Second half of June 1518.
Translated from Latin.
The venerable father, the brother Silvester Prierias, from the order of the preachers, the holy theology very famous professor and the holy apostolic palace magister, dialogue about the violence of the pope against the presumptuous theses of Martin Luther.
[Letter to Pope Leo X.]
To the Most Holy Father Pope Leo X, Brother Silvester Prierias, of the Order of Preachers and Magister of the Holy Palace, wishes eternal salvation!
I do not know, most holy Father, if I am ever happier than when I can do something in consideration of and for the sake of Your holiness. There
I believe that it has happened that I have not been able to be captivated by the commentaries on the first part of the second collection (conflati) from St. Thomas, in the editing and elaboration and completion of which I am already more absorbed than merely busy, with such pleasure that I have not been able to complete all the work and my own reflections.
*This writing appeared, without indication of place and time, at any rate in Rome in 1518, was then, without any comment by Luther, printed twice by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig at the instigation of Luther, without indication of the year, and by Siegmund Grimm and Marx Wirsung in Augsburg. It is included in all editions of the Basel collection of Luther's works from 1518, 1519 and 1520, and was included in the complete editions of the
I would have put aside and pushed back in order to oppose, I do not know what kind, Martin Luther, who carries the cops high against truth itself and this holy chair, as a shield to fight for the honor and majesty of this chair and truth. Finally, I also accomplished the work of three days, which I spent on this work, with such joy and cheerfulness of mind that love itself gave me the truth unnoticed and this came to my mind constantly and very quickly.
But I beg Your Holiness to read through this little that I have worked out, among their so great and odious labors and cares.
Do not disdain them, and either correct or completely erase what, according to their gracious judgment, has been said clumsily. For in this way it will happen that after this I will have such confidence as if I were provided with a solid armor, so that I will not fear even Satan in the coming battle; yes, that I would eagerly like to know whether this Martin has an iron nose or a head of iron, so that it could not be crushed. But as soon as he will have brought his foundations to light, if he wants to defend his propositions or reject ours, then I will (God willing) set something greater and more carefully elaborated in motion. Farewell forever, most gracious shepherd.
[Letter to Martin Luther.]
Brother Silvester von Prierio of the Order of Preachers wishes the professor of the Holy Scriptures, Martin Luther, the spirit of humility and truth.
Although I, my dear Martin, because of the long intervening time, am weaned from fighting scientific battles, especially because in the dull age the weakened forces are already cooling, I have nevertheless, excited and almost driven by your words, with which you like a second Dares 1) from everywhere call the fighters to battle, decided to step anew on the now unfamiliar battlefield for the holy apostolic chair as well as for the protection of truth.
1) Virgil's Aeneid, book S, v. 362 ff.
But since I am not allowed to see the reasons on which the scripture (as they say) published by you is based, and since you yourself have not provided any proof for your theses, and since several of them have both a true and a false meaning, I did not want to argue, especially with you, in any other way than by upholding and defending what is opposed to your false theses, so that you may explain on which grounds you base yourself. And so, by going through and considering these propositions of yours, I now make the beginning of the forthcoming dispute (after invoking the highest and best God) with a dialogue, in which we, who are disputing, talk to each other. Be well and come to your senses.
The German text of the Reformation is the first of Luther's writings, namely the Latin Wittenberg (torn. I, toi. 159), Jena (tom. I, toi. 15) and Erlanger (varii arg. I, p. 344); only Walch, whose translation has been replaced by a new one in this revised edition, has translated it into German. In addition, Löscher has included the Latin text in his Reformation Acta Vol. II, 12. - The Erlangen edition keeps this writing with the one published in Rome in 1520: Lrrutu 6t arAurusnta Llurtini I^utsris rssitatu, ästssta, rspulsa st sopiosissirus tritu: per Iratrsm Lilvsstruiu krisriatsm, rnaMtrum suori pulutii; alone with injustice. The writing which bears this title is rather "the greater, more carefully elaborated" which Prierias promises to deliver in the epistle of his dialogue to the pope Leo X. It contains three books äs jurickisa st irrskraMdili vsrituts rornunus ssslssius, romani^us pontiü[Ls. The third book is precisely the Epitome of Prierias, about which Walch, old edition, Vol. XVIII, Einl. p. 24, conjectured: "Presumably this was supposed to be a draft of a great work that he would have been willing to publish in the future against Lutherum; such, however, did not come to light." This is erroneous, because the above-mentioned writing is really this work. The two in the Erlangen edition var. urZ. I, 343 according to Panzer VIII, 262 and IX, 125 amount to one. In the former place, printer, place and time, which is on the last leaf of the original edition, is given as belonging to the title. The title of this most likely only edition contains nothing more than the above words and Pabst's coat of arms. - The dialogue has been altered by the incorrect dating of two letters from Luther to Spalatin (wrong: from January 7 and 14, 1518 instead of 1519); cf. Erl. Ausg. Briefw. I, p. 353, note 1, erroneously transferred to the year 1517 by all complete editions. Both letters, by the way, do not deal with the dialogue, but with the replica.
Answer of Magister Silvester of Prierio from the Order of Preachers, the Holy Palace Magister, to the Theses of Magister Martin Luther. *)
If I, my dear Martin, want to look at your teaching in the most accurate way, I have to establish a guideline and principles.
The first principle is:
The general church is by its nature the assembly of all believers in Christ for the divine service. But the general church, according to its power (virtualiter), is the Roman church, the head of all churches, and the pope. The Roman Church according to its representation is the College of Cardinals, but according to its power it is the Pope, who is the Head of the Church, but in a different way than Christ.
The second principle:
Just as the general church, when it makes a decision about faith or morals, cannot err, so also a true concilium, which does as much as is in it (to recognize the truth), which I understand to include its head, or finally and finally, even if it may err at first sight, as long as the investigation of the truth is still in progress, even if it has sometimes erred: yet in the end it has known the truth through the Holy Spirit; and likewise neither the Roman Church nor the pope can err when he as pope makes a decision, that is, when he pronounces and does something by virtue of his office, as much as is in him to know the truth.
Third principle:
Anyone who does not adhere to the teaching of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, as the infallible guide of faith from which even the Holy Scriptures derive their force and validity, is a heretic.
Fourth Principle:
The Roman Church can, as by word, so also by action in regard to the faith
and manners. And there is no difference in this, only that words are more convenient than deeds. Therefore, for this reason, custom has acquired the force of law; for the will of a prince is expressed by the deeds of permission or action. And consequently, just as he is a heretic who has an evil opinion concerning a truth of Scripture, so also he is a heretic who has an evil opinion concerning the doctrine and actions of the church, in so far as they relate to faith and morals.
Follow-up Thesis:
Whoever says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what it actually does is a heretic.
Come now, Martin, and bring your theses to the table.
Martin (1. 2. 3): "Since our Master and Lord Jesus Christ says: Do penance 2c, he wants the whole life of his believers on earth to be a constant or unceasing penance. And such a word may not yet be understood of the sacrament of penance, that is, of confession and satisfaction, which is practiced by the priest's office. However, he does not mean only inward repentance: indeed, inward repentance is void and no repentance unless it outwardly works all kinds of mortification of the flesh.
New Year's Eve. In these words you, Luther, put three theses, and according to the words at least four falsehoods.
The first falsehood is that the Savior commanded something impossible, namely, that the faithful should always have a doing of inward or outward repentance. For when he says, "Do," he is not speaking of inward, habitual repentance, which alone always lasts, but consequently of effective repentance.
*) In the Latin Jena edition, the dialogue is preceded by the following: Godly reader! The preceding and following writings of this Silvester and other similar defenders of the Antichrist we have added to this work with the intention that a testimony of the doctrine, which was presented in the Pabstium, may exist with all posterity. In order that you may see that Luther was awakened and driven by God from the most just and necessary causes, as the first of all in our time to punish the abominable and curse-worthy abominations of Pabstism and to bring to light the old and pure teachings of the Church, as far as God has allowed it. For this greatest good deed of all, praise and glory be to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for ever and ever. Amen,
inward or outward. For doing is either an action or not without action.
The second is that the word of Christ, who says, "Repent," cannot be understood of sacramental repentance. For repentance is usually taken in three ways: Namely, first, as a certain virtue, the object of which is sin, inasmuch as it is to be corrected; but its action is the sorrow of the will over sin, but it is itself a moral state which produces the said action in relation to the aforesaid object. Secondly, penance is a sacrament, the parts of which are repentance, confession, and satisfaction. Thirdly, it is usually taken for the atonement imposed by the priest, and of all mortification of the flesh. But from any of these three [ways], I say, not only can, but must also be understood the aforementioned word of Christ, since he himself has sufficiently commanded to do good.
The third falsehood is in man, that is, in you, namely, that Christ does not intend to speak only of inward repentance. For though it is true in itself, yet in regard to you, who want Christ to signify with these words a repentance in the whole life, it cannot be understood of the outward, since it must be interrupted by sleep and joy, rejoicing with the joyful, and the like. Therefore you can understand it only from the inner repentance; and also not from every one, but from the always present one, because also an inner action of the free will we necessarily interrupt in sleep.
The fourth falsehood is that inward repentance is not repentance if it does not outwardly work all kinds of death to the flesh. Yes, I say that the outward without the inward is none, but the inward alone can make man blessed. However, this statement of yours can also have a true meaning intended by the Savior, namely, that all inward repentance works outwardly all kinds of deaths of the flesh, that is, according to place and time, that is, when, where, and how it is necessary; but this meaning seems to be impossible to you.
Martin (4): "Therefore, repentance and sorrow, that is, true repentance, last as long as anyone is displeased with himself, that is, until the entrance out of this into eternal life."
If you, Martin, understand by punishment the outer mortification, what follows from this? That you distinguish punishment in contrast to displeasure with oneself and to inward repentance; but this can only be understood as said, the
That is, according to time and place; otherwise this doctrine is false, impossible and erroneous. Moreover, one can only speak of displeasure with oneself when it refers to the truly penitent; for no one who is under divine grace hates himself, any more than he hates his neighbor, whom he loves just as he loves himself.
Martin (5): "The pope does not want to, nor can he, remit some other chastisements outside of those that he has imposed at his pleasure, or according to the canonum, that is, papal statutes."
Silv. Provided that the Church grants by way of indulgence the deliverance of one or more souls from Purgatory, which she cannot do unless she remits the punishment imposed by God; provided also that the Church simply gives plenary indulgence, namely, by remitting all punishments without remembering those imposed, so that the soul, after lawfully obtaining such an indulgence, when it separates from the body, ascends immediately to heaven, according to the declaration of the saints: I say that you, Martin, have a bad opinion about a deed of the Church concerning faith or morals; For, in the possible case that the sinner is held to the punishment imposed on him by the priest, likewise also to that imposed by the canon, and further still, if these do not sufficiently purify him, also, thirdly, to the punishment to be imposed on him by God, then (according to you) in such a case the dying man, who has properly obtained a plenary indulgence, would not immediately go to heaven, although the indulgence was given to him for deliverance from purgatory, and if he were there, he would not be delivered either; and so you have an evil opinion concerning a deed of the church and deviate from the saints. And therefore, in my judgment, this thesis is heretical.
Therefore, St. Thomas also says in the 20th Distinction of the 4th book: This opinion, namely, that the indulgence should have value only for the remission of the punishment imposed by the priest or a canon, is contrary to the privilege given to Peter, that what he remits on earth should also be remitted in heaven. And besides, says St. Thomas, according to this opinion the Church, by granting such indulgences, would harm men more than help them; for by absolving them from the penances imposed, she would consign them to still more severe ones, that is, to those of the purgatory. Thus far St. Thomas. If, however, the indulgence is not perfect, -not even given in respect of a certain (quotam) part of the
If, for example, the third part of the penalties is forgiven and no soul is released from purgatory, then this thesis could have a semblance in that it says "the pope does not want to", because he usually says: "We release from the imposed penances"; but because it adds: "nor can", the thesis is heretical in that it takes away or diminishes the prerogative of Christ given to the church.
Martin (6): "The pope cannot remit 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 despised, the debt would remain wholly undone or unremitted."
Although this thesis has a certain semblance in the case of those who in repentance submit to the keys of the church and are thus justified from guilt, in the case of those who are not completely repentant, who (according to the interpretation of the saints) become repentant through the power of the keys, not only the pope, but also every priest remits sins only in an executive and official manner, that is, by giving the keys and sacraments to the sinners, but they do not remit them out of authority, but this is a matter of a higher power. Therefore, I call this thesis false, and for the sake of dispute, I maintain that it is heretical, even if those who have issued it are not heretics.
Martin (7): "God does not forgive anyone's guilt whom He does not at the same time, well humbled, submit to the priest, His governor."
You are, Martin, a leper, for you wear a skin of different colors, spotted with true and false colors, mixing little true with much false; and you make true Beda's saying that there is no such false teaching that does not also mix in something true.
Martin (8): "Canones poenitentiales, that is, the statutes on how to confess and do penance, are imposed only on the living; and, according to the same statutes, are not to be imposed on those who are now [i.e., already] dying."
Silv. To this statement I say the same, what I have said to the next preceding one.
Martin (9): "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 the utmost necessity".
Silv. You speak rightly, but what you say does not belong to the matter, since the pope does not exclude the article of death in relation to the imposition of penance, but in relation to the reservation of absolution.
Martin (10): "The priests act imprudently and wickedly, who save and keep the penance imposed on dying people poenitentias canonicas, that is, to purgatory, there to do the same enough."
You teach rightly, but you allow what you reprove in others. For since you teach that the pope gives only those punishments which are imposed according to his discretion or by the canons, you absolve from these, according to St. Thomas, and lead the souls to the more severe ones of the purgatory.
Martin (11): "This weed, that the penance or satisfaction imposed by the canons or statutes should be turned into the penance or chastisement of purgatory, was sown while the bishops were asleep."
Silv. I say, as to the previous.
Martin (12): "In ancient times, canonicae poenae, that is, penance or satisfaction for sin committed, were imposed not after, but before, absolution, thereby testing whether the repentance and sorrow would be righteous."
Even now, in our time, when the penalties are arbitrary, I say that the same thing must take place in every penance, according to the Clementine Dudum "of the burials", where John Andreae also [says this], except where it is beyond doubt that the penitent will accept and fulfill the penance to be imposed.
Martin (13): "The dying do enough for everything by their death or decease, and are dead to the right of the canonum or statutes, and thus cheaply released from the same requirement."
What you state is true as soon as the punishment is due only according to the canon; but because even that which the canon imposes is required by divine justice, you must deny purgatory.
Martin (14. 15): "Imperfect piety, or imperfect love of him who is now to die, necessarily brings with it great fear; indeed, how much less is love, so much more is love.
Much the greater is the fear. This fear and terror is in itself, and only that I am silent about other things is enough for it to cause the purgatory torment and anguish, because it is very close to the fear of despair."
In these words, Martin, you put two theses and three falsehoods, and that quite presumptuously. For it is presumptuous to want to decide something out of our own power in these things, to which our natural reason does not suffice, moreover and much more contrary to what belongs to the teaching of faith or of the saints, who have interpreted the holy Scriptures in the same spirit in which they were written. Especially in matters of faith and morals, in which they have taught concordantly; rather, it is not only presumptuous, but also erroneous, not to say heretical, as is clear from the fourth foundation.
The first falsehood, however, which you openly state, is that those who are in purgatory do not know whether they will be saved, which you state even more openly below in your 19th thesis. But I say with St. Thomas, whose doctrine, as far as it relates to faith and morals, is both examined and approved by the guide of faith, the Roman Church, that those who are purified know that they must be freed, otherwise they could not ask us for our intercession, which they often do, as is clear from the book of Gregory's Dialogues.
The second falsehood, however, is that those who are purified should have other than childlike fear. For what they already suffer in the present they do not fear, because fear is because of a future evil, but other evils than those they suffer during their purification they do not fear, knowing that they will pass from these evils to glory, as it is said.
The third falsehood is that this fear alone is enough to constitute the punishment of purgatory, which I declare to be utterly false; for it cannot constitute it, since it is not present, nor in itself alone, otherwise God would be ungodly, because besides this (as you pretend) sufficient punishment He added others, e.g., that the devils were about Him (assistentiae), being bound to a certain place, the delay of the desired glory, and the like.
Martin (16): "Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem equally distinguished, As right despair, imperfect or near despair, and safety are distinguished from each other."
It may seem so to you, but it seems to me, together with St. Thomas, that those who are purified have a certain confidence of their blessedness, and therefore do not despair, nor are they even close to despair. But the aforementioned things differ like a perpetual punishment with the hopelessness of coming out and the will to be constantly attached to sin, which belongs to hell, and like a temporal punishment with the hope of coming out and the will to be constantly attached to God, which belongs to purgatory; and like the removal of every punishment and the fulfillment of every natural desire and joy, as it is in heaven.
Martin (17): "It seems as if in Purgatory, just as fear and terror decrease in souls, so love must also grow and increase in them."
One committed inconsistency leads to several, says Aristotle. Therefore, Martin, once the servile fear that opposes love had been established, you had to find a way to drive it out, which could not be done more appropriately than by increasing what opposes fear. But I, who follow the footsteps of the saints and not new sayings, say with St. Thomas that he who suffers purgatory is a pilgrim, so to speak, in so far as he is kept back from blessedness, but not as such, therefore he does not grow in love. Otherwise, it would be a blessing for them to be in purgatory for a long time, so that they would emerge all the more perfect and complete.
Martin (18): "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."
Even if this could not be proved by a statement of Scripture or of the church, which would show this to be necessary (which I do not want to establish or reject at present, since I am answering you extemporaneously and also only what occurs to me), it is nevertheless proved by the testimony of the saints, which brings about a probable proof. But you, who establish such things by your testimony, see that you do not act presumptuously.
Martin (19): "This also seems to be unproven, that the souls in purgatory are at least all certain of their bliss and unconcerned, although we are already quite certain of it".
This is, as already said, at least in a probable way proven, both from the testimony of the saints and from experience; for they often ask for intercession, as it is manifoldly illuminated by St. Gregory from the Book of Dialogues.
Martin (20): "Therefore the pope does not mean nor understand by these words 'perfect forgiveness of all chastisements' that all kinds of chastisements are forgiven in general, but means only the chastisement which he himself has inflicted."
I will leave aside what the pope intends or does not intend, and say that if there is talk of ability, the pope can, for a reasonable cause, remit all punishment, whether imposed or not, as St. Thomas teaches. But to say the contrary is heretical and contrary to the privilege granted by the Lord to Peter, as has been said.
Martin (21): "Therefore the preachers of indulgences are mistaken who say that through the pope's indulgence a man is freed from all torment and becomes blessed".
Silv. I say, as above in the previous thesis, and that you, Martin, who have a sore eye blinded with the very large beam of falsehood, look at the foreign splinter.
Martin (22): "Yes, the pope does not grant any chastisement to the souls in purgatory, which they should have atoned and paid for in this life, according to the Canonum."
To deny that the authority of the pope does not extend to the remission of the penalties of purgatory by way of indulgence is as much as to have a bad opinion of the doings and teachings of the church concerning faith and morals, and is therefore heretical.
Martin (23): "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."
What you claim to be certain, Martin, is indeed certain, not in truth, as you think, but in falsehood. For indulgences are given not only to the most perfect, but also to the most imperfect, if only they have the grace of God and the love by which they are capable of indulgences, and keep themselves according to the manner of indulgences, whether these be many or few, which alone is known to God. If, however, we make assumptions about the number of those who are blessed or who receive indulgences
and probable reasons, I maintain with probability and without prejudice to the truth of the matter that there are very many, which I conclude on theological grounds, namely, that the keys of the Church make a perfect penitent out of an imperfect penitent. Therefore, anyone who confesses with imperfect contrition obtains perfect contrition and grace, and consequently indulgence and beatitude, if he perseveres. But there are very many who confess at the time of indulgence, when they believe that they are in mortal sin, with imperfect repentance, that is, with imperfect sorrow, which happens when a person would like to have repentance and sorrow, and the grace from God to never sin again. Therefore, all such attain grace and consequently indulgence, unless they would fall again after confession before receiving indulgence. And even if they do not completely fulfill what is prescribed, they still obtain a proportionate part (partem proportionalem) of the indulgence, as St. Thomas teaches. And for the same reason I consider it probable that, although the greater part of Christians do not live in the grace of God, nevertheless the greater part still attain grace in death from God through confession with imperfect repentance; consequently, if they persevere, they also become blessed. And that the Savior says: "Many are called" must be understood in such a way that the whole world is called.
Martin (24) "Therefore the greater part among the people must be deceived by the splendid promise without all distinction, imagined to the common man of paid chastisement."
The greater part of the people are not deceived if they confess in imperfect contrition and observe the rest; for this reason, because especially the preachers of indulgences frequently teach that one should not refrain from other pious works for the sake of indulgences, since no one knows for certain whether he has obtained indulgences; likewise, because even if they do not obtain indulgences, they still do a good work that prepares them for salvation.
Martin (25): "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."
Silv. With regard to the present subject matter we are discussing, as well as with regard to the granting of gratification by one person to another, there is a multiple difference between the two.
between the pope in the whole church, and a bishop in his diocese and a priest in his parish. The first is according to that opinion which holds that indulgences flow from the treasury of the satisfaction of Christ, but not of the saints, because according to it the pope alone could grant indulgences, just as he alone distributes what is common to the whole church, of which kind the said treasury is. But because I consider this opinion to be a false one, I say that there is another difference, because the pope is the dispenser of an infinite treasure, since he dispenses the satisfaction of Christ, while the others do not, but only the merits of their subordinates. But from this follows another difference, because only the pope gives plenary indulgences, since he alone is certain that the treasure he is able to distribute is sufficient to redeem all punishments. Another difference is that the pope gives out the goods that the others give out, but not vice versa; therefore he limits and restricts the power of the others, not vice versa. But whether a priest can grant indulgences, I will not discuss now.
Martin (26): "The pope does very well not to give forgiveness to souls by force of the key (which he does not have), but by help or intercession."
As for indulgences, according to the doctrine of the saints, the pope has the key of jurisdiction also over purgatory; but he does not absolve the souls from the guilt or imputation of punishments, but he apportions to them that by which they can pay their punishment or debt, by apporting and apportioning to them the satisfaction of Christ or others.
Martin (27): "They preach humanity, who pretend that as soon as the penny is thrown into the box, the soul will leave purgatory.
The preacher who says that a soul imprisoned in purgatory will be led out at the moment when the perfect indulgence has been granted, that is, when the gold florin has been thrown into the basin, is not preaching humanity, but the pure and catholic truth. But you teach the opposite; if you persist in it, then, according to what has been said before, see what you earn by rebuking an action and teaching of the holy Roman church. And a preacher of indulgences who teaches such things is no more reprehensible than a cook who seasons strong food for a stomach in disgust.
Martin (28): "This is certain, as soon as the penny rings in the box, that profit and avarice come, increase and become greater; but the shell, or the intercession of the church stands alone in God's will and pleasure.
It is also certain, Martin, that this thesis is defamatory and comes from a man who sets his mouth against heaven; and it is no less certain that it is erroneous and heretical to say that, where there is a reasonable cause, the pope cannot, according to his will, give more or less of the intercession of one to another, since God has bestowed this upon him.
Martin (29): "Who knows if all the souls in Purgatory will be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severino and Paschali?"
The question of whether the punishment of purgatory is voluntary or not is a matter of many distinctions in the matter of punishment. The doctor angelicus [Thomas Aquinas], in the 4th question of his 21st Distinction: Whether the punishment of purgatory is voluntary? makes many distinctions concerning punishment and concludes thus: "In and of itself, no punishment is voluntary, for therein rests the very nature and essence of punishment, that it is contrary to the will, but conditionally or through the assumption of a certain end purpose, punishment may become voluntary, as, for example, someone may want to suffer burning in order to be healed. And this is the case in two ways.
Sometimes we attain some good through the punishment, as is evident from the example of burning, and so the will itself absorbs the punishment, as is evident in the case of satisfaction, which is meritorious in this life. Sometimes, however, no good comes to us through the punishment, but we cannot come to any good without punishment, as is evident in natural death, namely, without it one does not enter the kingdom of heaven, and there the will does not take the punishment upon itself, but endures it, and in regard to this it is called a voluntary one; and so, he says, the punishment of the purgatory is a voluntary one.
From these words of St. Thomas it is clear that those who are in purgatory do not choose this punishment, but patiently endure it when it is inflicted upon them, and yet would gladly be free of it if they could. In addition to this, a soul that is pleasing to God and separated from Him has no greater desire than to see God, since all its will is directed toward this as toward its ultimate goal, even if it suffers patiently according to God's will. Therefore, if she is with God's will
If she could become free from the punishment that prevents her from seeing, she would rejoice in this to the highest degree, more than any other joy in this world could give us. But to assert the opposite is ridiculous and foolish.
Martin (30): "No one is certain that he has true repentance and sorrow enough; much less can he be certain whether he has received perfect forgiveness of sins."
This is true in regard to the living; but the souls that are purified are certain to have the grace of God, and consequently also to obtain indulgences when they are properly granted, especially the plenary ones, by which they are immediately brought from torments to joys.
Martin (31): "As rare is the one who has true repentance and sorrow; so rare is the one who truly redeems indulgences, that is, it is very rare to find one."
If you teach rightly, you teach superfluously, since you have already stated the same thing above; indeed, even more so, since you said that only the most perfect attain it, who are rarer than the truly penitent, since among these some are less perfect than others. I also say that the truly penitent are as many as there are not completely penitent who confess, since all of them obtain the grace of God if they do not put any obstacle in the way.
Martin (32): "Those will go to the devil together with their masters who think they can be sure of their salvation through letters of indulgence".
Those who think they are safe without good works because of these letters are fools; but those who, from the spiritual benefit of such letters, hope to live and die better and to escape more quickly from the punishments of purgatory, have the right mind, and those who teach in this way teach rightly. But you, Martin, fear more for yourself, that you, puffed up by vain learning, will never come to repentance and will be eternally lost and damned.
Martin (33): "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 to God.
One must be more careful of those who disparage the governor of God unjustly as well as falsely and erroneously. But they speak
(as you report), which speak true, only this reconciliation must be understood inauthentically, as having occurred through removal of the accusation that separated the soul from the clear view of God.
Martin (34): "For the grace of indulgence looks only at the chastisement of satisfaction imposed by men."
From what has been said, it is already clear how false and erroneous this opinion is, even if only the ability of the pope is mentioned; it is also heretical, as if the pope could not extinguish all punishment through the indulgence.
Martin (35): "Those teach unchristianly who pretend that those who want to release souls from purgatory or confessional letters need neither repentance nor suffering."
I do not believe that there is any preacher of indulgences who has taught so foolishly; but in what intention you have such theses, see well. If, however, some teach that even those who are without repentance do not obtain indulgences in vain, because they benefit from the repentance that comes afterward, they do not teach evil in the opinion of several men of understanding, for just as the pope can make or cancel an ordinance from a certain time, so he can also grant indulgences from now on, which are to receive their force in their time.
Martin (36): "Every Christian who has true repentance and sorrow for his sins has complete forgiveness of chastisement and guilt, which belongs to him even without letters of indulgence."
If your opinion is that everyone who is due a full remission of punishment receives it, even though he does not have a letter of indulgence, then I will admit that you teach the truth, although nothing is said with it - for that God gives to all what is due to them in equity or in fee, no one has doubted. But if your opinion is (as your words read) that all truly penitent persons are entitled to a complete remission of punishments even without the aforementioned letters, then this is heretical, and you overturn and nullify all penitential canons, also the third part of the sacrament of penance, namely, satisfaction, and all rights that speak of the imposition of a salutary penance, and purgatory; unless you want to say that remission of all punishment and expiation of all punishment are the same thing, which is in bad taste.
Martin (37): "Every true Christian, living or dead, is partaker of all the goods of Christ and of the Church, from God's gift, even without letters of indulgence."
According to the doctrine of the saints, there are two things in a good work, such as fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, by which the debt of punishment is paid off. One is the merit, which can come to no one but the one who does it, who alone is given the reward due for the work. The other is gratification, which is something other than merit. Therefore, he who gives alms for his father's soul earns merit for himself, but makes amends for his friend in order to redeem the guilt of punishment. For who dares to deny that the alms is to the benefit of both? Thus, when you speak of the works of Christ and the Church in terms of merit, each one, although he is not rewarded for the merit of another, nevertheless, because he is pleasing to GOd, gains something good from the merits of others, e.g. the protection of God, as God remembered Abraham and saved Lot at the time of the destruction of Sodom, or at least the joy that every good man has in the good of others, according to the saying of the Psalmist [Ps. 119, 63]: "Make me partaker of all those who fear you" 2c. 1) But because this sharing cannot be fully explained in a few words, we leave it out. But when you speak of the same works of Christ and the Church for the sake of satisfaction, I say with St. Thomas that in the absolution of sins, out of God's goodness, through the mediation of Christ's martyrdom, some of the penalty is always remitted, but not the whole penalty, otherwise he who completely fulfilled the penance imposed by the priest or by the canon would go to heaven, even if he had not done God enough, which is heretical; nay, the priest might not even impose anything, except perhaps in the way of a remedy, for the prevention of future sins.
Martin (38): "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."
You may understand this of guilt or of punishment, but in both cases you are wrong; for he also remits the guilt by means of dispensations and offices, and in the same way also the punishment by means of indulgences, as has often been said.
1) Incorrectly cited; according to the Vulgate it reads: I am partaker of all those who fear you, i.e., as Luther correctly translates, "I am with those who fear you".
Martin (39): "It is extremely difficult, even for the most learned theologian, to praise the great riches of indulgences at the same time as true repentance and suffering before the people.
After you, Martin, have taught wrongly, you now also begin to disparage both the indulgence preachers and consequently the pope. But what you declare to be difficult, I consider to be impossible for you and your kind, who (with permission) are not instructed in the doctrines of good science, holding two false doctrines that overthrow indulgences. One is that true repentance takes away all punishment, as you seem to imply above; the other is that true repentance always prefers punishment to indulgence, as is evident from the following thesis.
But it is easy for well-informed theologians to explain what you declare to be difficult, by saying that, just as in human affairs, if someone has offended another with damage to honor or property, although out of the offended person's good will the friendship is restored and the debt is repaid, yet the compensation is not always repaid, indeed, most often not even through an action of injustice: so also God wills, when the debt is repaid, according to the general law, that one should make restitution for his sins, so that he who by sinning had yielded to his will more than he should have done, now also suffers contrary to his natural will, according to a foreign (electivu, that is, following his own choice) will; and this is called suffering punishment for the debt.
Martin (40): "True repentance and sorrow seek and love punishment; but the mildness of indulgences absolves one from punishment, and that one may become grudged to it, least of all when occasion for it is forfeited."
This is your main reason for saying that it is difficult to maintain both. But I say with St. Thomas that as long as the suffering of punishment for an offense yields any good, as in this life, since it is meritorious, true repentance loves punishment in order to merit and to protect from sins, but without contempt of indulgence, for both are better than either; But where punishments bring no good, but withhold men from the good of glorification, which cannot be bestowed upon them until they have fully expiated them, there one does not take the punishments upon himself, but only endures them, and it is the most delightful thing of all to souls to be mercifully absolved of them, and so it is in purgatory.
Martin (41): "Let papal indulgences be preached with caution, lest the common man falsely think that they are preferred or better regarded than other works of charity."
Silv. You teach indeed, true; but one must be no less careful not to reject or limit it to the detriment of papal power and the prerogative granted by God to Saint Peter.
Martin (42): "Christians should be taught that it is not the mind and opinion of the pope that the granting of indulgences should be comparable to any work of mercy in anything."
But they are also to be taught that the pope is of the opinion that through indulgences he incites the faithful to works of piety, that is, of worship, as well as of mercy, and that it is better to do good and obtain indulgences than to do neither or only one of these two.
Martin (43, 44): "Christians should be taught that he who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does better than to give indulgences. For by the work of charity charity grows and man becomes more pious; but by indulgences he does not become better, but only safer and freer from chastisement or punishment."
They are also to teach that he who can do both is better off. They are also to be taught that though by indulgences man does not become better in his essence, yet by them he becomes concomitantly better; for to spend for the sake of obtaining indulgences for a pious work or otherwise something good is meritorious; therefore, all else being equal, it is better to give alms for the sake of indulgences than actually for the sake of merit; for there are two. Goods, namely, merit and removal of that which hinders and prevents him from glorification, that is, the guilt of punishments; but here is One Good.
Martin (45): "Christians are to be taught that he who sees his neighbor suffer, and in spite of this redeems indulgences, does not redeem the pope's indulgences, but invites God's displeasure upon himself."
Silv. It is also to instruct the writers to write more modestly than you write, because it is not true what you write, since one has to follow a
The poor may refuse alms without sin, which is very common, even if it is refused with a venial sin, but without mortal sin; for by a merely venial sin man does not incur the displeasure of God, since venial sin is not contrary to grace and love, and consequently also not contrary to the friendship which we have with God.
Martin (46): "Christians should be taught that, if they are not rich, they are obliged to keep what belongs to their necessities for their house and not to waste it on indulgences.
Silv. You too are to be taught to divide more sufficiently, for the temporal goods of men are inadequately divided into necessities, which one is obliged to keep for his house; namely, those are necessities without which one cannot live, and superfluities; but this, according to St. Thomas, is the sufficient division: Namely, of man's temporal goods, some are necessary to him for his life and for his own, which are called necessary, without which one cannot (sine quibus non) supplement: "live"; but some are necessary to a decent life, which are called necessary, without which one cannot well glue]; and some are neither such nor such, which are called simply superfluous. From the first necessity there is neither indulgence nor almsgiving, unless someone chooses to die by giving for the good of the community. Of the second, men are required to give alms only in cases of extreme necessity; but except in the case mentioned, men can and must, according to the [Protestant] advice, give a part of this necessity, if it does not constitute an incurable good, but not the whole. Thus it is clear that even he who has nothing superfluous can buy indulgence from a part of what is necessary, without which one cannot love well.]
Martin (47): "Christians are to be taught that the giving of indulgences is a free thing, and not commanded."
Silv. They are also to be taught, and good sons of the Roman Church, and consequently of God, must teach that a prince may forcibly levy goods from his subjects for the common benefit; but the Roman Pontiff, in possession of the supreme dual [spiritual and temporal] power, solicits only where he could command, for the building of St. Peter's Church, which is a good of the whole Christian people, and, soliciting, bestows from the treasury entrusted to him.
Martin (48): "Christians are to be taught that the Pope, as much as he needs devout prayer, so desires it more than money when he grants indulgences. Rather, they are not to be taught in this way, for this would be to deprive them of many good things which they do for the sake of indulgences; but rather they are to be taught that all the faithful, according to the duty of charity, are obliged to pray for the chief shepherd even without indulgences, and that the pope often gives indulgences in order to provoke the faithful to pray for him, as he always does in his chapel. But when he needs money in addition to prayer, he grants indulgences, not for the money, but for the cause for which the money is intended, e.g., for the erection of hospitals and churches. And in doing this, all who are concerned rejoice and congratulate themselves; only you, Martin, reprove in the first building of all Christendom what is praised in the building of other churches. But if you had received from our Lord a good bishopric with a plenary indulgence for the building of your church, you might have been overflowing with sweeter words and would have exalted the indulgence you disparage.
Martin (49): "Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgence is good, provided one does not put one's trust in it, but nothing more harmful than if one loses the fear of God through it."
They are also to be taught that reliance on indulgences, if it does not prevent other good works, is not at all harmful, but occasionally beneficial, in that it awakens the soul to thanksgiving. You should also be instructed to be more careful that you do not contradict yourself in a few words, since you sometimes call indulgences useful, sometimes only a sign of divine pardon. These signs are also quite deceptive in your case, since you write that no one is certain whether he has obtained remission of punishments.
Martin (50): "Christians should be taught that the Pope, knowing the drudgery of the indulgence preachers, would rather that St. Peter's Cathedral be burned to powder than that it be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep."
The Christians are rather to be taught that you unjustly slander the preachers by sowing, against the order of fraternal punishment, such secret things, if there are any (which I hardly believe), into the public over the whole world, while you,
if you had known about it, you should have observed the rule of fraternal punishment, especially because this most innocent pope is so minded that no one should not only not act or live unjustly, but not even improperly.
Martin (51): "Christians should be taught that the pope, as he is guilty, would also distribute his own money to the people, even if St. Peter's Cathedral were to be sold for this purpose. This is not to be taught to the people, because it would be contrary to brotherly love; but if no improvement of the indulgence preachers can be hoped for from the secret exhortation (for this does not happen in the pulpit), then this would have to be reported to the superior whom it concerns, and especially to our Lord Pope, if there really were such, which I can hardly be moved to believe. But even if the indulgence preachers were predatory, they do not extort by force; voluntarily, however, no one would be so foolish as to throw out money for indulgences if he were so poor that one would have to sell St. Peter's Church for his support; therefore, I rather believe that you exaggerate and either imagine or embellish such things.
Martin (52): "To be blessed by letters of indulgence is a null and false thing, although the commissary (or bailiff of indulgences), even the pope himself, wanted to pledge his soul for it.
This thesis of yours, and similar ones, are null and void; for no one is so foolish as to stake his salvation on such letters without having the will to repent, either immediately or later on; but you do not seem to speak like a theologian, but like an actor who wants to attract people's ears completely to himself; but see to it that you do not incur curses, ridicule and punishment from divine judgment.
Martin (53): "These are enemies of Christ and the Pope, who, because of the preaching of indulgences, forbid the word of God to be preached in other churches altogether."
The ordinary tends to give way to the rare. Thus the annual feast of the saints is kept more solemnly than the all-sabbath feast of the Mother of God or the almost daily feast of the Trinity. Thus, for good reasons, the pope, depending on the time and place, allows any preacher of indulgences to impose silence on the others, so that he, as the inquisitor and ordinarius, may have a
334 D- s. 1,366-368. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 106-109. 335
The more the people come, the greater their support; and this can only be recommended. But to say that they are enemies of the pope, acting with his grace and favor, or even enemies of God, is foolish and ridiculous.
Martin (54): "It does injustice to the word of God to spend as much, or more, time in a sermon proclaiming indulgences than on the word of God."
Si lv. I say, as above in the previous thesis, and further, that you speak as if the publication of the indulgence, with the explanations and exhortations that accompany it, is not sowing the word of GOD, which I deny.
Martin (55): "The pope's opinion cannot be otherwise than that if indulgences (which are the least) are 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."
I say, as above in the previous thesis, and further, that such theses do not befit a serious theologian; for they are childish and seem to spring from an angry man who lifts up his mouth against heaven and strikes out against the sting.
Martin (56): "The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the church of Christ."
It is no wonder that the people do not know this, since you, who have offered to debate with the whole world, have either not understood this or you have placed yourself in such a way as will be revealed. For these treasures are known and named, not by the light of our reason, but by that of the Holy Spirit, who teaches us through his saints, to whom you do not agree with your testimony, or invent other treasures like yours. The grace (veniLs), or indulgence, has not become known to us from the testimony of Scripture, but through the testimony of the Roman Church and the Roman popes, which is greater. Among them, St. Gregory was the first (according to the testimony of St. Thomas) to give indulgences at the stations of Rome, and the others followed him. This treasure, then, according to the saints, both theologians and canonists, is the merits of Christ and the saints, not in so far as they are merits, but in so far as they are pardons.
Martin (57): "For that they are not bodily, temporal goods, it is therefore evident that many preachers do not so easily give them away, but gather them up alone."
You do not teach, Martin, but you speak in a disparaging manner, not only with regard to the preachers, who, as you know, do not do what is theirs, but also with regard to the most innocent pope, and that unjustly, because he would not have done anything wrong or even improper, but especially under the pretext of his reputation.
Martin (58): "Neither are the merits of Christ and the saints: for these always work, without the pope's help, grace to the inward man, and the cross, death and hell to the outward man."
Rather, according to the saints, both the theologians and the more famous jurists, they [i.e., the treasures of the church] are the aforesaid merits of Christ and of the saints, not in so far as they are merits, but in so far as they are satisfactions, superfluous to Christ, but for the saints more than they use. And it is true that the value of these pardons works in us and is applied to us, but not in such a way that through them we are completely freed from all guilt; except in two cases: namely, first, when we are united with them through a full pardon; but secondly, when the pope applies them to us completely through the indulgence. If you think otherwise, you stray from the faith and do not understand the treasure of indulgences.
Martin (59): "St. Laurentius called the poor who are members of the Church the treasures of the Church; but he took the little word as was the custom in his time."
Even now you are biting in a hidden way rather than teaching, as if in our times the poor were not the treasures of the pope and of men. I believe, however, that even if the Roman clergy has departed from the original perfection, which I do not deny, you are not the man who could punish unpunishably and who would not have departed from the original godliness of the fathers, which I assume at least especially from the fact that there is (as I believe) no reasonable man who would not have declared you an unjust slanderer. However, God wanted everything else in Rome to be as good as the pious alms, which, to say nothing of everything else, is also indicated by the innumerable amount of poor people, especially in the case of unjust people.
Our pious Father, who does not know how to refuse a request to anyone, no matter how distant and ungrateful.
Martin (60. 61): "We say with good reason, without sacrilege or levity, that this treasure are the keys of the Church, given to the Church by the merit of Christ. For it is clear that for the forgiveness of chastisements, and reserved cases, the pope's power alone is sufficient."
If you can bring me a testimony of any saint who holds with you in this, I will deny that you have taught presumptuously with it; but I believe that you cannot do this. And I do confess that the authority of the pope is sufficient for this, in the same way as the authority of a king for the building of a castle, namely by means of a treasure, which is not the authority itself, but the object of the authority. For since the church gives plenary indulgences out of this treasure, if this treasure were the keys of the church or the keys given to sinners, these would work according to election (cum electione), so that they would not work in sacramental penance, as much as they are able, by absolving from every penalty as from every guilt; or they would always extinguish the penalty entirely; both are false. The first, because in absolving no priest intends it so, but he intends to do the sinner as much good as he can; but the second, because it cancels purgatory; hence the doctor angelicus teaches that by the key a part of the punishment is remitted, but not the whole. This treasure, then, is according to its nature the pardon of Christ and the saints, but according to its effect the key of jurisdiction by which it is dispensed. Therefore, the authority of the pope, through the key of the office (ordinis), can extinguish all guilt, and through the key of jurisdiction, to which it is entitled to remit, all punishment for [good] cause.
Martin (62): "The right true treasure of the Church is the holy gospel of the glory and grace of GOD."
You speak true, Martin, and yet you speak of the treasure ambiguously, and just what you have said true, you turn to a bad purpose, as it seems and as it will also be revealed shortly.
Martin (63-66): "This treasure is the most hostile and detestable. For it makes the first become the last. But the treasure of indulgences is cheaply the most
For he makes the first from the last. For this reason the treasures of the gospel are nets, where in former times the rich and prosperous people were fished. But the treasures of indulgences are the nets for fishing the riches of men in the present time." .
If it is the dogs' nature to bite, I fear that your father was a dog, for you seem to be born to bite; moreover, I fear that something evil may happen to you because of your biting speeches and the raising of your mouth against heaven; nor do I see how you can escape the ban for many reasons, and do not believe that you are a man of sound mind, because you have published such through the print.
Martin (67): "The indulgence, which preachers proclaim to be the greatest grace, is certainly to be taken for great grace; for it bears great profit and enjoyment."
Silv. Having desisted from the pope, you now blaspheme the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as if indulgences were very useful not for the soul but for the purse, which I would call blasphemy.
Martin (68): "And yet such indulgences are truly the very least of graces, when held up or compared against the grace of God and the blessedness of the cross."
Silv. Those who set up indulgences as the greatest grace, which cannot be compared with anything, are to be excused for exaggerating (per hyperboles). But you, who compare it with the grace of Christ, see in what way you may be excused, who call it the least, since there are other graces and other lesser gifts, e.g. the goods of fortune; and I do not think that you could put forward any excuse which would not equally fit the preachers of indulgences: but consequently you bite unjustly.
Martin (69. 70): "Bishops and pastors are obliged to admit commissaries of the apostolic indulgence with all reverence. But much more do they owe it to watch with eyes and ears that these same commissaries do not preach their own dreams instead of papal orders."
Silv. If you, who say such things, had a fair and good attitude, you would have kept silent; but just as the devil shows his arrogance in all his doings, so also you almost in every one of your theses show your wickedness.
338 L.v.L. 1,371 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 111-114. 339
Martin (71): "Whoever speaks against the truth of papal indulgences, let him be a curse and damned."
Silv. You are like the one who thinks that he seals and spills in his own light. For you have greatly degraded the truth of indulgences, whether out of ignorance or out of malice, as is evident from what has been said.
Martin (72): "But he who is concerned or troubled against the preacher of indulgences, who speaks boldly and insolently, let him be blessed. Blessed be he, I say, if he is guided by love, by righteousness, by godliness; but whoever, against one who takes too much liberty in speaking, is even more improper in writing, he may be made good by God, but by men he shall be chastised for warning others.
Martin (73. 74): "Just as the pope justly strikes with disfavor and banishment those who act in some way to the detriment of indulgences, so much more does he seek to heap disfavor and banishment on those who, under the appearance of indulgences, act to the detriment of holy love and virtue.
Our lord, the pope, is considered so virtuous that he does not want his servants to do anything improper; but whether he, as you say, intends to intervene with the ban against those among them who transgress, I think you do not know.
Martin (75): "To think that the pope's indulgences are so great that they can absolve or absolve one from sins, even if (to speak impossibly) they have weakened the Mother of God, is to be furious and nonsensical."
To say that he who has the fullness of the pope's authority to grant indulgences can absolve guilt in this case by the key of the office, and punishment by the key of jurisdiction, is not to be nonsensical, but to have a sound opinion, since he could do the same with Judas and with those who would have killed either the Virgin or Christ if they were still in this life. But you seem to speak like an actor.
Martin (76): "On the other hand, we say that the pope's indulgence cannot take away the least daily sin, as far as the guilt of it is concerned.
Silv. Yes, to you he cannot take away A venial sin even in terms of punishment, for according to you he is a mere sign, but not the cause
of remission. But I believe that none of the preachers of indulgences taught that indulgences are used to cancel debts, since it is known even to the most ignorant that the obtaining of indulgences requires the cancellation of debts beforehand, since for this reason even the peasants confess their offenses.
Martin (77): "That one says. St. Peter, if he were now pope, would not be able to give greater indulgences, is a blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope."
Although it is believed that St. Peter was holier than any pope who came after him and richer in personal graces, as far as the key of jurisdiction and office is concerned, it is erroneous, not to say heretical, to say that Leo X was inferior to Peter I and could not do everything that the latter could do.
Martin (78): "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."
I am afraid that you will bring God's judgment upon your head, since you speak so mockingly to the whole world about such a great pope. Oh, if only you had the virtues that are praised in our Lord!
Martin (79): "To say that the cross, gloriously erected with the Pabst's coat of arms, is able to do as much as the cross of Christ, is blasphemy."
Since I have already begun not to believe you, I also do not believe that any preacher of indulgences should have preached this in such a general way, as you relate; although every cross of every material represents the image of Christ in the same way and is to be worshipped in the same way, with the exclusion of the kind of touch, 1) which I do not want to talk about now for the sake of brevity.
Martin (80): "The bishops, pastors and theologians who allow such words to be spoken before the common man will have to give an account for it."
You seem to want to justify yourself, Martin, by this, as if you had done right in making indulgences bad against the commandment of our Lord, the Pope, and in belittling the preachers of indulgences, and the Pope Against the commandment of God; but you are
1) We have taken the reading eoutaetns, which is found in the 1519 edition. The Wittenberg and Jena editions have oouotatns; the Erlangen edition: oontatns.
In this, you are by no means to be excused because you are a theologian, but rather to be punished, chastised, and forced to renounce all heresy.
Martin (81): "Such insolent and impudent preaching and fame from the abbot makes it difficult even for scholars to defend the pope's honor and dignity from the same slander, or indeed from the sharp cunning of the common man's questions."
Silv. You want to attach something to the pope again under the appearance of the excesses of those who preach indulgences, by attributing questions to the worldly; but well, behold, the reverence and love for the pope will teach me to dissolve your indissoluble things. Begin:
Martin (82): "Namely, 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; if 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?
God, who as the supreme agent directs and turns everything to his ultimate end, therefore he also wants all people to be blessed, would not give anyone the grace by which he is directed to this end and becomes blessed, unless on the part of the one who should receive the grace, a certain readiness for it and the merit of equity (congruitatis) were present, which readiness he wants to have replaced by others in those who cannot have it, as in the children. Nor does Christ, who bore for us the suffering of an infinite satisfaction, want to give it to us in any other way than when we join our insufficient satisfaction to his sufficient and superfluous satisfaction. Therefore, since God, after the punishment of the soul is graciously redeemed by repentance and the keys, at the same time, according to His mercy and justice, lays out for such a soul such a punishment as it has to serve, e.g. For what reason may the pope remit this punishment in whole or in part, to such a great detriment of divine justice, without any merit on the part of such a soul, e.g. alms, or fasting, or a prayer offered for it by itself or by another? Hence it is that all the saints, both theologians and teachers of papal law, require that in the granting of indulgences any
a reason must come to it, and such a reason is everything that serves the glory of God, or the promotion of the common good, or the like. Therefore, it is clear why the pope does not empty purgatory, because not all souls in purgatory have a reasonable reason to mitigate the severity of divine justice. If there were such a reason, it could certainly make it empty, e.g. if complete indulgence were given to all, even to the deceased, who would lend a helping hand in a campaign against the Turks, and every soul in purgatory would have a friend who would use himself for him according to his fault and perfectly. The love of the pope and the need of the souls is not a good reason to neglect divine justice, which God has decreed and holds inviolable, who knows such need and is full of infinite love and deepest mercy. Well now, Martin, and bring many more such questions.
Martin (83): "Item: Why do the funerals and anniversaries of the deceased remain standing, and why does he not restore, or grant to be taken again, the beneficia or benefices endowed to the dead, so that it is now unjust to pray for the redeemed?"
There are two reasons for this. The first is because it is uncertain whether he who lends a helping hand to obtain plenary indulgence for a soul has done as much as is necessary according to his own ability; for he may sometimes do so too sparingly, in which case the soul does not obtain plenary indulgence, but only according to the proportion of what has been done to the whole that should have been done, as St. Thomas teaches. Another reason, however, is that the assistance, though it does not benefit the already redeemed, does benefit others; and this is precisely what the dying intended, who ordered perpetual anniversaries for themselves; since it is not likely that they believed they would remain in purgatory permanently until heaven and earth passed away.
Martin (84): "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 and God-loved soul, and yet do not rather, for the sake of the great need of this same God-fearing and beloved soul, want to redeem it for free out of love?"
Silv. What is this new ignorance of yours (to speak with displeasure) that you believe,
Has God, according to His infinite love (because justice so requires), with knowledge placed a soul in such distress and must now, without any change on the part of God or the soul, lead it out of this distress? Therefore, a cause must first come about, as all saints loudly demand, if God's justice is to be either completely abated or at least mitigated; and this cause must not be given on the part of God (for he is unchangeable), but on the part of the soul.
Martin (85): "Item: Why the Canones poenitentiales, that is, the statutes of penance, now long since in themselves with the deed and by disuse done and dead, are still solved with money, by favor of indulgence, as if they were still quite strong and alive?"
Silv. When your theses came to my attention, Martin, you seemed to me to be learned at first sight; But as I examine your statements more closely, you seem to me to be quite crude, because you do not see that even if these canons find abatement, in so far as according to them it is not necessary to impose penalties on sinners, since nowadays they are all arbitrary, they are not abatement in so far as the imputation with respect to the penalty, which is to be measured according to them, does not remain, except where they perhaps somewhere exceed the measure of divine justice by imposing more than is just; and in respect of this living and binding imputation of punishment they are resolved sums of money. Therefore you must observe as a rule that the Roman Church, as in word, so also in deed, does not err in faith or morals, otherwise you will stray from the path of blessedness.
Martin (86): "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 fortune is greater than that of any rich Crassi?
Where there is much wealth, there are (according to the testimony of the holy scripture) many who live on it, and perhaps our most holy lord, according to his rank and majesty, is poorer than you, who perhaps would not find time to write this down if you had a small income. But what, in the person of the laity, do you so covertly reproach the pope for taking money from those who freely give it to him, whereas for this common and exceedingly glorious good he could rightly command and demand it as the supreme king in the world, with double power?
Martin (87): "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?"
Silv. If anyone is tormented by so great a repentance that he cancels the debt for all his sins, the pope remits nothing in the way of punishment; but if you think that all penitents are of that kind, you overturn purgatory and are not a mere heretic, but an arch-heretic, as much as I think so, since I have not yet read anyone who has taught such infamies...,
Martin (88): "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?"
Two good things would be done: one is that the faithful would have to repeat as often the cause for the sake of which indulgences are given, e.g. almsgiving or prayer; the other is that every new debt of punishment into which someone would fall again after the indulgence would be remitted.
Martin (89): "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 used to give, if they are still powerful?
He does this so that, just as his predecessors once gave indulgences for buildings of lesser importance, and which perhaps are now already completely or partially finished, he may also grant them for this most glorious building, and for this the devout prayers of the faithful may be gathered.
Martin (90): "To dampen these very pointed arguments of the laity by force, 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."
The Roman church, which is enclosed in power in the Roman Pontiff, holds in the Pontiff the highest summit of all temporal and spiritual power and can (as the right decides) keep in check with the secular arm those who have once accepted the faith but then harbor evil opinions, and is not required to argue with reasons in order to conquer the insolent. But although the truth is quite obvious, I still want to argue with you with reasons to see what you are doing with your scribblings.
may. However, the Church (with God's help) takes care to destroy the physical and spiritual enemies who ridicule her.
Martin (91): "Therefore, if the indulgences were preached according to the spirit and opinion of the pope, these objections would be easily justified, indeed they would never have occurred. If the mind of the pope were as you have described it, it would be a badly reported mind and far from the truth, as has become clear and will become even clearer when we will no longer deal with theses but with conclusions (ergotizatio- nibus).
Martin (94. 95): "Christians are to be exhorted to follow their head, Christ, through cross, death and hell; and thus to enter the kingdom of heaven through much tribulation rather than to be assured of peace through comfort."
They are also to be warned to beware of your and your like's teaching, which is neither wholesome nor according to love, but degrading and insulting. The tribulations are indeed chosen by perfect men in this life, if they bring any good, but not in the future, as is proved above from St. Thomas.
This is therefore, Martin, what I have just thought of as an answer to your theses by passing over some trivial things that you talk about at the end. Well then, either refute mine or prove yours. I will do the same in the future. And so that you have a larger field to argue, I will also put forward as an assertion what I have written in the "Silvestrina" 1).
1) The title is: "Summa Silvestrina oder ausführliche Lehre von den Sünden oder Gewissensfällen, oder auch Summa Summarum", Bologna 1515. 2 volumes. Nothing is known about the writing except the title.