Luther's answer *) to the dialogue of Silvester Prierias on the power of the pope.

August 1518.

Translated from Latin.

To the venerable Father in Christ Silvester Prierias, of the Order of Preachers, the very famous Professor of Holy Theology, of the Holy Apostolic Palace Magister, Br. Martin Luther, Augustinian, wishes eternal salvation in Christ.

I have received, venerable father, this dialogue of yours, which is really quite Italian and Thomistic. And although you chatter in it that you are as a

old man, weaned from battle, has been driven anew to the fight by my words, you are nevertheless preparing, like that Entellus, to carry off the victory over me, the Dares (as you say), quite without courage. But in this you represent Dares more than Entellus, in that you make great speeches before you have received the matter and put on the victory wreath (as they say) before the victory. Well then, do what you do; may the will of the Lord be done! Fare well.

I pass over your foundations, whose mind I guess more than I grasp, and must now also set up foundations according to your example and process.

The first is the saying of St. Paul [1 Thess. 5:21]: "Test everything and keep what is good"; and Gal. 1:8: "Even if an angel from heaven were to give you the gospel, you would not be able to do it.

*This was published by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig in 1.1518 towards the end of August, at the same time as the Dialogue, whereupon it was included in the Basel collections and in the "complete edition" listed in the previous text. The Weim. crit. The Weim. critical edition, after whose text the present translation was made, contains it in Vol. I, 647.

preach any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

The second is the saying of St. Augustine 1) to Jerome: "I have learned to pay this honor only to the books that are called canonical, that I firmly believe of them that none of their authors has erred. But the others, however gifted with great learning and sanctity, I do not believe to be true because they were so believed.

4 The third is the provision in the Clementines, de poen. et rem., Cap. Abusionibus: "The sellers of indulgences are not permitted to preach anything to the people other than what is contained in their letters," which, as you say, is what the church actually does.

If you understand me, then you also understand that with these basics your whole dialogue is thrown to the ground. For in the whole structure of words you bring nothing but mere words, or at the most you reject the mere opinions of St. Thomas, who also (like you) goes along in mere words, without Scripture, without Fathers, without Canons, yes, finally without any reasons. And therefore, according to my right, that is, according to Christian freedom, I reject and deny both you and him at the same time; indeed, the testimony of the first and third foundations compels me to act in this way, and the example of Augustine in the second foundation guides me to do so. For if among jurists the saying is true: "It is shameful for a jurist to speak without a text," see how honorable it is for a theologian to speak without a text (who, after all, is most guilty of all), since the apostle commands him to be "booted up by the legs, as ready to press on with the gospel," and a bishop that e.r be mighty not in human conclusions and opinions, but in sound doctrine, of course that doctrine which he elsewhere calls "inspired by God". For if this counsel had been kept, the Church would now have fewer useless questions and opinions and more Gospel and Christian truth.

1) In the 82nd of his letters (to Jerome). Augustin repeats the same to Fortunat (in the 148th letter).

Now let's get down to business, and at the same time let's receive our verdict.

To the first. Four falsehoods, you say, I would have put down in my first three theses.

The first is that "the Savior commanded something impossible, namely, that believers should always do a work of inward or outward repentance. For when he says: For when he says, 'Do,' he does not speak of inward repentance as a condition which alone always lasts, and consequently he speaks of inward or outward repentance as a doing. For doing is either an action or yet not without action."

These are your words. Truly yours, that is, so quite scholastic and Thomistic, yes, Aristotelian, that it annoys and disgusts me to refute them. Dear, where do you hear Scripture, Fathers, or Canons here? Next, I wonder that, according to this peripatetic [i.e., Aristotelian] theology, you did not refer the word "Thut" to the mere internal action. Likewise, how if I now also wanted to use your art and slander you and say: "The whole life" (of which I spoke) is not the same as "at any time" (as you interpret it)? But I still allow it and do not want to deal harshly with you, I want to honor your gray hairs and your dignity. Only the thing itself I want to try to protect. That's why I want to chat with you a little more expansively here, in order to throw your whole dialog over the pile for the second time.

(8) First of all, venerable Father, you are mistaken in the word "repent," as if it denotes an action that you can distinguish from a condition. For "repent" is as much as "repent of your sins," or, as the Latin translator of the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 3, v. 19, 2): repent and be saved 2c For also the Greek xxxxxxxxxx, which is translated "repent", means "repent".

2) Probably not Cap. 2, v. 38, as the complete editions cite, but Cap. 3, 19, because here it is the word pokniternini that is important; Aat. 2, 38. is not ?o6nit6inini, but kosnitsntiani nMts. In both places, however, is the same word in Greek -uei-a-.

means "Become of a different mind" or "Go back into your heart and mind".

(9) Secondly, that repentance as a quality, which can neither be understood by you nor taught to the simple people, is not one at all with me, but is invented by you from Aristotle, especially if you understand by it a certain, constant and idle quality in the soul: or teach it from the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Canons or reasons. I do not want (that you know it) you or St. Thomas to be mere masters in these things concerning the soul, which lives and is nourished by the word of God alone, and therefore Christ is its sole master. But I do not hear this one speaking in you, but Aristotle and a man.

(10) Thirdly, you act very wickedly in denying that the Savior has commanded the impossible; but you act even more than very wickedly in daring to call this a falsehood. For this is why we must always pray, "Forgive us our trespasses," because we never do or fulfill the commandments of God. Nor can we fulfill them in this life, as St. Augustine most abundantly testifies against the Donatists and Pelagians. But Paul also complains, Rom. 7, 23, 19, that he is imprisoned in the law of sin and does not do the good that he wants. Likewise also Gal. 5, 17: "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: which are contrary one to another, because ye do not do the things that ye would." This is the enmity that God set between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, that is, between flesh and spirit, between evil desire and love. So that we do not repent and enter into ourselves at all times is a mistake, although it is impossible for it to happen. "For God hath concluded all under sin, that He might have mercy on all" [Rom. 11:32, Gal. 3:22].

Fourth: All the teachers of the church agree with me, but none with you. For St. Augustine also says that the whole life of the faithful is a cross and martyrdom; just as Job 7:1 calls man's life on earth a service of war or a trial; and St. Bernard says:

"To stand still in the way of God and not to go on is to go back"; and in another place, "As soon as you begin not to want to improve, you cease to be good." And it is this that in the Psalms the life of the righteous is called a way, a path, not a house or a station, in order to teach that his life is a kind of running and not a station; just as it is also said of Christ, the archetype of all the righteous, "He rejoices like a hero to run the way" [Ps. 19:6]. But man cannot always run this way, unless his heart be comforted, according to the saying, "If thou comfort my heart, I will run in the way of thy commandments." This is the renewing of the mind [Eph. 4, 23.], which the apostle Paul does not, like you, omit, but from day to day, from clarity to clarity, wants to have continued in the same image that is in Christ [2 Cor. 3, 18.]; but not from us, but rather "as of the Spirit of the Lord" 2c; for the commandment is impossible 2c

Fifthly: In every good work the children of God are driven more than they act themselves, as it is said in Romans 8:14: "Those whom the Spirit of God drives are the children of God. And the works are (according to the judgment of all who have tasted higher theology) the very best that Christ works in us without us, and almost the worst that we, according to Aristotle's very bad teaching, work out of our choice and, as they call it, by means of free will. For it so happens that he fasts best who, absorbed in other better considerations, does not even think that he is fasting; for such a one is farthest away from the desire to eat, but not he who has in mind and resolves to fast. Thus, the one who thinks about holy things, or works hard at what is his profession, by which he withdraws from vices or keeps himself withdrawn, undoubtedly has the truest repentance, if he does it out of love for God and not for his own sake. For this is called living and true repentance only when one separates the spirit from the vices for God's sake and keeps it separated and separates it more and more. But you, because you only know the sacramental and initial

You have invented an impossibility when you hold up repentance before your eyes, the fervor and impetuosity of which cannot last without miracles.

(13) As my second falsehood you say: "The word of Christ, which saith, Repent, cannot be understood of sacramental repentance. That this is a falsehood you prove thus: "In three ways, you say, repentance is used to be called. First, it is 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, and it is itself a moral state, which produces the said action in relation to the aforesaid object. Second, penance is a sacrament whose parts are repentance, confession, and satisfaction. Thirdly, it is usually taken for the penance imposed by the priest and of all mortification of the flesh 2c As far as New Year's Eve."

14 Martin: Dear, is this the terrible battle-strap of the giant Entellus, so that you want to strike down the little brazen Dares? I am sorry and repentant that I have so much disregarded a certain father of your order in our Germany [Tetzel], who has also argued against these theses of mine as ridiculously as ludicrously, but nevertheless by far sharper and more learned than you; and if I did not honor your gray hairs, as befits me, truly, I would dismiss this distinction of yours according to dignity.

First, who gave you or St. Thomas this power to divide into three pieces the simplest word of the simplest and only teacher, Christ? Does this mean to interpret the Scriptures, or rather to tear them apart? Dear, with what Scripture, with what Fathers, with what reason will you confirm this distinction? I do not believe Thomas; I deny Silvester, even if he is a master of the palace.

16 Secondly, you again slobber over Aristotelian philosophy from a moral force, from an object, from a self-generated action, as if I had never heard such a thing; furthermore, what is of such a nature that it cannot be taught among the people, nor does it even serve for the understanding of Scripture,

namely outrageous expressions, only invented to feed controversy.

Thirdly, you declare repentance to be a virtue, a pain of the will. Dear, by what power? By your own? What is that to Martin?

Fourthly, the most subtle of all, indeed, the most gigantic battle-strap of Entellus, is that you distinguish repentance of the first kind as a virtue from repentance of the third kind, which you call all killing of the flesh. So repentance as a virtue does not kill the flesh? What then does it do? Does it make the flesh alive, or does it make the flesh live? But that it does not kill the flesh is proved by this very sharp distinction of yours; for repentance of the first kind cannot be repentance of the third kind. I understand this to mean that repentance as a pain of the will, which in truth kills the flesh, does not kill the flesh. If a German said this, I would blame the cold air. Now, since it is said by an Italian who lives under a hot sky, I do not know what to blame, except that I think it is true what you say in your letter, namely, that you are an old man and that you are more absorbed than occupied in the Commentaries of Thomas; indeed, I think you are completely absorbed in them.

(19) Fifthly, you say that the penance of the second kind is also satisfaction; likewise you say that the penance of the third kind is satisfaction. And the penance of the first kind, if it is a pain of the will, it cannot be otherwise than that this pain also works satisfaction. Now I ask you, how much more satisfaction do you want to bring out of us by your distinctions? This I challenge, so that you may again defend this distinction of yours with seven other new invented distinctions, after the manner of the holy scholastic theology, and then say that all these are nevertheless contained in the word of Christ, in order to persuade me that the doctrine of Christ cannot be understood without the distinctions of Thomas and Sylvester.

1) In the dedication to Pope Leo X, which precedes the dialogue, Prierias uses these expressions.

You must first persuade me to do so, since I hardly believe that Christ cannot be understood without Thomas.

(20) Sixthly, dear one, deliver me from this distress of mine: If the word of Christ can be understood of sacramental penance, especially according to its third part, that is, pardon, but the word of Christ is an unchangeable commandment, how does it happen that the priestly authority changes sacramental pardon by granting indulgences and remitting pardons? Do you not see that either the sacramental pardon is different from that which the pope grants, namely, the ecclesiastical one; or else, if it is the same, that there are then no remissions, and the indulgence is nothing but fraud and fabricated remissions? For man cannot remit what God has commanded and bound.

(21) Seventh, if atonement is included in the penance of the second and third kinds, but both are the atonement imposed by the priest, I ask, how can this distinction exist? For the sacramental satisfaction is no other than that imposed by the priest, and it is also, as you indicate, the same as that meant in the third kind. You must rightly forgive me if I do not grasp this. For I have a head of iron and a nose of iron, 1) that is, an unlearned spirit and incapable of your so high theology, if you will.

You see now how you may claim that the word of Christ not only can but must be understood by any one of these three penances.

22. About my third falsehood you say: "The third falsehood is in man, that is, in you, that Christ does not intend to speak only of the inner repentance. For this is true in itself; but in regard to thee, who would have Christ signify by these words a repentance in the whole life, it cannot be understood of the outward, since it is by sleeping and rejoicing with the joyful, and the-

1) Also expressions that Prierias uses in the dedicatory letter to Leo X.

The same must be interrupted. Therefore, you can understand it only from the inner repentance, and also not from every one, but from the always attending one, because also an inner action of the free will we necessarily interrupt in sleep. So much for Silvester."

(23) I believe that this seems to you to be perceptive and unshakable. But I like the fact that you say that the falsity lies in the person, that is, in the appearance and appearance, but in reality it is the strongest truth. Concerning the repentance that must be done throughout life, I have said above that if it is not done throughout life, it should be done throughout life. For this is why we sin, although those who are in grace are not at any moment without both outward and inward repentance; for they sanctify themselves from every defilement of the flesh and spirit, though they do not undertake that torture and fancied hypocrisy.

I am not surprised enough that you openly say that one cannot repent in joy, since repentance is all the purer the more cheerful and willing it is done; for God loves a cheerful giver [2 Cor. 9:7]. Dear, rebuke the apostle who commands the Thessalonians [1 Ep. 5, 16.], "Be joyful in the Lord always"; and the Psalmist who says [Ps. 34, 2.], "His praise shall be in my mouth forever."' Say thou, I beseech thee, that they also at times should weep and curse in the Lord. Therefore, we must always rejoice in the Lord, but in us we must always weep. In God we have cause to rejoice, but in us cause to be sad; therefore joy should be in sorrow and sorrow in joy; joy in secret, sorrow in public. But this is not scholastic; therefore I will postpone it to another time.

But that you say that even in sleep the act of repentance is necessarily interrupted, in this I recognize in you the exceedingly excellent Aristotle, as he prattles on in his Moral Doctrine, when he says that the wretched and the happy man differ from each other in nothing throughout half of life; for both sleep at night, that is to say, they

do neither happy nor unhappy things. How can you like true theology, since you are pleased with such a foolish philosopher? Listen to the apostle Paul to the Romans [14:6]: "He that eateth, eateth unto the Lord; he that eateth not, eateth not unto the Lord"; and again [v. 8]: "If we live, we live unto the Lord; if we die, we die unto the Lord." Likewise also to the Corinthians [1 Ep. 6, 19. f.], "Ye are not yourselves: for ye are bought with great price." For, I beseech thee, let us imitate and say [Col. 3, 17.], He that sleepeth, sleepeth unto the Lord; he that watcheth, watcheth unto the Lord. And elsewhere [1 Cor. 10:31.], 1) "Ye therefore eat or drink, do it all in the name of JEsu Christ." I believe you will not deny that "to sleep unto the Lord" means as much as to be obedient to God's will; but to be obedient to God's will is surely the best repentance and cleansing from vices. I also believe that he who sleeps also lives; but if he lives, he surely lives to the Lord, as the apostle says here. Likewise, how dare you say that the sleeping believer is without good deeds, since he is most full of good deeds just then, when he lets God quietly act on him and celebrates the Sabbath of the Lord? But I will stop; for I do not know whether Thomistic theology has ever felt anything of such a theology; for it is Pauline, not peripatetic.

(24) Finally, as the fourth falsehood of mine, you state that "inward repentance is not repentance if it does not outwardly work all kinds of death to the flesh. For so I have taught. "Yes," you say, "external repentance without internal repentance is not repentance, but internal repentance alone can make a man blessed."

But you yourself cancel this falsehood of mine and say: "this statement, however, can 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" 2c Thank you once for defending me. Here we agree to some extent with each other;

1) The Weimar edition has here, as well as the old Walch edition, erroneously 1 Cor. 1, 10.

alone suddenly you deflect again and say, "But this sense seems impossible to you."

(25) Here I say: to you it seems to be impossible; but to me it is not only possible, but also always in being, to speak peripatetically with you. For all the works of the righteous are penances, that is, changes and renewals from day to day. This is not only possible, but also necessary, unless you belong to the ninety-nine righteous [Luc. 15, 7], who do not need repentance, or if you are a companion of the Pharisee, who is not like other people [Luc. 18, 11]. For we groan continually with the church [Ps. 119:176], "I am like a lost and forsaken sheep; seek thy servant," and chirrup like turtledoves with the publican [Luc. 18:13], "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner," and fear with Job because of all our works [Job 9:28], and say with all the saints, "Forgive us our trespasses," not only with our mouths, but with our hearts and with our deeds. For we act continually in the fear of God; but fear is the beginning of wisdom [Ps. 111:10], that is, a change from unwisdom to wisdom, which is the truest repentance. By deed he shows that he has no need of repentance who does not hasten constantly to repentance, says Bernard. But I do not condemn your opinion, since you know no other penance than sacramental, and I do not know how long only it lasts. We are also grieved and confess that we do not do this constant penance as we should; therefore we do penance and yet at the same time not enough penance.

Take this, I beg you, what I have treated here so extensively, in good part, because it was necessary to show you how you do not understand my theses and how in vain you have derived this entire dialogue from such weak principles. I see nothing more in this dialogue that would not already be superfluously refuted by this. But I will. of my own free will continue to deal with you.

(27) Since you say in answer to my fourth proposition that this doctrine is false, impossible, and erroneous, unless by punishment is understood external mortification according to time and place, so.

is already sufficiently said that external repentance must be a constant one, although it cannot happen with regard to the acts of repentance as understood by you, but it can happen with regard to the acts taught by Christ, that is, such as the Church cannot remit; these are the renewal of the mind from day to day.

So according to your opinion you speak the truth, but you do not prove that my opinion is wrong and impossible. But this I cannot tolerate, that you say that the "hatred of himself," in so far as it concerns the truly penitent, is spoken of inauthentically by me. "For," you say, "no one who is under divine grace hates himself, any more than he hates his neighbor, whom he loves just as he loves himself."

28 I gladly admit that you speak with your own of the hatred of oneself in its most real meaning, if you only admit to me that I speak with the Lord Jesus Christ in a non-real way, when he says [Joh. 12, 25.], "He that hateth his life in this world shall have it unto life eternal"; and with the apostle, Rom. 15:1, "We ought not to have pleasure in ourselves"; and again [2 Cor. 10:12], "For therefore is no man proficient, that he should praise himself." But you, if you wish to persuade us that the truly penitent love themselves, must necessarily admit that they may also praise themselves as truly praiseworthy, good, just, wise men, and thus please themselves; but this is nothing else than, with the Pharisee, out of frightful haughtiness, not to repent, but to mock God. For this is how you, scholastic theologians, teach your unhappy disciples, namely, to be arrogant and to perish. But this subject is too vast for the matter to be treated now. For the error and ignorance about love has taken over far and wide, especially the scholars.

But I hold thus: a Christian man does not love himself except in God; but in himself he hates himself only, that is, since he himself is lying and void, but God is true, he loves nothing of what he himself desires.

and knows, but seeks everything that is contrary to him. But nothing is opposed to the lie and nothingness but the truth; hence it comes that, since he hates himself and always loves what is opposed to him, he truly loves himself, not in himself, but in the truth, which is opposed to him as a liar. Thus the saints also loved and desired the cross, death, foolishness, shame, and thereby only destroyed themselves; for they made themselves void, that God might be all in all. And this is what Christ said [Matth. 10, 39]: "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Therefore, when Christ says [Matt. 22:39] that one should love one's neighbor as oneself, he is speaking, in my judgment, of the perverse and unjust love of self, in which man seeks only what is his own; a love that cannot be set right in any other way than by ceasing to seek what is his own, and seeking what is another's. This is the opinion of St. Paul, when he says, Phil. 2:4, "Every man look not to his own, but to that which is another's"; and 1 Cor. 13:5, he says, "Love seeketh not its own." With these words he evidently forbids self-love. Therefore the meaning of the commandment, "Love thy neighbor as thyself!" seems to be this: You love yourself alone and wrongly; but if you would direct such love toward your neighbor, then you would love him rightly. This is evident from the fact that he does not command man to love himself, which he would have done in any case if self-love were good; but he finds self-love and transfers it elsewhere, thus making it right. Oh, one should shed rivers of tears that almost all scholastic teachers know nothing at all about this love, so that instead of holy love they preach only the most abominable selfishness! And they go no higher than that pagan, 1) who said: "Be your own neighbor," which yet another pagan, the poet Terentius, 1) condemned.

29 But that which thou sayest, None that standeth in grace, and is truly penitent,

1) The herd is Cato. - Terence in his comedy: "^näris," Act 4, Scene 1, v. 10-12.

hates himself" seems to imply that he who is without grace hates himself, which is contrary to all Scripture, which everywhere abhors those who love themselves, as 2 Tim. 3:2, and also according to another saying [Phil. 2:21] all those who seek their own. Therefore also with your masters the inclination to self-interest is condemned, as well as the enjoyment of the creature, the use of God and the abuse of things, the love burning in an evil way etc. Unless you were moved by the saying Ps. 11, 5. where it says [according to the Vulg.]: "He who loves iniquity hates his soul", although in the Hebrew it says: "Hate his, namely God's, soul", yet I admit that he hates his soul. But he does this by loving his soul in a very evil way, as St. Augustine interprets the passage John 12:25: Love that he may perish, hate that he may not perish. But perhaps we are only talking at cross-purposes here; I only know that these words are rarely understood according to the truth.

(30) Against my fifth thesis, where I said that indulgences remit only the punishments imposed according to the pleasure of the priest or the canons, you say that I think ill of a fact of the Church and deviate from the saints, therefore my thesis is heretical according to your judgment.

If I ask you here, which then are those saints and which are the facts of the church, I do not see what you want to say to this; unless you would name St. Thomas, but with which I refer you to my first and second basis. For I do not understand how in this word of Christ, All that thou shalt loose 2c, a privilege was given to Peter. For with it no privilege, but a general and unbreakable law has been given, not only to Peter, but in general to all priests and the whole church. Why then do you, with your Thomas, apply this to Peter alone, and in such a way as to call it a privilege? Or if Peter can really, by virtue of this word, solve the penalties of purgatory, why not also every priest? Is this the way to interpret the Gospel?

31. secondly, that you have two advance

The first, that the Church, by means of indulgences, grants the liberation of a single soul; the second, that the Church simply grants plenary indulgences, so that the soul, separated from the body, immediately goes to heaven, 2c, to which I answer: "Then you see, venerable Father, that these presuppositions of yours are not additions, from you and from a human day. Give reason to this faith and hope. Oh that thou wouldst speak true; rather, far be it from thee to speak true, as if it were in the power of the Church to deliver souls when and how she will!

32 Thirdly: Show me one deed of the church in which it has given deliverance to one or more souls, if you do not want to list the tombs of St. Sebastian, Laurentius and Pudentiana, and other places in Rome. But see what even you Romans think of these places; then with how many fables at least these places have been raised, whatever else they may have had for a beginning. But about this in more detail in my "Explanations". However, I confess that I doubt this matter to this day. And I am therefore not yet a heretic, even if I hold the negative opinion, as long as it is not established by a concilium.

33. fourth: so says the gloss on the word mendaciter in the Clementine de poen. et rem. Cap. Abusionibus openly states that the souls are therefore not pulled out of purgatory by the indulgence, because they are already subject to the judgment of God. However, I will follow this text of the Decretal (that is, of the pope) or the deed of the Church (as you say), since the Gospel also agrees with it: "All things you shall loose on earth", not "under the earth"; nevertheless, some have made a counter-sanctimonious gloss by force and out of flattery. Nor have I ever seen any bull that would have it otherwise, except that now and then it is said that the souls are redeemed intercessionally; about which see above.

But you, who disputes against me with such pleasure "that joy already gives you the truth", also "with such confidence, that you do not feel afraid of Satan himself".

1) that is to say, especially with insurmountable force, that it is not permissible to think ill of a deed of the church, answer me on one thing: With which church do you and your Thomas people think in the deed of the church of the conception of the holy virgin? With the church of power (virtuali)? or with the church of representation (repraesentativa)? or with the essential (essentiali) 2)? or with that expelled and banished by you, a general conciliar? If, then, it is permissible for you to hold an opinion of the church that is not only not good, but obviously contrary, because you hold an opinion that has not yet been rejected: why should it not be permissible for me to deviate from you in an opinion that is neither decided nor rejected? Especially since you have nothing for yourself but the mere narrative of St. Thomas, but I have the clear text of Clementine and the revealed words of the Gospel, then Gerson, who declared many years after Thomas that in this matter the two opinions are equally probable, furthermore for me some learned and perceptive treatises of some people in Germany, who also condemn your and St. Thomas' opinion.

34 Fifth: That you make the case that when a sinner is held to the punishment imposed by the priest, likewise to that imposed by the canon, and finally to that imposed by God, then it follows from my thesis that one, having obtained plenary indulgence, does not immediately go to heaven or is not delivered from purgatory; and thus I hold evil of a deed of the church and smack of heresy; to this I reply: See to it that you do not have such a good opinion about a deed of the church that you destroy the deeds of God. Therefore, I again put it to you that if a sinner has perfect and true repentance, and therefore all punishments are remitted to him by the act of God, what does the plenary indulgence give to such a one? But if he has no perfect repentance, what use is the plenary indulgence to him?

1) Words of Prierias in his dedication letter to Leo X.

2) Luther uses here the same distinction that Prierias had used at the beginning of his dialogue.

Indulgence, since the imperfect love of righteousness still remains with him, and the imperfect hatred of sin? But about it more extensively in the "explanations". For you are a complete Thomist who proves nothing and teaches nothing. Only of the punishments, which love despises, you make many words; of repentance, which loves the punishments, you say almost nothing.

35 To the sixth: I still do not believe that punishments imposed by God are remitted through the keys, and you can see my reasons in the "Explanations"; also you can never prove this; but without proof I absolutely believe nothing. And so that you know my opinion, it seems to me to be the most serious mockery of the church, if we teach things about which we can give no reasons at all. Also, it seems to me that even a deed of the Church is not sufficient here (although a deed of the Church is not present here), because both the pope and a concilium can err, as you will find in the Panormitan'us, who speaks gloriously about the chapter Significasti from the first book of Aes Elect. 3) Therefore, I reject your foundations, in which you distinguished the Church into essential [all the faithful], representative [the Collegium of the Cardinals], and virtual [the Pabsts], as they read, and consider them to be nothing. For they are your [dreams], that is, put forward without Scripture and any testimony.

I know the Church by force only in Christ, by representation only in a concilium. Otherwise, if anything that the church does by force (virtualis), that is, the pope, is called a deed of the church, I beg you, what monstrosities in the church would we have to consider well done! Not also the terrible bloodbaths which Julius II inflicted among the Christians? Not also the abominable cruelties of a Boniface VIII in the whole world, which are scourged in all chronicles? about whom the saying is said: "He came in like a fox, ruled like one

3) In the editions erroneously äe eoust. instead of äs sleet. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 303.

Lion and died like a dog. Do you want to persuade us that we, under the representing church and the church of strength, should venerate all those long intolerable abominations in the church as the most holy deeds of the church? Let not become true what our Germans think of your dialogue, namely, that with this dialogue you did not want to refute Martin as well as to flatter the pope and the College of Cardinals. But if the pope is the church according to power, the cardinals according to representation, the assembly of the faithful according to essence, what do you want to call a general concilium of the church? is it not the church according to power? also not according to representation? and not according to essence? What then is it? perhaps an accidental, word and name church?

36 To the seventh: I reject this new understanding of your Thomas, in which you want to have understood the word of Christ: All that you loose casts 2c, as if Peter could also loose the punishments imposed by God. I ask again: By what power, by what procedure do you draw this understanding from those words? Why does St. Thomas, together with you, not leave the meaning that the Church Fathers, especially Chrysostom to the Hebrews, have recorded, that with these words Christ meant nothing else than that the faithful should not regard Peter's binding and loosing differently than if Christ himself bound and loosed, that is, he confirmed his binding and loosing on earth. But herein it does not lie that Peter could also loose something in heaven or outside the earth. Or why do you not teach that Peter could also bind and inflict punishments imposed by God, since both powers are one and the same? Correct therefore the word of Christ, and teach thus, "Whatsoever I bind in heaven, loose thou on earth." For that this is your mind in the words of Christ is clear. But how tasteless and ungodly it is, I believe you can grasp with your hands. Therefore do what you do. From these words of Christ you will never prove anything else than, "What Peter cannot bind, that he cannot loose"; even though we are guilty of not binding all that he binds.

and loosened, as if God Himself bound and loosened it, so that the unity of His Church, which He established with these words, would remain intact.

(37) As to the eighth, you cite St. Thomas, that in my opinion "the Church, if it granted indulgences in this way, would harm men more than it would help them, for by absolving them from the penances imposed, it would consign them to even more severe ones, namely, to the punishments of the purgatory. So much for St. Thomas."

I answer: St. Thomas or someone else may have said this, but it is none of my business according to my first, second and third basis. It is only an opinion, not yet a definite truth; if I contradict it for the time being, I will therefore not yet be a heretic.

Secondly, I would like to be instructed by St. Thomas according to which dialectic the conclusion holds: the church only remits the imposed penances, consequently it delivers to more severe ones, that is, to the punishments of purgatory. You Thomists are to be severely rebuked for daring to impose on us the opinions and the often false thoughts of this holy man as articles of faith, and you alone see to it that, just as you consider nothing but St. Thomas to be worth reading, so you also want nothing in it to be considered false; in which opinion you have long been arguing against all universities and almost against the whole world.

Thirdly, I consider Thomas' reason to be false, that God still demands punishment from the sinner and does not remit anything without demanding satisfaction. On the other hand, it is true that God does not despise a troubled and crushed spirit [Ps. 51:19]; and what He remits, He remits completely, except perhaps He would like to impose a chastisement at His discretion, which neither the Church nor Heaven is able to remit. Therefore, when the Church remits imposed penances, it does not remit to more severe ones, because it has no power to remit or not to remit to other punishments. But about this in my "Explanations". Therefore, you unreasonably charge me with diminishing a prerogative of the Church and that

this thesis smells of heresy. Rather, see if you do not act ungodly against God, since you, in order to elevate the power of the church through vain flattery, elevate it to the detriment of divine power by conceding to it what is God's alone. Therefore, forgive me, I beg you, if I am as concerned for the defense of the honor and power of God as you are for the elevation of the power of the church; and let us both await the decision and the verdict of the church or a council in this matter.

But I wonder why you choose to call this power of the Church a prerogative, when it is not done, as it seems, to tickle those who boast more of ruling power than of serving love; for a prerogative is not for the service of the commonwealth, but for the advantage of its own possession. And this grace we owe to your scholastic theology, that you have made a common good of the church (the power of the keys)' not a service of many, but a dominion of a few, since you have more your intention on pagan tyranny, than on Christian servitude.

38. ninth: The same I say to this: that it should follow that souls would be more harmed by plenary indulgences than they would be helped by them, since they would thereby be consigned to heavier [punishments]. I ask you, what can the Church do to make the soul go to purgatory? She absolves them from their punishments, but she does not relegate them to purgatory; she does what she can. If this is not enough, the fault lies with the departing soul, but not with the absolving church; for it is not the power of the church, but faith that makes pure, blessed, and frees the soul from all evil. But this faith cannot be given by the church.

39 The tenth: Those harm souls who fail to instill in them full confidence in Christ and contempt for punishment, and only frighten them with the greatness of the punishments and make them fainthearted, insofar as they exalt the power of force that can take away such great evils. Let a soul be filled with love

their zeal will be as firm as hell [Hell 8:6].

(40) Against my sixth thesis, since I said that guilt cannot be remitted by the power of the keys, because only if they explain and confirm 2c, then I have spread about this subject in detail, as you can see in the "Explanations"; because I also have set up this thesis according to the opinion of others, not according to mine. Your refutation, however, is nothing at all. For you say that, according to the interpretation of the saints (perhaps of St. Thomas), those who are not completely penitent become completely penitent by virtue of the keys, and therefore not only the pope absolves them, but every priest does so in an executive and official manner.

(41) I answer the first, that if there are saints or sinners who speak thus, I ask nothing of them: for I know that they err. I say that it is an error for one who is not completely repentant to become completely repentant by virtue of the keys; for, as the apostle says, "he who wants to come to God must believe" [Heb. 11:6]. Faith, however, not only makes one perfectly penitent, but also justifies. For it is impossible for anyone to go worthily to the Sacrament who is not already justified and truly and completely repentant. Therefore, the widespread myth of imperfect repentance is a false fiction, and in reality it is nothing; it might be understood as a hypocrisy that makes one more unworthy of the Sacrament. What more can I say? Your dialogue itself also confirms my opinion, which I have long held, namely, that scholastic theology has driven true and pure theology from us. For you see that in this dialogue I do nothing but oppose and punish scholastic theology, that is, the false understanding of Scripture and the sacraments.

Secondly, you yourself are forced to say what everyone on all campuses says, namely, that guilt is remitted by God alone. How, then, can perfect repentance come by virtue of the keys, of which all say that it comes by virtue of God's grace alone?

What is the truth of the matter? See that your refutation is no more heretical than my thesis, even if perhaps the person who refutes it is not a heretic. But if grace alone gives perfect contrition, what do the keys of the Church do but declare or confirm the grace that has already preceded them? Yes, no one comes to the Sacrament without hypocrisy, if grace does not drive him to the Sacrament. Or answer, venerable father, why is the baptized asked before and not after baptism whether he believes? Why is the one who wants to be absolved asked whether he has right repentance of his sins before he is absolved? Or do you again, by a new theology, want to make the object of the Sacrament of Penance not a completely penitent, but a not completely penitent? Consequently, repentance is not the first part of penance, but follows confession? And yet everyone says that confession is nothing without perfect contrition. Or does he perhaps begin to recite his confession only when he is absolved, that is, when he has obtained the sacrament and, through the power of the keys, perfect contrition? If this is the true theology, then my advice would be that every sinner be absolved before he is allowed to confess. And so let us do everything in the wrong order (this is what scholastic theology wants) and absolve even what we do not know. Thank God, or rather, woe to us unfortunates who put such trust in the creature and attribute such power to the keys! But pain and business do not allow us to go through all the errors that have been introduced into this sacrament by human ordinances; it is enough that we have given an impulse to others who are better able to do so. Thus there are four parts of repentance, namely imperfect repentance, confession, perfect repentance, and atonement; so far theology has already advanced with the help of philosophy.

43. against the seventh thesis, where I said that no one would be pardoned from guilt except the one whom he [God] had subjected to the priest; which you claimed to be true, yet you did not pass by blamelessly

you have at least sullied me with the reproach that you called me a leper, because I had mixed some truths with falsehoods. Thanks be to you that you acknowledge me once, even if with insult, for true! But I wonder what may have happened to you Thomists that you are of such different opinion. For this thesis of mine is utterly detested by the Thomists and the brothers of your order in Germany. Whether you have a different Thomas in Italy than in Germany, I do not know, if you do not perhaps want to arouse the suspicion in me that neither the Thomists understand Thomas, nor Thomas the Thomists.

44 In the eighth thesis you refer to the seventh, that is, you say that it is true, but mixed with some falsehood, therefore I am a leper and a stain. So I also say, as to the previous thesis: Let the Thomists first agree among themselves and then argue against me; although I am surprised that you do not reject this thesis, since so many are convinced that it is false.

(45) As to the ninth proposition, where I said that in the decrees of the pope the article of death and necessity is always excepted, you think that I have spoken rightly, but not appropriately, or to the matter; for that exception is not understood in relation to the imposition of penance, but in relation to the reservation of cases.

First: Manhu [Gen. 16:15]? What am I hearing? What you say is too high for me; therefore I cannot answer it. If the pope reserves the imposition of penances even in death, I confess that I do not understand how you can say this of others than those that can be imposed according to the canons (for in the previous thesis you admitted that no canonical penances would be imposed on the dying); Here you say again that the pope does not impose penances); you wanted to understand by this, as below, that only the penances imposed by the priest or by God in the state of necessity are not exempted. But about this I have already said above that it is not within the power of the

Church lies to reserve or remit the punishments imposed by God, and the imposition of the priest is purely arbitrary.

But if you have this opinion, then you follow those common tales that the priest, because he is uncertain how much punishment he must impose, therefore cannot solve everything for the dying, but leaves this to the priest. First of all, who would believe that God would require of a dying person any other punishment than that of death? It is said of it that, if one willingly submits to it, it alone is sufficient for the complete remission of all sins and punishments; and this is very true, for "the death of His saints is 'worthy of the Lord'" [Ps. 116:15]. Secondly, if the priest does not know the magnitude of the punishment to be inflicted, who will make it known to the pope? But, you say, it is said to him: All that you will redeem 2c I answer: Does not every priest also redeem in virtue of the same word? This and the like you say only on opinions and teach in the church of God, what you cannot prove at all.

46) In the tenth thesis, you accuse me of allowing what I condemn in others, namely, that I condemn souls to purgatory, claiming that only the penances imposed are remitted.

I answer, as above: I do not send them to purgatory, but the justice or severity of God, which can take away the power of the church only through prayer, not through the power of the keys. Then I advise them to die courageously, which will secure them from purgatory more than all the indulgences of all men.

You pass over the eleventh thesis.

47 To the twelfth thesis you say that even now, before absolution, penances are imposed according to the chapter Dudum.

I answer: You have not grasped what I wanted to say, which is also my fault, because I did not express myself clearly enough; but it was not necessary, since I proposed a disputation. My opinion is and was that in former times sinners were not absolved before repentance was fulfilled, which you could have seen from the fact that I added, "thereby to examine whether repentance is righteous.

would be". In our time, when it is only imposed, but not fulfilled before absolution, it cannot be investigated whether repentance is righteous. And would God that this old custom would be reintroduced!

(48) In the thirteenth, you admit that it is true that everything is solved by death, "as soon as the punishment is due only according to the canon. But if the punishment imposed by the canon is also required by divine justice, then you must deny purgatory.

I answer, Whether justice requires it or not, it is no business of the keys of the church, but only of the prayers, as Jacobus says [5:15] that the prayer of the faith of the church will help the sick, and if he has sins upon him, they will be forgiven him.

Secondly: Then the office of the keys would become nothing else than a "business that creeps in the darkness" [Ps. 91, 6], because it would then solve without knowing what and how much it solved, which at least seems to me rather tasteless. For one should not make a judgment about a completely unknown thing. For the keys must work a certain and fixed thing. But this has already been sufficiently dealt with above and elsewhere.

Thirdly, it does not follow that I therefore deny purgatory, but only that purgatory cannot be dissolved by means of the keys, as below.

(49) In the four tenths and fifteenths, where I discussed what I considered to be the punishment of the purgatory, namely terror and fear and near despair, you charge me with three falsities and presumption.

I answer first to the presumption. You and St. Thomas are guilty of the same offense as I am; indeed, Thomas most of all, who does nothing else in almost all his writings but disputes and, which is something great, even questions matters of faith and turns faith into an "if?", as you know. Dear, why will you not allow me to argue about such things that are quite doubtful and undecided? Am I the church or more than the church that my disputations are accepted for decisions? But this

is the Thomistic custom, according to which you are used to assert everything, even what you state in a disputing manner or read in Thomas; therefore you also believe that I also assert and do not disputate. But, as you will see in the "Explanations", if I only dispute in any part of my theses, it is mainly in this part; and I dispute in such a way that I believe to have proved my opinion more firmly than your opinion is proved; and yet I do not decide, but await the judgment of the church. Therefore I forgive you for calling me a heretic, since I know that this is the custom of the Thomists, that everyone who does not follow the opinions of Thomas must be a heretic, whether he likes it or not (at least among the Thomists). Now to the other points:

50 "The first falsehood," you say, "is that I openly say that those who are in purgatory do not know whether they will be saved, as I also said in my 19th thesis. But you, with St. Thomas, whose doctrine you call both examined and approved by the guide of the faith, the Roman Church, state that they know that they will become free, otherwise they would not ask for intercession.

I answer: I pass over the matter itself, because I disputire and have said below in the 19th thesis, it is not all certain, if perhaps also some would have this knowledge, about which I have dealt extensively in the "Explanations", if they have reached or will reach your hands. For I believe I have proved and demonstrated that not all know that they will be saved, as many examples of souls going to judgment 2c testify. Only your proofs we want to look at.

First, you introduce the testimony of St. Thomas, whose opinion you call the opinion of the saints, in the plural, perhaps out of deference. And in order that I believe this, you say that it is approved by the Roman Church, the rule of faith. I am surprised that among so many teachers of the church you do not sometimes introduce another or a scriptural text; therefore I again reject both you and Thomas on my second basis.

For Augustine is also accepted by the Church, more than St. Thomas; but Paul most of all, who is my first foundation.

52 Secondly, I wonder what you mean by calling the Roman church the rule of faith. I have always believed that faith is the rule of the Roman church, and of all churches, as the apostle, Gal. 6:16, says: "And as many as walk according to this rule, upon them be peace" 2c Dear one, let yourself flatter the Roman church only in so far as you let her be a disciple of faith, governed by faith, not governing faith. But perhaps this is only a quarrel of words, because you call her so, speaking only inauthentically of a rule of faith, so that according to the faith which the Roman church professes, the faith of all others must be directed. And it is wonderfully satisfying. For I, too, give thanks to Christ that he so preserves this One Church on earth by a tremendous miracle, which alone can prove the truth of our faith, that she has never deviated from the true faith in any of her decrees, 1) and that even the devil, through the terrifying maw of the most depraved morals, could not accomplish so much that the testimony of the canonical books of the Bible would not have remained with her from her beginning, and of the church fathers and interpreters, and the truthful confession of this testimony; although there are perhaps all too many who, for their own part, have no faith at all in these books, nor do they care to read or understand them.

Third: Dear one, consider for yourself this conclusion: souls ask for help, therefore they know that they will be saved. Have you not yourself at times been in danger of death or other distress, not knowing whether you would perish or be saved? If you have been in it, remember, I pray you, how anxiously you sought help and counsel, especially because you had no help and counsel.

1) According to what follows, this is to be understood from the fact that all decrees, in spite of many errors contained therein, nevertheless hold the canonical books of Holy Scripture as the supreme guide of faith.

and, as that poet says, 1) that was your only salvation, to give up all hope of salvation. If you have not been in it, I beg you, believe those who have been in it. Where, then, is your proof: "They seek help, therefore they know that they will be saved"? How if the opposite were true: "They seek help, therefore they do not know whether they will be saved"? So, I say, it can happen that they are frightened in the face of eternal wrath and fear to perish and fall into the eternal depths, and "so that" they do not get in, they ask and seek help. This is what the Church seems to mean when she prays for them, "lest hell devour them"; as well as, "Deliver them from the lion's mouth." See, here the Church confesses that they are already in the jaws of the lion that wants to devour them, and that hell is yawning toward them. But about this more extensively at the indicated place [in the "Explanations"].

54. "The second falsity," you say, "is that the souls in the place of purification should fear with other than childlike fear; for fear is because of a future evil. "2c

I answer: With your own sword I strike you: "It is presumption to want to decide something out of our power in such things, which natural reason does not teach us. Put away this presumption of yours, which without testimony you pronounce with such great confidence that there is only a childlike fear in purgatory; for I do not hear Thomas.

55 Secondly: I see that you suffer from the error, as if in this life there could be such a pure childlike fear that no servile fear of punishment would be connected with it, which is not possible according to the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, since every virtue becomes perfect only there, in the fatherland. And this is also the cause of this thesis of mine, that souls have an imperfect love, having mixed the same with the fear of punishments, that is, a servile fear. Or teach me how they can feel pain over the punishment, when

they do not fear it and have no aversion to it; unless the explanation of pain, as given by St. Augustine, would be different in purgatory than on earth, since he says: "Pain is an aversion of the mind to the things that happen to us against our will". So do they have pain? But this happens because they do not want to; but if they do not want to, they have a servile fear of punishment. Understand it; I cannot imagine that someone feels pain over the punishment which he does not fear or detest.

56 Thirdly: But how clever it is that you have said that fear takes place only in relation to a future evil, but the souls are in present evils. If you could think or have tasted even a drop of the life to come, you would not say that. There everything is past, everything is present, everything is future. In short, since this is unknown to you, I say this, that the punishment of the purgatory is a fear of the future evil, that is, a terror of damnation, as I have shown above by the example of those who are in danger.

Fourthly, regarding the fact that God would be ungodly if this terror alone were punishment enough and he added other punishments, I ask you to call your Creator more modest, you wretched creature. Is God ungodly because he did not act according to your head, which is filled with Thomistic opinions? Then you do not understand me either; I did not say that this punishment is sufficient, that is, it is the whole punishment that the souls suffer, nor did I discuss other punishments; but I say that this one alone is so great, so severe, that it alone could apply to purgatory, since in it lies every punishment; indeed, other punishments without this one, by themselves, are nothing compared to it, as I said in the "Explanations.

(58) Against the sixteenth thesis, where I called purgatory a near despair, you, on the other hand, set up the certain hope of beatitude in purgatory, and that on the mere testimony of Thomas, wherewith I refer you to my second foundation.

Secondly, I doubt very much whether you know what a certain hope is, since it is your own opinion that man does not know whether he is worthy of love [Eccl. 9:1].

Thirdly: I let this thesis go, because it is evident from what has been said above that, although salvation is not yet despairing for those who are dying and in danger, yet [their condition] is almost equal to despair of salvation; for every fear is, as it were, a piece of despair.

59) In the seventeenth, where I said that love must consequently increase in souls, you come to me with your most beautiful Aristotle, that where one inconsistency is committed, it would entail several others for me; for it is no less inconsistent that I have established a servile fear in souls than an increase of love. Then you pursue your very good things that suit you and assert the opposite with St. Thomas, for which you (according to your custom) cite nothing but new words, namely, that according to Thomas, souls are pilgrims in a sense, not par excellence. Who then has told you and Thomas that they are pilgrims in a way, not par excellence? Aristotle in his fallacies (Elenchis)? Who has allowed you the presumption (as you call it) to ponder what no reason is sufficient for us, especially not the natural one, since you do not dispute but decide? For instance, your so strong reason, according to which you say: "otherwise it would be a blessing for them to be long in purgatory, so that they might emerge all the more perfect and accomplished"? This conclusion, I believe, can only be made by a Thomist, so much sagacity does it contain. For then it would also follow that it would be a good thing if no saint died, and if the martyrs suffered imprisonment and torture until the last day; for if love can be increased in the state in which they are, it is good that they should remain in it long, that is, that they should always die for Christ, in order to become ever more perfect. So far as thou, who, as thou sayest, followest not new words, but the footsteps of the saints.

60. the eighteenth thesis where you saw.

You pass over the fact that I insisted on testimonies of Scripture or reason, only that you pretend that through the testimony of the saints (in the plural), that is, of St. Thomas, a probable proof arises.

I admit that it is a probable proof, that is, a doubtful and dialectical one, which one does not necessarily have to agree with in faith. And with this confession of yours I want to bind you, that as often as you cite St. Thomas to me, when he speaks without scripture, without fathers, without church, without reason, you remember that you act as a dialecticus, and not as a theologian, that is, that you only put forward what is probable, but nothing credible. What now? In this way we are already in complete agreement with each other and the disputation has an end; for what you assert I deny. Do you now want us to stop? For you bring nothing further than St. Thomas; only that you still sometimes persecute me with invectives, but everywhere try to make me hateful to the pope. But I will pass over that for a moment.

61) Passing by the nineteenth thesis, you say the same thing that you said above in the fourteenth and fifteenth theses, to which I also refer you.

62) Against the twentieth, you say that the pope can remit both the imposed and the unimposed punishment, as St. Thomas teaches; but to say the opposite is heretical and contrary to the prerogative given to Peter.

I answer: I deny it, and the reason for my denial is stated above in the fifth thesis. But I will be a heretic only if I do not hold it even after the church has decided.

In the twenty-first thesis you sting me with invectives; therefore I pass them over.

On the twenty-second, you say the same thing that is refuted above in the fifth thesis. I deny that it is a deed and doctrine of the Church that the penalties of purgatory are remitted by way of indulgence; although I am surprised that you have not approved this thesis, since you have taught and admitted above that souls in purgatory

would not have the canonical penalties, as this thesis of mine says.

In the twenty-third, you repeat with great verbosity what was said above in the sixth thesis about the not complete and the perfect repentance; what I said there, accept as said here. For it is not a theological but an erroneous reason that one who is not completely repentant becomes a completely repentant one by virtue of the keys; then the not complete repentance or that imperfect pain is not the same as wanting to have that pain and the grace of God, but it is either deceitful hypocrisy or the truest beginning of grace; as Augustine says: "The desire for grace is the beginning of grace"; and elsewhere: '"Wanting to be righteous is a great part of righteousness."' Even the apostles remained on this level; Rom. 7, 18. says: "I may will, but I cannot do good." So it is not from incomplete repentance, nor from free will, but from grace that such a desire comes before all power of the keys.

Secondly: I very readily admit what you say, that indulgences can be given even to the most imperfect; nor does this deny my thesis; indeed, I believe that the remission of priestly punishment can be given to the unworthy and unrepentant. But my opinion is that a remission of all punishments, both those imposed by God and those imposed by man, can only be given to the most perfect, indeed, in this life to none; for there remains the punishment of death, the pain of the heart 2c And there is no doubt about this thesis according to the testimony of experience and the opinion of everyone.

(65) On the twenty-fourth proposition, you deny that the people will be deceived if they confess only with not complete repentance 2c I reject this, as said above about not complete repentance.

Secondly: That you add that one must not omit other good 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,

but do a pious work that will enable them to salvation"; so I answer:

O miserable protection for indulgences! I pray thee, if it be uncertain whether we shall obtain indulgences, what shall we do? what doest thou teach? The apostle forbids [1 Cor. 9:26] to run into the unknown. These things of yours are quite true with me; yea, with all. Hence it is that with all confidence I persuade men to leave off indulgences and do good to one another, for here they are sure to obtain God's grace, but there they are uncertain whether they will obtain the grace of a man. Here you finally say and hold as I could only have wished; yes, more than I wanted. I, who am accused of being a heretic, an apostate, an erring man, have never spoken, nor wished to speak, so lightly of indulgences. Dear, what is an uncertain gift but no gift? Why, then, are the common people lured with so great an ostentation to a good which is uncertain to them, whereas without ostentation they might be brought to a good which is quite certain? In this way, not the greater part of the people, but the whole people is so badly deceived. What if I had said that?

Secondly, where is the power of the pope, where is the power of the keys, if only uncertain things are worked? Even Christ seems to have given nothing to the Church, since he gave her nothing certain. This is what the church has come to through the study of scholastic theology, that we do not know what has been given to us, and this we confess that we do not know, against the apostle, 1 Cor. 3, 16. But see my "Explanations". There I believe I have at least directed that one can understand what the keys work and what they do not work, and that not uncertainly, but certainly.

Thirdly: Another shred of this bare protection of yours for the wretched indulgence is that people, even if they do not obtain an indulgence, do a pious work 2c I want to suppress what I think here. Rather, see what you are saying and what follows from it. This, however, I will say: Can the people be brought to a pious work in no other way than through the uncertain hope that they will be able to do it?

nce you have the right to indulgences? Tell this to the people and see if you get a farthing for such truth. For who would go to such trouble for an uncertain thing? That is why the preachers of indulgences are not allowed to teach this truth; and yet the greater part of the people should not be deceived? We come to these ungodly fairy tales when we teach people not to trust in God's very certain and clear mercy, but in their own very uncertain righteousnesses, which are nothing.

Fourthly, the indulgence would be more solid for the deceased than for the living, because according to you, it is certainly useful for the deceased, but uncertain for the living, and yet it is used mainly and virtually for the living. But if it is just uncertain, how can they become certain, I beg you, if it is not just indirect? I confess that what was said in the gloss to the Cap. Quod autem in the 5th book, first moved me to doubt the indulgence; and how should I not doubt, since so great patrons, teachers and preachers of the indulgence call me to doubt?

Fifth: See to it that the people, when they are taught to do a pious work for indulgences, do not by that very fact only do an evil work; for if they do a work of this kind, it is no different than if they hoped for indulgences. Here it is evident that in his work he does not have God for his purpose, but the creature, namely, redemption of punishment. Unless it were true what some say, that indulgences are a pious fraud, since the people do a good work for the sake of God and in the hope of pleasing God, lured to it by indulgences.

(70) What you say about the twenty-fifth thesis I do not ask, because it does not belong to the matter. You understand that my thesis speaks of the power of jurisdiction, whose power over purgatory I have denied above and below. I speak of the power to act; and it was certainly not my intention that the readers should be so deceived, but I put it as it occurred to me at the time. The power now is that the pope in general intercession for the deceased with the whole church

prays, the bishop in special [intercession], as on the common days, the parish priest on the individual days of the week. So it is the power to pray and intercede; about this elsewhere.

In the twenty-sixth proposition, you say that the Church, according to the saints (that is, according to St. Thomas), has power over purgatory, and this by the granting of the merits of Christ.

I answer, as above: St. Thomas I deny.

In the twenty-seventh, full of zeal in defense of yours, you say that it is not humanity, but the pure and catholic truth that is preached by those who say that the soul leaves purgatory at the very moment when the plenary indulgence is given, for example, as soon as the gold florin is thrown into the basin.

I answer: O the kind gloss! Who does not know that the soul, as soon as enough is done for it, goes out in an instant? Did I fight against that? Who does not believe that? But also this gloss of yours was given afterwards by your brothers in Germany. 1)

73 Secondly: Notice here, and answer here, where you are pressed and the knot is in: whether it is called preaching humanity or God, when one says that the soul goes to heaven through indulgences. Now you prove this again by the deed and doctrine of the Church, that is, with your opinion and that of St. Thomas, and not otherwise; although you do not esteem souls so low as ours, since you [say] that one gold florin in the basin, but ours say that twelve threes (quatrinos) sthree pennies is enough.

74 Thirdly: Even if it were true that souls are redeemed by indulgences, according to what dialectics have you learned that at the very moment when the indulgence is given for the sake of the soul, enough is done for it? So you counsel in these quite hidden matters, as if you were

1) Cf. the 55th and 56th thesis in Tetzel's first disputation.

all things before you. Could it not be that, while he was depositing the money, an angel, as happened with Tobias [Tob. 3, 24. f.], brought the memory of this deed before God and then visited the soul and only after some time redeemed it; or something else that we do not know?

(75) Fourthly, you use a very appropriate simile, namely, that such a preacher is like a cook who spices up strong food with random seasonings. Yes, this is exactly what we deplore, that these eaters counterfeit the word of God too much with random things and strange words. Then command those preachers to teach the people to understand their words in this way, and you will see that they become a mockery and a proverb among all the people; for no one has understood it in this way. Therefore I see how much they have pleaded with you to excuse and relieve them to some extent, because they are aware of it, but in vain.

In the twenty-eighth proposition, you call me a slanderer and one who lifts up his mouth against heaven; for God, you say, has granted the priest to distribute intercession according to his will.

I answer: I will not deal with you in vituperation, dear Father. I know that we can bear anything more easily than the truth. By your words avarice cannot be offended, for you do not attack it, but only color and paint it. For I do not deny that the pope can grant intercession, but that intercession should cause the soul to leave purgatory, I deny that until you prove otherwise.

The twenty-ninth thesis you first call my dreams, then you draw from St. Thomas a long speech about the willingly borne punishment, and at the end you say: whoever claims the opposite is foolish and ridiculous.

I answer: I am well content that you should be wise and laugh as long as you will, I may be foolish and ridiculous.

78 Secondly: I have only posed a question; but you, as an excellent Thomist,

cannot even bear (according to your custom) a hint that is contrary to your opinions; yet you prove nothing at all.

79 Thirdly: This distinction of St. Thomas is, in my judgment, quite false, namely, that there is a punishment by which we obtain a good, as in this life; but another by which no good accrues to us, as in natural death and the punishment of the purgatory; for though, as you say, without them we do not attain to a good, yet by them no good accrues to us. I answer, Thus you speak without thought, as if it were necessary to take the word of St. Thomas for a divine saying. Why then does the apostle err when he says [Rom. 8:28] that all things are for the good of the saints? Perhaps, however, as you are at hand with distinctions (that is, for tearing up the Scriptures), you will say that all things serve for the best, namely, in this life; for so you are wont to slip, but contrary to Rom. 14:8, "If we die, we die to the Lord"; and contrary to Ps. 116:15, "The death of his saints is held worthy before the Lord." It pains me that such a holy man should have fallen so far as to deny that a good comes to us through death, especially since the holy martyrs attained the highest reward and glory through their martyrdom and death. Therefore, whether an angelic 1) or a human teacher may say this, I confidently declare that it is the most absurd error.

80 Fourthly: In the same sense, I have expressed it as probable, but without asserting anything, that the souls would also be perfected in love through their willing suffering of the punishments of purgatory; for it is necessary that they love and choose the punishments which they believe God inflicts upon them. For this is the will of God, whom they love above all else, or at least strive to love.

To the thirtieth proposition you repeat your old song, that the souls are certain of God's grace and their blessedness 2c; to which I have answered in the above.

1) Allusion to St. Thomas, who had the epithet Doctor anMliens, angelic teacher.

To the thirty-first, you say that I am speaking something superfluous, because I already said above in a thesis that only the most perfect obtained indulgences, but here I say that only the "truly penitent obtained them, which are less rare.

I answer: You would have done well if you had left my theses untouched. You go north and they go south; so well do you meet their minds. You dare, my excellent father, to distinguish the most perfect from the truly penitent. Then, what is even more nonsensical, you make the penitent and the not fully penitent one and the same, if they put no obstacle in the way. I have already rejected above these little stories about the obstacle and the not completely repentant, and now I reject them again. They are human fictions, recently invented, without any testimonies or rational reasons. No one repents of his life if he has not been preceded by the grace of faith, as the whole church is of the same opinion. So what is this fictitious repentance of yours that you invent as not complete repentance? Also, no one is so perfect in this life that he does not need repentance, as I said above. But you seem to place repentance outside the church, only among those who are not completely repentant, which is a palpable error.

To the thirty-second thesis, where I taught that no one should put his trust in letters of indulgence, since the Scripture says [Jer. 17:5]: "Cursed is the man who relies on men," you wanted to defeat one evil in a very astute way, but you ruin yourself by a twofold one.

First, you declare those to be fools who think themselves safe without good works. Why, then, did you say above that one who is not completely penitent, if he obtains the sacrament and indulgences, will immediately go to heaven when he dies, since such a one is absolutely without good works?

84 Then you seem to admit that one can be secure with good works; this is Christian according to you, and Pelagian according to Augustine and Paul, since such works are in fact not such works.

by which we can be sure. It is only through mercy that we are saved, as the apostle says in Titus 3:5: "Not for the works of righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy he saved us.

On the other hand, "But those who from the spiritual benefit of such epistles hope to live and die better 2c hold right, and those who so teach, teach right."

I answer: Only remission of punishments is conferred by the letters and indulgences; do you then think it worthy to be called a spiritual benefit? What good does the soul gain from it? Nothing at all; and yet it is a spiritual benefit? So you play haphazardly with words and names until you have confused everything.

Secondly, how can the hope of living better, that is, of living out of death, come from the remission of punishments? It is a dead thing about the remission of punishments, and so dead that even according to the testimony of your masters it is better to do enough by oneself than that the satisfaction should be remitted by indulgence. But what do I argue with your mere words? The hope of a better life comes from God through His grace. But grace does not work in remissions, but mainly in inflicting punishments, as it is said in 2 Cor. [12, 9.] says: "My power is mighty in the weak."

You had nothing to say about the thirty-third thesis, but you wanted to try to make me hateful to the pope, as whose unjust, false and erroneous blasphemer you are blabbering. The obvious sign of one who is abandoned by the truth is anger and indignation.

I answer you once and for all that I honor the authority of the pope, as it is proper, but that I despise both your opinions and your flatteries; therefore I freely declare of this thesis of mine (for I do not dispute about it): the opposite of it is heresy. For it is not in the hand of a man to reconcile man with God, nor can the pope reconcile God with man.

The whole church holds that the Lord gives justifying grace to the Son of God. And there has never been a heretic who would have been so shameful as to teach the opposite.

87 Secondly: In order to assist your preachers of indulgences in every way, you again invent a distinction, according to the praiseworthy custom of the Thomists, and say: "But those who speak (as you report) speak truly, only this reconciliation must be understood inauthentically, as occurring through the removal of the accusation which separated the soul from the clear view of God."

I answer: I am surprised that you do not teach with the same effort that by this reconciliation is understood the Greek or Hebrew alphabet, or something else that is not designated by these letters and syllables. If this arbitrariness, to speak inauthentically, is allowed, why do you fight me? why do you not also imagine with me that I have spoken the truth in some inauthentic sense? Why don't we take up the foolishness of all heresies in one bowl, since their words can become true if they are taken inauthentically? Where is the rule: that a teacher of the church should avoid (as much as possible) every inauthentic way of speaking? and that saying of the wise man [Sirach 37, 23.]: "He who speaks deceitfully (sophistice) is an abomination" (according to the Vulgate)? I ask you to forgive me, your improper talkers (impropriistae) with you, if we, I and the people, do not understand your words; for we believe that you need words in order that we may understand them, not for our ridicule. Then that should have arisen again which St. Jerome chastised John of Jerusalem, namely, that the priests preach something else, the people hear something else. But you diligently turn the words into an inauthentic meaning, and defend this in such a way that you want to have earned honor with it.

To the thirty-fourth thesis you say it is heretical because it denies that the pope can extinguish all punishment.

I also answer with a distinction: -Heresy is taken once as it is against the mere opinions of the Thomists,

and so the thesis is heretical; the other time, as it is contrary to the teaching of the faith and the Church, and so it is Catholic.

89) Secondly: I hope you will also grant me, without being asked, that the indulgence does not erase death, nor the numerous dangers of death and innumerable sufferings of this life. But as long as these remain, I beg you, what great thing does the indulgence remit, if it remits only the small temporal gratifications, leaving the punishment of death? But you would like to make an elephant out of a mosquito; would God, not for the love of money! 1)

90. To the thirty-fifth thesis you say, "I don't think there is an indulgence preacher who would have taught so foolishly."

I answer: Neither do I believe it, but I know it; for it is in the notes of the day that they not only teach it, but also defend it in such a way that they declare the opposite to be error. Therefore I ask the Lord once again that he may first unite the Italian and German Thomas, who are at odds with each other, so that I may know which one I should fight or which one I should give way to.

But you return to your usual evasion, that is, to the improper expression "perhaps," by saying, "But if some do teach in this way, so that even those who are without true repentance do not obtain indulgences in vain (because they will profit by the repentance that comes later), they do not teach evil in the opinion of several wise men."

So this is what Christian preaching means? Why, then, does the Scripture exhort us, the sooner the better, to convert and be converted, and give no confidence in a future repentance, which in the meantime is sure to be postponed? but it teaches us to watch all hours. Whether indulgences are valid for the future or not, I am not concerned about that; but I am concerned that we should

1) Since Luther repeatedly explains Canaan by negotiator [merchant], so he seems to understand here with reference to Gen. 10,16., according to which Amori (^.rnorratzus) was a son of Canaan, by nmor Aruorrsi "money addiction": that he names among the children of Canaan just Amori, may be based in the consonance with araor. (Weim. ed.)

For the sake of so small a thing, that is, for the sake of indulgences, the very serious and only necessary thing, that is, repentance, we hold it in such low esteem, we worry so coldly about it, as if it did not seem to concern us at what time it would be granted to the sinner, if only he would redeem the present indulgence, which not only can be postponed without danger, but also need never be redeemed; yet we are so zealous that it should not be postponed. If this is not out of love for money, why are we not equally zealous that the new one not be postponed? Is the real meaning here opposed to this? Everything is so shrewdly thought out for the glory of indulgences, and I am ungodly that I disputes for the grace of God, even if only obtusely.

91. As for the thirty-sixth thesis, you say that it is heretical, then it also overturns the penitential canons, and nullifies the third part of penance, satisfaction, and all the laws that speak of penance and purgatory. Dear one, add heaven and earth to it, so that you may include everything.

I answer: I hope you will admit to me that it is true what is said by the whole church, namely that man's repentance can be so great that it cancels all guilt and punishment. Secondly, you will admit that those who die willingly solve everything and do enough in the most perfect way. For these, I believe, there is a perfect remission without indulgences and letters, and that I am not a heretic in this, except perhaps among the Thomists.

92 Secondly: That is why I said that forgiveness is also due to those who are not so perfect, because the pope is a servant of the Church: what he can do for the salvation of the faithful, he must do for free, if it is necessary for salvation; if he does not do it, God, I hope, will replace by his mercy what man has neglected through his carelessness.

93) Finally, on the thirty-seventh thesis, after having abandoned the discussion on the participation in the goods of the Church that you had begun, you say that I am a heretic when I say that it is enough that one does the penance imposed by the priest.

The sinner will go to heaven without the fulfillment of what has been imposed by God, and that the sinner will go to heaven without the fulfillment of what has been imposed by God.

As I said, it is your custom, if it could be called a custom, to get into such a rage that you call one a heretic almost at every second syllable. Nothing but: Heretics, heretics, heretics! the Thomists have learned to say; and yet you do nothing at all but prove that something has been said against your quite cold and bare opinions. Therefore Isaiah seems to me to speak of you [Isa. 33:11], "With fire ye conceive, straw ye bear" [Vulgate.]; and the saying of that heathen: The mountains are crying, a ridiculous mouse will come forth. 1)

(94) First, you have seen from the foregoing that I differ from you in all respects regarding the punishment that God inflicts, based on other grounds. Therefore, everything that you are doing against me is in vain. I deny your foundations and yourself completely, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head, as you have heard from my foundations above.

Secondly: I do not wish to teach, nor to be taught in the church, which, if asked, I could not defend otherwise than by saying, "St. Thomas said so." I am a Christian, not a Pythagorean. 2)

95 To the thirty-eighth proposition, you say that I am in error on both sides, that I may understand it from guilt or from punishment; for the pope does not enact guilt and punishment by explanation, but by authority and by dispensation.

I answer: This is amply refuted above; for [already] before the office of the pope and before its distribution, the guilt must have been remitted. For your fictitious not complete repentance is not valid.

Secondly: With regard to the punishment imposed by God, the pope does not act in a dispensational or official manner, so that it may be felt. For this belongs before the judgment seat of God, before which the pope has no authority.

1) Horace, Ars poetiea, v. 139.

2) To these namely the xxxxx xxx "He (Pythago

ras) said it," as the highest proof.

The church has not yet decided the opposite, except for the intercession, as has been said many times.

Finally, on the thirty-ninth thesis, you confidently declare me first to be a perverse teacher, then a slanderer of the indulgence preachers, not to say of the hustlers, 1) as well as of the pope; then you deny that I am instructed in the teachings of good sciences.

I must finally teach my mind and the mind of my reader, so that we know that no one can talk to these Thomas people without hearing invective, accusation and blasphemy at every other word. For you love the sense of your opinion more than a forest donkey loves its young. Let us then hear this glorious bubble of your disputation.

"Two false doctrines," you say, "which overthrow indulgences altogether, you hold. One, that true repentance wipes out all penalties; the other, that true repentance always chooses penalties with preference." The first you combat, and only according to the pattern of "well-instructed theologians," namely, thus: Just as he who offends a man is not received back into friendship without compensation, so also God wills, according to a common law, that compensation for sins be paid after the guilt has been paid off 2c

First, if you were a well-instructed theologian, as you boast, you would know that divine judgment is quite unlike human judgment, and that when God decrees, He decrees the whole thing, which man, because he is not as good as God, does not do. Moreover, Christ taught that we are sons of the Father, who neither repay evil for evil nor demand it, but do good for evil [Matth. 5, 44. f.]. If the sons must be like this, how much more must the Father himself be like this! Therefore this common law, which you (with your permission I speak so) invent, has only taken place in your opinions. Also, you never read that God has to punish sin with the reservation of the punishment, especially such a punishment,

1) In Latin, a play on words: vsnialis concerning indulgences, vsualis feil, to have for money.

which the pope could remit; but you have always read the exact opposite, that he has completely remitted guilt and punishment, since he has had enough of chastisement when man serves him completely in a new life. Therefore, the common law, according to which God remits sin, was more learned and correct when he said: "The sacrifice that pleases God is a troubled spirit; you, God, will not despise a troubled and bruised heart" [Ps. 51:19]. Yea, he precedes with diligence and condemns your opinion and law, saying [v. 18.], "If thou hadst willed sacrifices, I would give them thee; burnt offerings please thee not." Is. 1, 11. ff. belong here. Ps. 50, 8. Mich. 6, 7. and many other passages of Scripture, but for your opinion not a single one.

98. secondly: Again, you are eager to make me hateful, accusing me of invalidating and emptying indulgences. This you say (with honor to report) is untrue. For my opinion is this: Since pardon (according to the opinion of all) is better than indulgences, I say that good works, which belong to pardon, are preferable to indulgences, especially since indulgences are neither commanded nor advised, and therefore neither meritorious nor useful for salvation. For where there is no commandment, there is no obedience; but where there is no obedience, there is no merit; and where there is no merit, there is no blessedness. For it is a kind of deliverance and admission, as formerly the bill of divorcement [Deut. 24:1], and now the admission of judicial dealings and processes. Therefore I confess that I am grieved that we are so heated to persuade these little things with such great clamor to the mob, which, because it is inclined to liberties without exhortation, should be persuaded with all its strength to better things, that is, to satisfaction itself. But in this way, since the preachers of indulgences well see that their profit would be completely lost, they not only wisely refrain from this persuasion to do better, but they even conceal it with all diligence. Nor does it help much to say, for example, that indulgences do not serve for merit or salvation, but for a quick pardon and expiation of punishment. Well, so be it, nothing destroys.

It comes back to what was said before, that it is still better that the punishments and pardons are not redeemed or remitted, since only the very best works are remitted, namely prayer, fasting and almsgiving. For these are parts of the atonement. If you dare to claim their remission as something good, you will also presume to call that which is nothing the very best. Therefore, let whoever wishes seek indulgence, but people should be exhorted more to the better, that is, to the best works of pardon itself; just as the apostle allows a virgin to marry, but encourages her more to remain a virgin. If you would show me such and such prudent preachers of indulgences, who separate the precious from the petty, there would be nothing left for us to disagree about; but you will be able to show me their few or make some of them liars.

In the fortieth thesis, you try to refute with St. Thomas (for I feared with St. Paul or St. Augustine) my second false doctrine (as you called it above) that true repentance seeks punishments. Paul or Augustine) to refute my second false doctrine (as you called it), namely, that true repentance seeks and loves punishments, and you distinguish double punishments (as you also did above): first, "as long as the suffering of punishment for an offense penetrates some good (as in this life, where it is meritorious), true repentance loves punishments in order to merit and protect itself from sins, but without contempt of indulgence".

I answer: Thank you very much. Did I then want something other than what you say here? Why then did you affirm above that this teaching is false? Is perhaps with you the same thing true and false in different places? I beg you, if you do not want to believe me, then believe once the truth, as Augustine says, which speaks to you through your own mouth, perhaps without your knowledge and will. I admit this splendid refutation of my false doctrine, thereby proving that it is quite true.

You continue, "Because both are better than either. "2c Great God, how great is the power of truth, that it protects itself most powerfully through the mouths of those who speak it

belittle! You, who are a theologian educated in good sciences, teach me, I beg you, how these two can coexist: To love and seek penalties and pardons, and at the same time to remit them and seek indulgences. For one of them, as you say, is less without the other, but both are better, that is, that you at the same time do enough and at the same time refrain from doing enough, which is nothing else than, as that poet says, to be unreasonable with reason.

You continue: "But as soon as the punishments bring no good, but hold back from the good of glorification, the punishments are not received. "2c My thesis said nothing about this; it is enough for me that it is quite true even according to your testimony for this life; except that I again lament St. Thomas's misfortune and the miserable fate of his disunity; for this thesis he approves in Italy and condemns in Germany.

100 Secondly: This is a fiction of yours, that the punishments in purgatory shall bring no good. I have stated the opposite above and defended it until the decision of a council.

Thirdly: Your reason is not valid, that even the punishments and works of this life keep you from the good of glorification and yet are accepted; yes, as one of your order, the very learned Doctor Johannes Tauler, said: if heaven were open before you, you would not be allowed to enter it until you had consulted the will of God about going in, so that you would not seek what is yours even in glorification. But far be it from scholastic theology to approve this quite true and quite theological statement.

To the forty-first thesis you say that what I teach is true, and I thank you. You add, however, that indulgences should be no less carefully disapproved of and restricted to the detriment of apostolic power. Here, too, you speak the truth. Yes, it is to be disapproved neither cautiously nor carelessly, but to be allowed, so that

1) Terence, Eunuchus, Act 1, Scene 1, V. 18.

Let whoever wants to come and get him, but let no one imagine that he has attained something so great that he cannot attain something greater.

In the forty-second and forty-third 1) propositions, you attempt to persuade us that the pope incites us to good works through indulgences, and that a good work with indulgences is better than another alone.

I am of quite a different opinion. One should rather provoke the believer to the satisfaction itself without indulgence (as you had to admit above), that is, to many good works, than to provoke him to only one of them with indulgence, that is, by the remission of many; however, I admit that one can provoke him thus by indulgence, but I say it is incomparably less; therefore my thesis is quite true.

(104) Secondly, it is erroneous that a work with indulgence or indulgence grace is better than without indulgence. For if pardon is many and exceedingly good merits, how can a work with remission of so many merits be better than the many merits themselves? Rather, let us speak with deliberation and Christian freedom. For you cannot say that indulgence is anything other than the remission of pardon; again, you cannot say that pardon is anything other than many good works in fasting, prayer, and almsgiving: therefore, dear one, let it be enough that we allow that by one good work many good works are remitted; we cannot go so far in our exaltation that one should believe that one is better than many.

105 Thirdly: The same is the case with what you go on to say, that "all else being equal, it is better to give alms for the sake of indulgences than actually for the sake of merit"; that is, it seems better to you that man should make himself free from many good works by One Good Work and Merit; I consider this (with your permission) to be erroneous and ungodly. Again and again you set out to treat indulgences not as a kind of permission and deliverance, but as a

1) The 44th Thesis is also included here, but not specifically mentioned by Luther because Prierias had combined it with the 43rd Thesis.

To make perfection appear. But thou knowest that every indulgence can neither be praised nor encouraged, only that it is not sin, and that it is a consolation of the weak, or rather of the lazy; yea, as that poet 2) hath very truly said, "By liberties we all grow worse." So with indulgences. How can a man become better (by the way, as you say) who by the same becomes less in so many merits? and he is only permitted to be worse: but you still want to persuade him to be worse.

But let us look at your proof. You say: "For there, namely in the work for indulgences, there are two goods, namely merit and the removal of an obstacle, but here one" 2c

I answer: How deliberately do you close your eyes and seek darkness in bright light! I confess that there are two goods, that is, a merit and a remission of many merits, which is a good to the laziness of the flesh, but otherwise the best damage to the very best goods and certainly the removal of an obstacle, namely to the worse.

Secondly: Here, that is, in the works without indulgence (that is, when the satisfaction remains) there is not only one merit, but as many as there are in the whole satisfaction, which is the best and most meritorious removal of all hindrances to glorification. In short, if you understand your statements rightly, you would see that you have taken an occasion to reprove the good works and to praise their redemption, which is quite frightening to hear in the church. Therefore, I have confidently taken occasion to praise good works and yet not to censure indulgences. Put away these words: "indulgence," "indulgence," abandon your opinion and look at the matter, and you will find that you are not a good administrator nor the champion of a good cause. For what can even the church make of indulgences but a remission of pardons? But what can be understood by pardons other than the best works and meritorious punishments, which, moreover, are commanded by God?

2) Terence, HenntontiMorurllenos, Act 3, Scene 1, v. 74.

What, then, do we presume to make great, which in itself is nothing but an allowance of the worse, lest the weak sin?

From my forty-fifth thesis you say, as a new interpreter of Scripture, that one can refuse alms to a poor person without mortal sin, although not without venial sin; therefore my thesis is false etc.

That extraordinary beast, the addiction to money, thanks you, as its best trustee, because it learns that it can refuse alms to the supplicant without mortal sin. Oh, heartbreak and terrifying horror! What must we hear in the church? Why does John say that love does not remain in him who closes his heart to his neighbor [1 John 3:17]? But where love departs, does it not leave behind mortal sin? Yes, why will Christ in judgment condemn those who have not fed the hungry 2c? But perhaps you said this in the person of the inauthentic speaker. There is a true meaning of this, which you may bring from India later; therefore I will wait. If you ]only] had said that the alms is then refused with a venial sin, if the poor man is not needy or otherwise there is a just cause. In short, if there is a just cause for refusing, one refuses without sin; but if there is none, it is a mortal sin to refuse alms. Thus speaks the Gospel, thus the apostles.

108 Secondly: Why do you not investigate with equal, even greater zeal, how one need not purchase indulgences, which are neither useful nor necessary for salvation, since you investigate so dangerously and astutely how good works, which are necessary and useful for salvation alone, and which are also commanded by God, can be omitted? Or do you think you are doing God a service when you slander God's commandments and good works, only to exalt the indulgences, which are neither commanded by God nor by men, so excessively? If you imagine that there were no indulgences in the Church, but that everyone had to do enough for himself, as it happened in the past, I ask you, which image would you like, that of indulgences, or that of the

Indulgences? So either you don't understand indulgences well, or you are trying to slander good works with evil hypocrisy.

In the forty-sixth thesis, you again distinguish, as it seems to you, in a more sufficient way the necessary temporal goods, and finally you say, in agreement with our Thomists, 1) that one must give what is necessary according to the second kind for alms, but only in extreme necessity.

I beg you, venerable father, forgive me (for it grieves me too much that you so shamefully draw the text of the apostle John from distress to extreme distress), who gave you the power to make this distress extreme? Thus the devil, the most deceitful enemy, mocks and corrupts us even the holy Scriptures. May the Lord Jesus Christ grant that no man give anything to you and to all who hold this gloss, unless you come into the most extreme distress; so that you may learn, even through lack, to leave the holy Scriptures unadulterated. The church has tolerated this willfulness and impudence to falsify the Scriptures on the part of the scholastic teachers for almost three hundred years now, to its immeasurable detriment.

110 Secondly: You accept my thesis as true. But you do not understand what I wanted. You are right in that man can give up for indulgence what is necessary according to the second kind, which I admit. But our haggling preachers advise people to give up for indulgence what is necessary for them according to the first kind. For their words and letters are, for example, like this: "If you had only one skirt, you should sell it to buy indulgences." 2) Yes, not content with this, they also urge, if one does not have the necessities of the first kind, to borrow or beg from somewhere, even if it were a wife; likewise they persuade the mendicants to gather money together without permission [of their superiors]. These are, dear father, those monstrosities that are going on in our country. Nothing

1) Cf. Tetzel's first disputation, Th. 77.

2) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 424.

as the most impudent, predatory avarice business is driven here to such a mockery of the Roman church that this alone would be sufficient cause to cancel all indulgences. Do not believe that what I say is false; there are not only speeches and rumors about this, but also their writings, in which one can read this everywhere.

Thirdly: Everything that you want to prove and say, you say in the opinion or under the pretense that indulgences are some kind of good; about which the above has been dealt with abundantly.

The forty-seventh proposition, although it is quite true for you, you nevertheless admit as true, since you have presumed to leave none unbitten, although you have no teeth, only out of an extraordinary flattery against the pope. But you make the pope a monster, and attach to him the head of the two powers, namely, that he is pope and emperor, and you attach it to him in such a way that he could give an order for the building of St. Peter's Church, as to a common property, out of sovereign power. But now you paint him with such incomparable modesty that he only asks and is rewarded. By this most gentle, but also most harmful flattery you bring about that some later pope, tired of the praises of this modesty, believes to have the right to flay the whole Christendom, and that by virtue of the sovereign power and might.

Secondly, I say that St. Peter's Cathedral is a common good of the city of Rome. Our cathedrals, however, are more useful and necessary to us; for we cannot all come to St. Peter's Cathedral to hear the Word of God and receive the Sacraments, for which reason alone they are built. And it would be better for St. Peter's Cathedral not to be built than for our parish churches to become desolate. But that this happens, we see and lament, since the resources of all churches are devoured by the indulgence to the insatiable St. Peter's Cathedral. Therefore, the Germans also laugh, as is right, at these so cold reasons of yours, with which you only want to pretend something, namely, that St. Peter's Cathedral is a good of the whole Christian people. Why don't you call much

more the St. John's Cathedral, the Mother of Churches, also a common good? But perhaps it will be reserved for future years that we build all the churches of Rome, then also the palaces, finally also the walls and alleys and bridges with our good works, which we do for the sake of indulgence, so that there is no end to the extortions. Therefore, my father, I advise the people, as I am obliged to do, that they first help the living temples, then their churches, and finally St. Peter's; for your churches are not necessary to us.

(114) At the forty-eighth proposition, you run so much that, confused by the truth, you do not find what to say; at last you stoop to the silliness of saying, "If you, Martin, had received from our Lord a good bishopric with a plenary indulgence for the restoration of your church, you might have been overflowing with sweeter words, and would have exalted the indulgence which you now disparage."

I answer: Perhaps you also judge me according to your attitude, which I conclude from the fact that you flatter so sweetly. If I aspired to a bishopric, I would certainly not speak what is quite unpleasant for you to hear. Or do you think I do not know by what means bishoprics and priesthoods are attained in Rome, since the children sing in all the streets of the world: "At last Rome has become the most shameful city in the world"? I pass over the rest of what you stammer here, as it were trembling and broken by the truth, more than you speak.

Against the forty-ninth thesis, you present indulgences as useful in the same slobber, but only "occasionally, in that the soul is awakened to thanksgiving". As if you were an orator, you invent such various and select reasons of proof. Why don't you also say that when a sheep bleats, the soul is occasionally prompted to give thanks? Or what praise is this for indulgences, since even because of punishments and evils we are commanded to praise God? But it displeases me to discuss such lazy and futile little things. But how attentive you have been to the fact that

I would have contradicted myself, since I seem to call indulgences useful here, but different above! I say it is useful for the lazy, as all allowances are useful, so that no one sins [which he would do] if he did not have freedom; I say it is useless for progress to blessedness; which you, with your attention, should already have understood from the word, since I said: "if they do not put their trust in it".

In the fiftieth thesis you take up the matter of the preachers of indulgences, but in a clever way, because you do not believe that such a thing has ever been preached. Then you praise the pope, who is so innocent that no man should live or act unseemly. Thirdly, you attack that I have not sent a fraternal admonition beforehand.

I answer: If such a thing has not been preached, or if you do not believe it, what are you heating up to defend it? Let me have disputirt into the wind!

117 Secondly: I also know that in Leo X we have the best pope and, as it were, a Daniel in Babel, so that through his innocence he has sometimes come into mortal danger. But, dear, tell me: who has ever lived so innocently that no one else would have acted or lived ungodly or even unseemly? It seems that you wanted to say, I don't know which, quite great flattery, but under the speaking you have run out of words and reason. Perhaps you wanted to say that Leo X was trying to make it so that no one lived unseemly, but seeing that this was impossible, you changed the meaning of the words and left the speech without meaning. Tell me, then, who has ever demanded of one who disputes that he should first admonish the one against whom he disputes? Why did you not also admonish me beforehand, since you were preparing to defile me with so many kinds of crimes? Why does not the pope also admonish beforehand in his decrees, before he speaks out against the abuse of the indulgence sellers? I have disputed in general and have not named anyone. If they are innocent, why do they complain that they are attacked? So no one preaches the gospel, no one punishes.

the vices publicly, if he has not first admonished the people individually from door to door. It is a wonder to me that they are innocent and yet are struck by my words. But that saying of St. Jerome is true: "He who becomes angry when vices are punished in general is his own accuser." Moreover, how would they have accepted my admonition, since under your protection they still stand innocent to this day? Dear, do not order me. to admonish the innocent. But if you want me to admonish them, they do not need another accuser, because you, their protector, confess that they are guilty.

118 Thirdly: But that this has really happened (even if you do not believe it), the whole earth is witness to it, the existing scriptures are also witnesses to it; but who did this, let them see for themselves.

If you repeat the same thing to the fifty-first thesis, I will have said the same thing to you again. Only that you say that I speak in exaggerations, I pass over that.

120. At the fifty-second, you say that my thesis is void, which you prove by saying that no one is so foolish that he should act this way.

I answer: What is that to you, dear one, if no one is so foolish? Let me dispute (as I said), even if into the wind. Is it because of this that the pope's decrees on the abuse of the indulgences are null and void, because you claim that no indulger has acted against them? But you may be talking and raving like this out of age. If there is no one who puts his trust in letters of indulgence, I have not attacked anyone. I wanted to hit those who are so foolish, and I know not one, but very many who are foolish to the extent that they thought they were assured not only of the salvation of souls, but also of their own blessedness, because they had these letters.

Then: Why don't you also persuade your protégées to pledge their souls for repentance and satisfaction? I ask: how often must you be told that it is an ungodly and a service of avarice when

Is everything done for indulgences in such a splendid way, as if they alone were everything, and for that which is necessary for blessedness, one scarcely hesitates? Consider for yourself whether the simple-minded people must not learn to trust in letters of indulgence when they are advertised to them with such pomp and splendor? For they must necessarily think that it is something great that is presented to them so splendidly. Do you think that because you are learned enough not to trust in letters, the simple-minded people will soon be able to distinguish and understand such things from themselves, against so much persuasion and appeal from such great people?

At last you threaten me with curses, taunts and punishments. With what? And why? Do not threaten, my father. Christ lives, and not only lives, but also reigns, not only in heaven, but also in Rome, no matter how much it rages. If I am cursed for the truth, I will praise the Lord. The punishment of the church will not separate me from the church, if the truth unites me with the church. I would rather be cursed and banished by you and your kind (if you insist) than blessed with you. I have nothing to lose; I am of the Lord. If I am lost, I am lost to the Lord, that is, I will be found. Seek therefore another whom thou shalt terrify.

In the fifty-third proposition, you call me foolish and ridiculous; however, as a wise man, you say that the ordinary must give way to the unusual, and the annual feasts of the saints are more solemn than the Sabbath of the virgin mother.

I answer: Whither, whither, my father? Is the rainbow or the Rhine River described here? But now is not the place for this. First of all,' the trade in indulgences is nothing unusual with us, but continuous. Then, what a ratio that the Word of God, which Christ commanded to be preached with constant perseverance, should give way to your rare indulgences! If Christ had not so commanded, then your likeness would stand. Moreover, the pope cannot impose silence on the word of God; for, once it is pronounced

It is no longer bound, but I have never read that it was done by the pope.

With the same, I answer to the void refutation of the following thesis, where you claim that the indulgence sermon is God's word, but inauthentically, namely with the explanations and exhortations. If everything is called God's word, what is said with God's word, then all heretics, all devils, all men speak only God's word. For nothing so distasteful can be said that could not be mixed with God's word. I say that it is man's word and deals with a man's indulgence; for it is God's word that justifies the heart through faith and confers justifying grace, according to Rom. 1:16: "There is a power of God that makes blessed all who believe in it." But the word of indulgence does not justify, nor does it confer anything on the soul, except that it gives liberty to be slothful in good works for the sake of the weak.

To the fifty-fifth proposition, you say that these and the like are childish and come from an angry man who lifts up his mouth against heaven and strikes out against the goad.

I answer: It is true, but only with Silvester and the Thomists.

In response to the fifty-sixth proposition, you say, citing St. Thomas, that the treasures of the church are the merits of Christ, inasmuch as they are pardons, and you prove the same with the same, saying. St. Gregory sometimes gave indulgences, as is commonly said; but it cannot be proved, and therefore St. Thomas also proves nothing in this. I, at least, did not offer to dispute with the whole world, because I could not know that my theses would spread so far; therefore, do not attribute such presumption to me. Chance has led me into these things from which I cannot extricate myself by silence; perhaps God has willed it so. However, I have not asserted this thesis, but am still disputing it, and await the decision of a council, as with all others that are doubtful or disputed.

In the case of the fifty-seventh thesis, it is wonderful how you feel struck that I have bitten avarice a little. For you also seem to be able to bear it more calmly when I argue against Scripture than against avarice. That is why you hurry to make me hateful by extraordinary flattery against the pope. Why do you reproach me with the pope's innocence? Do I not know it? Or if I punish avarice, do I therefore attack the pope's innocence? Rather, see if you are not ungodly against the pope, who concoct avarice and the pope's innocence, and present the scolded avarice as the same as the offended innocence of the pope, yes, under the pretext of papal innocence you defend avarice as irreproachable. If your protégés are innocent, they are not affected by me; if they are guilty, why do you defend them? May the Lord grant that you may one day judge more justly, see better and refrain from slandering me.

To the fifty-eighth thesis, you repeat the same thing that you said in the previous one. For they are your words, therefore I pass over it.

By the fifty-ninth, you are all fire again. You are much more relaxed in everything else, except where I touch upon avarice, which you cannot deny, whether you like it or not, that it has its being in Rome, that I do not say rule, so that you also almost suspect me that you are more concerned about profit than about souls; however, you praise the most innocent pope in order to make me hateful, namely, in order to turn the so great adornment of innocence into the cover of unworthiness. For you only aim at not letting anyone punish the customs of Rome, without, according to your interpretation, proving at the same time that he has also offended the innocence of the pope. What do you want? Shall I call you a patron of Roman vices? Why do you not interpret it in such a way that you have also offended the pope, since you openly write that the Roman clergy has departed from the original perfection? Let me deal with you according to your art. You attack

the Roman clergy? But the pope is a part, and indeed the most distinguished, of this clergy. Woe to you, wretch, who publicly claim that such a great pope has not only fallen, but has deviated from the whole perfection, and has become apostate and heretical! For all this means to depart, namely from perfection. Do you not see how splendidly I could throw you down with such exaggerations if I wanted to flatter and slander?

I pass over what you say to the sixtieth and following propositions, for you say nothing that has not been said before. I have made it probable that the treasure of indulgences is the keys themselves, as seen in the "Explanations".

Likewise, I pass over the sixty-second, because you admit, though not without invective, that it is true.

In the case of the sixty-third, sixty-fourth, sixty-fifth, and sixty-sixth, the truth of which you do not deny, nor can you deny, I am surprised that you get so heated and all fired up. I have not yet seen a stranger disputer, whom the true theses excite more than the false ones, since truth is to be sought through disputing. Well, then, let me be a dog, the son of a dog, a chatterer, a slave to the ban, not quite in my right mind, and what else you take me for, according to your modesty that adorns an old man, if you only admit that I have at least bitten out the truth, if you deny that I have said it. I have deserved this mockery, not because I have spoken falsehood, but because I have spoken the truth against avarice. I would not have believed that Roman avarice was so delicate and sensitive, indeed, so ambitious and presumptuous, that it wanted to be taken for the innocence of the best pope.

On the sixty-seventh thesis, you say that, having abandoned the priest, I also abandon the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I am surprised that you, as an old man, get into such a heat that you can neither understand me, nor yourself. I did not say that indulgences are

not useful, but I have said that it is not useful to the soul,-except in the way that freedoms and privileges are useful; but that you call this a blasphemy, I do not care.

130. In response to the sixty-eighth thesis, you think that those who have set up indulgences as the greatest grace are to be excused because they have said this only in an exaggerated figure of speech.

I ask you, why don't you also think that I am to be excused by some figure of speech, to which I do not assert anything, but only disputire? Why do you do to yourself what you do not do to me?

Then, if they are to be excused by the exaggerated figure of speech, why are they not to be blamed also by the actual manner of speech? since truth is most fond of this manner of speech and it is also most appropriate for teachers of truth, while they should avoid it as much as possible. Yes, that is the only thing I complain about, that they spoke in an exaggerated way. But if you, my venerable father, allow yourselves to speak inaccurately and exaggeratedly and in whatever way you please, why did you not also treat Johannes Reuchlin, this blameless and learned man, with the same fairness and excuse him by some figurative way of speaking? Or if you have been such strict judges over him that you have found poison even in innocent syllables, surely such a wide and arbitrary freedom to speak in images cannot be allowed to you, so that you can scatter and interpret false sayings according to your will. Or if you should be granted any leniency in this, it is due to him twice over, and he should be acquitted, but you should remain guilty.

132 Secondly: By means of a new distinction, you consider me inexcusable for having called indulgences the least grace, since there are other graces and gifts that are less, e.g. the goods of happiness 2c If you had been of a calm mind, you would have seen why I added this: "compared to the grace of God and the blessedness of the cross.

zes". I made a comparison with the cross. As if you had not seen this, you make a new comparison with the goods of happiness. If you are so attentive only to injustice and slander, who can appear to you as true?

I will pass over what you bitterly proclaim against the sixty-ninth and the three following theses 1).

In the seventy-fifth thesis I do not deny that by the power of the keys every case can be forgiven, but I have called it a frenzy, and I still call it so, that in order to glorify indulgences, which are of no use for life, such frightful monstrosities of crimes are cited as examples, and compared to the greatness of the power they are made to seem quite trivial. It is because of this nonsensical way of promoting indulgences that true repentance and true penance are held in low esteem. The duty of a good preacher is to preach sins, such as they are, as great, so that the mercy of God may be made great. Or say, why do they not speak something similar to the praise of repentance? Of course not, because such sermons do not bring money, but poverty. In things that are neither necessary nor useful to salvation, but only permitted, you consider it honorable to thunder in the church of God with so many exaggerations, while the church does not even want Christ's suffering preached in this way.

In the seventy-seventh thesis, I did not say that the pope was inferior to Peter; rather, I did not want it to be said of the pope and Peter that they had no greater graces than indulgences.

In the seventy-eighth, you accuse me of speaking mockingly of such a great pope, so that you will not omit anything by which you could make me worthy of the pope's curse, and by which he alone would be inclined to you as an arch-flatterer. Don't you see how great an opportunity I have here,

1) It is actually the five following theses, since Luther's 73rd and 74th are also transitions. - He also has the 76th thesis transitions.

to go off against you, against your [donkey-ness?] I would have said soon; but I hold back. Prick up your ears and listen, if you have them at home at all. I say not mockingly, but simply: that every pope has greater graces than indulgences are, namely, the gospel, and the graces of healing, and all things that are written 1 Cor. 12. not in his person, but in his power, that is, in the way he has the graces of indulgences. For though you carefully conceal it, I do not believe that you are so foolish as to say that the pope has indulgences in his person, as well as personal virtues; for you would say that a deposed pope can do the same as before. That is why I said that all the gifts and offices in the church are in the hands of the pope, so that he can order, send and set up as he sees fit for the body of the church. But these are incomparably greater graces than indulgences. For the pope does better when he presents a good shepherd to a church than when he gives all indulgences at once. But you, whose attention is directed only to the person of this Leo X, as befits a true flatterer, understand the words of others as you will, and yet you do not want to be an abuser of honor and slanderer.

In the seventy-ninth thesis, you don't believe me. What is that to me? This is not enough for us. Everything that they say you interpret in the best way; on the other hand, what I say you, as one who looks at the person, interpret only in the worst way.

With the eightieth thesis you do not even allow me an apology. What kind of a new New Year's Eve court is this, in which the accused is denied an apology, while he is grabbed by the throat and dragged away to swear off the heresy, whether he is a heretic or not? But, where you cannot deny that my cause is true, you at least try to suppress my person with all your might. Would God that it were possible for me, and that the weakness of my wretched body would allow me to negotiate with you personally about this! I have no doubt that I can convince you so far.

that you would at least discuss more modestly from now on.

That is enough of the theses. The rest, I think, you have seen or you will see in my "explanations".

I actually wanted to leave the refutations to the questions of the laymen alone; but it occurred to me and moved me to do so, your head, which I have already come to know as such, that it wants victory gladly, but is incapable of argument; therefore I will answer it in a few words, if I can.

139 In response to the first question [Thesis 82], you make a lengthy argument in which you also teach, among other things, that the infusion of grace must necessarily be preceded by the merit of equity and a preparation of man for grace. This false doctrine has now gained the upper hand in the church, but it has already been most superfluously rejected by St. Augustine against the Pelagians and is also beginning to be rejected at our university. Finally, you mention that divine justice does not permit that Purgatory be made empty. Finally, you mention that divine justice does not allow purgatory to be made empty, and you prove this from the testimony of the saints (of Thomas: for the other theologians and teachers of papal canon law have sucked from him). After you had gone through all this and this lay question was still there, namely, that love and need were quite just causes for emptying Purgatory, and here the whole knot was in place, you bravely solved it by saying: "But the love of the pope and the need of souls is not a valid reason for so slackening divine justice, which God has ordered and holds inviolable, who knows such need and is full of infinite love and mercy. This solution of yours is colder than all ice, and, to use your terms of art, the petitio principii [that is, the adduction of what is to be proved as proof] has only brought about that someone who wants to believe you is reassured by it, but who does not want to believe you has heard nothing but mere words. For what did you answer with these words, but that God does not want the dear ones to believe?

and necessity are sufficient causes? And you do not prove that God does not want this. If, however, God counts money or something temporal (he would not have to be aware of time either) as a valid cause, why not also love itself, in which he wanted to have all this ordered? If I would ask now: Why then is money or a temporal thing an efficient cause? you will answer with the same petitio principii: GOtt willed it so. If, then, we must dispute about the will of God, we know that nothing in the world is so pleasing to Him as love; and what He does not give to love, it cannot be thought that He should give to another cause; but if He gives it to another, then by far the most to love. And so it is evident that thou also shalt come to shame with me in this matter. I beg you, believe me, laymen also have understanding, and so great that I confess, I have three times known nothing to answer such questions, and thereby gained no more glory than that they told me that I only offer them words; just as you also do with me here.

The solution to the second question [Thesis 83] is much colder and more futile and satisfies no one but you alone. The first cause, you say, is that perhaps the offerer has not offered according to the wealth he possesses, or has offered too meagerly. Take away these secondary things and put the case that people have given according to their ability and also sufficiently. For this is said by thee, as it were, for evasion, to gain time and escape; for it does not serve the cause. Therefore it is not a cause, much less the first cause.

141) As a second reason you say: the intercessions, even if they do not benefit the already saved, do benefit others. This was not asked, but there lies the knot: whether the death offices, which are offered for the souls with explicit mention of the name, are to be omitted; whether their names are not to be pronounced, whether they are not to be mentioned in the prayers? Answer this; for, if they are to be omitted, all the worship of the mob will fall away, and

the priests will die of hunger; you might have wanted to say, "What is it to the Romans if the Germans die?

In answer to the third question [Thesis 84] you again say that there is no sufficient cause; to which I again oppose love, as above, and the question remains, unless we want to take the mere words of Silvester for divine utterances.

To the fourth [Thesis 85] you hold up to me as a guideline the doings and sayings of the Roman church. I answer: If you speak of your church in terms of power and representation, I do not want your guide; for, as I said above, such a church can err according to the Cap. Significasti err. The general church, however, cannot err, as the Cardinal of Cambray also very learnedly proves about the first book of the Sentences. Furthermore, nowhere does the pope teach or do what you call the deed and saying of the church; for you are all too ready to make the name "church" ambiguous; therefore you are exceedingly suspicious to me.

In answer to the fifth [Thesis 86] you say: "Where there is much wealth, there are many who feed on it. That is just what is complained about, that Rome wants to satiate its gluttons with these funds and almost eats up the whole world. Why are the gluttons of wealth not made less? In the end, you again make an emperor out of the pope in power and coercion. But Maximilian and Germany do not recognize this, nor do they believe it; most of all, however, the Turks and the Tartars deny it. You also praise us in vain for that exceedingly glorious and common good, which is stones and wood, because this does not solve the questions of the laity.

In the sixth [Thesis 87] I am an arch-heretic to you, since you arrogate to yourself the authority to baptize me as you wish. But be thankful that you confess as true that nothing is remitted to those who have perfect repentance. And I know that not all are such. But that is why they do not go to purgatory, because they owe punishments that the pope can solve, as I have held and still hold as an assumption.

146. To the seventh [Thesis 88] you say,

There are two additional things. One is that it is necessary for the faithful to repeat as often as possible the cause for which the indulgence is given, e.g. alms etc. We know, my father, that you would like to see this cause repeated a thousand times in one hour. This would almost amount to a good for avarice. But we ask about the good of the giver, which, if it is the giving of alms, is better done without indulgence and for nothing, than for the sake of indulgence, as I said above. But you always imagine that indulgences are some good. The other good, you say, is that every new debt of punishment, if anyone had fallen after the indulgence, would be forgiven. I answer that this debt is better discharged without indulgence; for for venial sins no indulgence is necessary. But if you understand it of a mortal debt, it is already no longer a good, for one would have to sin mortally a hundred times a day, which no truly penitent person does.

In response to the eighth [Thesis 89], that the pope abolishes indulgences and letters, you say that this is done for the most glorious building of all. And this seems to you a quite just cause for abrogation. No wonder; for you care only for that which concerns Rome. But I say, this building may be more venerable than all, but surely our churches are more necessary. You look only at the splendor of the world; as if the church were then well provided for when it has erected wood and stones into a great heap, but you Romans yourselves, if

you would be able to help the pope abundantly.

But I leave the judgment about your solutions to others. I confess that I can take nothing from it that I could give to the laymen, but greater questions.

Lastly [to thesis 90], you once again accuse the pope of being the church in power, as well as emperor and pope, who has the power to force people even with the secular arm 2c But as long as this opinion of yours is upheld, I would like to be instructed as to whether you are also murderers of men? Why do the rights not allow the church to impose a penance with danger of bodily life? But this in another place and by others.

Finally, I say: you will not frighten me with blasts (ampullis) and the threatening noise of your words. If I am killed, Christ lives, my Lord and the Lord of all, blessed forever and ever. Amen.

(150) Behold, my venerable father, I have answered you this only very cursorily and in two days; for it seemed too slight to me what you have opposed me; therefore I have answered you extemporaneously and as it came into my pen. But should you be willing to answer this with a rebuttal, see that you bring your Thomas to the battlefield in better armor, otherwise you may not be received with the restraint with which you were received at this encounter. For I have conquered myself, lest I repay evil with evil. Farewell!