533. 269
the one who created the time. However, we cannot deny such obvious damages. The keys are misused and have to serve the ambition of honor and money; and the whirlpool has got a violent movement; it is not up to us to stop it. Our misdeeds respond against us, and each one's own word is a burden.
90. thesis.
To dampen these very pointed arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by indicated reason and cause, is to represent the Church and the Pope to the enemies in ridicule and to make the Christians unhappy.
For by trying to keep the people in check through terror, evil becomes worse. How much more right it would be if we were taught to recognize this wrath of God, to pray for the Church and to endure such things in the hope of a future reformation, than that, while we want such obvious vices to be forcibly regarded as virtues, we should stir up more anger, since God would not allow men alone to rule in the Church if we did not deserve to be plagued; he would give us shepherds according to his heart, who, instead of indulgence, would give us our fee of wheat in due time. Now, even if there are good shepherds, they cannot come to their office, so great is the fierce anger of the Lord.
91. thesis.
Therefore, if the indulgence were preached according to the spirit and opinion of the pope, these objections would be easily justified, indeed they would never have occurred.
Why is this? For if indulgences, as they are, had been preached only as a remission of punishments, not as meritorious and inferior to good works [to be held], no man would ever have entertained any misgivings about them; but now that they exalt them too high, they arouse irresolvable misgivings to their own degradation. For the mind of the pope can be no other than that indulgences are indulgences.
92. thesis.
Let all the preachers therefore go, which say unto the church of Christ, Peace, peace; and there is no peace. [Ezek. 13:10, 16.]
93. thesis.
But it must be well with those preachers alone who say to the church of Christ: Cross, cross! and is no cross.
94. thesis.
Christians should be exhorted to follow their head, Christ, through the cross, death and hell;
95. thesis.
And so more to enter the kingdom of heaven through much tribulation [Acts 14:22], than that they might be assured of peace through comfort.
Enough has been said above about the cross and punishment; nowadays a rare sermon.
To the sincere and learned reader.
Not for you, learned and sincere reader, keep this writing edited (but what is this reminder necessary for?), as if I feared it would seem Ciceronian to you; you have elsewhere what you can read according to your taste; I had to deal with the likes of me our things, that is, coarse and uneducated things. So it was decided in heaven; and I would not have dared to invoke the name of the pope with these my water bubbles, if I had not seen how my friends trusted most in the terror of him, and then, because it is the pope's special office, to prove a debtor to the wise and the unwise, the Greek and the un-Greek. Farewell.
In the year of the Lord 1518.