End of May 1518.
Refutation, made by Brother Johann Tetzel, Order of Preachers, heretic, against a presumptuous sermon of twenty erroneous articles, concerning papal indulgences and grace, necessary for all Christian believers to know.
So that the Christian believers, made presumptuous by a sermon of twenty erroneous articles against the parts of the Sacrament of Penance and Truth of Indulgence, and recently published in Lent, went out in print, which sermon title reads thus: "A Sermon of
the indulgence and grace" 2c and starts after this title thus: "To the first you shall know that some new teachers, as Magister Sententiarum" 2c, and ends in the twentieth article thus: "But God give them and us right sense", not to be annoyed and seduced: have I Bru-
*It was first printed by Tetzel in 1518 (4 sheets in quarto) without naming the place of printing, also (according to Vogel's "Life of Tetzel") the original manuscript is still at the University Library in Leipzig. After the original printing, Löscher included it in his "Reformations-Acta" Vol. I, 484, from which it has been transferred to this edition. In addition, it is still published by Kapp in his "Sammlung einiger zum päbstlichen Ablaß gehörigen Schriften".
Johannes Tetzel, Order of Preachers, heretic 2c, has the same sermon of the twenty erroneous articles reprinted with its title, beginning and resolution, and relocates each article of the said sermon with constant ground of the holy Scriptures; as everyone will hereafter judge: notwithstanding that in the nineteenth article of the said sermon it is written: "and let Doctores scholasticos be scholasticos, they are all not enough with their opinions, that they should fasten a sermon"; which words no Christian man shall fret. For if the sermon of the twenty erroneous articles should have any semblance among men, its poet would first have to clear away Doctores scholasticos, who are all in unison with his writings against him. St. Augustine says: "If one wants to argue against the heretics, one does so primarily through auctoritates, that is, in conformity with the holy Scriptures and proven sayings of doctors: as, if one wants to instruct people who believe in Christ, this is done formally through rationes, that is, reasonable cause and doctrine. The heretics know this, if they want to bring a heretical error to the people, therefore they reject beforehand and despise all doctors who publicly write their error against it. As also Wicleff and Johannes Huß did; who Johannes Huß not only considered the atonement for sin, but also the sacramental confession unnecessary and imagined it to the people. For this reason, the holy general council at Costnitz condemned him to the fire.
Because in the above-mentioned erroneous preaching of the twenty articles, such ways are also taken; for the Master of High Saints, together with so many thousands of doctors, many of whom are written in the number of the dear saints, are despised in the erroneous sermon, regardless of the fact that the holy Roman Church holds with them in the three parts of repentance, and does not reprove them, but accepts all of them as reliable; Nor have they ever been heard or proven to have written against the Holy Scriptures and the four Doctors in One Word, but have been recognized as faithful interpreters of the Holy Scriptures and the old Holy Doctors. Therefore, it is to be publicly assumed, and shall also be held by all people of faith in Christ, that these following articles of presumptuous preaching are suspicious, erroneous, completely seductive, and contrary to the holy Christian church; as I then want to prove such a following against each article, with God's help, especially and well-founded. Set this on the knowledge of papal holiness, the entire Christian Church and all universities.
A sermon of the indulgence and grace.
The same first erroneous article reads as follows:
First of all, you should know that some new teachers, such as Magister Sententiarum, St. Thomas, and their followers, give repentance three parts, namely, repentance, confession, and atonement; and although this distinction, in their opinion, is hardly or not at all found in the holy Scriptures, nor in the old holy Christian teachers, we will leave it that way and speak according to their way.
Laying. This erroneous article is so Christianly and consistently mislaid: First, it is erroneous and unfounded, for it indicates that the three parts of repentance are not founded in the holy Scriptures and in the ancient Christian teachers; therein the truth is spared. For the holy Scriptures, the old and new holy doctors, of which there are many thousands, hold that the Almighty God wants restitution and satisfaction for sin. For Christ, our Lord, gives to sinners in the Gospel: "Do the like fruit of repentance"; which is interpreted and understood by all the holy doctors of the whole world as meaning frugal repentance. For this reason, God sent His only Son into the world to make amends for the sins of mankind, regardless of the fact that Adam and Eve repented of them to the fullest, and were therefore cast out of Paradise into repentance. But the fact that the Lord released Mary Magdalene, the adulteress, and the gout-ridden man from all sins, without imposing any penance, does not add anything to the fact that God desires from the sinner only repentance and bearing of the cross; for Christ recognized that the repentance of those now mentioned was sufficient, which He also gave to them Himself, and released them by the power of the key of Excellentiae, that is, the power of Supremacy. But because the priests of men cannot recognize repentance nor give it to them, and have only the key of serviceability: therefore, no matter how highly a man repents of sin and bears the cross, if he despises confession or satisfaction as part of the sacrament of repentance, the chastisement for his sin will never be forgiven him. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The other and third erroneous articles of the Sermon read as follows:
On the other hand, they say: Indulgence does not take away the first or second part, that is, repentance or confession, but the third, that is, satisfaction.
Thirdly: The satisfaction is further divided into three parts, that is, praying, fasting, almsgiving; so that praying means all kinds of works proper to the soul, as reading, reading, listening to God's word, preaching, teaching, and the like; fasting means all kinds of works of mortification of one's flesh, as watching, working, hard bearing, clothing 2c; almsgiving means all kinds of good works of love and mercy toward one's neighbor.
Laying. They are laid in such a Christian way: First, they are both erroneous and quite seductive, for in them the truth is concealed. For in the holy Concilium of Constance it was decided anew: whoever wants to earn indulgences must have confessed to repentance, according to the order of the holy church, or must present it according to the order of the holy church; this is also what all papal indulgence bulls and letters commonly say. Which confession in the first article is implicitly, that is secretly, divided and separated from true repentance, but erroneously. Put this on the knowledge of papal sanctity, all Christian universities and doctors.
The fourth article of the erroneous sermon reads as follows:
Fourthly. It is undoubted in all of them that the indulgence accepts the same works of atonement for the sin guilty or imposed. For if he were to accept all the same works, there would be nothing good left for us to do.
Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: The plenary indulgence takes away the works of atonement, in such a way: whoever is granted plenary indulgence is released from papal authority, so that he is not obliged to do the works of atonement mentioned in the third article, which are imposed on him for repented and confessed sins. And because after perfect forgiveness of sin and chastisement, man is no less challenged by the devil, even to his own flesh and to the world, than before forgiveness; also because evil habits remain in man after forgiveness of sin and chastisement, and quickness to fall again into sin: therefore [in order] to do Against the devil.
In order to resist the devil, the flesh, and the world, and to curb evil sinful habits, affections, and the quickness to fall into sin again, man must not refrain from penitential works after the perfect forgiveness of sin and torment, which are beneficial to man and a remedy for his spiritual weakness, and also meritorious for eternal life. Nor does any papal or episcopal letter of indulgence state that men, if they deserve indulgence, are henceforth to abstain from good works and satisfaction; which good works we are obliged to do in honor of the eternal God, even if we have not sinned, solely on account of creation; and if we have also done all the good works of all our ability, we are to say: we are useless servants of God. For this reason, this article is quite erroneous, seductive, and invented solely to the detriment of indulgences. Offer this on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors. The fifth erroneous article of the sermon reads as follows:
Fifth. There has been a great and still undecided opiny among many, whether the indulgence also accepts something more than such imposed good works, namely, whether it also takes away the punishments that [divine justice] demands for sin.
Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: First, it is quite erroneous and fraudulent, for plenary indulgence also takes away the chastisement which divine justice requires for sins, if they are repented of and confessed, and not sufficiently imposed by priestly dignity. For papal holiness follows St. Peter in the chair and papal office, and therefore, like St. Peter, has power and authority to absolve all sin. And it is derived from the words of the Lord: "Whatever you unbind on earth, that shall be unbound in heaven. "2c Now, since the pope can forgive all sin, he can also forgive all chastisements of sin through indulgences; for all chastisements that men are obliged to suffer for their sin are first and foremost inflicted on the sinner by God, against whom all mortal sins are. Secondly and subsequently, the chastisement is imposed on the sinner in God's stead by the priestly dignity; the same shall be kept with the highest diligence in impositions of penance according to the divine justice ordained by the chapters of the laws called Canones poe- nitentiales. Therefore, let no one consider it an opinion that indulgences do not diminish the chastisement that [divine justice] ordains for
The Holy Roman Church holds this to be the custom, as do all Christian doctors, of whom there are many thousands, and who have never been rejected in the article by the Roman Church. Therefore, the article is erroneous and intends to deceive people. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The sixth erroneous article reads as follows:
Sixthly, I leave their opinion unrejected at the mark. This I say, that it cannot be proved from any Scripture that divine justice desires or requires any chastisement or satisfaction from the sinner, but only his heartfelt and true repentance or conversion, with a resolution to bear the cross of Christ for the sake of it, and to perform the above-mentioned works (also not imposed by anyone); for thus he says through Ezekiel, "If the sinner repents and does right, I will remember his sin no more." Item, so he himself absolved all those, Mary Magdalene, the gout-breaker, the adulteress 2c And would like to hear who should prove it otherwise, regardless of the fact that some doctors have thought so.
Transfer. It is so misrepresented on the basis of sacred Scripture: First, it is quite erroneous, unfounded and seductive, also invented to the detriment of indulgences; for the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, indicate that God demands satisfaction for sin. This is found in Deuteronomy [5. B. Mosis] at the 25th chapter. Likewise, the ancient holy Christian teachers, especially St. Gregory, in the 32nd Homily, say: "The heavenly Physician, our Lord Jesus Christ, prescribes a vile remedy for every vice. St. Augustine also says: "God has not forbidden anyone to sin, and He mercifully forgives the sins that have been committed, if convenient and necessary satisfaction for the sin is not omitted." God forgave David for his adultery, but he had to suffer war, spurning of his wives, and after repentance and confession, death to his child. David also had great remorse for the sin of counting his people, but he had to repent to God for this sin. For the angel, at God's command, slew him seventy thousand men; as then after
the length of the Book of Kings. Years ago, Wicleff and Johannes Huss, the heretics, used this sixth article to argue that confession and atonement are not necessary, for which reason even in some countries the priest does not impose atonement on those who confess, but tells them: Go and have a will never to sin; which article is false and not to be believed. Put this on the knowledge of papal holiness and the Holy See of Rome, all Christian universities and doctors.
The seventh erroneous article reads as follows:
The seventh: It is true that God punishes some according to His justice, or brings them to repentance through chastisement, as in the eighty-eighth Psalm: "If His children sin, I will punish their sin with a rod, but I will not turn away My mercy from them. But this chastisement is in no one's power to abate, but God's alone; indeed, He will not abate it, but promises to put it away.
Transfer. It is transferred, Christianly therefore: First, it is a chat and mirror fencing. For God, who says: "If my children sin, I will punish their sin with penance, but I will not turn away my mercy from them," has given the perfection of his power to Saint Peter and to any rightly elected pope over the holy church; so that the pope has the power to do all things in the holy church, which are necessary for the holy church and for man's salvation. For this reason, the pope has the power to remit, by means of plenary indulgence, the punishment that God imposes on sinners for their sins, if they have repented and confessed them. That a person is now relieved of the chastisement that God has imposed on him for his sin (if, after repentance and confession, the chastisement and penance imposed by the priest were not enough), serves the person quite well for the bliss of the soul. It is also a great mercy of God that his governor, the pope, releases man from the torment of his sin, as now touched, by means of indulgence. Therefore, the words of David, without their Christian and truthful meaning, are shown in this erroneous article as a remedy. Therefore, this article is to be read with sharp eyes, and not to be presented blindly and darkly, when God says that He will forgive the sin of His children.
The indulgence does not serve against the same chastisement, but only against the chastisement of sins that have been repented of and confessed. The indulgence does not serve against this chastisement, but only against the chastisement of sins that have been repented of and confessed. For in the Holy Scriptures it is written that God at times chastises men to increase in merit, as Job; at times to preserve virtue, as Saint Paul; at times to punish sin, as Mary the sister of Moses; at times to the glory of God, as he who was born blind; at times to a beginning of eternal future chastisement, as Herod. Such punishment and chastisement of God is solely in God's power to inflict on man; however, the chastisement that God inflicts on man as an indulgence for his sins, if they are repented of and confessed, and not sufficiently acknowledged by the priest, may well be taken away by the pope by means of plenary indulgence. Therefore, this article is erroneous and seductive. Enjoin this on the knowledge of the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The eighth erroneous article reads as follows:
Eighth: Therefore, no name can be given to this punishment, nor does anyone know what it is, if it is not this punishment, nor the good works mentioned above.
Transfer. It is thus Christianly transferred: First, it is erroneous; for the chastisement that God's justice inflicts on man for his sin, which is not sufficiently repented of or acknowledged by the priest in confession, is called an avenging of God and worthy fruit of repentance, which is also not satisfied by any repentance alone, but only by important, equal satisfaction, as St. Augustine and all the doctors of Christendom say. What special names this punishment imposed by God will have in Purgatory is known to those who are suffering it now and who will suffer (if they do not go to the devil), who thus miserably deceive the poor believers in Christ. Offer this to the knowledge of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The ninth erroneous article reads as follows:
Ninthly, I say that even if the Christian Church decided and declared today that indulgences were more acceptable than works of pardon, it would still be a thousand times better,
That no Christian man would redeem or desire indulgences, but that they would rather do the works and suffer the chastisement. For the indulgence is nothing else, nor may it be, than the remission of good works and salutary chastisement, which one should choose more cheaply than to leave; although some of the new preachers have invented two kinds of chastisement, medicativus et satisfactorius, that is, some chastisement for satisfaction, some for correction. But we have more liberty to despise (praise God!) such and such chatter than they have to invent; for all chastisement, yea, all that God expounds, is better and beneficial to Christians.
Transfer. It is thus Christianly transferred: It is seductive, for the holy Roman Church holds and decides by its custom and practice that plenary indulgence takes away not only the works of imposed satisfaction from the priest or from the right, but also from God's justice, if the sins are not sufficiently repented of and the satisfaction by the priest in confession is not sufficiently imposed. For St. Augustine says that the customs which God's people or the Christians have in practice and the writings of the ancients are to be regarded as a right, although nothing is said in Scripture about such customs and things in particular. Therefore, by right, the pope, as the Roman see has it in practice, can take away all chastisement, as now touched, by means of plenary indulgence. This erroneous article also indicates that no man should desire indulgences, whether or not they would take away more from man than the penance imposed by the priest or by the right; which words are contrary to Christian truth. For in these words he holds that a man may have indulgences without repentance, thereby also separating indulgences from repentance and the performance of the works for which indulgences are given; which in truth can never be fortified by Christian doctrine. For those who deserve indulgences are in true repentance and love of God, which do not let them remain slothful and idle, but inflame them to serve God and do great, good works in His honor. For it is in the day that Christian, God-fearing, pious people, and not loose and lazy people, earn indulgences with great desire. For this reason, this article is full of venom and, by its presentation, seeks to make people repugnant to indulgences, which are entirely necessary and beneficial to poor sinners. For in the granting of indulgences, the great, free clemency of God appears to us, which is responsible for all the torments that men suffer.
If a person does not repent enough of his sin and the punishment is not sufficiently granted by the priest, he may be amused by the pardon of Jesus, if it is given to him by papal authority as a pardon. It is also Christian to believe that if a person gives alms, prays, visits churches, goes on pilgrimage, fasts, or does other good works that are endowed with indulgences, and does them in the same love of God in which he would do such works if they were not endowed with indulgences, that these works of indulgence are much better and more deserving of men than the others. For this reason, this article is intended to mislead poor people. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The tenth erroneous article reads as follows:
The tenth: This is nothing said, that the chastisement and works are too much, that a man cannot accomplish them for the shortness of his life, therefore indulgences are necessary for him. I answer that there is no reason for this and that it is a pure poem; for God and the holy church do not put on anyone more than he is able to bear, just as Saint Paul says that God does not allow anyone to be tempted more than he is able to bear; and it is not a little disgraceful for Christianity that it is blamed for putting on more than we are able to bear.
Laying. So it is transferred in a Christian way: The indulgence is not given only because of the fact that man's life, due to its shortness, cannot accomplish the works of atonement. It is in the day that the greatest sinner with a true, perfect repentance may please God's justice for the chastisement of all his sins (if he does not otherwise despise sacramental confession and atonement): for where the two things are despised, all repentance is nullified and powerless. Therefore, it is untruthfully charged against us subcommissaries and preachers of grace that we revile God and Christianity, saying that God and the Church impose impossible things on man; which words are unintelligible; for indulgences are given at times on account of alms; at times on account of personal labor, as when one accepts the cross against the unbelievers and heretics, builds bridges and mends paths; at times on account of the perilousness of the
The Holy Laws clearly state that those who cross the sea to the Holy Land deserve indulgences. For this reason, the indulgence is not given only because of the shortness of the life of man, for which shortness man should not be able to perform the penance imposed. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The eleventh erroneous article reads as follows:
Eleventh: If the penances, set in spiritual law, were now still such that for every mortal sin seven years of penance were imposed, then Christianity should leave them set and not impose them further than they would have to be borne by anyone. Much less, now that they are not, should one take care that more is imposed than anyone can well bear.
Transfer. It is so displaced as an unfounded recital: Although the Canons, according to which penance is imposed, are not in use at present because of human frailty, yet no more power to sin is thereby given to men; nor is sin punished by God's justice with less penance than the Canons hold in them, or chastisement according to them in divine acceptance. For he who does not keep the imposed penance of the canons must suffer something else that God's justice accepts for fruits of penance worthy of the same. The priest, if he absolves the sinner, must not only consider the repentance, if he wants to impose penance on him for repented and confessed sin; but he must also take to heart the measures of penance expressed in the Canonibus poenitentialibus, so that he may not act contrary to divine justice ordered by the Canons, as much as is possible, according to sacred law; and when he has considered the repentance and the imposed satisfaction of rights, he must then impose satisfaction on the sinner in confession. In this way, and not according to their liking, priests have to impose atonement in confession to the sinner for repented sin. This imposition of penance by the priest in confession serves the absolved sinner so that he does not sin if he does not keep the penance for his sin, expressed in rights; however, if the priest imposes too little penance, God will demand excess from man here or in that world. He who teaches men otherwise deceives them. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The twelfth erroneous article reads as follows:
To the twelfth: It is said that the sinner should be sent to purgatory or indulgence with the rest of the chastisement, but more things are said without reason and probation.
Laying. It is Christianly misrepresented in such a way: First of all, it is quite erroneous, and is presented without all proof and testimony of the holy Scriptures, and also without all presentation of all legal knowledge, as if its content were contrary to the holy Gospel, although in truth they are separated as day and night. In addition, it is Christian and true to know that the sinner should be sent to purgatory or indulgence with the rest of the punishment. For the holy Christian Church and the community of all old and new doctors hold that God is so merciful as to forgive guilt and sin that He nevertheless remains just not to let them go unpunished. Therefore, if inward repentance is not enough to avenge sin, and outward atonement is not accomplished and completed, then God, who knows the measure and number of sins, will require the excess of repentance and atonement, if man does not accomplish it here, in Purgatory. Also, as Anselmus says in libro: Cur Deus homo?, man can make amends for sin only through good works, which cannot be demanded of man if he had sinned; it is considered that men owe to do the good works of God's commandments from the time of creation, which God also demanded of man if he had not sinned. Therefore, this twelfth article is erroneous and seductive, since atonement must be made in this life or in that world. This is offered by the Holy See and all Christian universities and doctors.
The thirteenth erroneous article reads, as follows:
To the thirteenth: It is a great error for anyone to think that he will do enough for his sins, when God always forgives them in vain, out of inestimable grace, desiring nothing in return but to live well for them. Christianity demands something, so it may and should also slacken the same and not impose anything heavy or untrustworthy.
Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: Firstly, it is unfounded and seductive
For God, together with the Church, desires satisfaction for sin, as shown above in many ways. Thus the old and new doctors of the holy church, of whom there are many thousands, and many of whom are blessed in heaven, all say: how great repentance is, where man spurns confession and satisfaction, repentance alone is of no avail; although for no mortal sin can man satisfy God without the cooperation of Christ's suffering. Where St. Augustine would have been well regarded by the poet of this article, this error would not have come to pass; for St. Augustine says: Nemini enim dedit laxamentum peccandi Deus, quamvis miserando deleat1 ) jam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur [i.e.: For to no one did God give the right to repent. i.: For God did not give anyone permission to sin, even though He cancels all sins committed out of mercy, if the corresponding satisfaction is not neglected]. However, do not consider this erroneous article to be new; for Wicleff and Johannes Huß also held the error, and especially that confession is not necessary, in which the atonement is imposed on man: and for this reason Johannes Huß was burned at Constance by the common council, Wicleff died as a heretic. This is offered by the Holy Papal See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The fourteenth erroneous article reads as follows:
The fourteenth: Indulgences are allowed for the sake of imperfect and slothful Christians, who do not want to exercise themselves boldly in good works, or to be unpleasantly afflicted; for indulgences do not promote anyone to the better, but tolerate or allow to their imperfection[s], therefore one should not speak against indulgences, but one should also not speak to them.
Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: Even if a man deserves all indulgences, he should not desist from penitential works. Thus says Pope Innocentius. For after the forgiveness of sin and all chastisement by indulgence, there remains in man the inclination to sin again; this man must cultivate by good works. If, even after the forgiveness of sin and pain, he wants to earn much from God and increase his merit, he must not refrain from the painful good works, but rather accept the cross.
1) Thus, instead of Hunevis (Löscher: quisvis) we have changed äewas, according to Augustin, Lneülr., Cap. 70.
Christ to the end of his life. Indulgences do not take this away; rather, they inflame man to it and make him willing and inclined to do painful good works, and not lazy. For this reason, this article is erroneous and a nonsense, for it indicates that one should not speak against indulgences, which is done in almost all articles; nor should one speak against them, which is publicly against the custom of the holy Roman Church, which has the holy golden year, if it is to occur in Rome, proclaimed and sanctioned a long time before its beginning. The article is also against the custom of all special Christian churches throughout the world, which have papal and their own bishops proclaim indulgences at all times. Item, the cross is accepted by Christians against the heretics and unbelievers also partly because of the plenary indulgence which the crucifiers deserve, for which the people are asked and exhorted with great diligence. Therefore, the last words of this article are displayed Against all truth. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.
The fifteenth erroneous article reads as follows:
To the fifteenth: It would be much safer and better for him who gives to the building of St. Peter, or whatever else is called, for the sake of God, than to take indulgences for it; for it is dangerous for him to give such a gift for the sake of indulgences and not for the sake of God.
Laying. It is so Christianly misrepresented: First of all, it is bare and naked and invented without any proof of the holy Scriptures, for it indicates in the resolution: that a man would give alms for the sake of indulgences and yet not for the sake of God; just as if one gave alms for the sake of indulgences and yet did not bring glory to God with it; yet the man who gives his alms for indulgences also gives the same for the sake of God; for all indulgences are first given for the sake of God's glory. Therefore, he who gives alms for the sake of indulgences gives it primarily for the sake of God; considered that no one deserves indulgences unless he is truly repentant and in the love of God; and he who does good works out of the love of God arranges them for God and His praise. Therefore, this article is not to be believed by Christian people. Offer this to the knowledge of the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.
The sixteenth erroneous article reads as follows:
To the sixteenth: Much better is the work done for a poor man than that which is given for building, also much better than the indulgence given for it. For, as I have said, it is better to have done one good work than to have indulged in many. But indulgence is the remission of many good works, or [it] is nothing remission.
Yes, that I may instruct you aright, take heed: You shall first of all (neither St. Peter's building nor indulgence considered) give to your nearest poor. But if it comes to the point that there is no one in your city who needs help (which, if God wills, shall never happen), then you shall give, if you wish, to the churches, altars, ornaments and chalices that are in your city. And if this is no longer necessary, then first of all, if you wish, you may give to the building of St. Peter's or elsewhere. Nor should you do this for the sake of indulgences, for St. Paul says: "He who does not do good to his household is not a Christian, and is worse than a pagan"; and keep it free for this, whoever tells you otherwise, deceives you, or ever seeks your soul in your bag, and if he found pennies in it, he would rather have that than all souls.
Then you say, "I would never grant indulgences in this way. I answer: I have already said above that my will, desire, request and advice is that no one should redeem indulgences. Let the lazy and drowsy Christians redeem indulgences, you go for yourself.
Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: First, it is unfounded and quite dark; for in it one thing is touched and another is concealed. For alms, given to a poor man, is better for the increase of the merit of blessedness; but the solution of the plenary indulgence, even of all indulgences, is better for the quick satisfaction of the chastisement of sin. Everyone should also know that the release of indulgences is also a work of mercy; for he who releases indulgences has mercy on his soul and thereby pleases God. Therefore, this article concludes erroneously, saying that the release of indulgences is not a work of mercy, and in the end concludes quite unchristianly that indulgences are a remission of many good works, for it does not substantiate this with any holy scripture. Nor will any ever be found to corroborate this, considering that he who earns indulgences must be in God's love, and where this exists
in man, from whom many good works and great ones are done. This erroneous article is also contrary to the content of all indulgences and letters, which all commonly indicate that indulgences are given for the purpose of inciting people to repentance and confession and good works. For this reason, this erroneous article is also to be completely despised. This is offered by the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.
This article also states that people are being instructed in the wrong doctrine, which is quite contrary to the truth; for in this article it is desired, requested, and advised that no one should grant indulgences, which advice is unprofitable for salvation. The article also says that only lazy and drowsy people should be granted indulgences, with which counsel Christianity is miserably deceived; considering that a man does much better for himself if he earns the indulgences he needs, than if he gives his alms to a poor man, because the same poor man would not be in the article of greatest need; For the alms or good work that a man earns indulgence is just as deserving of eternal life, since it is done out of God's love, as the alms given to a poor man. In addition, since man, through the indulgence he earns by almsgiving, quickly and hurriedly relieves himself of the chastisement he is obliged to suffer for his sin, it is better for him to earn indulgence than to give alms to poor people who are not in the article of final need. The Lord Jesus also says in the eleventh chapter, "Whatever is above measure, give alms of it," meaning to those who are not in the article of last resort; but to those who are in the article of last resort, God gives alms, even of the goods that man needs for the preservation of his nature and state. For this reason, St. Paul is not formally allegorized in this article; for St. Paul says, "He who does not do good to his household is not a Christian and is worse than a pagan." But he does not mean that a man should do good to himself rather than to the members of his household, who are not in the article of last necessity. In almsgiving, too, everyone should keep the order of love, so that he may help himself rather than his relatives, as mentioned above. For this reason, people who believe in Christ should not give credence to the mere, bare, unsubstantiated words of this article, for it is not supported by any consistent proof from the holy Scriptures. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The seventeenth erroneous article reads as follows:
To the seventeenth: Indulgences are not commanded, nor advised, but of the number of things allowed and permitted; therefore it is not a work of obedience, nor meritorious, but an exaction [withdrawal] of obedience. Therefore, though no one should be hindered from loosing it, yet all Christians should be drawn away from it, and provoked and strengthened to the works and chastisements that are indulged in.
Laying. It is Christianly transferred in such a way: It is true, it is not commanded to earn indulgences; but it is quite faithfully advised by papal holiness, by the holy sall]common conciliarities, by all the pious prelates of the holy church, who give indulgences on account of the practice of good works, in honor of God and for the good of Christendom, and to man's credit, because he does good works for the sake of indulgences; also for the benefit of man, so that he may be freed from the chastisement he would have to suffer for his sin; as touched upon above. Therefore, indulgences are not of the number of things that are allowed and permitted alone. This article also says that earning indulgences is not a meritorious work, but an extract of obedience, which may be proved in eternity, as little as the other articles all, with some holy scripture. For the works which are graced with indulgences are always better than those which are performed without indulgences, even in the same love. Therefore, this article is against the freedom of the Holy Roman See. For God has commanded the mastery of the things that serve man's blessedness to his governor, the pope, and the papal see. Enjoin this on the knowledge of the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.
The eighteenth erroneous article reads, as follows:.
To the eighteenth: Whether souls are drawn out of purgatory by indulgences, I do not know and do not yet believe; although some new doctors say so, but [it] is impossible for them to prove, nor has the Church yet decided. Therefore, for greater certainty, it is much better that you pray and work for them yourself, for this is more proven and is certain.
Laying. So, it is transferred in a Christian way: First, it is full of guile; for it states that.
the church has not decided that souls may be redeemed from purgatory through indulgences, since the holy Roman church holds in its custom that souls are redeemed from purgatory through indulgences. There are also many altars, churches and chapels in Rome, where souls are redeemed if masses are held there or other good works are done. This is because the popes have given plenary indulgences in these places to redeem souls who say mass there or do other good works, as is the practice in Rome. The pope and the Roman church would not suffer this redemption of souls in Rome if they were not well founded. For the pope and the See of the Roman Church, even the papal office, do not err in matters concerning faith. Now indulgences also concern faith; for he who does not believe that the pope can grant indulgences and plenary indulgences to the living and the dead, if they are in the love of God, holds that the pope has not received the perfection of authority from the Lord Christ over the believers in Christ, which is contrary to the sacred laws.
This article also reports that some new doctors say that souls can be delivered from purgatory through indulgences, but it is impossible for them to prove it. Therefore it is to be known that the holy new doctors have proven this quite well and have never been condemned by the Holy Roman Church for this reason. Therefore, they must have proven, especially St. Thomas, whose doctrine, concerning faith and the salvation of souls, the popes Urbanus and Innocentius accepted and approved as Christian and proven. Since then, no pope has ever condemned them. Because the doctrine of St. Thomas is now accepted as Christian, this article is suspicious in truth. St. Jerome also says: "Because papal holiness, holding the chair and faith of Peter, accepts his faith as right and good, he who punishes his faith proves to be inexperienced or malicious or a heretic: so he is to be held who punishes St. Thomas as untrustworthy in the doctrine he writes of the Christian faith. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Papal See and all Christian universities and doctors.
The nineteenth erroneous article reads, as follows:
To the nineteenth: On these points I have no doubt, and are sufficiently given in Scripture.
founded. Therefore you should have no doubt and let the Doctores scholasticos be scholasticos, they are all not enough with their opinions that they should fortify a sermon.
Laying. It is so Christianly misrepresented: First, it and all the articles touched upon are wholly unfounded in Scripture; for the articles are contrary to the custom of the holy Roman Church and contrary to the teaching of all the new holy Christian teachers. If St. Augustine, together with the other three old holy doctors, had had the enlightenment that the authority of papal sanctity and of the Roman Church over indulgences should thus be despised by erroneous people, they would have been well aware of this with their writings. However, the new holy doctors have experienced and heard that wicked people have spoken, preached and written against the pope and the truth of indulgences. The holy new doctors have challenged this on Christian grounds, and the Holy Roman Church has never punished or condemned them for it. That this article also says that one should let doctores scholasticos remain scholasticos, because they are all not enough with their opinions that they should fortify a sermon: unintelligent people hold the opinion of the holy scholastic doctors, because these same holy doctors discover and are against all new errors; for which reason erroneous people despise them. However, the holy Roman Church, together with the holy common Christianity, unanimously hold that the holy scholastic doctors, by their true salutary doctrine, are able to sufficiently fortify the holy Christian faith against the heretics, in the manner of Christian doctrine, and to do much more preaching. For this reason, they are unfairly and disgracefully despised in this article, against all reason and truth.
Also, the erroneous articles are all indicated according to brevity and obscurity; perhaps because of this, one intends to interpret them as one pleases and in all ways. However, the great annoyance they arouse should have been considered beforehand; for many people will despise the authority and power of papal sanctity and the Holy Roman See because of the articles; the works of sacramental satisfaction will also be omitted; preachers and doctors will no longer be believed; everyone will want to interpret the holy Scriptures as he pleases. Therefore, the holy common Christianity must come into great danger for the souls, because everyone will believe what pleases him. Because the new holy doc-
tores, as the erroneous article indicates, should not be considered credible, to whom Christianity has given great faith for many hundreds of years; therefore, this article is quite erroneous. Offer this on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.
The twentieth erroneous article reads, As follows:
To the twentieth: Whether some now call me a heretic, to whom such truth is very harmful in the box, I do not respect such blasphemy very much; because some dark brains do not do that, because they never smelled the Bible, never read the Christian teachers, never understood their own teachers, but decayed much closer in their hole-ridden and torn opinions; because, if they had understood them, they would have known that they should blaspheme no one unheard and unconquered. But God give them and us right sense. Amen.
Transfer. It is thus Christian and well-founded: First of all, it is quite erroneous, and requires, without a hole in the brain, to know who is a heretic. Thereby I, Brother Johann Tetzel, of the Order of Preachers, am caused to issue several other doctrines and positions, which I also intend to discuss in the laudable high school at Frankfurt on the Oder and to keep Christian by means of divine help with the appointed day. In which, if one reads this my writing and the positions I have taken before, and the sermon of the twenty erroneous articles, also the positions whose title is: Amore et studio elucidandae veritatis, in which the last proposition thus reads: [Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare coelum, quam per securitatem pacis confidant, on the other hand, everyone will learn and recognize with an incomplete brain, who is a Haeresiarcha, Haereticus, Schismaticus, Erroneus, Temerarius, Maleso- nans etc., that is, an arch-heretic, a heretic, an apostate, an erring, a sacrilegious, or an unbeliever 2c, in the holy Christian faith or not. From this will also appear who is a fin
ster brain, never smelled the Bible, never read the Christian teachers, never understood his own teachers.
Therefore, in certain confidence of the truth, I offer all my statements and positions, written by me in this matter, upon the knowledge and judgment of Papal Holiness, of the Holy Roman Church, of all Christian universities and doctors without suspicion, with the obligation to suffer all that is conceded, be it dungeon, cane, water and fire, in faithful, Christian brotherly admonition, that no Christian man shall henceforth follow the sermon of the twenty erroneous articles, also the positionibus, which are raised: Dominus et Magister noster Jesus Christus, dicendo: poenitentiam agite etc., and end thus: [Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare coelum etc.], Believe, then, that their poet also offers them on the knowledge and judgment of papal sanctity, of the holy Roman Church, and of all Christian unsuspicious universities, and has proved this with works, with certain confidence, that without such offering the sermon of the twenty articles and positions now named will not be preaching and wholesome doctrine, but misleading and perverting men; for Christ himself says, "He that heareth not the church shall be unto thee a heathen and a publican." And if he, from whom the erroneous sermon of the twenty articles was made and proceeded, should set or make anything contrary to this my laying without corroboration of the sacred Scriptures, sacred rights and doctors, or without showing natural sufficient causes and rations; let no Christian man be angry with him, for it would be babbling. And if such a thing would not be offered by him publicly and in writing on the understanding of papal sanctity, the Holy See and unsuspicious universities, then I will not write against it, but consider it unworthy of any answer and transfer. I hereby publicly protest against this.
To God's praise, to man's bliss, and to the glory of the Holy Papal See.